Global Warming, or Little Ice Age?

IglooDame

Enforcing Rule 34
Supporter
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
23,507
Location
Igloo, New Hampshire
This would normally fall into the Science subforum, but I think the geopolitical implications are worth discussing in OT. If the current findings hold up and we're looking at significantly reduced solar energy over the next few decades, what are the ramifications? Reduced food supplies via climate change, and less concern for atmospheric warming, for two?

article said:
Sun's Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

Some unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years.

The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.

Spoiler :

The results of the new studies were announced today (June 14) at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

The studies looked at a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun's visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," said Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network. "But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."

Sunspots are temporary patches on the surface of the sun that are caused by intense magnetic activity. These structures sometimes erupt into energetic solar storms that send streams of charged particles into space.

Astronomers study these mysterious spots because their number and frequency act as indicators of the sun's activity, which ebbs and flows in an 11-year cycle. Typically, a cycle takes roughly 5.5 years to move from a solar minimum, when there are few sunspots, to the solar maximum, during which sunspot activity is amplified.

Currently, the sun is in the midst of the period designated as Cycle 24 and is ramping up toward the cycle's period of maximum activity. However, the recent findings indicate that the activity in the next 11-year solar cycle, Cycle 25, could be greatly reduced. In fact, some scientists are questioning whether this drop in activity could lead to a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 when the sun showed virtually no sunspots.

Hill is the lead author of one of the studies that used data from the Global Oscillation Network Group to look at characteristics of the solar interior. (The group includes six observing stations around the world.) The astronomers examined an east-west zonal wind flow inside the sun, called torsional oscillation. The latitude of this jet stream matches the new sunspot formation in each cycle, and models successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.

"We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it," Hill said. "This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all."

In the second study, researchers tracked a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by the next solar cycle, magnetic fields erupting on the sun will be so weak that few, if any, sunspots will be formed.

With more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Matt Penn and William Livingston observed that the average magnetic field strength declined significantly during Cycle 23 and now into Cycle 24. Consequently, sunspot temperatures have risen, they observed.

If the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field strength will drop below a certain threshold and sunspots will largely disappear; the field no longer will be strong enough to overcome such convective forces on the solar surface.

In a separate study, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force's coronal research program at NSO's facility in New Mexico, examined the sun's corona and observed a slowdown of the magnetic activity's usual "rush to the poles."

"A key thing to understand is that those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the sun," Altrock said. "Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the sun."

Altrock sifted through 40 years of observations from NSO's 16-inch (40 centimeters) coronagraphic telescope.

New solar activity typically emerges at a latitude of about 70 degrees at the start of the solar cycle, then moves toward the equator. The new magnetic field simultaneously pushes remnants of the past cycle as far as 85 degrees toward the poles. The current cycle, however, is showing some different behavior.

"Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we'll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all," Altrock said. "If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23's magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions. … No one knows what the sun will do in that case."

If the models prove accurate and the trends continue, the implications could be far-reaching.

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."
 
If I remember basic astronomy right, sun spots are linked to the magnetic field, and not much else. We will get less solar flares, but that can only be a positive as we are scheduled for a magnetic field reversal in about a century or so.
 
If I remember basic astronomy right, sun spots are linked to the magnetic field, and not much else. We will get less solar flares, but that can only be a positive as we are scheduled for a magnetic field reversal in about a century or so.

True enough, but I quote the article thusly:
However, the recent findings indicate that the activity in the next 11-year solar cycle, Cycle 25, could be greatly reduced. In fact, some scientists are questioning whether this drop in activity could lead to a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 when the sun showed virtually no sunspots.

The point being that the "Little Ice Age" was noted for a lack of sunspot activity, so it is a reasonable hypothesis that sunspot activity correlates with actual solar energy output.
 
Wasn't it just recently that a couple of large objects hit the sun and thus this absorbtion may have thrown things off slightly, thus upsetting the cycle somewhat?
 
My girlfriend's dad is an astronomer and he always talks about the possibility that we're heading towards a new Mauder Minimal, and the negative impact that may have at the Earth's temperature. He is convinced temperatures will decrease over the next decade. It's the subject of his last research.

But I had never seen this mentioned anywhere else before this article.

I think this just goes to show the tremendous amount of uncertainty surrounding any prediction attempt with regards to average temperatures. Nobody has any idea of what the average temperature will be like in 2050 or 2100.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43327720/ns/technology_and_science-space/

NASA is holding a press conference today to discuss the coming cycle.

And indeed, this blog linked to from the article page is an interesting read as well:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill

My girlfriend's dad is an astronomer and he always talks about the possibility that we're heading towards a new Mauder Minimal, and the negative impact that may have at the Earth's temperature. He is convinced temperatures will decrease over the next decade. It's the subject of his last research.

But I had never seen this mentioned anywhere else before this article.

I think this just goes to show the tremendous amount of uncertainty surrounding any prediction attempt with regards to average temperatures. Nobody has any idea of what the average temperature will be like in 2050 or 2100.

CFC OT, leading the news instead of just following it. :D
 
We will get less solar flares, but that can only be a positive as we are scheduled for a magnetic field reversal in about a century or so.

There's just no way to predict it at all, let alone that specifically. Though I'm curious about where you got that number from.

The point being that the "Little Ice Age" was noted for a lack of sunspot activity, so it is a reasonable hypothesis that sunspot activity correlates with actual solar energy output.

How much does the solar energy actually drop?

I think this just goes to show the tremendous amount of uncertainty surrounding any prediction attempt with regards to average temperatures. Nobody has any idea of what the average temperature will be like in 2050 or 2100.

:goodjob:
 
Though I'm curious about where you got that number from.
I got it from a PBS program from a couple years ago. If however it is as hard to predict as you say, I'm probably remembering it wrong.
 
How much does the solar energy actually drop?

I've not found any numbers at all, just a correlation in timing between lack of sunspot activity and the most recent "little ice age" (aka Maunder Minimum).
 
Reduced food supplies via climate change, and less concern for atmospheric warming, for two?

Assuming we are coming into a Little Ice Age, then yes to both. Then when it turns and the world starts heating up we all get smacked in the face w/ global warming.
 
I got it from a PBS program from a couple years ago. If however it is as hard to predict as you say, I'm probably remembering it wrong.

It's just that there's never been any pattern to reversals. It's certainly possible we'll have one within the next hundred years, but there's no reason to believe it's more likely to happen in a hundred years than in a thousand or ten thousand years.
 
Well, iirc, food supplies due to climate change correlate at about 5% change in food per 1 degree of temperature change. Ostensibly, a decreasing solar output could balance out AGW, but that seems to be very unlikely.
 
The figure I heard on NPR last week was that in grain growing areas, every 1C degree increase in temp resulted in a 10% decrease in grain production.
 
The figure I heard on NPR last week was that in grain growing areas, every 1C degree increase in temp resulted in a 10% decrease in grain production.

They probably said 5%

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/05/04/science.1204531.abstract
Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, compared to a counterfactual without climate trends.
 
If I remember basic astronomy right, sun spots are linked to the magnetic field, and not much else. We will get less solar flares, but that can only be a positive as we are scheduled for a magnetic field reversal in about a century or so.

The observation of the suns intensity over the last decades has revealed that sunspot activity is correlated with the radiation coming from the sun. So one would expect that less sunspots also mean less radiation.

But the sun is a giant ball of plasma, so nobody knows what exactly is going on and how exactly sunspots and radiation are linked.
 
I'd rather have a mini ice age than a global flood.
 
Once we're actually in one, it will be the other way around.

Assuming this cooling thing is an actual trend and not just a(nother) fluke: we can expect poorer harvests, growing deserts, and a larger ozone hole. Humans will not be praising the lower ocean levels or the milder hurricanes, because bad fortune always looms larger than good fortune (and sells more newspapers).

How do I know these things? Because these things are what human beings did in the past, all the other times there were cooling trends.
 
Back
Top Bottom