Conquer Club

Grand Minimum May Usher In 50 Years Of Global Cooling


Reduced sunspot activity has been observed and indicates the sun is heading into a 50 year reduced solar activity similar to what happened in the mid-17th century.

Comparison to similar stars indicates the reduced activity will cause 0.25% less UV for 50 years.

Modelling indicates that this will cause a few tenths of a degree of cooling.

This will counteract global warming for 50 years.

The cooldown would be the result of what scientists call a grand minimum, a periodic event during which the Sun’s magnetism diminishes, sunspots form infrequently, and less ultraviolet radiation makes it to the surface of the planet. Scientists believe that the event is triggered at irregular intervals by random fluctuations related to the Sun’s magnetic field.

Scientists have used reconstructions based on geological and historical data to attribute a cold period in Europe in the mid-17th Century to such an event, named the “Maunder Minimum.” Temperatures were low enough to freeze the Thames River on a regular basis and freeze the Baltic Sea to such an extent that a Swedish army was able to invade Denmark in 1658 on foot by marching across the sea ice.

A team of scientists led by research physicist Dan Lubin at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego has created for the first time an estimate of how much dimmer the Sun should be when the next minimum takes place.

There is a well-known 11-year cycle in which the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation peaks and declines as a result of sunspot activity. During a grand minimum, Lubin estimates that ultraviolet radiation diminishes an additional seven percent beyond the lowest point of that cycle. His team’s study, “Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUE Short-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs,” appears in the publication Astrophysical Journal Letters and was funded by the state of California.

“Now we have a benchmark from which we can perform better climate model simulations,” Lubin said. “We can therefore have a better idea of how changes in solar UV radiation affect climate change.”

Lubin and colleagues David Tytler and Carl Melis of UC San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences arrived at their estimate of a grand minimum’s intensity by reviewing nearly 20 years of data gathered by the International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite mission. They compared radiation from stars that are analogous to the Sun and identified those that were experiencing minima.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/02/08/solar-minimum-may-bring-50-years-of-global-cooling/

the NASA Link ( it wouldn't allow me to copy anything to paste unfortunately...)

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

I just through my Ray-Bans in the trash!

From your own link (above)

Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.

One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070. The study found that after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cooled by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. By the end of the simulated grand solar minimum, however, the warming in the model with the simulated Maunder Minimum had nearly caught up to the reference simulation. Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that “a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.”

We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".

--------But thanks to an increase of liberals blowing hot air...The counteract will be countered ...If not surpassed into a water world type Earth, after the icecaps melt completely... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

Dukasaur wrote:From your own link (above)

Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.

One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070. The study found that after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cooled by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. By the end of the simulated grand solar minimum, however, the warming in the model with the simulated Maunder Minimum had nearly caught up to the reference simulation. Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that “a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.”

We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".

o..k..
everyone stand up & clap for Duk.. he read the article.
( and in the background the crowd begins cheering .. --> "you go Duk", "at a boy", " such a dreamy commenter", " you suck".. )


anyways ..
why are you prefacing this comment as : "from your own link" like you are trying to prove me wrong on something...?

I link things that i want people to read... just like I just got through doing before I posted it.

it's like you think your some sort of Super-Detective Sherlock Holmes who just found something I had no clue was there & are Rooster Struting around on this thread like you just got me..

where did I say anything about this event significantly changing the course of global warming.. ?

NomadPatriot wrote:o..k..
everyone stand up & clap for Duk.. he read the article.

Yeah Duk, you big old nerd. Reading things before you share them like you're a monk or something

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:From your own link (above)

Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.

One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070. The study found that after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cooled by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. By the end of the simulated grand solar minimum, however, the warming in the model with the simulated Maunder Minimum had nearly caught up to the reference simulation. Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that “a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.”

We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".

o..k..
everyone stand up & clap for Duk.. he read the article.
( and in the background the crowd begins cheering .. --> "you go Duk", "at a boy", " such a dreamy commenter", " you suck".. )


anyways ..
why are you prefacing this comment as : "from your own link" like you are trying to prove me wrong on something...?

I link things that i want people to read... just like I just got through doing before I posted it.

it's like you think your some sort of Super-Detective Sherlock Holmes who just found something I had no clue was there & are Rooster Struting around on this thread like you just got me..

where did I say anything about this event significantly changing the course of global warming.. ?

I just wanted to make sure you read that part of the article.

You've spent a lot of time ridiculing the concept of global warming. When you post an article with a headline that includes "50 years of global cooling" it would seem to most people that you thought you were posting an article that would throw poo-poo at global warming. I just wanted to make sure you understand that it does not.

Dukasaur wrote:We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".

Doesn't matter. In the 21st century, 50 years is at least one tech level. I wouldn't be surprised if we had carbon scrubbers to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere in another 30 years just to satisfy the fertilizer requirements (as well as nitrogen scrubbers).

Besides, at 58, kicking the can 50 years down the road is all I really need at the moment. I'll start to worry again when I reach 105.

tzor wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".

Doesn't matter. In the 21st century, 50 years is at least one tech level. I wouldn't be surprised if we had carbon scrubbers to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere in another 30 years just to satisfy the fertilizer requirements (as well as nitrogen scrubbers).

Besides, at 58, kicking the can 50 years down the road is all I really need at the moment. I'll start to worry again when I reach 105.

I do hope you live long enough to repent.

Yes, we'll probably have CO2 scrubbers before long. But I doubt if they'll be soon enough or fast enough to prevent the coming cataclysms. In the oceans, I do think we're going to lose the corals. The entire Class Anthozoa, nature's most beautiful creations, extinct, along with the bountiful ecosystems that they are the keystone for. On land, probably all Classes will survive, but we'll obviously lose a lot of beautiful species and likely a few Families.

Dukasaur wrote:I just wanted to make sure you read that part of the article.

You've spent a lot of time ridiculing the concept of global warming. When you post an article with a headline that includes "50 years of global cooling" it would seem to most people that you thought you were posting an article that would throw poo-poo at global warming. I just wanted to make sure you understand that it does not.

I know you are a Community Coordinator. .but I do not need you playing mommy 'to make sure' I read the links I post...

but once again you post lies about me.. I have spent a lot of time ridiculing the notion of 'humans are causing global warming"... not the concept of global warming.. Ducky
I think you need to start paying attention to what people say instead of thinking you know everything..
so get your facts & lingo straight please... or else I will just have to keep making you look stupid..

you spend a lot of time replying to things I write .. accusing me of things you cannot back-up..
then when you get called out on it by me.. you make off-hand threats like ' don't push it' when you cannot defend your own accusations towards me with facts..

how about you try to focus on the topic of the thread & not focus on the person who posted it..
we wouldn't want the thread .. derailed... or anything like that.. ..

NomadPatriot wrote:how about you try to focus on the topic of the thread

I focused on it very nicely, I think. I quoted an important couple of paragraphs from the article, making sure they didn't get missed.

Thanks for posting!

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:how about you try to focus on the topic of the thread

I focused on it very nicely, I think. I quoted an important couple of paragraphs from the article, making sure they didn't get missed.

Thanks for posting!

your welcome.. feel free to reference anything in the articles I post.. or post your own links..
I will allow you to do that..

Dukasaur wrote:

tzor wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".

Doesn't matter. In the 21st century, 50 years is at least one tech level. I wouldn't be surprised if we had carbon scrubbers to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere in another 30 years just to satisfy the fertilizer requirements (as well as nitrogen scrubbers).

Besides, at 58, kicking the can 50 years down the road is all I really need at the moment. I'll start to worry again when I reach 105.

I do hope you live long enough to repent.

Yes, we'll probably have CO2 scrubbers before long. But I doubt if they'll be soon enough or fast enough to prevent the coming cataclysms. In the oceans, I do think we're going to lose the corals. The entire Class Anthozoa, nature's most beautiful creations, extinct, along with the bountiful ecosystems that they are the keystone for. On land, probably all Classes will survive, but we'll obviously lose a lot of beautiful species and likely a few Families.

the problem isn't CO2 needing to be scrubbed out of the air.. the problem is water vapor..
the earth's atmosphere is at it's maximum water vapor level.. and that prevents the CO2 from condensing itself out of the atmosphere..
we need to figure out how to lower the water vapor level.. and the CO2 will naturally dissipate..


maybe giant dehumidifiers or something.... think of the earth as a greenhouse without a window in it.. it gets stuffy in there.. and the air is damp to breathe..
how do you remove water from the air..?
a dehumidifier..

* but nomad.. what would we do with all that water from the giant dehumidifiers.. ?* --> we could start by filling up the 50 quadrillion empty plastic water & soda bottles floating around in the ocean... and just fill them up with the dehumidified water..

*but nomad.. that would also lower plastic levels in the oceans & landfills by making use of existing plastic storage containers.. * --> I know...

*but nomad couldn't everyone on the planet do their part to dehumidify the atmosphere with their own ingenious ideas and fill up their own empty water bottles.. ?* --> why yes.. yes they could.. genius idea isn't it..

NomadPatriot wrote:
the problem isn't CO2 needing to be scrubbed out of the air.. the problem is water vapor..
the earth's atmosphere is at it's maximum water vapor level.. and that prevents the CO2 from condensing itself out of the atmosphere..
we need to figure out how to lower the water vapor level.. and the CO2 will naturally dissipate..

Water vapor isn't an ab initio problem. It's part of the feedback loop. When the temperature rises, more water evaporates, which provides a positive feedback to the original temperature rise and magnifies it. But it didn't cause the original rise. That original rise comes from carbon-containing gasses, mostly CO2 and methane. If I may be allowed an analogy, CO2 is like the spark plug in the water engine. Pull the spark plug, the engine won't turn. By itself, it's harmless.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

NP skooled again because science...

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
the problem isn't CO2 needing to be scrubbed out of the air.. the problem is water vapor..
the earth's atmosphere is at it's maximum water vapor level.. and that prevents the CO2 from condensing itself out of the atmosphere..
we need to figure out how to lower the water vapor level.. and the CO2 will naturally dissipate..

Water vapor isn't an ab initio problem. It's part of the feedback loop. When the temperature rises, more water evaporates, which provides a positive feedback to the original temperature rise and magnifies it. But it didn't cause the original rise. That original rise comes from carbon-containing gasses, mostly CO2 and methane. If I may be allowed an analogy, CO2 is like the spark plug in the water engine. Pull the spark plug, the engine won't turn. By itself, it's harmless.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

unfortunately . .i don't think the article i was reading online about water vapor was exactly a 100% credible source... i researched the author and he popped up in some odd-ball flat earth videos.. soo.. ( oopsie.. bad nomad! )
i'll give ya +1/2 point ..

but i do believe i am 1/2 right as well..
if we are at the maximum water vapor level & that level is amplifying the effects of greenhouse gases.. removing water vapor reduces the greenhouse effect... thus reducing the temperature..
water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide. so reducing water vapor would reduce that effect

NomadPatriot wrote:
unfortunately . .i don't think the article i was reading online about water vapor was exactly a 100% credible source... i researched the author and he popped up in some odd-ball flat earth videos.. soo.. ( oopsie.. bad nomad! )
i'll give ya +1/2 point ..

but i do believe i am 1/2 right as well..
if we are at the maximum water vapor level & that level is amplifying the effects of greenhouse gases.. removing water vapor reduces the greenhouse effect... thus reducing the temperature..
water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide. so reducing water vapor would reduce that effect

Thanks for being honest about that source; I appreciate honesty.

However, I wasn't really criticizing the contention that water is a greenhouse gas. It actually is. The point I was making is that its concentration is dependent on the temperature. It's a self-regulating equilibrium. When there's too much water for the current temperature, it falls out as rain. When there's not enough, more will evaporate from the ocean to restore the equilibrium. You could take water out forever and more will simply evaporate from the ocean to restore the balance. The amount of water that the atmosphere holds is decided by the average temperature. The only way to permanently reduce the amount of water in the air is to reduce the temperature, not the reverse.

You need a factor that's independent of the loop. There's a lot of variables like solar intensity and continental drift and so on, but the only one that we control is the amount of carbon. That's the lever we've been pulling to raise the temperature, and it's the lever we need to push to get it back down.

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
unfortunately . .i don't think the article i was reading online about water vapor was exactly a 100% credible source... i researched the author and he popped up in some odd-ball flat earth videos.. soo.. ( oopsie.. bad nomad! )
i'll give ya +1/2 point ..

but i do believe i am 1/2 right as well..
if we are at the maximum water vapor level & that level is amplifying the effects of greenhouse gases.. removing water vapor reduces the greenhouse effect... thus reducing the temperature..
water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide. so reducing water vapor would reduce that effect

Thanks for being honest about that source; I appreciate honesty.

However, I wasn't really criticizing the contention that water is a greenhouse gas. It actually is. The point I was making is that its concentration is dependent on the temperature. It's a self-regulating equilibrium. When there's too much water for the current temperature, it falls out as rain. When there's not enough, more will evaporate from the ocean to restore the equilibrium. You could take water out forever and more will simply evaporate from the ocean to restore the balance. The amount of water that the atmosphere holds is decided by the average temperature. The only way to permanently reduce the amount of water in the air is to reduce the temperature, not the reverse.

You need a factor that's independent of the loop. There's a lot of variables like solar intensity and continental drift and so on, but the only one that we control is the amount of carbon. That's the lever we've been pulling to raise the temperature, and it's the lever we need to push to get it back down.

I am not suggesting not to do co2 scrubbing .. or only do dehumidifying efforts.. do both.. toss in a plan to eliminate a portion of all greenhouse gases... there seems to be a 50 year window here of cooling temperatures due to this Grand Solar Minimum...
just seems the focus is ONLY on man-made CO2 & nothing else. and every other greenhouse gas & any notion it isn't a man-caused event is being ignored or mocked.



reduce everything down.. co2, methane, water vapor, etc, etc..

NomadPatriot wrote:the problem isn't CO2 needing to be scrubbed out of the air.. the problem is water vapor..
the earth's atmosphere is at it's maximum water vapor level.. and that prevents the CO2 from condensing itself out of the atmosphere..
we need to figure out how to lower the water vapor level.. and the CO2 will naturally dissipate..

Interesting.
NASA: Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
ACS: It’s Water Vapor, Not the CO2

But it's actually more complex than this and it's not (like the CO2 connection) a direct link ...
NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor (2013)

First of all, if there is too much water in the atmosphere we need to get rid of it; we need that stuff in our tap water.
Second of all, if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere we need to get rid of it; we need that stuff in our greenhouses.

By the way, the first thing was actually a major element of the "first" (episode IV) Star Wars movie; the Lars family were "moisture farmers."

tzor wrote:By the way, the first thing was actually a major element of the "first" (episode IV) Star Wars movie

Yet more proof that these so-called 'climate scientists' are actually just peddling childish nonsense.

Which reminds me, no one has taken part in the sci-fi elimination thread for a long time: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=214845&p=4975782#p4975744

tzor wrote:First of all, if there is too much water in the atmosphere we need to get rid of it; we need that stuff in our tap water.

Yeah, it's called "rain".

Maybe on a cloudy day you could go out and see if you find some.

Dukasaur wrote:

tzor wrote:First of all, if there is too much water in the atmosphere we need to get rid of it; we need that stuff in our tap water.

Yeah, it's called "rain".

Maybe on a cloudy day you could go out and see if you find some.

"and every other greenhouse gas & any notion it isn't a man-caused event is being ignored or mocked. " - NomadPatriot

I was listening to NPR and there is a company in Brazil that manufactures genetically modified male mosquitoes. Their offspring genetically kill themselves after 3 days. A town released some and cases of mosquito born illness dropped 93% over the previous year! That is a lot less mosquitoes.

Anyway, looking forward in the next few years scientists will say,(farming, pesticides, city growth, CO2, climate change) reduced the bat populations.

In truth, we removed their food source.