Double-Dynamo Model Predicts 60% Fall In Solar Output In The 2030s 249
sycodon points out reports of a new model of solar dynamics from University of Northumbria professor Valentina Zharkova, predictions from which "suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645."
Zharkova's model, based on observation of solar magnetism, "draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone."
Zharkova’s and her colleages at three other universities believe that this two-layer model "could explain aspects of the solar cycle with much greater accuracy than before — possibly leading to enhanced predictions of future solar behaviour. “We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs; originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different [for both] and they are offset in time.”
Excuse to keep using oil (Score:5, Funny)
If this is true, clearly we need to be putting MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, not less. That's just science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The grand solar cycle (the irregular one hundreds of years long, not the 11-year ripple on top of it) is one of the many cycles that go into determining climate. It operates independently of any carbon warming effect that may be happening. If this cycle is going into a low, it would mean another Little Ice Age if nothing else were going on. It points to the need for better climate models before hysterically making major public policy decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
The grand solar cycle
When you Google a term, and the first two hits are YouTube videos, you know you are in for something hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely? I've got some beach front property I'd like to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step one - pay ten million
Step two - ?
Step three - profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever you see people who call themselves Greens swinging around to oppose a project which is part of the whole sustainable, carbon-free meme they are supposed to be supporting, that's a red flag, especially when the campaign seems to flare up out of nowhere at the worse time during construction, rather during the public comment period that was part of the years of project review that was carefully built into your schedule. No matter how green you consider yourself to be, you have run into the anti-human
Re: (Score:2)
When have I ever demonized researchers for working on climate models? I demonize those who cherry-pick early results and speculative extrapolations to fit an anti-human agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But man we gotta and I mean we gotta save the planet. If you don't think we have to do it , and if we don't everything is going to fall apart you have to be some kind of crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A new ice age is, indeed, coming. But it comes AFTER the big melt. Quite awhile after, though the timing depends on volcanos.
This, of course, assumes no anthropogenic modifications of the climate.
That said, there *are* multiple solar cycles. But before I took this seriously I'd need to look at, among other things, his funding sources. Review in a professional journal is a reasonable substitute for that, provided you check the journal's sources of funding. (Drug companies have been known to hire everyon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is really cheap though - it's just a byproduct of highly profitable activities. It also sticks around a long time, methane has a rather short environmental half life.
Re: (Score:2)
Or we should all buy solar panels now while they are still useful.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a 60% fall in solar output; then, no amount of additional greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are going to be able to stop earth from turning into a barren frozen wasteland.
The drop in solar output will reduce temperature sufficiently for the Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen in the air to liquify, and earth's surface would become a barren wasteland, kind of like what Neptune looks like today.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find that game anywhere. Given the fact that I haven't searched for it at all, I'm pretty sure someone will reply with a link to it in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a game man.. A full throttle hummer is.. well. umm.. here read this.
http://www.siliconvalleybachel... [siliconval...chelor.com]
And check this out, http://www.blowbyblowparty.com... [blowbyblowparty.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's not a game [wikipedia.org], I just imagined the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I played that game too. I even spent 400 bucks on a sound blaster multimedia kit for my 486sx just to have sound for it. However, that is just full throttle, not a full throttle hummer.
Re:Excuse to keep using oil (Score:4, Informative)
If necessary, you would put a better greenhouse gas like methane into the atmosphere, and it would not acidify the oceans. But chances are, it won't be necessary. By the way, the "little ice age" as it has been traditionally called started sometime much earlier, in the 1300s, not the 1600s. It lasted to sometime in the 1800s.If their science is as iffy as their history, I am not going to worry just yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I am working on that right now after a great meal of BBQ and Baked beans.
Stay tuned.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of methane hydrate at the bottom of the oceans, but I suppose your bottom could be a good start!
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, how 'bout if we all watch you do it first.
Re: (Score:3)
The little ice age can't be accurately defined, and some researchers have claimed it started as late as the 1500s. Based on the data, it seems more accurate to say that the climate started to fluctuate widely in the 1300s, and crops began to fail across Europe. If you want to read about it, take a look at the book "The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300 to 1850" by Brian Fagan. Enjoyable book. Or you can just look it up on Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean this wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
I don't see anything about it starting in the 1300's
Re:Excuse to keep using oil (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean this wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
I don't see anything about it starting in the 1300's
Quote your link: "The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age" - Yeah, that Wikipedia. Either TFP doesn't know the difference, or they just don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see what you're saying. You start at the beginning of the downward trend in the solar cycle and not during the sharp decline that is the century and a half of the Maunder Minimum.
Well, It looks like you mistake me for the Little Ice Age. You are even more wrong than TFP is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I see, you're just a dick.
No, I have one - you don't. That's your problem, you dickless denialist.
Which BTW has nothing to do with you also being wrong (but since you are a denialist, that's a given), which is why you went all looney with claiming my decline started at the decline.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar *activity* not *output* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Solar *activity* not *output* (Score:5, Interesting)
Not solar output falling 60%, which would lead to completely frozen Earth, but solar activity, i.e. the 11 year sunspot cycle. Predicting levels near or at those found during the Maunder minimum. This does imply some reduced level of solar output.
About plus or minus 0.1% change in total solar irradiance between solar maximum and solar minimum:
http://science.nasa.gov/scienc... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Not solar output falling 60%, which would lead to completely frozen Earth, but solar activity, i.e. the 11 year sunspot cycle. Predicting levels near or at those found during the Maunder minimum. This does imply some reduced level of solar output.
About plus or minus 0.1% change in total solar irradiance between solar maximum and solar minimum:
http://science.nasa.gov/scienc... [nasa.gov]
It's not just the solar cycle but two cycles matching each other, the solar cycle and the flipping of the It's magnetic poles. Not about to claim what the Suns output would/will be.
Re: (Score:3)
Like that time the 11-, 17- and 7-year cicadas coincided and drove everyone in the US absolutely nucking futz with the noise. And larval shells. And carcasses.
Re:Solar *activity* not *output* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Solar *activity* not *output* (Score:4, Insightful)
Not solar output falling 60%, which would lead to completely frozen Earth, but solar activity, i.e. the 11 year sunspot cycle. Predicting levels near or at those found during the Maunder minimum. This does imply some reduced level of solar output.
Thought I'd smelled a rat. The headline is deceptive (likely deliberately). The vast majority of readers wouldn't know the difference between activity and irradiance.
Re: (Score:3)
Thought I'd smelled a rat. The headline is deceptive (likely deliberately).
With timothy, Hanlon's razor applies.
Re:Solar *activity* not *output* (Score:4)
Radiance is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. That's a huge dependence, so timothy and sycodon have got that going for them. Even so, we know the temperature of the photosphere is 5777 K. Since 5777 * (1 - sqrt(sqrt(1-0.6))) / (2030 - 2015) = 80, that implies an 80 degree drop every year across the entire sun, which would have been noticed a long time ago.
These two are skeptical that Earth's atmosphere might be several degrees warmer decades from now, and they're ready to back that up with a claim that the sun's entire atmosphere is cooling down 80 degrees every year.
And they cite a paper that didn't imply that at all. What are these guys smoking?
Re:Solar *activity* not *output* (Score:5, Funny)
With a 60% reduction in irradiance, I suspect that it would get so cold on Earth that CO2 would freeze solid out of the air. So no more CO2 problem. Yay. But then again, plants need CO2 to make O2. So no more breathing on our part. Doh. That would suck.
Maunder minimum and climate (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds like there's somewhat of a correlation though, if the last time this was seen was before a "mini ice age".
Well, except nobody knowns whether the Maunder minimum even had anything to do with the little ice age, except for the coincidence of timing. The best understanding at the moment is that the little ice age was due to volcanic eruptions: http://news.agu.org/press-rele... [agu.org]
It sounds like there's somewhat of a correlation though, if the last time this was seen was before a "mini ice age". Do the electromagnetic bursts from the sunspots also have something to do with the regulation of earth's temperature?
People have been looking for a solar cycle-weather connection for years, but not really finding one.
Little Ice Age [Re:Maunder minimum and climate] (Score:5, Informative)
And when you dismiss all data that doesn't agree with you-- which is what you're doing-- then it is completely impossible to ever overturn your conspiracy theory that all the science ever done on climate happens to be wrong.
In fact, it's not. This is currently the best hypothesis that fits the data, including the dates. There may be a better hypothesis later. This is the way science is done; you gather data, make a hypothesis that fits the data, and see if later work confirms or overturns the hypothesis.
Paleoclimate resesearch, and most specifically modelling the climate variations in the late middle ages is indeed difficult, because not only don't we have contemporary measurements of all the input parameters, we don't have good measurements of the temperature, either. (Modelling contemporary climate is much more accurate-- we have lots of data on both the input (the solar output is well measured) and the climate (not just average temperatures, but diurnal variation, seasonal variation, latitude and longitude variation, etc. all of which must fit the modelling, although the AGW debaters only ever look at the year-by-year changes.)
The paper referenced, however does use a pretty convincing proxy for temperature change in the little ice age: they looked at the dead flora preserved in the Arctic ice cap. This dates the little ice age to a start in 1375-1400, with a second cooling period around 1450 AD. That is about the time when the Vikings abandoned their settlements in Greenland (they kept Church records; the last document in Greenland (a marriage certificate) was dated 1408.)
Unfortunately, this is THREE HUNDRED YEARS before the Maunder minimum. So it's really hard to think that the Maunder minimum caused the little ice age.
So, here's the summary.
1. There is no well-understood mechanism connecting sunspot numbers to climate.
2. The only connection between the Maunder minimum and the little ice age is a rough coincidence in timing.
3. But the more detailed examination of timing shows that the little ice age started much earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this is THREE HUNDRED YEARS before the Maunder minimum. So it's really hard to think that the Maunder minimum caused the little ice age.
And three hundred years before anyone methodically observed sun spots. The Maunder minimum may have just been the latest in a string of such solar events.
Re: (Score:3)
And when you dismiss all data that doesn't agree with you-- which is what you're doing-- then it is completely impossible to ever overturn your conspiracy theory that all the science ever done on climate happens to be wrong.
Let me also note that apparently, it is possible to observe solar activity prior to direct observation by measuring carbon 14 in tree rings as a proxy. As a result, it is claimed that there were other periods [wikipedia.org] of lowered solar activity from about 1000 AD through to the Maunder minimum.
For example, there were periods of alleged reduced solar activity between 1280 and 1350 and between 1460 and 1550. Notice how those periods (especially given the declines in solar activity prior to the start of the periods)
Proxy studies- still no correlation [Re:Little ... (Score:2)
And when you dismiss all data that doesn't agree with you-- which is what you're doing-- then it is completely impossible to ever overturn your conspiracy theory that all the science ever done on climate happens to be wrong.
Let me also note that apparently, it is possible to observe solar activity prior to direct observation by measuring carbon 14 in tree rings as a proxy. As a result, it is claimed that there were other periods [wikipedia.org] of lowered solar activity from about 1000 AD through to the Maunder minimum.
So, what you're now saying is that the little ice age is not due to the Maunder minimum, but you're hypothesizing that it might have been due to some other sunspot minimum for which we have only proxy data.
Unfortunately,
(1) proxy data on solar activity is somewhat harder to interpret (see, for example, review article here: http://solarphysics.livingrevi... [livingreviews.org] )
(2) nobody looking at the record of proxy reconstruction has been able to find a firm correlation to global climate (although there are some r
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're now saying is that the little ice age is not due to the Maunder minimum, but you're hypothesizing that it might have been due to some other sunspot minimum for which we have only proxy data.
No, I'm saying that we have some evidence that the Little Ice Age (Wikipedia indicates this should be capitalized) was contemporary with unusually low solar output over a span of time including the Maunder minimum (up to the weaker Dalton minimum which included the Tambora eruption in 1815). That would be necessary for an actual cause and effect between reduced solar output and a cooler climate.
Further, sunspot minimums do appear to correlate with reduced solar output, so it is possible that there were a
Re: (Score:3)
You have not bothered to show that the "ideological and institutional biases" are based on anything other than data and good science. That the bias exists is widely touted by people who find the scientific conclusions inconvenient, without the benefit of evidence. The reasoning always seems to be that, since all these scientific organizations think AGW is happening and is serious, they must be biased and bad scientists.
Do you have any solid reasons I should conclude that the entire field is screwed up,
Re: (Score:2)
The article is in conflict with the liberal agenda and therefore must be wrong. That's how modern science seems to be working.
Uh, your very argument is a prime example of how modern politics seems to be working.
Every cycle (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, except that every solar cycle since I can remember, I've heard somebody predicting that the next solar cycle is about the start a new Maunder minimum, and it will mean mini ice age. Every one.
This one is a prediction based on fitting a model only to the last three cycles. i'm not impressed.
For reference, here's the MSFC page on solar cycle modelling: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except that every solar cycle since I can remember, I've heard somebody predicting that the next solar cycle is about the start a new Maunder minimum, and it will mean mini ice age. Every one. This one is a prediction based on fitting a model only to the last three cycles. i'm not impressed. For reference, here's the MSFC page on solar cycle modelling: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
Maybe instead of studying the sun, we should study people who study the sun and see what the relative period is of these people claiming mini ice ages and see if there is any convergence with the periods within which other scientists claim global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
see if there is any convergence with the periods within which other scientists claim global warming.
Please also cross-reference with how the demographics of the predominant scientists in those fields are varying over time, their television-watching habits, their political party affiliations, and their level of exposure over time to certain alarmist propaganda from anti-industrial/"green" special interest groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Got your quotation marks wrong there, that should be
>...petrochemical companies sponsoring anti-green "science"
Re: (Score:2)
Epicycles upon epicycles (Score:3)
Until we have an actual theory about what is going on, this is just adding epicycles. And bad ones at that, since we do not have sufficient observations to even create decent epicycles
Re: (Score:2)
Until we have an actual theory about what is going on, this is just adding epicycles. And bad ones at that, since we do not have sufficient observations to even create decent epicycles
Are you talking about the sun or global warming here ?
I can never tell which one has more backfitting going on.
Re:Epicycles upon epicycles (Score:5, Insightful)
Well we don't know what our climate is going to do, ultimately. We do know, however, that we're dumping CO2 into our atmosphere, enough to screw up our environment in various ways, including creating a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere and add to the acidification of our oceans. That's in addition to a crap ton of other stupid things we're doing, e.g. overfishing, dumping toxins into our water supply, deforestation.
So do we know if we're going to get a mini ice age soon due to natural causes? No, we really don't know. Do we know that we're damaging our own ecosystem, metaphorically poisoning our own well? Yes, we know that with a large degree of certainty.
It's not a frequency it's a period (Score:3)
finally, some science going on. (Score:2)
*gets popcorn* (Score:2)
This is why I'm building an underground compound powered by a nuclear reactor with a vast internal green house.
Freeze or fry... I'm over it.
Re: (Score:2)
University of Northumbria (Score:5, Funny)
Is Northumbria somewhere in Middle Earth?
A quick search on Wikipedia shows that it's actually in Newcastle upon Tyne, which is just a short drive North from Dog Snogging. The chancellor of the University of Northumbria (and I'm not making this up), is Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, which is a name I wish I had.
Seriously, it all sounds like something out of a Christopher Moore novel.
Re:University of Northumbria (Score:4)
A quick search on Wikipedia shows that it's actually in Newcastle upon Tyne
Northumbria University is in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in turn, is within what was once Northumbria.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's just down the river from Qwglhm.
Dog Snogging? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The chancellor of the University of Northumbria (and I'm not making this up), is Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, which is a name I wish I had.
He's actually a baron. So he's Baron Stevens of Kirkwhelpington.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. The Shire is a metaphor for England, [wikia.com] the elves are Scandanavian, Minas Tirith is basically Constantinople...
It's the timing that has me... (Score:2)
This subject showed up in a lot of submissions, but do wonder about the timing; not the immediate future but good enough to cause concern, not far enough in the future to forget about. These cycles coming together for the first time since the 1600's.
Idiotic summary (Score:2)
Activity != output, dumbass.
Fuck Science Reporters (Score:2)
The original paper mentions nothing of a mini-ice age or anything of the sort you fucking science reporters.
It's a bit of a sensationalist title. (Score:2)
I am sure the title was carefully worded to receive as much attention from the press as possible. When Fox-watching Joe Sixpack hears it he will think the sun's total output will drop that much. This will get the climate change deniers on Fox and in congress something great to misinterpret (even though they're not scientists, to use some of their words) and even though it is stupid and wrong, the debate over the "controversy" will run for years while they do nothing to attempt to prevent coming disasters.
Re: (Score:2)
With a deceptive title like that, this should not have made the slashdot front page. What the *(^#*( are the moderators doing?!
Re: (Score:2)
The moderators have no control over the main issue, which is that the /. editors can barely even manage to fix typos in their summaries, let alone gigantic factual errors.
Re: (Score:2)
even though [climate change deniers on Fox and in congress are] not scientists, to use some of their words
"I'm not a scientist" is the new defensive crouch of deniers. [washingtonpost.com]
Stephen Colbert [huffingtonpost.com] had a great piece about it awhile ago. The linked video is almost 5 minutes long, but worth the time to watch.
Should I care? (Score:2)
Oh no! it is the end of the world... again (Score:2)
damn mayans, they were right... just a little off.
on the plus side, that should offset the effects of global warming for a little while
Maybe the research is right but.. (Score:2)
The research concluding it led to the LIA is wrong. This paper clearly dismisses solar activity as playing a role in the LIA. http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/23... [rtcc.org]
Bollocks headline. (Score:2, Informative)
It isn't a 60% drop in solar output, which would kill all life on Earth, but a 60% drop in SUNSPOTS. Why the fuck someone made that headline up without using "head up arse" as an excuse is beyond anyone's ken.
spittake headline (Score:2)
we're talking about a bit of a major event here, and predicted to happen in fifteen years? I'll be in my fifties, ya cunt! That's barely half a lifetime!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes i do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how the oil companies will feel about "Global Warming" if they are asked to do everything they can to accelerate it.
“Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.” [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anyway we can send him over to reddit once and for all?
Re:Let me guess. (Score:4, Insightful)
So this is probably decent research, but unfortunately every right wing nut job out there is going to desperately sink their fingernails into this and deny that rising CO2 is a problem. From reading the comments of the submitter, [slashdot.org] it doesn't seem that we're dealing with a scientific genius here.
Re:Let me guess. (Score:4, Informative)
It feel shortchanged for having correctly predicted the the abuse of this study, yet only being downgraded in my post !
http://science.slashdot.org/co... [slashdot.org]
Is there no.... justice... on Slashdot???????!!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? "Right wing nutjobs", as well as anybody who actually understands anything about the history of climate on planet earth, believes that rising CO2 is not a significant problem even without a decrease in solar output.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? "Right wing nutjobs", as well as anybody who actually understands anything about the history of climate on planet earth, believes that rising CO2 is not a significant problem even without a decrease in solar output.
And by "anybody who understands anything" you mean a bunch of armchair --- I was going to say scientists but they're not even that --- who have red a few opinion pieces on the internet, and yet excludes the people who have been studying the science for years and even decades.
The level o arro
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is happening. Global average temperatures are increasing, probably as much as the IPCC is predicting, and ice caps are melting. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe I misunderstood your point. Can you restate your original point?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it clear enough?
Re: (Score:2)
It does have significant consequences for temperature; global average temperatures will go up by a few degrees (mostly due to increasing temperatures at higher latitudes). The climate across the globe will generally be warmer, wetter, and milder, like it was many millions of years ago. Many species will adapt or mi
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the increase in extreme weather events. A warming of the oceans by even a small amount would have a powerful effect upon hurricane formation.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't claim that there were no adverse effects, just that they are not insurmountable and that they are probably compensated for by positive effects. Increases in hurricane strength and frequency are probably more than compensated for by much milder climate in regions that are currently too harsh for human settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
pretty fucking sure they've learned to deal with forty foot snowdrifts by now...
Re: (Score:2)
Shit...I just put mine away last month.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that climate changed 8200 years ago from natural causes does nothing to disprove that humans are causing climate change now. If you're an ER physician and you see a patient with a hole in his heart and a bullet, do you say "my diagnosis is natural causes, the last 10 people with heart problems all had atherosclerosis"? Only on global warming do people buy into such foolishness.
In fact, in both cases, we know what the specific physics is:
a) Milankovitch cycles causing a maximum of effective solar