Studies are showing that the Sun will likely go into a Dalton like Grand solar minimum with its cycle 25 and then into a more severe Maunder like minimum with cycle 26. These Grand solar minimum have historically have been associated with changes in the Jetstream, ocean oscillations, geological events that have in the past led to extreme weather events , dis-seasonal weather, famine, flooding and population decrease and dislocation. These severe weather events caused loss of food production. See Dalton Minimum, Maunder Minimum, Sporer Minimum, Wolf Minimum and Oort minimum. Each of these cycle events have been associated extreme climate variations and population dislocation.
These are interesting phenomena, Scott. I would imagine that there must be some response you think is appropriate. Start canning food? Move to the tropics for 2 decades? Maybe just sit tight and await further instructions from the Holy Spirit?
Chris, these are cyclical climatic patterns based on solar lunar cycles. The climate has significantly warmed due to solar grand maximum and lunar influence during the Medieval warm optimum and then significantly cooled during the little ice age period. Our climate has always and will always change. That’s a no brainer. Much More important than the temperature changes was the change in the jet streams and ocean currents that resulted in significant changes in regional weather patterns resulting in drought, flooding or unusual conditions that resulted in significant crop loss during growing seasons. Not all regions will be effected and some low crop productive areas will actually gain. These groups are predicting these changes based on the solar lunar cycle. Their models predict that each year from here these changes will increase into about 2024. This first cycle should only be a Dalton type minimum which was less severe than the Maunder Minimum.
Genesis 41:25-32. We live in a globally integrated world with incredible agricultural infrastructure and technology. We can adapt to these events as long as we know what we are facing.
I guess somebody forgot to tell these guys that the science was all settled
I watched the videos; they do not refute the settled science in the least. “These guys” are talking about what did or did not happen last week, at a particular location (the Arctic Pole).
The settled science has to do with decades-long trends over the entire globe. I am sure you can understand how important this difference is, Scott.
Speaking of the settled science, the widely respected National Snow & Ice Data Center reported that for both January and February 2018 month-end observations, the global snow and ice level was at its lowest seasonally adjusted point since observations began many decades ago. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
And what causes global ice to decrease steadily over long periods of time? Global temperature increases over long periods of time.
Since I am sure you find the the decades-long, global data to be very important, here is something else for you to consider: satellite data show that global sea level has been rising by about 3.0 mm/year since 1993. Unfortunately, the trend is accelerating, such that a sea level rise of 60 cm (2 feet) is deemed quite plausible by 2100. LInk: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115
This would cause widespread catastrophe across the globe, and even in the United States. New York City, Miami, and Charleston, SC (my hometown) would be especially hard-hit.
I do not want my great-grandchildren to have to deal with these consequences, so I am doing everything in my power to reduce my carbon footprint and to encourage my representatives to support market-based frameworks to reduce carbon consumption.
Oh… and here I thought you were formulating some important observations!
Far more significant than the cycles you have brought to our attention are the cycles driven by the Milankovitch Cycles. These cycles are actually what drives the natural pendulum swing of CO2 in the atmosphere - - with far more dire results than the ones you have been worried about.
For example: mile high glaciers over Manhattan vs. considerable loss of coastal land due to rising oceans.
But since CO2 levels are now well beyond the sensitivity range of the Milankovitch Cycles … I suppose all we can do now is see how much more exciting the Solar cycles you discuss will become with unrelenting heat, and the disappearance of all the world’s glaciers.
Thank you Chris. I am aware of the science in this area. I meant not to ruffle feathers but to warn people. Please understand that I love our beautiful planet and all of God’s great amazing creation. I try to live a sustainable lifestyle in all ways to protect our planet and support its ecology and ever growing population. I know there are and I have great respect for the thousands and thousands of talented and honest researchers in this field that work diligently to understand our planets climate. I have no political affiliation and have no economic or other skin in this game except I want to understand the science and best prepare our society for its implications. I am a brother in Christ just trying to serve our Lord.
The climate and the weather make a liar of the best prognosis. It’s very difficult to predict and understand. That said what is clear by both sides of this debate is that the climate is a changing. Both models predict extreme changing climate conditions. In addition the solar models predict increased volcanic and geologic activity and the CO2 forcing models sea level rise. The solar model and most other models are predicting that we see these changes in jet stream and ocean currents over the next 8 years that will create extreme and severe weather. I think that we can agree that these changes will effect our global food production. These events will create severe unseasonal weather, floods and droughts that will damage crop production. This will put extremely stressful conditions on our worlds population. This will be a global crisis by all accounts. Even if we turned off every fossil fuel burning plant and vehicles (will not happen) today will not significantly change CO2 and by CO2 forcing models effect the weather patterns for decades. It will take decades or even hundreds of years by the CO2 forcing model to lower the CO2 to “normal” levels.
Please tell me what do you think we should do to deal with this developing crisis?
In 50 years it will still take decades to hundreds of years to lower CO2 levels, so why wait? If we can find better fuels and better energy sources now we can start that long process now and possibly spare future generations from our bad decisions. Every 25 years is yet another generation that will have to live with the effects of fossil fuel use if we don’t start the process now.
Hi Scott, very good question. In addition to the personal steps you and I are taking, we can ask our employers and elected reps to adopt policies to sharply reduce carbon emissions.
This could actually be America’s big opportunity, if we don’t let the Fossil Fuel overlords have their way!
NASA-coordinated investment in aerospace was a very costly - - but amazingly productive investment. If we had let the free-market determine the course of aerospace, companies would have gone bankrupt all the time.
Instead, NASA helped coordinate profit levels and manage R&D risks… in a way that created better jobs for our scientists, better technology for our astronauts and an economic and technological leadership for the whole world.
A NASA-like effort for alternative energy development can accomplish the same thing, if we don’t cut our tax revenues to the bone in a near-sighted attempt to “perfect” American civilization. A NASA-like effort for CO2 mitigation would also create another area of technology that will be inevitably necessary … especially if we want to encourage other countries to collectively improve “carbon-fixing” and CO2 mitigation!
I am going to put this out there about predictions of increasing severe weather events over the next coming years. Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers a very respected researcher is explaining and predicting increasing severe weather events that is based on the breakdown of the polar jet stream and sudden stratospheric warming compression events resulting in these polar vortexes that create extreme cold like we saw in the U.K. beast from the East , the foureasters and the continued cold in the Midwest. She believes that CO2 warming creates these events and that they will increase over the coming years. The solar-lunar cycle predictions also predict increased severe weather events especially unseasonal events. Whether due to CO2 or solar lunar cycle is not the immediate issue. More important is that we could possibly face severe crop damaging weather around the world especially changes in high yield regions that would significantly impact our food production and lead to a global food shortage. A global food shortage would cause significant global economic disruption, population dislocation and social upheaval.
We already struggle to feed the 7 billion people on this planet. A significant reduction of production could be disastrous in just the next couple years as predicted by these models. It is dangerous to geoengineer with unanticipated consequences in the short term. We can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather. Geoengineering could lead to a worse disaster. It would be better to adapt our food infrastructure to respond to these anticipated climatic changes while reducing global fossil fuel utilization. We will know for sure that these predictions by the solar cycle are correct as they predict increasing severity of these patterns each year over the next 7 years.
My point was that the 7 year Grand Solar Minimum (or however many years it is) is not what is driving climate warming. But naturally, it will make it especially worse. Since the CO2 continues to accumulate, we will eventually be at an equivalent to the Grand Solar Minimum All The Time. It will be the new normal, until the next Grand Solar Minimum.
Since we have 8 massive glaciation cycles just going back and forth between 280 ppm and 180 ppm (before swinging back the other way), the current 3 million year high of 400 ppm tells us one thing:
even if we stopped all CO2 production instantly (as in the Day the Earth Stood Still) , it would take centuries for the historical excess of 120 ppm (280 + 120 = 400) to return to solid form, bound by chemical bonds to frozen sediments at the bottom of the ocean and bound up in dead plant matter covered over with inert dirt or silt.
And until such time as sufficient CO2 is “fixed” (either naturally or with man-made help), there will be nothing that keeps the glaciers of Europe and South America from completely melting away, requiring millions of people to develop new ways of having water year round.
Even if we went no higher than 400 ppm, the oven that we call “Earth” would be set to “simmer”.
Are you aware of any studies that have looked at CO2 residence time and sequestration? I have always been under the impression that the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere was somewhere between 10 and 30 years and could be removed by water vapor. However, I am not at all sure about the interplay between temperature and carbon dioxide coming out of solution in warming oceans. On top of that, every acre of permafrost that we thaw releases already sequestered carbon from previous ice ages. It seems like burning fossils fuels is just the first piece of a larger Rube Goldberg device.
The ability of the water to “intermediate” CO2 levels in the atmosphere is what the new Cosmos series (#2) said kept the Earth from becoming Venus.
But in the ocean, CO2 still has to become frozen layers of methane at the ocean bottom. I do not know what the rate of accretion is for that process.
When I have read any estimates about CO2 fixation, I have read centuries… But let’s have a look!
“Evolutionary considerations: Somewhere between 3.5 and 2.3 billion years ago, the ancestors of cyanobacteria evolved oxygenic photosynthesis, enabling the use of the abundant yet relatively oxidized molecule H2O as an electron donor to the electron transport chain of light-catalyzed proton-pumping responsible for efficient ATP synthesis. When this evolutionary breakthrough occurred, autotrophy (growth using inorganic carbon as the sole carbon source) is believed to have already been developed. However, the proliferation of cyanobacteria, due to their novel ability to exploit water as a source of electrons, radically altered the global environment by oxygenating the atmosphere and by achieving large fluxes of CO2 consumption.”
[ This link is about the evolution of the process in plants … not quite what we need …]
[This link is about a techy idea for using free CO2 to make battery power … getting closer …]
The Best Paragraph:
Mark Trexler [Former IPCC author; see footnote on the IPCC at bottom!]
Answered Dec 7, 2015
“How long does carbon dioxide (CO2) stay in the atmosphere?”
This is a tricky question because of how the carbon cycle works.
Any individual molecule of CO2 may cycle in or out of the atmosphere relatively frequently. Vegetation and phytoplankton take in huge amounts of CO2 every year, and release much of that CO2 back to the atmosphere the same year. That CO2 hasn’t actually been “removed” from the atmosphere, it has only gone for a short trip and then returns.
The key issue from a climate change perspective is how long does it take for the large amount of added CO2 to leave the atmosphere for good. That actually takes place gradually over hundreds of years (before it’s mostly gone). That’s because the carbon has to find it’s way into permanent repositories of carbon that aren’t part of the annual carbon cycle. This could be into the deep ocean, or it could be mineralized . . . there are a number of ways CO2 leaves the “daily and yearly” cycle. But it does take a long time. That’s why people are concerned that climate change is effectively permanent, at least on the scale of a couple hundred years once we’ve made the leap.
[IPCC: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess climate change based on the latest science."
George. it is a grand solar minimum. Not the same as the solar cycle minimum. The suns magnetic field becomes out of phase significantly reducing the number of sunspots over the 11 year cycle. This doesn’t really much effect the tsi of the sun which is only slightly less but more the way the energy flows. (The energy can be significantly changed with substantially less UV and x rays also reduced) More important Solar flares and cme come more in large releases of energy while the minima with less flares and cme are more steady energy flows. These changes along with changes in the earths magnetosphere due to these suns changes effect the earths climate. Climate is not just temperature it all the atmospheric and ocean energy flows, variation, distribution and patterns. The last Grand solar minima the Maunder Minimum and Dalton minima were associated with the little ice age from about 1400-1820. This period was associated with jet stream changes resulting in severe events and unseasonal weather. Most grand solar minima have been associated with climate change and cooling. Also there are Grand Solar Maximums more associated with warming. There was a Grand solar maximum right before the little ice age associated with the medieval warming optimum from around 900 to 1300 AD. We had been in the modern grand solar maximum from about 1900.
Whether by CO2 or by Solar variation or as you say both we may face a number of years of severe weather patterns that could jeopardize world food production and even our global economy. We will know for sure over the next 2-3 years.
And my point is that however bad it is for the next several years, the constant advance in the parts per million of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will pretty much guarantee that the commotion of the next few years (assuming there is) will eventually become the new normal, as the hotter Earth becomes, more weather patterns will become accentuated and more energetic than what we used to consider “normal”.
The last Maunder minimum was from 1645 to 1715, so the Little Ice Age started 200 years before the Maunder minimum. I don’t see how the two can be linked.
The proxy data suggest that there were a series of grand solar minimums after the medieval optimum warming (grand solar maximum period) starting with the Wolf Minimum then the Sporer Minimum. Then we had the actual recorded sunspot Maunder Minimum and then Dalton Minimum
There were also a series of volcanic eruptions that occurred during that time period.
"Here we present precisely dated records of ice‐cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium. A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50‐year‐long episode with four large sulfur‐rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required. "