NASA presents their prediction for Solar Cycle 25

[George S]

Here is how a scientific model is supposed to work. It will have successfully predicted current events.

With the model below Solar Cycle 24, which is in its last year, was successfully predicted in 2008.

This gives confidence in the current prediction of the next 11 years, Solar Cycle 25 -- 2020-2031.

This model uses the Sun's magnetic field as the basis for its prediction of sunspot numbers. (See @10:00 for prediction.)

[YOUTUBE]jP9_4uoEdKg[/YOUTUBE]

The  Year Without a Summer occurred at the end of Solar Cycle 5. You may note that Solar Cycle 25 is expected to be even weaker than that.

The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death) because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F). This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.

 

[steve_bank]

I thought the summer that never was occurred due to a major volcanic eruption. Skies were reported in the day colored thought to be the result of dust in the atmosphere.

 

[Tharmas]

I thought the summer that never was occurred due to a major volcanic eruption. Skies were reported in the day colored thought to be the result of dust in the atmosphere.

I was thinking the same thing - that it was the volcanic explosion of Krakatoa that caused "the year with no summer," but I looked it up and that happened in 1883.

 

[skepticalbip]

I thought the summer that never was occurred due to a major volcanic eruption. Skies were reported in the day colored thought to be the result of dust in the atmosphere.

"The summer that never was" was indeed attributed to the eruption of Mount Tambora. It didn't help that this happened during the latter part of "the Little Ice Age" that is attributed to minimal sun spot activity from the 1300s or 1400s through 1870.

 

[bilby]

I thought the summer that never was occurred due to a major volcanic eruption. Skies were reported in the day colored thought to be the result of dust in the atmosphere.

"The summer that never was" was indeed attributed to the eruption of Mount Tambora. It didn't help that this happened during the latter part of "the Little Ice Age" that is attributed to minimal sun spot activity from the 1300s or 1400s through 1870.

^This.

The Tambora eruption was at least ten times as large as Krakatoa, so it had a correspondingly larger effect on climate - Krakatoa had a noticeable cooling effect on climate for a couple of years, but the global impact of Tambora was far larger.

The solar minimum didn't help, but to attribute the cooling to solar activity is completely erroneous. The vast majority was due to the volcanic ash and Sulfur Dioxide from the eruption.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is how a scientific model is supposed to work. It will have successfully predicted current events.

With the model below Solar Cycle 24, which is in its last year, was successfully predicted in 2008.

This gives confidence in the current prediction of the next 11 years, Solar Cycle 25 -- 2020-2031.

This model uses the Sun's magnetic field as the basis for its prediction of sunspot numbers. (See @10:00 for prediction.)

[YOUTUBE]jP9_4uoEdKg[/YOUTUBE]

The  Year Without a Summer occurred at the end of Solar Cycle 5. You may note that Solar Cycle 25 is expected to be even weaker than that.

The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death) because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F). This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.

The year without a summer was Krakatoa blowing itself up, it had nothing to do with the sun.

 

[bilby]

Here is how a scientific model is supposed to work. It will have successfully predicted current events.

With the model below Solar Cycle 24, which is in its last year, was successfully predicted in 2008.

This gives confidence in the current prediction of the next 11 years, Solar Cycle 25 -- 2020-2031.

This model uses the Sun's magnetic field as the basis for its prediction of sunspot numbers. (See @10:00 for prediction.)

[YOUTUBE]jP9_4uoEdKg[/YOUTUBE]

The  Year Without a Summer occurred at the end of Solar Cycle 5. You may note that Solar Cycle 25 is expected to be even weaker than that.

The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death) because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F). This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.

The year without a summer was Krakatoa blowing itself up, it had nothing to do with the sun.

Not Krakatoa. The year without a summer was 1816, and was caused by the Tambora eruption of 1815; Krakatoa was 1883 (and was only about 10% of the size of Tambora).

The temperature anomaly worldwide in the Year Without a Summer was 0.4 - 0.7°C; demonstrating that even global temperature changes of less than 1°C can have severe economic impacts. Fortunately, solar cycles don't produce such large anomalies. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide emissions on the scale of current human activity, do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The year without a summer was Krakatoa blowing itself up, it had nothing to do with the sun.

Not Krakatoa. The year without a summer was 1816, and was caused by the Tambora eruption of 1815; Krakatoa was 1883 (and was only about 10% of the size of Tambora).

The temperature anomaly worldwide in the Year Without a Summer was 0.4 - 0.7°C; demonstrating that even global temperature changes of less than 1°C can have severe economic impacts. Fortunately, solar cycles don't produce such large anomalies. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide emissions on the scale of current human activity, do.

Oh, well, right idea, wrong mountain.

However, I don't think you can make that conclusion--how much of the food shortfall was due to temperature and how much due to less solar energy reaching the Earth?

 

[skepticalbip]

The year without a summer was Krakatoa blowing itself up, it had nothing to do with the sun.

Not Krakatoa. The year without a summer was 1816, and was caused by the Tambora eruption of 1815; Krakatoa was 1883 (and was only about 10% of the size of Tambora).

The temperature anomaly worldwide in the Year Without a Summer was 0.4 - 0.7°C; demonstrating that even global temperature changes of less than 1°C can have severe economic impacts. Fortunately, solar cycles don't produce such large anomalies. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide emissions on the scale of current human activity, do.

Oh, well, right idea, wrong mountain.

However, I don't think you can make that conclusion--how much of the food shortfall was due to temperature and how much due to less solar energy reaching the Earth?

Those two things have a common cause. The eruption of Mount Tambora put so much fine ash and sulphur compounds into the upper atmosphere that it blocked the amount of sunlight reaching Earth for several years. This means that there was less heat reaching Earth so lower temperatures and less solar light to promote photosynthesis. The less active sun (rare sunspots) during the Little Ice Age did lower global temperatures but not near as much as the eruption of Tambora and without the eruption there would still be plenty sunlight for photosynthesis..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh, well, right idea, wrong mountain.

However, I don't think you can make that conclusion--how much of the food shortfall was due to temperature and how much due to less solar energy reaching the Earth?

Those two things have a common cause. The eruption of Mount Tambora put so much fine ash and sulphur compounds into the upper atmosphere that it blocked the amount of sunlight reaching Earth for several years. This means that there was less heat reaching Earth so lower temperatures and less solar light to promote photosynthesis. The less active sun (rare sunspots) during the Little Ice Age did lower global temperatures but not near as much as the eruption of Tambora and without the eruption there would still be plenty sunlight for photosynthesis..

But the sunlight blocking would be greater than the heat loss--energy which is absorbed by particles in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere and thus Earth even though it doesn't deliver sunlight to the surface for plant growth. The only actual cooling will be due to energy reflected back to space.

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh, well, right idea, wrong mountain.

However, I don't think you can make that conclusion--how much of the food shortfall was due to temperature and how much due to less solar energy reaching the Earth?

Those two things have a common cause. The eruption of Mount Tambora put so much fine ash and sulphur compounds into the upper atmosphere that it blocked the amount of sunlight reaching Earth for several years. This means that there was less heat reaching Earth so lower temperatures and less solar light to promote photosynthesis. The less active sun (rare sunspots) during the Little Ice Age did lower global temperatures but not near as much as the eruption of Tambora and without the eruption there would still be plenty sunlight for photosynthesis..

But the sunlight blocking would be greater than the heat loss--energy which is absorbed by particles in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere and thus Earth even though it doesn't deliver sunlight to the surface for plant growth. The only actual cooling will be due to energy reflected back to space.

The sunlight hitting the Earth is what heats it, well a minor percentage of the heating is due to conduction from Earth's core but only a minor percentage or the poles would be near the temperature of the equator. The dust and sulphur compounds high in the atmosphere reflects the sunlight back into space before it can reach the Earth to heat it. This is obvious from the fact that any major volcanic eruption, such as Pinatubo in 1991, creates a measurable global temperature drop. The atmospheric dust that is reflecting the sun's light is fairly transparent to long wavelength infrared radiation which is how the Earth cools. So with heavy dust in the upper atmosphere reflecting much of the Earth's heating source, sunlight, and allowing Earth's heat to radiate away in long wavelength infrared, the Earth cools.

ETA:
I thought you may like a professional description so found NASA's analysis of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and its effect on global temperatures.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the sunlight blocking would be greater than the heat loss--energy which is absorbed by particles in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere and thus Earth even though it doesn't deliver sunlight to the surface for plant growth. The only actual cooling will be due to energy reflected back to space.

The sunlight hitting the Earth is what heats it, well a minor percentage of the heating is due to conduction from Earth's core but only a minor percentage or the poles would be near the temperature of the equator. The dust and sulphur compounds high in the atmosphere reflects the sunlight back into space before it can reach the Earth to heat it. This is obvious from the fact that any major volcanic eruption, such as Pinatubo in 1991, creates a measurable global temperature drop. The atmospheric dust that is reflecting the sun's light is fairly transparent to long wavelength infrared radiation which is how the Earth cools. So with heavy dust in the upper atmosphere reflecting much of the Earth's heating source, sunlight, and allowing Earth's heat to radiate away in long wavelength infrared, the Earth cools.

ETA:
I thought you may like a professional description so found NASA's analysis of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and its effect on global temperatures.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

You're missing my point.

The reflection of sunlight back into space off the particles causes a temperature drop. However, the particles also absorb some sunlight. That energy still pretty much ends up on Earth (so this causes little cooling) but it doesn't reach the surface in a form suitable for photosynthesis. The crops were affected by more than just the cooling.

 

[skepticalbip]

But the sunlight blocking would be greater than the heat loss--energy which is absorbed by particles in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere and thus Earth even though it doesn't deliver sunlight to the surface for plant growth. The only actual cooling will be due to energy reflected back to space.

The sunlight hitting the Earth is what heats it, well a minor percentage of the heating is due to conduction from Earth's core but only a minor percentage or the poles would be near the temperature of the equator. The dust and sulphur compounds high in the atmosphere reflects the sunlight back into space before it can reach the Earth to heat it. This is obvious from the fact that any major volcanic eruption, such as Pinatubo in 1991, creates a measurable global temperature drop. The atmospheric dust that is reflecting the sun's light is fairly transparent to long wavelength infrared radiation which is how the Earth cools. So with heavy dust in the upper atmosphere reflecting much of the Earth's heating source, sunlight, and allowing Earth's heat to radiate away in long wavelength infrared, the Earth cools.

ETA:
I thought you may like a professional description so found NASA's analysis of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and its effect on global temperatures.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

You're missing my point.

The reflection of sunlight back into space off the particles causes a temperature drop. However, the particles also absorb some sunlight. That energy still pretty much ends up on Earth (so this causes little cooling) but it doesn't reach the surface in a form suitable for photosynthesis. The crops were affected by more than just the cooling.

Maybe we are arguing about our agreement. I thought what you say in this post was what I said in my first post, but maybe not very clearly. Both cooling and less sunlight for photosynthesis has a common cause - volcanic ash and sulphur compounds in the upper atmosphere. Plants don't like either, both is a double whammy. So I think we are saying the same thing except maybe for how much cooling effect that ash has.

 

[fromderinside]

The temperature anomaly worldwide in the Year Without a Summer was 0.4 - 0.7°C; demonstrating that even global temperature changes of less than 1°C can have severe economic impacts. Fortunately, solar cycles don't produce such large anomalies. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide emissions on the scale of current human activity, do.

I remember Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 also caused worldwide temperature drops of a half degree or so between 1991 and 1993. The main effect in LA was a reddening of sunsets for a year or so.

Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991 eruptions, and dispersal of this gas cloud around the world caused global temperatures to drop temporarily (1991 through 1993) by about 1°F (0.5°C).

 

[George S]

I was wrong about the solar cycle being a heavy influence on the "Year without a summer." However, the OP was intended to show how real modeling (contrast with climate modeling) is done. The model is corrected so that it correctly predicts.

 

[bilby]

I was wrong about the solar cycle being a heavy influence on the "Year without a summer." However, the OP was intended to show how real modeling (contrast with climate modeling) is done. The model is corrected so that it correctly predicts.

So the OP is an example of the thing it's supposed to be deriding.

The OP presents an incorrect idea, that you have crowbarred into an 'explanation' for an observation whose actual cause is well understood. In contrast with modern climate modelling, which actually models a real system, and whose models provide a better match between prediction and observation than any competing hypotheses - such as the solar variability model you are spruiking.

You have, very neatly, demonstrated that you were completely wrong about the mechanisms underlying observed changes in climate. As you doubtless consider yourself a more reliable source than any other, your smart response would be to accept the conclusion of your own argument, and drop your prior belief that solar cycles are a more significant contributor to climate change than human generated carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[fromderinside]

This is going to be painful for me at least. How to make cow shit out of mouse turds.

That was first take. Second take. Modeling corrected so it matches events is not a model but a moving of goal posts to make one's speculations look good.

Calling out one personally doesn't really work for me although this reprobate is well know as one who does that. Thanks for the mirror.

 

[George S]

This is going to be painful for me at least. How to make cow shit out of mouse turds.

That was first take. Second take. Modeling corrected so it matches events is not a model but a moving of goal posts to make one's speculations look good.

Calling out one personally doesn't really work for me although this reprobate is well know as one who does that. Thanks for the mirror.

They improved the model until it matched history. The one model (magnetic stuff) has 4 data points. They made a model and it seemed to "predict" the past. Then they made a prediction. That prediction did, in fact, come to pass. If that unchanged model models accurately and continues to predict reality the confidence in the model's correctness goes up and vice versa. My confidence level is about 60-80% chance of being right. The next cycle is 2020 - 2031. Awaiting more data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're missing my point.

The reflection of sunlight back into space off the particles causes a temperature drop. However, the particles also absorb some sunlight. That energy still pretty much ends up on Earth (so this causes little cooling) but it doesn't reach the surface in a form suitable for photosynthesis. The crops were affected by more than just the cooling.

Maybe we are arguing about our agreement. I thought what you say in this post was what I said in my first post, but maybe not very clearly. Both cooling and less sunlight for photosynthesis has a common cause - volcanic ash and sulphur compounds in the upper atmosphere. Plants don't like either, both is a double whammy. So I think we are saying the same thing except maybe for how much cooling effect that ash has.

No, you're still missing my point. Yes, they have a common cause but the cooling is not a reasonable proxy for the loss of sunlight. Showing how bad the effects of .9C were isn't valid.

 

[bilby]

You're missing my point.

The reflection of sunlight back into space off the particles causes a temperature drop. However, the particles also absorb some sunlight. That energy still pretty much ends up on Earth (so this causes little cooling) but it doesn't reach the surface in a form suitable for photosynthesis. The crops were affected by more than just the cooling.

Maybe we are arguing about our agreement. I thought what you say in this post was what I said in my first post, but maybe not very clearly. Both cooling and less sunlight for photosynthesis has a common cause - volcanic ash and sulphur compounds in the upper atmosphere. Plants don't like either, both is a double whammy. So I think we are saying the same thing except maybe for how much cooling effect that ash has.

No, you're still missing my point. Yes, they have a common cause but the cooling is not a reasonable proxy for the loss of sunlight. Showing how bad the effects of .9C were isn't valid.

Sure it is.

It's possibly not valid for the very narrow context of the effects on crops; But crop failures were far from the only effects. People called it 'eighteen hundred and froze to death', not 'eighteen hundred and dark and gloomy'.

It was 'the year without a summer', not 'the year without adequate daylight'.

A drop in global temperature of around 0.9°C was enough to produce remarkable, and even deadly, cold weather conditions.

Low crop yields were a part of the problem, and were perhaps exacerbated by low light, as well as by other weather conditions; But illumination intensity isn't usually a major constraint on photosynthesis, so it's unlikely that it was a big element of the cause for the low yields (both temperature and carbon dioxide availability are usually bigger constraints) - and even if it were, low crop yields were a small part of the wider impact.