Maunder Minimum & Climate Change

  • #1
278
22

Main Question or Discussion Point

We all know that our CO2 emissions will warm the planet. However I am wondering to what extent do climate models include the view that we might be heading to a new Maunder Minimum?
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/winter-is-coming-super-grand-solar-minimum.html
Will this buy us a bit more time to sort out climate change than has been estimated or is it already included or not accepted?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Bystander

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,189
1,209
  • #3
13,067
9,832
We all know that our CO2 emissions will warm the planet. However I am wondering to what extent do climate models include the view that we might be heading to a new Maunder Minimum?
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/winter-is-coming-super-grand-solar-minimum.html
Will this buy us a bit more time to sort out climate change than has been estimated or is it already included or not accepted?
This is the abstract of the peer-reviewed paper. I cannot see these conclusions anywhere!
Complete paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46/pdf
I have copyright concerns here, but found that link on a Harvard server http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795...46S and the publishing organization sits in Bristol UK, so it should be fine.
A comprehensive spectral analysis of both the solar background magnetic field (SBMF) in cycles 21-23 and the sunspot magnetic field in cycle 23 reported in our recent paper showed the presence of two principal components (PCs) of SBMF having opposite polarity, e.g., originating in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively. Over a duration of one solar cycle, both waves are found to travel with an increasing phase shift toward the northern hemisphere in odd cycles 21 and 23 and to the southern hemisphere in even cycle 22. These waves were linked to solar dynamo waves assumed to form in different layers of the solar interior. In this paper, for the first time, the PCs of SBMF in cycles 21-23 are analyzed with the symbolic regression technique using Hamiltonian principles, allowing us to uncover the underlying mathematical laws governing these complex waves in the SBMF presented by PCs and to extrapolate these PCs to cycles 24-26. The PCs predicted for cycle 24 very closely fit (with an accuracy better than 98%) the PCs derived from the SBMF observations in this cycle. This approach also predicts a strong reduction of the SBMF in cycles 25 and 26 and, thus, a reduction of the resulting solar activity. This decrease is accompanied by an increasing phase shift between the two predicted PCs (magnetic waves) in cycle 25 leading to their full separation into the opposite hemispheres in cycle 26. The variations of the modulus summary of the two PCs in SBMF reveals a remarkable resemblance to the average number of sunspots in cycles 21-24 and to predictions of reduced sunspot numbers compared to cycle 24: 80% in cycle 25 and 40% in cycle 26.
From the other paper the article cited: (emphasis mine)
For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.
In my opinion, this is merely another article to provide pseudo-evidence for a certain clientele. In football, sorry soccer, we call this "hit and hope" and in "handegg, sorry football, it's a "hail mary" to hope for sun activities, with a quite doubtful degree of influence on our climate. This influence is the real question to be answered! The paper, journal as well as the authors are from astronomy. Thus we are back to the old question: How severe is the impact of sun activities on our climate and how certain can we be? Everything else is not of interest here, as long as these two questions aren't finally answered.

Personally I come to a devastating conclusion, but this is only my opinion. The papers, however don't seem to support an optimistic point of view, as even a half degree (Zharkova) is already within the range of various models. Would be interesting to know how she derived these 0.5 degrees. And as far as I know are neither Hull nor Newcastle centers of climate research in GB, Norwich is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #4
50
47
Hi windy miller,

Here a few publications, normally all easily accessible and the last one is in open access.

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

"Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature reconstruction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of 3, so the offset should not be larger than 0.3°C. Comparing this to the 3.7°C and 4.5°C temperature rise relative to 1961–1990 until the end of the century under the IPCC A1B and A2 emission scenarios, respectively, a new Maunder‐type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042710

Are the most recent estimates for Maunder Minimum solar irradiance in agreement with temperature reconstructions?
"[16] For all RCPs, a 21st‐century grand solar minimum with a TSI as estimated by Schrijver et al. [2011] leads to global temperatures during 2071–2100 which are by 0.04°C lower as compared to a continuing 11‐year solar activity cycle. Note that our model underestimates the temperature response to the 11‐year solar cycle [Lean and Rind, 2008], thus a temperature offset of 0.1°C is a more realistic value. The temperature offset due to a minimum with a TSI value corresponding to Shapiro et al.'s [2011] reconstruction is considerably larger (0.5°C), but rather unrealistic as shown for the reconstruction back to the Maunder Minimum. In any case, these values are smaller than the increase of global surface temperatures of 1.4–4.8°C relative to preindustrial times expected from the RCPs by 2100."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL048529

What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes?
"Even in the event of the Sun entering a new Maunder Minimum like activity state the climate response is very small compared to the projected warming due to anthropogenic influences (the probability of this within the next 40 years has been estimated to be 8% by Lockwood [2010]. The projected warming of the HadCM3 model for the B2 SRES scenario is 2.55 K by the end of the 21st century with respect to the end of the 20th century and using the most recent TSI reconstructions, a Maunder Minimum like future change gives relative reductions of less than 0.13 K. There is a possibility that by the end of the 21st century solar activity returns to current levels, but as we assume there is a reduction of solar activity in the near future to “normal” levels there may still be a drop in temperature relative to the projected end of century warming. A sensitivity analysis assuming that the solar cycle response is larger than climate models simulate still produces small variations over what is projected because of anthropogenic forcings only. Only when an older TSI reconstruction is used and the response of climate models to solar influence amplified are more substantial variations found that could mitigate what is still a relatively small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming, a scenario which we cannot rule out but given the latest assessment of TSI variations and understanding of the climate system we feel is unlikely."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013

Solar Influence on Global and Regional Climates
"Thus, these predictions show that continued solar decline will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming. However, the decline should do much to end the debate about the fraction of global warming that can be attributed to solar change. For the first time since about 1900, long-term solar and anthropogenic trends are now in opposite directions. Non-robust fits will fail sooner rather than later because of the change in solar behaviour. Thus, the next few years will give us much better estimates of the solar contribution to both global and regional climate change."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3
 
  • Like
Likes DrStupid, Bandersnatch, Ophiolite and 2 others
  • #5
278
22
Hi windy miller,

Here a few publications, normally all easily accessible and the last one is in open access.

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

"Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature reconstruction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of 3, so the offset should not be larger than 0.3°C. Comparing this to the 3.7°C and 4.5°C temperature rise relative to 1961–1990 until the end of the century under the IPCC A1B and A2 emission scenarios, respectively, a new Maunder‐type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042710

Are the most recent estimates for Maunder Minimum solar irradiance in agreement with temperature reconstructions?
"[16] For all RCPs, a 21st‐century grand solar minimum with a TSI as estimated by Schrijver et al. [2011] leads to global temperatures during 2071–2100 which are by 0.04°C lower as compared to a continuing 11‐year solar activity cycle. Note that our model underestimates the temperature response to the 11‐year solar cycle [Lean and Rind, 2008], thus a temperature offset of 0.1°C is a more realistic value. The temperature offset due to a minimum with a TSI value corresponding to Shapiro et al.'s [2011] reconstruction is considerably larger (0.5°C), but rather unrealistic as shown for the reconstruction back to the Maunder Minimum. In any case, these values are smaller than the increase of global surface temperatures of 1.4–4.8°C relative to preindustrial times expected from the RCPs by 2100."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL048529

What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes?
"Even in the event of the Sun entering a new Maunder Minimum like activity state the climate response is very small compared to the projected warming due to anthropogenic influences (the probability of this within the next 40 years has been estimated to be 8% by Lockwood [2010]. The projected warming of the HadCM3 model for the B2 SRES scenario is 2.55 K by the end of the 21st century with respect to the end of the 20th century and using the most recent TSI reconstructions, a Maunder Minimum like future change gives relative reductions of less than 0.13 K. There is a possibility that by the end of the 21st century solar activity returns to current levels, but as we assume there is a reduction of solar activity in the near future to “normal” levels there may still be a drop in temperature relative to the projected end of century warming. A sensitivity analysis assuming that the solar cycle response is larger than climate models simulate still produces small variations over what is projected because of anthropogenic forcings only. Only when an older TSI reconstruction is used and the response of climate models to solar influence amplified are more substantial variations found that could mitigate what is still a relatively small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming, a scenario which we cannot rule out but given the latest assessment of TSI variations and understanding of the climate system we feel is unlikely."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013

Solar Influence on Global and Regional Climates
"Thus, these predictions show that continued solar decline will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming. However, the decline should do much to end the debate about the fraction of global warming that can be attributed to solar change. For the first time since about 1900, long-term solar and anthropogenic trends are now in opposite directions. Non-robust fits will fail sooner rather than later because of the change in solar behaviour. Thus, the next few years will give us much better estimates of the solar contribution to both global and regional climate change."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3
Thanks , very interesting
 
  • Like
Likes Genava
  • #6
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,818
1,997
  • Like
Likes fresh_42 and windy miller
  • #7
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,873
I was taken by Prof Zharkova's lecture and watched the whole hour and a half.
but...
Being not a good mathematician i could not make sense of her formula
so was skeptical as to whether it really does make the curve fit clear back to Roman times........
zharkova_formula.jpg


so i decided to just wait and see.
After all , she says it'll show itself one way or the other in just a couple more years.

old jim
 

Attachments

  • Like
Likes WHT and Nik_2213
  • #8
1,808
292
There is a bracket missing in the formulas (maybe before the last cos). Looks like some copy & paste went wrong.
 
  • #9
828
293
As I understand it, the forthcoming wibble may be a 'Dalton Dip' per 1880~1910, rather than a full-on 'Maunder Minimum' and 'Little Ice Age'.

Relatively short lead-time may falsify their current predictions, identify 'residuals', prompt iterations.
Hey, how long did it take for 'real' tidal prediction to develop ? And that with all the major 'players' in plain sight plus two tides per day ?

Of course, if an untimely volcano should seriously vog the low-latitude stratosphere during such 'Dip', we'll have global rather than mere regional problems.
:-(
{ apologies for terse post, quorum of cats helping me type... }
 
  • #11
828
293
snark alert:
I've seen 'The Guardian' get so many technical opinions so skew over the years, I dare not comment further on their report.
YMMV...
/s

IIRC, those Thames 'Frost Fairs' were only possible because ice-jams backed up from the infamously narrow arches of Old London Bridge.

Also, IIRC, the debated model predicts a 'Dalton Dip, per 1880~1910, rather than a full-on 'Little Ice Age'.

The rising CO2 level may mitigate this. However, warmer oceans may produce much 'Lake Effect' snow, thick enough to be a real nuisance...

Upside, a decade should see the onset or not...
 
  • #12
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,873
However, warmer oceans may produce much 'Lake Effect' snow, thick enough to be a real nuisance...
Asimov suggested this cycle in the late 50's.
Arctic ocean once thawed makes for more winter snow up north, gradually increasing snow cover, raising albedo, hence cooling things until it freezes again and reduces winter snow....

Who knows ?
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander and davenn
  • #13
WHT
15
3
Jim Hardy,
Regarding Zharkova's cosine of a cosine formula, the hint is that it comes from the Schmidt&Lipson Science(2009) article . Schmidt came up with a SW tool called Eureqa which does symbolic regression. Eureqa is no longer available but it could easily find cos(cos()) type expressions in time series data.

The next question is what does cos(cos()) even mean, as it is a rather rare formulation. I have one derivation based on a Sturm-Liouville differential equation. I will take a closer look at the Zharkova research and see if I can find any connections.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #14
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,873
he next question is what does cos(cos()) even mean, as it is a rather rare formulation. I have one derivation based on a Sturm-Liouville differential equation. I will take a closer look at the Zharkova research and see if I can find any connections

Well Thanks !

Myself i wouldn't invest a whole lot of time at it

The kindly professor's math skills seem credentialed enough she could probably curve fit most any natural phenomenon back to Roman times
https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/
I am a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. I have BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management.

I graduated from the National University of Kyiv, Ukraine in 1975 with a BSc/M.Sc. first class with distinction degree in Applied Mathematics and Physics (joint honours). In 19I75-1978 worked as Junior researcher at Physics and Applied Maths Department, then moved to the Solar Division of the Main Astronomical Observatory, Kyiv, Ukraine for my Ph.D. studies in Applied Mathematics/Solar Theory. After successfully defending my thesis in non-LTE radiative transfer entitled “Hydrogen emission in quiescent solar prominences with filamentary structure", I worked at Space Science Laboratory, Physics Department, National University of Kyiv as junior researcher, lecturer/researcher senior lecturer/senior researcher (1978-1994). In 1992 I joined the Astronomy Group of Glasgow University as the Senior Royal Society visitor, then a Research Fellow (1993-1999). In 2000 I became a Lecturer at the University of Bradford, in 2002 I was appointed to a Reader and in 2005 to a Professor in Applied Mathematics. From September 2013 I joined the Northumbria University as a Professor in Mathematics.
but she does honestly admit she's not a meteorologist...

But i enjoy following the climate debate . My Dad was a meteorologist who somewhere around 1952 (first grade for me) told me he believed the sun drives climate , so i probably suffer from "Confirmation Bias" ...

And her description of the currents deep inside the sun i found fascinating.
Again, confirmation bias on my part? My old Freshman chemistry professor was a nuclear chemist who believes to this day the sun's core is mostly iron...
Who knows ?

Thanks though for looking. I did a fair amount of searching and didn't find cosine of a cosine,
so decided to wait and see if anything comes of it.
As she said - in a very few years we'll know whether her curve extrapolated forward... and i should be around to see that !

So much interesting stuff, so little time...

I'd be really interested in whatever you find about "cosine of cosine".... If ii still had my TI99 i'd try it in BASIC.


old jim
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes WHT
  • #15
1,747
810
I fooled around with excel. It isn't exact (?) but Cos(cos(x)) is very close to 0.75+0.25 Cos (2x+pi). In other words, it is nearly a cosine function itself.

The differences are at the minimums; compare the red and the green-dashed curves. The green-dashed curve looks a little "flatter" at the bottom.

cos_cos.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Like
Likes WHT and jim hardy
  • #16
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,873
I don't see a physical connection yet, but your plot is interesting.

Of course her B terms will make your brown plot taller or shorter...?
 
  • Like
Likes WHT
  • #17
WHT
15
3
I don't see a physical connection yet, but your plot is interesting.

Of course her B terms will make your brown plot taller or shorter...?
After looking at her work some more, the cos(cos()) formulation is actually pretty straightforward, as all she is doing is a slight frequency modulation. Take a look at the combined terms cos(A t) × cos( cos(B t)) and that will expand as a main frequency A modulated by B.

She is doing this because the main sunspot frequency A changes over time and she is essentially curve fitting to that data. The tool that she used Eureqa did all the symbolic expression curve fitting.

Unfortunately Eureqa got bought off by an AI company so there is no way to exactly duplicate her results.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #18
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,873
She is doing this because the main sunspot frequency A changes over time and she is essentially curve fitting to that data.
Thanks - in principle not too dissimilar to Fourier ? At least analogous
I did notice the the Σk=1,,,,5
just tinkering with calculator has made clear what you're saying and why the result isn't zero centered.

As your chart shows, Cosine of(anything that sweeps between -1 and +1) will always be positive because the argument never reaches ##\frac{\pi}{2}## in either direction..

Often my alleged brain needs a little step-stool - Thanks !

old jim
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes WHT
  • #19
tech99
Gold Member
1,844
647
I have noticed a news item by the BBC regarding a paper on the "little ice age" and the possible link to the killing of around 56 million people during colonisation of the Americas between about 1500 and 1600. "The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas led to the abandonment of enough cleared land that the resulting terrestrial carbon uptake had a detectable impact on both atmospheric CO₂ and global surface air temperatures," Alexander Koch and colleagues write in their paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews.
A news item here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973
 
  • #20
WHT
15
3

Related Threads on Maunder Minimum & Climate Change

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • Sticky
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Top