Slashdot Mirror
Double-Dynamo Model Predicts 60% Fall In Solar Output In The 2030s
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.”
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...
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
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...
Is there no.... justice... on Slashdot???????!!!!!
Bit more complex than that, here's the Carbon 14 proxy data for solar activity since 800AD. Here's the attribution graph of known climate forcings that explains the current overall warming trend.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com