Why do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC never mention Grand Solar Minimum?












6












$begingroup$


I've read many papers about Grand Solar Minimums and Glassberg Minimums, known to science for very long time, studied and monitored with much of our Public Funds. History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors. The present Grand Solar Minimum was predicted since the 70s and we already see signs of it in solar activity and in our climate, yet it's consistently been and being ignored by the so-called ''climate experts'', by our governments, by mainstream media and even alternative media. What is going on?!



Solar activity reconstructed from tree rings and Carbon-14 data



enter image description here



Iconic paper by J.A.Eddy, 1976: The Maunder Minimum.



And many more studies available, as: Predicting the next solar cycles by Valentina Zharkova, 2014










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    See my answer below and please consider changing the title to something like "Do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC consider Grand Solar Minimums?". So to do not convey misleading assumptions right from the start. I hope you are also "willing to reshape preconceptions based on new evidence" as you say.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    12 hours ago








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @CamiloRada provided both an excellent answer, and a good suggestion about rewording the question to avoid a false assumption. Unfortunately there are still two other false assumptions in the question. First, there is not a 'present Grand Solar Minimum ... predicted since the 70s". And second, solar activity is not the main driver of our climate - for example the glacial and interglacial periods that have dominated the climate for the past million years or so are driven by subtle variations in earth's orbit and rotation.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    11 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I'll suggest that you look at the IPCC reports. That way you'll see firsthand all the aspects of climate science that are addressed, rather than relying on second-hand information from others. ipcc.ch
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    11 hours ago






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    "Playing fair" is a two-way street. You start out with some false claims - "solar activity is the main driver of our climate" - and some highly debatable ones - the very existence of a "Grand Solar Min/Maximum", and then want people to provide answers based on those assumptions. Is that playing fair?
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really don't get your point. There's a solar minimum right now : you can check it with a small telescope and a white light filter. There's no activity to see : sunspots are very rare. Yet the global temperature has been rising and the last years have been the hottest on record.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    8 hours ago
















6












$begingroup$


I've read many papers about Grand Solar Minimums and Glassberg Minimums, known to science for very long time, studied and monitored with much of our Public Funds. History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors. The present Grand Solar Minimum was predicted since the 70s and we already see signs of it in solar activity and in our climate, yet it's consistently been and being ignored by the so-called ''climate experts'', by our governments, by mainstream media and even alternative media. What is going on?!



Solar activity reconstructed from tree rings and Carbon-14 data



enter image description here



Iconic paper by J.A.Eddy, 1976: The Maunder Minimum.



And many more studies available, as: Predicting the next solar cycles by Valentina Zharkova, 2014










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    See my answer below and please consider changing the title to something like "Do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC consider Grand Solar Minimums?". So to do not convey misleading assumptions right from the start. I hope you are also "willing to reshape preconceptions based on new evidence" as you say.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    12 hours ago








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @CamiloRada provided both an excellent answer, and a good suggestion about rewording the question to avoid a false assumption. Unfortunately there are still two other false assumptions in the question. First, there is not a 'present Grand Solar Minimum ... predicted since the 70s". And second, solar activity is not the main driver of our climate - for example the glacial and interglacial periods that have dominated the climate for the past million years or so are driven by subtle variations in earth's orbit and rotation.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    11 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I'll suggest that you look at the IPCC reports. That way you'll see firsthand all the aspects of climate science that are addressed, rather than relying on second-hand information from others. ipcc.ch
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    11 hours ago






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    "Playing fair" is a two-way street. You start out with some false claims - "solar activity is the main driver of our climate" - and some highly debatable ones - the very existence of a "Grand Solar Min/Maximum", and then want people to provide answers based on those assumptions. Is that playing fair?
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really don't get your point. There's a solar minimum right now : you can check it with a small telescope and a white light filter. There's no activity to see : sunspots are very rare. Yet the global temperature has been rising and the last years have been the hottest on record.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    8 hours ago














6












6








6


3



$begingroup$


I've read many papers about Grand Solar Minimums and Glassberg Minimums, known to science for very long time, studied and monitored with much of our Public Funds. History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors. The present Grand Solar Minimum was predicted since the 70s and we already see signs of it in solar activity and in our climate, yet it's consistently been and being ignored by the so-called ''climate experts'', by our governments, by mainstream media and even alternative media. What is going on?!



Solar activity reconstructed from tree rings and Carbon-14 data



enter image description here



Iconic paper by J.A.Eddy, 1976: The Maunder Minimum.



And many more studies available, as: Predicting the next solar cycles by Valentina Zharkova, 2014










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I've read many papers about Grand Solar Minimums and Glassberg Minimums, known to science for very long time, studied and monitored with much of our Public Funds. History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors. The present Grand Solar Minimum was predicted since the 70s and we already see signs of it in solar activity and in our climate, yet it's consistently been and being ignored by the so-called ''climate experts'', by our governments, by mainstream media and even alternative media. What is going on?!



Solar activity reconstructed from tree rings and Carbon-14 data



enter image description here



Iconic paper by J.A.Eddy, 1976: The Maunder Minimum.



And many more studies available, as: Predicting the next solar cycles by Valentina Zharkova, 2014







climate-change paleoclimatology solar-terrestrial-physics






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









Lightness Races in Orbit

22117




22117










asked 13 hours ago









daniel brastaviceanudaniel brastaviceanu

396




396








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    See my answer below and please consider changing the title to something like "Do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC consider Grand Solar Minimums?". So to do not convey misleading assumptions right from the start. I hope you are also "willing to reshape preconceptions based on new evidence" as you say.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    12 hours ago








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @CamiloRada provided both an excellent answer, and a good suggestion about rewording the question to avoid a false assumption. Unfortunately there are still two other false assumptions in the question. First, there is not a 'present Grand Solar Minimum ... predicted since the 70s". And second, solar activity is not the main driver of our climate - for example the glacial and interglacial periods that have dominated the climate for the past million years or so are driven by subtle variations in earth's orbit and rotation.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    11 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I'll suggest that you look at the IPCC reports. That way you'll see firsthand all the aspects of climate science that are addressed, rather than relying on second-hand information from others. ipcc.ch
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    11 hours ago






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    "Playing fair" is a two-way street. You start out with some false claims - "solar activity is the main driver of our climate" - and some highly debatable ones - the very existence of a "Grand Solar Min/Maximum", and then want people to provide answers based on those assumptions. Is that playing fair?
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really don't get your point. There's a solar minimum right now : you can check it with a small telescope and a white light filter. There's no activity to see : sunspots are very rare. Yet the global temperature has been rising and the last years have been the hottest on record.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    8 hours ago














  • 8




    $begingroup$
    See my answer below and please consider changing the title to something like "Do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC consider Grand Solar Minimums?". So to do not convey misleading assumptions right from the start. I hope you are also "willing to reshape preconceptions based on new evidence" as you say.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    12 hours ago








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @CamiloRada provided both an excellent answer, and a good suggestion about rewording the question to avoid a false assumption. Unfortunately there are still two other false assumptions in the question. First, there is not a 'present Grand Solar Minimum ... predicted since the 70s". And second, solar activity is not the main driver of our climate - for example the glacial and interglacial periods that have dominated the climate for the past million years or so are driven by subtle variations in earth's orbit and rotation.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    11 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I'll suggest that you look at the IPCC reports. That way you'll see firsthand all the aspects of climate science that are addressed, rather than relying on second-hand information from others. ipcc.ch
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    11 hours ago






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    "Playing fair" is a two-way street. You start out with some false claims - "solar activity is the main driver of our climate" - and some highly debatable ones - the very existence of a "Grand Solar Min/Maximum", and then want people to provide answers based on those assumptions. Is that playing fair?
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really don't get your point. There's a solar minimum right now : you can check it with a small telescope and a white light filter. There's no activity to see : sunspots are very rare. Yet the global temperature has been rising and the last years have been the hottest on record.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    8 hours ago








8




8




$begingroup$
See my answer below and please consider changing the title to something like "Do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC consider Grand Solar Minimums?". So to do not convey misleading assumptions right from the start. I hope you are also "willing to reshape preconceptions based on new evidence" as you say.
$endgroup$
– Camilo Rada
12 hours ago






$begingroup$
See my answer below and please consider changing the title to something like "Do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC consider Grand Solar Minimums?". So to do not convey misleading assumptions right from the start. I hope you are also "willing to reshape preconceptions based on new evidence" as you say.
$endgroup$
– Camilo Rada
12 hours ago






9




9




$begingroup$
@CamiloRada provided both an excellent answer, and a good suggestion about rewording the question to avoid a false assumption. Unfortunately there are still two other false assumptions in the question. First, there is not a 'present Grand Solar Minimum ... predicted since the 70s". And second, solar activity is not the main driver of our climate - for example the glacial and interglacial periods that have dominated the climate for the past million years or so are driven by subtle variations in earth's orbit and rotation.
$endgroup$
– Mark
11 hours ago






$begingroup$
@CamiloRada provided both an excellent answer, and a good suggestion about rewording the question to avoid a false assumption. Unfortunately there are still two other false assumptions in the question. First, there is not a 'present Grand Solar Minimum ... predicted since the 70s". And second, solar activity is not the main driver of our climate - for example the glacial and interglacial periods that have dominated the climate for the past million years or so are driven by subtle variations in earth's orbit and rotation.
$endgroup$
– Mark
11 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I'll suggest that you look at the IPCC reports. That way you'll see firsthand all the aspects of climate science that are addressed, rather than relying on second-hand information from others. ipcc.ch
$endgroup$
– Mark
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I'll suggest that you look at the IPCC reports. That way you'll see firsthand all the aspects of climate science that are addressed, rather than relying on second-hand information from others. ipcc.ch
$endgroup$
– Mark
11 hours ago




7




7




$begingroup$
"Playing fair" is a two-way street. You start out with some false claims - "solar activity is the main driver of our climate" - and some highly debatable ones - the very existence of a "Grand Solar Min/Maximum", and then want people to provide answers based on those assumptions. Is that playing fair?
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
"Playing fair" is a two-way street. You start out with some false claims - "solar activity is the main driver of our climate" - and some highly debatable ones - the very existence of a "Grand Solar Min/Maximum", and then want people to provide answers based on those assumptions. Is that playing fair?
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
11 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
I really don't get your point. There's a solar minimum right now : you can check it with a small telescope and a white light filter. There's no activity to see : sunspots are very rare. Yet the global temperature has been rising and the last years have been the hottest on record.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
I really don't get your point. There's a solar minimum right now : you can check it with a small telescope and a white light filter. There's no activity to see : sunspots are very rare. Yet the global temperature has been rising and the last years have been the hottest on record.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
8 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















23












$begingroup$

Of course the IPCC mentions solar minimums and maximums and performs an extremely careful treatment of the reconstructions and predictions for the changes in solar irradiance. The Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1, Chapter 8, have a whole section (~4 pages) dealing with solar irradiances.



The work of the IPCC is to combine the research of the whole scientific community, their conclusions are not based in the result of a single study but in the combination of pretty much all of them. Some studies could be contradictory, so instead of cherry-picking what suits them, they compare and combine all the studies to have the most reliable answers and a good idea of the uncertainties. If predictions of multiple models differ a lot it means uncertainties are large. If they all give the same result, we can be a bit more confident about it.



For example, the figure 8.11 compares the reconstruction of solar irradiance between years 1750 and 2000 from six studies:



enter image description here



You can see how the Dalton minimum shows up around 1810-1820, but the total solar irradiance change is rather small (less than 1 W for over a total of 1360 W).



Here some excerpts from the IPCC reports that are relevant to this question, and where solar minimums are mention and considered in the wider context of climatic forcing (text between square brackets were added by me for clarification):



Page 662:




Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes from
1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum was lower
than the prior two. This very likely led to a small negative RF [Radiative Forcing] of
–0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m$^{–2}$ between 1986 and 2008. The best
estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative
for the 1750 to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W m$^{–2}$. This is
substantially smaller than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the
latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been
estimated in earlier IPCC assessments. There is very low confidence
concerning future solar forcing estimates, but there is high
confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller than the
projected increased forcing due to GHG during the forthcoming decades.
{8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}




Page 690 (explicit mentions of grand solar minimums):




8.4.1.3 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of Total Solar Irradiance



Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001;
Solanki and Krivova, 2004; Abreu et al., 2008) reveal that currently
the Sun is in a grand activity maximum [a.k.a. grand solar maximum] that began about 1920 (20th
century grand maximum). However, SC [solar cycle] 23 showed an activity decline not
previously seen in the satellite era (McComas et al., 2008; Smith and
Balogh, 2008; Russell et al., 2010). Most current estimations suggest
that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI [Total Solar Irradiation] than those for
the past 30 years (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo
et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Also there are indications that
the mean magnetic field in sunspots may be diminishing on decadal
level. A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of
the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015
(Penn and Livingston, 2006). These studies only suggest that the Sun
may have left the 20th century grand [solar] maximum and not that it is
entering another grand [solar] minimum. But other works propose a grand [solar]
minimum
during the 21st century, estimating an RF within a range of
-0.16 to 0.12 W m$^{–2}$ between this future minimum and the present-day TSI (Jones et al., 2012). However, much more evidence is needed and at
present there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
estimates.



Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar
activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will
be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due
to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).




Summarizing, the IPCC consider solar irradiance variations, the timing of solar minimums and maximums. However, it consider also many other factors that also affect Earth's energy budget. Then, they do predictions based on the combined effect of all these factors. In contrast, some people tend to focus on just one factor (as solar activity) and erroneously assume that it will dominate over all the others.



For the particular case of solar activity, as you can see in the cites above. The IPCC acknowledge the possible occurrence of a solar minimum in the future, but combining all the models they conclude that there is a high confidence that its effects will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due greenhouse gases.



Part of the reason your question might not be well received is because it starts from an assumption that is false: "climate experts from the UN/IPCC never mention Grand Solar Minimum". They do mention it, and if you follow the references in the IPCC you will find plenty of discussion about Dalton, Maunder and older Grand Solar Minimums. And part of that discussion is to estimate the real impact that those events can have in Earth's climate. Then the IPCC get those estimates and figure out how they interplay with the many other factors that conjugate to determine current and future Earth's climate.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance." Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean. That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle. Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral. So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature? I wouldn't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    7 hours ago



















12












$begingroup$

I think the main question has already been answered. But I would like to add to the fallacy that:




History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors.




The Sun is undoubtedly the main source of energy for the planet and its climate. However, variations in solar activity are not the main cause of variations in climate. The main drivers are the "other factors".



Some examples of that are:



Faint young Sun paradox: The climate on earth has remained in the range that allows the existence of liquid water during billions of years despite large changes in the luminosity of the sun.



Milankovitch cycles: The cycles that control the ice ages that have dominated the planet during the last million years are not due to changes in solar activity, but to changes in the orbit and orientation of the Earth.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning
    $endgroup$
    – daniel brastaviceanu
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That's correct @danielbrastaviceanu - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @daniel brastaviceanu: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate. The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    40 mins ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "553"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fearthscience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f16272%2fwhy-do-climate-experts-from-the-un-ipcc-never-mention-grand-solar-minimum%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









23












$begingroup$

Of course the IPCC mentions solar minimums and maximums and performs an extremely careful treatment of the reconstructions and predictions for the changes in solar irradiance. The Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1, Chapter 8, have a whole section (~4 pages) dealing with solar irradiances.



The work of the IPCC is to combine the research of the whole scientific community, their conclusions are not based in the result of a single study but in the combination of pretty much all of them. Some studies could be contradictory, so instead of cherry-picking what suits them, they compare and combine all the studies to have the most reliable answers and a good idea of the uncertainties. If predictions of multiple models differ a lot it means uncertainties are large. If they all give the same result, we can be a bit more confident about it.



For example, the figure 8.11 compares the reconstruction of solar irradiance between years 1750 and 2000 from six studies:



enter image description here



You can see how the Dalton minimum shows up around 1810-1820, but the total solar irradiance change is rather small (less than 1 W for over a total of 1360 W).



Here some excerpts from the IPCC reports that are relevant to this question, and where solar minimums are mention and considered in the wider context of climatic forcing (text between square brackets were added by me for clarification):



Page 662:




Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes from
1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum was lower
than the prior two. This very likely led to a small negative RF [Radiative Forcing] of
–0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m$^{–2}$ between 1986 and 2008. The best
estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative
for the 1750 to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W m$^{–2}$. This is
substantially smaller than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the
latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been
estimated in earlier IPCC assessments. There is very low confidence
concerning future solar forcing estimates, but there is high
confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller than the
projected increased forcing due to GHG during the forthcoming decades.
{8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}




Page 690 (explicit mentions of grand solar minimums):




8.4.1.3 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of Total Solar Irradiance



Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001;
Solanki and Krivova, 2004; Abreu et al., 2008) reveal that currently
the Sun is in a grand activity maximum [a.k.a. grand solar maximum] that began about 1920 (20th
century grand maximum). However, SC [solar cycle] 23 showed an activity decline not
previously seen in the satellite era (McComas et al., 2008; Smith and
Balogh, 2008; Russell et al., 2010). Most current estimations suggest
that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI [Total Solar Irradiation] than those for
the past 30 years (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo
et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Also there are indications that
the mean magnetic field in sunspots may be diminishing on decadal
level. A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of
the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015
(Penn and Livingston, 2006). These studies only suggest that the Sun
may have left the 20th century grand [solar] maximum and not that it is
entering another grand [solar] minimum. But other works propose a grand [solar]
minimum
during the 21st century, estimating an RF within a range of
-0.16 to 0.12 W m$^{–2}$ between this future minimum and the present-day TSI (Jones et al., 2012). However, much more evidence is needed and at
present there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
estimates.



Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar
activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will
be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due
to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).




Summarizing, the IPCC consider solar irradiance variations, the timing of solar minimums and maximums. However, it consider also many other factors that also affect Earth's energy budget. Then, they do predictions based on the combined effect of all these factors. In contrast, some people tend to focus on just one factor (as solar activity) and erroneously assume that it will dominate over all the others.



For the particular case of solar activity, as you can see in the cites above. The IPCC acknowledge the possible occurrence of a solar minimum in the future, but combining all the models they conclude that there is a high confidence that its effects will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due greenhouse gases.



Part of the reason your question might not be well received is because it starts from an assumption that is false: "climate experts from the UN/IPCC never mention Grand Solar Minimum". They do mention it, and if you follow the references in the IPCC you will find plenty of discussion about Dalton, Maunder and older Grand Solar Minimums. And part of that discussion is to estimate the real impact that those events can have in Earth's climate. Then the IPCC get those estimates and figure out how they interplay with the many other factors that conjugate to determine current and future Earth's climate.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance." Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean. That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle. Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral. So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature? I wouldn't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    7 hours ago
















23












$begingroup$

Of course the IPCC mentions solar minimums and maximums and performs an extremely careful treatment of the reconstructions and predictions for the changes in solar irradiance. The Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1, Chapter 8, have a whole section (~4 pages) dealing with solar irradiances.



The work of the IPCC is to combine the research of the whole scientific community, their conclusions are not based in the result of a single study but in the combination of pretty much all of them. Some studies could be contradictory, so instead of cherry-picking what suits them, they compare and combine all the studies to have the most reliable answers and a good idea of the uncertainties. If predictions of multiple models differ a lot it means uncertainties are large. If they all give the same result, we can be a bit more confident about it.



For example, the figure 8.11 compares the reconstruction of solar irradiance between years 1750 and 2000 from six studies:



enter image description here



You can see how the Dalton minimum shows up around 1810-1820, but the total solar irradiance change is rather small (less than 1 W for over a total of 1360 W).



Here some excerpts from the IPCC reports that are relevant to this question, and where solar minimums are mention and considered in the wider context of climatic forcing (text between square brackets were added by me for clarification):



Page 662:




Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes from
1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum was lower
than the prior two. This very likely led to a small negative RF [Radiative Forcing] of
–0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m$^{–2}$ between 1986 and 2008. The best
estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative
for the 1750 to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W m$^{–2}$. This is
substantially smaller than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the
latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been
estimated in earlier IPCC assessments. There is very low confidence
concerning future solar forcing estimates, but there is high
confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller than the
projected increased forcing due to GHG during the forthcoming decades.
{8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}




Page 690 (explicit mentions of grand solar minimums):




8.4.1.3 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of Total Solar Irradiance



Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001;
Solanki and Krivova, 2004; Abreu et al., 2008) reveal that currently
the Sun is in a grand activity maximum [a.k.a. grand solar maximum] that began about 1920 (20th
century grand maximum). However, SC [solar cycle] 23 showed an activity decline not
previously seen in the satellite era (McComas et al., 2008; Smith and
Balogh, 2008; Russell et al., 2010). Most current estimations suggest
that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI [Total Solar Irradiation] than those for
the past 30 years (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo
et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Also there are indications that
the mean magnetic field in sunspots may be diminishing on decadal
level. A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of
the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015
(Penn and Livingston, 2006). These studies only suggest that the Sun
may have left the 20th century grand [solar] maximum and not that it is
entering another grand [solar] minimum. But other works propose a grand [solar]
minimum
during the 21st century, estimating an RF within a range of
-0.16 to 0.12 W m$^{–2}$ between this future minimum and the present-day TSI (Jones et al., 2012). However, much more evidence is needed and at
present there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
estimates.



Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar
activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will
be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due
to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).




Summarizing, the IPCC consider solar irradiance variations, the timing of solar minimums and maximums. However, it consider also many other factors that also affect Earth's energy budget. Then, they do predictions based on the combined effect of all these factors. In contrast, some people tend to focus on just one factor (as solar activity) and erroneously assume that it will dominate over all the others.



For the particular case of solar activity, as you can see in the cites above. The IPCC acknowledge the possible occurrence of a solar minimum in the future, but combining all the models they conclude that there is a high confidence that its effects will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due greenhouse gases.



Part of the reason your question might not be well received is because it starts from an assumption that is false: "climate experts from the UN/IPCC never mention Grand Solar Minimum". They do mention it, and if you follow the references in the IPCC you will find plenty of discussion about Dalton, Maunder and older Grand Solar Minimums. And part of that discussion is to estimate the real impact that those events can have in Earth's climate. Then the IPCC get those estimates and figure out how they interplay with the many other factors that conjugate to determine current and future Earth's climate.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance." Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean. That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle. Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral. So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature? I wouldn't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    7 hours ago














23












23








23





$begingroup$

Of course the IPCC mentions solar minimums and maximums and performs an extremely careful treatment of the reconstructions and predictions for the changes in solar irradiance. The Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1, Chapter 8, have a whole section (~4 pages) dealing with solar irradiances.



The work of the IPCC is to combine the research of the whole scientific community, their conclusions are not based in the result of a single study but in the combination of pretty much all of them. Some studies could be contradictory, so instead of cherry-picking what suits them, they compare and combine all the studies to have the most reliable answers and a good idea of the uncertainties. If predictions of multiple models differ a lot it means uncertainties are large. If they all give the same result, we can be a bit more confident about it.



For example, the figure 8.11 compares the reconstruction of solar irradiance between years 1750 and 2000 from six studies:



enter image description here



You can see how the Dalton minimum shows up around 1810-1820, but the total solar irradiance change is rather small (less than 1 W for over a total of 1360 W).



Here some excerpts from the IPCC reports that are relevant to this question, and where solar minimums are mention and considered in the wider context of climatic forcing (text between square brackets were added by me for clarification):



Page 662:




Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes from
1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum was lower
than the prior two. This very likely led to a small negative RF [Radiative Forcing] of
–0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m$^{–2}$ between 1986 and 2008. The best
estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative
for the 1750 to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W m$^{–2}$. This is
substantially smaller than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the
latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been
estimated in earlier IPCC assessments. There is very low confidence
concerning future solar forcing estimates, but there is high
confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller than the
projected increased forcing due to GHG during the forthcoming decades.
{8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}




Page 690 (explicit mentions of grand solar minimums):




8.4.1.3 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of Total Solar Irradiance



Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001;
Solanki and Krivova, 2004; Abreu et al., 2008) reveal that currently
the Sun is in a grand activity maximum [a.k.a. grand solar maximum] that began about 1920 (20th
century grand maximum). However, SC [solar cycle] 23 showed an activity decline not
previously seen in the satellite era (McComas et al., 2008; Smith and
Balogh, 2008; Russell et al., 2010). Most current estimations suggest
that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI [Total Solar Irradiation] than those for
the past 30 years (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo
et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Also there are indications that
the mean magnetic field in sunspots may be diminishing on decadal
level. A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of
the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015
(Penn and Livingston, 2006). These studies only suggest that the Sun
may have left the 20th century grand [solar] maximum and not that it is
entering another grand [solar] minimum. But other works propose a grand [solar]
minimum
during the 21st century, estimating an RF within a range of
-0.16 to 0.12 W m$^{–2}$ between this future minimum and the present-day TSI (Jones et al., 2012). However, much more evidence is needed and at
present there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
estimates.



Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar
activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will
be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due
to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).




Summarizing, the IPCC consider solar irradiance variations, the timing of solar minimums and maximums. However, it consider also many other factors that also affect Earth's energy budget. Then, they do predictions based on the combined effect of all these factors. In contrast, some people tend to focus on just one factor (as solar activity) and erroneously assume that it will dominate over all the others.



For the particular case of solar activity, as you can see in the cites above. The IPCC acknowledge the possible occurrence of a solar minimum in the future, but combining all the models they conclude that there is a high confidence that its effects will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due greenhouse gases.



Part of the reason your question might not be well received is because it starts from an assumption that is false: "climate experts from the UN/IPCC never mention Grand Solar Minimum". They do mention it, and if you follow the references in the IPCC you will find plenty of discussion about Dalton, Maunder and older Grand Solar Minimums. And part of that discussion is to estimate the real impact that those events can have in Earth's climate. Then the IPCC get those estimates and figure out how they interplay with the many other factors that conjugate to determine current and future Earth's climate.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Of course the IPCC mentions solar minimums and maximums and performs an extremely careful treatment of the reconstructions and predictions for the changes in solar irradiance. The Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1, Chapter 8, have a whole section (~4 pages) dealing with solar irradiances.



The work of the IPCC is to combine the research of the whole scientific community, their conclusions are not based in the result of a single study but in the combination of pretty much all of them. Some studies could be contradictory, so instead of cherry-picking what suits them, they compare and combine all the studies to have the most reliable answers and a good idea of the uncertainties. If predictions of multiple models differ a lot it means uncertainties are large. If they all give the same result, we can be a bit more confident about it.



For example, the figure 8.11 compares the reconstruction of solar irradiance between years 1750 and 2000 from six studies:



enter image description here



You can see how the Dalton minimum shows up around 1810-1820, but the total solar irradiance change is rather small (less than 1 W for over a total of 1360 W).



Here some excerpts from the IPCC reports that are relevant to this question, and where solar minimums are mention and considered in the wider context of climatic forcing (text between square brackets were added by me for clarification):



Page 662:




Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes from
1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum was lower
than the prior two. This very likely led to a small negative RF [Radiative Forcing] of
–0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m$^{–2}$ between 1986 and 2008. The best
estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative
for the 1750 to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W m$^{–2}$. This is
substantially smaller than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the
latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been
estimated in earlier IPCC assessments. There is very low confidence
concerning future solar forcing estimates, but there is high
confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller than the
projected increased forcing due to GHG during the forthcoming decades.
{8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}




Page 690 (explicit mentions of grand solar minimums):




8.4.1.3 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of Total Solar Irradiance



Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001;
Solanki and Krivova, 2004; Abreu et al., 2008) reveal that currently
the Sun is in a grand activity maximum [a.k.a. grand solar maximum] that began about 1920 (20th
century grand maximum). However, SC [solar cycle] 23 showed an activity decline not
previously seen in the satellite era (McComas et al., 2008; Smith and
Balogh, 2008; Russell et al., 2010). Most current estimations suggest
that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI [Total Solar Irradiation] than those for
the past 30 years (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo
et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Also there are indications that
the mean magnetic field in sunspots may be diminishing on decadal
level. A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of
the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015
(Penn and Livingston, 2006). These studies only suggest that the Sun
may have left the 20th century grand [solar] maximum and not that it is
entering another grand [solar] minimum. But other works propose a grand [solar]
minimum
during the 21st century, estimating an RF within a range of
-0.16 to 0.12 W m$^{–2}$ between this future minimum and the present-day TSI (Jones et al., 2012). However, much more evidence is needed and at
present there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
estimates.



Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar
activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will
be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due
to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).




Summarizing, the IPCC consider solar irradiance variations, the timing of solar minimums and maximums. However, it consider also many other factors that also affect Earth's energy budget. Then, they do predictions based on the combined effect of all these factors. In contrast, some people tend to focus on just one factor (as solar activity) and erroneously assume that it will dominate over all the others.



For the particular case of solar activity, as you can see in the cites above. The IPCC acknowledge the possible occurrence of a solar minimum in the future, but combining all the models they conclude that there is a high confidence that its effects will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due greenhouse gases.



Part of the reason your question might not be well received is because it starts from an assumption that is false: "climate experts from the UN/IPCC never mention Grand Solar Minimum". They do mention it, and if you follow the references in the IPCC you will find plenty of discussion about Dalton, Maunder and older Grand Solar Minimums. And part of that discussion is to estimate the real impact that those events can have in Earth's climate. Then the IPCC get those estimates and figure out how they interplay with the many other factors that conjugate to determine current and future Earth's climate.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 12 hours ago









Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

11.3k33677




11.3k33677








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance." Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean. That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle. Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral. So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature? I wouldn't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    7 hours ago














  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @danielbrastaviceanu I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance." Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean. That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle. Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral. So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature? I wouldn't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?
    $endgroup$
    – Camilo Rada
    7 hours ago








7




7




$begingroup$
@danielbrastaviceanu How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.
$endgroup$
– Camilo Rada
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
@danielbrastaviceanu How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.
$endgroup$
– Camilo Rada
9 hours ago




4




4




$begingroup$
@danielbrastaviceanu - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."
$endgroup$
– Mark
9 hours ago






$begingroup$
@danielbrastaviceanu - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."
$endgroup$
– Mark
9 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
@danielbrastaviceanu I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.
$endgroup$
– Camilo Rada
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
@danielbrastaviceanu I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.
$endgroup$
– Camilo Rada
9 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance." Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean. That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle. Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral. So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature? I wouldn't think so.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance." Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean. That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle. Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral. So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature? I wouldn't think so.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
7 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@jamesqf fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?
$endgroup$
– Camilo Rada
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
@jamesqf fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?
$endgroup$
– Camilo Rada
7 hours ago











12












$begingroup$

I think the main question has already been answered. But I would like to add to the fallacy that:




History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors.




The Sun is undoubtedly the main source of energy for the planet and its climate. However, variations in solar activity are not the main cause of variations in climate. The main drivers are the "other factors".



Some examples of that are:



Faint young Sun paradox: The climate on earth has remained in the range that allows the existence of liquid water during billions of years despite large changes in the luminosity of the sun.



Milankovitch cycles: The cycles that control the ice ages that have dominated the planet during the last million years are not due to changes in solar activity, but to changes in the orbit and orientation of the Earth.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning
    $endgroup$
    – daniel brastaviceanu
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That's correct @danielbrastaviceanu - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @daniel brastaviceanu: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate. The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    40 mins ago
















12












$begingroup$

I think the main question has already been answered. But I would like to add to the fallacy that:




History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors.




The Sun is undoubtedly the main source of energy for the planet and its climate. However, variations in solar activity are not the main cause of variations in climate. The main drivers are the "other factors".



Some examples of that are:



Faint young Sun paradox: The climate on earth has remained in the range that allows the existence of liquid water during billions of years despite large changes in the luminosity of the sun.



Milankovitch cycles: The cycles that control the ice ages that have dominated the planet during the last million years are not due to changes in solar activity, but to changes in the orbit and orientation of the Earth.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning
    $endgroup$
    – daniel brastaviceanu
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That's correct @danielbrastaviceanu - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @daniel brastaviceanu: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate. The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    40 mins ago














12












12








12





$begingroup$

I think the main question has already been answered. But I would like to add to the fallacy that:




History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors.




The Sun is undoubtedly the main source of energy for the planet and its climate. However, variations in solar activity are not the main cause of variations in climate. The main drivers are the "other factors".



Some examples of that are:



Faint young Sun paradox: The climate on earth has remained in the range that allows the existence of liquid water during billions of years despite large changes in the luminosity of the sun.



Milankovitch cycles: The cycles that control the ice ages that have dominated the planet during the last million years are not due to changes in solar activity, but to changes in the orbit and orientation of the Earth.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$



I think the main question has already been answered. But I would like to add to the fallacy that:




History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors.




The Sun is undoubtedly the main source of energy for the planet and its climate. However, variations in solar activity are not the main cause of variations in climate. The main drivers are the "other factors".



Some examples of that are:



Faint young Sun paradox: The climate on earth has remained in the range that allows the existence of liquid water during billions of years despite large changes in the luminosity of the sun.



Milankovitch cycles: The cycles that control the ice ages that have dominated the planet during the last million years are not due to changes in solar activity, but to changes in the orbit and orientation of the Earth.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 11 hours ago









Max M.Max M.

1212




1212




New contributor




Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Max M. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning
    $endgroup$
    – daniel brastaviceanu
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That's correct @danielbrastaviceanu - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @daniel brastaviceanu: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate. The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    40 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning
    $endgroup$
    – daniel brastaviceanu
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That's correct @danielbrastaviceanu - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @daniel brastaviceanu: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate. The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    40 mins ago
















$begingroup$
Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning
$endgroup$
– daniel brastaviceanu
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning
$endgroup$
– daniel brastaviceanu
6 hours ago




5




5




$begingroup$
That's correct @danielbrastaviceanu - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.
$endgroup$
– Mark
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
That's correct @danielbrastaviceanu - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.
$endgroup$
– Mark
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
@daniel brastaviceanu: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate. The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
40 mins ago




$begingroup$
@daniel brastaviceanu: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate. The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
40 mins ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Earth Science Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fearthscience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f16272%2fwhy-do-climate-experts-from-the-un-ipcc-never-mention-grand-solar-minimum%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How to label and detect the document text images

Vallis Paradisi

Tabula Rosettana