7 ms·

A Summer Without Sunspots

64 points by olivermarks 7y ago

chrisco255 7y ago
The next solar cycle is predicted to be about half as strong as 24, possibly leading up to a grand solar minimum not seen since the Maunder minimum in 1645. Based on historical records as well as ice core and tree ring data, there will be a profound effect on climate if this turns out to be true. NASA prediction: https://youtu.be/jP9_4uoEdKg https://youtu.be/jP9_4uoEdKg
- jansan 7y ago
  If you think global warming is no fun, you haven't seen what global cooling will do.
  - delinka 7y ago
    Maybe they'll get together and we humans will just stay nice and cozy.
    - gbrown 7y ago
      Ocean acidification wants to have a word with you.
      - taneq 7y ago
        Just as long as there's ocean basification to cancel it out...
        mikepurvis 7y ago
        Yup, throw in a few spoonfuls of baking soda, just like a keeping the pH balanced in your hot tub. </s>
        lgats 7y ago
        Perhaps you mean olivine? https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ /serious
        taneq 7y ago
        That's awesome! I was being tongue-in-cheek but also hoping that something similar existed.
  - seren 7y ago
    https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448 https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448 Just found that site randomly looking for Solar minimum and global warming. The effect seems limited. Still I would be OK if we got some (temporary) 0.3° temperature reduction for "free". Or maybe, we would lose another decade of complacency... At least 2019 was the summer where every temperature records were beaten in Europe, so if this should be associated with lower temperature, we are all gonna roast for the next solar maximum.
    - olivermarks 7y ago
      'Human Influence on Climate Change is Bigger than the Sun's' is a very bold confident statement on that 'skeptical science' climate alarmist site
      - seren 7y ago
        I don't ask you to blindly believe what is written on that site, but if the sun activity had a great effect, since we are at the solar minimum, we should have experienced a colder year or summer according to that theory. So I don't know where exactly you live but this was the hottest summer since 1880, and if I remember last winter it was quite hot in Australia as well. As a matter of fact, I don't remember any place where people complained because it was significantly colder. Don't you think that fact alone should make you doubt the solar activity had any meaningful impact and will lead to another ice age ?
        411mrc 7y ago
        If we had no sun at all, I'm pretty sure we'd be an ice ball, save for volcanic activity. These impacts from solar activity take some time to develop, as I understand it. If we are in some sort of grand minimum, just wait a decade or so. If the Earth was highly reactive to these events (like breaking cold records everytime a minimum happens), I'm not sure we'd be here. The oceans store/release a lot of heat over the short term (years).
        7y ago
  - delfinom 7y ago
    Except that global warming is so out of hand that the 0.3 degree cooling effect means absolutely nothing now. Back in the 1600s, there wasn't much in the ways of industrialization and pollution to warm the planet.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - lowken10 7y ago
      You are could not be more wrong.
    - jansan 7y ago
      Maybe, but I always get a bit skeptical if people throw air pollution and global warming into the same bucket.
    - Yetanfou 7y ago
      Can you point at the data you based your claim that global warming is so out of hand that the 0.3 degree cooling effect means absolutely nothing now on? I've been going over a lot (and I mean a lot) of data from many different sources. What I mostly noticed is that the temperature has been going up steadily from the early 1900s to around the mid '40s, after which it went down again until the mid '70s, after which it went up again. The current warm period seems to resemble both the Roman warm period (~350BCE-450CE) as well as the Viking age/Medieval climate anomaly, two relatively warm periods in recent history. The Roman warm period was followed by the Dark ages cold period (~450-850CE), the Viking age/Medieval climate anomaly by the Little Ice Age (~1350-1850CE). Judging by previous data it is likely that the current warm period will also be followed by a cold period, just as has happened countless times already.
- kylek 7y ago
  One of my favorite pics hinting at the coming solar minimum- https://solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png https://solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
  - zaroth 7y ago
    It’s hard to take this chart seriously, with the exponential extrapolation going on. [1] - https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Grand_Solar_Min_500.jpg https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Grand_Solar_Min_500.jp...
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      You get that that chart is completely made up, right? That is, despite being an extrapolation of the future, there are no error bars as a function of time? Furthermore, we lack a fundamental model for how cloud cover will change over the course of a deep minimum. And therefore we cannot accurately predict what the future will hold. The Svensmark experiment from December 2017, confirming it: Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
      - zaroth 7y ago
        I should have said, it’s hard to take this link seriously, given that chart. In other words, I completely agree that we have no idea what the impact will be if this minimum does occur, or if indeed it does occur at all.
        kylek 7y ago
        I think we've a little idea- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
- sveme 7y ago
  The role of the sunspot cycle on the Maunder minimum seems to be vastly overstated, at least according to wikipedia. Furthermore, this post actually mentions that there is no indication that we will hit anything remotely related to that sunspot cycle.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    We're not that accurate at predicting which cycle will start a grand minimum and we don't know for sure how many cycles a minimum will last for. This is a cutting edge research area. We know that a deep minimum is due and will happen this century. Some suggest cycle 25. Some suggest 26 as the start of it. Sunspots themselves are not the big factor on climate, it's cosmic rays (which are inversely correlated) and clouds: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171219091320.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171219091320.h...
- tossaouta 7y ago
  According to popular opinion (the new version of science), solar radio and particle forcing doesn’t matter - we have to do is eat some hamburgers, etc., and we can easily fix this problem by warming things up a few degrees.
jedimastert 7y ago
I just this last year took my technician (american) ham radio test, but I'm having a hard time remembering my propagation rules (there wasn't a heavy emphasis because it doesn't really affect the 2m and 70cm bands that I'm actually allowed to use). I recall that the solar cycle coming around means better propagation, but I can't remember which bands and how much. Can someone help me out?
- celias 7y ago
  Top Google hit, apparently from 1996 http://www.arrl.org/here-comes-the-sun http://www.arrl.org/here-comes-the-sun Some other sites http://www.solarham.net/index.htm http://www.solarham.net/index.htm https://hamradioschool.com/sunspots-and-propagation/ https://hamradioschool.com/sunspots-and-propagation/
  - olivermarks 7y ago
    Thanks for link, very informative
  - sverige 7y ago
    TLDR: Since we're at the minimum now, if you want to chase DX, stick to the 30, 40, 80, and 160 meter bands at night. You might get something on 15, 17, or 20 meters. It will be a few years before the higher bands open up again. There's a nice chart of when you can get DX in each band in this article: https://www.eham.net/newham/bands https://www.eham.net/newham/bands
- floren 7y ago
  It should help the higher HF bands the most, as I understand it. 20m, 17m, 15m, 10m. I've been doing SSTV on 20m because you can just fire up the decoder program and occasionally check to see what's come in. I frequently get signals from California, Illinois, Louisiana, Florida, and the Northeast, plus the occasional message out of Canada. I don't hear a lot of voice on 20m, but digital and CW are reasonably active. I can pick up CW most times of the day, and FT8 is always hopping at 14074 khz. "Bad propagation" is a real thing, but it's also a feedback loop. Everyone knows the bands suck during solar minimum, so fewer people call CQ. Fewer people calling CQ = fewer people hearing the calls and answering = less activity on the bands = people continue to assume propagation is just impossible.
ArtCreator 7y ago
Researchers are still learning to predict the ebb and flow of solar activity. Forecasting techniques range from physical models of the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo to statistical methods akin to those used by stock market analysts.

64 points by olivermarks 7y ago

The next solar cycle is predicted to be about half as strong as 24, possibly leading up to a grand solar minimum not seen since the Maunder minimum in 1645. Based on historical records as well as ice core and tree ring data, there will be a profound effect on climate if this turns out to be true. NASA prediction: https://youtu.be/jP9_4uoEdKg https://youtu.be/jP9_4uoEdKg

jansan 7y ago
If you think global warming is no fun, you haven't seen what global cooling will do.
- delinka 7y ago
  Maybe they'll get together and we humans will just stay nice and cozy.
  - gbrown 7y ago
    Ocean acidification wants to have a word with you.
    - taneq 7y ago
      Just as long as there's ocean basification to cancel it out...
      - mikepurvis 7y ago
        Yup, throw in a few spoonfuls of baking soda, just like a keeping the pH balanced in your hot tub. </s>
        lgats 7y ago
        Perhaps you mean olivine? https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ /serious
        taneq 7y ago
        That's awesome! I was being tongue-in-cheek but also hoping that something similar existed.
- seren 7y ago
  https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448 https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448 Just found that site randomly looking for Solar minimum and global warming. The effect seems limited. Still I would be OK if we got some (temporary) 0.3° temperature reduction for "free". Or maybe, we would lose another decade of complacency... At least 2019 was the summer where every temperature records were beaten in Europe, so if this should be associated with lower temperature, we are all gonna roast for the next solar maximum.
  - olivermarks 7y ago
    'Human Influence on Climate Change is Bigger than the Sun's' is a very bold confident statement on that 'skeptical science' climate alarmist site
    - seren 7y ago
      I don't ask you to blindly believe what is written on that site, but if the sun activity had a great effect, since we are at the solar minimum, we should have experienced a colder year or summer according to that theory. So I don't know where exactly you live but this was the hottest summer since 1880, and if I remember last winter it was quite hot in Australia as well. As a matter of fact, I don't remember any place where people complained because it was significantly colder. Don't you think that fact alone should make you doubt the solar activity had any meaningful impact and will lead to another ice age ?
      - 411mrc 7y ago
        If we had no sun at all, I'm pretty sure we'd be an ice ball, save for volcanic activity. These impacts from solar activity take some time to develop, as I understand it. If we are in some sort of grand minimum, just wait a decade or so. If the Earth was highly reactive to these events (like breaking cold records everytime a minimum happens), I'm not sure we'd be here. The oceans store/release a lot of heat over the short term (years).
        7y ago
- delfinom 7y ago
  Except that global warming is so out of hand that the 0.3 degree cooling effect means absolutely nothing now. Back in the 1600s, there wasn't much in the ways of industrialization and pollution to warm the planet.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lowken10 7y ago
    You are could not be more wrong.
  - jansan 7y ago
    Maybe, but I always get a bit skeptical if people throw air pollution and global warming into the same bucket.
  - Yetanfou 7y ago
    Can you point at the data you based your claim that global warming is so out of hand that the 0.3 degree cooling effect means absolutely nothing now on? I've been going over a lot (and I mean a lot) of data from many different sources. What I mostly noticed is that the temperature has been going up steadily from the early 1900s to around the mid '40s, after which it went down again until the mid '70s, after which it went up again. The current warm period seems to resemble both the Roman warm period (~350BCE-450CE) as well as the Viking age/Medieval climate anomaly, two relatively warm periods in recent history. The Roman warm period was followed by the Dark ages cold period (~450-850CE), the Viking age/Medieval climate anomaly by the Little Ice Age (~1350-1850CE). Judging by previous data it is likely that the current warm period will also be followed by a cold period, just as has happened countless times already.
kylek 7y ago
One of my favorite pics hinting at the coming solar minimum- https://solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png https://solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
- zaroth 7y ago
  It’s hard to take this chart seriously, with the exponential extrapolation going on. [1] - https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Grand_Solar_Min_500.jpg https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Grand_Solar_Min_500.jp...
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    You get that that chart is completely made up, right? That is, despite being an extrapolation of the future, there are no error bars as a function of time? Furthermore, we lack a fundamental model for how cloud cover will change over the course of a deep minimum. And therefore we cannot accurately predict what the future will hold. The Svensmark experiment from December 2017, confirming it: Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
    - zaroth 7y ago
      I should have said, it’s hard to take this link seriously, given that chart. In other words, I completely agree that we have no idea what the impact will be if this minimum does occur, or if indeed it does occur at all.
      - kylek 7y ago
        I think we've a little idea- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
sveme 7y ago
The role of the sunspot cycle on the Maunder minimum seems to be vastly overstated, at least according to wikipedia. Furthermore, this post actually mentions that there is no indication that we will hit anything remotely related to that sunspot cycle.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  We're not that accurate at predicting which cycle will start a grand minimum and we don't know for sure how many cycles a minimum will last for. This is a cutting edge research area. We know that a deep minimum is due and will happen this century. Some suggest cycle 25. Some suggest 26 as the start of it. Sunspots themselves are not the big factor on climate, it's cosmic rays (which are inversely correlated) and clouds: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171219091320.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171219091320.h...
tossaouta 7y ago
According to popular opinion (the new version of science), solar radio and particle forcing doesn’t matter - we have to do is eat some hamburgers, etc., and we can easily fix this problem by warming things up a few degrees.

jedimastert 7y ago

I just this last year took my technician (american) ham radio test, but I'm having a hard time remembering my propagation rules (there wasn't a heavy emphasis because it doesn't really affect the 2m and 70cm bands that I'm actually allowed to use). I recall that the solar cycle coming around means better propagation, but I can't remember which bands and how much. Can someone help me out?

celias 7y ago
Top Google hit, apparently from 1996 http://www.arrl.org/here-comes-the-sun http://www.arrl.org/here-comes-the-sun Some other sites http://www.solarham.net/index.htm http://www.solarham.net/index.htm https://hamradioschool.com/sunspots-and-propagation/ https://hamradioschool.com/sunspots-and-propagation/
- olivermarks 7y ago
  Thanks for link, very informative
- sverige 7y ago
  TLDR: Since we're at the minimum now, if you want to chase DX, stick to the 30, 40, 80, and 160 meter bands at night. You might get something on 15, 17, or 20 meters. It will be a few years before the higher bands open up again. There's a nice chart of when you can get DX in each band in this article: https://www.eham.net/newham/bands https://www.eham.net/newham/bands
floren 7y ago
It should help the higher HF bands the most, as I understand it. 20m, 17m, 15m, 10m. I've been doing SSTV on 20m because you can just fire up the decoder program and occasionally check to see what's come in. I frequently get signals from California, Illinois, Louisiana, Florida, and the Northeast, plus the occasional message out of Canada. I don't hear a lot of voice on 20m, but digital and CW are reasonably active. I can pick up CW most times of the day, and FT8 is always hopping at 14074 khz. "Bad propagation" is a real thing, but it's also a feedback loop. Everyone knows the bands suck during solar minimum, so fewer people call CQ. Fewer people calling CQ = fewer people hearing the calls and answering = less activity on the bands = people continue to assume propagation is just impossible.

ArtCreator 7y ago

Researchers are still learning to predict the ebb and flow of solar activity. Forecasting techniques range from physical models of the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo to statistical methods akin to those used by stock market analysts.