The battle between global warming and the sun
The revelation last week that the sun is very likely about to go into a period of little or no sunspot activity has made a lot of global warming advocates, both scientists and journalists, very nervous. For years these climate activists have declared that the Earth’s climate is getting warmer, and that this warming trend was going to do us great harm. Putting aside whether these claims are based on fact (they are not), the possibility that the Earth might instead become cooler because of a dimming of the sun puts this political agenda under threat, and requires some form of immediate action to defuse that threat. See for example this short podcast (with full transcript) from Scientific American. The key quote:
A cooler sun might mean a drop in global average temperatures of at most 0.3 degree Celsius. But the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere today will add 0.6 degree Celsius to global average temperatures by the end of the century. And more, since greenhouse gas emissions show no signs of diminishing. So the slightly cooler sun won’t counteract a much hotter Earth.
In order to discredit the threat that solar variation poses to global warming, the journalist here acts to minimize any danger from a dimming sun. Unfortunately, he does so by extrapolating a result (warmer climates) based on a very weak foundation: an unproven theory and our very limited knowledge of the climate.
First, the models that project the amount of global warming due to carbon dioxide are nothing more than that: models based on our current very limited understanding of the Earth’s very complex climate. Unfortunately for these models, they have so far completely failed to predict the actual changes to the climate as seen in the past decade. While the models predicted a rise in temperature, instead the climate’s temperature has either been flat, or actually declined slightly.
Second, the journalist here is assuming that the changes we have seen in solar brightness during the past 24 solar cycles predict the kind of changes that would occur during a Maunder Minimum. This assumption is a mistake. We simply do not know how much the Sun will dim during an extended Maunder-like minimum. It is very possible that the Sun could dim significantly more than it has during normal solar minimums, thus leading to significantly colder weather.
To me, this story (and others like it) acts more to reveal the political agenda of the writer than inform the reader about the science behind climate change. Until we actually can observe an extended Maunder Minimum and measure the sun’s behavior during it, we simply cannot predict its effect on the climate. To try to do so now, prematurely, as this writer does, only tells us that his goal is not the obtaining of knowledge, but the advocacy of a political position.
And that is something that has no place in science, at any time.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html This addresses your claim about no increase in temperature for the decade.
If global temperatures have remained the same or declined in the recent past, why are the glaciers around the world retreating as I have heard they are?
Did you not read the article?
“To me, this story (and others like it) acts more to reveal the political agenda of the writer than inform the reader about the science behind climate change.”
NASA and Hansen have an agenda.
Do you have an explanation of how one gets Earth temperature to 0.1 degree for now, much less for the year 1800, in order to create these trends?
Yes I did read the article you …. I have no agenda. I have always maintained that if the sun changes it can easily offset anything that humans can do. I was asking a simple question. Why have the glaciers been melting if global temperatures have remained the same or declined? It is not a rhetorical question. I am willing to entertain the thought that Mr. Zimmerman is right about global temperature decline, in spite of the first posting that contains a link to the Goddard information to the contrary, I just was wondering why the glaciers would retreat in the face of this temperature decline.
Ted,
Global temperatures showed a rise through much of the 20th century, which certainly contributed to the shrinking of the glaciers in much of the northern hemisphere. However, the flat temperatures for the past decade has not been enough to yet counteract this shrinkage, though there has been evidence recently that the shrinking of many glaciers has ceased, and might even have reversed. We won’t know for sure, however, for another decade or more.
Bob
Given that the sun is by far the most important input to global weather and temperatures, do you think that if all inputs remained the same including solar energy, that increased atmospheric CO2 would increase global temperature? I know, it is a big “if”.
Stick to the Facts without Making Intelligent People Stupid
Climate Change or Global Warming?
The term climate change is often used interchangeably w term global warming, but according to Natl Academy of Sciences, “the phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures.”
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:
–natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;
–natural processes within the climate system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
–human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)
Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural & human induced. In common usage, “global warming” often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.
The Earth’s climate has changed many times during the planet’s history, w events ranging from ice ages to long periods of warmth. Historically, natural factors such as volcanic eruptions, changes in the Earth’s orbit, & the amount of energy released from the Sun have affected the Earth’s climate. Beginning late in the 18th century, human activities associated w the Industrial Revolution have also changed the composition of the atmosphere & therefore very likely are influencing the Earth’s climate.
Note the retreating glaciers only advanced as the little ice age went no. Hence why the ruins of medieval villages are being uncovered by the retreating glaciers.
Global temps have never recovered to their medieval highs.
The Goddard data is generally from Hanssen, and he tends to “correct” the temperatures to show what he expects to see. He frequently has to withdraw his papers when the data is shown to be wildly off.
>. “the phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures.”
It became the preferred term when the ‘global warming’ predictions routinely failed to manifest.