Comments on: Sunspot update for June 2017

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 23:50:53 +0000

In reply to wodun. Wodun: The paper linked to is merely a computer model. It is not actual data obtained from observations, though they try hard to make their model match those observations. I generally don't pay much attention to these models, even ones that confirm my own theories. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 23:49:00 +0000

In reply to wodun. Wodun: A less active sun means the atmosphere shrinks, which causes the orbits of satellites to decay less. This was why Skylab fell out of orbit sooner than expected. In the mid-1970s the Sun was very active, so the atmosphere expanded and caused Skylab's orbit to decay faster than predicted. A less active Sun also means more cosmic rays will be hitting the top of the atmosphere, which is one of the phenomenon that is suspected to cause the cooling. The theory is that cosmic rays interact with water particles and produce more clouds.

By: wodun

wodun — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 21:58:15 +0000

The interesting thing about the paper is when it goes into what factors were ignored in earlier CMIP’s. I am not sure how anyone could read these things and then come away with the conclusion that there is little uncertainty and everything is settled science.

By: wodun

wodun — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 21:55:18 +0000

The quantitative assessment of radiative solar forcing has
been systematically hampered so far by the large uncertainties
and the instrumental artifacts that plague SSI observations,
and to a lesser degree TSI observations (e.g., Ermolli
et al., 2013; Solanki et al., 2013). Another problem
is the sparsity of the observations, which only started in the
late 1970s with the satellite era. These problems have deprived
us of the hindsight that is needed to properly assess
variations on timescales that are relevant for climate studies.
Another issue is the uncertainty regarding their absolute
level. Since CMIP5, the nominal TSI has been reduced to
1361.0 ± 0.5 W m−2
(see Prša et al., 2016, and also Kopp and
Lean, 2011). This adjustment has inevitable implications for
understanding the Earth’s radiation budget.

I am not sure that paper will be much help. There are many paragraphs like this. The introduction chronicles many things left out of earlier studies, things not well know, great uncertainties, a chaotic system with chains of interactions, poor data, and poor models leading to other distortions.

It can’t be relied on for anything predictive but it should be interesting to see how reality changes their assumptions and modeling in the future.

By: wodun

wodun — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 21:28:15 +0000

all of which are pointing to the possibility that a grand minimum is coming, with no sunspots for decades. And as I have said now monthly for six years, past grand minimums have consistently occurred at the same time the Earth’s climate has cooled.

Taking this a different direction, what does this mean for satellites, space stations, interplanetary probes, and humans in space? A weaker sun means more cosmic rays right?

By: LocalFluff

LocalFluff — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:11:10 +0000

steve mackelprang
Since you understand this stuff, could you summarize the conclusions here?
The first sentence of the executive summary in the link to your paper hardly enlightens anyone like the Sun does:
“This paper describes the recommended solar forcing dataset for CMIP6 and highlights changes with respect to CMIP5.”

By: steve mackelprang

steve mackelprang — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:03:00 +0000

Take a look at this paper, I suspect the results will be come apparent rather more quickly.

http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/gmd-10-2247-2017.pdf