In two new papers, scientists affirm a strong connection between solar activity and the Earth’s climate, as temperatures are said to be 3 times more sensitive to solar forcing than CO2 forcing.
With the advent of a grand minimum in the coming decades, a consequent “dampening” of temperatures (and slowing of sea level rise) is expected.
Between 2000 and 2100, surface temperatures are only expected to warm by a total of about 1.1°C, a climate change that may ultimately be beneficial.
McCrann et al., 2018
“The effect of the Sun’s activity on Earth’s climate has been identified since the 1800s. However, there are still many unknowns regarding the mechanisms connecting the Earth’s climate to the variation in solar irradiance. Climate modelling that implements the solar sciences is a novel approach that accounts for the considerable effect that natural factors have on the climate, especially at regional level. This paper discusses the noticeable effect that planet oscillations have on the Sun’s activity, which gives a very good correlation with the observed patterns in global surface temperatures, rainfall records and sea levels.”
“A clear 60-year cycle has been identified in many studies, and in accordance with this, it is expected that temperatures will reach a trough of the cycle around 2030-2040. This is in agreement with the forecasted low sunspot activity that is usually linked to lower temperatures.”
“Furthermore, considering the influence of the Solar Inertial Motion, a solar slowdown is predicted for Solar Cycles 24 and 25, which will create a weak grand minimum. It is anticipated that this weak grand minimum will be reflected in a dampening effect of global temperatures, and a subsequent moderation in the rate of sea level rise.”
“The TCR [transient climate response] to doubled CO2 is less than 2K (1.93 ± 0.26K). Only 1.1 K of HadCRUT4 warming is expected between 2000 and 2100AD. ∼35% of the warming during 1980–2001 was from solar variability, by 2 different analyses.”
“Temperature is nearly 3 times as sensitive to solar radiation as to CO2 radiation. A model for ocean warming estimates equilibrium sensitivity as 15% greater than TCR [transient climate sensitivity].”
37 responses to “Scientists: Solar Forcing Will ‘Dampen’ Global Temperatures In 2030-2040 – ‘Only 1.1 K’ Warming By 2100”
Nice to see they are back peddling on the warming effect of the sun. They have quite a ways to go to get the whole package correct, but at least it’s a start.
Great they have FINALLY admitted to the 60 year cycle.
They KNOW there is a cooling trend coming, and they are trying to justify it.
They know they have basically reached the limit of sea level adjustments that don’t coincide with the tide gauges and are not visible anywhere.
Now all they have to do is remove the UNPROVEN warming effect of enhanced atmospheric CO2, and they might have a chance of getting something rational in the final results.
Still too much mantra built into the models.
A start for Kenneth … by accepting a paper like Booth 2018 as a source for claims he finally accepts that the majority of the warming is anthropogenic. That’s novel.
Or is this another case of cherry picking where only certain results from a paper will be used by skeptics and the rest gets ignored?
Anyway, glad that you now seem to agree that even with a decrease in solar activity it will still continue to warm (dampening effect). Seems like you are finally shifting to less impossible – even agreeable – claims.
“he finally accepts that the majority of the warming is anthropogenic”
You will read anything you like into comments, won’t you seb. Inventive comprehension. !!
Great to see you finally recognising that SOLAR totally outweighs any fantasy of CO2 warming , and recognising that a COOLING trend is on the way.
Yes the papers are still way too full of scientifically unsupportable CO2 agenda BS, but at least they are waking up to the fact that their little anti-CO2 charade is coming to an end.
Trying to “justify” what the know is coming while maintaining the mantra..
Is quite funny watching them twist them selves into pretzel-like knots trying to do it.
So you are following what both authors have written before? Did that change over time? Since you claim that they somehow shift towards the “truth” that is your fantasy?
Well, thanks for another example of you grossly misinterpreting what was written.
So if citing a paper’s conclusions means I “accept” it, does that mean that you “accept” that there will only be 1.1 K of warming (Booth, 2018) as CO2 rises from 365 ppm (2000) to 550-600 ppm (by 2100), meaning that climate sensitivity to CO2 is well less than models estimate and anything but alarming? Do you likewise “accept” that the post-1970s warming is not 100% anthropogenic (as you’ve claimed previously)? After all, you “accept” Booth (2018), right? Do you also “accept” that the 60-year-cycle dominates, that we’ll hit a cool spell by 2030, and sea level rise will slow as the planet’s temperatures “dampen” due to lower solar activity (McCrann et al., 2018)?
Do you now agree that periods with high solar activity (the 20th century’s and early 21st century’s Modern Grand Maximum) lead to high surface temperatures, and periods with low solar activity (the Little Ice Age) lead to cooling and thus solar activity (and its moderation of cloud cover) are a significant factor in modern climate changes?
Kenneth, I am not the one quoting this paper for scientific results, you are. And you can’t just pick out one result and ignore everything else. Or – as AndyG55 and Yonason demonstrate – see it as a shift of climate scientist in the right direction while you secretly think that CO2 has nothing to do with warming.
Here is the thing, I never disagreed. That is entirely in your head because I am the “enemy”, an AGW proponent, so what reaches you is that I would think that CO2 is the sole variable determining the climate. That is not the case, as I have made clear many times.
For now, I’ll stick to the IPCC report when it comes to comparing the different forcings since pre-industrial times: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
We’ll see what the new report will change. One thing will likely remain the same though, your side will argue that the “real science” is not included in the report …
EMPTY RHETORIC yet again seb
There is ZERO EVIDENCE that enhanced atmospheric CO2 cause any warming.
END OF STORY !!.
It doesn’t matter if you stick to an IPCC propaganda report or not…
THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE, but a political compilation, and you are IGNORANT and GULLIBLE enough to fall for it.. DUMB.
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. !!
You have no REAL SCIENCE, just a mindless belief in propaganda anti-science mantra.
“even with a decrease in solar activity it will still continue to warm (dampening effect). ”
Seb lacks comprehension skills YET AGAIN..
(or maybe its that inventive comprehension that is so obvious in ALL his posts.)
Nothing in the post says that it will continue to warm (ie from strong El Ninos). the words are..
That means a REDUCTION in temperatures.
And won’t it be fun watching your clown-like antics as that happens. 🙂
What SebastianH believes the paper says (and what the word “dampening” means):
“even with a decrease in solar activity it will still continue to warm (dampening effect). ”
What the paper actually says:
“Current predictions on Solar activity show that we are in a low sunspot cycle, which is similar to that of the 1900 Minimum, and subsequent cycles are predicted to have even lower Solar activity, and therefore a drop in global temperatures is expected –.”
“[B]ased on the effects of solar activity, it is logical to predict that a reduction in global average temperatures might manifest in a consequent slowing of the rate of sea level rise.”
“[M]any studies have reported that lower than average European temperatures were recorded during periods of low solar activity –. Such periods of low solar activity are the Maunder minimum (1645-1715), Dalton minimum (1800-1820), 1900 minimum (1880-1900), and a slight decrease between 1940 and 1970.”
Well, I am not a native English speaker, but “dampening” means slowing down something, making it less “extreme”. Not a reversal of the direction. Doesn’t it?
That’s what the paper says:
But here you go and interpret mentions of decreasing temperatures with decreasing solar activity as what the papers says would happen. You are completely ignoring that a decrease in solar activity and its effect has to work against the anthropogenic forcing. It would need to be large than to cause actualy cooling. Since it is not, the decrease in solar activity will cause a “dampening”.
Not too difficult to understand, but to a skeptic it reads completely different I guess.
Your juvenile comprehension of the English language is TAINTED by your rampant AGW brain-hosing
You can’t help but misinterpret what is said even if it is said in black and white.
“and therefore a drop in global temperatures is expected”
Still, it boggles the mind that even a mindless AGW cultist like you can misinterpret that statement !!
“and its effect has to work against the anthropogenic forcing”
ROFLMAO.. you can’t help the parroting of the FALSE AGW mantra can you, seb.
in GISS maybe, but reality shows that there is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for any REAL human caused global warming
Or are you using your usual SCIENTIFICALLY UNSUPPORTABLE CO2 warming nonsense, yet again.
ZERO EVIDENCE seb
NADA, EMPTY .. NOTHING
“has to work against the anthropogenic forcing. It would need to be large than to cause actualy cooling.”
In GISS, it could be a new ice age, and Gavin would still “adjust” to show warming.
IN REALITY, there is very little anthropogenic warming. None from CO2, YOU have PROVEN that. seb
Just some seepage of UHI effects, which is largely avoided by the satellite data.
Without the strong solar energy of the latter half of last century, the energy entering the oceans will be much reduced. El Ninos will occur much less often and the world will gradually cool slightly.
No wonder you are so DISTRAUGHT at the thought of the coming cooling 🙂
DENYING it for all your self-given baseless worth
Your whole little AGW FANTASY world will come CRASHING down around you…
It will be HILARIOUS to watch your mindless headless-chook, slap-stick comedy routines, should you be so dumb and brain-hosed as to continue them.
AndyG55, just stop it. You are making it worse …
It is quite obvious that temperatures drop when the Sun radiates less. That’s the claim. But the Sun isn’t the only thing influencing the climate and thus a decrease in solar activity only drops the temperature from what it would have been without the decrease.
It’s funny that you and Kenneth seem to read it with your skeptic goggles on, completely misunderstanding what has been written.
You have proven yourself TOTALLY UNABLE to provide any real science to back up the fallacy of CO2 warming.
Your brain-hosed clown antics are getting both tiresome and PATHETIC
Parrot thinks others are parroting … an AndyG55 classic 😉
Anything original coming from you these days? What do you think you are proving with your replies? It’s fun though … keep it up!
ZERO content from seb
NOTHING coming from you seb, EVER.
Maybe you should try presenting some ACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up your mindless AGW BS..
Just once !!!
“Only 1.1K of HadCRUT4 warming”
Ah, so about the equivalent of 4-5K of GISS warming !! 😉
And less than a half a degree of real warming.
Their TCR is still about 2K too high.
Excellent post Kenneth as both papers show that the sun rules.
Current changes in solar activity, when compared to other cooling periods, has been only very moderate, but it’s effects will be global. Considering we have at least another 3 to 5 years of low activity likely to come we shall be living in interesting times.
What a delight that as Booth’s paper shows even with the overcooked IPCC numbers for CO2 warming, the sun still rules. It’s also nice to see that his figures tally well with Scarfetta’s.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out taking into consideration the whole climate system.
Is this the skeptic distortion field? The first paper is about how less solar activity would dampen the temperature increase and thus the sea level rise. The warming still continues, but at a slower rate than it would have happened with contiued high solar output. The second paper has the solar influence at one third of the total. How is that “ruling”?
“Excellent post Kenneth as both papers show that the sun rules.”
I’m sure you believe that’s all I’ve read from these papers but that is (as usual) your problem not mine.
I’ll make a suggestion, you should get help for making such silly assumptions about other people.
P.S. Glad to see your still trolling me.
In a perverse way it make me feel wanted on this blog —
Thank-you in advance for your continued attention. 🙂
You wrote that sentence and continued with a paragraph in which your tried to convince yourself that the Sun rules and that this would be what the second paper says. Didn’t you?
I can only use that and not what you didn’t write.
“The warming still continues,”
That is NOT What it says.
That is a typical seb AGW brain-hosed distortion or manic twisting of basic comprehension of the content.
And he KNOWS that.
Seb’s DECEIT and DELIBERATE LIES and DISHONESTY are thus exposed..
… yet again
I don’t like the word “dampen” because it can lead to the sort of misunderstanding we have here — which, conceivably, given climate science, is what the writer intended. That way he can have his cake and eat it!
I don’t know whether he means slow down the increase or lower the temperature and I don’t see how it is possible to tell from the context.
The original quote at the head of the post does not mention “a drop in global temperatures is expected” so seb’s assumption — in the absence of actually reading the paper — is not unreasonable.
So now we have the full context, seb, do you agree that “dampen” could well mean “lower”, as the well-established 60-year cycles imply AND that the extent to which the temperature is lower (or lower than it might otherwise be) could provide valuable leads as to the true extent to which solar activity or CO2 or any other factor is responsible for global average temperature (assuming there is such a thing, which even Hansen has doubts about!)
If you tell me that “to dampen” also means “to lower” in the English language, then I’m fine with it. The question still remains if the author means
a) the future temperature anomaly will be X °C higher than today, but only (X-solar decrease) °C higher or
b) the future temperatute anomaly will be Y °C lower than today, meaning it is going to cool from now on
STOP trying to push scientifically unsupportable warming from human causes.
There is NO underlying warming trend from human CO2, just smearing of UHI effects to large areas where they don’t apply.
There is ZERO evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes any warming.
Author says “dampen the temperature”
… NOT “dampen the temperature increase”
There is only ONE possible interpretation.
SO just stop your nonsense.
“it is expected that temperatures will reach a trough of the cycle around 2030-2040.”
No, not a climate trough for swilling..
.. don’t get exited, seb
Trough, as in low point…
First five synonyms for “dampen” are “lessen, decrease, diminish, reduce, lower”
Please don’t add English comprehension to your massive list of things you are UNAWARE of, seb, I’ll need to get another toilet roll. !!
I know that.
Well, will that through be at a higher temperature than today or a lower temperature than today? Does that question make it clearer for you?
OMG, English comprehension is yet another thing to add to the very long list of your ignorances. !!
No warming from human CO2..
STOP your mindless twisted fantasies.
They are a JOKE.
Hope you have time to read this.
I’ve added a few points to my 2008 and 2015 papers that “close the loop” on my observed ~9 month delay of atmospheric CO2 AFTER global temperature.
RE – your 10 bullet points in that comment: in the language of the target range, “nice grouping.”
Wow, so someone who – rightfully – changed his mind* when confronted with the overwhelming evidence, is now reading the wrong stuff in the skeptics mind 😉
Dunning Kruger effect in action …
*) NASA chief who previously was a climate change denier and now accepts that AGW and climate change is real, because he “read a lot”.
You have NO EVIDENCE.
Poor fool has fallen for mindless AGW propaganda.
Just like you .
As you say, Dunning Kruger effect in action..
.. You and the new NASA chief.
THE DUNNING–KRUGER EFFECT – DEFINED
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the metacognitive inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence. On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people.
As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, “the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”
By George Carlin
“Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”
seb to a “t” 🙂
Solar warming via higher TSI provided 100% of the heat for the warming since 1980, or any time before that.
Any author positing less than 100% doesn’t understand what’s happening.
I cringe whenever authors are lauded for a solar effect below 100%.
“On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people.”
True. For instance, I figured by now people would understand what I consider is so easy to understand, TSI-insolation warming/cooling, but apparently not.
Today, June 23 is the 30th anniversary of Jim Hansen’s global warming testimony to congress. Today is also the 4th anniversary of my first successful 100% solar-based ENSO prediction, as described in the linked poster, followed by other successful solar predictions.
If I’m the only one celebrating that this year, so be it.