Article  The sun isn't behaving as predicted (effects on Earth)

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-scien...-20230907/

INTRO: The sun looks immutable, a boring celestial lightbulb that’s always turned on. But this fusion-powered ball of plasma is in constant flux. Every 11 years or so, it swings between slumber and an active, unruly epoch marked by sunspots and solar eruptions, such as flares and plasma outbursts.

The sun is now approaching its maximum level of activity in the current cycle, and it’s not exactly behaving according to plan. Scientists had predicted that this cycle would be weak, like the previous one, but the sun is exhibiting a level of activity unseen in more than 20 years. In June and July of this year, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), it averaged roughly 160 sunspots daily, more than twice as many as predicted. Solar flares are also increasing.

The discrepancy between prediction and observation was apparent as early as July 2022, when Nicola Fox — then the director of NASA’s heliophysics division — wrote on NASA’s website that “the Sun has been much more active this cycle than anticipated.”

A reliable solar cycle prediction is now more important than ever because of our increasing dependence on vulnerable technology. Earth’s atmosphere puffs up with solar activity and increases the drag on the (very many) satellites that need to maneuver in orbit. Solar outbursts can fry electronic equipment, jam radio signals, confound GPS systems, and disrupt power grids.

As with most forecasts, the challenges of predicting the solar cycle are numerous. It doesn’t follow a clear pattern from one cycle to the next — some are shorter than others — and solar physics is still a relatively young discipline. “We like to say we’re about 60 years behind the weather forecasters,” said Robert Leamon, a solar physicist at the University of Maryland... (MORE - details)

Yeah, this hot summer is all about man-made climate change. Has nothing to do with a level of sun activity not seen for more than 20 years, a massive underwater volcano explosion pumping tons of greenhouse gas water vapor into the atmosphere, and the cyclic El Nino weather pattern.

One of the better ways to avoid an issue is to introduce distractions. Weather is generally considered to be chaotic - a small change (traditionally a butterfly in the Brazilian rain-forest flapping it's wings) can have global consequences. So you can't really say whether any particular thing did or didn't cause an observed (freak) weather event. Stressing the element of uncertainty is another standard technique to distract from what is known.

Some of the things that are known (sorry no angels) can be seen here-

https://www.climate.gov/climatedashboard

If you know the Sun will be dimming substantially in the next few years - perhaps you could share where you got that information from..

Since sun activity has always been variable, there's no reason to believe it won't continue to be so. That includes solar activity, flares and sun spots, decreasing at some point...only to rise again later. Why? Does anyone have evidence that sun activity will only increase from now on? If not, that's one hell of a bold and unsubstaniated prediction, considering it goes against the entire history we know of the sun.

You seem to have also missed the other two factors mentioned. The El Nino pattern doesn't happen every year, and massive underwater eruptions are much more rare.

This is how "follow the science" has come to look like a religion. Where there's a knee-jerk reaction to reject other valid science in favor of the same old narrative.
But ignorant people has always fallen prey to religious hucksters.

(Sep 9, 2023 06:32 PM)Syne Wrote: Since sun activity has always been variable, there's no reason to believe it won't continue to be so. That includes solar activity, flares and sun spots, decreasing at some point...only to rise again later. Why? Does anyone have evidence that sun activity will only increase from now on? If not, that's one hell of a bold and unsubstaniated prediction, considering it goes against the entire history we know of the sun.

From https://www.climate.gov/news-features/un...g-sunlight

Quote:The Sun's overall brightness varies on timescales from minutes to millennia, and these changes are detectable in the global temperature record.
During strong solar cycles, the Sun's total average brightness varies by up to 1 Watt per square meter; this variation affects global average temperature by 0.1 degrees Celsius or less.

Changes in the Sun's overall brightness since the pre-industrial period have been minimal, likely contributing no more than 0.01 degrees Celsius to the roughly 1 degree of warming that's occurred over the Industrial period.

We have quite a lot of information about what the Sun has been doing .. I don't understand your comment  "Does anyone have evidence that sun activity will only increase from now on?" - the evidence (above) is that the Sun is business as usual - the problem is generally stated as more energy is being absorbed from the Sun than is lost to space - hence warming - nothing to do with the Sun's activity increasing.

Syne Wrote:The El Nino pattern doesn't happen every year,

I am starting to think you are confused by 'Anthropic climate change' - if meaningful at all this is the result of global warming caused (the evidence strongly suggests) mainly by burning fossil fuels.
From https://www.climate.gov/news-features/un...-gas-index

Quote:By the end of 2021, NOAA reported that the AGGI was 1.49, meaning the direct warming influence of human-produced greenhouse gases had risen 49 percent above the 1990 baseline. Most of the total heating imbalance (66 percent) is due to carbon dioxide. Methane is the second-largest contributor (16 percent).  As a group, the third-largest contributor is the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) category (7.6 percent).

If the Earth heats up (CAUSE) there will be local climate changes as a knock-on EFFECT.

Once energy (heat) is trapped within the atmosphere currents like the El Nino only serve distribute it - if one region gets hotter than another gets cooler and vice versa - it's a local mechanism (though it may have global effects) - it has nothing to do with 'global warming'.

Syne Wrote:and massive underwater eruptions are much more rare.

Rarer than what? I did look for any change in 2022 that might have been caused by the big 2021 Tonga eruption and found no mention of any effect in 2022 .. hence I dismissed the effect as (globally) 'negligible'.

Syne Wrote:This is how "follow the science" has come to look like a religion.

"Following the science" assumes at least looking at available data rather than making it up and some level of comprehension of what is being talked about - the causes and effects - instead of (apparently randomly) making things up.

This is how religious believers respond. They have one primary source they cite and dismiss everything else, even if it is from the science they otherwise tout.
If any religious person were doing this, you'd call it selectively quoting the Bible. You can't even admit any possibility that anything else contributes to the narrative of your religious screed.

Syne Wrote:You can't even admit any possibility that anything else contributes to the narrative of your religious screed.

If you feel your National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are speaking with forked tongue I'd be happy to look at (or try to find) alternative sources that might support or refute the figures they give. If you could specify a particular verse you suspect of perversion I will concentrate on that. Personally I'm not all that happy about the 'AGGI' .. I'm assuming this is reverse engineered and apportioning effect to components with the apparently claimed accuracy is probably not so good. From [Energy In]=[Energy Out] + [Energy Stored], knowing the energy in and with a fair guess at the energy stored you can estimate the energy leaving the planet. Let me know if this seems too religious for you.
Edit.. examples of calculations..
You give a man $6 and he gives you 10 eggs.You calculate that the eggs cost 60c each.
At every stop 3 people get on a bus and 2 people get off .. you calculate that the number of people on the bus increases by one every time the bus stops.

Solar insolation from 1983 -? .. I can drill down further if you like.
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...insolation


from https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/

Quote:Climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infrared energy emitted to space. These quantities–together with their difference–define Earth’s radiation budget (ERB). The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project provides satellite-based observations of ERB and clouds. It uses measurements from CERES instruments flying on several satellites along with data from many other instruments to produce a comprehensive set of ERB data products for climate, weather and applied science research.

Data available at: https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/

Some people just ignore every hedge word.

likely contributing no more than 0.01 degrees Celsius to the roughly 1 degree of warming that's occurred over the Industrial period.
...
it wouldn’t overpower the amount of global warming projected for the coming century due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
- https://www.climate.gov/news-features/un...g-sunlight

And you seem to be laboring under the poor assumption that I claim ascribe to the notion that human activity contributes zero to greenhouse gas emissions.

(Sep 10, 2023 08:13 PM)Syne Wrote: Some people just ignore every hedge word.

likely contributing no more than 0.01 degrees Celsius to the roughly 1 degree of warming that's occurred over the Industrial period.
...
it wouldn’t overpower the amount of global warming projected for the coming century due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
- https://www.climate.gov/news-features/un...g-sunlight

And you seem to be laboring under the poor assumption that I claim ascribe to the notion that human activity contributes zero to greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't think either of us are going to count the sunspots for the last 200 years - '" likely no more than 0.01C " is good enough for me.

Quote:Projected warming due to increasing greenhouse gas levels in the coming decades will overpower even a very strong Grand Solar Minimum.

It says what it says.

I think of you as a sort of pale shadow of Trump - interesting to see if there might be any reasoning going on behind the scenes. One snippet on the 'net is that polar bears might well get more votes than big oil .. so Sleepy Joe's followers are very pleased for DT to remain ? about global warming.

You miss the point. People only use hedge words like "likely" when there is a degree of unknown or lack of surety. Has nothing to do with the raw number of sun spots and everything to do with the confounding and unaccounted for factors that could influence the results. If you're fine with accepting everything as gospel truth simply because it comes from an authority figure, you're free to. Just don't pretend that you can do anything but parrot those authorities.

Similarly, "projections" are only educated guesses/predictions that also run afoul confounding factors.

You don;t seem to have any clue about US politics either. State-run media does you no favors.