Jeff Engr asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 8 years ago

Carrington Events. Another in the list of variables of solar impacts on climate. Will IPCC acknowledge?

A Carrington event lasting as little as 2 days, could drive earth climate to cool by 3 - 5 degrees K which would persists for months.

So now we have TSI, Geomagnetic field variations, sunspot activity, and now Carrington events among the growing list of variables in how changes on solar activity impact Earth Climate. Will the IPCC and other warmists finally begin to give the sun its due?


@Ottawa,I agree about the multi-decadal timescales. It sounds like the Carrington Events are relatively short lived in their impacts. i.e. cooling for a period of months, not years. I point out the Carrington events merely to say changes in the sun do in fact apear to impact the Earth Climate system.

11 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm not sure I even acknowledge this aspect of solar activity but that's beside the point.

    Warmists basically ignore the Sun based on TSI which they say hasn't risen in the past 50 years in correlation with temperature. But then ask them a basic thought question that if TSI remained steady but global cloud cover decreased, what would be the effect on global temperatures? And then ask them about other solar activity like solar wind. You'd be accused of being an oil company executive and that's just for asking.

    I'm skeptical of the effect of a Carrington event on multi-decadal time scales but it's certainly something to keep studying. On the other hand, I'm sure warmists will be completely dismissive since it doesn't fit the "meme". And they call us deniers. Whatever.


    Edit: I just read an article in NewScientist about solar activity which was surprisingly lucid given their recent track record:

  • 8 years ago

    So, what these authors have done is model the possible effects of a 'Carrington event'. This is how applied science operates - you take a theory, build a model, and predict the effects. What the paper describes is a 'what if' scenario.

    What that has to do with global warming is beyond me. Climatologists are fully aware of the effects of the giant fusion ball of hydrogen and helium sitting 93 million miles from the earth. It's not like they've suddenly had a eureka moment and cried 'Doh! We forgot about the sun!'. They're fully aware of the science, and fully aware of the effect it has on our climate - it is the reason the planet isn't at about 4 Kelvin. 'Warmists' and the IPCC give the sun its due. The problem is that the sun isn't responsible for the warming or CO2 increases we've observed in recent decades. We can say that because it has been considered, analysed and rejected as an explanation. Skeptics need to get over it, suck it up and admit they were wrong, and move on to their next 'theory'.

  • 8 years ago

    So let me get this straight, you are quoting scientists (who denier tells us are liars) from a scientific journal (that deniers tell us are liars) on a paper that uses models (that deniers tell us can't be trusted)

    "So now we have TSI, Geomagnetic field variations, sunspot activity"

    You make it sound like these were just discovered yet all where monitored from the start of the satellite era, several for decades before that and Sunspot records date back much further.

    Now I know how deniers love to try an reinterpret my words so lets be clear, the paper is putting forward a theory, it is talking about estimated changes if we have another Carrington Event.

    By the way you forgot CMI's and their precursors Forbush events.

    As for Carrington Events do you even know what they are (a very large solar flare), the reference to the one in 1859, is the last known one, luckily for us it happened before the start of the electronic age as such an event have a profound effect on the electronics we have come to depend on and overload much of the electricity grid and telephone system, if one happens again I think a little short term climate change will be the least of our problems.

    I continue to be amazed by the nonsense deniers post, in what they think somehow disproves AGW, scientists certainly have never disputed that many things have caused past climate change, it would be odd for them to do so as they (not deniers) are the ones who actually discovered these past changes and their causes.

    In terms of climate, a Carrington Event would be a short term event, Ozone would take some time to recover but unless it's a continuous effect the Earth recovers, bigger events like Super Volcanoes are similar with decades probably a few centuries to recover, we had a small example of that with Pinatubo the largest volcano of the last 100 years, it caused a short 0.5c drop in temperatures, short in this case being ~18 months.

  • 4 years ago

    i choose to propose you examine the papers on the IPCC (worldwide Panel for climate exchange) particularly the technical paper relating to the modelling (the comments 2007). The papers quite state the topics the scientists could type destiny climate exchange and that they got here up with 7 of them, all with diverse pointing out assumptions, the likely is a advance in effortless temperature of two and four levels Celsius till 2100 and the political communicate is in step with this fashions. They particularly factor out how perplexing it quite is to create a type because it quite is a extensive and actually complicated device they manage and the form of archives factors and the influencing factors are actually not o.k. prevalent and subsequently perplexing to foretell. each and every extra and modelling would be extra desirable as we study each and on a daily basis relating to the device. You quite attempt to type the way forward for this planet. The AR 5 graph shows an advance from appr. 1993 to 2010 in this selection, in absolute value of appr.0.6 levels Celsius over 17 years and it quite is definitely interior the type. So: your fact is real: the concepts factors are decrease then different envisioned archives factors in this era and could be interpreted that we are on the thank you to the two - 4 degree type (and that replaced into assumed to be the likely). yet: 17 archives factors of a projection of almost a hundred years isn't important and the mathematical version continues to be interior the type. yet: using the "effortless worldwide temperature" is just one factor, there are different observations as melting glaziers, melting arctic ice caps, exchange in precipitation, droughts, changing typhoon paths, advance in coal burning, extra aerosols interior the ambience (particularly China) and much extra, on a community foundation the situation could be very diverse. the subject is: the end results of climate exchange (which isn't puzzled in step with community archives) however the outcomes on human civilization on an extremely community point: e.g. a 6.6 earth quake interior the Anden mountains have quite no result however an identical earthquake interior the l. a. section or as exceeded off in Japan with a Tsunami could have terrible outcomes. the situation must be monitored domestically and the achievable outcomes be desperate and that must be seen in community pastime (a typhoon very 5 years in New Orleans, vast apple or New Jersey are actually not a topic if the infrastructure is build to stand up to one).

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Why do you think 'warmists' have not given the Sun it's due? If a Sun cycle or something similar needs to be recorded a satellite is sent up into space or ground based equipment is used to do just that. We are already recording TSI, sunspot activity, solar input and geomagnetic field variations.

    And no one stated that the Sun did not impact the Earth-climate system, Why do you think things like the LIA and the MWP happened? climatologists and everyone that studies this in depth know of the impact the Sun has on the planet. However, instead of just stating the 'what ifs' and 'maybes' you're going to have to also include actual measurements of these things to support your contention. as well give an explanation of how they would affect the Earth's atmosphere and so on. science is based off of real world measurements. that is something people who label themselves skeptics have been asking for. One wonders why, as in this case, it doesn't go both ways.

  • 8 years ago

    "" I point out the Carrington events merely to say changes in the sun do in fact apear to impact the Earth Climate system.""

    Good that you've finally caught up to the rest of us. Now explain the recent rise in global temperatures over a period of decreasing solar activity.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Who says that the Sun does not effect climate? The overall trend for solar activity has been one of declining for the last 50 years. If not for the effect that humans are effecting climate, Earth would be cooling, and it would have been cooling rapidly over the last decade.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    "You can't tax PEOPLE if 'man-made Global Warming' is shown to be caused by the Sun." By that twisted logic one can make the claim that since people ARE taxed today, AGW is NOT caused by the sun.

    But seriously, it shows one of the reasons why Maxx denies the science, he wants to be able to pollute freely rather then to be a responsible member of society and clean up his mess.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    The current acceleration of man made GW/Cli,ate Change is fueled by our greenhouse emissions due to burning of fossil fuels. This has been correlated with the rise in global temps for more than 3 decades.

    What part of the sun has been in a cooling cycle for years don't you understand. When you can come up with actual peer reviewed paper by a real climatologist then you might make an argument for that. Unfortunately youknowwhat will likely freeze over before that happens.

    Atmospheric theory isn't climatology!

  • Maxx
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    You can't tax PEOPLE if 'man-made Global Warming' is shown to be caused by the Sun. So, just as always, the IPCC will turn a blind eye toward any kind of solar activity that is shown to significantly impact climate.

    We are dealing with propagandists here, nothing else.


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.