THE DEMISE OF SUNSPOTS—DEEP COOLING AHEAD?
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The three studies released by NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network this week, predicting the virtual vanishing of sunspots for the next several decades and the possibility of a solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum, came as stunning news. According to Frank Hill,
“the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
The last time sunspots vanished from the sun for decades was during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1700 AD was marked by drastic cooling of the climate and the maximum cold of the Little Ice Age.
What happened the last time sunspots disappeared?
Abundant physical evidence from the geologic past provides a record of former periods of global cooling. Geologic records provide clear evidence of past global cooling so we can use them to project global climate into the future—the past is the key to the future. So what can we learn from past sunspot history and climate change?
Galileo’s perfection of the telescope in 1609 allowed scientists to see sunspots for the first time. From 1610 A.D. to 1645 A.D., very few sunspots were seen, despite the fact that many scientists with telescopes were looking for them, and from 1645 to 1700 AD sunspots virtually disappeared from the sun (Fig. 1). During this interval of greatly reduced sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, global climates turned bitterly cold (the Little Ice Age), demonstrating a clear correspondence between sunspots and cool climate. After 1700 A.D., the number of observed sunspots increased sharply from nearly zero to more than 50 (Fig. 1) and the global climate warmed.

The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD—but it marked perhaps the bitterest part of the cooling. Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Winters in Europe were bitterly cold, and summers were rainy and too cool for growing cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. About a third of the population of Europe perished.
Glaciers all over the world advanced and pack ice extended southward in the North Atlantic. Glaciers in the Alps advanced and overran farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.
So what can we learn from the Maunder? Perhaps most important is that the Earth’s climate is related to sunspots. The cause of this relationship is not understood, but it definitely exists. The second thing is that cooling of the climate during sunspot minima imposes great suffering on humans—global cooling is much more damaging than global warming.
Global cooling during other sunspot minima
The global cooling that occurred during the Maunder Minimum was neither the first nor the only such event. The Maunder was preceded by the Sporer Minimum (~1410–1540 A.D.) and the Wolf Minimum (~1290–1320 A.D.) and succeeded by the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830), the unnamed 1880–1915 minima, and the unnamed 1945–1977 Minima (Fig. 2). Each of these periods is characterized by low numbers of sunspots, cooler global climates, and changes in the rate of production of 14C and 10Be in the upper atmosphere. As shown in Fig. 2, each minimum was a time of global cooling, recorded in the advance of alpine glaciers.

The same relationship between sunspots and temperature is also seen between sunspot numbers and temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica (Fig. 3). Each of the four minima in sunspot numbers seen in Fig. 3 also occurs in Fig. 2. All of them correspond to advances of alpine glaciers during each of the cool periods.

Figure 4 shows the same pattern between solar variation and temperature. Temperatures were cooler during each solar minima.

What can we learn from this historic data? Clearly, a strong correlation exists between solar variation and temperature. Although this correlation is too robust to be merely coincidental, exactly how solar variation are translated into climatic changes on Earth is not clear. For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes. However, Svensmark (Svensmark and Calder, 2007; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2007) has proposed a new concept of how the sun may impact Earth’s climate. Svensmark recognized the importance of cloud generation as a result of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays. Clouds reflect incoming sunlight and tend to cool the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Thus, perhaps variation in the intensity of the solar magnetic field may play an important role in climate change.
Are we headed for another Little Ice Age?
In 1999, the year after the high temperatures of the 1998 El Nino, I became convinced that geologic data of recurring climatic cycles (ice core isotopes, glacial advances and retreats, and sun spot minima) showed conclusively that we were headed for several decades of global cooling and presented a paper to that effect (Fig. 5). The evidence for this conclusion was presented in a series of papers from 2000 to 2011 (The data are available in several GSA papers, my website, a 2010 paper, and in a paper scheduled to be published in Sept 2011). The evidence consisted of temperature data from isotope analyses in the Greenland ice cores, the past history of the PDO, alpine glacial fluctuations, and the abrupt Pacific SST flips from cool to warm in 1977 and from warm to cool in 1999. Projection of the PDO to 2040 forms an important part of this cooling prediction.
Figure 5. Projected temperature changes to 2040 AD. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) cooling similar to the 1945-1977 cooling, cooling similar to the 1880-1915 cooling, and cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820). Cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum would be an extension of the Dalton curve off the graph.
So far, my cooling prediction seems to be coming to pass, with no global warming above the 1998 temperatures and a gradually deepening cooling since then. However, until now, I have suggested that it was too early to tell which of these possible cooling scenarios were most likely. If we are indeed headed toward a disappearance of sunspots similar to the Maunder Minimum during the Little Ice Age then perhaps my most dire prediction may come to pass. As I have said many times over the past 10 years, time will tell whether my prediction is correct or not. The announcement that sun spots may disappear totally for several decades is very disturbing because it could mean that we are headed for another Little Ice Age during a time when world population is predicted to increase by 50% with sharply increasing demands for energy, food production, and other human needs. Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production, but everyone would feel the effect of such cooling. The clock is ticking. Time will tell!
References
D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010. Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21 (5), p. 436–460.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 32, p.17.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years; global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 33, p.253.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of late Pleistocene, abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, p.41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming; predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.594
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.11.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 13.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium: Abstracts of American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p. 428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The role of the oceans and the Sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 41, p. 33.
Eddy, J.A., 1976, The Maunder Minimum: Science, vol. 192, p. 1189–1202.
Hoyt, D.V. and Schatten, K.H., 1997, The Role of the sun in climate change: Oxford University, 279 p.
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007, The chilling stars: A new theory of climate change: Icon Books, Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, 246 p.
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., 1997, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverda missing link in solar–climate relationships: Journal of Atmospheric and SolareTerrestrial Physics, vol. 59, p. 1125–1132.
Svensmark, H., Pedersen, J.O., Marsh, N.D., Enghoff, M.B., and Uggerhøj, U.I., 2007, Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions: Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 463, p. 385–396.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursula, K., Solanki, S.K., Schussler, M., and Alanko, K., 2004, Reconstruction of solar activity for the last millenium using 10Be data: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 413, p. 745–751.
=================================================================
UPDATE: Bob Tisdale has posted a rebuttal. Here is what he has to say via email.
Hi Anthony: The following is a link to my notes on the Easterbrook post:
We should have progressed beyond using outdated TSI datasets, misrepresenting the PDO, and creating bogus global temperature graphs in our arguments against AGW.
I’ve advised Easterbrook, and we’ll see what he has to say – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
![21sunspots.1-600[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/21sunspots-1-6001.jpg?resize=450%2C263&quality=83)

The sensible outlook from a Geologist.
This might knock some sense into the alarmists.
I think this is more likely than the Svensmark hypothesis but we shall see:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
Typo alert. In the section Global cooling during other sunspot minima: “and succeeded by the Daltong Minimum”
“Daltong” should be “Dalton”
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]
It is cold enough in Sydney, as it is!
Brrrrrrrr ….
One of the arguments that the warmists will use is that any cooling effect is temporary; “the heat is in the pipeline”. What I have been unable to find is any authorative timeline between the onset of a Maunder type solar magnetic minimum and global temperatyures. Supposing a new minimum is coming, when dio we expect to see a significant drop in temperatures? I have been unable to find any sort of data on this issue that I find convincing.
Good solid research, and time to buy a fur coat methinks. Naturally the alarmists have begun their spin saying this will only mask the warming, perhaps as millions die of the cold governments will stop building windmills and think about actual power stations.
(( John Marshall says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:16 am
The sensible outlook from a Geologist.
This might knock some sense into the alarmists. ))
John. Have you ever tried to engage in a rational debate with an irrational person.??
By the time GISS has “improved” the data even a LIA will be warmer than 1998. Guaranteed….
regards
Something tells me this will be a busy thread 😉 better cook up some popcorn.
The only thing I would add is perhaps this …
ATTENTION MODS: part of the article is duplicated, and note that the 2nd is less formatted.
[Reply: Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
Gentlemen, THIS is it. The next 20-40 years should absolutely confirm or deny the power of CO2 to control the climate. If we lose all sunspots like the Maunder for decades and don’t cool off, then…..
John Marshall says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:16 am
The sensible outlook from a Geologist.
This might knock some sense into the alarmists.
They will just automatically reject it, as it threatens their Belief system. Their only hope for return to rationality is some type of deprogramming, or “exit counseling” as it’s called today.
Slight tidy up needed to remove duplication.
[Done, thanx. ~dbs]
I read the “Solar predictions bring heat and light ” article by Richard Black on the BBC today. I was glad to see that he acceepts that sometimes “settled” theories are proved wrong. However, he shows a continuing confidence in his wide knowledge and in the majority of “warmist” views which he clearly supports. I see a problem here in that the “Warmists” have been handed a big “get out of jail free” card because the fact that the climate cools is linked strongly to sunspots, but their “AGW” problem still exists so that when the climate recovers, all that extra CO2 will make us heat up again rather quickly, and fry!
The argument will probably shift so that the immediate danger is past, but still say that we must not let the planet be destroyed once the suspots return. The bogus science will still keep rolling.
[snip. d-word violation.]
John Marshall:
It has not yet and has been known by many since the seventies when they were talking about the global cooling trend!
In figure 3. what do WSN and GSN stand for?
Something to keep in mind while discussing this issue…
I keep seeing critiques of the “cooling” idea that hinge on “well, the Sun may have cycles, and it may be cooling, but it won’t counteract the 3 – 5 C heating that’s being predicted.” What they leave out is that the heating we’ve seen over the last 30-40 years mostly came from solar variability, too. If you admit that there could be a cooling cycle, you have to include the heating cycle that led up to the cooling – and the AGW theory promoters still won’t admit that into their world view.
Bruce Cobb says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:49 am
“Alarmists” won’t have the slightest clue until their cereal bowl is empty and there’s nothing to grill. Even then, they’ll cook up some excuse that it’s all a comspiracy to force some wingnut explanation on them.
“Correlation is not causation.” I don’t know how many times I have come across that phrase on this site, but it’s a lot.
Granted that Henrik Svensmark has put forward a plausible hypothesis for a quiet sun affecting Earth’s climate. Granted that Stephen Wilde suggests an interesting alternative hypothesis. Until either can be verified experimentally or by observation then hypotheses they will remain.
“Wait and see” is sound advice when it comes to climate matters. It always was.
For all warm-blooded creatures there is an optimum operating temperature which will seem heaven-like to us humans when the earth cools, as it inevitably will. Reading accounts in diaries from English villages written during the LIA is literally chilling.
Excellent article.
Can I suggest you make this a ‘sticky’ and place it at the top of the list for a few days?
I’m as wary as always about predictions of future climate as I have always been.
Nevertheless there is a clear asymmetry in possible outcomes, since (before Hansen) cooling was seen to be much more dangerous to humans and the rest of the biosphere than warming. If climate does cool, we should expect to see greater storminess (as the temperature gradient increases between tropics and poles), and drier conditions at mid latitudes leading to droughts and increased desertification. The Sahara desert, for example, which has shrunk in recent decades, may well start to expand and the tropical rain forests decline latitudinally and altutudinally.
I do not wish cooling upon the Earth simply to falsify the Greenhouse hypothesis. The stakes are much higher than the egos of a pampered, delusional few.
I am a bit puzzled by Professor Easterbrook’s graph in Fig 5.
Does anyone know what data Don was using for the temperature plot (black line). It appears to show the post-2000 period cooler than the 1990s. Whichever dataset you use (Hadley, UAH …take your pick) temperatures during the 2001-2010 decade were ~0.2 deg warmer than during the 1991-2000 decade. Only 1998 was warmer than the post-2001 years (although according to HadCrut, 2008 was slightly cooler than 1997).
Does anyone have an explanation?
“BargHumer says:
I see a problem here in that the “Warmists” have been handed a big “get out of jail free” card because the fact that the climate cools is linked strongly to sunspots, but their “AGW” problem still exists so that when the climate recovers, all that extra CO2 will make us heat up again rather quickly, and fry!”
I get your point here, however if the climate does cool significantly it will clearly demonstrate that the Sun is in the driving seat and not CO2. This in the eyes of the public will completely destroy their credibility (much like Gordon Brown’s economic credibility was destroyed when he pronounced “No more boom and bust” and then 2008 occurred).
Even though they have been peddling “Climate Change” for a few years, no-one forgets that the original claim has been “Global Warming”, if it gets very cold (“if” being an important word here) then people will notice this and a clear link can then be shown that this is due to the Sun’s activity. If it does not get colder well then maybe the Sun is not in the driving seat (this is a big experiment and we are testing a hypothesis or two, whether we like it or not).
My personal view is that the large thermo nuclear reaction in the sky will have an effect given past behaviour, however these could be like the chinese curse “Interesting times” and given what history tells us about previous cold periods we may see many upheavals that we would prefer not to be in the middle of 😮
The real question is how quickly it could happen.
If we are now able to predict a solar sunspot minimum in advance of its occurrence, perhaps we should also be allowed to name it in advance of its arrival. Not withstanding the rights of the scientists who proposed its existence to name it, I propose that the readers of WUWT may wish to make a few suggestions.
My contribution is “The Climate Stupidity Minimum”