Easterbrook on the potential demise of sunspots

THE DEMISE OF SUNSPOTSDEEP 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.

FIGURE 1. Sunspots during the Maunder Minimum (modified from Eddy, 1976).

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.

Figure 2. Correspondence of cold periods and solar minima from 1500 to 2000 AD. Each of the five solar minima was a time of sharply reduced global temperatures (blue areas).

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 3. Correlation of sunspot numbers and temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica (modified from Usoskin et al., 2004).

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

Figure 4. Solar irradiance and temperature from 1750 to 1990 AD. During this 250-year period, the two curves follow remarkably similar patterns (modified from Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). Each solar minima corresponds to climatic cooling.

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:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/comments-on-easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/

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

 

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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
475 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Marshall
June 17, 2011 3:16 am

The sensible outlook from a Geologist.
This might knock some sense into the alarmists.

Stephen Wilde
June 17, 2011 3:31 am

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

Katherine
June 17, 2011 3:31 am

Typo alert. In the section Global cooling during other sunspot minima: “and succeeded by the Daltong Minimum”
“Daltong” should be “Dalton”
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

TBear (Warm Cave in Freezing Sydney)
June 17, 2011 3:33 am

It is cold enough in Sydney, as it is!
Brrrrrrrr ….

June 17, 2011 3:33 am

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.

Mark Nutley
June 17, 2011 3:36 am

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.

nevket240
June 17, 2011 3:36 am

(( 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

Blade
June 17, 2011 3:39 am

Something tells me this will be a busy thread 😉 better cook up some popcorn.

“Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production, but everyone would feel the effect of such cooling.”

The only thing I would add is perhaps this …

‘Hardest hit will be countries that succumbed to AGW hysteria by de-industrializing, shutting their nuke plants, and are relying on solar panels and windmills.’

ATTENTION MODS: part of the article is duplicated, and note that the 2nd is less formatted.
[Reply: Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

MattN
June 17, 2011 3:43 am

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…..

Bruce Cobb
June 17, 2011 3:49 am

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.

KenB
June 17, 2011 3:49 am

Slight tidy up needed to remove duplication.
[Done, thanx. ~dbs]

BargHumer
June 17, 2011 4:01 am

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.

RR Kampen
June 17, 2011 4:08 am

[snip. d-word violation.]

Mike Davis
June 17, 2011 4:13 am

John Marshall:
It has not yet and has been known by many since the seventies when they were talking about the global cooling trend!

Nandie
June 17, 2011 4:25 am

In figure 3. what do WSN and GSN stand for?

cirby
June 17, 2011 4:35 am

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.

RockyRoad
June 17, 2011 4:45 am

Bruce Cobb says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:49 am

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.

“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.

David Wright
June 17, 2011 4:50 am

“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.

Alexander K
June 17, 2011 4:55 am

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.

JB Williamson
June 17, 2011 4:55 am

Excellent article.
Can I suggest you make this a ‘sticky’ and place it at the top of the list for a few days?

June 17, 2011 4:58 am

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.

John Finn
June 17, 2011 4:59 am

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?

Byz
June 17, 2011 5:00 am

“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 😮

Steeptown
June 17, 2011 5:07 am

The real question is how quickly it could happen.

C Porter
June 17, 2011 5:07 am

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”

BenG
June 17, 2011 5:11 am

“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.”
Yes and obviously the greater temperatures are seen to cool as the minimum unfolds, the greater must be assumed the solar impact on the original warming (and implicitly the lower the CO2 effect)

June 17, 2011 5:12 am

The pathetic predictions of another Maunder Minimum by Hill show how little the so called experts know about the Sun, his partner in crime Howe wrote to me a couple of years ago expecting a very big SC24. The Landscheidt Minimum will be weaker than the Dalton Minimum which will most likely see a -2C drop over global temps with the NH experiencing the brunt of the brutal winters over the next 30 years. The evidence for this is written in the AM graph.
The coupling of the neg PDO with low solar is the reason for the cooling, but this is no coincidence.

ImranCan
June 17, 2011 5:13 am

I am also wary of these kind of predictions ….. I agree its possible, but I am not sure there is any clear evidence of global cooling yet. Sure, the predictions of the IPCC are not coming true, but it can hardly be said to have cooled either. Looking at the UAH data …. pretty ambiguous. And the Arctic continues to mystify.

Roald
June 17, 2011 5:14 am

Figure 5 looks very fishy to me. According to it, the 2000s must have been cooler than the 1990s and we know the reverse is true. And in reality the year 2010 tied with 1998 for record high temperature. Sure, it would be great if it got cooler a bit before all the Arctic sea ice melts. (Btw., I wonder when the next sea ice news is due.) However, even if the sun was to enter a Maunder like scenario, this would take no more than 0.1° to 0.3 ° off of a projected warming of 4°C until 2100.

Moderate Republican
June 17, 2011 5:19 am

Mike Davis says @ June 17, 2011 at 4:13 am “It has not yet and has been known by many since the seventies when they were talking about the global cooling trend!”
I am not sure that is correct Mike;
“An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review
shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.”
THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Thomas C. Peterson*
NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey
Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Jim Butler
June 17, 2011 5:20 am

All of a sudden, property in Mississippi/Texas ain’t lookin’ so bad 😉
We’re already looking property up in Maine that has a good wood stock on it, since heating oil/electricity is already going through the roof.
I can’t think of a more interesting hobby in my “Golden Years”, or “the back nine”, as I like to call it, than getting off the grid and watching the idiots try to understand what went wrong with their Warminista Religion. 🙂
Cheers to all,
JimB

tallbloke
June 17, 2011 5:21 am

Jim Cripwell says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:33 am
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.

The numerical model I created to link solar irradiance with ocean heat content indicates that cooling would be fairly slow at first, accelerating more the longer the Sun stays quiet. If we get a Dalton type minimum, maybe an SST drop of 0.3C worldwide in the first 20 years of the slowdown, from 2003. Of course, that means a bigger drop in the northern hemisphere SST, with much colder winter air temperatures.

Neil Jones
June 17, 2011 5:23 am

I’ve recently been re-reading “The Black Swan” by Taleb. If his ideas about narrative effecting people’s thinking are correct this will be ignored by most and actively denied by those propagating the AGW narrative until it becomes undeniable.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
June 17, 2011 5:24 am

RR Kampen
For a people that believes the science is settled your ilk certainly does spend a lot of time acting like it is not.

June 17, 2011 5:25 am

We would take care not be so alarmist as the warmists. Maybe the future scenario presented by Easterbroke is a little bit extreme (famine, etc etc).
And probably the warmists will continue putting pressure over the CO2 emission control, but there predicate will have much less impact on the population. Politicians will forget about this question that only some radicals will follow. Or, where is Nuclear Winter in the governments agendas?
Guigue

June 17, 2011 5:26 am

I estimate about .3C of global average temp can be attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect, and we can probably expect about .3C more over the next 30 years. A better description of is a decrease in cooling that will result in higher average temperature over long time periods (by reducing low point of downward fluctuation).
Since cooling related to solar activity is believe to be due to a decrease in SW radiation absorbed at the surface and in the atmosphere, a better perspective is to see it as a decrease in heating that can result in a temperature drop.
Assuming the mass of the atmosphere is pretty evenly distributed GHGs are generally well mixed, about 50% of ghg heat retention will happen in the mid-high latitudes where the larger surface temperature drop would be expected. This should mute the temperature decline in the region about .25C (.5x(.3C realized ghg heat retention + .2C expected future ghg heat retention in 20 years)).
If mid-low latitude temps remain about the same, using Eaterbrook’s temp drop estimate global average temps should drop up to 1.75C (2C-.25C). Rather than a max temp difference of 4C between mid-high latitudes and mid-low latitude, the max difference should be about 3.75C. This should reduce some catastrophic weather, though it ma not change effects on food production because they may happen due to decreased light for crops more than surface atmospheric conditions.

Latitude
June 17, 2011 5:33 am

So what can we learn from the Maunder?
==========================================
Not much, mostly because we don’t have a clue what this means.

Gabriell
June 17, 2011 5:35 am

Easterbrook, please make a Widget counting down to the ice age! Would be a cool thing to have on a blog.
John Marshall/
“The sensible outlook from a Geologist. This might knock some sense into the alarmists.”
You must be Easterbrooks most loyal fan.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
June 17, 2011 5:36 am

The Blackfeet Indians predict the return of ‘many glaciers’ to Glacier Park
………Yellow Bear said that the glaciers in the park nearly ‘vanished’ 1,000 years ago during an extremely warm period with very little snow. The ‘peak’ of the number and size of the glaciers occurred during the 40-year period from 1710-1750 towards the end of the last ‘Maunder Minimum’ global cycle of cooling, a 70-year span almost completely devoid of sunspot activity that occurred from 1645 to 1715…….
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/BlackfeetIndians.htm

Theo Goodwin
June 17, 2011 5:37 am

Mark Nutley says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:36 am
“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.”
So, the Warmista find themselves making the absurd claim that CO2 could have defeated the ice ages. If they would just think for a minute, they would see that we do not have so much as a correlation between CO2 and climate change – except in their benighted Gaia Models. At least Professor Easterbrook appears to have discovered a correlation between sun spots and Earth’s climate.
It bears repeating that the evidence for manmade global warming is no stronger than the evidence for a coming Ice Age. The Warmista just are not physical scientists.

Andy
June 17, 2011 5:40 am

Barg Humer,
I’m in complete agreement with you and other poster here:
I’m convinced the warmists will just use the “it’s masked the warming/won’t make much difference” excuse as a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Joe Romm has already started spinning this kind of line over at his site:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/15/246202/sun-hibernation-deniers/#more-246202
Let’s be careful people…

Don K
June 17, 2011 5:41 am

This appears to be better science than the determined wrong headedness from the IPCC which seems to depend largely on the improbable assumption that ALL past climate change was caused by CO2 and on proof by repeated assertion. But still, the climate of the Little Ice Age couldn’t have been dramatically awful or Europeans would not have colonized New England and the Hudson River valley. Further, a lot of it depends on paleo proxies. My opinion at this stage. All paleo proxies for anything suck. They should be treated with considerable skepticism.
That said, Easterbrook looks to have a theory that deserves attention. If the sunspots actually go away, I reckon that we will learn a lot about climate in the next 40 years or so.

June 17, 2011 5:44 am

“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, ”
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Bear in mind that the key to Svensmark’s proposed mechanism for cooling is increased clouds, not decreased insolation. Cool, rainy, floody.

Roald
June 17, 2011 5:52 am

Yeah, Chief Easterbrook and the Blackfeets. Sounds like a ’60s psychedelic rock band. I for one can’t wait for the Ice Age to begin. I hate hot summers in the city.

mikemUK
June 17, 2011 5:53 am

David Wright says:
“Wait and see” is sound advice . . .
I fancy it won’t seem such sound advice if it DOES cool, with our current energy policies in place. One prolonged cold winter with erratic/non-existent renewable power etc. should wipe out a good many folk to start with.
Maybe the older power stations should be mothballed instead of decommissioned, until we can see clearly what is happening.
The AGW believers may yet get to see their 50m climate refugees, as the survivors head towards the equator; this could be good news for Greece, Spain, Portugal etc. as large chunks of money pour into their financially stricken economies. 8- )

Roald
June 17, 2011 5:54 am

I hope Easterbrook and the Blackfeet Indians are correct. I can’t wait for the Ice Age to begin and I hate hot summers in the city. I wouldn’t bet my money on it, though.

Laura
June 17, 2011 5:58 am

Keep an eye on the SST’s (sea surface: AMSU satellite) probably best gauge of this theory and effect of solar activity on average global temperatures. So far 100% on route, its still going down when La Nina has gone (should normally star to rise)

June 17, 2011 6:02 am

Over several years, this issue has been discussed on solarham.com under the heading of Global Warming. A gentleman who uses the pseudonym glc, argues very cogently, that the data supporting the cold temperatures during past solar magnetic minima is practically non-existent. At the time, I tried to find more than anecdotal information on global temperatures during, for example, the Maunder minimum and failed. I could not prove glc was wrong, and I have a sneaking suspicion that he may be right. I am sure the graphs that are used, giving temperarure data, can be found under many references, but if you try and find where the actual data comes from, I suspect it is non-existent.
It reminds me of how everyone “knows” that the Black Daeah was caused by bubonic plague. This was based on a guess at the end of the 19th century, when bubonic plague was found, and for the first time a possible reason for the Black Death was discovered. Most data is anecdotal. Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola.
So I suggest that we do not take as gospel the graphs in this paper. If you go back far enough, I am sure you will find that the data on which they are based is almost non-existent.

pyromancer76
June 17, 2011 6:02 am

Congratulations and deep gratitude to Don Easterbrook and all those other geologists who continue to read the data provided by Earth. Congratualtions for keeping your university position and deep gratitude for remaining faithful to the scientific method.
I believe we are in a “titanic battle” of financial forces/individuals: those who are willing — and are smart enough — to compete in the market place (includes the essential engine of natural energy resources and requires “the scientific method” — truth in observation and data gathering) vs those who have developed using the favors of any government — or religious establishment — for their “profit” (e.g., the entire UN-IPCC boondoggle). Two examples:
1. Previously Anthony has posted on Google’s owners’ skewing their search engine. Take a look at Justin Danhof’s post, “Google Leaves Shareholders in the Dark About Green Investments”: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/google-leaves-shareholders-in-dark-about-green-investments/?singlepage=true. Not only does Google have many “green investments” but a shareholder and member of their board, major venture capitalist John Doerr, does as well. Furthermore, one of Danhof’s main points is that Doerr and Google have many of the same investments, but no one can find out about them. (Read further about John Doerr and his part — and that of government regulations permitting raiding the wealth of established companies — in the earlier high tech bubble.) For what it is worth (not much, I think), I have been using Bing for quite a while, but I am not sure Microsoft is much, if any, better. At least I can support a competitor.
2. The University of California was, I think, the second highest contributor to the Obama campaign, and therefore, hoping to profit from all the “green.energy” investments in their endowment portfolio. How can those “investment funds” keep growing by 8% (or more) per year, enriching administrators first and faculty second without continued government favors? Next, of course, comes the back-scratching science grants and fellowships with their 80% “general operating expenses” margin for the university.
I understand that investigative journalism that explores the economic/financial backing of AGW is not the purpose of WUWT, and much has been made of Al Gore’s “green” financial empire and Cap-and-Trade schemes here, but I hope everyone understands that each time someone comments on “the corruption of science”, they are also commenting on those who intend to take our wealth. The only tactic is transfer of wealth — to the extent we still have any — rather than the production of wealth themselves, thereby enabling us to have the affluence to adapt to (natural) climate change — including perhaps the coming severe Eddy/Landschiedt Minimum — and to minimize the “pollution” caused by our industrious efforts.

richard verney
June 17, 2011 6:03 am

This is like the whole of the AGW debate; quite simply there is a lack of quality data. It is imprudent to read too much into one or two examples and one must always bear in mind that correlation does not mean causation.
I find all of this interesting. If I had to bet my house, I would sooner place it on a bet that the sun is the main driver of climate and much more important than GHGs (I do not rule these out from having some effect but I am dubious that their effect is anything like the claimed 33 degC of warming). The role of the oceans (which are huge solar reservoirs and have stored so much energy over thousands and thousands of years) will no doubt play a significant role in future events.
Whilst we are better equipped (with modern technologies than we were in the late 1600s/1700s) I for one would not like to see a new LIA. I have no doubt that cold is bad and warm is good. A global drop of 1 degC is likely far more harmful than a global rise of 3 degC.
Given the general lack of understanding of how Earth’s climate works and is driven and since we can do nothing about the sun, we shall have to wait and see how this all pans out.

Stephen Wilde
June 17, 2011 6:04 am

How does Svensmark move from the simple assertion that cloudiness increases when the sun is quiet to the observed changes in surface pressure distribution and changes in jetstream behaviour ?
His concept is curiously incomplete in my humble opinion.

Theo Goodwin
June 17, 2011 6:08 am

Steeptown says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:07 am
“The real question is how quickly it could happen.”
In my humble opinion, it has been happening for a few years. St. Louis has suffered some horrendously bitter winters in recent years, reminiscent of 1976-1979. Their temperatures remain below “normal.” Arguments from Global Average Temperature are arguments from fictional premisses.

Theo Goodwin
June 17, 2011 6:11 am

Don K says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:41 am
“But still, the climate of the Little Ice Age couldn’t have been dramatically awful or Europeans would not have colonized New England and the Hudson River valley.”
Interesting observation but a tad subjective. Have you visited Toronto in February? Seems to me that no rational people would colonize it today.

richard verney
June 17, 2011 6:18 am

Don
I found your article very interesting and I am concerned by what appears to be a slumbering sun. That said, I do not understand how people are prepared to make such far reaching statements with such certainty attached to those statements when neither cause nor effect is (well) known or understood.
For example, you correctly note that “The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD” Given that statement, it is difficult to see how you can make such a bold statement as “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.”
Does it definitely exist? How many examples would one wish to see between a quiet sun and low temperatures on Earth before one would say that there is a correlation and this correlation is significant? I agree that presently the cause of any relationship (if there is truely a relationship) is not understood and that being the case all one can say is that a relationship may exist.
I am not saying that there is not a correlation between these two event or that a quiet sun will not lead to cooler temperatures on Earth. It is just that I am uncertain and being sceptical of the AGW theorem, I am also sceptical of bold pronouncements such as those set out in your Article (other than I fully agree that cold is bad and that cold is much more of a concern to mankind). .

Dennis Wingo
June 17, 2011 6:21 am

One challenge here, as much as I support the general concept……
Solar cycle 19, which peaked in 1957-58, was the highest in modern records.

June 17, 2011 6:21 am

“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!”
No, this is not true, see my previous comment. GHGs retain heat, heating will not accelerate faster because of them once SW absorption picks back up.

June 17, 2011 6:26 am

The cooling would hide the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn’t turned off and the turned back on.

Randy
June 17, 2011 6:27 am

In 2002 Micheal E. Mann also wrote about the little ice age. If you google “Little Ice Age Michael E. Mann” you can find the pdf. In it he talks about increased variability of climate for example “A severe winter preceded the hot summer that precipitated the great fire of London in 1666”. He has in interesting chart showing that “peak maximun cooling occurred at quite different times throughout the Northern Hemisphere”. At the end he of course has to add “This unusual period in climate history occurred before the likely influence of human activity (e.g,. the burning of fossil fuels associated with the industrial revolution).” No matter what you think of him, it’s an interesting read.

Pamela Gray
June 17, 2011 6:31 am

A torturous cause and effect should be avoided if a simple, clear, and strong cause and effect is at hand. Earth is a highly variable planet in its own right and has the energy chops to make global warming and cooling occur without need of a varying Sun or varying CO2 equation. And even then, the potential driving force of a varying Sun or varying CO2 is much smaller than the very noisy planet we live on.
Here in the Northwest, USA, we are having record cold temps. And the driving force is clearly the cold pool of water off our coastline, compliments of La Nina’s fickle and long appearance, driven to this state by the oscillating trade winds.

Jean Parisot
June 17, 2011 6:38 am

With regards to the relationship between climate and solar activity – is it possible that the sun’s influence on drastic cooling and warming are not equal. I see a lot of effort from the AGW side to illustrate a lack of solar influence on warming, and on this side the fairly evidence of the sun’s role in the drastic cooling of the LIA.

nandhee jothi
June 17, 2011 6:42 am

C Porter says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:07 am
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”
How about Jim Hansen’s Folly??

Mark Wagner CPA
June 17, 2011 6:45 am

This might knock some sense into the alarmists.
No. It won’t.
Their fanatical belief will not be upset by a few “crackpot theories.”

June 17, 2011 6:49 am

Tallbloke writes “The numerical model I created”
How did you validated your model? Have you used it to predict the future, and then compared the predicted results with what actually happend? If you have done this, do your predicted results agree tihe the observed data? And have you done this a sufficient number of times so that the agreement could not be coincidental, at the 5 sd level? If you have not, then I suspect what you model predicts is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

Don K
June 17, 2011 6:51 am

“Interesting observation but a tad subjective. Have you visited Toronto in February? Seems to me that no rational people would colonize it today.”
I live in one of the colder parts of New England — about 80 km SSE of Montreal. Toronto is kind of warm by comparison. People managed to grow crops here and North of here in Lower Canada in the 18th Century. Quebec City was founded in 1608, so farming there must have been practical even in the early 17th Century. What held up settlement in this part of the US wasn’t the climate — dreadful though it was and is. It was the fact that the area was a no-mans land between the French in the St Lawrence Valley and the British in the Connecticut and Hudson valleys — not to mention the Iroquois Confederation and the Algonquin who did not live together in harmony.

JohnH
June 17, 2011 6:55 am

David Wright says:
June 17, 2011 at 4:50 am
“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.
+1 and it rubs both ways, we have 2 competing or mutally opposite theories, only hard evidence will show if only one or both are true. If temps drop its the sun, if thay rise then its CO2, if temps flatline then both are true.

mkelly
June 17, 2011 6:58 am

Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:19 am
Then why did the CIA write a report in 1974 saying that “The western world’s leading climatologist’s have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change.” ie cooling if it was not true?
Why would these people say in the same report say we were returning to the climate of 400 years ago?
Even the NAS and NOAA in a 1975 Newsweek article point out a drop in temperature. It was not a myth.

nandhee jothi
June 17, 2011 7:02 am

Jim Cripwell says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:02 am
jim,
you are right about caution. anything we think and say will probably wrong, in the light of better data and models in the future.
Me thinks that applies to CAGW as well. and politicians making pricipitous action based on this half baked CAGW theory with unknown amount of faked data could be the real catastrophe

Tom in Florida
June 17, 2011 7:02 am

As you read through the predictions of colder years ahead keep in mind that Florida has no state income tax and real estate is VERY cheap right now.

RR Kampen
June 17, 2011 7:04 am

“Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated.”
Steve McIntyre, http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/ .

Jimbo
June 17, 2011 7:04 am

Jim Cripwell says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:33 am
One of the arguments that the warmists will use is that any cooling effect is temporary; “the heat is in the pipeline”.

But a return to warming may also be down to the Sun? They dismiss the Sun when warming but are happy to embrace it should we enter another Little Ice Age. Having your cake and eating it.

June 17, 2011 7:06 am

Few people have the training or the inclination to think about time and climate on a geologic scale. Many AGW proponents remind us of this fact daily–as their discussion focusses on the here and now, and what their models predict for the future. For them, the past is an inconvenience (but nothing that a liberal sprinkling of AGW pixie dust can’t clear up).
IF the solar bubbas are right, and we’re in for a prolonged (by our scale) sun slumber, and IF Professor Easterbrook and others are correct in what that might mean in consequences, then the post-LIA warming may come to be regarded as an anomaly–a slight, temporary, uptick on some future climatologist’s graph.

Editor
June 17, 2011 7:07 am

Don J. Easterbrook wrote: “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.”
Since the PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific, your prediction is flawed. The following is a graph of North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N, which is the area from which the PDO (the 1st Principle Component of the detrended SST anomalies of that area) is derived. There’s no flip “from warm to cool in 1999”. In reality, SST anomalies there appear to have peaked in 2004:
http://i54.tinypic.com/4uyn4j.jpg
And here’s a graph of the SST anomalies for the North Pacific north of the equator. There’s no flip from “warm to cool in 1999” there either. Like the subset above, the SST anomalies of the North Pacific may have peaked in 2004:
http://i52.tinypic.com/23kaws2.jpg
Also, how did you create the unusual global temperature graph in Figure 5? It appears that the data before the 1997/98 El Niño has been smoothed with a multiyear filter, and after that, you’ve spliced on some unknown data smoothed with a 12-month filter. It really appears contrived, especially the significant response to the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña . Global temperatures did NOT drop back that far. Here’s a comparison of the IPCC multi-model mean for global surface temperatures and Global HADCRUT surface temperature anomaly data. I’ve used HADCRUT because it has the lowest trend of the surface temperature datasets after the 1997/98 El Niño. Both of the datasets are readily available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://i52.tinypic.com/14dk2yr.jpg
The actual dip in global surface temperatures after the 1997/98 El Niño is nowhere close to as deep as the one you’ve shown in your graph.
Last, why would surface temperatures drop as you’ve shown in Figure 5? We’re pretty close to minimum now. Are you expecting TSI to drop below the minimums of the last few solar cycles? If so, on what are you basing that expectation?

John Finn
June 17, 2011 7:16 am

Roald says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:14 am
Figure 5 looks very fishy to me. According to it, the 2000s must have been cooler than the 1990s and we know the reverse is true. And in reality the year 2010 tied with 1998 for record high temperature. ..

Yep – I made this point in an earlier post, but I think Easterbrook might be using US temperatures (I’m not sure, though). They clearly fit his 2001 projection better than the global record.
I’m not convinced by a lot of what he’s written. For example
Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes.
Which 20 year period? I would like to see the evidence for this.
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.
According to UAH, 2010 was virtually indistinguishable from the highly anomalous 1998. There has been no statistically significant cooling in any record – and no cooling of any description in some.
I’m also dubious about the solar reconstructions. I can see that this post is appealing to many readers of this blog, but we are already ~5 years in to this minimum (it didn’t start with the AAS announcement) and there’s precious little evidence of a significant downturn in temperatures (and whatever you do – don’t mention the ice).

juanslayton
June 17, 2011 7:17 am

Roald:
“Blackfoots”, maybe. “Blackfeet”, could be, I dunno. But “Blackfeets”? You been watching too much Tom and Jerry! (ref: “meeces”) : > )

Dave Springer
June 17, 2011 7:18 am

Whatever marginal temperature rise we get from 100ppm of anthropogenic CO2 is going to become a small blessing in disguise if and when there’s a natural shift to a cooler climate. I’m afraid it won’t be nearly enough to halt the large negative effects of a repeat of the Little Ice Age but something is better than nothing.

Roger Knights
June 17, 2011 7:21 am

C Porter says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:07 am
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.

The Inconvenient Minimum.

radun
June 17, 2011 7:22 am

Bob Tisdale says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:07 am
Thanks Bob, one has to be sceptical about some sceptics’ predictions too.

Maud Kipz
June 17, 2011 7:35 am

Wikipedia and his personal home page describes Don Easterbrook as Professor Emeritus. This should probably be corrected here, no?
REPLY: The title is as he wrote it – I’ll leave it to him as to how he wishes to describe himself – Anthony

red432
June 17, 2011 7:39 am

Interesting correlation and hypothesis. Remember: “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future” (attribution contested: http://www.larry.denenberg.com/predictions.html )

Roger Knights
June 17, 2011 7:42 am

GISS global temp. anomaly for May is 42 (down from 55 in April, a much sharper drop than UAH).

APACHEWHOKNOWS
June 17, 2011 7:43 am
JPeden
June 17, 2011 7:45 am

John A says:
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.
Don’t sweat it, 1] whatever cooling happens was going to happen anyway, and we can’t control it except to use our inherent rationality along with its creative, truly scientific process to anticipate it and adjust asap – in spite of the retardant actions of the various “pampered egos” operating directly against these functions; 2] we’re also due for a full-blown glaciation, so any smaller cool down will be a fortunate alert showing everyone else the enlightened way to proceed via real human progress based upon the action of creative, optimistic minds who actually love life and practical actions to support it; and 3] the pampered-ego “throwbacks”, who essentially worship the death and destruction of others as a way to enrich or otherwise gratify themselves in some way, will not be very easily dissuaded from continuing upon their existing course to produce their very own CO2 = CAGW Totalitarian shut down of Humanity, probably easily rivaling the ill-effects of any natural cause, as based upon their own “unnaturally” low lying and low functioning brains.
With apologies, the Universe acts in mysterious but miraculous ways.

Latimer Alder
June 17, 2011 7:46 am

Thought it was going to be rabid climate modeller Steve Easterbrook (*) which will undoubtedly have already written a new program to show that if the sun cools down a bit we will fry even faster and that is Much Worse Than We Thought.
* My favourite S Easterbrook quote – made to me directly : ‘Nobody without a PhD in Radiative Physics is even entitled to have an opinion about Climate Change’. The guy’s modesty overwhelms me…….

Richard M
June 17, 2011 7:47 am

From many of the proxies I’ve seen the climate has become more variable over the last 2000 years. Some of it appears to be tied to variations in sunspots. Since we are due(?) for another glaciation it begs the question of whether this variation in the Sun may be related to glaciation. I realize the *consensus* gives Milankovitch cycles the honor of producing glaciation, but is it possible a quieter Sun may be a contributing factor?
Do we have any information on sunspot activity during glaciation events? Could it be possible that the combination of the reduced sunspots and axis tilt sets the Earth’s climate up for a jump from one chaotic attractor (interglacial) to another (glaciation)? Lot’s of questions for an enterprising young paleoclimatologist …

June 17, 2011 7:48 am

See Svensmarks:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Svensmark.pdf
Svensmark says that this: J. R. Herman and R. A. Goldberg in. Sun, Weather and Climate [ Dover Publications, 1985,. 360 pp., originally published as NASA SP-426, GPO, influenced his work. I found it once on a NASA site to download, can’t find it again.
There has been scarfy, intellectually dishonest, whining critics on the AWG side…whose arguements against Svensmark’s work in particular don’t hold up!
Max

Sean Peake
June 17, 2011 7:52 am

Juanslayton, the tribe is called Blackfoot in Canada and Blackfeet in the US.

June 17, 2011 7:58 am

Mods – this is the corrected post. TNX (if possible, delete this header)

Moderate Republican says on June 17, 2011 at 5:19 am

Hmmm … have we here a ‘wolf’ in sheep’s dress? (Hoping to make someone perhaps ‘look bad’, sow seeds of dissent all the while dissembling?)

Mike Davis says @ June 17, 2011 at 4:13 am “It has not yet and has been known by many since the seventies when they were talking about the global cooling trend!”
I am not sure that is correct Mike;

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.”

Been there; see “
Time Magazine and Global Warming
” for some fun with the subject plus some serious links in the comments section addressing your ‘debunking’ effort.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Thomas C. Peterson*
NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

Thomas C. Peterson – the infamous “talking points memo” writing Peterson?
As detailed here:
NCDC writes ghost “talking points” rebuttal to surfacestations project
Posted on June 24, 2009 by Anthony Watts
UPDATE: The “ghost author” has been identified, see the end of the article.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writes-ghost-talking-points-rebuttal-to-surfacestations-project/
A ‘credible’ source to be sure (wink wink).

William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey
Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Another familiar name … let me see, would this be the infamous RC and climate-wikipedia-editing Connelly?
Or another Connolley, wolf?
.

Jim Arndt
June 17, 2011 8:05 am

Hi,
My main problem is that he is using a TSI reconstruction that is way out of date and most agree now that TSI does not vary that much. Also the coldest part of the LIA was in the 1815 Tambora eruption. His PDO does not match up. Do get me wrong I think the sun does influence the climate but it looks like he is trying to blame it all on the sun. My two cents.
Jim Arndt

sdollarfan
June 17, 2011 8:16 am

If we are going to name this solar minimum in advance (asuming it is going to continue), my vote is for calling it the VP Al Gore Solar Minimum. That way, everyone is reminded how wrong Gore and all the climate alarmists were about the AGW Theory whenever the Mimimum is mentioned.

SSam
June 17, 2011 8:18 am

“…Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production…”
Not necessarily. Those countries are used to getting by in hard times. “Hardest hit” will be the countries that rely on the the “just in time” supply chain. For the most part they have no alternative method of subsistence since that part of the food infrastructure has long vanished or has been outlawed due to government regulation.
With a population that far exceeds the production ability of the locally generated food system, those regions are the people who will be hardest hit.

kuhnkat
June 17, 2011 8:19 am

Dang Bob, you are such a party pooper.
John Finn, good scepticism. Do you ever apply it to the IPCC, Jones, and Mann mythology?

SSam
June 17, 2011 8:23 am

Oh wow…
I’m sitting here pondering my last post and it just hit me.
Squirrels and other woodland critters will put on a layer of fat prior to very harsh winters. Is it possible that this instinct is connected… maybe on a subconscious level, to the obesity problems of some western cultures?
(Just a thought)

Henry Galt
June 17, 2011 8:27 am

RR Kampen says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:04 am
“Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated.”
Steve McIntyre, http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/ .
I agree completely with Steve Mc. I would have terminated their employment the minute I realised they were not worth their salt and their output was, at the very least, not fit for purpose.
If there is some lag in the system (if, indeed there is a system;-) then: 179×2=358 and 2003-1645=358. Just sayin’.

John Whitman
June 17, 2011 8:30 am

Professor Easterbrook,
I was happy to see your post here at WUWT.
I found your post evocative of cooling concernism, to say the least.
After reading your above post I went back and reviewed your presentation at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC4), May 2010, Chicago, IL [ http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/ClimateConference4 ].
I see that in ICCC4 you used 3 of the 5 figures you just used in this current post. Notably you also used your current post’s figure 5 in Chicago. Question: Can you explain the source of your black line (surface temp variation) in figure 5? Particularly, can you explain the source of your surface temp variation data for the period ~1990 to present? NOTE: I noticed that several other commenters here at WUWT have already questioned that part of your figure 5.
Also, another question: The MM causation of the LIA that you explicitly suggest does not appear to be consistent with the time correlation. How do you account for that discrepancy?
Finally, given that you endorse the correlation between the low solar activity and earth cooling, then how do you explain in your ICCC4 presentation (link above) your figure entitled “25 yr warm/cool cycles from 18O isotopes in the Greenland ice core”. The figure I am pointing out occurs about at 09:45 min into your video presentation. That figure appears to me to show some cooling and warm periods do have approximate correlation to solar activity lows and highs respectively BUT it shows to me that some cooling and warm periods do not have correlation to solar activity lows and highs respectively. So it appears to be a wash; therefore I find it difficult to understand when you say there is good correlation between cool periods and low solar activity and likewise I find it difficult to understand when you say there is good correlation between warm periods and high solar activity.
John

ivp0
June 17, 2011 8:34 am

Sadly I see a lot of apparent errors/inconsistentcies in Don’s work here. (assessment of changes in PDO, the 20th century sunspot record, temperature record reported in Europe during Maunder, and the instrumental temperature record in figure 5 to name a few). These are inconsistent with the findings of Eddy. Perhaps he could list his specific supporting source documents for these so we could all see where this data is coming from. I too believe we are headed for a break in the 20th century warming but clear verifiable evidence is required on both sides of the AGW question.

John Finn
June 17, 2011 8:40 am

kuhnkat says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:19 am
Dang Bob, you are such a party pooper.
John Finn, good scepticism. Do you ever apply it to the IPCC, Jones, and Mann mythology?

Yes.

SteveSadlov
June 17, 2011 8:41 am

On the projected changes chart, the Maunder is not even shown, the worst case scenario is the Dalton. Imagine the depth of the Maunder, it would literally be off that chart.
On that note, after yesterday’s dry cold front passage, we got a good Arctic blast. Lows here in the southern part of coastal Norcal were in the 40s this AM. Used the heat for a short while. Anyone long on JUNE heating degree days for the NW US?
Final note about dry cold fronts. They are more generally associated with early fall, in this area, than they are with spring. I do note some of the more sensitive deciduous trees in my area are just starting to turn.

Scott Covert
June 17, 2011 8:42 am

Please stay away from the Koolaid! Warming or cooling.
Stay skeptical. Alarmist is alarmist no matter the trend.
If it cools, the Greens will shift gears and try to push a UN based world government based on catastrophic cooling rather than warming. Stay objective and skeptical with an open mind.
Stop the hand waving and let’s get back to Science.

SteveSadlov
June 17, 2011 8:45 am

RE: JohnA – 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.
============================
At stake is the efficacy of Civilization itself.

TomB
June 17, 2011 8:50 am

Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:19 am

The “myth” of the global cooling of the ’70s? How old are you? Had you been an adult during that time, I can assure you – you would have heard, seen and read stories warning of the coming ice age. It’s not a “myth”.

David S
June 17, 2011 8:51 am

“WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” From Orwell’s 1984
“Cold is hot” From the warmers during the next cool period

jorgekafkazar
June 17, 2011 8:51 am

Jim Cripwell says: “…It reminds me of how everyone “knows” that the Black Daeah was caused by bubonic plague. This was based on a guess at the end of the 19th century, when bubonic plague was found, and for the first time a possible reason for the Black Death was discovered. Most data is anecdotal. Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola….”
Utter nonsense. The symptoms of ebola and the Black Death are different, the period from onset to death is different.

SteveSadlov
June 17, 2011 8:52 am

The University of California was, I think, the second highest contributor to the Obama campaign, and therefore, hoping to profit from all the “green.energy” investments in their endowment portfolio.
=========================
As a student I was a sort of anarcho conspiracy theorist. I was obsessed with the seeming close relationship between the UC Regents and Hollywood money / the MSM. Maybe there was something to that.

Moderate Republican
June 17, 2011 8:53 am

mkelly says @ June 17, 2011 at 6:58 am “Then why did the CIA write a report in 1974 saying that “The western world’s leading climatologist’s have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change.” ie cooling if it was not true?”
The CIA may be a lot of things, but I am not sure many people would consider them climate science experts. Offering up the CIA as refutation of climate science isn’t a terribly convincing argument, and many would consider it a straw man, but let us not go there.
mkelly says @ June 17, 2011 at 6:58 am said “Even the NAS and NOAA in a 1975 Newsweek article point out a drop in temperature. It was not a myth.”
There is no citation here so who knows what was actually said and the full context, but in any given short time period temperatures will rise and temperatures will fall. That NAS and.or NOAA reported that is to be expected, but that doesn’t not support a leap that body of work embodied in the climate science field had it wrong. Nor does it refute the citation I provided above. Many would consider your line of argument a straw man, but let us not go there.

June 17, 2011 8:53 am

While the LIA started around 1300 and the MM didn’t start until 1645, we can’t say with any certainty that the sun played no role in the cooling from 1300 to 1645. Observations of sun spots did not start until 1610, and by then the number of sun spots had already dropped very low. Much lower than we see today.
Was the period from 1300 to 1610 “normal”, or was it low? We don’t know. Therein lies the problem.

June 17, 2011 8:55 am

check TSI in figure 2 versus TSI in figure 4.

Policyguy
June 17, 2011 8:57 am

I suggest that we name this minimum The Obama Minimum.
Another potential name would be The Greenpeace Minimum.
If we wanted to get technical we could call it The Mann Minimum.
Other suggestions?
Josh, do you want to play with this?

David S
June 17, 2011 9:00 am

Constructive criticism;
You guys need to label the graphs better:
Figure 3 apparently shows both sunspot numbers and temperatures, but no temperature scale is shown.
Also what are GSN and WSN?
Figure 4 -which curve is temperature and which is watts per square meter ?

ferd berple
June 17, 2011 9:01 am

THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
William M. Connolley
The name says it all. Hands up those of us that were actually alive in the 1960’s and 1970’s and remember the hype over global cooling! I was in schools in the 60’s and remember us discussing it at the time.
The problem is that most of the people alive today were born after the 60’s and 70’s, so they fall victim to people like Connolley et al., who doctor Wikipedia and rewrite history to suit their own view of the world. This is nothing new. Stalin rewrote the history of the Soviet Union to suit his purposes. The Church has rewritten history in an effort to clean up its own image. Mann and the IPCC rewrote history with the hockey stick to eliminate the LIA and MVP. Hansen and GISS continue to rewrite history, altering the historical temperature records to “improve” them.
History is not a fine wine. Records do not improve with age. Back in the 70’s science was not nearly as politicized as it is now. Scientists actually understood that there was no significance in scientific consensus. That more often than not, it ends up that 10,000 scientists were wrong and only 1 was right.
Why does climate science use the term “denier”? Stop for a minute and consider the underlying premise behind AGW, the IPCC and climate science. It has nothing to do with climate. The driving force is fear. Fear that: “industrial pollution must be stopped before it kills us”.
Like Lord Voldemort, the name that may not be mentioned, it is this fear of death from industrial pollution that is driving the language. “Denier” is not a reference to climate change, except at a superficial level. Deep down, at a gut level no one talks about, denier is meant in the same context as a holocaust denier. That you are denying the deaths caused by industrial pollution.
It really has very little to do with climate change or sea level rise of ocean acidification, that is simply polite speech for “he who cannot be mentioned”. Fear is driving the crowds, and the predators are taking advantage. Be it through taxes, or subsidies or grants. Like wolves surrounding a herd of sheep, the Al Gores of the world are purposely whipping up the crowd to incite panic, knowing that in the panic it will be much easier to pick of the strays and feast on the spoils.

June 17, 2011 9:02 am

I think we can survive another little ice age… I think it is just a matter of us making sure that earth will not get “too white” (no racist pun intended). We can do that in the same way as they are removing snow in the nordic countries (salt) or employiing more and better laser beam technology directed to melt snow layers in areas where there are largely thin layers of snow (by using aeroplanes)

DesertYote
June 17, 2011 9:10 am

kuhnkat
June 17, 2011 at 8:19 am
Dang Bob, you are such a party pooper.
###
He’s just trying to confuse and distract as alarmists are want to do, using the techniques they learned from their Marxist propagandist teachers.

richardM
June 17, 2011 9:13 am

@ aaron
“GHGs retain heat, heating will not accelerate faster because of them once SW absorption picks back up.”
Ok, this Gieco caveman is wondering how you explain this, as the “greenhouse” effect is present regardless of the levels of atmospheric CO2 (natural or man “made”). What puzzles me this most is that “GHG’s retain heat” remark….dazzle me with your insight.

June 17, 2011 9:15 am

Michael Mann claims increased volcanic activity, not reduced solar activity, caused the cooler temperatures during the Little Ice Age.
Is that right?
Looking for some help from community here – is there a proven correlation between solar activity and recent changes in the earth’s temperature? (seems like there would be)
If volcanic activity did cause the LIA, what explains the cooler temperatures during the Dalton Minimum? If anyone can point me toward some research I would very much appreciate it!!
Thanks
Matt
Ref- Mann cites volcanoes as the cause of the Little Ice Age – http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/solar-minimum-climate/

Roald
June 17, 2011 9:20 am

John Finn says
and whatever you do – don’t mention the ice

LOL. Don’t worry, I won’t mention that the Arctic sea ice is running at or close to record low levels according to all major research institutes despite the alleged global cooling.

Editor
June 17, 2011 9:22 am

John Finn says: “I’m also dubious about the solar reconstructions.”
Yup. Figure 4 uses the outdated TSI reconstruction of Hoyt and Schatten. I added that to the comments I just published on this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/comments-on-easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 9:29 am

Interesting post, but of course purely based on speculation of 2 different levels of what “might” happen.
1) Will we indeed see a Maunder type minimum over then next few decades? Still quite unknown and speculation we might, is just that, speculation that we “might”.
2) If we do see a Maunder type minimum in sunspots, will this necessarily lead to cooler temps? Again, pure speculation not based on any quantifiable effects.
On top of all this of course is the fact that we have 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last time the sun took a little nap. How this will mitigate the effects of any diminished solar activity is also not known.
Finally, I think the temperature graphs used in Dr. Don Easterbrook’s post are a bit skewed in the sense that they don’t give a true picture of the global warming we’ve seen over the last few decades, and don’t accurate portray the fact that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record and it certainly occurred after 1998, which he seems to want to suggest was the high water mark and a “gradually deepening cooling since then” (his words exactly). Well Dr. Easterbrook, how can the decade of 2000-2009 be the warmest on record with a “gradually deepening cooling” since 1998? Doesn’t seem to make much sense. One alternative to Dr. Easterbrook’s temperature graph would be this one from NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201105.gif
Which of course, doesn’t show Dr. Easterbrook’s “gradually deepening cooling” since 1998.
And interesting post by Dr. Easterbrook, but one that has a lot of “what if’s” related to the sun, and seems to get neglect that fact that, at least according to the data, we have not seen a gradually deepening cooling since 1998.

Editor
June 17, 2011 9:30 am

DesertYote says: “He’s just trying to confuse and distract as alarmists are want to do, using the techniques they learned from their Marxist propagandist teachers.”
I assume the “He” in that sentence is me. I’m a lukewarmer, not an alarminst or marxist propagandist. Your comment made me laugh, by the way. If you’re not aware, Anthony regularly cross posts my posts here at WUWT. An alarmist would not have ended a post about this…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/comments-on-easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/
…with:
Arguments about anthropogenic global warming cannot be won by misrepresenting the PDO, or by using outdated TSI data, or by creating unusual global temperature anomaly graphs that are obviously wrong to anyone familiar with the instrument temperature record.
Have a good day.

ivp0
June 17, 2011 9:35 am

RE: Steven Mosher
“check TSI in figure 2 versus TSI in figure 4.”
Another biggie. Wow! Good catch Mosh. Was this a test to see if anyone would notice?

June 17, 2011 9:40 am

Roald says:
“…Arctic sea ice is running at or close to record low levels…”
What “record” are you referring to? The sattelite record since 1979?
Dr Easterbrook shows the temperature record back to the MWP. And the Holocene had much warmer periods than today. Any thinking person would conclude that during those climate optimums the Arctic had less ice than today. It may have been completely ice-free. Thus, your extremely short ‘record’ is meaningless.
The current Arctic climate is completely normal. There is zero evidence that CO2 is causing the ice to decline. It is simply natural variability. Because CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, the Antarctic would be declining like the Arctic if CO2 was the cause. But the Antarctic is not losing ice like the Arctic, which is losing ice because of ocean currents.

Wil
June 17, 2011 9:49 am

I believe Easterbrook is onto to something significant. I’m stunned more “scientists” don’t put more weight on the sun. For instance, one need only look at the solar system itself to understand the power of the sun and its effect or lack of effect on the planets. Having said that however, I’ve long been a proponent of the historical earth and its many ice ages and indeed the warm periods in between. Periods no one understands while seemingly ignoring the triggers that caused both effects (ice and warm) on the planet in their original timelines. Which says to me we as humans don’t understand the forces that shape out system well enough to make claims such as the AGW side do constantly. Easterbrook on the other hand, actually talks about the historical earth, its effect on both the planet itself and the humans in that time frame. Hard won history – history on a human scale our ancestors survived through – a history Easterbrook warms us all is indeed possible.
Greenhouse Effect = +33.00⁰C Water Vapour causes 95% of the effect = 31.35⁰C Other Greenhouse gasses cause 5% of the Effect = 1.65⁰C CO2 is about 75% of the Effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C Total worldwide Man-made CO2 is about 7% of atmospheric CO2 = 0.086⁰C. So what’s all this talk from the AGW side about CO2 mitigating cooling? And the CO2 talk here? I though folks here understood CO2 isn’t the driving force claimed by the warmest fanatics. Am I wrong? If so where?

June 17, 2011 9:57 am

The globe experienced the 10th warmest May since record keeping began in 1880, as the climate phenomenon La Niña ended its 2011 cycle. The Arctic sea ice extent was the third smallest extent for May on record.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110615_globalstats.html

Latitude
June 17, 2011 9:59 am

R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:29 am
On top of all this of course is the fact that we have 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last time the sun took a little nap.
=================================================
Gates, you say that on almost every post you make……
….is that some sort of scare tactic? LOL
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2009/11/illustration-of-mans-co2-contribution/

Moderate Republican
June 17, 2011 10:03 am

TomB says @ June 17, 2011 at 8:50 am “The “myth” of the global cooling of the ’70s? How old are you? Had you been an adult during that time, I can assure you – you would have heard, seen and read stories warning of the coming ice age. It’s not a “myth”.”
Hi Tom – I am not saying it is a myth that the media talked a lot about it, but it appears that is it a myth that the body of scientific work at the time was focused on global cooling. That is a BIG difference.
I think we’d both agree the MSM isn’t wonderfully reliable in their reporting.
Anyway – thanks for the note back.

C Porter
June 17, 2011 10:03 am

Enough with this frivolity that I started on this blog of naming the next minimum.
There are many fine scientists living or now gone who would thoroughly deserve attribution, such as Landscheidt who has been mentioned a couple of times, or even Svenmark whose work may ultimately prove the connection between the sun’s quiescent state as measured by sunspot count and climate.
So apologise to these great men for the nonsense that I started.

jim hogg
June 17, 2011 10:04 am

Henry Galt:
“If there is some lag in the system (if, indeed there is a system;-) then: 179×2=358 and 2003-1645=358. Just sayin’.”
We could call that the “Fairbridge” lag then?

June 17, 2011 10:05 am

jorgekafkazar states
“Utter nonsense. The symptoms of ebola and the Black Death are different, the period from onset to death is different.”
Of course. That is the whole point. Does the anecdotal data, and a little bit of quantitative data, support the idea that the Black Death was cause by bubonic plague, or an Ebola type virus? Modern evidence suggest that what little data is available supports the idea that it is extremely unlikely that bubonic plague was the cause; a more likely explanation is that Black Death was caused by an Ebola type virus.

Roberto
June 17, 2011 10:13 am

I just want to throw my two cents in about the 70s also. I was in college during that time and interviewed a dozen or so climate experts for a research paper and every one of them said the earth was cooling and we were headed for massive trouble. Back then we didn’t have the internet and easy communications to form real or fake “consensus” claims but it sure seems alot of people now are going out of the way to try to disprove the obvious (to those of us who were there) that there was not a global cooling consensus (or a mini-consensus at least).

June 17, 2011 10:18 am

richardM,
The greenhouse effect acts on LW radiation which is emitted from the earth, and which is much more stable than the amount of SW radiation reaching the surface. LW radiation from the surface should not fall and LW radiation in the atmosphere will fall negligably (the atmosphere isn’t very big relative to the mass of the earth, so the temp change will not reduce LW radiation much).
I think you mis-undertood what I wrote. I assumed we’d see about the same warming over the next 20 years for simplicity. It’s most certainly is an over estimate as we seem to be approaching a limit on emissions growth, concentrations have been increasing almost linearly (actually at a declining rate), and as concentrations increase the effect of additional CO2 on temp decreases. I wouldn’t totally rule out the possibility that emissions growth may increase (perhaps there is a lot more oil, coal, and gas to be discovered than we think), but it doesn’t seem likely in the near term.

phlogiston
June 17, 2011 10:24 am

Wil
Good comment. The notion that the scientific community understands climate in any real sense is grossly complacent at best and fraudulent at worst. The history of ice ages (real, not “mini”) in the last million years or so is very complex, with some intermittent correlation with Croll-Milankovich orbital cycles (eccentricity in particular) but many departures from regular frequency and huge variation to the point that a repeating cycle of glacial / interglacial is barely discernible above noise. Despite this, there is a childishly simple and complacent idea being promoted that the current interglacial will – bizzarely – continue for 50,000 yrs, based on a simplistic monofactorial interpretation of the current node of minimal eccentricity amplitude. This assumes that this parameter can accurately predict the start and end of all recent interglacials which is patently nonsense.
But it is convenient to suppress discussion of the only real climate catastrophe scenario – the abrupt fall in temps of 3-4 c that occurs at the start of each slide from interglacial to full on ice age.
However it is a real possibility that cooling from the impending dropout of two or more solar cycles, which is now practically certain, could end the current interglacial. There is no good reason to be shy of discussing this.

SSam
June 17, 2011 10:36 am

“Stop the hand waving and let’s get back to Science.”
Have you ever noticed that one side rants and raves and calls for ignoring tangible evidence contrary to their position, that when presented with a large, hard to ignore problem that shoots a hole in their position, that instantly they call for civility or something similar to the above quote?

JohnH
June 17, 2011 10:37 am

ferd berple says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:01 am
THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
William M. Connolley
The name says it all. Hands up those of us that were actually alive in the 1960′s and 1970′s and remember the hype over global cooling! I was in schools in the 60′s and remember us discussing it at the time.
I remember the BBC documentary (thats an embarassment they prefer to forget 😉 ) and the mention of it in science lessons. It was no myth and considering the last 100K years temp history its still the long term threat even if it takes another 10K years before an Ice age returns.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 10:40 am

Latitude says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:59 am
R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:29 am
On top of all this of course is the fact that we have 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last time the sun took a little nap.
=================================================
Gates, you say that on almost every post you make……
….is that some sort of scare tactic? LOL
________
How is stating a fact, a scare tactic? I think it is important to note all the differences between now and the last time we had a Maunder Minimum (assuming of course, that we do have a Maunder type minimum). A sleepy sun could be a huge opportunity to test many theories and measure quantifiable effects from changes in solar output GCR/cloud interactions, etc., and it is also vital to note other differences between now and the last time such a sleepy sun presented itself.

Tom in Florida
June 17, 2011 10:41 am

Latitude says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:59 am
“Gates, you say that on almost every post you make……
….is that some sort of scare tactic? LOL”
It the most favorite of the Gatesisms.

June 17, 2011 10:42 am

Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:53 am
mkelly says @ June 17, 2011 at 6:58 am “Then why did the CIA write a report in 1974 saying that “The western world’s leading climatologist’s have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change.” ie cooling if it was not true?”
The CIA may be a lot of things, but I am not sure many people would consider them climate science experts.
MR, do you even bother reading the posts before you respond to them?
Nobody claimed the CIA has expertese in climate.
Even the CIA isn’t claiming any expertese in climate.
What the report does say is that the CIA talked to the people who are experts, and here’s what they had to say.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 10:44 am

Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:40 am
“The current Arctic climate is completely normal.”
_____
Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June. So I guess it’s normal in the fact that it’s continuing the long-term decline that we’ve seen over the past few decades. Yes, you’re right, the record low sea ice for this date that continues the long-term pattern of declining sea ice is normal.

pyromancer76
June 17, 2011 10:56 am

It is invigorating that WUWT can present an excellent research paper from one field and provide the opportunity for researchers from that one and others to critique it. This openness can make it difficult for presenters, but it also offers the possibility for better research in each field. I imagine Anthony will provide Don Easterbrook the opportunity to answer objections regarding TSI reconstructions, relating TSI to temperature reconstructions, use of PDO for SeaSurfaceTempature, and a number of others. The science in the different fields — I am partial to geology — can only improve as it fits and “collides” with that in others. (I am not commenting on the trolls that appear, but on those commenters who have done their due diligence and want accuracy from their perspective.) Thanks to all.

Murray
June 17, 2011 10:59 am

Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing. They do nothing to Easterbrook’s main point about solar cycles and climate. PDO peak in 2004 instead of 1999 – right, but so what, the cooling after 1908 equal 0.3 degrees rather than 0.5 degrees, right – but so what ,we are still slipping into a cooling. . If we consider the LIA as starting near 1300, and if my guess at phasing is correct, we were 1/2 way from peak to valley of the ca 1000 year cycle, at the bottom of 60 year and Jose cycles and had the Wolf shallow grand minimum very nearly coincident, so clearly a cool period. Now we are farther from the bottom of the ca 1000 year cycle, but have a deep grand minimum, so cooler than the 1300 cooling but not as cool as the Maunder. I expect that the crop line is going to move a long way south though, – already happening in Canada.

Murray
June 17, 2011 11:00 am

Smokey – low sea ice extent because the wind pattern has been compacting the ice, not because it is warm.

June 17, 2011 11:02 am

Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
“lowest… ever”?? What a preposterous statement. No credibility there.

Jim G
June 17, 2011 11:05 am

Iben Browning was predicting a coming cool down back in the 80’s but his was based more upon solar system obital alignments and their grvitational effects upon Earth’s magma and susequent volcanic eruptions which would lead to less TSI reaching the planet. I attended a few of his presentations and though not so much believable, they were very well done and entertaining. Looks like he was possibly on the right track but for the wrong reasons. His bottom line was solar radiance even though he figured the reduction would be due to SO2 and particulate matter.

June 17, 2011 11:14 am

The IPCC projection in the last chart is also dubious, also tagging it to 1998 is just plan wrong.
The outdated and INCONSISTENT TSI figures and the dubious last chart… I’d consign this post to the trash bin

Caleb
June 17, 2011 11:16 am

While weeding in my garden I was explaining to a turnip that it was lucky humans obeyed their Creator and were fruitful and multiplied, because in the process they had created extra CO2 which not only made turnips grow faster, but also might lessen the amount temperatures would drop due to the quiet sun.
The turnip replied that what was good for turnips was also good for weeds.
I had to admit the turnip had a point, but I didn’t like its tone, so I ate it.

AnonyMoose
June 17, 2011 11:18 am

One little error. The Vikings in Greenland is mentioned in a paragraph which refers to the Maunder Minimum. While the Little Ice Age affected the Vikings, the Maunder Minimum was after the 1400s.

June 17, 2011 11:23 am

I agree with Gates that CO2 has risen by ≈40% over the past century and a half. But that rise doesn’t show what Gates thinks it does. What it clearly shows is that CO2 has little if any effect on global temperature.
After a substantial two-fifths rise in CO2, according to the purveyors of the CO2=CAGW conjecture temperatures should be in an accelerating rise. In fact, just the opposite is occurring. The mildly rising temperature trend line from the 1600’s [the LIA] is not accelerating [note the comment in red font below the chart].
Rational folks will see that CO2 is not causing the trend line to rise, thus the demonization of harmless, beneficial “carbon” is a scam. Gates can’t see why his CO2 scare is debunked by this fact. But others can see.

Moderate Republican
June 17, 2011 11:26 am

Mark Wilson says @ June 17, 2011 at 10:42 am “What the report does say is that the CIA talked to the people who are experts, and here’s what they had to say.”
It does? That would be interesting to read, but since there is no reference it is hard to do. Which leaves several open questions on your assertion.
What experts?
How many experts?
What confidence level?
Was it the consensus of all the best available information?
What duration of cooling was projected?
Etc…
Thanks for the note back and enjoy your Friday (or what ever data and time it happens to be when you read this)

Moderate Republican
June 17, 2011 11:28 am

Murray says @ June 17, 2011 at 11:00 am “Smokey – low sea ice extent because the wind pattern has been compacting the ice, not because it is warm.”
Now that is an interesting thing to think about – is there a reference you can share which documents that the wind pattern is the only cause? i’d really enjoy learning more about that.

nutso fasst
June 17, 2011 11:30 am

Glacier Bay, Alaska…
1794 – Entirely covered in ice up to 4,000 feet thick, extending more than 100 miles inland to the St. Elias mountains.
1879 – Open water 30 miles inland.
1924 – Open water 65 miles inland.
Timeline not a good correspondence with figure 2. Or with AGW – open water since 1924 has remained fairly constant. This isn’t an alpine glacier, but if all is Sol, would the Pacific Ocean have stayed warm in the Dalton?

Caleb
June 17, 2011 11:37 am

Regarding sea ice: Check the “Sea Ice Page.” Go to the comparison between 2007 and 2011. Look at the ice north of Siberia.
To me it seems it was already getting slushy, and was 40% open water, at this time in 2007, while it is more solid this year.
However the news about the sun seems far more interesting than news about the ice. You can only watch ice melt for so long, before you start to crave more stimulating subjects.

Nancy
June 17, 2011 11:45 am

The people who have a financial interest in AGW (excuse me, climate change) are not going to take this sitting down. Expect the most vicious attacks imaginable and more over the next few weeks and months.

Kay
June 17, 2011 11:46 am

[quote]jorgekafkazar says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:51 am
Jim Cripwell says: “…It reminds me of how everyone “knows” that the Black Death was caused by bubonic plague. This was based on a guess at the end of the 19th century, when bubonic plague was found, and for the first time a possible reason for the Black Death was discovered. Most data is anecdotal. Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola….”
Utter nonsense. The symptoms of ebola and the Black Death are different, the period from onset to death is different.[/quote]
Not to mention that Ebola is a virus, Y. pestis is a bacterium.
But while we’re on the subject, the plague comes back to haunt us during cold periods. Examining the history of the cyclical nature of plague, it’s interesting to note that The Plague of Justinian struck during the 6th and 7th centuries. But from 750 AD to the onset of the Black Death in c. 1348, we don’t hear about it. Not once. What was going on then? Well, the Medieval Warm Period, of course.
After the Black Death, other major outbreaks of plague include:
London, 1603
Italian Plague, 1629-1631
Plague of Seville, 1647-1652
Plague of London. 1665-1666 (the only thing that stopped it was the Great Fire in September 1666)
Vienna, 1679
Marseilles, 1720-1722
Eastern Europe, 1738
Russia, 1770-1772
Then it quiets down until 1890 when it hits China, and again in 1903 when it comes to the US. All cold periods.
Crops began to fail due to bad weather even before the LIA. People were nourished and ill to begin with–easy prey for plague. Also, the rat population and/or the flea population must have exploded prior to that. What caused it? Well, the current thinking is that winter snowpack plays a role in summer soil moisture, which in turn affects the growth of fleas and the vegetation the rodents use for food. In other words, cold, wet ground is a breeding ground for fleas. In this case, warming decreases the flea population and decreases the chances of infecting rodents. See here:
http://www.ajtmh.org/content/61/5/814.full.pdf+html
Rats entering homes to stay warm is another means of transmission.
That there is a link between disease and climate is indisputable. There may well have been earlier outbreaks prior to Constantinople during Justinian’s time; we just don’t have enough evidence right now to show one way or the other that it was plague and not another newly virulent strain of virus or bacteria like measles.

Latitude
June 17, 2011 12:00 pm

Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:23 am
I agree with Gates that CO2 has risen by ≈40% over the past century and a half. But that rise doesn’t show what Gates thinks it does. What it clearly shows is that CO2 has little if any effect on global temperature.
===============================================================
But it’s so scary when you say increased 40%…….
……40% of nothing is still nothing…………………………0.039%

John Finn
June 17, 2011 12:01 pm

Murray says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:59 am
Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing.

Not so. Most of the data used to produce the graphs in the post is either suspect or, at best, outdated.
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:14 am
The IPCC projection in the last chart is also dubious, also tagging it to 1998 is just plan wrong.
The outdated and INCONSISTENT TSI figures and the dubious last chart… I’d consign this post to the trash bin

You beat me to it. The post is an embarrassment.

June 17, 2011 12:04 pm

Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:26 am
First you complain that since the CIA aren’t climate experts, there opinion doesn’t count.
Now you say that since the report doesn’t list the experts that it talked to, it’s opinion doesn’t count.
Why do I suspect that nomatter how far we go down this rabbit hole, you will always find one more irrelevant reason to dismiss the report.

June 17, 2011 12:06 pm

Hi Tom – I am not saying it is a myth that the media talked a lot about it, but it appears that is it a myth that the body of scientific work at the time was focused on global cooling.
So it’s a myth that Hansen gave testimony in front of congress talking about the coming ice age? (Yes, the same Dr. Hansen that is now claiming the earth is about to boil away.)

June 17, 2011 12:09 pm

Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.
40% CO2 may or may not be a scare tactic.
But this definitely is. Especially when you fail to mention that “ever” only includes the period since 1979.

June 17, 2011 12:10 pm

It’s doubly a scare tactic when you fail to mention that the period included since 1979 only includes the warm phase of a single PDO cycle. Let’s wait at least until we finish a single full PDO cycle before we start declaring we know anything about sea ice extants.

Editor
June 17, 2011 12:11 pm

Murray says: “Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing. They do nothing to Easterbrook’s main point about solar cycles and climate.”
Easterbrook’s main point about solar cycles and global temperature is also flawed. If you’re not aware of it, the TSI reconstruction data he used in Figure 4 is obsolete. The Hoyt and Schatten TSI dataset was created to reinforce the AGW proposition that global temperatures were governed by variations in TSI until the 1970s, and that after that, AGW caused global temperatures to rise. Somehow Easterbrook is now attempting to use that reconstruction to reinforce natural variability. Also, please let me know what global temperature reconstruction he presented in Figure 4. It’s not identified in the post. I could find no mention of a source in the references he provided. Without a source, it’s simply unjustified wiggles on a graph.
You continued, “PDO peak in 2004 instead of 1999 – right, but so what, the cooling after 1908 equal 0.3 degrees rather than 0.5 degrees, right…”
I did not write that the PDO peaked in 2004 instead of 1999. I provided graphs of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, not the PDO. The PDO does not represent the SST of the North Pacific. In fact, on a decadal basis, the PDO is inversely related to detrended North Pacific SST anomalies. That means, again over decadal time spans, if the PDO is rising, the detrended North Pacific SST anomalies are falling, lowering the impact of the North Pacific on global temperatures.
You continued, “but so what ,we are still slipping into a cooling.”
We are? Please identify which global surface temperature anomaly dataset you’re referring to.

Wil
June 17, 2011 12:19 pm

phlogiston
May I say I find your comment very enlightening and satisfying indeed. While we must fight today’s AGW nonsense every step of the way this planet has a story to tell few of us even consider with due diligence. I am far from satisfied with us as a species knowing full well the volatile history of this planet and the fact of how little we understand or even allow into the conversation why and how ice ages and the inner-spaced warm periods triggered. If we don’t understand the historical facts how can we possible understand the present? This has confused me my entire life to this point in time. I am grateful to WUWT for allowing me to read some of the most informed people on this planet.

Moderate Republican
June 17, 2011 12:20 pm

Caleb says @ June 17, 2011 at 11:37 am “Go to the comparison between 2007 and 2011. Look at the ice north of Siberia.”
Wouldn’t the long term trend be the better measurement, since there can be substantial year to year variation? Ditto for looking at just one point or region?
Just seems like picking any year on year comparison or one geo location leaves open (which I am not saying you are doing) cherry picking of the data by either side of the debate.

June 17, 2011 12:44 pm

Jim Arndt says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:05 am
My main problem is that he is using a TSI reconstruction that is way out of date and most agree now that TSI does not vary that much.
Indeed, the TSI constructions are obsolete. The old reconstructions all relied on a sharp increase in TSI during the first 3/4 of the 20th century. This increase did not happen. There are sevearl lines of evidence for that. Here is from a very recent analysis of the solar ‘network’ since 1915 [Peter Foukal, ApJ, 733:L38 (4pp), 2011 June 1]:
“Solar activity minima between 1914 and 1996 exhibit no significant secular increase in f (Foukal & Milano 2001). This argues against a secular increase of TSI due to increasing network area during the 20th century, as proposed in addition to 11 year TSI modulation by Lean et al. (1995) and by Lockwood & Stamper (1999). This finding from archival solar images is supported by the subsequent reconsideration of such additional secular solar brightening over the past century (Lean et al. 2002; see also Svalgaard & Cliver 2010).”
With this realization the rest of the article falls apart.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 12:46 pm

Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:02 am
Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
“lowest… ever”?? What a preposterous statement. No credibility there.
_____
And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.

Dave Springer
June 17, 2011 12:48 pm

R.Games
40% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
Instead why don’t you say there is 0.01% more CO2 than there was during the last grand minimum? That’s a perfectly accurate thing to say.
Don’t be coy. We all know why you prefer the former. It sounds like such a much larger number.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 12:50 pm

Murray says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:00 am
Smokey – low sea ice extent because the wind pattern has been compacting the ice, not because it is warm.
_____
Murray you are complete mistaken about this. That “wind compacting the ice” happens…but is not the reason the sea ice has been declining over the past few decades. Permafrost is also melting, and it’s a bit hard for the wind to get underground to do that. The arctic is warming Murray…all the data tell us that, and to believe different is to believe something that is in error.

Matt G
June 17, 2011 12:54 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:04 am
“How does Svensmark move from the simple assertion that cloudiness increases when the sun is quiet to the observed changes in surface pressure distribution and changes in jetstream behaviour ?”
“His concept is curiously incomplete in my humble opinion.”
The jetstream is the main source of convection and clouds on the planet away from the tropics. The planet is narrow at the poles and wide at the equator, so the position of jetstream to the north or South covers different areas of the surface. The further North the jet stream position the less area of the planet it covers. Therefore just positioning the jetstream further South increases cloud albedo because it covers a greater surface of the planet.
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:02 am
Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
“lowest… ever”?? What a preposterous statement. No credibility there.
I still find the worry about the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since x really funny.
1) It is only a data span of ~32 years.
2) If it was a weather staton these records would be broken regularly in a period of just ~32 years.
3) The lowest extent only comes up when the volume isn’t.
4) The lowest volume only comes up when the extent isn’t.
5) Any extent between September and March not including them, has little bearing on the start and end.
6) The September extent has little bearing on the extent after the following Winter.
7) There is scientific evidence of ice-free Arctic periods before and much warmer times.
8) A ice-free Arctic during Summer would be very short and refreeze quicker with more open water exposed to a rapid solar energy loss. (more heat loss from ocean)
9)It is a serious clutching at straws that an ice-free Arctic over a very short period during Summer would even be a problem. (only thing anyone concerned can think of is the polar bears, they can survive for months without food and swim hundreds of miles.)
10)The Ice would still refreeze to a great area by the end of Winter. (the rapid solar energy lost is too great)
The Arctic ice from just ~32 years has nothing to do with this incomparable period over 400 years. (topic of this thread)

Jim D
June 17, 2011 12:57 pm

Regarding Figure 5, he presents it as his 1999 idea of what would happen. It seems to have been wrong in the first ten years after that. This explains why it doesn’t show that the 2000’s were not warmer than the 90’s. I don’t know where the red IPCC line would come from. No IPCC line should have wiggles in the future. I think it is hand-drawn because some gradients look implausibly steep.

Ged
June 17, 2011 1:04 pm

Considering Arctic temperatures are following right along the normal line, it’s hard to say why there is as much melting as there is, as temp isn’t increasing over previous years. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2011.png
Also, the Antarctic is riding just above average again. So, whatever’s going on in the Arctic seems confined to there.

Kev-in-Uk
June 17, 2011 1:18 pm

steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:14 am
Whilst I can only assume that your reference to differing TSI values is supposed to be important – I can’t see that it’s relevant. I took the point of the graphs to be ‘graphical’ representations of the shapes and their correlation but maybe I’m not looking hard enough?
I do agree that Fig 5 seems to be a hocus pocus mix-up – but presumably, as an illustrative graph it does have some (limited) merit.

Espen
June 17, 2011 1:21 pm

Speaking of solar variation vs variations on earth: Just today I noticed that stratospheric cooling actually happened in two steps after El Chichon and Pinatubo (this has of course been noticed before, but alarmists prefer to talk about a downward trend and give CO2 the blame). The reason is that the volcanoes depleted the stratosphere of ozone, so after an initial fast warming, the stratosphere cooled to a level a step below the level before the eruption. Could it be that the stratospheric cooling caused tropospheric warming, and not vice versa? I.e. that big eruptions actually warm the earth in the long run? Of course, if UV and its absorption
In the stratosphere is more crucial than previously thought, that may also mean that UV variations in sunlight may be driving climate changes as well.

Moderate Republican
June 17, 2011 1:21 pm

Hi Mark – thanks for the response.
I think you are a touch confused here.
Mark Wilson says @ June 17, 2011 at 10:42 am “What the report does say is that the CIA talked to the people who are experts, and here’s what they had to say.”
and then said;
Mark Wilson says @ June 17, 2011 at 12:04 pm “First you complain that since the CIA aren’t climate experts, there opinion doesn’t count. Now you say that since the report doesn’t list the experts that it talked to, it’s opinion doesn’t count.”
I’m just responding to your assertion that it is revelant, so I’m responding to you. I’m just looking to learn from the report since you say it is relevant to the broader conversation here then I am assuming it is.
I haven’t seen the report since it isn’t cited, but expressing concerns that the CIA is generally not considered to be a primary source of climate expertise would seem to be a valid expression. Without seeing any evidence of where the supposed conclusion that the CIA reached was drawn from in the report harboring some skepticism (and skepticism is cool here, yes) would seem to be consistent, no?
Anyway, thanks for the response.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 1:24 pm

Dave Springer says:
June 17, 2011 at 12:48 pm
R.Games
40% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
Instead why don’t you say there is 0.01% more CO2 than there was during the last grand minimum? That’s a perfectly accurate thing to say.
______
Saying there is .01% more CO2 (as you suggest) now than during the last Grand Minimum would be completely wrong. Why would I want to say that? Not sure what data you’re using but it’s not accepted by…pretty much anyone, wherever it came from. We’ve got the highest CO2 levels in at least 800,000 years, and 40% more than we had during the last “Little Ice Age”. Now those two statements are accurate.

Editor
June 17, 2011 1:27 pm

Leif: Glad you made an appearance. In my critique of this post at my blog I wrote, Don Easterbrook’s Figure 5 shows global temperatures dropping in the future. Why would they drop? We’re pretty close to solar minimum now. Is TSI expected to drop below the minimums of the last few solar cycles? I’ve never seen this discussed in any paper presented about the current solar minimum. Therefore, where do these expectations of decreased TSI come from?
My question for you, Leif: are we expecting TSI to drop below its “normal” cycle minimum during the upcoming cycles?

Jim D
June 17, 2011 1:29 pm

I also want to know where he gets his 4 C cooler LIA from. This is the first time I have seen a figure for the LIA of this size, and it is probably a typo for 0.4 C. Most paleo proxies have been putting it at 0.5 C below average at most.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 1:30 pm

Ged says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Considering Arctic temperatures are following right along the normal line, it’s hard to say why there is as much melting as there is,
_____
Not hard at all…the Arctic is, and has been for some time, warming even faster than the rest of the planet. This has affected everything from sea ice to permafrost. If you can try to disentangle your mind from your political beliefs, you might actually find the truth is quite enlightening.
See: http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html

June 17, 2011 1:33 pm

“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.”
Some AGW proponent may suggest that all these event were compatible with a “Global Warming Scenario”. In fact since then the Earth has been warming. Thank God.

June 17, 2011 1:33 pm

R Gates says:
“And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.”
Read the first paragraph [in red]: click The whole article is worthwhile.
The conclusion is worth reading, too. Gates will dismiss it because his mind is made up, but John Daly knew what he was talking about. Which is why Phil Jones practically stood up and cheered at the news of Daly’s passing.

June 17, 2011 1:34 pm

Found the “starting treitise” which helped motivate Svensmark.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790012790_1979012790.pdf
Complete download of a 400 page book!
Good empirical work. What Svensmark has done is to:
1. Run his own experiments (“Sky” experiments, in the basement of his building in Denmark, using a modified “Wilson Cloud Chamber”…using water, not Ethanol)
2. Produced the elegant paper (Oct 2009 I believe) linking Forebush decreases in Cosmic rays (caused by massive solar flares, creating a temporary peak in solar wind), showing a clear correllation in decrease in cloud cover (by about 14%, HUGE!) with a 5 day lag time on the bottom of the Forebush decrease.
3. Stimulated the $40,000,000 CERN “Cloud” experiments, about which we only know THEY HAVE BEEN DONE, and we are eagerly awaiting the reports.
It is interesting that Wilson orginally invented the Cloud chamber, specifically to study the formation conditions for CLOUDS. When the world became aware of ionizing radiation from radioactive substances, Wilson wondered what they would do to the clouds in his cloud chamber. Turns out that they showed nice little trails of CONDENSATION of “saturated vapor” along the run of the ionizing species. Cloud chambers began to be used to monitor Cosmic rays. Prior to Crockoft and Watson’s development of the modern accelerator, clound chambers on the ground and in balloons were the first method of doing “high energy particle physics”. Wilson was given the Noble prize in Physics in 1927 for the Cloud Chamber.
So now we come FULL CIRCLE, matching the largest accellerators in the world, with the largest CLOUD chamber. Not for “particle physics”, but more the physics of particles. I.e., condensation particles. And the end result goes back to what Wilson originally was interested in: Formation of clouds!
Thank you Dr. Wilson. And thank you Dr. Svensmark.

stephen richards
June 17, 2011 1:35 pm

The science behind the projected cooling is as flaky as the science behind AGW except for one thing. The PDO modes do coincide with rises and falls in apparent global temperatures and the Atlantic MO does appear to have a cycle but not very marked. IF the sun is a major contributor to climate change, and I’m prepared to think it might be, then one might argue that any drop in temperatures in the future should provide some indication of the significance of CO². Sadly it won’t because the ‘input parametres’ are never the same for each phase change in the climate drivers and as a result we will never be able to DEFINITIVELY say that CO² equals xx.x°C/ppm. Thus the alarmist corporations will be able to force their believe systems and taxes upon. In France, I have suggested that will wheel out the guillotine one more time starting in Brussels and working our way back to Paris.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 1:36 pm

By the way, this brand new study:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
Would seem to put yet one more kink in Dr. Eastbrook’s contention that we’ve seen a “gradually deepening cooling” since 1998, as the last 5 years since 2005 have been the warmest in 2000 years in the Arctic. I’d love to hear his explanations as to why this would be if we’ve supposedly seen a “gradually deepening cooling” since 1998. Of course, a warming arctic is one of the early indicators of AGW, according to every global climate model.

Latitude
June 17, 2011 1:37 pm

R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:40 am
How is stating a fact, a scare tactic?
======================================================================
No one’s falling for it………………………….

SteveSadlov
June 17, 2011 1:40 pm

HenryP says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:02 am
I think we can survive another little ice age… I think it is just a matter of us making sure that earth will not get “too white” (no racist pun intended). We can do that in the same way as they are removing snow in the nordic countries (salt) or employiing more and better laser beam technology directed to melt snow layers in areas where there are largely thin layers of snow (by using aeroplanes)
==================================================
That would have very little impact on growing seasons or desertification. Those issues would still exist, millions if not billions would perish. We live in a very populated world with JIT supply chains. There is no buffer.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 1:44 pm

Thanks for the link Smokey, really, I find Daly’s thinking very interesting, but it seems the facts would not be falling in line with what he was saying. The Arctic would seem to warmer over the past 5 years than any time in the past 2000:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
If this is the case, it is not hard at all to understand why the sea ice would be running so low.
You said my mind is “made up”. This is absolutely not true. I will look at any scientific data I’m supplied. For example, I am anxiously awaiting the next paper related to the CLOUD experiments from CERN.

Latitude
June 17, 2011 1:58 pm

Ged says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Considering Arctic temperatures are following right along the normal line, it’s hard to say why there is as much melting as there is, as temp isn’t increasing over previous years. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2011.png
=============================================================
Ged, my ‘guess’ would be water. Since most of the ice is under water. Very little to do with air temperature and a lot to do with the North Atlantic Current and wind.

June 17, 2011 1:58 pm

Ya Smokey
here is also what Daly wrote
“Put simply, the ice area today is scarcely different to what it was in 1979. ”
yup. falsified, he is.

June 17, 2011 2:06 pm

Kev-in-Uk
Don has used two different TSI datasets. After looking at 11 different versions over at Lucias ( helping with a programming issue) its clear to me that easterbrook is being very misleading in his selection of TSI.
I would expect to see Willis come into this thread and start to take it to pieces, bob tisdale beat him to it.
youre impressed by the “correlation” however that correlation is driven by the choice of a TSI data set.
It’s easterbrooks version of bristlecone pines.

June 17, 2011 2:08 pm

R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.
whadda u think

June 17, 2011 2:11 pm

Jim Cripwell says:
Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola.
Jim, I have never heard that before – can you point me to any of those studies?

June 17, 2011 2:13 pm

I also like the way nobody questioned the temperature data that correlates so well with the wrong TSI data.
when somebody presents a temperature record that people here think is FULL of UHI, and correlates it with the wrong TSI data, Nobody, ( smokey? willis? ) calls that into question. Hey maybe sunspots are related to UHI?

June 17, 2011 2:13 pm

“And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.”

Doesn’t work that way. You are the one claiming that current ice levels are the lowest ever. You need to back up your claim.

June 17, 2011 2:15 pm

“The arctic is warming Murray…all the data tell us that, and to believe different is to believe something that is in error.”

The arctic warmed the last time the PDO was in it’s warm phase. Then the cold phase came along and it cooled back down.

kramer
June 17, 2011 2:16 pm

If the sun does go into a prolonged period of no or very little sunspots, this I believe will be a great test to see who is right regarding sunspots, CO2, warming, climate, etc.

June 17, 2011 2:17 pm

ivp0 says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:35 am
RE: Steven Mosher
“check TSI in figure 2 versus TSI in figure 4.”
Another biggie. Wow! Good catch Mosh. Was this a test to see if anyone would notice?

Leif or others would have caught it. The minute I read his first chart (modified from eddy) my BS meter was
tripped.. Modified? how. So that just made me on alert to check and compare graphs.

Matt G
June 17, 2011 2:18 pm

http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
None of the icecore data shows recent decades warmer then any during the last 2000 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
So that leaves the last 2000 years based on only tree rings and lake sediments.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleolim/paleolim_data.html
None of the lake sediments based in the Arctic shows recent decades warmer than any during the last 2000 years.
So the leaves just tree rings. (say no more)

Ged
June 17, 2011 2:24 pm

@R. Gates
I posted you a link to the actual temperatures. Where is this warming you are saying would be there? Furthermore, why the Arctic and not the Antarctic? The data is not showing a rapid warming, at least no data I see, it’s completely along the normal line. If there is actual data, please post it like I posted some, instead of telling me what the data disagrees with (and then making knocks against political beliefs. You know nothing about my beliefs in any way, shape, or form)
As Latitude pointed out, water temp is the only thing that makes sense; and water temp will be controlled by circulation patterns of the oceans (since, again, AIR TEMP is holding along the normal average line, and thus cannot explain what we are seeing).

Scottish Sceptic
June 17, 2011 2:38 pm

Thanks for the good work. I’ve now got a much better feel for the potential of another Maunder Minimum. As usual, if you listen to the idiots who call themselves “climate scientists”, all you get is platitudes and “trust us we’ve experts”.
I much prefer the estimates of effects based on analysis of real evidence.
But — can I just say, that global warming is beginning to look very attractive!

Kev-in-Uk
June 17, 2011 2:46 pm

steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Yes, I see your point after looking at Leifs reconstructions page. Hoyts data is wildly variable compared to many others.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).xls
but even Leif’s reconstruction reflects the lower TSI in the Dalton quite clearly for example – so surely, the general correlation is there?
I have not bothered to look research into TSI much – to be honest – just accepted the 0.1% stated TSI ‘variance’ as accepted – which funnily enough looks like its not much more than that in Leifs reconstruction!
I personally do not believe TSI variance is likely to be so restricted (to 0.1%) – but without long term modern data, it really is not possible to prove one way or the other in my opinion. However, accounting for previous large scale climatic variation (ignoring volcanoes, etc,) and taking a pragmatic view – it seems logical that the sun must have had some signifcant influence!!

June 17, 2011 2:57 pm

Mosh, what’s the mass of the ice projected to melt? I’m just curious how much cooling that would cause.
Black death, etc. How correlated are major viral pandemics with cooling, solar activity?
I seem to recall reading recently (maybe here) that many important viruses spread best when water vapor content and temperature are low. If these diseases are high after high volcanic activity and possible solar cloud effects, it would suggest that there’s significant drying of the atmosphere in addition to cooling (beyond what would be expected from simple temperature decrease).

rbateman
June 17, 2011 3:12 pm

The time alloted to the last warm PDO seems a bit short. 20 years. I have discussed this with Joe Aleo before, and it is possible that it might be more like a few years ago, rather than 1999. If the PDO has just recently flipped, it will be a few more years until the Arctic regrows.
I do, however, agree that the Solar cycle downturns follow the climactic downturns much too close for cavalier dismissal. We shall see what we see.

R.S.Brown
June 17, 2011 3:15 pm

The New York Times has an intersting piece on their June 16, 2011
Opinion page that goes into some detail as to what a “quite sun” means
to life pn earth as we currently know it.
They cite the dangers and benefits for radio communication, GPS equipment,
astronauts and satellites. They fo into cosmic rays in this reguard.
However there’s NO mention of ant possible effects of a what a quite sun
might mean for upper atmospheric, ground level, or ocean temperatures.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17baker.html? r=1

don penman
June 17, 2011 3:17 pm

0.8 degrees of warming is not a huge scary increase in temperatures it is a very small increase in global average temperatures over a century,we have seen global temperatures rise and fall by this amount per century many times during the last 10000 years.This Solar minimum if it happens could for all I know drop global temperatures by 0.8 degrees this century.I refuse to make the assumptions that warmist insist that I make when looking at future temperature change that global temperatures remained stable for a thousand years and then erm shot up by a huge 0.8 degrees in the 20th century.We will have to wait until 2100 to see if global temperatures go up or down in this century,I will not be here to see that .So far as I can see Don Easterbrook makes some good points about the little ice age and if your estimates of global temperature variation don’t match these events then it just shows how worthless your global temperatures are.

John B
June 17, 2011 3:24 pm

Smokey, Glad you posted this again:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
…as I am still waiting for you to tell us all why a chart of 7 cities and Central England (picked how?) is better than this Northern Hemispheric chart for roughly the same period:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_image/highlat.gif
Look at the whole of the NH and the trend is pretty darn clear.

john pries
June 17, 2011 3:32 pm

Not sure why we even bother to present these facts. Since we can’t control the sun, we can’t control society with it. Our best bet is to convince or otherwise coerce the public into giving up their rights to abundant energy in the name of saving the earth (in reality, giving the elite control over our lives). From my favorite books: “People will believe what they want to be true, or what they are afraid might be true”

June 17, 2011 3:34 pm

John B,
Glad you asked. The chart you posted is simply a copy of Mann’s debunked Hokey Stick chart. When I get back home I’ll show you how it’s been falsified. I’ll also provide some other charts showing that the noaa chart you posted is deliberately – and mendaciously – misleading.

Kev-in-Uk
June 17, 2011 3:46 pm

don penman says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:17 pm
agreed – as you say, a solar minimum could and most likely would drop temps by a good amount! I was kinda taking this to be the underlying ‘point’ of Easterbrooks article – which, the way it was presented, shows the possible/likely effect of a quiet sun and the general references to past historical events.
I need to do some more reading on this subject (TSI) but it seems perfectly logical to me (and I believe reasonably widely accepted) that the suns output varies. Even basic physics determines that an object ‘burning up’ and throwing off buckets loads of energy must lose mass and therefore must have to adjust itself accordingly? So, yet again, we are only really concerned with actually ‘How much’ this variation is – and whether it is or is not significantly large enough to affect climate. The sunspot cycle has been well observed (though earlier years may be more qualitative than quantitative due to observational limitations) and this clearly shows that the sun goes through phases of activity. As far as I am aware, there is no argument against the fact that this happens. The warmist (and generally touted AGW point) argument seems to be that the sun does indeed affect climate – but not by much – and this is clearly at odds with the known (as in written!) historical lower temp events of the past! Again, on the logical assumption that 17th century Europeans were not driving SUV’s – it sure as eggs are eggs wasn’t anthropgenic in origin and therefore must have been natural – and on the further assumption that most other earthly things remained the ‘same’ or at least ‘similar’ (i.e. no nukes going off or whatever) – it can only be down to the sun as the external warmer of the planet!?

John B
June 17, 2011 3:53 pm

OK Smokey, but don’t get too obsessed with Mann. His hockey stick may have been the first, but there are lots of them now, all pointing the same way…
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.medium.gif
Are they ALL lying?

rbateman
June 17, 2011 4:01 pm

If we cannot learn from the lessons of past history, what can we learn from?

tesla_x
June 17, 2011 4:16 pm

I name thee “the (climate) Frauder Minimum”
Warmist Persunal Regards,
Tesla

Warrick
June 17, 2011 4:35 pm

Distinct clones of Yersinia pestis caused the black death. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20949072
There are clearly a number of other studies with similar results. Very likely that some of the plagues were not Yersinia, but the black death one does not appear to be in dispute.

son of mulder
June 17, 2011 4:37 pm

Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
But see global sea ice, that is more important as the various oscillations tend to make regional climate move around more year to year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This will be interesting over the next few years if the sun does enter a prolonged minimum.

June 17, 2011 5:05 pm

Other people suggest the “Gore Minimum”. I like to agree with them.

June 17, 2011 5:11 pm

Think greenhouses & your own garden would be prudent for many… anyone know how many farmers are hooked up with WEATHERBELL so far?
Food prices to be ‘high and volatile’ until 2020 – FRANCE 24
http://www.france24.com/en/20110617-food-prices-be-high-volatile-until-2020#
…”Weather-related crop yield variations are expected to become an even more critical driver of price volatility in the future,” the report said…
http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/9/1/160286219.html
…Ministers from the Group of 20 industrialized nations are expected to announce next week plans to create a global database on food production and stocks, to mirror existing schemes in oil markets.
The OECD and the FAO backed the need for improving transparency through better forecasting, but stopped short of arguing that financial investors were responsible for driving up food prices in the long term. “High levels of speculative activity in futures markets may amplify price movements in the short term although there is no conclusive evidence of longer term systemic effects on volatility,” they said…

phlogiston
June 17, 2011 5:13 pm

R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Thanks for the link Smokey, really, I find Daly’s thinking very interesting, but it seems the facts would not be falling in line with what he was saying. The Arctic would seem to warmer over the past 5 years than any time in the past 2000:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html

Its those sediments again! We all know how variable proxy records can be.
One proxy dataset alone cant really be held up against the instrumental record.

phlogiston
June 17, 2011 5:18 pm

Caleb says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:37 am
Regarding sea ice: Check the “Sea Ice Page.” Go to the comparison between 2007 and 2011. Look at the ice north of Siberia.
To me it seems it was already getting slushy, and was 40% open water, at this time in 2007, while it is more solid this year.

2011 sea ice does look fore solid than 2007 on Cryosphere today – at least it does today. But on other days it looks a lot more patchy and even worse than 2007. There seems to be a lot of day to day variability in the images, too much for it to be showing a real trend. Maybe the higher resolution data this year is more noisy (as it inevitably will be without a geometric increase in the strength of signal).

John Finn
June 17, 2011 5:35 pm

Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:33 pm
R Gates says:
“And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.”
Read the first paragraph [in red]: click The whole article is worthwhile.

So the “solid specific data” consists of a statement by the President of the Royal Society which was actually based on a single report by William Scoresby (Jnr). It’s very probable that Scoresby had simply come across one of any number of random straits which opened up during the summer months. There is certainly nothing in Scoresby’s accounts to suggest that ice extent across the arctic was anomalously low.
It is, though, interesting given that the President’s address was given in 1817 – just around the time of the deepest part of the Dalton Minimum and only 12 months after the “year without a summer”. Perhaps this “solar effect” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

phlogiston
June 17, 2011 5:45 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Leif: Glad you made an appearance. In my critique of this post at my blog I wrote, Don Easterbrook’s Figure 5 shows global temperatures dropping in the future. Why would they drop? We’re pretty close to solar minimum now.
Close to minimum now? I cant see how that can be. The reported research on the three lines of evidence for the no-show of cycle 25 (zonal flows, flare poleward migration and the L&P magnetic field decline) make it practically certain that there will be no cycle 25. So sunspot levels will bump along at a rate typical of the inter-cycle minimum for the whole of cycle 25. Who knows if cycle 26 will appear or not? We are currently nearing the peak of cycle 24, a weak cycle but still stronger than no cycle. So we are a long way short of any sort of minimum.
The Maunder minimum had two absent cycles (with weak cycles on either side). We are now committed to at least one absent cycle, possibly more.

John B
June 17, 2011 5:54 pm

@John Finn
Here’s some evidence:
Amundsen traversed the Northwest Passage in 1903-1906 (that’s right, it took him 3 years)
[snip – various folk in between, mainly in specialist ice vessels]
In 2009 sea ice conditions were such that at least nine small vessels and two cruise ships completed the transit of the Northwest Passage.
Cruise ships for Pete’s sake!

phlogiston
June 17, 2011 5:58 pm

Wil says:
June 17, 2011 at 12:19 pm
phlogiston
May I say I find your comment very enlightening and satisfying indeed. While we must fight today’s AGW nonsense every step of the way this planet has a story to tell few of us even consider with due diligence. I am far from satisfied with us as a species knowing full well the volatile history of this planet and the fact of how little we understand or even allow into the conversation why and how ice ages and the inner-spaced warm periods triggered.

The planet indeed has a story to tell but many scientists have their agendas, so they like to pick “‘mini-stories” from selected parts of nature that support the agenda that their “research” is serving. An honest look at the palaeo record as a whole is anathema to AGW climate science.
Indeed with the complexity of the recent glacial record, unless a robust “theory of everything” exists explaining and predicting exactly the start and end of each glacial / interglacial (and it doesn’t), then we cant be complacent about when the current interglacial might end. In fact such is the raggedness of the glacial record from the Vostok and other ice cores that the term “interglacial” may even be oversimplistic. There have been warmer intervals of many different durations and “shapes”.
To use an analogy of the human body, climate science thinks it can count the hairs on its head, but in reality does not know its arse from its elbow.

June 17, 2011 6:01 pm

TonyG writes “Jim Cripwell says:
Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola.
Jim, I have never heard that before – can you point me to any of those studies?”
The BBC did a very good documentary on this issue, which I saw when I was visiting a couple of years ago. Other than that I cannot help too much.

June 17, 2011 6:16 pm

John B says:
“Are they ALL lying?”
Affirmative. They are playing eye games with their chart by using a bogus zero reference line, when there is actually a clear upward trend from the LIA. This chart shows how they fool folks like John B: click The top two charts look alarming, don’t they? But when the natural trend line is used in the bottom chart… not so scary.
Next, let’s look at the divergence between rural and urban temps: click A large part of the temperature reconstructions are due to the localized UHI effect. And they are deliberately eliminating many rural stations: click [Blink gif animation].
Here you can see how Hansen diddled with the past record: click GISS routinely “adjusts” the past temperature record — which always results in a more alarming graph: click NOAA does the same thing. They continually reduce past temperatures, so as to falsely show an alarming recent increase: click [blink gif – loads slowly].
Next, look at what the USHCN does with the “raw” temps of different months: click Bob Tisdale provided this chart: click More of the same “adjustments”, eh?
Another GISS chart: click [another slow loading blink gif]. Notice that earlier temps have been artificially adjusted lower. That’s the same thing they did with the MWP to make it look like current temperatures are higher in John B’s link. Here is a chart based on peer reviewed data: click The MWP was significantly warmer than today’s mild cyclical uptick: click
Next, let’s look at CRUtemp: click Both the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere are lower… but global temps are higher! Explain how that works. Here’s another Bob Tisdale chart: click And another: click
More “adjusted” GISS data: click Looks like another bogus hokey stick. Here’s another GISS “adjustment”: click
Finally, here is a graphic showing the difference between raw temperatures, and “adjusted” temps: click
John B will look at these “adjusted” charts and conclude that they’re not lying to us or trying to alarm people. But other folks can make up their own minds.
And if John B likes, I can provide more charts like these.

Old Engineer
June 17, 2011 6:36 pm

Well after going through all 213 responses up to this time, I can only remember 2 that said “correlation does not prove causation”. Yes, it was cold when there were no sun spots. The temperature also went up with CO2 in the atmosphere from around 1978 to 1998. The best advice I’ve seen here is to wait and see. Whatever happens we won’t be endangering life on earth over the next 40 years if we do nothing but sit and watch.

richard verney
June 17, 2011 6:49 pm

R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Thanks for the link Smokey, really, I find Daly’s thinking very interesting, but it seems the facts would not be falling in line with what he was saying. The Arctic would seem to warmer over the past 5 years than any time in the past 2000:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
If this is the case, it is not hard at all to understand why the sea ice would be running so low.
You said my mind is “made up”. This is absolutely not true. I will look at any scientific data I’m supplied. For example, I am anxiously awaiting the next paper related to the CLOUD experiments from CERN.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
One of the biggest problems with the AGW debate is that in truth we have no idea how accurate any of the proxies are that are used to reconstruuct past temperatures or for that matter past CO2 levels. In my opinion this is an incontrovertible fact and thus any reconstruction needs to be cautiously expressed and with caveats.
Whilst not quantative, past recorded historical events can provide useful insight. Whilst there is a debate as to the global extent of the MWP there can be no doubt that Greenland was colonised by the Vikings in areas which are today still ice covered or subject to permafrost. This is an incontovertiblke fact. As the Greenland glaciers/ice retreats we are finding new Viking settlements. Again, it is a fact that in these areas, the Vikings farmed. It is a fact that farming in these areas is not possible today. For farming to be possible in these areas, given that greenhouses were not then invented, the temperatures in these parts of Greenland must have been several degrees warmer than today. By how much, this is not clear but somewhere between 3 to 6 degC would seem to be necessary for farming on any scale (by which I mean of sufficient size and resource to sustain a settlement for many years). Accordingly, this archaelogical evidence provides firm and incontrovertible evidence that Greenland (or at any rate the coastal areas) was warmer than today by some 3 to 6 deg C (and may be even more). That being the case and given the close proximity of these areas of Greenland to the Artic, it is overwhelmingly likely that much of the Artic was considerably warmer than today and also overwhelmingly likely that at this time, there was less Artic ice.
The proxy evidence referred to by R Gates suggesting that the Artic has not been this warm in the past 2000 years would therefore seem to be highly dubious since it runs contrary to known and undisputable facts that we know about the colonisation of Greenland during the MWP/Viking warm period.
As Smokey said, John Daly knew a thing or two. I can remember reading as a young boy (one of the first books that I bought) the story of th Nautilus submarine journey under the Artic. This book had many pictures of the submarine having broken through thin ice and there is a plethora of Naval documentation (incliuding photographs of US and UK origin) showing the Artic to have less ice or at any rate thinner ice than the Artic possess today at various times in the 50s, 30s and going back to the second part of the 19th century. THe bold assertions by R Gates appear unstainable in the face of this evidence (lets call this recorded historical evidence human experience proxy evidence).
It seems to me that it would be useful for climate scientists to learn some history since this would show that many of their conclusions drawn from their research are flawed due to conflicting historical events/records.

Editor
June 17, 2011 6:52 pm

phlogiston says: “Close to minimum now? I cant see how that can be.”
My mistake. Sunsposts this year have ranged from the 20s to the low 50s, according to the SIDC. I’ll remove that offending sentence from my post. The other portion of my question still stands.

pyromancer76
June 17, 2011 7:07 pm

@Smokey June 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm. Thanks. You can always be depended upon to keep the discussion truthful.

John B
June 17, 2011 7:18 pm

Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm
John B says:
“Are they ALL lying?”
Affirmative. They are playing eye games with their chart by using a bogus zero reference line, when there is actually a clear upward trend from the LIA. This chart shows how they fool folks like John B: click The top two charts look alarming, don’t they? But when the natural trend line is used in the bottom chart… not so scary.

So, they are all lying! Truly the paranoia is strong in you, Smokey.
But just look again at your first link. I honesty do not see how you think the bottom chart is any less “scary” than the two above it. And the zero line is not arbitrary, it is the mean (or maybe median) for the period being looked at. Or just take it away altogether, the rise is still there.
I think you mistake “scary” for “clear”.
Anyone else have an opinion?
And clicking another of your links, you have a temperature chart for Greenland (yes, just Greenland). Cherry picking, yet again. It’s called Global Warming for a reason, you know! The reason being that the globe, taken as a whole, is warming – not every single spot on its surface.
And “eliminating many rural stations”. What happened is that old weather stations were not designed for climate recording, so a reduced set of stations that are actually up to the job was settled on. That is well documented. If there is a bias from that process, BEST will find it, right? You know, the study that Anthony and others said they would accept, no matter what its findings.
Do you really believe the conspiracy runs so deep? As Naomi Orekses said, “liberals should be so organized!”

John B
June 17, 2011 7:34 pm

@Smokey
Do you really think the bottom chart on your first link is less scary than gthre two above it? I really can’t see that. Anyone else?
And most of your other links – cherry picking, pure and simple. Sometimes you cherry pick the time frame, sometimes the location, sometimes the study, sometimes the y-axis, but it’s all cherry picking. Climate science, like any other science, is about the weight of evidence. And you, my friend, do not have it on your side.

June 17, 2011 7:50 pm

Murray says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:59 am
Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing.
I agree, the thrust of the Easterbrook presentation is correct. The world temps follow a combination of PDO and solar output fluctuations that cannot be challenged over the short term. We need to look into whether both data series are connected over the longer term.
The TSI argument is just a strawman used by the warmista’s, there are much bigger fluctuations in UV and EUV that can account for a larger solar contribution to global temp changes. Perhaps some of the TSI brigade should acquaint themselves with some of the new research in this area especially concentrating on the polar vortex changes during extended solar minimums. The last three very cold winters provide ample data for those wanting to dig deeper.
Easterbrook uses the standard PDO values (http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest) as far as I can see. I cant see why it is necessary to compare with other pacific indexes.
Thank you Dr. Easterbrook.

Moderate Republican
June 17, 2011 8:05 pm

Mark Wilson says @ June 17, 2011 at 2:13 pm “Doesn’t work that way. You are the one claiming that current ice levels are the lowest ever. You need to back up your claim.”
Mark Wilson says: @ June 17, 2011 at 2:15 pm “The arctic warmed the last time the PDO was in it’s warm phase. Then the cold phase came along and it cooled back down.”
Is there a citation / or citations that empirically review how the PDO in warm/cold phase impacted the ice that you can share?
Looking forward to reading those. Thanks.

R. Gates
June 17, 2011 8:16 pm

steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm
R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.
whadda u think
_____
Could be….I’d give it a better than 50/50 chance at the present moment. Weather will play a big role, but the large expanses of open water right now in the Kara. Laptev, and Barrents sea means lots of warm water going into the heart of the melt season in July and August,

rbateman
June 17, 2011 9:01 pm

Old Engineer says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:36 pm
The link to the distant past in terms of Grand Solar Minimums and climate downturns exists mostly in Literature from the times in question. Science as we know it either did not exist or was in its infancy. I.E. – not enough was looked at to pin down a causation for the correlation, nor is there enough knowledge to determine a mechanism for the big chills. We just know that in space-time, they co-exist.
Even larger questions loom:
What specific phenomena on the Sun (that we now see) do what things to the climate, both in Grand Minima and Grand Maxima?
Are the proxies that are available for the unobserved periods of Solar Activity accurate and without contamination?
Do the various Grand Minima always exhibit the same set of phenomena, or are they unique combinations?

June 17, 2011 9:04 pm

R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:16 pm
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm
R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.
whadda u think
_____
Could be….I’d give it a better than 50/50 chance at the present moment. Weather will play a big role, but the large expanses of open water right now in the Kara. Laptev, and Barrents sea means lots of warm water going into the heart of the melt season in July and August.
========================
Why don’t you guys take your off-thread to one that discusses sea ice….as opposed to a discussion on the sunspot issue.
Or….better yet….why don’t you just email each other.
Typical R Gates blog-o-terrorist hi-jack….but this thread has NOTHING to do with sea ice discussion.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

RockyRoad
June 17, 2011 9:26 pm

John B says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:18 pm


Do you really believe the conspiracy runs so deep? As Naomi Orekses said, “liberals should be so organized!”

Certainly it “looks” like a conspiracy, yet it really doesn’t qualify as one because it’s there for everybody to see: The UN’s Agenda 21. Everything is explained in black and white, and please don’t count yourself as uninformed as Naomi Orekses because she’s clueless (the left has a huge gaggle of useful tools).

June 17, 2011 9:39 pm

Henry@ R.Gates
Note that the Co2 content has increased from 0.03% to about 0.04% in the last 4 or 5 decades.
That is a difference of 0.01%. Referring to that as a 30 or 40% increase is clearly a bit misleading.
There has been no exact scientifc proof that a net increase in the CO2 causes warming. Namely it also causes cooling by deflecting sunlight and by taking part in the life cycle. Plants & trees need energy and CO2 to grow, it is an endothermic reaction.
There is also clear evidence of earth has become greener in the past 3 or 4 decades as reported here recently on WUWT. For more on this I suggest you read my blog:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
I find that the warming observed on earth in the past 4 decades was caused by an increase in maxima. Maxima were find rising in a ratio of 4 for Maxima to 2 for mean average temperature to 1 for minima.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I therefore find that the warming was natural and was not caused by an increase in GHG’s. If the ratio found was the other way around I would have agreed with you that an increase in GHG’s had caused the warming.
Note that the SH did not show any warming, most of it happened on the NH.
So you can all stand on your heads now and cry over spilled ice:
but there is nothing you or I could have done about it.
Unless you can stop the sun from shining and/ or make clouds appear?
Then you must be God.
I say more carbon dioxide is better for the environment as I can see it works like fertiliser and stimulates growth.

June 17, 2011 10:01 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Is TSI expected to drop below the minimums of the last few solar cycles? I’ve never seen this discussed in any paper presented about the current solar minimum.
No, there is no reason to expect that.
Therefore, where do these expectations of decreased TSI come from?
From the degradation of the widely used PMOD TSI composite: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Diff-PMOD-SORCE.png and http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
My question for you, Leif: are we expecting TSI to drop below its “normal” cycle minimum during the upcoming cycles?
No, there is no evidence to support such an expectation, on the contrary http://www.leif.org/EOS/Foukal-Dimming.pdf :
“Solar activity minima between 1914 and 1996 exhibit no significant secular increase in f (Foukal & Milano 2001). This argues against a secular increase of TSI due to increasing network area during the 20th century, as proposed in addition to 11 year TSI modulation by Lean et al. (1995) and by Lockwood & Stamper (1999). This finding from archival solar images is supported by the subsequent reconsideration of such additional secular solar brightening over the past century (Lean et al. 2002; see also Svalgaard & Cliver 2010).”
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm
The TSI argument is just a strawman used by the warmista’s, there are much bigger fluctuations in UV and EUV that can account for a larger solar contribution to global temp changes.
UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].

Blade
June 17, 2011 10:04 pm

C Porter [June 17, 2011 at 5:07 am]says:
“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.”

Roger Knights [June 17, 2011 at 7:21 am] says:
The Inconvenient Minimum.

ROTFLMAO! Clearly the winner! If there are any prizes to hand out, Anthony should immediately reward Roger Knights for coining the term of the decade and perhaps the next few solar periods.

Moderate Republican [June 17, 2011 at 10:03 am] says:
“I am not saying it is a myth that the media talked a lot about it, but it appears that is it a myth that the body of scientific work at the time was focused on global cooling. That is a BIG difference.”

Right. And Obama is not a socialist because ivory tower academics have not pronounced him thus. Some things are self-evident, and prominent among them is the fact that a cooling phase peaked in the late-1970’s and a warming phase began circa the mid-1980’s. You are correct by accident with respect to the weasel words “body of scientific work”, because at least one actual scientist was on the right track, see here and here. Goddard has been collecting the media reports for quite a while and many have appeared here.
Here is the truth: The pop-scientists of the 1970’s were busy doing then, what the AGW pop-scientists are doing today. They are *not* promoting an ice-age or CAGW Earth per se, but, they are trapped only thinking inside-the-box. To be exact, they were (and are) extrapolating their current climate forwards without even considering that it will once again turn-around naturally.
Catastrophic Thinking in a nutshell …
1970’s cool phase —-> coming ice-age
1990’s warm phase —-> coming scorched Earth

And yes, that can be stretched back into the previous cycles of warm/cold with the exact same result.
The rational thinkers of each period did not sweat this, they knew (we know) that these micro-cycles (of admittedly variable duration) will once again change.
The irrational thinkers of each period pressed forward, citing future catastrophe culminating today in the absurd precautionary principle of ‘de-industrialize or die‘.
When you try to erase something the size of the ice-age hype, well, I’m afraid not even a red pill will help you escape from the AGW Matrix. But I encourage you to continue to try because nothing rallies the troops better than an insult to their very intelligence.

steven mosher [June 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm] says:
“R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.”

Has Hell has frozen over? Steve Mosher tied himself to a concrete prediction? It is not particularly courageous to jump in *now*, as we are but a few days from the NH Summer Solstice. Joe Bastardi went early in right here at WUWT in November 2010 (as did Foster Grant Tamino from what I have been told).
But since Mosher is a very careful scientist, he must know that even though Ice Extent has increased since 2007, it has been exposed as a practically useless metric due to the skewing factors of wind and compaction.
The point is this: if we skeptics were as devious and hypocritical as he constantly portrays us, we would be pressing this issue even more today than in 2008, 2009, 2010. But we are not because most realize it is a game of ice-cube roulette. I am left wondering why someone as careful as Steve would even jump into this now? What is the motive?

June 17, 2011 10:33 pm

rbateman says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:01 pm
What specific phenomena on the Sun (that we now see) do what things to the climate, both in Grand Minima and Grand Maxima?
TSI and things that tag along [e.g. UV]
Are the proxies that are available for the unobserved periods of Solar Activity accurate and without contamination?
Not perfect, but rapidly improving.
Do the various Grand Minima always exhibit the same set of phenomena, or are they unique combinations?
We have really only observed one [the Maunder], so it is hard to tell.

steptoe fan
June 17, 2011 10:45 pm

from SORCE website :
Precise space measurements obtained during the past 20 years imply that TSI varies on the order of 0.1% over the solar cycle (see Figure 1), but with greater variations on a short-term basis. For example, the passage of sunspots over the disk produces 2-4 times that amount. The variation apparently occurs over most time scales, from day-to-day variations up to and including variations over the 11-year solar cycle. How TSI variations are distributed in wavelength is still poorly understood. The largest relative solar variations are factors of two or more at ultraviolet and shorter wavelengths, but the greater total energy available at visible and longer wavelengths makes their small variations of potential importance.
I do hope Dr. E responds. Jumping all over his article w.r.t. TSI is somewhat vacuous based upon the explanation given above.
Also, re Mr. Bob Tisdale’s
Fig 2. I note that there is a rather sharp, in magnitude, drop between mid 1998 and late 1999 – perhaps a poor choice of words by Dr. E ?, but still, what Dr. E was trying to say ?
regardless of the criticism, and I understand it is good that there is criticism, to relegate this article to the trash is to offer a rather shallow and short sided opinion.
Lets see what develops.

kuhnkat
June 17, 2011 10:57 pm

Leif,
thank you for the paper. Unfortunately I would have to describe it as pearls before swine. I think it was rather poor, but, that is probably my own ignorance.

June 17, 2011 11:49 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm
UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].
This statement is simply incorrect. EUV can vary by at least 16% over a cycle. Furthermore modern EUV records display a reluctance to follow a baseline ie the current levels even after a ramp up of SC24 are just above the bottom of the SC22/23 minimum (maybe lower on the next update). So levels can be lower during a prolonged solar grand minimum. We are also seeing the lowest thermosphere height in the satellite era which is a direct result of lower EUV and solar wind. It’s time to come clean on this topic and stop ignoring the facts.
I always wonder why the TSI proxy records never show a common baseline?

R. Gates
June 18, 2011 12:02 am

Ged says:
June 17, 2011 at 2:24 pm
@R. Gates
I posted you a link to the actual temperatures. Where is this warming you are saying would be there? Furthermore, why the Arctic and not the Antarctic? The data is not showing a rapid warming, at least no data I see, it’s completely along the normal line. If there is actual data, please post it like I posted some, instead of telling me what the data disagrees with (and then making knocks against political beliefs. You know nothing about my beliefs in any way, shape, or form)
As Latitude pointed out, water temp is the only thing that makes sense; and water temp will be controlled by circulation patterns of the oceans (since, again, AIR TEMP is holding along the normal average line, and thus cannot explain what we are seeing).
————
A short term temperature reading over a very narrow region of the arctic means very nothing in terms of the climate or measuring climate change being seen in the arctic. If you really want to understand the truth of what’s going on, you can start with real scientific research as found at sites like this:
http://amap.no/swipa/

Editor
June 18, 2011 1:08 am

Geoff Sharp says: “I agree, the thrust of the Easterbrook presentation is correct. The world temps follow a combination of PDO and solar output fluctuations that cannot be challenged over the short term.”
It can’t be challenged? Why’s that? The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. The PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific. The PDO is actually inversely related to the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific over decadal time scales and the PDO lags them. Taking all that into consideration, through what mechanism would the PDO impact global temperatures?

eco-geek
June 18, 2011 1:08 am

While it certainly is begining to look as though the “Gore Effect” is more significant than first thought I suggest that the developing minimum should not be named for political reasons but after Landscheidt and his work on solar torque cycles who predicted the developing state of affairs.
After the current solar cycle 24 maximum in 2013-2015(?) its going to be downhill all the way. I’m buying coal mining stocks in the UK, snow shoes and spears for mammoth hunting. As the geomagnetic field collapses the developing Landscheidt Minimum could well trigger a full blown 100,000 year glaciation.

Editor
June 18, 2011 1:15 am

steptoe fan says: “Also, re Mr. Bob Tisdale’s Fig 2. I note that there is a rather sharp, in magnitude, drop between mid 1998 and late 1999…”
That’s simply the response of the North Pacific SST anomalies to the initial phase of the 1998/99/00/01 La Nina. The 1997/98 El Nino was massive and it was followed by a rather long La Nina.

Blade
June 18, 2011 1:33 am

Steve Goddard has been turning up story after story about warming and cooling fears throughout the years.
This one is a gem by a scientist who got it right and it ties in directly to the current projected down-sizing of solar activity …
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/1951-mit-scientist-correctly-predicted-global-cooling-based-on-sunspots/
Of course that is more than offset by the endless stories of coming catastrophe. These are titles only (go there for links) and were just posted in the past few hours …
1950 : Record Rain In Queensland
1950 Consensus : Earth Warming And Glaciers Melting
1950 : Rapid Warming In Greenland
1941 : Terrible Droughts Forecast Until 1990
1912 Plan To Warm Up The Arctic And Improve The Climate
1911 : Climate Experts Said That Wireless Communications Are Destroying The Climate Of Southern California
1923 : Remarkable Warming In The Arctic
1914 : Rapid Ice Loss At Both Poles
1923 : Exceptional Thawing In The Arctic
1934 : World Wide Drought – Glaciers Receding
1947 : “Catastrophic Arctic Warming”

There must be a thousand of these over there already, and there is no end in sight.

Editor
June 18, 2011 2:41 am

Leif Svalgaard (June 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm): Thanks, Leif.

rbateman
June 18, 2011 3:15 am

Climate Nature did NOT cooperate. It never does, and it never makes straight lines for long.
I am glad that it did not, for now there is healthy competiton in the climate business once more.
The Sun is no exception, making unexpected twists and turns.
The behavior of the Sun during SC24 has remained remarkably consistent. At some point during the cycle change to before SC24, that behavior departed from the cycles before it. We don’t know why it did that, but we do know that it did change.
Murphy’s Law gets into this act, since we don’t know for certain how long the current Solar behavior will last, the record indicating various degrees of Minimum. The data set is poor. Man’s aptitude for choosing wisely is not in high regard.
AGW has been caught crying wolf, poisoning the well of choice by going overboard with exaggeration.
Man does not need any help displaying the knack of making bad choices at the real junctures of critical importance.
Ah, but there is still hope: Perhaps the shock of almost getting shoved into hasty reaction will force a bit of maturity.
It could also be the Sun, 93 million miles away, that nothing new takes place under, which finally forces some much needed sobriety.

John B
June 18, 2011 3:24 am

RockyRoad said:
“please don’t count yourself as uninformed as Naomi Orekses because she’s clueless (the left has a huge gaggle of useful tools).”
I am intrigued as to why you think she is clueless. I have not read her book, but I have seen her presentations and read articles by and about her. She is a science historian, not a scientist. She makes what looks to me like a solid argument that the climate sceptic movement can be traced back directly to anti-regulation and anti-communist groups like the George C Marshall Institute, via names like Singer and Seitz, and other conservative think tanks like Cato. I am sure you know the story. She doesn’t say all sceptics are in that vein, but she contends that those are the origins of climate scepticism. She also finds that the tactic of “doubt is our product” is shared with tobacco, acid rain, CFC and other sceptical movements.
According to wikipedia:
“The Marshall Institute has been critical of the book, but most other reviewers received it favorably.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Institute
Which of this do you doubt? No name calling, please, I would really like to know.

rbateman
June 18, 2011 3:24 am

Blade says:
June 18, 2011 at 1:33 am
And to that I add this:
Real change comes too widely separated in time for a species short on memory.

Stephen Wilde
June 18, 2011 3:40 am

” I am intrigued as to why you think she is clueless.”
Oreskes is clueless because she denies the ability of well educated thoughtful individuals to weigh up evidence for themselves independently.
Whenever such people reach conclusions that differs from hers she tries to rationalise it with paranoid constructs about right wing think tanks, tobacco and oil companies et al.

tallbloke
June 18, 2011 3:44 am

Jim Cripwell says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:49 am (Edit)
Tallbloke writes “The numerical model I created”
How did you validated your model? Have you used it to predict the future, and then compared the predicted results with what actually happend? If you have done this, do your predicted results agree tihe the observed data? And have you done this a sufficient number of times so that the agreement could not be coincidental, at the 5 sd level? If you have not, then I suspect what you model predicts is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

Easy now Jim. I only created it two years ago, and it pretty obvious we are at the peak of the warming curve, so it’s not possible to validate it against observations in such a short time. My model doesn’t produce different answers each time I run it, because it is based on the motion of the planets and Earth’s spin rate, which are predictable. It doesn’t predict individual El Nino events effect on the surface temperature record, so it will take a decade or more to validate it against observations.
On the plus side, it hindcasts well, back to 1825.

Matt G
June 18, 2011 3:50 am

http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
Further problems with this paper is how they measure Summer temperatures from ice cores and lake sediments. The resolution is generally just a few years at best, yearly at best with sediments, but no resolution seperating seasons. Tree rings are the only ones that determine growing seasons, but Summer can’t be distinguished between the growing season in Spring or Autumn. (only if trees grow during Summer) Also most of the Arctic doesn’t have any trees (even if it was just land, too cold in Summer) and the tree-line is only around the sub-Arctic. Therefore the sub-Artic doesn’t say much about most of the Arctic itself, even if tree rings were good proxies for temperatures. The sub-Arctic temperatures observed using modern instruments vary much greater than what happens in the Arctic circle during all seasons. Tree rings are a good proxy for rainfall during the growing season, but that is all.

tallbloke
June 18, 2011 3:54 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm
The TSI argument is just a strawman used by the warmista’s, there are much bigger fluctuations in UV and EUV that can account for a larger solar contribution to global temp changes.
UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].

People could be misled by this statement. UV and EUV fluctuations follow TSI in terms of the timing of the solar cycle, but the fluctuations are of much bigger amplitude than overall TSI and less regular on a cycle to cycle basis.
Large changes in UV and EUV seem to have large effects on upper atmosphere inorganic chemistry and sea surface organic chemistry. However, these effects are at a poor level of scientific understanding, and the question of how much they matter to the way climate changes is therefore highly uncertain.

Stephen Wilde
June 18, 2011 3:55 am

“steven mosher [June 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm] says:
“R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.”
Perfectly possible and no cause for alarm.
I’d expect the increase in meridionality to speed up Arctic ice melt at the fringes due to more incoming warm air flows.
In the background the temperature of the water flowing under the Arctic ice will slowly decline as the oceans cool.
At the moment we still have incoming warm ocean water plus incoming warm air supplementing one another.
The turn in the ice trends will come when the cooling of the ocean waters starts to more than offset the effect of inflowing warm air.
Incoming warm ocean waters affect most the thickness in the centre. Incoming warm air affects most the extent at the fringes.
Didn’t I see some data that suggested increase in thickness in the centre ?

Ninderthana
June 18, 2011 4:21 am

Bob Tisdale said:
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. The PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific. The PDO is actually inversely related to the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific over decadal time scales and the PDO lags them. Taking all that into consideration, through what mechanism would the PDO impact global temperatures?
Response:
The PDO is aftereffect of the ENSO?! I cannot believe that you are still pushing this falsehood. It is a [sad] blemish on a what I see is an outstanding record of research and investigation.
Both the PDO and the ENSO are signatures of the response of the Earth-Ocean-Atmosphere system to long term variations in the Lunar/Solar Tides. The reason that they appear to be related is the fact that they both have the same underlying cause. The PDO is a long term response while the ENSO is a short term response.
I have to assume that you are completely unaware of the work of Claire Perigaud in the United States
on the ENSO, otherwise you would not be making such seriously flawed claims. I am more than willing to send you her work if you are interested, note, however, that her point presentation is very large.

June 18, 2011 4:21 am

John B says:
[Oreskes] “makes what looks to me like a solid argument that the climate sceptic movement can be traced back directly to anti-regulation and anti-communist groups like the George C Marshall Institute, via names like Singer and Seitz, and other conservative think tanks like Cato. ”
John B insists on making scientific skepticism political. It is not. Skepticism is required by the scientific method, which is universally ignored by the purveyors of the runaway global warming scare. There are plenty of Leftists who comment here, and who are disgusted with the perversion of science by the corrupt “Team”.
Next, here is a chart by NikFromNYC that shows an interesting correlation with the AMO. [Note that the slowly rising temperature trend line from the LIA is not accelerating, which would be the case if CO2 caused global warming. In fact, the trend has been moderating over the past decade.]
And exactly as predicted, John B refused to accept the obvious fact that the charts posted in my comment [at 6:16 pm above] demonstrate the outright dishonesty of those promoting climate alarmism. AGW may exist [or not], but there is no testable, real world evidence supporting it. Even if it does have a minor effect, that effect is so negligible that it is unmeasurable, therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. The human addition of one molecule of CO2 for every 62,500 molecules of the atmosphere over a century and a half is presumed by true believers in the alarmist cult to have magical qualities. But as the more rational readers here know, that CO2 juju has not been sufficient to provide any warming trend over the past decade+.
The AGW hypothesis is based entirely on computer models, not on any real world evidence. Those models are programmed to acheive a specific result, but they can only come close after endless tweaking. Not one of them can make accurate predictions; they can’t even hindcast accurately. In any other branch of the hard sciences the universal failure of computer climate models would be the source of much amusement and endless ridicule. But in the realpolitik world of government grants, the always-wrong models still serve their intended purpose: the generation of public funds to feed the “carbon” scam, and thus provide employment and job security for self-serving scoundrels and charlatans, and a religious experience for folks like John B.

Matt G
June 18, 2011 4:27 am

To add to last post.
Thought I had read something like this before, it seems to be just a recycled report from 2009.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/04-3
Therefore it has not resolved the issues that I had mentioned.

John B
June 18, 2011 4:35 am

@Smokey
I don’t think you would recognize true scientific skepticism if it bit you on the butt.
Another cherry, anyone?
But it doesn’t matter any more, since you are all clamouring that the Sun is going to bring about a new ice age. Mainstream science says it will not. We will know soon enough. What do you say, Smokey?

June 18, 2011 5:10 am

John B’s impotent blustering is a lame response to the exposé of the mendacious manipulation of alarmist climate charts. Skepticism is a basic requirement of the scientific method — a logical method that a true believer like JB avoids like Dracula avoids the dawn.
Attempting to re-frame the argument away from the devious charts posted @6:16 pm above, to a comment about the sun and ice ages, is done by JB simply to avoid the fact that those alarmist charts are simply bogus climate propaganda intended to deceive the public. And John B’s psychological projection, calling the posting of more than a half dozen charts from different sources “cherry picking” is a failed tactic that can be applied to any chart. That is why I post so many different charts; so people can make up their minds based on plenty of evidence. John B has zero testable, measureable evidence to support his belief system, so we get rhetoric instead.

June 18, 2011 5:54 am

Moderate Republican and others
None other than Kevin Trenberth has noted that El Ninos bring warmth to the arctic trough the Bering Strait. Also from NSIDC acknowledged in the record-setting (since satellite monitoring began in 1979) summer melt season of 2007 the importance of both oceans in the arctic ice.
“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.
Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss. Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”
Also see http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/arctic_temperatures_and_ice_natural_variability/

June 18, 2011 6:29 am

Jim Cripwell says:
TonyG. I did a quick search and found
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/new-theories-link-black-death-to-ebola-like-virus.html

Jim, thanks for the effort, but at this point, I’m finding it very hard to buy that story. Especially in light of the previously posted link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20949072, which is from a more reliable source and post-dates the NYT article by 9 years. Additional confirmation comes from here: http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1001134
Wikipedia mentions the idea that an ebola-like virus caused the Black Death was floated in 2001, but indicates that subsequent DNA testing has shown that it was, indeed, Y. Pestis. Most recent info I can find appears to be around the end of 2010.
Happy to entertain the idea again should you have something more recent to share.

June 18, 2011 6:32 am

Old Engineer says:
Well after going through all 213 responses up to this time, I can only remember 2 that said “correlation does not prove causation”. Yes, it was cold when there were no sun spots.
I generally agree with the “Wait and see” – we don’t know that the low solar activity WILL cause lower temperatures. However, that particular causality is much more likely than low temperatures on earth causing lower solar activity 🙂
(seriously – there may be a hidden causation for both that we don’t know, but it’s hard to imagine what it might be)

Editor
June 18, 2011 6:46 am

Ninderthana says: “The PDO is aftereffect of the ENSO?! I cannot believe that you are still pushing this falsehood. It is a [sad] blemish on a what I see is an outstanding record of research and investigation. “
The PDO only represents the pattern (the appearance) of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N. Nothing more, nothing less. A positive PDO pattern is characterized by higher SST anomalies in the eastern North Pacific and lower anomalies in the central and western North Pacific. Here’s a nice simple explanation of the process that causes the PDO pattern. A positive PDO pattern is created by the response of the North Pacific to an El Niño event. During an El Niño event, coastally trapped Rossby waves along the west coast of North America and changes in atmospheric pressure resulting from the El Niño cause an increase in the SST anomalies in the eastern North Pacific. Since the El Niño causes a reversal of trade winds in the western tropical Pacific, less warm water than normal is spun up into the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE), and SST anomalies of the western and central North Pacific drop. The reverse holds true during a La Niña in the Eastern North Pacific. For the western and central North Pacific during a La Niña, the leftover warm water from the El Niño also gets spun up into the KOE, adding the warm waters being brought there by the increased strength of the trade winds. There are differences between the PDO and an ENSO proxy such as NINO3.4 SST anomalies from time to time, and the difference results from how changes in North Pacific Sea Level Pressure impact the way the North Pacific responds to ENSO events. Again, the PDO pattern is an aftereffect of ENSO.
Regardless of the findings of Claire Perigaud, that’s how that process works. Feel free to provide a link to her papers if you’d like me to read them.

tallbloke
June 18, 2011 6:50 am

Smokey says:
June 18, 2011 at 5:10 am
Attempting to re-frame the argument away from the devious alarmist charts posted @6:16 pm above, to a comment about the sun and ice ages, is done by JB simply to avoid the fact that those alarmist charts are bogus climate propaganda.

While this may be true, I don’t think people should be discouraged from posting on-topic. 😉

June 18, 2011 6:51 am

kuhnkat says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:57 pm
that is probably my own ignorance.
Know thyself
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:49 pm
“UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].”
This statement is simply incorrect.

I don’t make statements that are ‘simply incorrect’. I didn’t say that the fluctuations have the same amplitude, but that if in one cycle TSI varies by x percent, the UV varies by a percentage proportional to x, following TSI.
Furthermore modern EUV records display a reluctance to follow a baseline
The uncertainty in the calibration is large enough to explain the difference.
We are also seeing the lowest thermosphere height in the satellite era which is a direct result of lower EUV and solar wind.
Because the solar magnetic field in 2008-2009 was as low as it was a century ago. We are just returning to those same conditions. Solar images taken in nearly UV light [Ca II K-line] over the past century show that there has been no change over the past 100 years in the ‘baseline’ value at solar minimum.
It’s time to come clean on this topic and stop ignoring the facts.
I suggest you learn more about what the facts are, before shooting your mouth off
I always wonder why the TSI proxy records never show a common baseline?
Because the older TSI records are wrong. Here is a better one [also showing many wrong ones]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
tallbloke says:
June 18, 2011 at 3:54 am
“UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].”
People could be misled by this statement. UV and EUV fluctuations follow TSI in terms of the timing of the solar cycle, but the fluctuations are of much bigger amplitude than overall TSI and less regular on a cycle to cycle basis.

That they have larger amplitude is not important as to ‘the following TSI’ bit. The energy in those ‘much bigger amplitudes’ is minute to those in TSI.
The Far Ultraviolet [between EUV and UV] creates and maintains the ionosphere and solar tides move the ions during the day and night cycle giving rise to an varying electric current whose effect we can easily measure on the ground [it was discovered in 1722]. This effect is a very good measure of the FUV flux and follows the solar cycle very closely, e.g. slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf , and shows no long-term drift of change.