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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
475 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John B
June 18, 2011 12:33 pm

Smokey said:
“You post one link to a chart — and then you label my dozens of charts, from numerous sources in multiple posts, covering numerous different time frames — as cherry picking??? If it wasn’t for psychological projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. You are just like another poster who argued that some charts I linked to were not convincing. So I posted FIFTY charts, mostly peer reviewed and all showing the same thing. He responded just like you: he found fault with all 50 charts. Your mind is hopelessly closed to any facts which contradict your belief system. The planet could plunge into the next great Ice Age, with glaciers moving south of the Great Lakes, and you would still be trying to convince us that runaway global warming is right around the corner.”
YES, you picked and posted lots of cherries, but they are still all cherries, for the reasons I gave. If there are faults with your charts, as I believe I showed, then it doesn’t matter how many of them you post. I’m sure your previous sparring partner felt the same way.
As to plunging into an ice age, if it happens, I will eat my AGW hat, with pleasure, but there is zero evidence of things going that way. What would make you change your mind?
And I have to pick you up on this: “which show almost no LIA, and an artificially reduced MWP.” Maybe they didn’t happen, or more likely, maybe they were only local. What evidence do you have? Oh yeah, GREENland (possibly a PR spin by Erik the Red), and they made wine in Northern England. Anecdotes of local events. But your anecdotes outweigh any amount of carefully analysed temperature proxy data. Why? Because you need an MWP and LIA to support your desired view of history.

R. Gates
June 18, 2011 12:49 pm

Some of you are familiar with this research paper on the connection between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2149.full.pdf) and some may not, but I post it here for discussion. The authors of this article, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, et. al. are certainly known to most everyone here, the conclusion of this research however, may surprise some of you. They write:
“These results provide evidence that relatively
small solar forcing may play a significant
role in century-scale NH winter climate
change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures
over the NH continents during portions
of the 15th through the 17th centuries
(sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and
warmer temperatures during the 12th through
14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm
Period) may have been influenced by long term
solar variations.”
Additionally, I think this research, done by the late Gerard Bond et. al. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2130) discusses the fluctuations of the solar cycle and related Bond events stretching back into Holocene.
Reading these two research papers back to back is can be most illuminating.
Once more, I eagerly await the next paper on the results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN, but as enticing as the GCR/Cloud formation relationship is to consider, we must not forget about the relationship between UV radiation, ozone, and atmospheric circulations patterns…

R. Gates
June 18, 2011 1:55 pm

John B says:
June 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“As to plunging into an ice age, if it happens, I will eat my AGW hat,”
____
To be precise, we already are in an ice age, but, should this interglacial actually come to an end in our lifetimes, your hat may indeed be one of the best meals you’ll have left. I suggest a bit of salt and pepper with the hat if you can chisel the salt and pepper shakers out of the ice. 🙂
A Little Ice Age, on the other hand, even on the order of what we had during the Maunder minimum, while cold, is certainly quite survivable, and you won’t have to eat your hat, but probably wear it a bit more frequently, especially if you live in Europe.

June 18, 2011 2:13 pm

Smokey, the concentration increase is not quite declining, but it’s not increasing, which would be necessary for warming to increase.

June 18, 2011 2:14 pm

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. “
Bob Tisdale says:
June 18, 2011 at 6:46 am
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.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaudabstract.pdf
http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/ESSSProject/NewLessons/hydrosphere/ENSO/Team05/perigaud.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4060.1

BargHumer
June 18, 2011 2:20 pm

I recently read the book “slaying the sky dragon” – very interesting but doesn’t do what it says in the title. Perhaps it shows that the name “greenhouse gas” is wrong, and the whole IR reflection theory incorrect, but I think most people think of the “greenhouse effect” as one of insulation, keeping the heat in rather than letting it escape through convection. If the planet does work like this, then the role of the so called GHGs is merely to effectively increase the thickness of the insulation, less heat can get out during any given period of time, thus making the average temperature slightly higher. The net energy into the planet must equal the energy out when all is in equilibrium, but whilst the insulation thickness is changing, true equilibrium cannot exist.
This being said, such insulation can provide a benefit during any coming LIA, but once the “normal” climate returns, the same insulation will have increased further (assuming more CO2) so the maximum global temperatures could be a lot higher than today’s “normal”.
I put this forward only because I expect this to be the way the AGWers will present the situation, and since I don’t see any good arguments against the “insulation” mechanism (ignoring feedbacks) then I think the argument will work. The simple explanations tend to work best, and are more easily believable andconvincing, and everyone knows what insulation is and what difference it makes.

June 18, 2011 2:29 pm

HenryP says:
June 18, 2011 at 8:33 am
Thanks Henry.
Azores, found the data .

geo
June 18, 2011 2:40 pm

Don Easterbrook–
How do you respond to the Gavin Schmidt-like analysis that volcanic activity likely was more responsible for the Maunder period cooling than the quiet sun?

DirkH
June 18, 2011 3:01 pm

John B says:
June 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“And I have to pick you up on this: “which show almost no LIA, and an artificially reduced MWP.” Maybe they didn’t happen, or more likely, maybe they were only local. What evidence do you have? Oh yeah, GREENland (possibly a PR spin by Erik the Red), and they made wine in Northern England.”
Yeah, Greenland PR spin, sure… you and your fellow warmists will have to purge the Internet and history books from Vinland as well… a place in Newfoundland where Ericson met natives who grew… grapes.
http://www.answers.com/topic/leif-ericson
Quick, hurry, there’s a lot of history to be rewritten, Winston…

John B
June 18, 2011 4:07 pm

Oops, premature something or other… [mod, can you remove my immediately prior omment]
@Smokey
I googled “ipcc no longer use mann chart” and guess what comes up top:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/wegman-paper-retraction-by-journal/
A posting on this very blog! And who was a prominent commentator? Yes, you were!
So I read the thread, to learn this: IPCC no longer uses Mann’s original chart, because it uses a chart that contains Mann’s line amongst a whole bunch of more recent, but broadly similar hockey sticks. Now why would they do that? Maybe to show consensus? If, as you claim, it is because “IPCC can no longer use [it], because McIntyre and McKittrick have effectively falsified it”, surely they couldn’t put his line on the chart amongst the others.

Matt G
June 18, 2011 4:25 pm

The hockey stick was cherry picked and all replicas verified used the same offenders mentioned here for the upturn of the stick.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Also none of the ice cores or lake and bog sediments support a hockey stick.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleolim/paleolim_data.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/

John B
June 18, 2011 4:25 pm

@DirkH
My point is that your evidence of MWP/LIA is anecdotal. And what makes it even weaker is that the anecdotes don’t even line up. For example, the artilce you quote says:
“Grapes grew wild in quantity in Newfoundland until as late as the middle of the 17th century, because the climate then was much more benign than it is today”
But the LIA, “is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,” – wikipedia, citing Lamb (1972)
So, was the 17th century warm or cold? Probably depends where you were.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
— Daniel Patrick Moynihan

June 18, 2011 4:37 pm

Smokey, the concentration increase is not quite declining (significantly, not yet), but it’s not increasing, which would be necessary for warming to increase.
An increasing rate of concentration growth would be necessary to overcome the decreasing impact of additional GHGs as concentration rise.

June 18, 2011 5:05 pm

aaron,
Note the World Climate widget on the right sidebar. See the CO2 trend line?

Moderate Republican
June 18, 2011 5:28 pm

HenryP says June 18, 2011 at 11:58 am “Sorry MR I don’t have time for playing games.”
Maybe the locak dialect where you are from defines “games” very differently than those of us who speak “American” , but what I see where is a question;
Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions? Yes or no?
A game would be more table tennis or something like fun like that were it is easy to work an excuse to have a pint and much back slapping into it. Fun and stuff like that. And involving pints. Did I mention the pints?
Anyway, what I’ve written above seems more like a simple question about a topic you claim to know quite a bit about, so surely that and a couple others would be easily answered. No?

Editor
June 18, 2011 5:43 pm

Richard Holle: Thanks for the links. What I found curious was that PDO and Pacific Decadal Oscillation did not appear in any of the papers and articles. Yet Ninderthana had criticized me (mistakenly) me for stating the PDO was an aftereffect of ENSO, while using the work of Claire Perigaud as a reference for my supposed error.

Moderate Republican
June 18, 2011 5:46 pm

Smokey says June 18, 2011 at 12:11 pm “And since there is no evidence of global harm from CO2, then reasonable people will conclude that CO2 is harmless. But you cannot admit that fact, because your entire belief system is based on the nonsense that CO2 is harmful. Without “carbon” to demonize, the whole CO2=CAGW conjecture comes apart at the seams, and your religion has lost it’s demon. And with nothing to hate and fear, your CAGW religion is rapidly losing converts.”
I am not quite sure what the response above has to do for a simple request for a citation, but anyway…
John B – thank you for the citation. I hope that wasn’t too strenuous, but we know how taxing Ctrl V can be.
I didn’t see anything there about a plan to focus on cooking (get it – urban heat – oh man that is funny) the site locations to bias the data. Maybe I just missed it.

June 18, 2011 7:55 pm

What amazes me is Gavin’s lack of curiosity over the relationship with solar cycles and volcanic activity.

June 18, 2011 8:23 pm

Smokey, the second derivative seems to be approaching zero.
Unfortunately I can’t click the the link, but I don’t exactly need to. I familiar with the data.

June 18, 2011 10:38 pm

Nandie says:
June 17, 2011 at 4:25 am
“In figure 3. what do WSN and GSN stand for?”
I second that question.
And in Fig 4, which line is Solar Irradiance and which is Temperature? The red line is predominatly in the lead, so it is obviously TSI. But the blue patches representing minima are filled to the red line, so it must be Temperature. Very confusing.

Ninderthana
June 18, 2011 11:12 pm

Bob Tisdale,
Since the beginning of the 1700’s, the PDO has flipped sign roughly once every 30 years. At the time when the change in phase is from negative to positive, the average strength of El Nino (measured on a scale of 0 to 5) is weak. As the positive PDO phase continues, the average strength of El Ninos increases. The PDO then switches phase from positive to negative. As soon as this happens, the average strength of the El Ninos starts to decrease . The El Nino strength continues to decrease right throughout the negative phase. And so on, as the PDO cycles back and forth.
[Note the above talks about the average strength of the El Ninos and not their frequency compared to La Ninas]
These observational facts raise a number of very important points, however one provides indisputable proof that Bob’s model is incorrect:
When the PDO flips from positive to negative, the average strength of the El Ninos has reached a maximum. after the PDO flip has occurred {i.e. the PDO is now negative), the average strength of the El Ninos is still
VERY STRONG [my emphasis], only decreasing slowly in strength over the next 30 years.
Bob, could you please explain how your model will have a complete flip of the North Pacific seas surface temperature pattern, while there is almost NO CHANGE in the elevated average strength of the El Ninos.
If, as your model proposes, the PDO strength is the Nth Pacific’s long term response to repeated El Ninos, why is it that:
PDO phases changes from positive to negative while their is almost no change in the average strength of El ninos. What does change when the PDO flips in phase is the rate of increase or decrease in the strength
of El Ninos.
I have given up trying to use logic and reason with you Bob. I think I will let you find out about Claire Perigaud’s and my work when it is eventually published. That way you will not be embarrassed in public.

Khwarizmi
June 19, 2011 12:34 am

Even Mike Lockwood connects the brutal winters in Europe over the past few years with the recent decline of solar activity:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627564.800-quiet-sun-puts-europe-on-ice.html
I too think it not just a coincidence.
Climate is a mathematical abstraction that does not exist, in the much same way that “average global temperature” is a mathematical abstraction that does not exist. The climate abstraction has been with us for thousands of years, since it was once useful for predicting what kind of animals and plants might do well in a given area. This utility can not be found in the modern abstractions.
Weather, on the other hand, is very real.
Records of aggregate weather define the little ice age, not graphs, satellite imagery, nor computations of “average global temperature.” For some insight into the consequences of little ice age weather, scan the Malleus Mallificarum for references to the word “tempest”:
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/pdf/5533.pdf
e.g.:“They stir up and confound the elements by the aid of the devil, and arouse terrible hailstorms and tempests.”
I prefer to keep an eye on aggregate weather as it unfurls in the real world for evidence of a trend, ignoring the charts produced by the witch-hunting industry.

phlogiston
June 19, 2011 1:45 am

John B says:
June 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm
And I have to pick you up on this: “which show almost no LIA, and an artificially reduced MWP.” Maybe they didn’t happen, or more likely, maybe they were only local. What evidence do you have? Oh yeah, GREENland (possibly a PR spin by Erik the Red), and they made wine in Northern England. Anecdotes of local events. But your anecdotes outweigh any amount of carefully analysed temperature proxy data. Why? Because you need an MWP and LIA to support your desired view of history.
To satisfy your affected appetite for links (as if real world data really mattered to you) here is a site, CO2 science, that has archived several hundred published articles – the majority proxy reconstructions, that demonstrate the inescapable reality of the MWP on all the world’s continents.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
If you need this evidence to be anecdotal to support your AGW party line, then, for you, it can be anectodal, in the same sense that the entire human scientific published record is anecdotal.
If you really need to “lost the MWP” (and you do) then please provide us a reasoned rebuttal of every one of the several hundred MWP papers archived and presented at the CO2 science site.

phlogiston
June 19, 2011 1:47 am

correction – “lose the MWP”
(great quote – up there with “hide the decline”)

Editor
June 19, 2011 1:53 am

Ninderthana says: “Since the beginning of the 1700′s, the PDO has flipped sign roughly once every 30 years. At the time when the change in phase is from negative to positive, the average strength of El Nino (measured on a scale of 0 to 5) is weak.”
Which PDO Reconstruction are you referring to Biondi et al. 2001, D’Arrigo and Wilson 2006, MacDonald and Case 2005, or Shen et al. 2006? And why did you select it? Same questions for whatever ENSO reconstruction you selected out of the half dozen or so that are available. There are significant differences between the reconstructions, and they all don’t agree with your assessment later in your reply.
You wrote, “…the average strength of the El Ninos is still VERY STRONG [my emphasis], only decreasing slowly in strength over the next 30 years.”
In reality, referring to HADISST-base NINO3.4 SST anomalies, the strength of the El Nino events during the 2000s is less that the El Nino events in the 1950s and 1960s.
http://i53.tinypic.com/10gjr5s.jpg
Also, note the decrease in NINO3.4 SST anomalies since the 1982/83 El Nino. Maybe the 30-year decrease in strength you’re referring to has already taken place.
http://i53.tinypic.com/xqewat.jpg

1 11 12 13 14 15 19