THE DEMISE OF SUNSPOTS—DEEP COOLING AHEAD?
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The three studies released by NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network this week, predicting the virtual vanishing of sunspots for the next several decades and the possibility of a solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum, came as stunning news. According to Frank Hill,
“the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
The last time sunspots vanished from the sun for decades was during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1700 AD was marked by drastic cooling of the climate and the maximum cold of the Little Ice Age.
What happened the last time sunspots disappeared?
Abundant physical evidence from the geologic past provides a record of former periods of global cooling. Geologic records provide clear evidence of past global cooling so we can use them to project global climate into the future—the past is the key to the future. So what can we learn from past sunspot history and climate change?
Galileo’s perfection of the telescope in 1609 allowed scientists to see sunspots for the first time. From 1610 A.D. to 1645 A.D., very few sunspots were seen, despite the fact that many scientists with telescopes were looking for them, and from 1645 to 1700 AD sunspots virtually disappeared from the sun (Fig. 1). During this interval of greatly reduced sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, global climates turned bitterly cold (the Little Ice Age), demonstrating a clear correspondence between sunspots and cool climate. After 1700 A.D., the number of observed sunspots increased sharply from nearly zero to more than 50 (Fig. 1) and the global climate warmed.
The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD—but it marked perhaps the bitterest part of the cooling. Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Winters in Europe were bitterly cold, and summers were rainy and too cool for growing cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. About a third of the population of Europe perished.
Glaciers all over the world advanced and pack ice extended southward in the North Atlantic. Glaciers in the Alps advanced and overran farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.
So what can we learn from the Maunder? Perhaps most important is that the Earth’s climate is related to sunspots. The cause of this relationship is not understood, but it definitely exists. The second thing is that cooling of the climate during sunspot minima imposes great suffering on humans—global cooling is much more damaging than global warming.
Global cooling during other sunspot minima
The global cooling that occurred during the Maunder Minimum was neither the first nor the only such event. The Maunder was preceded by the Sporer Minimum (~1410–1540 A.D.) and the Wolf Minimum (~1290–1320 A.D.) and succeeded by the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830), the unnamed 1880–1915 minima, and the unnamed 1945–1977 Minima (Fig. 2). Each of these periods is characterized by low numbers of sunspots, cooler global climates, and changes in the rate of production of 14C and 10Be in the upper atmosphere. As shown in Fig. 2, each minimum was a time of global cooling, recorded in the advance of alpine glaciers.
The same relationship between sunspots and temperature is also seen between sunspot numbers and temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica (Fig. 3). Each of the four minima in sunspot numbers seen in Fig. 3 also occurs in Fig. 2. All of them correspond to advances of alpine glaciers during each of the cool periods.
Figure 4 shows the same pattern between solar variation and temperature. Temperatures were cooler during each solar minima.
What can we learn from this historic data? Clearly, a strong correlation exists between solar variation and temperature. Although this correlation is too robust to be merely coincidental, exactly how solar variation are translated into climatic changes on Earth is not clear. For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes. However, Svensmark (Svensmark and Calder, 2007; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2007) has proposed a new concept of how the sun may impact Earth’s climate. Svensmark recognized the importance of cloud generation as a result of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays. Clouds reflect incoming sunlight and tend to cool the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Thus, perhaps variation in the intensity of the solar magnetic field may play an important role in climate change.
Are we headed for another Little Ice Age?
In 1999, the year after the high temperatures of the 1998 El Nino, I became convinced that geologic data of recurring climatic cycles (ice core isotopes, glacial advances and retreats, and sun spot minima) showed conclusively that we were headed for several decades of global cooling and presented a paper to that effect (Fig. 5). The evidence for this conclusion was presented in a series of papers from 2000 to 2011 (The data are available in several GSA papers, my website, a 2010 paper, and in a paper scheduled to be published in Sept 2011). The evidence consisted of temperature data from isotope analyses in the Greenland ice cores, the past history of the PDO, alpine glacial fluctuations, and the abrupt Pacific SST flips from cool to warm in 1977 and from warm to cool in 1999. Projection of the PDO to 2040 forms an important part of this cooling prediction.
Figure 5. Projected temperature changes to 2040 AD. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) cooling similar to the 1945-1977 cooling, cooling similar to the 1880-1915 cooling, and cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820). Cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum would be an extension of the Dalton curve off the graph.
So far, my cooling prediction seems to be coming to pass, with no global warming above the 1998 temperatures and a gradually deepening cooling since then. However, until now, I have suggested that it was too early to tell which of these possible cooling scenarios were most likely. If we are indeed headed toward a disappearance of sunspots similar to the Maunder Minimum during the Little Ice Age then perhaps my most dire prediction may come to pass. As I have said many times over the past 10 years, time will tell whether my prediction is correct or not. The announcement that sun spots may disappear totally for several decades is very disturbing because it could mean that we are headed for another Little Ice Age during a time when world population is predicted to increase by 50% with sharply increasing demands for energy, food production, and other human needs. Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production, but everyone would feel the effect of such cooling. The clock is ticking. Time will tell!
References
D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010. Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21 (5), p. 436–460.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 32, p.17.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years; global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 33, p.253.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of late Pleistocene, abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, p.41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming; predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.594
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.11.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 13.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium: Abstracts of American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p. 428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The role of the oceans and the Sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 41, p. 33.
Eddy, J.A., 1976, The Maunder Minimum: Science, vol. 192, p. 1189–1202.
Hoyt, D.V. and Schatten, K.H., 1997, The Role of the sun in climate change: Oxford University, 279 p.
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007, The chilling stars: A new theory of climate change: Icon Books, Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, 246 p.
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., 1997, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverda missing link in solar–climate relationships: Journal of Atmospheric and SolareTerrestrial Physics, vol. 59, p. 1125–1132.
Svensmark, H., Pedersen, J.O., Marsh, N.D., Enghoff, M.B., and Uggerhøj, U.I., 2007, Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions: Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 463, p. 385–396.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursula, K., Solanki, S.K., Schussler, M., and Alanko, K., 2004, Reconstruction of solar activity for the last millenium using 10Be data: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 413, p. 745–751.
=================================================================
UPDATE: Bob Tisdale has posted a rebuttal. Here is what he has to say via email.
Hi Anthony: The following is a link to my notes on the Easterbrook post:
We should have progressed beyond using outdated TSI datasets, misrepresenting the PDO, and creating bogus global temperature graphs in our arguments against AGW.
I’ve advised Easterbrook, and we’ll see what he has to say – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Geoff Sharp: I found the Moberg data. Please confirm that this is the dataset you’re referring to:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt
Bob Tisdale says:
June 23, 2011 at 12:55 am
Geoff Sharp says: “Were you so caught up in your rant that didnt see the link I provided or are you rejecting the link I provided?”
———————————
Thank you for identifying Moberg. That’s a start.
No the correct way to rectify your mistake is to apologize. The Moberg data is easily found in 2 minutes via a google search.
HenryP says: “I therefore predict that it cannot be more than 0,03 degree C per decade in the antarctic (for the past 4 decades). If it is not, then you have to prove that to me with original (daily) data.”
The trend from monthly mean data linked earlier disagrees with your trend prediction, which is based on your assumption and not on data. It is not my responsibility to prove that the trend from the mean is right. It is you responsibility to prove that your assumption is correct.
Sorry Bob, that is basic probability theory. if I randomly sample 13 weather stations from all over the world and in 5 of these I find that the actual rate of increase in the average temperature over the past 4 decades was flat, ie. 0.00 C degrees C/ annum and when I subsequently notice that all of these 5 stations where the means were flat were all situated in the SH, then what do you say are my chances that if I sample again in the SH that I will find it again flat 0.00 C/ annum?
(Interestingly, note that the rate of increase in maximum temps in the SH was not flat.!!)
So now, obviously if you still say that the warming in the antarctic was a lot more than my average of 0.003 degrees C or K per annum during the past 4 decades that I found for those 5 stations in the SH, which, in large part, could in fact also just be due to error or noise, then I would ask you again to prove that me by showing me the original (daily) data.
I think you will eventually agree with me that somebody has been at it again before us (to save their jobs)
Geoff Sharp says: “No the correct way to rectify your mistake is to apologize.”
I did not make a mistake. And as you will note, I found the Moberg et al data before your reply.
Have you plotted the Moberg et al Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction data, Geoff, and compared it to any of the instrument-based land surface temperature datasets? Apparently not. If you had, you would not have believed the Moberg et al data best represents, as you said earlier on this thread, “the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.” Here’s a comparison graph of the Moberg et al data since 1700 and Northern Hemisphere CRUTEM3 (1850 to 2010), the longest running of the instrument-based land surface temperature datasets. Both datasets have been smoothed with a 31-year running-average filter and both have the base years of 1850 to 1979.
http://i51.tinypic.com/x3th6e.jpg
The Moberg et al data rises 20+ years before the instrument-based data at the beginning of the 20th Century. This means it would precede the rise in any outdated/obsolete solar dataset you elected to compare it to, like Hoyt and Schatten. A comparison graph of the Moberg temperature reconstruction to arbitrarily scaled Hoyt and Schatten TSI data also shows there is little agreement in the multidecadal variations of the two datasets:
http://i55.tinypic.com/taix6o.jpg
And the final problem you face: Then you have to explain the continued rise in global surface temperatures since the 1970s without AGW.
So, we know that Moberg et al (2005) doesn’t work. Here’s a link to the NOAA Paleoclimatology webpage. Maybe you’d like to try another reconstruction. I don’t think you’ll find what you’re looking for, but have at it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html
I’m done here. I have learned nothing from my exchange with you, Geoff, other than YOU have the weakest arguments of any climate skeptic I have encountered to date.
See you on another thread, Leif.
Nice visiting with you, HenryP. Good luck with your pool table.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 23, 2011 at 5:33 am
I did not make a mistake. And as you will note, I found the Moberg et al data before your reply.
You did. You accused me of not supplying a link for the Maunder to now temperature data and then ranted on endlessly in an ad hominem fashion. If you are not man enough to recognize this I guess it sums up the man.
Your Moberg analysis is very confusing and I fail to see your point. I mentioned that the Easterbook graph Fig.4 showed a temperature reconstruction that looked like Mobergs, according to your graph it is not an exact match. I fail to see how Easterbrooks graph is a failure because it does not follow exactly the Moberg data, there are a lot of temperature reconstructions available as I mentioned.
I think you have dug yourself a hole with your criticism of Easterbrook and are now unable to retract. We might leave it there to reduce your suffering.
Once again, Geoff, your reply is nonsensical.
Geoff Sharp, one last note: I have no way to moderate comments here at WUWT, but I do have that ability at my blog. Your repeated baseless comments there will be deleted.
Have a nice day.
if I randomly sample … then what do you say are my chances that ….”
Wouldn’t that would depend on the nature of the data? Most statistical treatments of temperature appear to assume that temperature is independent of previous temperatures, which seems highly unlikely.
“For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes.”
For those of us old enough to remember from school, this was the same argument put forward to discredit Milankovitch in the 50’s and 60’s. It was only after deep ocean cores proved Milankovitch correct that his theories regained their current acceptance.
Solar scientists cannot explain the 100k year ice age cycle based on TSI, yet it is perhaps the strongest climate signals in the past 1 million years outside of the daily and annual cycles. To then turn around and apply the same failed logic to current climate change is to ignore the mistakes of the past.
Why does climate vary so strongly every 100k years, in spite of the 100k year forcing being quite small? This strongly suggests that forcings do not act in a linear fashion, which would invalidate the underlying assumption of all mainstream climate science.
Climate science assumes that forcings are linear for good reason. Non linear forcings cannot be solved in a practical sense by current mathematical theory. Thus, any climate models would have no skill at predicting future climate. Thus, to obtain funding for climate models, one must assume that forcings are linear, else the climate models are a huge waste of time and money.
ferd berple says:
June 23, 2011 at 8:46 am
For those of us old enough to remember from school, this was the same argument put forward to discredit Milankovitch in the 50′s and 60′s. […] Solar scientists cannot explain the 100k year ice age cycle based on TSI, yet it is perhaps the strongest climate signals in the past 1 million years outside of the daily and annual cycles.
It would be good if you had some sense of proportion here. The Milankovitch variations of solar insolation [what falls on the Northern Hemisphere] are about a hundred times larger that the intrinsic variations of solar irradiance [what the Sun puts out], so it is not the same argument, and the 100k cycles are not ‘based on TSI’.
ferd berple says
“Wouldn’t that would depend on the nature of the data? Most statistical treatments of temperature…. ”
I am not sure what you mean.
Statistics without good data from actual observations is a waste of time. If it is good reliable data it can help to predict the future or that what already happend elsewhere. I suggest you get the full picture if you find out exactly what I am busy with:
(as I progessed with my investigations, I started to love carbondixide – call me an idiot!)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
HenryP: You’re assuming that land surface temperature anomaly changes at high latitudes are the same they are at mid-to-low latitudes. You’re also assuming that portions of the Antarctic can’t have substantially different variability that the continent as a whole.
Bob Tisdale says:
You’re assuming that land surface temperature anomaly changes at high latitudes are the same they are at mid-to-low latitudes
Henry@Bob
I thought you left, whilst I was still wanting to ask you how the weather is in your area?
Unlike the IPCC, I never work on assumptions.I have to make dead sure.
I have recognised now the problems with differences in NH and SH and latitude which I will address.
I am going to split up all of my results up for NH and SH
and include the latitudes of each station on the table.
then I must chose the next round of weather stations in such a way that the + latitudes cancel out the -latitudes
(total added together must be close to zero)
OK?
Bob Tisdale says:
You’re also assuming that portions of the Antarctic can’t have substantially different variability that the continent as a whole.
Henry@Bob
Unlike from the NH, I don’t see a very high variabilty in my results coming from SH (-0.001 to 0.004 degree C /annum) which made me query your results from Antarctica.
I have now decided to leave Antarctica out because I am not sure of any of the data from there. I need to actually see the original daily data before I can progress with a statistical analysis.
I am sure the “wise” men that wanted to prove that (man-made) global warming is especially severe at the poles have hidden those original data from antarctica from us….
HenryP says: “I have now decided to leave Antarctica out because I am not sure of any of the data from there.”
Your analysis would then be comparable to HADCRUT and the NCDC’s land+sea surface datasets. They both exclude the Antarctic. So does the RSS MSU version of TLT data. So there’s really no loss.
Regards
I have some astonishing results from the south of Argentina
at latitude, -37,23 (height of station: 175 m)
namely
Maxima rising at 0,042 degrees C per annum since 1974
Mean average temperature decreasing at a speed of -0.066 per annum since 1974
Minima decreasing at -0.063 degrees C per annum
This one single changes the whole game on my whole pooltable….
It seems the further south I go on the SH I find cooling instead of warming.
Stephen Wilde (June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm) “That leaves room for Length of Day variations and solar system gravitational dynamics to provide a further modulating effect on internal ocean variability.”
I see that this [ http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/ian-wilson-cause-of-length-of-day-lod-variation-and-the-climate-link/ ] continues to drive misconceptions.
Stephen Wilde (June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm) “Bob needs to accept that there is a separate (solar) factor driving ENSO and PDO over longer timescales beyond internal system variability.”
The key timescales are semi-annual to annual.
–
The quality of discussion has plummeted. Bob Tisdale should be commended for emphasizing observation.
[reply] A valid email address is required for posting at this site. Please supply one in future. TB-mod
Stephen Wilde (June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm) “Everyone else needs to accept that climate change (short of a change from glaciation to interglacial and vice versa) is just a redistribution of surface air pressure […]”
And what about water distribution, state, & consequences? See Leroux & Sidorenkov.
For the solar specialists present here;
I definitely identified an interesting oscillation in the data from the winter months in the the south of Argentina (Tandil a/d)
at latitude, -37,23 (height of station: 175 m)
Temp. falling at a horrifc rate of ca. 0.08 degrees C per annum during the winters here (since 1974) but the deepest depths of the peaks were at 1984, 1995 and 2007
which seems to correspond with solar cycles?
in this way I can predict a very cold time coming in the winters of 2018 or 2019
Any comment? Does that correspond with what we expect is due to the fainter output from the sun around that time?
“And what about water distribution, state, & consequences? See Leroux & Sidorenkov.”
Yes indeed.
Changes in the water affect surface pressure distribution above. Obviously there is feedback from air to water but not so powerful. The Mobile Polar High concept of Leroux is a key component and there is some evidence that the MPH movements are affected primarily by the top down solar influence more that the bottom up oceanic influence. The latter seems to affect the subtropical highs instead so both types of high pressure cell then vie with each other for dominance. Hence the shifting jets.
Stephen Wilde (June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm) “Bob needs to accept that there is a separate (solar) factor driving ENSO and PDO over longer timescales beyond internal system variability.”
Paul Vaughan replied:
“The key timescales are semi-annual to annual.”
I don’t think that is enough to explain climate changes from MWP to LIA to date. If the relative strengths of El Nino and La Nina did not change on such timescales then the effect of ENSO/PDO would have been to suppress those phenomena due to the power of the oceans to influence the global air temperatures.
We do not have observational data that far back however so we have to use logic in the meantime whilst current observations accumulate over time.
At some point it would be interesting to see Ninderthana & Bob Tisdale work out their differences on PDO & ENSO.
you all might want to have a peak at my pool table that I have updated just now. It is quite interesting the way that the balls have fallen into their respective positions….
Especially NH versus SH….
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I’d like to see L&P data sorted according to Latitude on the Sun over time.
Does the effect rise or stay level as one approaches the Solar Equator?
rbateman says:
July 4, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I’d like to see L&P data sorted according to Latitude on the Sun over time.
Does the effect rise or stay level as one approaches the Solar Equator?
The data follows where the sunspots go, so during SC23 would have approached the equator, but since 2008 have been seen in the higher latitude SC24 spots, so no dependence on latitude.