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
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.
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).
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:53 am
mkelly says @ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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.
Smokey – low sea ice extent because the wind pattern has been compacting the ice, not because it is warm.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Mark Wilson says @ur momisugly 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)
Murray says @ur momisugly 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.
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?
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.
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.
[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.