![latest_512_4500[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/latest_512_450011.jpg?w=300&resize=240%2C240)
It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.
The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.
I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
Since then the sun has been getting quieter.
By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.
Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.
Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.
And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.
He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate – witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years – and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.
It’s worth stressing that not every winter would be severe; nor would every summer be poor. But harsh winters and unsettled summers would become more frequent.
Professor Lockwood doesn’t hold back in his description of the potential impacts such a scenario would have in the UK.
He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.
Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too.
According to research conducted by Michael Mann in 2001, a vociferous advocate of man-made global warming, the Maunder minimum of the 1600s was estimated to have shaved 0.3C to 0.4C from global temperatures.
It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away. Any global cooling caused by this natural phenomenon would ultimately be temporary, and if projections are correct, the long term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would eventually swamp this solar-driven cooling.
But should North Western Europe be heading for a new “little ice age”, there could be far reaching political implications – not least because global temperatures may fall enough, albeit temporarily, to eliminate much of the warming which has occurred since the 1950s.
You can see more on Inside Out on Monday 28th October on BBC1, at 7.30pm.
###
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
==============================================================
Back in 2011, Lockwood said something totally dissimilar:
“The Little Ice Age wasn’t really an ice age of any kind – the idea that Europe had a relentless sequence of cold winters is frankly barking” – Dr Mike Lockwood Reading University
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/10/bbc-the-little-ice-age-was-all-about-solar-uv-variability-wasnt-an-ice-age-at-all/
I have a follow-on article coming up on UV observations in a couple of hours, don’t miss it.
Meanwhile the sun has recently gotten more active in the last couple of weeks, indicating a possible second peak in the current solar cycle is upon us, see details on the WUWT Solar reference page – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
See comments on the Bishop Hill blog on this for how the BBC story was changed to bring in the alarmist element.
dcfl51:
At October 28, 2013 at 9:48 am you say
If you or any other Brits use Freeserve or Freesat then you can re-tune your digital TV or digital decoder and it will provide every BBC regional service. So, you can watch BBC North West region.
Richard
Here’s an old pre AGW BBC documentary on the influence of the sun on climate:
The Sunspot Mystery (BBC Documentary)
@Jimmy Haigh:
Some say end will come from politics, other say space rocks.
From what I’ve seen of the UN’s insanity
I’m sure it will be broadcast live by Sean Hannity.
But having heard quite enough of Fox
and IPCC fudging on arctic iceflow rates
I think I’d prefer the big space rocks
than to slowly croak while Mann bloviates.
//it’s Monday, doggerel’s as good as I get today.
Bob Tisdale says:
October 28, 2013 at 8:39 am
That sarc on/off comment would be really funny if it were not feasibly possible given the current state of climate ‘science’. I do hope that the warmista scientists do not get their hands on the solar data and treat it in the same fashion as they have with the temperature data.
Imagine if you will, how bad it would be if the solar data keepers were infiltrated. What if the likes of Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al massage the temp figures more to bury the solar ‘worry’ under the weight of the CAGW scam? Imagine how serious a Maunder minimum could get – and imagine how important it would be to have genuine data to use for predictive capacity and policy decisions? Many millions of people will be reliant on the output of such predictions?
That the solar issue is finally being given some proper concern – is a good thing – but if this
MM-like threat is real; we will need proper science and proper data to help prepare ourselves……does anyone feel confident in our current crop of climate scientists to deal with such a ‘catastrophe’?
In reply to:
Stephen Fox says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:28 am
William Astley says:
October 28, 2013 at 8:53 am
‘the sudden conversion of a BBC reporter from a mouth piece of the AGW movement’
Well, I think Paul Hudson has, maybe alone among BBC reporters, been his own man for some time now. Let’s give credit where it’s due.
William:
Thanks for the correction. Best wishes William.
I am from Yorkshire, I will watch it and report back later this evening. I am unsure as to how i could record it and link to it as I will be watching on my tv, but if anyone has any ideas then let me know.
I’m surprised that the good professor has been allowed to conduct his research AND publish the results. Everyone – well at least 97% of everyone – know that the sun has little or no influence on the climate. And that everyone – 975 of them anyway – knows that man is 100% responsible – or it that 97% responsible. Now that I have gotten the sarcasm out of my system…I will wait to see this information hit the local paper…but I will definately NOT hold my breath.
Nice to see that Lockwood has revisited real data and [apparently] determined his own earlier comment about solar influences and the potential for a new solar minimum was, at least, premature. Interesting also to see how Hudson jumps in with how any cooling will be temporary and AGW will once again control. Seems rather contradictory to me that human-caused climate change can drive the climate until one day that’s not the case anymore, and then — with a lot of handwaving, AGW will again dominate later. However, I’m glad Hudson has written what he has, sans actual Lockwood quotes, of course. (That is really odd, that a reporter would not quote on something so powerful, even profound.)
And, DUH!, of course any cooling from solar influences will be temporary: the Earth’s climate isn’t a steady state system, is it… That modeling “shows” we’ll still make “the obligatory 2C above present” after cooling that may last till mid-century is a strong indicator to me that something is very, very wrong with the models to make that kind of an recovery. Intuitively that just does not make much sense as — if memory serves correctly — the cooling on Earth has always been at a more brisk pace than the subsequent rewarming. The models would appear tone driven incorrectly. I wonder what would happen if they forced a cooling to remain in progress until 2080 or 2090: would the warming to 2C above present still occur by 2100?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist#dna-comments
Read the second blog from Greensand!
“Imagine if you will, how bad it would be if the solar data keepers were infiltrated. ”
Too late.
gary gulrud says:
October 28, 2013 at 10:57 am
“Imagine if you will, how bad it would be if the solar data keepers were infiltrated. ”
Too late.
Nonsense Gary. There are hundreds of solar observers [most of them amateurs] all over the world and they all see the same thing.
A new LIA (Little Ice Age) is forecast!
‘who says so? Well scientists do, I have the DAILY FAIL telling us we will have a mini ice age within ten years because of a drop in sunspot…in the very second line the DAILY FAIL tells us this comes from some scientists, since we now know it comes from scientist we don’t really have to read the article…Frank Hill, of the NSO a scientist, says the solar cycle may be going into some sort of hiatus…no mini ice age there, but Dr R Alcock also a scientist says it may be going into state which may take a long time to recover…still no mini ice….experts not named says the Sun has been quiet for four years, that’s well known, but still no mini ice age…D Hathaway a scientist from NASA says this cycle will be the weakest for a century…no mini ice age…Matt Penn NSO says solar magnetic fields have been decreasing since 1998,…what happened to this mini ice age…we have four named scientists…all telling us we may be in for a hiatus…but none supporting a mini ice age, the headline is of course a conclusion of scientists at the DAILY FAIL…it’s OFFICIAL wrote James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph, a new ice age is on its way…well which official body announced it…Delingpole who is right about everything…simply copied and pasted what he read on internet blogs…the GWPF, sounds important, not only said that the Earth may be heading for a mini ice age in the next ten years, but that announcement came from scientists at the US Nation Solar Observatory, WHAT!…in fact this media paradoxism… all started with a paper from the 2011 meeting of SPAAS, interesting how government researchers are corrupt liars when the Earth is warming but the model of integrity when they are thought to be saying the Earth is cooling…no where does it say we are headed for a mini ice age…and neither the Mail or any other media organistion bothered to talk to a climatologist to see what the repercussion might be…they would have come across this paper by Fuller and Ramstoff…would result in global cooling of 0.3 degree C, but that has to be set against the expected rise in temperatures due to a doubling in co2 from pre-industrial levels expected to be 2.5 and 4 degrees C…why didn’t any of the media organisations not check the scientific literature…these blogs seem so convinced that GW is a scam they never even considered that co2 could over come this ‘predicted’ cooling…’
Watch at:-
Am I the only person in the UK surprised that as soon as the government threatens to cut funding to the BBC. Alternative stories regarding the future of the planets weather suddenly appear. Simple message, “don’t try and pressure us or we will derail your plans”
Or am I too cynical
Sorry should have read not surprised
Well, I guess this is one way to get my Norwegian DiL to live in California rather than Oslo. 🙂
But seriously, if this does happen it’ll not be much good beyond gloating rights. Which is not really worth it if you ask me.
the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe……
truth is, no one would probably notice the difference……these guys play it up like it was freezing all the time
An interesting (and very different) approach to modelling:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
@ur momisugly Andrew. Nice conspiracy theory. Not sure anyone at the BBC is intelligent enough to have come up with such a plan.
Perhaps some of them are beginning to realise that the game is up and they now need an exit strategy and so are starting to gradually move to a more balanced reporting stance from where they can more readily choose either side once they see how the weather and public sentiment and political sentiment are panning out.
Though I guess what I’ve just postulated also requires more intellect from the BBC than they perhaps possess.
Perhaps Hudson just blind-sided them.
Such is the power of a conditional. You can construct a true proposition from two false ones.
gopal panicker says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:16 am
the little ice age we know about…how does the professor get the solar data for the last 10,000 years ?
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
ShrNfr said:
“From my viewpoint, the sun has been getting less active rather than more active recently. ”
Your Oulu GCR plot shows a short up-trend (since 2013), but a much longer down-trend (since 2009). So looks to me that the longer trend dominates. And down-trending GCR is consistent with rising “solar activity”, because cosmic rays tend to be blocked from Earth by increasing solar wind.
Is “increasing solar wind” the same as “increasing solar activity”? What’s the connection between these two phenomena?
Question for Dr. Svalgaard: Why do we associate high “solar activity” with high sunspot count? Sunspots are sites where solar radiation is blocked and is therefore the sun is more “inactive” at these spots. Sunspots block solar radiation, that’s why they look black.
So it seems to me that sunspots could be interpreted as an indicator for decreasing solar activity, in the sense that these they represent a winding down of magnetic activity, leading to the reversal of the solar magnetic field during these sunspot highs.
The number of sunspots peaks in midterm of a solar cycle, i.e. so-called “solar max”. But that is precisely the time the Sun’s magnetic field is reversing and is presumably in its highest state of degeneracy, i.e. least active.
So the coronal holes, which normally reside at the poles, are allowed (because of this decreased activity) to wander down towards the equators. Coronal holes are the source of the fast solar winds, so the cosmic-ray blocking properties of solar wind are enhanced because the magnetic field has degenerated and allowed more solar wind to be inserted into the plane of solar system.
Contrary to intuition, there is no big increase in solar output at “solar max”. Not clear to me why TSI nudges up 0.1% at this time, but that is a very tiny increase in “solar activity”.
So, the Oulu plot shows that cosmic rays peaked in 2009, when the Sun was more “actively” keeping the coronal holes locked near the poles, decreasing the blocking effect of the solar wind, right?
In exactly what sense is the Sun more “active” when sunspots are numerous? Just asking.
Let’s remember that Dr. Solanki of the Max Planck Institute beat Lockwood to the punch by a decade in a letter to nature:”According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago”
“Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
Key to their reconstruction was a standing of Mannish dendrochronology on its head… using radioisotopes from tree ring samples, dated by the tree ring the material was from, to generate an accurate year by year record of the ability of the heliosphere to protect the planet from high energy galactic cosmic rays. It sounds like Lockwood et al did a similar thing but using ice core layer chronologies.
Here is the rub.
If Lockwood concedes we’re currently in the fastest falling solar activity cycle in 10,000 years, which explains the reason for RSS troposphere temps being flat since October 1996 and falling HADCRUT4 temps from January 2001, then it only seems logical to concede the strongest 63-yr string of solar activity (1993~1996) contributed to most of the 0.6C warming of the 20th century.
If that is true, then it’s also logical to concede that IPCC’s new AR5’s ECS projections of 1.5C~4.5C are much too high and that Dr. Lindzen’s ECS projection of 0.6C seems more probable.
CAGW is imploding. I really can’t see the CAGW hypothesis surviving 3 more years of flat/falling temps, which would make 20 years of no statistically significant warming, despite over 1/3rd of all CO2 emissions since 1750 having been made over those 20 years.
I really think CAGW is in its death throes as a viable hypothesis. The preponderance of empirical evidence no longer seems to support the validity of CAGW.
One in the eye for the paticipants of the secret BBC conference that declared the science settled and the need for balanced reporting over. A foolish mistake that may shorten many of their careers, hopefully.