![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.
lsvalgaard: ‘are’ there data… not ‘is’. ‘Data’ is the plural of ‘datum’. If you are ever unsure of how the word should be handled in a sentence, just substitute ‘figures’ for ‘data’. You wouldn’t say, “Is there figures of the tidal events?” I know it is often treated as a mass noun in non-scientific use, but as you are a stickler for being correct, and a scientist, I thought you would appreciate the correction. You’re welcome.
Can of worms… set free!
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 29, 2013 at 2:09 pm
lsvalgaard: ‘are’ there data… not ‘is’.
When used as a mass noun [which I did] data is singular.
Here is a link that discusses this issue: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-data-singular-or-plural.aspx. Charles Carson in a guest post for Grammar Girl describes count nouns and mass nouns. Count nouns answer how many while mass nouns answer how much. The simplified answer here is that data can be either, depending if it is a count noun (can be replaced by facts) or a mass noun (can be replaced by information). An example of data used as a count noun is, “The data consist of the names, heights, and weights of the 30 children in this class.” An example of data used as a mass noun is, “Data is increasing at an incredible rate.”
[comment deleted since it is by a person under an assumed name – Anthony]
As I said, it IS very often treated as a mass noun in NON-scientific use, but if you are a stickler for detail and correct use, then in scientific use, by a scientist, it is not treated as a mass noun.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm
As I said, it IS very often treated as a mass noun in NON-scientific use, but if you are a stickler for detail and correct use, then in scientific use, by a scientist, it is not treated as a mass noun.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/data :
“But more often scientists and researchers think of data as a singular mass entity like information, and most people now follow this in general usage.”
I’ll say with Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
@Ghost of Big Jim Cooley
>’Data’ is the plural of ‘datum’
That’s true for its usage in Latin. And for years pedants have insisted that this Latin rule for plurals applies to English as well.
But there are many foreign plural words which are singular in English. For example, ‘spaghetti’, which is the diminuitive masculine plural of ‘spago’ in Italian. It’s singular in English, so we don’t say “The spaghetti are delicious”. But the Italians do: ‘gli spaghetti sono deliziosi’
http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/spaghetti
‘Data’ is a mass noun, so you can use it in phrases like ‘how much data?’ or ‘too much data!’.
But you cannot say ‘how much figures?’ or ‘too much figures?’, can you?
So ‘data’ is in the same class as ‘sugar’ and ‘money’, both singular mass nouns. ‘Figures’ really is plural so it cannot be in the same class as ‘data’.
😐
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
October 29, 2013 at 1:27 pm
………….
Yes, tectonics of the N. Atlantic
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-SST.htm
lsvalgaard says:
October 29, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Dunno, is there data of the tidal events?
Yes.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-T.htm
vukcevic says:
October 29, 2013 at 3:00 pm
“Dunno, is there data of the tidal events?”
Yes.
Looks made up to me. What is that 62+y?
Re: So you CAN teach an old dog new tricks, Dr. Lockwood.
Who’s barking now?
*************
For the record, I have been concerned about the probability of imminent global cooling since long before it became fashionable, first publishing my concerns in 2002.
I have had little time to pursue this subject in detail so have no opinion as to whether this global cooling will be mild or severe., although the crash in solar activity during SC24 has heightened my concerns.
I suggest it is past-time to rid society of global warming hysteria, and focus on the immediate implementation of low-cost, high-impact measures to help to adapt society to the possible impacts of severe global cooling.
These measures would include accelerated research to develop frost-resistant crops, the storage of food grains rather than converting them into fuel ethanol, and other sensible changes to energy policy, specifically the abandonment of costly and ineffective ”green energy” schemes like grid-connected wind and solar power.
The clearing of rainforests for palm oil and sugar cane plantations for biofuel feedstocks is another highly destructive “green energy “ scheme that should stop now.
Also, the foolish Euro-leftist opposition to shale fracking of natural gas reservoirs should cease now, by government decree if necessary.
If I am wrong and there is no severe global cooling, the costs will be modest and the savings will be significant. If I am correct, many lives could be saved.
We know that excess cold kills many more people than excess heat, particularly in Northern climes.
The Excess Winter Mortality rates in many European countries including the UK, Spain, Portugal and Greece, are about 20%, double what they are in those colder northern European countries like Sweden and Norway that adapt better to winter.
Global warming hysteria has cost society over a trillion dollars in squandered resources. It may also cost lives, due to global cooling.
Actually it should be V(P)/g (unit cm), something to do with tide equilibrium potential.
Data: TABLE 1. Rankings, dates, and times of largest total tidal potential during 1859–2000 along with equilibrium tide V(P)/g.
from “Decadal Climate Variability: Is There a Tidal Connection?” by Richard Ray
lsvalgaard says:
October 29, 2013 at 1:31 pm
I am not aware of any specific sources, just making an observation from logical deduction.
There might? be historical peak tidal records from the UK and other maritime nations like the Dutch that go back a few hundred years, but for historical reconstruction order of several hundred years I am not sure how far back those records would be useful.
To some extent tidal information could be roughly reconstructed from moon orbital data, and merging with exceptional historical storm barometer records, but again that would be a proxy for real tide data.
I was also specifically referring to tsunami events triggered by coastal landslides etc. in the northern Atlantic basin. The historical record should have the biggest of those recorded in sagas or other references. You would probably need to combine nautical historical records and historical records of major coastal flooding. Hopefully someone has done some of that correlation already.
I was considering that some geologist might have done a study of seismic coastal inundations due to tsunami events based on the geology of the near in coast, just like in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.. The looked for sand layers well back from the shore line and debris characteristic of tsunami events, combined with Japanese historical tsunami records. In the process they found evidence of repeated large tsunami events due to major earth movements in the north west, as they were trying to find enough historical information to predict the risk of the next major event in that area. (see January 26, 1700 Cascadia earth quake)
well that’s patently false.
It has limited utility, but utility nonetheless.
####################################
with no quantification and uncertainty there is no scientific use. It can be used to distract people from the important issues, so I supposed that falls under limited utility.
it can be used to amuse people.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
……………….
I recommend this paper
ftp://ftp.flaterco.com/xtide/tidal_datums_and_their_applications.pdf
if you or anyone can get actual data for the graph on page 10 I would be very much obliged.
Maybe Steve Mosher could get hold of the data.
John Day: I accept your point about ‘figures’ but it was to give Leif the general idea – if wrongly. But you’re missing my point. Read my posts again, then read what you wrote here: “…pedants have insisted…” Do you get it now? Personally I have no problem with using ‘data is’ in a colloquial fashion, or even in science. I also have no problem in splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition. But someone who is usually so totally unbending might…do. 🙂
This is not a Maunder Minimum.
Won’t happen. Numbers are matching the minimums Joseph D’Aleo noticed a while back is not a minimum but a normal occurrence each century and in terms of climate it cleans out animal and plant species that are too far north such as pythons, Africa an ants, etc. That have encroached on Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
These cycles will have a total sunspot average of 200. The Maunder type minimums have no normal counts peaks or noticeable structure.
This is not a Maunder Minimum.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
The bing purge ice sheet theory is not a new theory and was developed to try to explain Heinrich events which are sudden releases of ice bergs and cooling into of the Northern Hemisphere. That theory was abandoned as it could not explain why disconnected ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere all purged at the same time. Here is a link to a conceptual model that was proposed in 1994.
http://geoweb.uchicago.edu/pdfs/macayeal/Alley_macayeal.pdf
The bing purge ice sheet theory could also not explain how the release of ice bergs in the Northern Hemisphere caused simultaneous cooling in the Southern Hemisphere and warming of Antarctic ice sheet. The analysis of the ice cores on the Antarctic Peninsula show there has been 340 warming and cooling cycles with a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years which matches the periodicity in Northern Hemisphere. Detailed proxy analysis for the recent cycles confirms the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere warming and cooling periods coincide in time and correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The cause of the Heinrich events and the cause of the lesser Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is current solar magnetic cycle changes, not bing purge of ice sheets or changes to North Atlantic drift current which was the other theory proposed. Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
“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.”
The D-O cycles, the Heinrich events, and the majority of the warming in the last 50 years were all caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. If that assertion is correct as then there will significant cooling of high latitude regions both poles and an increase in La Niña events.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantics 1500-year cycle.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399437a0.html
A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years
The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth’s magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun’s properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate5. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.
@Big Jim
> read what you wrote here:
> “…pedants have insisted…” Do you get it now?
That you are only a half-hearted pedant? Yes, I think I got it. Thanks!
There has been bit of a spat about this at Dr Mann’s facebook page with Paul Hudson weighing in and giving back better than he had to take.
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/604799366242936
Look at the comment from Bru Pearce and subsequent replies.
Ulric lyons says:
October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm
“Rubbish my solar forecasting shows mild winters ahead”
THIS COMMENT WAS NOT MADE BY ME.
[Confirmed – comment deleted since it is by a person under an assumed name out of Dublin. – Anthony]
William Astley says:
October 30, 2013 at 3:12 am
The D-O cycles, the Heinrich events, and the majority of the warming in the last 50 years were all caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. If that assertion is correct as then there will significant cooling of high latitude regions both poles and an increase in La Niña events.
But since it is not correct, you cannot assert what you do.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399437a0.html
A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years
Has been debunked, e.g. by http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf or by Arge, C. N. et al. two cycles of non-increasing magnetic flux, J. Geophys. Res., 107(A10), 2001.
Regarding Central England Temperatures (CET`s):
I used CET`s in dC from this source:
MONTHLY MEAN CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE (DEGREES C)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
1659-1973 MANLEY (Q.J.R.METEOROL.SOC., 1974)
1974ON PARKER ET AL. (INT.J.CLIM., 1992)
PARKER AND HORTON (INT.J.CLIM., 2005)
CET`s with Yearly Averages Less Than 8.00dC were 1675, 1684, 1688, 1692, 1694, 1695, 1698, 1740, 1784, 1799, 1814, 1816, 1860, 1879.
The coldest year was 1740, averaging 6.84C, the only year below 7.00C. The coldest month was January 1795 averaging -3.1C.
Perhaps significantly, the year 1814 (pre-Tambora eruption) averaged 7.75C, slightly COLDER than 1816 at 7.87C, the year AFTER Tambora.
CET`s with Yearly Averages Greater Than or Equal To 10.40C were 1733, 1779, 1834, 1921, 1949, 1959, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002-2007, 2011.
CET`s with Yearly Averages Greater Than or Equal To 10.50C were 1949, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011.
The warmest year was 2006 averaging 10.82C. The warmest month was July 2006 averaging 19.7C.
I do not know if the CET data has been adequately adjusted for UHI effect.
Solar Cycle 24 looks more like a Dalton Minimum than a Maunder Minimum, but it appears that CET`s were only slightly colder during the Maunder versus the Dalton.
Allan MacRae says:
October 30, 2013 at 7:53 am
Solar Cycle 24 looks more like a Dalton Minimum than a Maunder Minimum
Based on what?
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
October 30, 2013 at 8:16 am
Allan MacRae says:
October 30, 2013 at 7:53 am
Solar Cycle 24 looks more like a Dalton Minimum than a Maunder Minimum
Based on what?
William:
The solar large scale magnetic field has dropped 50% which by the way supports Lockwood’s assertion that it rose 50% from 1900 to 1985. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. The paper you are co-author extrapolates what is happening to the sun predicts a maximum smooth sunspot count of 20 for cycle 25 which is the same as a Dalton minimum.
“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.”
Coinciding with the most rapid drop in solar magnetic cycle activity in 10,000 years is record sea ice in the Antarctic, a rapid recovery of sea ice in the Arctic, and an increase in La Niña events.
The increase in La Niña events is caused by a reduction in cloud droplet size in the tropics which reduces the clouds’ ability to block long wave radiation. The reduction in cloud droplet size in the tropical regions is caused a reduction in solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn removes cloud forming ions.
William Astley says:
October 30, 2013 at 9:19 am
The paper you are co-author extrapolates what is happening to the sun predicts a maximum smooth sunspot count of 20 for cycle 25 which is the same as a Dalton minimum.
It could be the first cycle of Maunder Minimum to come. And BTW during the Dalton, the SSN maxs were ~50, not 25.
“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.
There was no Grand Modern Maximum as you well know [having been told that several times]
The reduction in cloud droplet size in the tropical regions is caused [by] a reduction in solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn removes cloud forming ions.
There are no clouds in the ionosphere. Your statement borders on nonsense.
William Astley says:
October 30, 2013 at 9:19 am
The solar large scale magnetic field has dropped 50% which by the way supports Lockwood’s assertion that it rose 50% from 1900 to 1985.
You are misrepresenting Lockwood. He claimed in the Nature paper you linked to that the field rose 130% [by a factor of 2.3]. As we show [Figure 10 and 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf ] the field fell from the mid 1800s to a low around 1900, then rose to the same value as in the 1870s before falling again to now being comparable to the field a century ago. Nothing mysterious or unusual, just the normal ebb and flow of what the sun is doing.