BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age

DrudgeSunComp

Guest post by Alec Rawls

Nice hype by Matt Drudge, whose three linked quotes are all from the BBC’s one brief paragraph of text, but the accompanying video (full transcription below) is more substantial, with scientists talking about the likelihood of an extended Maunder Minimum type period low solar activity and the cold temperatures that coincided with the Maunder Minimum during the 1600’s.

Professor Richard Harrison from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory is clear about the correlation [at 1:57]:

The Maunder Minimum of course was a period of almost no sunspots at all for decades and we saw a really dramatic period where there were very cold winters in the northern hemisphere. It was a period where you had a kind of mini ice-age. You had a period where the Thames froze in winters and so on. It was an interesting time.

BBC science correspondent Rebecca Morelle doesn’t shy away from the possible implications today:

So does a decline in solar activity mean plunging temperatures for decades to come?

Best of all is Dr. Lucie Green from University College in London, who describes the unsettled state of the science [at 3:35]:

It is a very very complex area because the sun’s activity controls how much visible light the sun gives out, but also how much ultraviolet light and x-rays that the sun emits and they create a web of changes up in the earth’s atmosphere producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.

Green then wraps up the segment by declining to suggest that anthropogenic warming can be expected to outweigh solar cooling:

… on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.

The weak link is solar physicist Mike Lockwood who makes irrational and unsupported claims about solar activity only affecting regional climate and not having a global effect.

The BBC voice-over sets up Lockwood’s unsupported speculation:

BBC: Less solar activity means a drop in ultraviolet radiation. Mike Lockwood says this seems to affect the behavior of the jet stream. The Jet stream changes its pattern. This ends up blocking warm air from reaching Northern Europe. This causes long cold winters, but what about global temperatures as a whole?

Lockwood [at 5:03]: One has to make a very clear distinction between regional climate and global climate. If we get a cold winter in Europe because of these blocking events it’s warmer, for example, in Greenland, so the average is almost no change, so it is a redistribution of temperature around the North Atlantic.

As Stephen Wilde has been pointing out for years, the wider meanders in the polar jet that seem to be associated with low solar activity can be expected to cause a net increase in cloudiness which would increase the earth’s albedo, having a global cooling effect. The jet stream follows the boundry where cold polar air slides beneath and pushes up warmer temperate air, creating storm tracks. Not only do wider meanders create longer storm tracks but the resulting cloud cover occurs at lower latitudes, where the incidence of incoming solar radiation is steeper, making the albedo reflection stronger.

Snow cover albedo effects would likely also be global, not just regional. A warmer Greenland has almost zero marginal albedo effect: it’s 98% white anyway. But a snow covered Europe and North America will reflect away a lot of sunlight. Also, the important thing over large parts of Asia and North America will not be temperature—it’s always going to be cold enough to snow during the Siberian winter—but the extent of the storm tracks, so that cloud and snow albedos both increase with the amplitude of the jet stream meanders, as seems to have been the pattern with the current solar lull. Here is a graphic showing the 21st century’s high average snow anomalies (from Rutgers, via Brett Anderson at Accuweather):SnowAnom_N-hemisphere_Rutgers

Lockwood is up against the paleologic evidence as well. He is suggesting that, while the Little Ice Age may have been induced by low solar activity, it was a northern-hemisphere-only event, but recent studies indicate that it was a global climate swing, as was the Medieval Warm Period.

Overall though, a very good report from the BBC. Have the recent revelations about top level BBC collusion with green propagandists reduced the power of the warming alarmists to censor other views? In any case, it is good to see them do some real reporting.

Full transcript (not provided by the BBC – is this unusual? – so I transcribed it myself)

BBC voice-over: The wonder of the northern lights reminds us of the intimate connection we have with our star. The aurora borealis happens when the solar wind hits the earth’s upper atmosphere, but many of these displays may soon vanish. Something is happening to the solar activity on the surface of the sun: it’s declining, fast.

Professor Richard Harrison, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory [0:28]: Whatever measure you use, it’s coming down, the solar peaks are coming down, for example with the flares. It looks very very significant.

Dr. Lucie Green, University College London [0:36]: The solar cycles now are getting smaller and smaller. The activity is getting less and less.

BBC: There is a vast range of solar activity: sunspots, intensely magnetic areas seen here as dark regions on the sun’s surface; solar winds and uv light radiate toward the earth; flares erupt violently and coronal mass ejections throw billions of tons of charged particles into space. Solar activity rises and falls in 11-year cycles and right now we are at the peak, the solar maximum, but this cycle’s maximum is eerily quiet.

Harrison [1:18]: I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. If you want to go back to see when the sun was this inactive, in terms of the minimum we’ve just had and the peak we have now you’ve got to go back about a hundred years, so this is not something I’ve seen in my lifetime, it’s not something that a couple of generations before me have seen.

BBC: The number of sunspots is a fraction of what scientists expected, solar flares are half. Richard Harrison is the head of space physics at the Rutheford-Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire. He says the rate at which solar activity is falling mirrors a period in the 17th century where sunspots virtually disappeared.

Harrison [1:57]: The Maunder Minimum of course was a period of almost no sunspots at all for decades and we saw a really dramatic period where there were very cold winters in the northern hemisphere [not only the northern hemisphere – A.R.] . It was a period where you had a kind of mini ice-age. You had a period where the Thames froze in winters and so on. It was an interesting time.

BBC: Rivers and canals froze across Northern Europe. Paintings from the 17th century show frost-fairs taking place on the Thames. During the “great frost” of 1684 the river froze over for two months, the ice was almost a foot thick. The Maunder Minimum was named after the astronomer who observed the steep decline in solar activity that coincided with this mini ice-age.

BBC science correspondent Rebecca Morelle [2:46]: The Maunder Minimum came at a time when snow cover was longer and more frequent. It wasn’t just the Thames that froze over. The Baltic Sea did too. Crop failures and famines were widespread across Northern Europe. So does a decline in solar activity mean plunging temperatures for decades to come?

Dr. Lucie Green [3:04]: We’ve been making observations of sun spots which are the most obvious sign of solar activity from 1609 onwards and we’ve got 400 years of observations. The sun does seem to be in a very similar phase as it was in the run-up to the Maunder Minimum, so by that I mean the activity is dropping off cycle by cycle.

BBC voice-over: Lucie Green is based at the Mullard Space Science Laboratory in the North Downs. She thinks that lower levels of solar activity could affect the climate, but she’s not sure to what extent.

Green [3:35]: It is a very very complex area because the sun’s activity controls how much visible light the sun gives out, but also how much ultraviolet light and x-rays that the sun emits and they create a web of changes up in the earth-atmosphere producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.

BBC voiceover: Some researchers have gone way further back in time, looked into the ice sheets of particles that were once in the upper atmosphere, particles that show variations in solar activity. Mike Lockwood’s work suggests that this is the fastest rate of solar decline for 10,000 years.

Professor Mike Lockwood, University of Reading [4:20]: If we look at the ice core record we can say, “okay so when we’ve been in this kind of situation before, what’s the sun gone on to do,” and based on that, and the rate of the current decline, we can estimate that within about 40 years from now there’s about a ten or twenty, probably nearer a 20% probabilility that we will actually be back in Maunder Minimum conditions by that time.

BBC: Less solar activity means a drop in ultraviolet radiation. Mike Lockwood says this seems to affect the behavior of the jet stream. The Jet stream changes its pattern. This ends up blocking warm air from reaching Northern Europe. This causes long cold winters, but what about global temperatures as a whole?

Lockwood [5:03]: One has to make a very clear distinction between regional climate and global climate. If we get a cold winter in Europe because of these blocking events it’s warmer, for example, in Greenland, so the average is almost no change [a completely unsupported conjecture that is at odds with reason and evidence A.R.], so it is a redistribution of temperature around the North Atlantic.

Morelle: The relationship between solar activity and weather on earth is complicated but if solar activity continues to fall could the temperature on earth as a whole get cooler? Could there be implications for global warming?

Dr. Lucie Green [5:38]: The world we live in today is very different to the world that was inhabited during the Maunder Minimum. So we have human activity, we have the industrial revolution, all kinds of gases being pumped into the atmosphere, so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.

BBC: So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm, if we enter a new Maunder Minimum the future for Northern Europe could be cold and frozen winters for decades to come, and we won’t even have bountiful displays of the northern lights to cheer us up.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Coach Springer

They look at CO2 and assume the climate is controlled through it via vaguely described feedbacks, yet they are baffled how the sun has any effect whatsoever?

Thanks, Alec and Anthony.
The sun is doing it somehow and I think I have the most likely diagnosis so far.

george h.

Sorry this is off topic, but Goddard has a huge find regarding data tampering at NOAA / GISS:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/#comment-310458
Take a look and see what you think. If he is correct, it should get a lot of attention.

BarryW

Could some of the effect be due to changes in charged particles impinging on the atmosphere? Is there any long term data on auroras that might show a correlation with climate change?

About time.
Britain lost 30,000 elderly to the cold last year’s winter.
I think it is time to buy some wood burning stoves before the EPA bans them.
Time to stack the wood high and long.
Paul

kim

Barry W, there is a study of Nile River levels, from a time of reliable measurement and documentation, that correlates with Northern Hemisphere aurorae.
=====================

it’s the sun, stupid!

catweazle666

Ah, but the AGW is only on hold, and is building up in places where we have no ability to measure it, and after the freeze it will spring out all at once, temperatures will rocket,and the oceans will boil.
Or something.
Just ask James Hansen if you don’t believe me!

sabretruthtiger

Great Post Anthony and Alec, and thanks Stephen Wilde.
It’s great to to see the extent of the Sun’s role being admitted finally.

Way ahead of you Paul! We’ve been heating our little farmhouse with wood for the last 10 years – no source of heat besides a single wood-burning stove. Cold in winter? We can typically have -25C at night, -10C during the day for weeks on end, and we’re so warm we have the windows open. Oh – we’re out on the Great Hungarian Plain BTW. Currently have 14 tonnes of best oak chopped and stacked. Seriously excellent investment, though does require some physical labour and you have to look after your fire. Lots of people we know have switched from gas to wood, though for purely economic reasons.

Alan Robertson

Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:15 am
Thanks, Alec and Anthony.
The sun is doing it somehow and I think I have the most likely diagnosis so far.
________________________________
If only some study had proven the link between Sun and climate… some have gotten close, but lose correlation at some point. There is too much we have yet to understand about Solar/planetary climate interaction. I disagree with much of what Professor Lockwood said, but he was correct that any discernible differences the Sun makes in our climate have been small.

Latest version of my proposition:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
“The sun causes latitudinal climate zone shifting with changes in the degree of jetstream zonality / meridionality by altering the ozone creation / destruction balance differentially at different heights above the tropopause. The net result is a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator (relatively high) and poles (relatively low).
The cause appears not to be raw solar power output (TSI) which varies too little but instead, the precise mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun which vary more greatly and affect ozone amounts above the tropopause.
That allows latitudinal sliding of the jets and climate zones below the tropopause leading to changes in global cloudiness and albedo with alters the amount of energy getting into the oceans.

HAL-9000

A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.

richard

Some where I read that the chinese had been monitoring sun spot activity for over a thousand yeas and noted the effect on harvest yields.

Jimbo

If we do enter a LIA then this will test the idea whether LIA was regional or global. Furthermore, it would put to rest SkS’ idea that co2 is now the main climate driver. In fact that has been to to bed by 16 years of no surface warming.

No more excuses from the warmists.
Be cautious when the warmists start to accept the sun as a prime cause of climate change. Because they are going to use it and “natural variability” as just another way to excuse the fact that the earth is not warming, and that their climate models have failed miserably.
Don’t let the warmists keep piling the excuses on for why their models have failed. No. The models, along with the discredited hockey stick and the lack of a demonstrated causal correlation between CO2 & temperature, served as the foundations of their theory. Those things, the very foundations of theory, are now gone, but the rotten edifice of the theory still stands. Tell them that the failure of their models calls for not excuses, but for re-examining the very heart of what they posit, i.e. the 120 year old “established physics” on CO2. Yes, because the observed evidence doesn’t support their contentions about what CO2 should have done. It’s that simple. They have to go back to the drawing board.

Jay

Short of praying to the Sun there is no mechanism for power and control built into its role.. So they draw a complete blank.. Like trying to explain to a fish what fresh air tastes like..Its outside their realm of understanding..
The problem is our Universities have used government funding to sell green politically correct politics on campus.. A green light from the word go.. Not to much pop but lots of show..
We should feel sorry for our rich little darlings.. Fiction and non fiction in the science corner of the library has them demanding a new script almost weekly.. Like spoiled actors they wont come out of their trailer unless their demands are met..
I cant work under these conditions!!! >Truth<

HAL-9000 says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am
A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.
The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost ].

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

Question to all who know, if I may:
Several years ago (2008? 2010?) the Thermosphere collapsed. As I recall it was ‘an order of magnitude’ greater than anything they had seen before.
If I understand correctly, the Thermosphere absorbs ultraviolet light. The collapse suggests a change in the sun’s ultraviolet output. With all the other things the sun has been doing since 2006 (when I first discovered your site, the sun’s geomagnetic activity was one of the very first posts I read), I have to wonder if that plays a role in what they discussed on the BEEB?

knr

Just waiting to see who is the first to pop up and ‘prove ‘ low solar activity is down to the all powerful and magic CO2 and therefore humans fault.

Richard Bell

BIG YELLOW THING IN SKY !!! called the sun ???
BIG BLUE WATER THINGS OFF THE COAST !!! called the oceans ???
BIG WHITE THINGS UP IN THE AIR !!! called clouds ???
= CHANGES IN CLIMATE…. up down, up down, up down ….. warm, cold, warm, cold………!!!
Has been and will be ……. and no I am not in the pay of big oil.

Jay

Academic freedom had Nazi scientists digging up Aryan chicken bones so their invasion could be passed off as a home coming.. Science serving a political ideal, be it green or otherwise is no longer science..
Its propaganda in a lab coat..

timspence10

Careful here, this is just a BBC safety valve to releive a little pressure on their behaviour, make them look impartial, normal service will resume shortly.

Jimbo

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov has been on about another looming Little Ice Age for some time now. Only time will tell so let’s wait and see.

Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/2329-6755/2329-6755-2-113.pdf

Silver ralph

As has already been suggested, this is the BBC exit strategy.
“We were perfectly right about Global Warming, but now the Sun has spoiled our show. We never hyped a story, we never fudged the data, we never spread disinformation and propaganda – it was all true, until the Sun stopped it all……..”
There will be a new BBC 28-gate conference next month, entitled ‘AGW – an Arachne Exit.’
Ralph

The warmists may say that “the lack of warming is caused by a lull in the sun.”
The problem with accepting that as an excuse for why their models and predictions have totally failed is that it leaves open the corollary: that the established physics on CO2 is still at work, and as soon as nature gives them a break, the temperatures are going to skyrocket. So the doomsayers will still be able to contend that we should cut CO2 to the bone, even if temperatures are sharply in decline!
Yeah, it should be self-evident that the sun plays a major role here. But it’s also obvious that their models have failed beyond belief, that CO2 has NOT produced the results they said it would. Now the warmists can give all kind of complex epicycle type excuses for their failure, but the simplest explanation is that CO2 simply doesn’t do what they say it does.

R. de Haan

“BBC: So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm, if we enter a new Maunder Minimum the future for Northern Europe could be cold and frozen winters for decades to come, and we won’t even have bountiful displays of the northern lights to cheer us up.”
So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm…..
BBC still shows all the signs of a drug addict in rehab program.
Let’s see how this develops.
Now with the recent Antarctic “Ship of Fools” scandal, a rising number of people who no longer believe AG is real and now the claim from the UN Climate Chief that Communism is best for fighting global warming, some people must start to realize from which direction the wind is blowing: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/un_climate_chief_communism_best_for_fighting_global_warming.html

Count_to_10

“A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.”
Well, it isn’t really “detonating” — that would be a self perpetuating shock wave through a medium with a pressure initiated exothermic reaction.

Jimbo

Silver ralph says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:07 am
As has already been suggested, this is the BBC exit strategy.

There will be no available exits. They made it clear that co2 is now in the driving seat / the control knob and no back seat drivers allowed. This is how to paint yourself into a corner, you forgot to leave some rat holes open just in case.

‘Skeptical Science’ – 11 September 2010
Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.
…………..
While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

Policycritic

Anyone got a link to the BBC show?

john robertson

Afraid I am with the cynics here,BBC is doing some CYA, having gone all in on the magic gas they will now start pointing in every direction at all natural drivers of our climate, with the standard methods of a bureaucracy.
F.U.D.
Original claim, that atmospheric CO2 could increase to a point where this “greenhouse” effect overpowers nature.
Eric Simpson and Richard Bell, nail this consensus ineptitude.
Now as CAGW and the complicit media’s credibility spiral into the drain, desperation is setting in.
The tried and true methods of past liars, counting on collective amnesia from the public and selective amnesia by the Press, should fail in this internet age.
We are about to see.
Next stage selection of scapegoats.

Paul Hanlon

Sorry people, I think we have to be very careful of taking this at face value. Bear in mind that the Little Ice Age was already cold, and the Dalton and Maunder minimums were just the icing on the cake, so to speak. If what happened then recurs now, then we will descend down to the temperatures we saw in the ’70s at best. That’s more than a “pause”, but hardly alarming.
If this gains traction, it gives the alarmists and the media an out for all their pronouncements on global warming.
They can legitimately say (in their minds at least), that they couldn’t possibly have predicted this.
They can hype this up as having the potential to bring us into another little ice age, and when it doesn’t (and it won’t), then say that global warming must be “worse than we thought”.
They can further say that once the sun gets active again, and it will, global warming will return with a vengeance, so we need to keep the pressure on on CO2.
It also allows them to say that if it had not been for this unprecedented event, then their models would have been validated. You and I know that they will be blowing smoke, but the public at large won’t.
This could end up being the worst of all worlds for people on the skeptic side of the argument. We can be painted as having been right (temporarily), but for the wrong reason. Ergo, we should continue to be ignored.
Let’s keep our eye on the pea under this particular thimble.

MikeB

Silver ralph says: January 19, 2014 at 9:07 am

….this is the BBC exit strategy. We were perfectly right about Global Warming, but now the Sun has spoiled our show.

Could be. Quote from Dr. Lucie Green

all kinds of gases being pumped into the atmosphere, so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that

Uhhg
….and note the emotive word ‘pumped’

RayG

You quote Dr. Lucie Green as follows:
“It is a very very complex area because the sun’s activity controls how much visible light the sun gives out, but also how much ultraviolet light and x-rays that the sun emits and they create a web of changes up in the earth’s atmosphere producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.”
Not to take anything away from Dr. Green but I often see the phrase “…that we don’t fully understand…” used by members of the climate science community to give the impression that a greater level of understanding exists than is warranted.

MikeB

Policycritic says: January 19, 2014 at 9:26 am

Anyone got a link to the BBC show?

The link is carefully hidden in the article. This was part of a Newsnight broadcast. You can watch the relevant excerpt here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

I think the BBC are too thick skinned to notice complaints about bias. For them anything that disagrees with their world view is wrong and therefore by their own definitions of balanced reporting biased.
What might have changed is the perception that the science is settled. The whole business of heat hiding in the deep oceans, the17year hiatus and spell of cold winters must have given even the most bigoted BBC executive pause for thought. (Maybe thought is too optimistic a word, lets just say their brains registered that their views are becoming dangerous to their long term careers).

“Green then wraps up the segment by declining to suggest that anthropogenic warming can be expected [to?] outweigh solar cooling: … on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.”
No, on the other hand, we also have historically during periods of low solar activity volcanic eruptions. The effects of large volcanic eruptions of ash can have further cooling affects on temps, and this is a huge vulnerability to agriculture. So not only is this a time to strengthen the energy sector with coal, it is a time to increase agricultural out put because of potential threats to the length of the growing season because of cool temps and volcanic activity. These have amplified eachother before.
Instead, what do we have? the precise opposite response!

Jim G

lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:52 am
HAL-9000 says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am
A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.
“The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost ].”
The really intriguing issue in this post is the potential trail of TSI, to weather then on to climate. It would appear that the reduction in TSI, alone, is inadequate to explain, as you have said many times, such events as the LIA, but perhaps the small reduction in TSI leads to changes in weather that ultimately lead to longer term changes in climate. And since even these events are the result of relatively small changes in global temperature, such changes also still do not obviate Wilis’s theories regarding the “self regulation” of the earth’s climate. It is a matter of degree, no pun intended though there is one there I suppose, even unto a glaciation.
Comments?

Jimbo says at 9:25 am
“While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.”
———– ————- —————- ————–
Problem for us is that the doomers don’t need an escape hole. They just revise, and the MSM goes along with it. So when it seems to their advantage to say that natural variability is temporarily eclipsing CO2, they’ll say that. They are warming up to the idea of saying just that. So they said something different in the past. Previously they also said that “snow will be a thing of past.” But for most people that doesn’t seem to matter. The “established physics” on CO2 is what’s important. Eventually evil humanity is going to have to pay the piper.
All I’m saying is that we should start turning all our guns on rebutting the so called “established physics” of CO2.
And a major boon for us would be to get the public at large to see this very short but effective 3 1/2 minute video, which shows Al Gore knowingly repeating deceptions on CO2 in 2005 even well after the IPCC had conceded in 2003 that there is no evidence of a causal correlation between CO2 and temperature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

correction: “The effects of large volcanic eruptions of ash have led to further cooling, and this is a huge vulnerability to agriculture.”
And yet this is the response of the so-called scientists:
Paradigm Shift Urgently Needed In Agriculture
UN Agencies Call for an End to Industrial Agriculture & Food System

A rising chorus from UN agencies on how food security, poverty, gender inequality and climate change can all be addressed by a radical transformation of our agriculture and food system
Dr Mae-Wan Ho
So the response has not only been to profoundly mischaracterise the science of earth’s weather systems, but to also call for solutions which would repeat history’s most deadly episodes of mass murder, China’s Great Leap and Soviet destruction of agriculture. These are not scientists, they are Maoists.

Paul Hanlon says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:35 am
You are too pessimistic.
You are right that the current length of solar activity decline would only take us back to the 70s but what if it continues across the next several solar cycles ?
If the AGW proponents try to take advantage of a near future uptick in solar activity to salvage their ‘theory’ one can still point out that the sun caused the warming they were concerned about in the first place and the renewed more active sun would be again causing any observed warming rather than CO2.
The evidence for the level of solar activity being in control; is becoming overwhelming now that we have all observed the real world effects on global air circulation of declining solar activity that commenced around 2000 AD.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true&position=1
How could they separate the AGW effect from the solar effect ?
AGW theory is dead.
An early return to high solar activity does not help them and a prolonged period of low solar activity crucifies them.
The fact is that the global air circulation pattern and the size, position and intensities of the permanent climate zones are a negative system response to any destabilising process that the universe (or humans) can throw at the climate system.
Compared to the climate effects of variability in sun and oceans our puny efforts count for nothing.
Human emissions do affect the global air circulation but to such a miniscule degree as compared to natural variability that we could never measure it.

Jim G says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:50 am
but perhaps the small reduction in TSI leads to changes in weather that ultimately lead to longer term changes in climate.
If those changes are cyclic we should [NOT] have a long-term [non-cyclic] change in climate, so the issue boils down to whether there is a long-term, non-cyclic ‘background’ in TSI [and all the other things that depend on solar magnetism: UV, solar wind, cosmic ray modulation, etc]. That is, at present, unknown [ see http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf ], but the data seem to favor the view that there is no such background variation.

It always gets me that the GW folks, who have no clue s to why warming ceased, know exactly
why the warming occurred in the first place If you can’t explain the one, you can’t explain the other.

lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:00 am
If those changes are cyclic we should NOT have a long-term [non-cyclic] change in climate
Sorry for the slip.

Gail Combs

BarryW says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:17 am
Could some of the effect be due to changes in charged particles impinging on the atmosphere? Is there any long term data on auroras that might show a correlation with climate change?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is an entire paper by Richard Feynman’s sister.
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
The actual paper: Does the Nile reflect solar variability? by Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman and Yuk Yung

We have the paleodiet and now we have paleologic as well?
A delightful typo. We actually need lots more paleologic and it rolls off the tongue so beautifully!

Scute

Good analysis. Of course, Green is probably giving a nod to GCR’s as well.

kim

GC, I thought she was his niece.
===============

Leon Brozyna

That music from Star Trek was a nice touch.
Best line is from Dr. Green: “… producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.”

Ted Clayton

HAL-9000 says @ January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am;

A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.

Huh. I coulda swore that was just a million-mile wide, brilliantly-incandescent compost pile. 😉