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):
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

bushbunny said @ur momisugly January 21, 2014 at 8:06 pm;
Although I hesitate to vouch for the government, the main concern about a new mini ice age appears to be agriculture. Will we be able to grow enough food, as the weather ‘goes crazy’?
Canada exports a lot of food, from world-class breadbaskets that experience Little Ice Age winters, every year. If the USA finds a lot of unaccustomed Canadian winter-weather arriving as a new routine, they will look to Canada for the crop-varieties and farming-practices that are already proven to work, under Little Ice Age conditions.
There are concerns about a drop in total annual precipitation, under a colder climate regime. And there are questions about summer-conditions, during a LIA, which aren’t as clear to us as the winter-conditions. Is spring – and summer itself – delayed? Does the summer stay meaningfully cooler? Are there wet spells when rain will damage ripening crops? Does fall come too soon? We are not sure.
We all know that modern crop varieties are more-productive than those of the pioneer days. We generally assume that, well, you know, people just weren’t quite smart enough back then, to do any better. Actually, there are some significant errors involved in that interpretation.
Formerly, folks had to grow food-stuffs near where they lived … “everywhere” … whatever their local conditions might be. If it was wet, windy, droughty, hot, cold … they still had to grow a crop. Not just on the fine prairies like we do now, but everywhere. And they did. The varieties of grains they used were selected & proven, to be highly adaptable to all kinds of growing conditions (including crappy kinds).
The old-timers traded-off maximum productive, for maximum adaptability to the full range of environmental conditions, everywhere that humans live. Their grain varieties were often very large & robust grass-plants. They grew spaced-out more, so they had better ventilation & dried out better. They shared the sun better. They had heavier & deeper root-systems that provided better mechanical anchoring, and gave them better resistance to drought. The stems were massive, and resisted ‘lodging’ or falling over from wind & rain.
We still have those old grain-varieties, today: heirlooms, they’re now called. They’re in the Seed Banks. We grow them at University agricultural facilities; commercial breeders keep them, for crossing; there are large networks of amateur growers who maintain them and adapt them.
Therefore, in the worst case, in which summers become unpredictable & poor, we actually have the kinds of grain varieties that were bred to perform under those conditions.
Indeed, the grains we had as we entered the early modern & pioneer days, we had bred & selected during the immediately preceding Little Ice Age. Our heirlooms grain varieties derived substantially, in fact, from the actual Little Ice Age varieties. Born & bred. And we still have them.
Although the sudden onset of new mini ice age is a serious matter, it by no means has to be an out-of-control food-disaster, or famine. Populations should remain ‘reasonably’ secure.
Nikola Milovic says:
January 22, 2014 at 2:25 am
Apologies, I cant make out what you are saying!
lsvalgaard says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm
“1: they are not similar
2: they may look similar because Jupiter’s period is close [but not quite equal] to the solar cycle period”
The trends Lief, the trends are Identical.
Sparks says:
January 22, 2014 at 11:31 am
lthe trends are Identical.
1: your fitted curves look the same
2: since there is only one undulation, the correspondence could be spurious
3: the details don’t match
4: not convincing at all.
Sparks, you have the right you can say that you can not decipher what I said. The first reason is my bad English, and the other much more difficult, because the data that I gave to the planet, few understand, because no one thinks about who and how to cause the changes in the solar system. I gave the order of the magnitude of the impact of the sun, of all the planets. For this my second observation is not yet ripe to be understood.
lsvalgaard says:
January 22, 2014 at 11:38 am
There is no “fitted curves”
There are two separate observational data-sets.
The separate trends do match.
Why do they match?
Sparks says:
January 22, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Why do they match?
Because you fiddle with things until you find something you like
Dr. Svalgaard! (just a quick off-topic note — saw your name in the recent post list so, seized the opportunity)
Last Monday, I finished reading this!: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Gray_etal_1.pdf
It was, indeed, a “good read.” And it turned out to be much easier to comprehend than I had feared, for it was written to non-physics people as well as to physicists. AND it was only 42 (not 53!) pages for the last 11 pages were the Bibliography (hurrah!). My main reason for reading it, atmospheric chemistry of UV – ozone influence on climate (thanks to Mario Lento’s great questions about that) was answered only in the negative, mainly, i.e., the upshot was: “We just don’t know a whole lot about this yet.” The End. Well, at least they know that. LOL, that’s far more than any of the AGW “scientists” know.
Just thought, being the caring teacher that you are, you would be gratified to know that your student followed your advice.
Gratefully,
Janice
(okay, NOW BACK ON-TOPIC WE GO!)
lsvalgaard says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Because you fiddle with things until you find something you like
What was fiddled with?
The Sunspot area data is as published from Greenwich observatory and has not been altered in anyway!
The planetary data, is of date and distance compiled by myself over months, each date and distance value can be independently verified by any astronomer, I cant change where a planet was or is on a specific date, or change the distance between two planets on a specific date.
I have no problem in posting the data where you or anyone else can verify that the planetary data is correct and that the Sunspot area data has not been modified or altered in anyway.
lsvalgaard says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:37 pm
The Sunspot area data is as published from Greenwich observatory and has not been altered in anyway! The planetary data, is of date and distance compiled by myself over months, each date and distance value can be independently verified by any astronomer, I cant change where a planet was or is on a specific date, or change the distance between two planets on a specific date.
But that is not what you plot. You plot your interpretation [or selection or combination or some other concoction] of the data.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:42 pm
But that is not what you plot. You plot your interpretation [or selection or combination or some other concoction] of the data.
I’m showing what is in the actual data, it’s a long way from “Fiddling” with the data.
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:49 pm
I’m showing what is in the actual data
No, you are not showing the actual data, but something you see in the data. You could see many other things, but have found something you like and show that.
Do you want to see the actual data? what I’m showing will still be there. In the actual data.
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Do you want to see the actual data? what I’m showing will still be there. In the actual data.
I know the actual data. Tell us what you plot. And how you calculate the ‘trend’.
Leif,
Are there any papers know of or recommend on relativistic timing of orbiting planetary bodies?
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Are there any papers know of or recommend on relativistic timing of orbiting planetary bodies?
Not sure what you mean. The relativistic corrections to the orbits are extremely small. The biggest one [for Mercury] is 42 arcseconds in a century. The subject is also highly technical, an example is http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gen-Rel-Planets.pdf which I take will not be very useful for you, except perhaps for the numeric example between equations (22) and (23) on the last page.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:43 pm
…
Not sure what you mean. The relativistic corrections to the orbits are extremely small.
Thanks,
I’ve been looking into orbital timing and I was wondering, if we had three synchronized clocks one on Earth, and we put one on Jupiter and another on Neptune, the two clocks on Neptune and Jupiter should theoretically become unsynchronized with the clock on Earth, due to relativistic changes during aphelion and perihelion when the planets either speed up and slow down, Therefor wouldn’t the timing of solar observations made on Jupiter or Neptune be different than solar observations made on earth? I’m interested in this change and differences.
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Therefore wouldn’t the timing of solar observations made on Jupiter or Neptune be different than solar observations made on earth? I’m interested in this change and differences.
Clocks run slower in higher gravity, so a clock on the Sun would run slower that a clock on any planet. But the effect is too small to have any effect you can measure. In accurate orbit determinations [and in GPS] those [tiny] relativistic effects are fully accounted for.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:01 pm
…the effect is too small to have any effect you can measure. In accurate orbit determinations [and in GPS] those [tiny] relativistic effects are fully accounted for.
Are relativistic effects between the planets accounted for in the Solar observation records?
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:11 pm
Are relativistic effects between the planets accounted for in the Solar observation records?
The only ones that need to be corrected are for the effect between the Sun and the observer and they are indeed corrected for, when the matter, which most of the time they don’t. For example: a photon climbing out of the the Sun’s gravitational field loses a little bit of energy [so looks tiny bit more red]. This is corrected for in the calculation of the Total Solar Irradiance [but is very tiny].
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:16 pm
“The only ones that need to be corrected are for the effect between the Sun and the observer and they are indeed corrected for, when [they] matter, which most of the time they don’t.”
So, if it’s assumed very small, unknown or that there is no relativistic effects between the planets and the sun, then they would not be accounted for.
For example, if relativistic effects between the planets had an effect on the behavior of the Solar dynamo, they would not be accounted for, correct?
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:52 pm
So, if it’s assumed very small, unknown or that there is no relativistic effects between the planets and the sun, then they would not be accounted for.
It is not assumed to be anything. Relativity is a very precise theory and the effects can be calculated with utmost accuracy, so we know that these effects are very small.
Interesting thanks…
Zeke says @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm (posted in wrong thread)
No, heirloom crops and local-only policies would spell disaster…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Referring to Ted Clayton says: @ur momisugly January 22, 2014 at 6:44 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will agree that the local only policies are disaster. Cornell Univ. is working on the concept and they are called Food Sheds.
Heirloom crops are another matter entirely. They need to be kept for the genetic diversity that is important in survival if conditions change.
Back yard/homestead farmers that preserve the older varieties need to be encouraged. For example there are no new wormers in the pipeline and parasites are becoming resistant. Certain heritages breeds of sheep are much more worm resistant so the genetics may be needed for crossing into the more modern breeds. (This is what I am doing)
Gail Combs said @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 5:45 pm;
Thanks Gail!
No, Zeke, I’m not talking about local-only policies, not using modern machines or any of that atavistic stuff. I’m pointing at crop varieties that do better under variable/unpredictable conditions; not using them exclusively or anything … they’re an ‘ace in the hole’, if a cooling climate generates ‘wild’, undependable weather … which I am also not convinced is the most likely way it would unfold.
… I’m working in woods for a few days guys, and only got a few minutes. I will look the messages over better in the morning, but will be gone early again. Money is good. 😉