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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

293 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zeke
January 19, 2014 10:10 am

Don’t take any agricultural paradigms from China, esp. during a period of low solar activity.
“A gold and jade statue of Mao Zedong worth more than $16 million was unveiled Friday, in the latest example of Communist China’s indecision over how to commemorate its founding father’s 120th anniversary.
The statue, 80 cm (32 inches) tall but weighing more than 50 kilograms, was put on display in the southern boom town of Shenzhen, China National Radio (CNR) reported.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/16-million-gold-mao-statue-unveiled-in-china-2013-12#ixzz2qrvXRbJu
We are cooling and agriculture will suffer in the event of eruptions. These mass murderers have signed agreements with the DOA and the EU to transform agriculture in the next five years in the US and Europe.

Gail Combs
January 19, 2014 10:10 am

Alan Robertson says: January 19, 2014 at 8:42 am
See the paper: Sun / dust correlations and volcanic interference

January 19, 2014 10:12 am

kim says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:07 am
GC, I thought she was his niece.
Sister

Carrick
January 19, 2014 10:12 am

I don’t think Lockwood’s caution is unwarranted here. We don’t have a “slam dunk” that the LIA was global in extent, so it is reasonable to cast it, at this time, in terms of what we do know–which is that a cooler Sun seems to correlate with cooler Northern European temperatures.
What is actually a conjecture is that there is a global correlation, since at the moment, we simply don’t know.

kim
January 19, 2014 10:13 am

Ah, thanks, Leif.
===========

Gail Combs
January 19, 2014 10:16 am

richard says: January 19, 2014 at 8:45 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This may be it: Changing sun, changing climate – Bob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs

Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5000 years.Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records, and noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather.

January 19, 2014 10:23 am

“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.”
Sadly there is no data to support this or even suggest it.
1. how is wilde measuring meanders ?
2. The measurements Ive seen suggest the otherwise.
3. There is no relationship between solar activity and cloudiness
4. There is no relationship between solar activity and cloudiness.
so, other than having no data to support the speculation there is no problem
Hint: Wilde has never posted a dataset in his life nor has he ever posted a description of any method much less code to support it.
Like the other sun nuts, you’d be wise to ignore him less the credibility of WUWT take a hit

Gail Combs
January 19, 2014 10:23 am

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says: January 19, 2014 at 8:53 am
…Several years ago (2008? 2010?) the Thermosphere collapsed….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here are the NASA Articles:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

January 19, 2014 10:24 am

As temperatures stall and fall, we can assume the warmists are going to say that that is due to the sun, or whatever, and not to any deficiencies in their theorizing about CO2.
But beyond CO2, another effective counter to the warmist bs will be to get more of the public to see how the hockey stick was a false fabrication, and that without the hockey stick, there’s just nothing unusual or in any way alarming about the current climate or how we got here. Note the warmists continue to trumpet the hockey stick, and most of the public still believes it. This article, just out, is an EXCELLENT (the best I’ve seen) summary for the layperson on the hockey stick, spread the word:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html
And excerpt:

The real knock out blow that finally succeeded in eliminating the Medieval Warm Period was a paper published in 1998 in Nature by Mann, Bradley and Hughes.. This was the original peer reviewed hockey stick article.
Michael Mann had in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history. Using [faulty] tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, Mann completely redrew climate history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events.
In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review.
This never happened with Mann’s `Hockey Stick’. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann’s paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the increasingly politically committed supporters of the CO2 greenhouse theory. Within the space of only 12 months, the new theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.

Warren in Minnesota
January 19, 2014 10:25 am

Two possible transcription errors:
First paragraph:
The wonder of the northern lights reminds us of the intimate connection we have with out/ star.
could/should be
The wonder of the northern lights reminds us of the intimate connection we have with
our/ star.
Harrison [1:18] missing “go”?
If you want to back to see when the sun was this inactive
could/shoud be
If you want to
go/ back to see when the sun was this inactive
Warren

[Fixed, thanks. – Alec]

January 19, 2014 10:25 am

Zeke:
You conclude your post at January 19, 2014 at 9:57 am saying

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.

Yes, I have been trying to explain that for years including on WUWT.
And e.g. Gail Combs has been pointing it out from the other end of the political spectrum from me.
The documentation is clear (as you have discovered). The matter is not some secret conspiracy: it is deliberate and openly declared policy.
However, the matter seems to be so outlandish that few believe it unless – like you – they discover some of the documentation for themselves.
Totalitarians are evil and they seem to be working towards their goals again.
Richard

January 19, 2014 10:25 am

Goddard? Correct
“Take a look and see what you think. If he is correct, it should get a lot of attention.”
it’s not even wrong.

Warren in Minnesota
January 19, 2014 10:25 am

I blew the bolding script.
Uffda
Warren

stevek
January 19, 2014 10:26 am

The sun , climate correlation is very hard to do because we have confounding variables of co2, ozone depletion, and dimming.
Sun activity drop causing cooling may need ozone but then again ozone layer was okay 100 years ago when sun activity was low.
Perhaps then another confounding variable of ocean cycles was in play.
Anyways it hard to say.
If maurander mininimum coincided with global change in climate of the levels seen in europe then solar activity is major driver of climate imho. The reason being is ozone layer was okay then and drop in temps so much that ocean cycles variable could not make such a temp change magnitude.
Ozone layer ties back into work being done by that university of waterloo researcher.
100 years ago solar drop affect might have been offset by ocean cycle.
All in all betting man would bet on sun then if maurander minimum temp drop was global. If not global and temps were up elsewhere to offset europe then I doubt sun activity is factor.
We fully do not know particle effects on clouds. Time will tell ! Next 40 years will be exciting if sun activity keeps dropping and if ozone layer will be okay. If though this hides co2 warming we could be on trouble when sun activity comes back. Which is why I suggest to be prepared and at least spend some time and money on planning geo engineering. Small investment. Think of it as insurance. Don’t do it but have plan ready to go quickly if needed.

John R Walker
January 19, 2014 10:27 am

There is a better BBC link from Rebecca Morelle:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806

January 19, 2014 10:29 am

NASA has found that the entire atmosphere expands and contracts with the solar cycle. An active sun causes the atmosphere to expand, and thus produces increased drag on orbiting satellites:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0233
“Heating of Earth’s Atmosphere by Coronal Mass Ejections”? Of course, that couldn’t possibly have any effect on climate.

Zeke
January 19, 2014 10:29 am

By the way, with low solar activity, potential for volcanic disruption further amplifying cooling, and organic-only transformations of agricultural output, are there any unforseen consequences we can think of?
And if agricultural advances in chemical fertilizers (nitrogen, horrors!), new cultivars, GM, and pesticides are eliminated, while simultaneously destroying the cattle and dairy farms because of the methane ghg regulations, how are you going to fertilize the tired soil?
http://nataliaphule.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/zillyzonkq.jpg

Jim G
January 19, 2014 10:30 am

lsvalgaard says:
Thanks for the response and correction as you had me reading and re-reading your response several times. I did go to your link and have a question regarding “Webber et al. (2010) suggest that “more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to nonproduction related increases”. What would be possible definitions/causes of “nonproduction related increases” Have any been postulated? Extrasolar or local or both?

john robertson
January 19, 2014 10:32 am

Comment vanished into the ether.
As Eric Simpson and Richard Bell say above, the BBC is attempting some old fashioned F.U.D.
Caught by the 28 Gate revelation’s and loosing public and political support, they will point in every direction, to draw attention away from their activities as CAGW propagandists.
This methodology has worked in the past, we will see if it still works in the internet age.
How does selective amnesia by our MSM compete with the wayback machine?

DirkH
January 19, 2014 10:39 am

Ah, so the (EU) regime tries to save the Warmist dogma by postulating erratic local effects. Well, unsupportable; that lie will be retracted as it becomes untenable over the next years. Time for the cronies to squirrel away their ill gotten gains; retreat of the rent seekers.

January 19, 2014 10:41 am

Zeke:
At January 19, 2014 at 10:29 am you ask

By the way, with low solar activity, potential for volcanic disruption further amplifying cooling, and organic-only transformations of agricultural output, are there any unforseen consequences we can think of?

Well, yes, the totalitarian horrors which you espouse in your post at January 19, 2014 at 9:57 am.
I have written in support of your post but my support is stuck in moderation. If my post does appear then I think this will then link to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/bbc-runs-6-excellent-minutes-on-quiet-sun-and-past-correlation-with-little-ice-age/#comment-1541339
Richard

Jean Meeus
January 19, 2014 10:43 am

In the May 2007 issue of “Sky & Telescope” there arreared a short note by
me, mentioning a work by Scafetta and West, who said that the global warming
wast partly due to solar activity.
Bob Naeye reacted by writing the following to me on 2007 March 30:
> Greetings Jean,
> This is Robert Naeye, formerly of S&T, and now senior science
> writer in the Astrophysics Science
> Division at NASA/GSFC. I just received my copy
> of the May 2007 S&T and saw your letter. I wrote
> the short article about global warming. I should
> note that virtually every climate scientist in the world
> would strongly disagree with your letter. Your letter
> is good news to people who have an immediate
> financial incentive to maintain the status quo (and
> I view these people as having an extremely low
> moral character), who use arguments like yours to
> say that nations like the US should not have to live
> up to their responsibility in reducing greenhouse
> emissions. There is too much at stake (i.e. the
> future of humanity) to go against the consensus of
> the scientific community, as expressed recently
> in the UN report on climate change. I just spoke
> to a Goddard colleague who is well-versed in
> climate research, and he says that anyone who
> thinks the Sun is responsible for as much of the
> warming as claimed in the Scafetta/West paper
> is “delusional.”
> Best regards,
> Robert Naeye
So, according to Naeye, the warming is not due to the increased solar activity,
even not partially. It is for 100% due to the increase of CO2, and the non-believers
have immediate financial interest and have extremely low moral character.

DirkH
January 19, 2014 10:45 am

Carrick says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:12 am
“I don’t think Lockwood’s caution is unwarranted here. We don’t have a “slam dunk” that the LIA was global in extent, so it is reasonable to cast it, at this time, in terms of what we do know–which is that a cooler Sun seems to correlate with cooler Northern European temperatures.”
What you are conjecturing is that a cooling Europe due to an inactive sun – which is plausible if there is e g an electromagnetic field strength link – is compensated for by local warming elsewhere, resulting in a constant average. There is no evidence that that ever happened and therefore it must be rejected as unsupported conjecture until evidence is presented.

Gail Combs
January 19, 2014 10:47 am

gymnosperm says: January 19, 2014 at 10:05 am
…. We actually need lots more paleologic….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We sure do!
Tossing virgins in volcanoes, or my preferred method: Celts ritually sacrificed their kings to the Gods.

…The body also proves they underwent horrible deaths, if the times turned bad under their reign.
The latest Iron Age bog body dating back to at least 2,000 BC was discovered near Portlaoise in the Irish midlands by an alert bog worker and it bears the same hallmarks of ritual torture that two other famous bodies have….

January 19, 2014 10:48 am

With no hockey stick, the evidence is that the sun has in fact play a huge role in the climate of the previous centuries. Interesting thing about the hockey stick is that the warmists didn’t “need” it to make their case. They just wanted to make a more compelling case, as apparently no one was listening until they had the hockey stick as the centerpiece of their scare mongering. Indeed, the first ipcc chairman, Sir Sir John Houghton said ““Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” And, as Stephen Schneider said back in 1989: ““We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” The hockey stick in itself was the very picture of a disaster unfolding before our eyes, and sure enough, fabricating the bogus hockey stock was totally consistent with Schneider’s call to offer up scary scenarios, and to not be honest about it.
Now we need to thoroughly rebut the three false foundations of the warmist theory: 1) their obviously failed models, 2) the theoretical model and [lack of] evidence of CO2 as a significant cause of climate change, and 3) the hockey stick.