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.

Expect more BBC relieving and pea shuffling.
Revealed: how Jimmy Savile abused up to 1,000 victims on BBC premises
Too late ! They have had their own, impartial (does that ring a bell) enquiry and all is well. Move along please .
“… 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.”
Uh, isn’t the theory that CO2 traps the heat from the sun?
So, less heat from the sun means less heat for the CO2 to trap, giving an overall cooling of some level.
Piers Corbyn Interview on BBC News Channel August 2009 – its the jet streams
[ http://youtu.be/C65hDa1qjnY ]
you know it figures that you would post the January snow anomalies, when the climate models predict higher water vapor in the atmosphere and more precipitation but couple that with an earlier thaw and an overall annual average snow anomaly that is in decline. Why do you post things that reflect a false reality? why is the January snow anomalies so important when the total annual average looks like this?
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
Also posted at Bob Tisdales site.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/major-el-nino-events-likely-to-double-in-next-century-20140119-312sy.html
Sun, Sea & Soil, what more do you need to know??
regards
MattG said:
“The PDO while in its long positive mode usually leads to mainly positive NAO. The PDO in long negative mode usually leads to mainly negative NAO. The PDO resembles the ENSO in a way and this is the natural cycle of discharging solar energy around ocean surface currents. There you have the link between jet stream zonality / medridonality and solar energy.”
Correct.
The degree of meridionality / zonality is a function of the interplay between the top down solar effect on atmospheric chemistry (ozone in the stratosphere) and the bottom up oceanic effect (atmospheric heat content).
The circulation changes are a negative system response to anything that seeks to disturb the radiative balance between surface and space.
Convection balances the system energy flows between conduction and radiation to ensure that at all times (despite variations around the mean) enough kinetic energy is delivered to the effective radiating height to balance energy in with energy out.
Two critical points:
i) The sun being the only source of energy for the climate system the PDO / ENSO cycle is ultimately determined by the amount of solar energy that can get into the oceans. That, in turn, is affected by global cloudiness / albedo and that, in turn, is affected by the solar effects on atmospheric chemistry from above. The bottom up oceanic effect is simply an internal system modulation of the top down solar effect.
ii) In comparison to that natural variability the effect of human emissions of GHGs is miniscule. Natural variations from sun and oceans moved the jet streams up to 1000 miles latitudinally from MWP to LIA and LIA to date in the approaches to Western Europe. Would AGW proponents please indicate how far our emissions could shift the jets and climate zones and show their work. I’d guess maybe a mile, if that.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm
ii) In comparison to that natural variability the effect of human emissions of GHGs is miniscule. Natural variations from sun and oceans moved the jet streams up to 1000 miles latitudinally from MWP to LIA and LIA to date in the approaches to Western Europe.
So your ‘theory’ is falsified if the jet stream does not move 1000 miles in latitude in the coming low-activity cycles. Finally a number from you.
for example, why don’t you also post the June anomalies?
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=6
lsvalgaard said:
“So your ‘theory’ is falsified if the jet stream does not move 1000 miles in latitude in the coming low-activity cycles. Finally a number from you.”
Well it has already shifted about 500 miles in the Western European approaches since the late 20th century zonal times when the jets persistently ran between Scotland and Iceland whereas now they are now more often across the UK both in summer and winter.
If the sun stays quiet for long enough then the jets will dip more often towards the Bay of Biscay and Northern Spain which gives the required 1000 miles.
But wait, aren’t they often dipping that far already ?
Oh, look:
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/fotos/sociedade/1/343351
Anyway, I’ve given you lots of other measures of falsification but none have happened yet.
Your previous attempt to say that the trivial decline in solar activity from cycle 19 to 23 amounted to falsification was obviously a sign of desperation on your part since all that time the level of solar activity was higher than that needed for thermal equilibrium and only with the advent of cycle 24 did it drop below that needed for thermal equilibrium.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm
“In comparison to that natural variability the effect of human emissions of GHGs is miniscule. Natural variations from sun and oceans moved the jet streams up to 1000 miles latitudinally from MWP to LIA and LIA to date in the approaches to Western Europe.”
I was wondering where you got 1000 miles from, but it seems that is roughly the distance the jet stream did change during the Little Ice Age compared to now. When storms were usually hitting the UK and Western Europe instead of Iceland.
Based on 1000 miles human emissions seem to have played about 0.1 c contribution so if this was proportional to the warming since the LIA then this would be around 100 miles at most. though I doubt even all the 0.1.c AGW is from just CO2.
nevket240 says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:58 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/major-el-nino-events-likely-to-double-in-next-century-20140119-312sy.html
Wow, they clearly don’t understand how the natural ENSO mechanism operates. With this poor knowledge placed into models, it will only be wrong. CO2 has no observable affect on ENSO and that can also be shown by no strong El Ninos since 1997/98 while CO2 levels keep increasing.
jai mitchell.
The AMO is still near its peak which affects northern hemisphere snow cover.
Give it time.
Meanwhile global sea ice is above ‘normal’.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
having rapidly clawed back all the losses from the now defunct natural warming spell.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Well it has already shifted about 500 miles in the Western European approaches since the late 20th century zonal times when the jets persistently ran between Scotland and Iceland whereas now they are now more often across the UK both in summer and winter.
A link please to a careful analysis of this. And not just ‘more often’.
Your previous attempt to say that the trivial decline in solar activity from cycle 19 to 23 amounted to falsification was obviously a sign of desperation on your part since all that time the level of solar activity was higher than that needed for thermal equilibrium and only with the advent of cycle 24 did it drop below that needed for thermal equilibrium.
The whole notion of thermal equilibrium is nonsense. The system is always in equilibrium. The ‘trivial’ decline from 19 to 23 is about a factor of two as is that from 23 to 24.
How about the
October http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201310.gif
November http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201311.gif
December http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201212.gif
January http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201301.gif
February http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201302.gif
and
March http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201303.gif
That I just got done posting this morning. That is six winter months showing snow fall returning to “normal”
@Stephen Fisher Wilde
“You are too pessimistic.”
How I wish that were true. I cannot remember if I saw it in the Central England Temperature dataset or the ice core records. The Maunder minimum was about three cycles long and resulted in a 0.3C drop in temperatures. The Dalton Minimum was about two cycles long and resulted in a 0.2C drop in temperatures. Are you saying that the fall in the sun’s activity is going to be longer this time? It would be very interesting to get a hold of the Chinese dataset and see if there were longer periods of inactivity, but all I’m going to see is three cycles anyway (and that’s being optimistic:-)).
My pessimism is not about whether temperatures will drop, I believe they will, just not as much as most folks think. My pessimism is about the alarmists being able to live to fight again, so that my children, nieces and nephews will have to do this all over again. That is a truly depressing thought.
lsvalgaard said:
“A link please to a careful analysis of this. And not just ‘more often’.”
No one has done a ‘careful analysis’ despite my frequent recommendations that they do so over the past 6 years. Maybe someone has but I haven’t seen it yet.
Nonetheless the media and scientific comment is replete with comments about increased meridionality of late.
I first noticed the shift in 2000 and began drawing it to public attention in 2008.
And Leif said:
“The whole notion of thermal equilibrium is nonsense. The system is always in equilibrium. The ‘trivial’ decline from 19 to 23 is about a factor of two as is that from 23 to 24.”
Actually, I agree with that assertion.
I would just add that the equilibrium at any given time is represented by the average latitudinal position of the jets and climate zones.
And Leif said:
“The ‘trivial’ decline from 19 to 23 is about a factor of two as is that from 23 to 24.”
So the decline from 23 to 24 (a single cycle) is the same as the decline from 19 to 23 (4 cycles) which is obviously a substantial increase and in the process it crossed the line between net energy accumulation and net energy loss for the Earth system.
You have omitted to acknowledge that the UV and EUV changes involved are proportionately far greater than the changes in TSI.
You know that I aver that it is wavelength and particle changes that make the difference and not TSI alone.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:48 pm
No one has done a ‘careful analysis’ despite my frequent recommendations that they do so over the past 6 years. Maybe someone has but I haven’t seen it yet.
So just hearsay and anecdotes.
it crossed the line between net energy accumulation and net energy loss for the Earth system.
this is just plain nonsense.
You have omitted to acknowledge that the UV and EUV changes involved are proportionately far greater than the changes in TSI.
Just as the day-to-day changes of the loose change in a billionaire’s pockets are much greater than those in his total wealth. The changes in energy are minute compared to TSI.
Turns out 2+2=4 not 5, just as active Sun = warmer Earth and inactive Sun = cooler Earth.
There are some things man controls through brute force and psychological manipulation, manifesting a consensus opinion putting us on the verge of an Orwellian society. Thank God the thermostat of the Sun is not one of them.
Do most of the academia researchers that study climate science have a bias towards environmentalism ? Do students who have a pre conceived view on co2 go into climate science more than students that have no opinion on the matter ?
What I’m getting at is there a fundamental bias in research that is looking to prove what the researchers want to be true.
Much of this type of bias exists in journalism because most people that go into journalism are left leaning to begin with. I would like to know political leanings of graduating journalist students. I have heard that fox news has a hard time even finding conservative journalists to hire. There just are not that many. I wonder if the same bias that exists in journalsim exists in climate science? Is this called population bias or sample bias ?
Believe whatever you like, Leif.
Some of us prefer to watch the real world.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Some of us prefer to watch the real world.
You are not convincing, but as you said one can believe what one will.
“You are not convincing”
I don’t need to be.
We propose but Nature disposes 🙂
I haven’t checked all the comments, but has anyone pointed out that not all winters in the Little Ice Age were cold in England? For example, according to http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat the winter of 1685/86 was pretty mild. As is the present winter here in England – but I wouldn’t bet on a whole run of warm winters in the coming years.
Rich.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“You are not convincing”
I don’t need to be.
Peddlers of false notions have no need for that, you are correct on that one.
“Thanks, Alec and Anthony.”
Eric Simpson and some other contributors talk about “the so called “established physics” of CO2.”
= = = = = = =
Problem is that, not all but most AGWarmists, believe (no evidence needed) that CO2 does have some warming effect on the Troposphere. They (nearly all) point to an 1859 experiment done on various gasses, including CO2, by John Tyndall (J T). When I hear – or read – J T’s name mentioned it becomes clear quite quickly whether they have actually read up on the experiment or not. If you read up on it you’ll soon find that Tyndall found that actually proved that CO2 is opaque to temperature or IR radiation. In other words CO2 does not absorb IR radiation but it stops it dead in its track.
Why?
Because J T used – in short – an apparatus consisting of a dual Thermophile, a 3 foot long brass tube – each end covered/plugged with a disc/plug made from rock salt. This tube also had nipples through which he could pump out (evacuate) the air and replace it with CO2. A Galvanometer (GM) was also used. And not to forget two cans of boiling water (100 deg. C)
With the normal air inside the tube or no air at all, the thermophile saw the water can’s temperature as it registered on the GM but when the air was replaced with CO2 the GM flicked back to zero and, as far as I can see, it never crept back up, which it should have done if the CO2 in the tube had absorbed the IR radiation, got warmer and re-radiated it. The CO2 temperature (T) in question would have increased if it was absorbing radiation from a can with boiling water. But It did not
The back radiation from CO2 story, by the way, was invented by Svante Arrhenius back in 1896, or thereabouts.
Please read the full story in Wikipedia by just writing John Tyndall in your search engine. – But be quick before it gets redacted.
bbc science reporter Rebecca Morelle’s twitter page – not much on the sun story, but revkin, shukman & other tweets may prove interessting to those who can navigate the twittersphere!
https://twitter.com/rebeccamorelle