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
Gail Combs
January 19, 2014 5:39 pm

Paul Hanlon says: January 19, 2014 at 5:26 pm … UV light …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Check out this article by NASA: SOLAR IRRADIANCE

Editor
January 19, 2014 6:00 pm

lsvalgaard says: “The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap”
You have forever altered my view of that great compost heap in the sky.

Ted Clayton
January 19, 2014 6:08 pm

RoHa says January 19, 2014 at 4:35 pm;

So now we are doomed because the sun is taking a rest?

Very cold winters? Check. Mississippi iced-over … at New Orleans? Occasionally. Doomed? Nah.
Oh – you mean the computer simulations? Doomed … puts a happy-face on it.
We can handle cold winters, even crappy summers (though that’s a less-clear factor).
What is doomed is the climate-bogeyman game. It, and former adherents to it who don’t sprint sufficiently quickly & convincingly away from it.

January 19, 2014 6:18 pm

Paul Hanlon says:
January 19, 2014 at 5:26 pm
In various places, I have read that UV and high energy light constitutes between 6 and 10 per cent of incoming energy. Is that true?
Gail’s link is good, except tha the UV from 300 to400 nm is missing from the table. If you include that, the 6-10% is about right, but that part hardly varies and is not very energetic.
I’ve also read that UV light has gone down by 10 per cent over the last few years. Is that true?
Again, the wavelength band must be specified. The high-energy part has decreased about that. But the total energy involved is minute.

January 19, 2014 6:43 pm

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 is actually a conjecture is that there is a global correlation, since at the moment, we simply don’t know.”
Dear Carrick, Dr. Lockwood, and others that are prepared to accept the “local” climate nonsense. Here is picture showing the size of the sun relative to the planets (scroll down three pictures). You will be fully informed on the matter. Perhaps Lief, too, would comment on the likelihood, given these relative dimensions that Europe (smaller than Quebec) would only be affected by some activity of the sun. I know Lief doesn’t buy the variations of the sun are important but I’m sure if there was some feature of the sun that did have a significant effect that it wouldn’t just effect an area the size of Quebec. The trouble with the whole debate is the outlandish poppycock that gets real time in them.
http://www.relfe.com/07/solar_system_sun_earth_size.html

Smoking Frog
January 19, 2014 7:01 pm

Leif Svalgaard & others:
I don’t think that HAL-9000’s characterization of the sun is what’s important about what he said. What’s important is that he and many others like him speak as if the mere fact that the sun heats the earth, not its variation, is what matters. This would be unbelievably stupid, of course, but they speak this way so much that I find it almost impossible to believe that they don’t actually believe it.

Ted Clayton
January 19, 2014 7:26 pm

Smoking Frog says January 19, 2014 at 7:01 pm;

What’s important is that [HAL-9000] and many others like him speak as if the mere fact that the sun heats the earth, not its variation, is what matters.

Actually, I thought his “characterization” was the main value in his remark; deliberately, um, bombastic, even. And Leif Svalgaard clearly thought so too, trumping HAL-9000 – hilariously – with his own equally-colorful “compost heap” characterization.
Kinda tough to lay a smokin’ million mile wide characterization-egg, then try to walk away from it like it ain’t yours. Which HAL-9000 himself didn’t try to do …

Paul Hanlon
January 19, 2014 7:57 pm

@Gail and @Leif
Thanks for the information / link.
Another thing I was given to believe is that UV light penetrates deeper into the oceans than ordinary light.
I remember Willis posting up the actual values of energy received in the tropics, which in the middle part of the day could be as high as 1100W/m². Applying the middle value of 8% = say 88W, which is a little bit more than chump change to be fair. Applying another 8% for the loss in energy = 10W less of UV energy going into the tropics. The area of water between the two tropics is equivalent to the land area of the Earth. That’s a massive amount of energy not now going into the oceans and it is cumulative over time. And if it is penetrating deeper into the oceans, it is energy that would otherwise stick around and have a climatic effect. That surely has to have some impact, no?

AlexS
January 19, 2014 7:57 pm

“Oh, look:
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/fotos/sociedade/1/343351
What does this is supposed to mean? Rain in Portugal? So? In case you don’t know in sunny Lisboa it rains more than in London.

Smoking Frog
January 19, 2014 7:59 pm

Ted Clayton says January 19, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Actually, I thought his “characterization” was the main value in his remark; deliberately, um, bombastic, even. And Leif Svalgaard clearly thought so too, trumping HAL-9000 – hilariously – with his own equally-colorful “compost heap” characterization.
I don’t agree at all, not even a little bit. If HAL-9000 and many others like him think that the mere fact that the sun warms the earth (as opposed to changes in how much it warms the earth) makes it important in global warming, this is really, really stupid, far worse than any error about the amount of heat that it provides. You wouldn’t need to know a blessed thing about global warming to see the misconception.
Kinda tough to lay a smokin’ million mile wide characterization-egg, then try to walk away from it like it ain’t yours. Which HAL-9000 himself didn’t try to do …
Who do you think did try to do it? Me? I did not. If you don’t think anyone tried to do it, why do you bring it up? I think your whole message is irrational.

January 19, 2014 8:13 pm

Ted Clayton says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Actually, I thought his “characterization” was the main value in his remark; deliberately, um, bombastic, even. And Leif Svalgaard clearly thought so too, trumping HAL-9000 – hilariously – with his own equally-colorful “compost heap” characterization.
To put some numbers to it: at the center of the Sun each cubic meter generates 280 Watt. I, sitting in my chair, generate 100 W, and my volume is about 0.1 cubic meter [100 kg/1000 kg], so I am 3 to 4 times more efficient in generating energy than solar fusion. An active compost heap of moderate size generates about the same amount of heat as I do [we are both ‘full of it’].

Mac the Knife
January 19, 2014 8:19 pm

BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age
Well, It’s a start…..

Mac the Knife
January 19, 2014 8:29 pm

lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:13 pm
To put some numbers to it: at the center of the Sun each cubic meter generates 280 Watt. I, sitting in my chair, generate 100 W, and my volume is about 0.1 cubic meter [100 kg/1000 kg], so I am 3 to 4 times more efficient in generating energy than solar fusion. An active compost heap of moderate size generates about the same amount of heat as I do [we are both ‘full of it’].
Dr. Svalgaard,
Aren’t we all??!!
‘We are stardust. We are ……compost.
We are billion year old carbon
and we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden!’
Thanks for the laugh!
Mac
http://youtu.be/Mz5F8JEcLzE

Paul Hanlon
January 19, 2014 8:46 pm

This might give people some idea of the heat contained within a compost heap :-).

R. de Haan
January 19, 2014 8:55 pm

Zeke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:57 am
“These are not scientists, they are Maoists”.
Whatever political link, they’re mass murderers, that’s for sure.

Alan Robertson
January 19, 2014 9:23 pm

sabretruthtiger says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:33 pm
Alan Robertson says
“any discernible differences the Sun makes in our climate have been small.”
Wrong. Sunspot and solar flare activity correlates well. The claim is that it weakens after 1970 while temperature goes up but any number of systemic factors could cause that and we notice that sunspots and solar flare activity correlate with the recent cold circumpolar vortex/wandering jetstream.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html
sabretruthtiger says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:35 pm
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/
_____________________________
Big deal. I’m not wrong. Did you read what you quoted from me?
How is showing a graph with a .07% discernible change showing anything other than a small change?

January 19, 2014 10:31 pm

OT…but of interest. The Oulo NM shows a huge spike from 6 hours ago. In the short time that I have been paying attention to Oulo,s movements a large move would be 5 or 6 units of the scale. Most movement has been in the range of 1 to 3 units. Six hours ago it shows a very large spike. The third hour shows the largest peak, which is around 82 units of scale. The average for the entire period is shown as 32 units. That is still 10 times greater than an average day,s movement on their scale. What is that showing in relation to solar output and influences?

January 19, 2014 10:56 pm

goldminor says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm
OT…but of interest. The Oulo NM shows a huge spike from 6 hours ago.
Instrumental problem. Not real.

January 20, 2014 12:15 am

Thanks, Dr Svalgaard. I had thought of that, but still wanted to hear from someone with greater understanding.

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 20, 2014 2:36 am

Lockwood simply does not want to rock the AGW boat. This is evident when you read his publications of the last 5 years.

MikeB
January 20, 2014 3:16 am

O. H. Dahlsveen January 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm

Please read the full story in Wikipedia by just writing John Tyndall in your search engine. – But be quick before it gets redacted.

Gail Combs January 19, 2014 at 3:59 pm

it is already gone….I imagine that information will be wiped and older books mentioning it burned…

.
Are you people feeling quite well? The works of John Tyndall are well known to all scientists in this field and no one is able to remove the important contribution he made. The fact that you don’t understand it will make no difference to that. The Wikipedia article is still there, so is the diagram of his apparatus which is referred to and, if you click in on it, a detailed description of his actual experiment.
Some other howlers from Mr. Dahlsveen:
“Tyndall found that actually proved that CO2 is opaque to temperature….”
“In other words CO2 does not absorb IR radiation but it stops it dead in its track”
“When the air was replaced with CO2 the GM flicked back to zero” – where does it say that?
Come on, you people are in danger of making ‘AlecM’ look sane.

Nikola Milovic
January 20, 2014 3:23 am

IMPORTANT NOTICE
Gentlemen discussants , long time and I’m in finding the underlying causes of climate change and following it with a discussion about including this in this forum . I have something important to point out, of course , if one of you and other interested parties have the desire and the ability to solve this enigma . Almost every term that you remarks, which may affect climate change , it is not even close to the same cause , but only occurs as a result of what is the cause of all these phenomena. Science has not yet realized it , and it seems there is no desire to listen to this as I am . EVERYTHING HAPPENS TO THE SUN has one basic cause. I have some indicators to prove the most occurrences, but it is very difficult for me that I resolved without the powerful program , astronomical data and material resources . Since this is a decision the greatest enigmas related to the whole of humanity , and much worth, I offer collaboration to try to solve , but only under contractual obligations . Sunspot cycle of 11.2 years are changed up to 17.5 years , but there are some legality as well as the butterfly diagram of 123 years ( 11×11 ) , and so on . My findings can be used for the occurrence of an earthquake . You should try it, and if it proves true, this will be my way to justify the costs if he understood . My e – mail is : majstor.n hotmail.com ; nmilović483gmail.com ; nikolamilović26jahu.com
I expect a call , even though I was an unknown , see the discussion on Linkedin.com

Myrrh
January 20, 2014 4:13 am

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 ].
Yeah right, my compost heap is 15 MILLION degrees centigrade – even the worms at the top have fused into helium..
JohnWho says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:37 pm
“… 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?
No, the AGW theory is that we do not get any heat from the Sun so CO2 gets heat from the Earth.
The AGW energy budget claims shortwave mainly visible light with about 1% shortwave infrared from the Sun heats the Earth – they have taken out all the real direct beam beat from the Sun which is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared aka radiant heat. Visible light from the Sun cannot heat matter, we cannot feel it as heat.
We get both light and heat from the Sun, these are not the same thing.
This idiotic claim by AGW that we get no direct heat longwave infrared from the Sun is contradicted by traditional science as NASA still teaches:
Here is traditional teaching from direct NASA pages: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature
“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control. ”
We have known since Herschel’s momentus discovery that the great heat we feel from the Sun is invisible, we now know that it is longwave invisible infrared and we call it thermal meaning ‘of heat’ to distinguish between it and near infrared which is not heat energy. We know the difference between light and heat..
This traditional real world empirically well tested knowledge as given direct from NASA cannot be ignored.
The AGW energy budget of Trenberth et al with its ‘cold Sun of 6,000 degrees C giving off no longwave infrared heat’ is ridiculous.
That is a blazing STAR in the sky and we can feel its geat heat 93 million miles away.

ozspeaksup
January 20, 2014 4:52 am

2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%) these are sunspotLESS days:-)
from spaceweather pages..
I was watching this while copenhagen crap was happening and wondering why? no one was mentioning it.
comment way above re Thermosphere collapse ties IN with this approx timeframe too.

Tom
January 20, 2014 5:54 am

Matt G says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:24 pm
The sun is big and its difficult to beat this excellent comparison.
.http://www.4to40.com/images/fastforward/feb2007/earth_with_sun_3.jpg
If you were to make a scale model of the solar system, making the sun 12″ in diameter, the earth would be about 35 yds. from the sun; and Pluto would be almost a mile away (4,238 ft or 1.3 kilometers)

1 5 6 7 8 9 12