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.

I’ve not seen an incandescent compost heap but I have seen incandescent lava lakes and incandescent gases. Their dynamics and radiance flux are slightly different and the variability is also rather dissimilar. Sometimes metaphors should be avoided if you want to understand a thing itself.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:07 am
I’ve not seen an incandescent compost heap
Let me just mention that if you had a compost heap the size of the Sun, it would be incandescent
I wonder if Erl Happ got to hear the BBC maunder on about the magic of ultraviolet radiation.
‘The sun is very sultry and we must avoid its ultry-violet rays’.
H/t Plum & NC.
==========
Does this mean that to the lexicon of “Climate Skeptics”, “Climate Realists” and “Climate Alarmists”, we can add “Quiet Sunners”?
Aw shucks Leif, y’ain’t callin’ our sun, the light o’ our lives, a compost heap? Rully!
Gail Combs says:
“Want food security? Bring Back a National Grain Reserve.”
U.S. Government interference in farming practices in the 1930’s was one of the causes of the dustbowl. Read the book, “The Worst of Times”. Government price supports for wheat helped make it very profitable to plow up 12000 year old buffalo grass root systems and plant wheat. Temporary wet times in the Texas/Oklahoma corner allowed it to work well…….for a while. As usual, the end effect was the old Midas touch in reverse for the government, turning everything they touch to shit.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:07 am
“Sometimes metaphors should be avoided if you want to understand a thing itself.”
___________________________
The opposite of that statement is even more true:
Sometimes metaphors should be employed if you want to understand a thing itself.
In my opinion, Dr. Svalgaard’s metaphor was a very effective training aid.
***
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 4:20 pm
WestHighlander says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Well in reality we don’t know how much of the core is involved volume or mass wise
We do know [in considerable detail] how much is involved.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
***
Thanks for the link. Interesting as always.
***
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:07 am
I’ve not seen an incandescent compost heap but I have seen incandescent lava lakes and incandescent gases. Their dynamics and radiance flux are slightly different and the variability is also rather dissimilar. Sometimes metaphors should be avoided if you want to understand a thing itself.
***
The nascent sun was incandescent before fusion even started, simply from compressive heat. The “compost heat” from fusion added enough heat to maintain that & prevent it from cooling once infalling matter (and thus compression) ceased.
When compost was used to warm homes in winter, it occasionally started fires.
Smoking Frog said @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 7:59 pm;
Here is the characterization you made, @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 7:01 pm:
Here is the entirety of what HAL-9000 has said here, @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am:
That’s quite a leap, from HAL-9000’s words, to how you posed them. (Mis)characterized them. Laid an egg.
=====
I can tell you had something you want to say, explore. But you tried to point at HAL-9000, and pin ownership of your pet idea, on him. It’s too much of an overload, to hang that baggage on the few rhetorical-characterization words he actually wrote.
Ted Clayton says January 20, 2014 at 9:19 am
Smoking Frog said @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 7:59 pm;
Who do you think did try to [lay a million-mile wide characterization-egg]? Me? I did not.
Here is the characterization you made, @ur momisugly 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.
Here is the entirety of what HAL-9000 has said here, @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am:
A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.
That’s quite a leap, from HAL-9000′s words, to how you posed them. (Mis)characterized them. Laid an egg. I can tell you had something you want to say, explore. But you tried to point at HAL-9000, and pin ownership of your pet idea, on him. It’s too much of an overload, to hang that baggage on the few rhetorical-characterization words he actually wrote.
I don’t see how your interpretation of what I wrote makes any sense at all. I don’t even know what you think my “pet idea” is, unless it’s what I said: that HAL-9000 and many others speak as if the mere fact that the sun warms the earth, as opposed to variation in the degree of warming, made it likely to be a cause of global warming. If that’s what you think, you should have said so. I certainly didn’t try to “pin” it on him – he wouldn’t say, “I speak as if the mere fact that the sun warms the earth, …” He’d be suggesting that his own idea was stupid!
Maybe you think my “pet idea” is that the mere fact that the sun warms the earth … But that would be illogical. Why would I suggest that my own idea was stupid?
Don’t walk into the sun without supplemental oxygen and a masque.
=========================
“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.”
He talks about the effect on the jet stream, seems to forget that there is more than one of them. Perhaps he believes the sun doesn’t work on the others.
lsvalgaard says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:27 am
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:07 am
I’ve not seen an incandescent compost heap
Let me just mention that if you had a compost heap the size of the Sun, it would be incandescent
A gas ball of sun’s size, density and composition would also be incandescent, no? From the spectra if I wish to understand and describe it’s dynamics a ball of compost isn’t going to get me far. Apologies, I’m jaded by mainstream style-over-substance which uses metaphorical gimmick to avoid or more or less discourage real examination. Which implies a practical payoff comes from not.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 10:55 am
A gas ball of sun’s size, density and composition would also be incandescent, no?
The point was that solar fusion is actually a very gentle affair. A compost heap and you for that matter are as or even more efficient in releasing energy than the fusion going on in the Sun, so no ‘exploding hydrogen bombs’.
Is it true that the Delaware has frozen over for the first time since the Maunder minimum?
Any discussion of long term past CET cooling should also look at what was happening to the oceans and not just the sun.
If we hind cast a detrended Atlantic SST graph noted below per Bob Tisdale ( Atlantic Ocean SST, pole to pole, about a 70 year cycle ) , we find that major Atlantic Ocean SST troughs like those of 1905/1910 and 1975 could have also happened in 1835, 1765,1695, etc
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
These cooler Atlantic Ocean SST periods correspond to the historic low CET temperatures and just happen to occur during the Maunder, Dalton and Modern Minimums of 1645-1715, 1790- 1820, and 1880-1910. In another words the reason for the low CET temperatures could have been the cool Atlantic SST and not because of the low solar cycle during each of the three major solar minimums. If you then add the major [level 5 or more] volcanic eruptions[6 during Maunder Minimum alone ] , then is it possible that the sun may not have been the prime cause of the CET cooler weather during Maunder Minimum.
1870 to 1910[Minimum 1880-1910]
1800 to 1835[Dalton minimum 1790-1820]
1730 to 1765
1660 to 1695 [Maunder minimum 1645-1715]
1590 to 1625
1520 to 1555 [Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
1450 to 1485 [ Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
This changing Atlantic Ocean pattern and the various troughs can be seen in this Reconstructed North Atlantic SST between 1567 and 1990 with the courtesy of Bob Tisdale’s web page
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.ca/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.html
Sceptics often ask ‘warmers’ how long would the global temperature trend need to remain flat or negative before the CAGW hypothesis could be rejected. This is not an unreasonable question, so I’d like to ask those who support a strong solar-climate link a similar question.
How long would the global temperature trend need to remain flat or positive before the solar-climate hypothesis could be rejected?
John Finn says:
January 20, 2014 at 3:14 pm
How long would the global temperature trend need to remain flat or positive before the solar-climate hypothesis could be rejected?
The standard sun-nut answer is that is a background variation [of unknown origin] in solar activity which can be computed as just that variation that reproduces the observed temperature variation.
John Finn says:
January 20, 2014 at 3:14 pm
The question was posed to ‘warmers’, after they began to publish projections of future conditions themselves, based on computer simulations of climate … to test whether the programs actually work any better/different than ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall’.
There are no (well-known) computer simulations of the sun-climate relationship, and no need to test whether they can say anything other than ‘You are the fairest of all’.
Testing the computer simulators, furthermore, was an appropriated request to make, because supporters of the results obtained were asking that major surgery be performed on society, based on what the mirror program had to say.
lsvalgaard says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:00 am
The point was that solar fusion is actually a very gentle affair. A compost heap and you for that matter are as or even more efficient in releasing energy than the fusion going on in the Sun, so no ‘exploding hydrogen bombs’.
___
The exploding hydrogen bomb metaphor is also entirely inappropriate, and you’re right to point that out (and I did get your point), but so is a compost heap inappropriate. That metaphor was chosen and constructed to be equally extreme but in the other direction. OK? That should be fairly clear now. The formation of an upper mantle melt magma is also gentle, but what it can then do certainly is not. I’m yet to see a compost heap with similar dynamics, to that or to a star. It’s a ball of gas and plasma and we can see from its visible and measurable dynamics and a limited indirect window on its interior that it isn’t gentle. Making a new shadow shape on the cave wall doesn’t help me see or comprehend the thing that cast the shadow. Our observation of the interior of the Sun is already via indirect methods thus the theory-based house of cards is the result, the interpretation of the shadows, and not the shadow caster, so as little indirectness or misleading metaphor is what’s appropriate in the absence of direct observation.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 5:44 pm
Our observation of the interior of the Sun is already via indirect methods thus the theory-based house of cards is the result
No, that is not correct. We can directly see what is inside the sun. That we see with sound instead of with light is as direct as seeing a baby in the womb with sound, or fish in the ocean, or oil in the ground.
Even radar imagery of the ground needs to be ground-truthed to know exactly what you’re looking at. Pretty sure the total lack of direct ground-truthing, in the Sun’s interior, or in Earth’s core for that matter, means we’re still ‘looking’ indirectly through a filter of falsifiable theories about what’s acoustically sensed. The womb analogy is also not reasonable, the possible interpretive options are limited, and we can use laparoscopy for a direct confirmation if there’s any doubt. The fish likewise, we have copious direct visual confirmation for fish also. Same applies for oil traps, we have both drill core and exposed outcrop as direct confirmations.
But we have no confirmation for what’s in the sun so remote sensor derived ‘knowledge’ is thus indirect and conjectured from theory alone. Thus of shadows, and not of the shadow caster.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 8:34 pm
But we have no confirmation for what’s in the sun so remote sensor derived ‘knowledge’ is thus indirect and conjectured from theory alone. Thus of shadows, and not of the shadow caster.
This is because you do not realize how it is actually done. We can see sunspots days before they erupt on the surface. The ground-truth is that the spot actually erupts where it was seen. Similarly, we can see through the Sun and see spots on the backside. The ground-truth is that the spot becomes visible when it rotates into view. You are too hung up on the false notion of ‘conjectured from theory alone’. The seeing is not a theoretical construct, but a direct observation of travel times of sounds waves. There are no ‘falsifiable theories’ involved.
We can observe a geothermal gradient flux and magmatic tremors and predict an eruption with useful accuracy as well, but that does not mean >95% of our sub-crustal knowledge of the interior of Earth is not indirect, unconfirmed, and constructed based on theories.
Same applies for 99.9% of the interior of the Sun where there’s no direct surface expressions of phenomena below. Such ‘knowledge’ is indeed based upon theoretical interpretation alone.