“25 percent chance” of Grand Solar Minimum

November 3, 2013

More speculation about slowing solar activity.

I created the above video in 2012 as an all purpose rebuttal to this perennial denial favorite.  The paradox is that, depending on the denier, and the time of day, you may hear – “Of course it’s getting warmer – it’s the sun stupid!” – but in recent months when the “no warming in 16 years” meme has been in vogue, you may have heard the opposite, never mind that 2010 was the warmest on record, in the pits of the most recent solar minimum.

Mike Lockwood is a solar physicist who became a target of climate deniers several years ago when he wrote one of the definitive papers debunking the “it’s all caused by the sun” canard.
Now check and see if this latest interview with him becomes some kind of teapot tempest among the usual suspects.

lockwood2

From Lockwood and Froelich 2007, “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature”

Watch for this to be spun – I am sure that Dr. Lockwood’s “don’t look for a little ice age” disclaimer’s below show that he is aware of how the game works. (see video above for an example of denialist standard O.P.)

New Scientist:

The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don’t expect a little ice age. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspotsMovie Camera for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn’t happen.

Lockwood thinks there is now a 25 per cent chance of a repetition of the last grand minimum, the late 17th century Maunder Minimum, when there were no sunspots for 70 years. Two years ago, Lockwood put the chances of this happening at less than 10 per cent (Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI:10.1029/2011JD017013).

Little ice age

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the worst European winters of the little ice age, a period lasting centuries when several regions around the globe experienced unusual cooling. Tree ring studies suggest it cooled the northern hemisphere by up to 0.4 °C.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. Temperatures have risen by 0.85 °C since 1880, with more expected, according to the most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This piece will be particularly subject to distortion, I am sure.

There may still be noticeable consequences. For instance, long term cold winters in the UK are common when solar activity is low. And less solar activity can slow the jet stream, triggering a suite of interlinked extreme weather events like the Russian heatwave of 2010, and the devastating floods in Pakistan that same year.

The takeaway: the well known 11 year cycles of solar irradiance and sunspots have very minimal effect on global temps because of the ocean’s thermal inertia.  We may in fact be due for a “grand solar minimum”, such as was observed during part of the “Little Ice Age” – but such a minimum would be a very small forcing compared to the buildup of greenhouse gases, and would, at best, offset less than a decade of temperature rise.

I made the video below in 2010 summarizing the paradox in that year, – low solar activity and high global temps.  With denialists, what’s old is ever new again.

About these ads

10 Responses to ““25 percent chance” of Grand Solar Minimum”


  1. A grand solar minimum is sort of due. Yet the most we could expect is a temporary pause in the rate of temperature increase. If we use this pause to mitigate and prepare then just possibly we might save ourselves.

    If we use the pause to carry on as normal, then God help us when it ends.


    • Indeed, its a bad sign when low solar output + a cooling ENSO with several strong La Ninã’s is hardly able to flatline the average atmospheric temperatures. I wonder what kind of temperature rise we can expect when the sun is back with full output and some strong El Ninõ’s to boot.


      • Let’s hope we don’t get a chance to find out.

        Here’s for atmospheric remediation, and winter skating on the canals of Holland again.

        • ontspan Says:

          Cheers. In fact I’ve been able to do that the last few winters again, though sometimes only shortly and only on enclosed shallow canals (no flowing water). But I’m happy that it was possible and to be able to use the skates again after about 10 years of no ice-skating on natural ice.

  2. Kiwiiano Says:

    Surely the important detail from that is “Tree ring studies suggest it cooled the northern hemisphere by up to 0.4 °C.” I would have thought solar activity over several decades either way would affect bother hemispheres equally.

  3. Nick Carter Says:

    Wait a minute! Didn’t they say in The Great Global Warming Swindle” -Wag TV, that the increase in global temperatures was caused by solar activity? I’m sooooo confused (feigning crying right now) :P

  4. dtod ctos Says:

    its absolutely hysterically funny that scientist think the sun doesnt play a big part in our temperatures when its virtually the sole source of all earths warmth/energy.

    its like turning your houses heating down and still expecting it to be just as warm…obviously insulation helps but it doesnt keep the heat forever.

    examining tree rings for temperature doesnt seem like a credible and airtight source of info either..

    • greenman3610 Says:

      not aware of anyone who thinks the sun is not the overwhelming source of heat for the entire solar system.
      what is your point?


  5. […] Originally Posted by Ceist I'll let Pete Sinclair of Climate Denial Crocks deal with your "It's just the sun stupid!" claim: “25 percent chance” of Grand Solar Minimum | Climate Denial Crock of the Week […]


  6. […] causing global warming, and not human carbon dioxide emissions? Sunspot numbers in 2013 have been well below average for this point in the cycle. If we are now heading into a grand minimum of solar activity, will […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,517 other followers

%d bloggers like this: