Update on global warming: are we headed for a second Maunder Minimum?

    Given the facts that emerge from observation and analysis, it’s right to raise the question. The world’s most qualified solar physicists are posing the question. Go here and here. It is now possible to read this 1998 paper with renewed interest.

    The comments of one of the leading researchers, Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network, is telling:

    "We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."

   Let's parse this statement. First of all, even after the firestorm of criticism Hill received, he stands by his prediction that we are about to exprerience a Maunder-like minimum. Secondly, he notes that current calculations suggest that mean global temperatures will drop "only" 0.3 degrees C as a result, not enough for an Ice Age. Fair enough. However, global mean temperatures have "only" risen 0.4 degrees C in the last 60 years [see this graph; to be clear, in the wake of data showing a precipitous drop of 0.2 degrees C between 1940 and 1950, meterologists and climate researchers spoke for a time of global cooling; the media spoke of an Ice Age]. In short, if the current calculations are correct, the global mean temperatures will drop to 1970 levels in the mid-term. The Maunder Minimum of "Little Ice Age" fame lasted 70 years.  

    Expect global cooling alarmisn as soon as temperatures start to drop. 

    As far as I can see, global warming alarmism is a kind of misdirected redirection of felt truths - after all, we all know our habits and government policies around the world are anything but eco-friendly -not a consequence of science rightly so-called. As for the hay the libertarian right is making of the deflation of the previous consensus, we all know what that’s about. Not only does business have nothing to learn from the likes of Ayn Rand. Neither does science. 

    UPDATE: Hank Campbell on Science 2.0 calls for the IPCC to clean up its act. SECOND UPDATE: There are plenty of anti- global warming hacks in circulation. The sanest anti-alarmist voice I know of is that of Freeman Dyson. Go here and here.

Bibliography

"Large-Scale Zonal Flows During the Solar Minimum -- Where Is Cycle 25?" by Frank Hill, R. Howe, R. Komm, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, T.P. Larson, J. Schou & M. J. Thompson. abstract
"A Decade of Diminishing Sunspot Vigor" by W. C. Livingston, M. Penn & L. Svalgard. abstract
"Whither Goes Cycle 24? A View from the Fe XIV Corona" by R. C. Altrock. abstract

Comments

[smijer]

Just put this in your Google Reader and try to read two or more posts per week. http://www.skepticalscience.com/feed.xml

[JohnFH]

Hi Smijer,

The site you link to seems to want to present a slam-dunk comeback to any attempt to qualify the consensus, much less overturn it. I feel as if I am being asked to take sides in a battle of the titans.

I understand the purpose of the site:

"Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming."

So the site responds in kind. The site as far as I am concerned is unscientific. It represents an ideological bloc. It is not dedicated to weighing alternatives, assigning probabilities, reviewing past instances in which the reigning hypothesis has got things wrong. It never says that on this particular matter or that particular matter, there is legitimate disagreement.

The discussion qua science has been perverted. Right now the only occasions in which I can get a specialist to answer questions in the calm sort of way I associate with science is over a beer and off the record because the atmosphere is politically charged.

[smijer]

"Right now the only occasions in which I can get a specialist to answer questions in the calm sort of way I associate with science is over a beer and off the record because the atmosphere is politically charged."

Well, yeah. Over a beer and off the record, said specialist can be relatively sure that his words can't be misused. It is a politically charged environment as you said.

The fact that that environment makes it difficult to discuss the science "qua science" in a public forum is a problem with the political environment - not with the science.

You can find sites where there is a certain amount of courage for dealing with areas where legitimate disagreement exists - and sites that discuss science more scientifically. The site I asked you to read is not one of those. It largely ignores the tangential areas where there remains legitimate disagreement, and deals with the central areas where the disagreement is either unfounded or where presented in popular forums in a misleading way. I have found that it does so carefully and accurately, and extremely respectfully.

I have not found that it picks unfairly on any argument, op-ed piece, blog, or study that brings up legitimate questions that are not yet convincingly resolved. I doubt you will find that it does either.

I may have failed to persuade you that the source avoids your criticisms. Even so, in order to be fully informed on the issues, you would still be well served to add the feed to your aggregator and remember your reservations while you read the posts. This will help you find and discount their mistakes that stem from their approach to the matter. You needn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[JohnFH]

I don't think it can be said that scientists are blameless whereas the politicians are the real problem. If anything, scientists are often more set in their ways than politicians.

My rule of thumb is to avoid all the sites that "clean up" the science to make it look like it's all pointing in a preconceived direction. In the wake of the papers given at the last meeting of the American Astronomical Society, the response of the site you tout is, "Move along; nothing to see here."

As already noted, if one goes over the theses of a well-written article that qualifies or contradicts the consensus with a specialist, they are willing to express doubts. But few are willing to do so in public lest their doubts become ammunition in the hands of the "drill, baby drill" crowd. Perhaps the only ones who are willing to challenge the consensus are those who are fed up with the "let's continue to buy our oil from Saudi Arabia" crowd.

The result: science rightly understood is forced underground. I can't understand why scientists stand for this. It's as if they think their political views should trump their commitment to science. How old-fashioned I am for thinking that the opposite is true.

[smijer]

Hi again... I thought about our conversation when I read this link the other day. Just haven't had time to drop back by until now... now this fellow advertises himself as a "skeptic" but it's pretty obvious that he is 9 parts crank. The interesting thing is that despite his far-right politics, he has accepted the science of climate change... and he gives as a reason the quality of the site I directed you to. His piece is here: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/.

Yes, it's silly and funny. But he's more or less right about the website. I also wondered if you checked out their post on the possibility of a "Grand Minimum", which is the same matter your post here addresses:http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html.

I appreciate your rule of thumb, but I wonder if you have a parallel rule of thumb, guiding you to avoid sources that "clean up" the science by ignoring, downplaying, or misrepresenting the evidence for AGW?

You seem to have confidence enough in your viewpoint, however it is informed, to feel able to responsibly declare "global warming alarmism is a kind of misdirected redirection of felt truths - after all, we all know our habits and government policies around the world are anything but eco-friendly -not a consequence of science rightly so-called." Since you used the loose term "GW alarmism", it's hard to pin down what you are dismissing outright, but having read a number of your posts on the subject, I get the impression that you feel comfortable classing AGW itself as an artifact of GW alarmism. Is that correct?

If you are unwilling to sift the wheat from the chaffe at high quality web-sites with a non-neutral POV (and a non-sciency feel to them), do you have access to sufficient primary research to draw firm conclusions? How competent do you feel to weigh in on the issues as often as you do?

I get the impression that you are willing to remain relatively uninformed and to accept an uninformed agnosticism on the question of AGW itself - but I wonder how many of your posts encourage others not to bother educating themselves on the matter.

I believe you to be a person of fine intellect and good will, and I don't think that is the goal you have in mind with your posting, but I wonder if you have considered it as an unintended consequence?

Again, skeptical science is not a technical journal. It is not there to bring nuance where not enough exists. It is there to clarify misconceptions about the state of the science. If that means "cleaning up" tangential nuances that their amateur audience is less well equipped to adjudicate than the professionals who do climate research, I don't think that is sufficient reason to avoid the valuable information and reasoning you can find there. It's just a good reason not to stop your research there, if you feel you need to understand the science on a more thorough and nuanced level.

[JohnFH]

Hi smijer,

Perhaps you read my comments a little too cursorily. I was not saying that I try to avoid *only* pro-alarmist sites, but also anti-alarmist sites. That's why I put my position this way:

My rule of thumb is to avoid all the sites that "clean up" the science to make it look like it's all pointing in a *preconceived* direction.

I think you yourself frame matters in such a way that the results you believe to be true follow from first premises.

For example, you speak of accepting/ not accepting the science of climate change, as if I don't accept the science of climate change because I write posts like the one above, in which I cite research which, if taken seriously, raises doubts about the validity of the alarmist position.

It doesn't follow. I accept the science of climate change, and for that very reason, I take as my point of departure data related to the sun, since everyone knows that the sun is the biggest temperature driver of all by many magnitudes. It indeed stands to reason, on first principles and on the basis of past history, that variations in sunspot activity determines temperature to a significant extent.

The question is: to what extent, a lot more, a lot less, or about the same as AGW? Actually, that is just one of many questions that I am inclined to ask.

Maybe I am looking in he wrong places or talking to the wrong people, but the clear impression I have gotten so far is that the above question and many more are among those questions about which climate scientists concede that the answers are far from certain.

I do not consider "skeptical science" to be nearly skeptical enough. If for every post on the site which illustrates the fallacies of a anti-alarmism argument, it offered a post which illustrates the fallacies of a pro-alarmism argument, it would be skeptical science rightly so-called.

However, I do want to give credit where credit is due, which I why I cite the piece by Hank Campbell.

I do my research on multiple sites, by reading the journals and textbooks directly, and by talking directly to experts in the field. But on the sites, I ignore the spin the sites put on the studies cited, and examine whatever supporting bibliography is offered directly, the studies themselves, premises and conclusions.

I am not dismissing anything outright, though perhaps you are: the possibility that global warming alarmism is severely overblown.

I do not rule out the possibility that there is reason to be greatly worried about recent climate change and what it portends for the future. I just haven't read a cogent case to that effect. Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument that a case has been made, I haven't read a cogent case to the effect that we have some way to reverse things to a significant enough degree to matter.