The “Little Ice Age” Argument: Abrupt Climate Change Goes Both Ways, Warns Scientist

Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans are, at least in part, responsible. The concern is that the warming of our climate will greatly affect its habitability for many species, including humans. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concur that this is the case. But some argue that this thinking is too limited. They say that too many scientists are either ignoring, or don’t understand, the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future—in either direction.

Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily found in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One of the best known examples of such an event is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named after the arctic wildflower found in northern European sediments. This event began and ended rather abruptly, and for its entire 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. Could something like this happen again? It sure could, and because the changes can happen all within one decade—we might not even see it coming.

The Younger Dryas occurred at a time when orbital forcing should have continued to drive climate to the present warm state. The unexplained phenomenon has been the topic of much intense scientific debate, as well as other millennial scale events.

Now an 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming. Could we be preparing for the wrong scenario?

A sunspot is a region on the Sun that is cooler than the rest and therefore appears darker. One theory is that a strong solar magnetic field, which causes plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, which in turn leads to a cooler surface.

Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, notes that pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He believes this is the reason why the world cooled rapidly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman writes in The Australian today. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

However, scientists from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research published a report in 2006 that claims the Sun likely has a negligible effect on climate change. Another study, recently published study in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters, by researchers from Lancaster and Durham Universities found that there was no strong correlation between cosmic rays and the production of low cloud cover. If that is correct, it would mean the lack of sunspots is not necessarily an indicator of higher cloud cover and subsequent future cooling.

While it’s true that some world regions have experienced record colds recently, other areas do seem to be warming up. In Australia, The Bureau of Meteorology says that temperatures there have been warmer than the 1960-90 average since the late 1970s. Even though there have been some cooler years mixed in, overall they are now 0.3C higher than the long-term average. Other countries are experiencing similar upward trends. On the other hand, since widespread temperature records have only been kept for a relatively short period of the Earth’s history, it’s hard to know exactly what these increases mean from a long-term perspective.

Cooling, or “Little Ice Age” proponents like Chapman, say that it could still swing either way. He proposes preventive measures to slow any potential cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective. "My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades."

Canadian scientist Kenneth Tapping of the National Research Council has also noted that solar activity has entered into an unusually inactive phase, but what they means—if anything—is still anyone’s guess. Another scientist, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences agrees with Chapman. Sorokhtin believes that, in spite of the results of certain recent studies, lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the cold brought on by inactive solar phases.

But while Sorokhtin is advising people to "stock up on fur coats", the vast majority of prominent scientists believe the bulk of evidence points towards an overall warming trend, and that anomalies and exceptions to the rule do not make a significant dent in this consensus.

The Daily Galaxy asked climate expert Thomas Reichler, what he has to say about it. According to him, anyone claiming that the Earth isn’t getting warmer, or that it’s perhaps even getting colder, simply isn’t looking at the actual data.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the world is in a warming phase,” Reichler told the Daily Galaxy, “and that conclusion is supported by 99% of all serious scientists, so I’m certainly not alone in that certainty.”

Reichler is probably right, but it wouldn’t be the first time if the fringe opinion turned out to be onto something. But from a broader perspective, does it really matter who’s “right” as far as preparations go? Whether the climate gets cooler or warmer, or does nothing at all, people will still need massive amounts of energy. Even if we were to take the reverse approach and intentionally increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in order to stave off cooling, it would likely have little effect other than to further pollute the environment with standard energy consumption’s many toxic byproducts.

Are humans the major factor in the current warming trend? Maybe, maybe not. But what can’t be disputed is that humans are polluting the planet. Current and future weather conditions do not change the fact that using oil and coal for energy isn’t a good long-term idea. The need for cleaner energy, cleaner air and cleaner water has never been greater. The widespread call for better handling of resources, and habitat protection doesn’t change with the thermometer.

Our commitment to stop polluting our water systems with pesticides and other dangerous chemicals should be as great as ever, with or without climate change considerations. Dismal air quality now poses significant health risks, especially in urban areas. Those who equate their global warming skepticism with an “anything goes” attitude regarding the environment are seriously jeopardizing the health of our planet and their own health along with it. If we prepare for global warming in ways that help protect the environment—we’ll still be a lot better off—even on the off chance that we end up with a mini Ice Age instead.

Posted by Rebecca Sato.

Related Galaxy posts:

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises
Cosmic Rays -The Cause of Global Warming?
The Milky Way Enigma -How Galactic Forces May Control Life on Earth
Are Global Warming Models Accurately Predicting Our Future? New Study Reveals the Answer—A Galaxy Interview
As Temperatures Hit Record Lows, Global Warming Takes a Punch to the Gut

Comments

[Mike]

Great article! Thanks.

[Jimmy Dolittle]

No doubt about it, it can go either way!

RT
www.privacy-web.us.tc

[Bobiscold]

. Truth is, human caused climate change is the phony religion of ALGORE and his minions that are greedy for money and power. Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots . . . failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

[Bobiscold]

By the way, I totally agree that we need to find cleaner energy and coserve our land, water and air. That will promote positive economic development world-wide. The current green agenda is anti-human and Marxism in a green suit.

[dan phillips]

So, Rebecca Sato is, and i quote from your website, "a versatile writer with years of experience, who specializes in getting her client's message out to their intended audience in a way that is both clear and creative" So the question i have is, who are your clients today? You don't have a background in climate change so you must be writing this on behalf of someone else. Look forward to hearing who it is.
All the best in your writing career
Dan

[Free online games]

failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

http://www.jugargame.com/

[Alice Finkel]

The new messiah of the US has decided that he must fight human-caused global warming. He is certain he is right, because Al Gore and James Hansen assure him that it is so. So the messiah plans to shut down coal plants, which produce 50% of US electricity.

It certainly is cold out there. The messiah says we can live on 50% less electricity. He may be right. He is the messiah, after all.

[Mark Lindsay]

Finally a sensible article on global warming.

[impishevergreen]

so do you all enjoy living in your little bubble that thinks climate change isn't happening? go ask the people in the arctic why their villages are literally sinking into the sea due to decreases ice what they think. or heck even here in the northeast USA where spring comes on average 5-10 days earlier then in previous records. a decrease in temp. for on year does not account to global cooling! and for the record global warming is an inaccurate term, global climate change is much more accurate as the climate will CHANGE cooler and warmer, throwing the systems that sustain life into serious jeporday. seriously look at the facts not industry types who want to keep making money of destroying out ONE planet. peace

[poitsplace]

Actually the sun's variability was discounted simply because the mechanism wasn't known. It turns out that while the overall light energy emitted by the sun changes very little, the sun's UV and xray output (at energies helped by the sun's magnetic activity) varies quite a lot. This UV and x-ray variation comes at the expense of visible light. Even the regular minimums of the latter half of the last century were still quite active and very short.

We've entered a different type of minimum this time though. This isn't JUST a low point between cycles, all signs point to the maximum of the next cycle(s) being incredibly low. Already in response to the drastic reduction in UV output the atmosphere has contracted by 100 miles (160km) further reducing the capture cross section of the earth to those wavelengths by as much as 2.7%.

Added to this is the affect of a recent change to ocean currents. The PDO's shift to a cooling phase last year favors cooling La Ninas. The previous warming phase favored warming El Ninos and was responsible for much of the observed warming. It is quite possible that between the solar minimum and the cooling phase ocean currents that we will undershoot the previous cold cycle's temperatures.

[ganesh]

A great article on "Global Warming" - thanks!

[Doctor Franklin]

the PETM pwns 5000 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun

[Author]

Ok and who is the author of this article - ExxonSecrets.com?
Every aspect in this article is debunked here http://realclimate.org
Its a shame to see that galaxy releases such article - with no source and absolute populistic, bah.

[Climate Change]

Time for action - get invloved now to addreess the issues of climate change

[roger]

I still dont see how less than %1.00 of the atmosphere [CO2] can have so much efect on 'global warming'
As for Al Gore, he uses three times as much electricity as the average American, well done Mr. Gore.

[Mick]

Sunspots are magnetic storms that are hotter than the sorounding areas. They are blacked out by some weird mechanism of optical physics.

[Des]

1. Sunspot 11-year cycle ended early in 2008. But then it resumed in the latter part of the year and is going about its usual business now.

2. La nina in the eastern Pacific is recognized as the prime cause of colder weather over North America and Europe. Le Nino, the other half of that Pacific cycle, results in the same regions experiencing warmer temperatures.

3. The Pacific island nation of Vanuatu was just profiled on the CBC's documentary, Watershed. The natives there are concerned about the ocean's erosion of their beaches, the rising salt-water levels in their gardens, and global warming destruction of their habitat.

4. A team of researchers at Stanford U. has just made a connection between humankind's activities and climate change. Pre-Columbian indigenous people were either hunters or farmers. Europeans after Columbus brought blankets, beads and metal tools to the New World but also carried smallpox, cholera and typhus which decimated the local farming communities. Forest and jungle quickly moved back onto the formerly cleared lands and fixed a lot of carbon,resulting in the Little Ice Age. The Industrial Age was beginning and as it grew, we released formerly sequestered carbon in coal and petroleum, resulting in the warming trend we are experiencing now.

5. As everything is connected to everything else, maybe in one step, maybe in many, we are now the determinant factor in all life's existence.

[poitsplace]

Mick, the sunspot cycle is NOT going about it's business as usual. While the first "sunspot" (which shouldn't have been given a number since it could only be seen by the satellite) was indeed in January 2008, the first sunspot visible from the ground was in september 2008. The observational rule (from over 200 years of data) is that the new cycle truly "starts" 12-20 months after the cycle's first sunspot appears. This puts the last sunspot cycle at 13.3 to 14 years long. That has only ever happened before a pronounced minimum. This will probably be the lowest solar activity in 200 years or longer.

As for those Stanford U types...I'm sorry, having 1% the number of people as we have in the world today using 10% (or less) of the energy/resources per person says man's contribution back then was negligible. Just another example of the tripe foisted upon the public by alarmists.

On the PDO (El Nino/La Nina) front it should be noted that because it causes cyclical fluctuations we should NOT be measuring temperature rise from trough (cold period) to peak but from peak to peak. The last PDO warming period ended around 1942 the most recent one ended in 2007. Trace that line out and you'll find a total projected increase INCLUDING all the warming we've seen so far of... 1C by 2100. By the way, at current rates we CAN'T cause more warming that that because we'll have used up all projected fossil fuel reserves by then.

People are damaging the environment but they're not causing any significant warming.

[Luna_the_cat]

What IS this obsession with Al Gore? Do people seriously think that if they can equate the total field of science with this one politician, and then sufficiently mock or discredit the politician, then all the science gets discredited too?

Newsflash, guys: that works about as well as equating all of evolution to Darwin, and then mocking Darwin. Only less so, because Al Gore has nothing at all to do with any of the actual research. The research preceded him and doesn't involve him. Judging the soundness of a science by which politician chooses to jump on the bandwagon, as opposed to the data of the science itself, may be what you think of as a good rhetorical technique, but it's just downright stupid if your aim is to understand the physical world.

Grow up.

As for the "I still dont see how less than %1.00 of the atmosphere [CO2] can have so much efect [sic] on 'global warming'" argument -- hey, if you get bitten by a black widow spider, the molecules which enter your body will be less than 0.00001% of your body mass -- so how could they possibly have any effect?

Chemistry doesn't depend on simple mass. The primary constituents of the atmosphere -- oxygen, nitrogen, and trace noble gases -- are as transparent to IR as they are to visible light. We rely on the greenhouse gases to provide IR (re)capture -- it is well accepted amongst planetary scientists that without these, the planet would be about 15C colder than it is now, regardless of all other factors.

As for the rest -- there is a lot we don't understand yet about climate change, but to keep insisting that we cannot blame humans, or that human influence is "negligable", you need a steadfast ignorance of what we DO know -- which involves work by at least 20 different, independent physicists which specifically examine the link between solar activity and climate, and find a close correspondence -- up until the 20th C., that is, when the climate starts going places that solar activity simply can't account for.

The people who are apparently deeply emotionally opposed to the idea that humans could possibly have an influence on something as large and complex as global climate need to suck it up and start learning something about mainstream science -- which remains mainstream because of the amount of evidence, not from any [extremely unlikely] global conspiracy.

[Luna_the_cat]

poitsplace -- your numbers are screwy. Not to mention the fact that I can't think of anyone involved in the field who claims that all fossil fuel reserves will be gone by 2100 -- especially if industry turns to coal again, given that by anyone's measure there are over 800 billion tonnes of *proven* reserves (note that "proven" means "recoverable"), which is about 130 years' worth. And your "projected warming" number is either made up by you or drawn directly from one of the contrarian/denialist sites -- because once again, there isn't a climatologist on earth who sets it that low. Trying to turn a process with multiple interconnected feedback processes into a straight linear increase is an exercise in ignorance, not to mention futility.

Is it really so difficult for people to accept that climatologists might actually know something about their own field? More than, say, an economist does?

[samuel muiruri]

I wonder if you can get for me info on telepathy that is legit, the last person i know claiming such is DR Pele Tathos

[waltinseattle]

as I understand, the correllation to sun activity in not the amount of energy recieved, but the amplifer effect of that heavy particle radiation coming in. Thats what a movie lead me to understand. the one where many scientists said their names were in the U.N. document over their protestations. They admited being involved, but did not want it to look like they agreed with the conclusions, when the certainly do not.

Queestion: how did the polar bears survive when we were fsrming sand gsardening up in vineland, and planting wine grapes in Britan? if the ice was gone that is to presume......

Chaotics, is the modeling system and it warns that you never should base the next monment, the next trend, on the last moment, the last trend. Hence the chaos in the neame. But then scientists don't get reps without.....