Hang on...

...so now we need global warming to stop us turning into New Hoth? Fire up that Quattro!

"In particular the idea that the planet can expect a lengthy cool period until 2100 or beyond would tend to undermine the War On Carbon, and any suggestion that solar variability is as big a factor in climate as carbon emissions leads to intense hostility from many career climate scientists and large sections of the media (as we know well here at the Reg)."

Me thinks Mr. Page should actually read his referenced article ("Guardian super-blogger flames Reg boffinry desk"). Or to put it another way, I read the referenced article and I can't decide if Lewis is or isn't aware that he is deliberately misrepresenting what Robbins appeared to be saying? Is this tunnel vision, a poor grasp of the English language, or intentional flamery? I mean if the scientist who wrote the paper you are referencing as proof of your position says that your position misrepresents the research, how does one reasonably go back and blame the guy calling you out for it? So if that is the best example you can pull out to validate your assertation that all the evil climatologists are chagrined by the assumption that the sun impacts the climate... well I guess I'll just go with "nice try."

"GO" because I really wish you'd go back and try again. I'd have added BEER too because you make me want to go drink, but I can only pick one.

Blinkered vision

"the idea that the planet can expect a lengthy cool period until 2100 or beyond would tend to undermine the War On Carbon"

With that attitude, we should be able to carry on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere without a thought for what effect that will have when the sun picks up again.

I sure am glad

that with the decades-long trends of declining sunspot activity and other indicators predicting a Maunder minimum that we are seeing similar complimentary trends in recorded temperatures. (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11600220-12-month-stretch-ending-in-april-is-warmest-on-record-noaa-says?lite) Definitely very glad there - I mean if the temperatures weren't "dropping" along with the sunspot activitiy that might imply the potential that there are other factors involved in climatology than just the Sun. Nah that would be crazy time though - the contents of the atmosphere being heated by said Sun could never impact the temperature measured.

Sherlock because he'd definitely agree with your lucid, deductive skills Lewis.

Predicting the next Maunder Minimum

A little secret: They don't really know. Predicting the amplitude of future solar cycles (i.e. the "looming" next Maunder Minimum) is not presently a mature science. It's still just pure guesswork.

They. Don't. Know.

I'm not dissing the scientists involved in this work, but certain fields just simply are not yet fully matured. This is an example.

Maybe their speculation will prove correct, or maybe the future will allow them to gather unexpected data and further mature their models.

Does Lewis read comments?

I strongly suspect Lewis repeatedly posts an inflammatory article on climate change, and then promptly heads off to the pub to ignore any feedback, (maybe with fingers stuck firmly in ears). I really doubt he ever reads these comments, that point out objectively as possible, that he makes some fundamental mistakes in reading the science.

Two things main issues with this article (and with all/most of Lewis’s articles on climate change).

1) This is one scientific study on one small aspect of climate change in one geographical area using one data-set.

People who refuse to accept the science of AGW, tend to dismiss the science with conspiracy theories about scientists only working to present 'pro-AGW' research. To cherry-pick the odd study like this, accept it entirely without any of the same suspicions, then dismiss the vast majority of other studies including others from the same institute, clearly shows a prejudiced view.

Climate research (and reporting of that research), needs to look at all studies in an overall context. This one study might suggest a small? change to models for future global climate (depending on sun-spot activity of course), but doesn't change that AGW is occurring.

Bayesian analysis demands that rather than simply looking at each study one-by-one to decide if a complex multi-factor question like AGW is probably true, you start with the weighted consensus of the hundreds/thousands of studies that suggest it is true.

2) Even within the study, the first couple of paragraphs of the abstract clearly says "…However, the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing…".

That gives an entirely different view from the article as written by Lewis which suggests it is “..sound solid evidence … significantly cooled the climate”

I enjoy Lewis’s articles on military tech – I don’t know how correct they are, but they seem like an honest point-of-view and interesting in any case. But his climate change articles indicate a writer than simply can’t/won’t provide a balance that reflects the state of the science on the subject at hand.

Not mutually exclusive

I really wish this question could be debated rationally and I despair when an alleged journalist like Lewis writes such an obviously poorly reasoned and biased take on some interesting research.

It frustrates me that Mr Lewis can claim to be championing right and rational thinking against all 'carbon-alarmist' ranting while abandoning any attempt at reason. If he just came out with a nice clear 'nyah-nyah global warming is for poopy heads, I'll never change my mind' it would at least be honest, unlike this snide piece of biased 'reporting'.

A) The report does not say what Lewis insinuates it says.

There is a clear correlation between recent solar minima and cooling, no assertion of causation. Now it makes sense that there is some causation but that is just my opinion, Lewis should also make it clear that it is only his opinion, not established fact.

B) 'Past solar minimum = cooling' is not mutually exclusive with 'future solar minimum != cooling'

I'm not a climate scientist but I can think of at least one obvious reason why a solar minimum now might not have the same effect as in the past (given there was a causation chain). Conditions now are NOT THE SAME as they were 2800 years ago. For example, CO2 in the atmosphere is about 380 ppmv now and more like 260–280 ppmv in pre-industrial times. I'd be very interested in seeing what the impact of a solar minimum was in a pre-glacial era when C02 concentrations were more like current levels. I wonder if anyone is looking at that?

Lift your game Lewis or stop contributing sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Wow. It's true. The 1970s are coming back.

Economy screwed up. Union unrest. Country nearly bankrupt. Now we have threats of a possible ice age on the way.

Beeswax Bosons

The idea that short-term variations in the climate can be caused by variations in solar output is fairly un-controversial, despite what Lewis what like you to think. The long-term trend of warming caused by increased atmospheric greenhouse gases is also uncontroversial amongst those who understand the science, again despite what Lewis would like you to think. The fact that one may mask the other over a timescale of years or decades is unsurprising, but does not mean that one cancels out the other. Paragraphs such as the following are pure straw-man arguments:

However the idea that variations in the Sun have any serious effect on the climate is a controversial one. In particular the idea that the planet can expect a lengthy cool period until 2100 or beyond would tend to undermine the War On Carbon, and any suggestion that solar variability is as big a factor in climate as carbon emissions leads to intense hostility from many career climate scientists and large sections of the media (as we know well here at the Reg).

In fact, if we were to be in a solar-minimum with a noticeable impact on global warming (which we don't seem to be, since warming is still going on), we would have no way of knowing the scale of the minimum - it could go on for another century or end tomorrow. At the point at which it were to come to an end, the brakes would come off, and we would be even more screwed, as warming which would have happened over years, or decades, would all happen at once, and tipping points which would otherwise have been reached over that timescale would all be reached at once. In this scenario, we would have no hope of engineering a solution in the timescales available and we would be royally screwed.

If, however, we were to take it as a breathing space and use the time to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, or even prepare remediation measures, such as CCS or even ge-engineering*, it could come as a blessing. The one thing we can't afford is 'business as usual'.

*It's risky, but my personal feeling is that ocean fertilisation with iron compounds may be the best option, which would also have the effect of going some way towards reducing the oceanic acidification which is a by-product of our pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and could also increase oceanic biomass.