Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Little Ice Age? No. Big Warming Age? Yes.

Posted on 18 December 2018 by dana1981

In September, a website called Space Weather Archive interviewed Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. Mlynczak noted that because the sun is currently in a relatively inactive period, the thermosphere (one of the highest layers of Earth’s atmosphere, more than 300 miles above the surface) could reach its coldest temperatures since records began in the 1940s.

The interview didn’t mention Earth’s surface temperatures, where the past five years have been the five hottest since records began in the late-1800s. However, the British newspaper Metro then ran a story falsely claiming that: “It’s feared this could herald the arrival of a uniquely grim ‘mini Ice Age.’ ”

Like a bad game of Telephone, this inaccurate reporting then spread throughout the conservative media, including Fox News, the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin’s Twitter page. The story was debunked by the climate scientists at Climate Feedback, and Metro subsequently issued a correction, but the damage had been done.

The ‘imminent mini ice age’ myth rears its ugly head in the conservative media like clockwork every year or two. It’s always based on claims that the sun is headed into an inactive phase, like those that coincided with what has popularly been called the “Little Ice Age”—the period from roughly about the 16th to 19th centuries when some exceptionally cold winters made the Thames River sometimes freeze so solidly that Londoners held winter fairs on the ice, and contemporary diarists wrote that the snow was so deep in New Hampshire that people burned their furniture because they couldn’t get to the woodshed. (“…[O]ur last Winter brought with it a Snow that excelled them all,” wrote Cotton Mather wrote in his diary in 1717, under the heading “An Horrid Snow.”) But the term Little Ice Age is a misnomer, and some climate scientists have argued that the name should be abandoned. It was not a full-blown ice age at all (or even a little one), but rather a very short-lived and puny climate and social perturbation, by the standards of geologic time.

Not headed for another grand solar minimum

It’s true that the sun is in a relatively quiet period, with the amount of energy reaching the Earth (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI) lower than it has been since the mid-1900s. But TSI is still significantly higher than it was during the so-called Little Ice Age, and likely higher than at any time between the 1600s and 1940, for that matter. Particularly during the late-1600s, there was a period when only about two sunspots were observed per year. (Sunspots are an indicator of solar activity). Scientists coined this type of period a “grand solar minimum.” For comparison, in 2018 there have been about 50 sunspots observed.

It remains an open question when another grand solar minimum could occur. Northumbria University mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova created a model that predicts the sun will enter another grand minimum phase lasting from about 2020 to 2055. But solar scientists have criticized this model as being overly simple and flawed. For example, Ilya Usoskin, head of the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station in Finland and vice-director of the country’s ReSoLVE Center of Excellence in Research, published a critique of Zharkova’s solar model, noting that it was created based on just 35 years of data and fails to accurately reproduce past solar activity. And if it cannot accurately reproduce past solar activity, then how can it be expected to accurately predict future activity?

In contrast to Zharkova’s findings, in a new paper just published in Nature Communications, solar scientists Prantika Bhowmik and Dibyendu Nandy at the Center of Excellence in Space Sciences, India,  created a model that successfully reproduced the sun’s cycles back to the 1930s–more than double the number of years (and data points) used in Zharkova’s troubled model. Based on a longer timeline and our understanding of the sun’s physics, their model predicts that the next 11-year solar cycle (between about 2019 and 2030) will be relatively quiet, similar to the current one, but it will still be much more active than during previous grand solar minimum events.

I spoke with Ilya Usoskin, who was not involved in the research of Bhowmik and Nandy but finds their results to be credible, based as they are on a physical model driven by observational data. Usokin noted that the next 11-year solar cycle can generally be modeled reasonably accurately once the minimum of the current cycle is approached. But later solar cycles beyond the year 2030 cannot be reliably predicted now, before the minimum of the next solar cycle, because of the more random and unpredictable component of solar activity.

solar min

The global mean surface temperature difference under the IPCC A2 emissions scenario (close to our current greenhouse gas emissions pathway) under the current level of solar activity (red) and in a grand solar minimum (blue), with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies measurements (black). Adapted from Fuelner & Rahmstorf (2010) by

The Little Ice Age was… little

Research has also shown that global average surface temperatures only cooled by about 0.5 degrees Celsius during the Little Ice Age. For comparison, temperatures have risen 1 degree Celsius over the past century due to human-caused global warming. If the prior period was a little ice age, then the current period is a Big Warming Age.

Click here to read the rest

1 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 6:

  1. There are two important points about the relationship between Global Warming and Solar Activity. Lots of deniers, for some reason, claim that Global Warming is caused by increased Solar Activity, but we know that the sun has been slightly "cooler" than normal for the past few decades, so obviously this explanation for the recent warming is eliminated. But the important part of the story is that the sun is doing us a temporary favor, and being kind to us as we continue to pile on the CO2 blankets. But this will not last, and the return of an active, occasionally angry sun will just add to the heat. Which won't help at all...

    1 0
  2. The following graph is a reconstruction of solar irradiance (derived I believe from sunspot activity) from 1600 to approx. 2015. It's from the Sorce website and the sorce satellite system has been monitoring solar irradiance directly for about a decade now.

    Solar irradiance does appear to have been generally lower during the little ice age, but it's only a rather approximate correlation just eye balling it. Solar irradiance increased from 1900 - 1980 and has been falling slightly since then, so shows no correlation with the modern global warming period.

    0 0
  3. It all comes down to relative radiative forcings and right now the positive radiative forcing by rapidly increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide with the continued emissions of billions of tons of the gas a year overwhelms whatever negative forcing there may be from solar and other activities.

    This is what denial is all about, pretending this forcing simply doesn't exist.

    Unless someone comes up with a way to invalidate the Standard Model of how particles behave and interact then carbon dioxide is still going to absorb the EM radiation that is constantly being emitted by the Earth's surface and re-radiate about half of that intercepted heat back to the Earth's surface. The more CO2 we put into the air the warmer the Earth is going to get.

    But because of the amount of money that is still tied up in the fossil fuel sector there are still some major palyers who will try and pull any rabbit they can from the hat to magically make this dynamic go away. And they just love the "The next Ice Age is Coming!!!" rabbit for the drama it evokes.

    Climate change is not going away and every year we get closer to tipping points that are truly nasty in ecological, social and financial terms.

    0 0
  4. The article is a good explanation, and useful, but once again we are in the mode of explaining and defending. A political commentator in my country noted "explaining is losing" - a perceptive observation. That's not to say we should never explain, but I'm sure people would understand his point.

    Somehow, and I don't know how, those concerned about agw (and social justice) need to set the agenda and get more on the front foot and a lot more hard hitting.

    0 0
  5. How does that fit to the following article in Nature?

    => Global warming will happen faster than we think

    Accelerated Warming

    Seems like this "little ice age" myth will never die out.

    Safe Climate Zone


    0 0
  6. Maybe SkS wants to embed this carbon budget clock into its website


    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us