Skip to content

Is Another Little Ice Age On The Way?

June 24, 2015

h/t Paul2


By Paul Homewood  




Global warming in northern Europe and the eastern US could be partially offset in future winters because of the sun entering a weaker cycle similar to the one which enabled frost fairs to take place on the river Thames in the 17th and 18th century, according to new research.


The Guardian is referring to a study by a Met Office-led study, Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum.



Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.


The first thing to point out is that the study is effectively assuming a global temperature rise of 6C by 2100, way above most projections.

As a result of the decrease in solar irradiance, both experiments show widespread cooling with respect to CTRL-8.5 (Fig. 2). The relative annual global mean near-surface temperature change for the period 2050–2099 is a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12 °C for EXPT-A and EXPT-B, respectively. This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2 years


It is also worth noting that the study recognises that the past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity


The paper suggests that the main effect of a solar minimum will only be regional, as the Met Office press release states: 

On a regional level, the study found a bigger cooling effect for northern Europe, the UK and eastern parts of North America – particularly during winter. For example, for northern Europe the cooling is in the range -0.4 to -0.8 °C.

However, this is over simplistic and misleading, as there is overwhelming that the effects of the LIA were felt worldwide. The study provides this chart of how temperatures are likely to be affected:




Difference in near-surface temperature (°C) between (a) EXPT-A and (b) EXPT-B and CTRL-8.5 for the period 2050–2099. Solid white contours indicate significance with a 95% confidence interval.


 As for UK winters, the sort of drop envisaged would return temperatures to the bitter winters of the 1960’s, the coldest period since the 19thC. It is inevitable that spring temperatures will also be similarly affected, with a disastrous impact on the length of the growing season.




But it gets worse. NH temperatures will plunge further when the AMO goes into cold phase, as there are already signs of. According to a study from Southampton University last month, global temperatures could dip by 0.5C. Remember that the last cold phase coincided with the bitterly cold 1960’s and 70’s in both the US and Europe.

This is the very real danger the world faces. Forget about what global temperatures do, most of the world’s population, and most of its food production, sits in the Northern Hemisphere. And most of this is in areas which stand to be heavily affected, not only the major wheat belts but also vast areas of India and China which will also be severely and detrimentally affected by such a downturn in temperatures.

To blindly assume that AGW will offset this cooling seems to me to be the height of delusion, and a dangerous one at that, particularly when there has been little or no warming for the best part of the last twenty years.

Policymakers can surely no longer bury their heads in the sand and ignore the very real risk which faces us in coming decades.

  1. Mark Hodgson permalink
    June 24, 2015 7:41 pm

    “Policymakers can surely no longer bury their heads in the sand and ignore the very real risk which faces us in coming decades.”

    Just watch them…

    • Kartoffel permalink
      June 25, 2015 9:13 am

      No doubt this would be Change in the wrong way, let’s wait and see for the verdict of the experts of the Paris conference …

  2. June 24, 2015 7:47 pm

    In the future, when/if there is an inquest into AGW, this study will be referred to. Look we said it might happen

  3. rwoollaston permalink
    June 24, 2015 8:24 pm

    Unfortunately, this simply gives the warmists a reason that their predictions are not being met, which in the short term defuses the bomb they faced of temperatures not rising. The real science is at risk of being too subtle for the popular debate.

  4. Eliza permalink
    June 24, 2015 8:51 pm

    Why should we believe ANYTHING these cretins publish after all their nearly 100% failed projections and adjustments about literally anything

  5. rah permalink
    June 24, 2015 9:01 pm

    If they weren’t doom sayers with an agenda that know they’re lying they would be saying: “give us more warming! Cold kills!” But population reduction is obviously part of their agenda.

    I have often wondered though why it seems that the majority of the least developed nations of the world reside in the warmest regions?

    Anyway it seems the NE and central US are in for another tough winter. Not looking forward to it. But I will be smiling at times thinking about how it is seriously damaging popular support for their con, just as I have the last two winters.

    Every time some Bozo gets on the news and tries to tell people that global warming is causing a snow storm somewhere I just smile because it is obvious to even some of the low information types that they’re so detached from reality. That’s a big reason why “climate change” lies at the bottom of list of issues important to people in most surveys.

  6. rwoollaston permalink
    June 24, 2015 9:21 pm

    The point is, they don’t know they’re lying! Like members of any religious cult, all they see is the need to defend the faith. As in many religious cults, the faith also provides them with a living.

    • rah permalink
      June 24, 2015 10:48 pm

      So the “scientists” are not lying but just misguided totally nonobjective ignoramuses? Sorry, I don’t buy that and I can’t see how anyone that has read through the Climate Gate files would either. It is a calculated decision, to join the herd, not an emotional one. There may be elements of isolation similar to Jonestown in the scientific community but even many of Jones’ followers were forced to drink the CoolAid.

  7. June 24, 2015 9:25 pm

    Thanks, Paul, for this report and for your courage in challenging seventy years of junk science that were reported as 97% consensus science:


    • Kartoffel permalink
      June 25, 2015 8:10 pm

      The caretaker told me that climat changes since it came into being and will do so until the end sorry for that.

  8. Gary H permalink
    June 24, 2015 9:30 pm

    Certainly doesn’t fit into the meme of the past several winters whereas they were presented to be a product of AGW,

  9. Gray permalink
    June 24, 2015 9:31 pm

    I’ve often thought that politicians want to change just about everything in their five year cycle, but for some reason think that the temperatures experienced a few years ago need to be kept exactly the same.
    Can’t wait for them to change their minds yet again, and realise we need to increase CO2 output to avoid global cooling, and a new ice age.

  10. JWood-the-other permalink
    June 24, 2015 9:44 pm

    It’s strange that when presented with the idea that warming may be caused by increased sun activity they fight it tooth and nail, but then readily accept diminished sun activity to explain the failure of their corrupt computer models.

    • rah permalink
      June 24, 2015 11:03 pm

      But, But “Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

      “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
      20 March, 2000

      Guess it was just weather! Right Dr. (And I use that title very loosely in this case) Viner? Where are you?

      • June 25, 2015 11:21 am

        Would the Independent have published” Snow is going to be similar to the last hundred years so far as we know”. They have the two worst science editors outside of the infamous Harriban and will publish anything on the forthcoming doom due to climate change.

    • July 2, 2015 12:57 pm

      I remember more than a decade ago when the National Geographic had a whole issue devoted to the sun. They talked about the sun having been hotter for the past number of years, but felt compelled to end the piece w/ a statement that they were certain it had nothing to do w/ warming of the planet. Really??? Our Mr. Sun, has no effect on earth temperatures??? I have since dropped my lifetime subscription given me by my late parents.

  11. June 24, 2015 9:46 pm

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    The anthropogenic portion of “climate” change is small compared to the natural flows of heat on the planet. My research shows the the current pause or slow down or what every will last until about 2035. During the period between now and then temperatures will probably drop slightly and then there will be another increase much like was was experienced in the 80’s and 90’s this has nothing to do with CO2 but everything to do with the observed changes in global temperatures for the past 3000 years. Even a HS kid could see it if they were shown the real numbers, which they never will be shown. In any case by the time the temperatures start back up CO2 will be at or close to 450 ppm so it will be very hard to justify the crazy temperatures that the IPCC will have forecast for then.

  12. June 24, 2015 10:40 pm

    Thanks, Paul.
    I think that in a geological time-scale a Younger-Dryas type cooling (-15°C) is coming, but I don’t think the Met Office is capable of forecasting such an event. A Little Ice Age type of cooling (-0.6°C) would be more in their line of business, so to speak. But they won’t dare to move against the warm hand that feeds them.
    I just say, watch for the El Niño ending in 2016, we’ll see what happens.

  13. 1saveenergy permalink
    June 24, 2015 11:18 pm

    Is Another Little Ice Age On The Way?

    No it can’t be, Mr. Mann, Gore & Obummer settled 97% of science ages ago & stated we will fry & then die.

    Besides – The sun has no influence on climate – “modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun’s effect” Mike Lockwood, Royal Society’s journal Proceedings
    Reported by BBC, New Scientist, … so there !!!
    ( what’s the polite term for ‘the stupid ßa$tards’ ??)

    Oh I remember its ‘the stupid idiotic ßa$tards’!!!

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      June 24, 2015 11:38 pm

      If you spell it s.i.B’s you won’t have to worry about being sin binned.

      According to my little file, the World ended either 1999 or in 2002 (from the UN).
      Gordon Brown warmed that the end of 2009 would be the end.
      The WWF listed 2012 as the end.
      James Hansen settled – eventually – on 2013. Sorry, revised to Nov. 2014.
      Prince Charles thinks the beginning of 2017.

      You see, the “science” is settled, which is kind of strange because a sewerage worker will tell you it should be floating.

  14. Graeme No.3 permalink
    June 25, 2015 12:05 am

    I notice on the maps that southern Australia will be unaffected and Tasmania will actually warm. Before you start planning to emigrate there I think you should know that winters seem to be getting colder – Headlines such as
    Perth has recorded its coldest morning of the year, with the mercury plunging to 2.3 degrees Celsius. Still not as cold as 1916.
    Adelaide has woken to its coldest start to a day in 126 years
    Hobart has been chilling through its coldest nights in 21 years.
    Of course, its only weather.

  15. AndyG55 permalink
    June 25, 2015 12:57 am

    As the slight warming during the last half of last century was mostly down to the series of strong solar maxima, and there is no sign at all of any CO2 warming..

    ….. there is nothing to offset !!

    Global warming was solar warming

    Solar cooling, will be global cooling.

  16. AndyG55 permalink
    June 25, 2015 12:59 am

    My hope is that the cooling really starts to bite this year, especially in Paris…

    …. and then we get a bit more natural warming.

  17. AndyG55 permalink
    June 25, 2015 1:04 am

    Unfortunately, they have chosen a place with solid nuclear powered electricity.

    Maybe they should be forced to move the conference to the UK or Germany…

    …. then we can hope for a massive failure of energy supply, just for the conference.

    Let them face their own idiocy front on.

    • nigelf permalink
      June 25, 2015 1:48 am

      I’d be okay with moving it to a rural area of North Korea. Let them experience what their version of “sustainability” is really like.

  18. ulriclyons permalink
    June 25, 2015 1:51 am

    “As for UK winters, the sort of drop envisaged would return temperatures to the bitter winters of the 1960’s..”

    Apart from ’63 there were colder winters in the ’40’s and late 70’s and 80’s, and of course 2010.

    “But it gets worse. NH temperatures will plunge further when the AMO goes into cold phase, as there are already signs of.”

    No the negative NAO episodes required for the cold shots in the UK cause the AMO and Arctic to warm. Look at the AMO warmth during the Gleissberg minimum in the late 1800’s.

    [Scientific references?]

  19. June 25, 2015 4:05 am

    Paul, I noticed the Guardian article was STEALTH edited… I just commented over on BH Unthreaded.

    • June 25, 2015 8:19 am

      Sorry to be ignorant, but do you mean the online article has been changed? If so, is there a before and after snapshot somewhere?

      • June 26, 2015 7:19 am

        Yes see link below. Yes they did, there was something fishy about the Guardian piece, as if it been deliberately written dirty PR style to counteract the cooling message of the Met office report.
        They suck you in with that headline
        “Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US – study”
        Then proceed to try to say :
        “Weak sun could offset some WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO global warming
        and I indeed found that they were playing around with which spin numbers to use
        in an earlier version they used :
        “a grand solar minimum would reduce temperatures by just 0.1C between 2050 and 2099. Manmade climate change, by contrast, is expected to bring temperature rises of up to 6.6C ”
        ..WOW They use the word UP TO …which is a meaningless scare word unless it is properly contexted and the odds explained. So I can see that the 6.6C figure is hyperbole, they should indicate the mean and the error bars.

        In the current version it says : “Manmade climate change, by contrast, is expected to bring temperature rises of around 3.75C…”
        OK no error bars or confidence is indicated, but it’s a change in the right direction.
        However you can’t issue a story ..let it propagate with hyperbole in it, and then STEALTH edit it down leaving no aknowledgement that the article has been changed.

        BTW they said “up to 6.6C ” I ask Why couldn’t temps rise by 6.7 or 6.8C ?
        – a lot of numbers seem to be pulled out of …….thin air… these days.

      • June 26, 2015 7:21 am

        Over on BH ..@HaroldW comments further showing evidence that someone seems to playing around to make the solar cooling effect look small compare to the modelled LOCAL “global warming”
        He says :
        While the original 6.6 °C figure is way out of line, 3.75 °C isn’t much closer to AR5. From AR5 WG1 Figure 12.5, under the high-end RCP8.5 scenario, the multi-model mean of global average surface temperature increases about 2.4 °C between 2050 and 2100. With the more plausible RCP6.0 scenario, the rise is about 1.2 °C over the same period.

        The Guardian evidently derived this value from its figure, which is entitled “What a grand solar minimum means for climate change in Europe / Temperature change relative to 1971 – 2000, °C.” So it’s not a global value. It turns out that the graphic is derived from figure 5 of Ineson et al, ‘Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum”, Nature Comm (2015), which is captioned, “WINTER European surface temperature response”.
        #1 So it’s seasonal as well !
        #2 It’s from a partial location ! [The caption further clarifies that it’s for NORTHERN Europe, above 48 degrees latitude.]
        I skip lightly over the Guardian’s lack of discussion about the reliability of such long-range predictions in general, those for regions more specifically, and most specifically, that of HadGEM2-CC. HadGEM2-ES was ranked second-highest in TCR (Transient Climate Response) among 30 CMIP5 models.
        ( Wow #3 Cherry picked sensitive model !… emphasis added by Stew)
        [The HADGEM2 family is described here PDF.]

        Not a good score for the Guardian on this one.

  20. Richard111 permalink
    June 25, 2015 6:37 am

    “”we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance””
    Is this the wosname in the wood pile? I read that CO2 is quite active in several UV bands and it is increasing while the solar level of UV is decreasing. Sounds like a double whammy to me. Might be time to invest in polar bear fur coats.

  21. Kartoffel permalink
    June 25, 2015 9:31 am

    To make things worse … in today’s Scientific American :
    Energy-Efficiency Efforts May Not Pay Off

  22. June 25, 2015 11:29 am

    No need to worry, Dong now have 2.5 GWe of windmill orders for the UK; the latest 580MWe off-shore Norfolk using Siemens turbines. Great to know that not only is the UK hell bent on self destruction but we are funding the EU industries.

    Am I becoming cynical?

  23. Walter Clark permalink
    March 19, 2016 2:03 am

    If this happens, Kiss the warm weather that people like to enjoy during Spring and Summer goodbye, and say goodbye to the groundhog, who predicts when Spring will come on February 2nd.
    If the little ice age happens in the future, kiss the cities in the northeast goodbye e.g., Albany, New York City (NY), Boston (MA), Hartford (CT), Providence (RI), or Portland (ME), and people from those cities would have to flee those cities, and move down south to Florida, California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Cuba, or Mexico. because those cities that I mentioned above would be buried deep under snow, and they may end up becoming uninhabitable, and that part of the United States would be very similar to Greenland, or Antarctica, with snow and ice burying deep over them.


  1. Paris World Summit of Conscience, International interfaith gathering #2 | Marcus Ampe's Space

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: