Does the Maunder Minimum's direct connection to "The Little Ice Age" refute man-made global warming?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Answer 1

Please explain your logic… I fail to understand how the Maunder Minimum refutes anthropogenic global warming. The climate has changed in the past, and such changes have had different causes.

The vast, vast majority of climatologists* believe that the global climate is currently warming, and that mankind’s activities are responsible.[1]

* Defined as someone who has recently published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of climate.

Edit:

I also take issue with your own definitions of scientific law and theory.  SCIENTIFIC laws and theories are different from their common usage. In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify an opinion.  In science, the words law and theory are very similar.

A scientific law explains a set of observations. A scientific theory attempts to answer the question “why”. For example, the law of gravity predicts the motion of a falling object. The theory of gravity suggests that there is a natural attraction between objects that have mass.

It is also important to note that there are no proofs in science. Proofs are for mathematics. Science deals with observation and experiment. All that we can do is make observations, such as the fact that objects fall at a constant rate when dropped, or that objects can float if they can displace enough water or that some atmospheric gases absorb infrared radiation.

Scientists then come up with theories, such as Newton's theory of gravity and Archimedes’ principle on buoyancy. It is up to us to decide which make more sense: Newton's law of gravity or Intelligent Falling or some other theory; Archimedes’ principle on buoyancy or Intelligent Floating; evolution or Intelligent Design. The Greenhouse Effect or Intelligent Warming (also known as “it’s just a natural cycle”).

Edit #2:

I didn’t think that you would or could answer my question.

Answer 2

No.  Nothing about the Little Ice Age has anything to do with Global Warming.

Answer 3

Everyday, in every spot on dear old "Planet Ours", the climate is different than the day before!

Averages mean sod all !

Answer 4

Could it be that we are now getting less solar input meaning that the outer layers of atmosphere would be colder, while at the same time we are retaining more heat?

We have seen reduced cloud cover since mid 1990 period. We can ponder whether this is just an effect of warming or an effect of sunspot activity changes.

But let us not overlook the fact that we are now in a relative low for volcanic activity too. It is a long time since we have had a lot of reflectivity provided by volcanoes.

Answer 5

Here is another good read about Solar Minimums:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

Ok - It's just a Theory - Right?   But if the Sun doesn't restart it 'internal heat conveyor' and we enter a 'minimum' - I would fear this Far more than a few degrees of 'Warming'.

Keep monitoring here - and hoping for the Solar Cycle 24 to start:

http://spaceweather.com/

Answer 6

Yes. The mechanism behind this is unclear but Henrik Svensmark's theory seems plausible. CERN is putting his theory to the test but basically when the sun has a lot of sunspot activity, it's magnetic field grows enough to shield Earth from incoming cosmic radiation. When it's inactive or less active, that's not true and the gamma rays hit our atmosphere and ionize water vapor, forming clouds that cool the planet. That's why during the Maunder Minimum, the lowest temps of the Little Ice Age occurred, and why our current solar cycle (#24) is worrisome. It started very late and thus far they're not sure it's even present, with no recent sunspots at all. If that continues, we could easily be looking at cooling less gradual than the warming we experienced over the last 100 years or so. If it does, maybe we should name the new Minimum after Dr. James Hansen of NASA's GISS, the leading proponent of man-made warming.

***edit

I'm not sure how your quote contradicts the question, Shilo. If it was coincidence then there have been many times that solar minimums have coincided with drops in temperature. How many would it take to convince you there's a connection? At this point it's only a theory but it fits the available data better than the theory of CO2 caused warming does.

Answer 7

No. Just because there are natural warming and cooling periods does not mean we did not cause the current acceleration of warming. The fact that the current  rate of warming began to spike at the same time as the Industrial Revolution began putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a record rate is not a coincidence.

Remember though, no matter what is causing it, the world is getting warmer, and this is causing problems. Problems that need fixing. Nothing gets solved by arguing over who to blame.

Answer 8

This is a direct quote from your link:

"The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate (e.g., see Global Warming)."

Perhaps you should read the WHOLE article next time.

Answer 9

No.

1. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin...

2. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff...

3. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solar...

4. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...

5. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...

... and the ice core data ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

... and a graph showing how it fits together:

http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.ht...

6. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR......

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mk...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...