<p>No, solar activity will not help offset anthropogenic warming in any significant way.</p>

<p>Recent research says a grand solar minimum would cause no more than 0.3C cooling over the 21st century [Feulner &amp; Rahmstorf (2010), Jones et al. (2012), Anet et al. (2013)]</p>

<p>But to see the influence of the solar cycle on the earth's climate together with the effect of anthropogenic forcing see @userLTK's chart - it is key. Roughly after 1960 solar activity declines on average while temperature rampantly rises. Why? <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract">Atmospheric CO2: [the] Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature </a>.</p>

<p>Although solar activity is modulating the earth's temperature the effect is relatively small and for all practical purposes - negligible. Otherwise the past 12,000 years of civilization would have been much tougher to endure.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-19T06:49:11.773Z
2015-07-19T06:49:11.773Z
Isopycnal Oscillation
<p>I'm going to try to answer this, though it's actually a very hard question depending on how close you look at it.    </p>

<p>Lets start with the American Physical Society's statement on climate change - which, they've made an effort to balance out following their 2007 statement of "evidence is incontrovertible" that got some members upset and lead to a handful of high profile resignations.    More on that <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-the-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/" rel="noreferrer">here</a></p>

<p>This is their more balanced statement.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/climate.cfm" rel="noreferrer">http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/climate.cfm</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The relationships between the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
  gases and their radiative effects are well quantified. Forcing from
  the long-lived greenhouse gases: <strong>carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
  oxide, is presently about 2.5 Watts per meter squared (W/m2). Of this
  total, 1.6 W/m2 is from carbon dioxide alone</strong>. The total anthropogenic
  forcing is uncertain, particularly because the magnitude of the
  negative forcing associated with sulfate aerosols is unclear. While
  changes in solar irradiance may have affected global climate in the
  last century, a 0.15% change irradiance, the order of estimated
  changes, results in only a 0.36 W/m2 forcing.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and, numbers vary, but this seemed a pretty fair article on Solar Irradiance:   <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php" rel="noreferrer">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php</a></p>

<p>It says:   </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The number of sunspots visible from the Earth not only changes from
  day to day, but also in cycles that can last from decades to centuries
  to millennia. The most well-known and well-analyzed of these cycles is
  the 11-year sunspot cycle. Over the course of 11 years, the yearly
  average number of sunspots and faculae slowly increases and then
  return to normal levels before rising again for the subsequent cycle.
  The change in the Sun’s yearly average total irradiance during an
  11-year cycle is on the order of 0.1 percent or <strong>1.4 watts per square
  meter.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, 1.6 watts per square meter from Co2 (2.5 watts total) and (up to) 1.4 watts per square meter low to peak solar irradiance, but there's a problem with that 1.4 number.    It's low to high, meaning low to average is 0.7 watts per square meter and that's how we should measure assuming the sun enters a grand minimum, we should measure against the average, so the real number is 0.7 watts per square meter drop - assuming the study is right and the sun does enter a new Maunder Minimum.</p>

<p>Skeptical Science posts a similar number:   </p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/QE6X5.jpg" alt="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg"></p>

<p>Source:  <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm" rel="noreferrer">https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm</a></p>

<p>The variation in their chart appears to be similar to the 0.7 variation we should expect from the NASA article, average to low range.</p>

<p>There's also the, all but guarantee that CO2 will continue to rise, at least, for several more years, so the APS estimate is likely to go up.   Also, the APS number doesn't include feedback mechanisms - and they say as much in the article linked above:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The largest source of uncertainty lies in determining the magnitude of
  climate feedbacks. For example, an increase in trapped radiation and
  the associated warming is expected to increase the level of water
  vapor in the atmosphere, which would tend to further enhance the
  greenhouse effect ó a positive feedback. An example of a negative
  feedback would be an increase in clouds that reflected more sunlight
  back into space. The actual feedback from changes in clouds is
  uncertain since they also act to trap outgoing infrared radiation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now, the positive feedback from water vapor is a given and the negative feedback from clouds is more uncertain, so I think the APS article is a little bit more friendly to the skeptics than the actual science (IMHO).  Clouds reflect sunlight, but clouds also trap heat at night.  The total cloud effect is, well, a little more cloudy than APS' one line suggests.</p>

<p>Skeptical Science has an article on cloud feedback here:  <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm" rel="noreferrer">http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm</a></p>

<p>So, where does that leave us:</p>

<p>Well, first, the study that the sun is going to enter a grand minimum in the next few decades needs to be verified, lets start there.   A whole bunch of bad science has been published by those trying to disprove, discredit or cast doubt on climate change - so skeptisism of new studies first, especially on this topic, but, lets say they're right - which was the original question.   Would that be sufficient to stop man made global warming?</p>

<p>No.   I think it's pretty likely it would be insufficient.   0.7 is less than 2.5.   But, if they're right, it's still kind of good news, cause it would soften the blow - and that's a good thing.   I hope they are right.   But the sun's maximums and minimums have a pretty small effect on climate change.  Maybe a degree here or there.   Man made climate change should be 2 degrees by the end of the century, and perhaps more if left unaddressed in centuries that follow.</p>

<p>As Steve Emmerson points out, the effect of the Maunder Minimum isn't 100% accepted as the sole cause of the Mini ice age.   There's still some unknowns, but I feel, with pretty high confidence, that the sun entering a new grand minimum would be insufficient to stop the warming, but it might slow it down, a little.</p>

<p>Too long?   I can try to clean it up a bit later.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-22T06:17:08.243Z
The argument is that a Maunder Minimum is much lower than the 11-year cycle. So using the 11-year cycle's 0.7W/m^2 trough doesn't match the Maunder Minimum argument. Don't get my wrong: I do think that warnings of a coming Little Ice Age are predominantly just another distraction tactic by climate inactivists; but that means a rebuttal should be all the more robust for it
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-22T09:55:38.783Z
Just to play devil's advocate, if that was the case, why wasn't the Maunder Minimum significantly colder?  Also, the Washington Post article, the person behind this study says "the effect is small", smaller than climate change.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/   I appreciate your post, and maybe some people are saying that, but I don't see how that's accurate.   I've also studied sunspot patterns a bit and the Maunder Minimum is very similar to an extended valley in the 11 year cycle.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-19T04:08:21.123Z
2015-07-20T18:30:10.137Z
2015-07-20T18:30:10.137Z
userLTK
<p>The "mini ice age" hypothesis is hype (note the lack of references to <em>supporting</em> peer-reviewed literature). For scientific information on its possibility, see <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50361/abstract" rel="nofollow" title="this GRL article">this GRL article</a> by Meehl <em>et al.</em> (2013). From the abstract:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A future Maunder Minimum type grand solar minimum, with total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25% over a 50 year period from 2020 to 2070, is imposed in a future climate change scenario experiment (RCP4.5)... After the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cools relative to the reference simulation by up to several tenths of a degree Centigrade. By the end of the grand solar minimum in 2070, the warming nearly catches up to the reference simulation. Thus, a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The article is open access and can be read without payment or subscription.</p>

<hr>

<p>Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, and D. R. Marsh (2013), Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 1789–1793, doi:10.1002/grl.50361.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-20T14:56:21.873Z
@Pont Nice edit. Thanks. Should have done it myself.
Steve Emmerson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T16:06:50.033Z
2015-07-20T09:25:00.223Z
2015-07-20T09:25:00.223Z
Steve Emmerson
<p>According to GW theory, global temperature trends toward an equilibrium depending on CO2 concentration. If we could stabilize concentration at today's levels it would take decades to approach equilibrium.</p>

<p>If we were in the equilibrium state we might have cooler periods due to events like the Pinatubo eruption or a Solar minimum, but then the temperature would return to equilibrium.</p>

<p>If we continue to increase concentrations, these temporary cooling events might appear to counteract warming, but when they are finished, the temperature will trend up ("with a vengeance") to the level corresponding to the higher concentration.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-17T05:02:45.780Z
2018-04-17T05:02:45.780Z
Keith McClary
<p>During the Maunder Minimimum, a famous mini ice age in the middle ages, atmospheric CO2 was less than 300 ppm.  Last year it pushed above 400 ppm.  Solar variations will not make any difference to the long term warming trend.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-05T01:02:03.027Z
2015-08-05T01:02:03.027Z
Grant Bussell
<p>It may solve the heat problem but unlikely to solve the flood problem, and might create the cold problem in the North Atlantic.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-14T23:06:17.267Z
2018-04-14T23:06:17.267Z
Grant Bussell
<p>There is news on the web saying that there will be <a href="http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/">Mini Ice Age in couple of decades</a>.<br>
The question is: Will this Mini Ice Age take away all the excessive heat and prevent Global Warming?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T05:34:49.107Z
What is the cause for this mini-ice age? Where did you read about this?
Isopycnal Oscillation
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T05:48:09.407Z
@IsopycnalOscillation http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
uefi.boot
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T06:56:49.773Z
solar variance does not solve carbon pollution and land use change problems
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T07:37:33.260Z
I am voting to close this question because this is the action of certain elements of the media (possibly purposely) misinterpreting the results and taking the researcher's words out of context. see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/
Isopycnal Oscillation
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T08:42:37.387Z
@IsopycnalOscillation: instead of closing the question, why not provide an answer that will inform all who open the question to read it and any answers that may have been written? Share your knowledge. Use your answer to encourage readers to become more interested in global warming and to want to find out more. Try to convince people who don't accept global warming that the current model/theory for global warming best explains what is happening with the climate of our planet.
Fred
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T08:51:53.030Z
@IsopycnalOscillation I'm with Fred. If you can summarise that article to an answer that will do huge service to proper science communication.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T09:26:24.640Z
I think that it's actually a good question, because it gives the option to explain the complexity of climate and it reflects a popular misunderstanding of climate systems. It's not the same thing as agreeing with the statement. Also, from other answers, I think that @Isopycnal Oscillation would be very capable of answering it scientifically and explain to laymen.
user2821
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T10:19:18.497Z
@IsopycnalOscillation: The question is a bit poorly phrased, but I don't think we should close it as opinion-based when it's the subject of legit research, e.g., http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8535.  The source of the question (media misinterpretation) doesn't stop the question (effect of maunder minimum-like forcing) being sound.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-19T06:52:39.347Z
@Fred Good point.
Isopycnal Oscillation
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-19T16:26:54.277Z
I think Isopycnal's article is a good one and worth the read.   I'm not sure it needs summarizing as it's a 5 minute read, not a 50 page research paper, but in a nutshell it says 3 things, one - the person behind this study never said this study will stop man made climate change (that was added by motivated parties later) and two, he said the effect would be small, so the study itself isn't nearly so bold as the articles that came later.   Three, the Wash-Po article also says that peer review is also needed
userLTK
<climate-change><ice-age>
Will the Mini Ice Age solve our Global Warming Heat problem
uefi.boot
# Will the Mini Ice Age solve our Global Warming Heat problem

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-07-18)

There is news on the web saying that there will be [Mini Ice Age in couple of decades](http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/).  
The question is: Will this Mini Ice Age take away all the excessive heat and prevent Global Warming?

**Tags:** climate-change, ice-age

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What is the cause for this mini-ice age? Where did you read about this?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/  
> **username_2**: solar variance does not solve carbon pollution and land use change problems  
> **username_1**: I am voting to close this question because this is the action of certain elements of the media (possibly purposely) misinterpreting the results and taking the researcher's words out of context. see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/  
> **username_3**: @username_1: instead of closing the question, why not provide an answer that will inform all who open the question to read it and any answers that may have been written? Share your knowledge. Use your answer to encourage readers to become more interested in global warming and to want to find out more. Try to convince people who don't accept global warming that the current model/theory for global warming best explains what is happening with the climate of our planet.  
> **username_4**: @username_1 I'm with username_3. If you can summarise that article to an answer that will do huge service to proper science communication.  
> **username_5**: I think that it's actually a good question, because it gives the option to explain the complexity of climate and it reflects a popular misunderstanding of climate systems. It's not the same thing as agreeing with the statement. Also, from other answers, I think that @username_1 would be very capable of answering it scientifically and explain to laymen.  
> **username_6**: @username_1: The question is a bit poorly phrased, but I don't think we should close it as opinion-based when it's the subject of legit research, e.g., http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8535.  The source of the question (media misinterpretation) doesn't stop the question (effect of maunder minimum-like forcing) being sound.  
> **username_1**: @username_3 Good point.  
> **username_7**: I think username_1's article is a good one and worth the read.   I'm not sure it needs summarizing as it's a 5 minute read, not a 50 page research paper, but in a nutshell it says 3 things, one - the person behind this study never said this study will stop man made climate change (that was added by motivated parties later) and two, he said the effect would be small, so the study itself isn't nearly so bold as the articles that came later.   Three, the Wash-Po article also says that peer review is also needed  

---

## 6 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2015-07-19. Score: 18

I'm going to try to answer this, though it's actually a very hard question depending on how close you look at it.

Lets start with the American Physical Society's statement on climate change - which, they've made an effort to balance out following their 2007 statement of "evidence is incontrovertible" that got some members upset and lead to a handful of high profile resignations. More on that [here](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-the-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/)

This is their more balanced statement.

<http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/climate.cfm>

> The relationships between the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
> gases and their radiative effects are well quantified. Forcing from
> the long-lived greenhouse gases: **carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
> oxide, is presently about 2.5 Watts per meter squared (W/m2). Of this
> total, 1.6 W/m2 is from carbon dioxide alone**. The total anthropogenic
> forcing is uncertain, particularly because the magnitude of the
> negative forcing associated with sulfate aerosols is unclear. While
> changes in solar irradiance may have affected global climate in the
> last century, a 0.15% change irradiance, the order of estimated
> changes, results in only a 0.36 W/m2 forcing.

and, numbers vary, but this seemed a pretty fair article on Solar Irradiance: <http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php>

It says:

> The number of sunspots visible from the Earth not only changes from
> day to day, but also in cycles that can last from decades to centuries
> to millennia. The most well-known and well-analyzed of these cycles is
> the 11-year sunspot cycle. Over the course of 11 years, the yearly
> average number of sunspots and faculae slowly increases and then
> return to normal levels before rising again for the subsequent cycle.
> The change in the Sun’s yearly average total irradiance during an
> 11-year cycle is on the order of 0.1 percent or **1.4 watts per square
> meter.**

So, 1.6 watts per square meter from Co2 (2.5 watts total) and (up to) 1.4 watts per square meter low to peak solar irradiance, but there's a problem with that 1.4 number. It's low to high, meaning low to average is 0.7 watts per square meter and that's how we should measure assuming the sun enters a grand minimum, we should measure against the average, so the real number is 0.7 watts per square meter drop - assuming the study is right and the sun does enter a new Maunder Minimum.

Skeptical Science posts a similar number:

![http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg](https://i.sstatic.net/QE6X5.jpg)

Source: <https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm>

The variation in their chart appears to be similar to the 0.7 variation we should expect from the NASA article, average to low range.

There's also the, all but guarantee that CO2 will continue to rise, at least, for several more years, so the APS estimate is likely to go up. Also, the APS number doesn't include feedback mechanisms - and they say as much in the article linked above:

> The largest source of uncertainty lies in determining the magnitude of
> climate feedbacks. For example, an increase in trapped radiation and
> the associated warming is expected to increase the level of water
> vapor in the atmosphere, which would tend to further enhance the
> greenhouse effect ó a positive feedback. An example of a negative
> feedback would be an increase in clouds that reflected more sunlight
> back into space. The actual feedback from changes in clouds is
> uncertain since they also act to trap outgoing infrared radiation.

Now, the positive feedback from water vapor is a given and the negative feedback from clouds is more uncertain, so I think the APS article is a little bit more friendly to the skeptics than the actual science (IMHO). Clouds reflect sunlight, but clouds also trap heat at night. The total cloud effect is, well, a little more cloudy than APS' one line suggests.

Skeptical Science has an article on cloud feedback here: <http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm>

So, where does that leave us:

Well, first, the study that the sun is going to enter a grand minimum in the next few decades needs to be verified, lets start there. A whole bunch of bad science has been published by those trying to disprove, discredit or cast doubt on climate change - so skeptisism of new studies first, especially on this topic, but, lets say they're right - which was the original question. Would that be sufficient to stop man made global warming?

No. I think it's pretty likely it would be insufficient. 0.7 is less than 2.5. But, if they're right, it's still kind of good news, cause it would soften the blow - and that's a good thing. I hope they are right. But the sun's maximums and minimums have a pretty small effect on climate change. Maybe a degree here or there. Man made climate change should be 2 degrees by the end of the century, and perhaps more if left unaddressed in centuries that follow.

As username_9 username_9 points out, the effect of the Maunder Minimum isn't 100% accepted as the sole cause of the Mini ice age. There's still some unknowns, but I feel, with pretty high confidence, that the sun entering a new grand minimum would be insufficient to stop the warming, but it might slow it down, a little.

Too long? I can try to clean it up a bit later.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: The argument is that a Maunder Minimum is much lower than the 11-year cycle. So using the 11-year cycle's 0.7W/m^2 trough doesn't match the Maunder Minimum argument. Don't get my wrong: I do think that warnings of a coming Little Ice Age are predominantly just another distraction tactic by climate inactivists; but that means a rebuttal should be all the more robust for it  
> **username_7**: Just to play devil's advocate, if that was the case, why wasn't the Maunder Minimum significantly colder?  Also, the Washington Post article, the person behind this study says "the effect is small", smaller than climate change.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/   I appreciate your post, and maybe some people are saying that, but I don't see how that's accurate.   I've also studied sunspot patterns a bit and the Maunder Minimum is very similar to an extended valley in the 11 year cycle.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-07-19. Score: 11

No, solar activity will not help offset anthropogenic warming in any significant way.

Recent research says a grand solar minimum would cause no more than 0.3C cooling over the 21st century [Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010), Jones et al. (2012), Anet et al. (2013)]

But to see the influence of the solar cycle on the earth's climate together with the effect of anthropogenic forcing see @username_7's chart - it is key. Roughly after 1960 solar activity declines on average while temperature rampantly rises. Why? [Atmospheric CO2: [the] Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract) .

Although solar activity is modulating the earth's temperature the effect is relatively small and for all practical purposes - negligible. Otherwise the past 12,000 years of civilization would have been much tougher to endure.


---

### Answer by username_9 on 2015-07-18. Score: 7

The "mini ice age" hypothesis is hype (note the lack of references to *supporting* peer-reviewed literature). For scientific information on its possibility, see [this GRL article](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50361/abstract "this GRL article") by Meehl *et al.* (2013). From the abstract:

> A future Maunder Minimum type grand solar minimum, with total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25% over a 50 year period from 2020 to 2070, is imposed in a future climate change scenario experiment (RCP4.5)... After the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cools relative to the reference simulation by up to several tenths of a degree Centigrade. By the end of the grand solar minimum in 2070, the warming nearly catches up to the reference simulation. Thus, a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.

The article is open access and can be read without payment or subscription.

---

Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, and D. R. Marsh (2013), Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 1789–1793, doi:10.1002/grl.50361.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: @Pont Nice edit. Thanks. Should have done it myself.  

---

### Answer by username_10 on 2018-04-17. Score: 1

According to GW theory, global temperature trends toward an equilibrium depending on CO2 concentration. If we could stabilize concentration at today's levels it would take decades to approach equilibrium.

If we were in the equilibrium state we might have cooler periods due to events like the Pinatubo eruption or a Solar minimum, but then the temperature would return to equilibrium.

If we continue to increase concentrations, these temporary cooling events might appear to counteract warming, but when they are finished, the temperature will trend up ("with a vengeance") to the level corresponding to the higher concentration.


---

### Answer by username_11 on 2015-08-05. Score: 1

During the Maunder Minimimum, a famous mini ice age in the middle ages, atmospheric CO2 was less than 300 ppm. Last year it pushed above 400 ppm. Solar variations will not make any difference to the long term warming trend.


---

### Answer by username_11 on 2018-04-14. Score: -3

It may solve the heat problem but unlikely to solve the flood problem, and might create the cold problem in the North Atlantic.


---

