Guest essay by Tony Brown
Section 1 Summary of a previous article;
A short while ago I published an article on ‘Noticeable climate change’ during the past 500 years, based on historical observation and instrumental records. To understand the context of this current article –the purpose of which is to extend and amplify this earlier work- it is linked to below and a brief recap of its findings has been made in the following paragraphs.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
The referenced study noted that our climate changes frequently when calculated on an annual and decadal basis, in fact virtually no decade is like its predecessor or successor. Sometimes the change is fairly small but is often so ‘noticeable’ that humanity and nature will be affected. Figure 1 below illustrates this effect, where the brown verticals represent annual temperatures, the green is decadal and the red line represents fifty year steps.
Figure 1; Annual, Decadal and 50 year periods from CET
The analysis is based on Central England Temperature (CET) to 1659 which is the world’s longest instrumental record, and my own reconstruction from that date to 1538. CET is said by a number of scientists to be a reasonable (but by no means perfect) proxy for global and to a greater extent Northern Hemispheric temperatures. In considering the historic instrumental temperature record and the paleo proxy reconstructions (shown in figure 2) that cover much longer periods, we should heed Hubert Lamb’s maxim that ‘We can understand the (temperature) tendency but not the precision’ so whilst accuracy to tenths of a degree is impossible, determining the general shape and direction of temperature travel is reasonable. Certainty in determining great historical temperature precision lies only in models.
In then providing figure 2 below we can observe a number of results that can most usefully be summed up by repeating the conclusions from the original article;
Figure 2-paleo reconstructions plus CET in annual, decadal and 50 year steps
These conclusions were;
*By any criteria, climate change is frequent, indeed the ‘norm’. Variability of our climate on a decadal basis is considerable and is even greater on an annual basis.
*These decadal episodes of variability appear greater in the past than in modern times as can be seen in the sharp drops, then recovery, during the LIA episodes.
*However, there are tight 50 year ‘paleo’ boundaries, with the frequent oscillations currently on a slightly rising trend from the start of the instrumental temperature record in 1659, albeit with a sharp reversal in the last decade.
*There are some hints of a similar rise to broadly equivalent modern levels around 1540 in the reconstructed CET.
*Rising temperatures reflect the relative dearth of ‘old fashioned’ winters in the second half of the record, as well as changes in other seasons. Summers have the tightest boundaries, appreciably lower than the other seasons.
*Humans need to make substantial accommodation to cope with even relatively short periods of ‘different to normal’ weather. Consequently it might be useful for the authorities to consider ‘noticeable’ climate change as covering decadal rather than 30 year periods
*Paleoclimate reconstructions (figure 2) capture long term climate variability of 50 years and more quite well, but fail to pick up the much more variable fine grain of annual and decadal variability. Consequently a false picture of apparent climate stability in the past is portrayed.
* As paleoclimate reconstructions are usually only measured against global instrumental temperature records commencing 1880 they do not find any of the ‘hockey stick’ effects that can be seen in the older instrumental temperature records.
*When instrumental records are not available, the historic observed record of the past millennium is likely to be a valuable aid to the development of paleoclimate reconstructions using proxies.
Section 2 An examination of the ‘hockey stick.’
The so called ‘spaghetti’ graphs used in figure 2 above are interesting, but their range of variability (excepting Moberg et al) remain almost as limited as their iconic predecessor the ‘Hockey stick’ produced by Dr Michael Mann et al and from which the IPCC third assessment report graphic from 2001 was derived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph
Consequently in view of its continued importance and to demonstrate the strengths and shortcomings of his model, and many of those that followed, it is reproduced below (red line) together with Hubert Lamb’s early pre computer graphic (blue line) that was the inspiration for the IPCC’s global temperature chart used in their first 1990 assessment. This is overlaid on to the CET data already referenced: light blue line 50 year segments and brown line for decadal information. It is all rebased to zero anomaly. The yellow shading illustrates the significant differences between the Mann and Lamb reconstructions and graphically illustrates the 1000 year long period of climate stability depicted by Dr Mann as compared to the much more variable climate researched by Lamb.
Figure 3
In order to be able to make an easy visual comparison, in the next graph we have removed the 1990 IPCC graph and rebased CET, so the anomalies match with Dr Mann’s reconstruction which –until the modern instrumental record is inserted at the end- runs between minus 0.2 and minus 0.5C anomaly-somewhat cooler than CET.
Figure 4 CET rebased with Mann et al 1998
The difference between a warm period such as the 1730 decade at plus 0.4C and a cold decade such as 1690 at some minus 1.4C anomaly measured via instruments can be seen to be far greater than the variations that any of the paleo reconstructions in figure 2 pick up . The Mann et al Hockey Stick (Figure 4) also illustrates very limited variability throughout its 1000 year long proxy reconstruction. The relatively short and intense perturbations noted above since 1538 are however again well captured in CET instrumental records and observations.
Section 3 Pros and cons of Paleo temperature proxy reconstructions.
Such proxy material as tree rings cannot be as accurate as instrumental records or detailed reconstructions using a variety of observational material-but there are nevertheless a number of obvious consequences that those who debate climate as either ‘realists’ or ‘sceptics’ need to face when considering this data;
*The first is that Dr Mann’s graphic (as do many of the other paleos) make a pretty god job of picking up the relatively limited temperature variability we can observe over a 40/50 year or longer period . This is confirmed when comparing the data with the CET 50 year instrumental ‘paleo’ (the horizontal blue line.) This is with the notable exception of the coldest period of the Little Ice age around 1690 and the subsequent recovery in the following decades, providing the most notable hockey stick in the record.
*The CET comparison to the global instrumental record (shown from 1900 in figure 4) is pretty good as is its comparison to the 50 year paleo records. Britain as a temperate country will have different climate characteristics/variability than the tropics or countries at other latitudes but it can be seen that CET provides a useful long term record validation, although Lamb’s maxim should be borne firmly in mind and precise accuracy and correlation at all times is impossible.
*The variability shown in the uptick from 1900 looks unusual only because an instrumental temperature record-which captures variability-is now used, whereas the long term paleo reconstruction proxies previously used, do not have this ability to capture short term variability and thereby present an impression of a ‘stable’ climate. The uptick is therefore purely an artefact of changes in methodology as a ‘paleo’ apple is swapped for an ‘instrumental’ orange.
*The 40/50 year paleo reconstructions (figures 2, 3 and 4 ) fail to capture the decadal variability (orange lines) let alone the annual range (shown in figure 2 as a brown vertical line). They consequently fail to ‘see’ such notable events as the great warming centred on 1730, the recovery around 1830 from the coldest decade (1810) since the depths of the LIA in 1690, and the final bursts of the LIA in 1840 and 1890. Looking further back, the paleo reconstructions also do not replicate the considerable drop to the depths of the LIA around 1690, the (reconstructed) warmth around 1630, the period of well documented cold at the beginning of the 17th century and the sharp (reconstructed) rise around 1540 to something apparently approaching the temperatures at the end of the 20th century. In particular the paleo proxy reconstructions represent the severe perturbations of the various periods of the Little Ice age as merely shallow downwards blips, whilst the astonishing recovery around 1690 featuring the largest hockey stick in the record is a corresponding shallow upwards blip
*if the paleo proxy reconstruction can miss these considerable perturbation downwards, some doubt is thereby introduced as to whether they would catch other similar perturbations in the opposite direction most notably during the so called medieval warm period.
*it confirms that the instrumental temperature record shows an upward trend (with various reverses and advances) from the start of the CET instrumental record in 1659 making the 1880 start point for the instrumental global record used by GISS appear to be merely a staging post in the upwards trend, rather than the starting post.
*The sharp downwards trend in Britain from 2000 currently causing such concern to the Met Office can be seen in historical context as merely another episode of ‘noticeable climate change’ readily captured in the instrumental record, but this time that of cooling rather than warming.
*At around the year 2000 the real world CET data diverges from the composite global temperature comprising of tens of thousands of averaged and smoothed records. Amongst these are those showing cooling, warming and stasis which seem to be roughly cancelling each other out to create a ‘pause‘ in warming that is currently the subject of much debate.
The very limited deviation from the considerable climate stability illustrated throughout the paleo reconstructions -including the Mann et al 1998 ‘hockey stick’- is difficult to corroborate with actual instrumental or historic evidence. Similarly the continual downwards trend in temperature from the start of the Mann et al records from 1000AD to 1900 does not seem to be validated by other data.
Section 4 Comparison of paleo to Glacier movements
In this final graph we have calculated historic glacier movements during the last 3000 years. (See note 1) Over it we have inserted the Mann et al 1998 data covering the past 1000 years together with the decadal record from CET back to 1538.
Fig 5-3000 year Glacier movements with CET decadal/50 year steps and Mann et al 1998
A closed blue horizontal line at the top of the graph equates to a period of glacial retreat (warmth) and a closed blue line at foot of graph demonstrates glacier advance (cold)
That glacial movements can be surprisingly short lived can be seen in the century long glacier advance around 1200 to 1300 AD, and to a lesser extent the 30 year retreat around 1730. Such short changes as noted in this latter period may be relatively common, but the records are unlikely to exist to be able to trace them in earlier times.
The small temperature deviations from the ‘norm’ shown in paleo proxy reconstructions- including that of Mann et al 1998-seem most unlikely to be of a scale that can precipitate glacier movements of any consequence. Several consecutive warm cold decades that can be noted in the instrumental records will however likely start such movements which will be accentuated if the prevailing characteristic of warmth or cold lasts for some time. In the case of the MWP this period of warmth lasted around 450 years . (Clearly however brief Warm periods can occur during a general glacial retreat and brief cold periods during glacial advance.)
That the paleo reconstructions somewhat accurately capture long term variability makes this feature useful. However, they appear to comprise of a very coarse sieve that allows the real world of constant noticeable climate change with considerable temperature swings that affects us all to slip through unnoticed. This makes the use of paleo reconstructions as the basis for far reaching policy changes somewhat problematic and counter intuitive as it is based on a belief that the past comprised of a relatively unchanging climate. A belief that is contradicted when the real world annual and decadal record is closely examined..
That CET appears to be a good –but not perfect- proxy of global temperatures can be seen in the paleo and instrumental record. There is a considerable body of literature from a number of leading climate scientists and related organisations that suggest that CET appears to be a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for temperatures far beyond the shores of England. The author is preparing a piece for peer review entitled; ‘ Is CET indicative of Global or Northern Hemispheric temperatures?’
A future article will concentrate on the far greater extremes that can be noted in our historic weather events than in the modern record, perhaps not surprising in view of its observed greater variability and considerable historic perturbations.
A future article will also delve further back from the CET reconstruction to 1538 detailed in Part 1 of ‘The long slow thaw?’
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
Early analysis suggests some evidence of a period around 1500 around as warm as 2000 and a sharp, but as yet not fully researched deterioration in the few decades prior to that which appears to have some corroboration in the glacier data which was researched separately. Beyond that period work continues in assembling the necessary historic and scientific material to enable the continuation of the reconstruction with some worthwhile degree of accuracy .
In looking at the disparity between paleo records and instrumental observed records It would be useful to see historical climatologists and modellers work more closely with each other in order that the past climate states and their variability can be more accurately depicted.
References and Notes.
Note 1 Glacier records have been painstakingly researched by numerous glaciologists and historians over many years. Their sources include church records, commissions of inquiries into glacier disasters, taxes on farms affected by glaciers, town records, population records, illustrations and lithographs, observations by travellers and scientists, scientific papers, historic articles on glaciers from contemporary sources in English, French, German and Italian, correlation with wine and grain harvest dates, alpine clubs, mountaineers and tree line/plant growth records amongst other sources. See references under.
References
‘The Little Ice Age’ by Professor Brian Fagan
‘History and climate’ edited by P D jones
‘Little ice ages ancient and modern Volume 1 and Volume 2’ Jean Grove
‘Climate history past and present’ Hubert Lamb
‘Times of feast, times of famine –a history of climate since the year 1000’ E Le Roy Ladurie
‘Paleoclimatology, reconstructing climates of the quaternary’ Raymond Bradley
‘Little Ice Age’ Michael E Mann Volume 1, The Earth system: physical and chemical dimensions of global environmental change,
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf
P154 on Groves, Jones, Matthews research.
Barclay et al
http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/2009_QuatRes.pdf
Glaciers around 1640; fragments of reports are available for the period, such as the 1955 study by Guichonnet which suggested three Chamonix glaciers had reached a maximum by 1640 then retreated by small amounts. No doubt other detailed information will become available as more archival material is discovered.
The World glacier monitoring service records the more recent history of glaciation mostly over the last 150 years
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/glaciers.pdf
At one time I had a link to a survey that contained extreme weather events dating back thousands of years. Does anybody still have that link? Thanks to all.
Thanks Tony, I always like your observations-based perspective.
I’ve not noticed any significant climate change in the last 40 years of my life. By now AGW should be really noticeable. In the historical past, climate changes have been known to have impacted peoples lives enough for it to be a matter of record, but modern times have so far seen no such impact. So why the panic?
In the past climate change was sufficient to impact the lives of ordinary people adversely, but even if we did have a changing climate – for which there is really no evidence – it is not impacting us adversely so far, and if it did our grasp of science and our ability to measure climate trends would allow us much more freedom to adapt to any change. So once again, why the panic?
So how do you account for the fact(error) that thermometers were not re-calibrated until after WW2? That could be a few 0.1 of a degree K?
“The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly. Revel in your time”.
Tony:
That is interesting, informative and useful. In other words, it is typical of your articles.
Thankyou.
People who have not read earlier articles from you would do well to use the Search facility.
Richard
Interesting and well balanced discussion of climate and temperature trends.
Thanks!
My own experience agrees with Tony’s observation about “old-fashioned winters”. The warm cycle of the late 1970s to late ’90s meant less severe winters, not hotter summers. Winters in my area are still not as cold as in the late ’60s, but the springs are so much cooler as to make for longer winters, in effect, reminiscent of the early ’70s.
In the Southern Hemisphere, however, winters do seem to be getting noticeably colder again.
I once casually overlaid the CRU global average T with the CET to silence critics of the CET:
http://postimg.org/image/c436v3h4l/
Placed in this context, the lamentations over a bit of missing anthropogenic heat on Earth seems a bit paranoid, akin to being paranoid over the infrared radiation coming from a single red LED light compared to the infrared radiation coming from the Sun.
Ryan, I live close to cool season cropland, for growing things like peas and green beans. Farmers around here know all about weather pattern variation. Those that don’t end up plowing under their crop year after year as it bakes in the hot Spring Sun, and then running back to California, wiser but poorer. Those that understand these pattern swings readily replace peas with things like pumpkins and Spring wheat when early Springs are warm. But a few years ago we began experiencing one cold Spring after another. Sure enough, wise farmers have been overflowing with peas and beans. Plus a very nice crop of Winter wheat. So out here in dry land farming, it isn’t the Fall and Winter pattern that capture our attention, it’s the Spring and Summer.
Even the Arctic pays attention to that season. Notice that the Arctic is far more susceptible to melt season weather pattern variations than it is to freeze season weather pattern variations. The season that keeps our tummys full or empty, and that is the litmus test of weather pattern variation that matters, is the growing season.
Pamela
Our leaders do seem to get upset about things probably because they are presented with information that is not put a broader historic context.
The Hockey stick and its derivatives still exert a powerful grip on them even though the paleos are completely unrepresentative of the real world climate we all live in. But how do we get the message across?
tonyb
I always enjoy Tony B’s articles. Thanks!
Nice article. thanks.
typo in 2nd paragraph after Section 3:
Although it is God, that makes it, isn’t it?
Some 3-4 years ago I started looking at the CET in more detail, ever since Tony and I have exchanged privately views and opinions, not to mention occasional Tony’s kind and helpful advise, despite researching in the two totally different areas of the climate science.
Anyone interested in the CET and more generally, the NW Europe’s past climate would do well to start with the Tony’s articles.
DR. MANN has an agenda, anything he should put forth should be ignored in my opinion.
Is the CET temperature data subject to any adjustments or homogenising. Is it from a single met station or a collection of stations and how do these stations rate on Anthony’s surface station project. i.e have they deteriorated with time and encroaching urbanisation or are they still pretty good? In other words how reliable is the post 1980 spike in temperatures from the CET.
Tony Brown has offered an insightful analysis concerning Central England Temperature and its implications for the validity of paleoclimate reconstructions. His analysis also has important implications concerning future trends in Global Mean Temperature — which way will GMT go?
What follows has been on my mind for several months, and Tony Brown’s analysis now prompts me to post it.
An opinion in some quarters of the WUWT online community holds that the earth’s climate is near the cusp of a long-term cooling trend; and that soon enough, the AGW alarmists will be shown by the course of events to be grossly in error concerning their predictions, at which point the entire AGW house-of-cards will come crashing down.
IMHO, it won’t play out that way. More than likely, the current pause in rising temperatures is merely a pause; and that over the next 100 to 200 years, GMT will continue its long-term rise while following a jagged pattern of localized up-and-down trends. This pattern will probably continue until the maximum of the Medievel Warm Period is reached, at which point Mother Nature will, in her infinite wisdom, decide what to do next.
As things stand today among the AGW alarmists, any and all warming trends in Global Mean Temperature (GMT) are being attributed to man-made causes. Unless GMT falls in a statistically significant trend for a very long period of time, possibly for thirty years or more, ongoing politically-inspired pressures to deal with AGW as a supposed environmental disaster will not be successfully countered anytime soon.
Here is the graph of Central England Temperature (CET) covering the period of 1659 through 2007 as it appears on Wikipedia.
CET Patterns, 1659-2007, Wikipedia Graph
Because the above graph appears on Wikipedia, let’s presume it has been vetted by the climate science community and is therefore peer-reviewed information. What we see on that Wikipedia graph is a jagged pattern of temperature variation consisting of upward trends followed by downward trends which occur in timeframes which last anywhere from 30 to 60 years.
Which trends occur where on the CET graph is a matter of interpretation, and I have made my own to suit my own purposes in writing this post. However, as is evident from the Wikipedia graph’s own 3-1/2 century trend line, the overall CET trend from 1659 through 2007 is roughly + 0.3 C per century.
Suppose for purposes of argument that between 1659 and 2007, temperature trend patterns occurring in Central England approximately reflected temperature trend patterns occurring worldwide; i.e., that the rates of change in local temperatures occurring in Central England were roughly similar to rates of change experienced at the same time in other parts of the world.
Following this premise, as it concerns the rate of change in temperature covering any time period we might arbitrarily choose to look at, we can use the rate of change in Central England Temperature as a proxy for the rate of change in Global Mean Temperature. Remember that we are focusing on the rate of change in temperature over time, not the absolute temperature at any given point in time.
Can historical patterns in Central England Temperature rates of change be used as a means of predicting future patterns in Global Mean Temperature rate of change? For example, could one predict what the overall trend in Global Mean Temperature will be for the period of 2007 through 2100?
MAKE YOUR OWN GMT FORECAST:
Using the one-page summary form referenced below, rate each of the following “Postulated Future Trends for change in Global Mean Temperature by 2100” by its Estimated Probability of Realization (EPOR), with the EPOR outcome for each postulated future trend being stated as either “High”, “Medium”, or “Low”. (The form is a simple paper form inside a PNG image file, and is not in any way an automated application.)
Beta Blocker’s CET Pattern Picker:
Postulated Future Trend:
——————————–
2.7 C rise in GMT by 2100
1.9 C rise in GMT by 2100
1.1 C rise in GMT by 2100
0.3 C rise in GMT by 2100
0.3 C fall in GMT by 2100
1.1 C fall in GMT by 2100
1.9 C fall in GMT by 2100
As described in the table on the CET graphic, each of the above Postulated Future Trends has an approximate historical precedent which spans no less than 30 years in time, as indicated on the top half of the forecast summary form. For your analysis, assume that each Postulated Future Trend is a linearized fit of the series of smaller localized variations in temperature which will actually occur between 2007 and 2100.
Summarize the reasoning behind your forecast by categorizing each Postulated Future Trend by a set of Postulated Influencing Factors, as listed below, along with their Influence Levels, as you believe might be applicable to each trend, stated as either “H” (High), “M” (Medium), or “L” (Low):
Postulated
Influencing Factors
——————–
GHGs, Direct
GHGs, Amplified
AEROSOLS
PARTICULATES
HEAT BUFFERS
LATENT HEAT
SOLAR / TSI
CLOUDS
ALBEDO
FEEDBACKS
OSCILLATIONS
INTERNAL VARIATION
“GHGs Direct” covers CO2, CH4, and H2O as water vapor; “GHGs Amplified” consists mostly of AGW-induced increases in water vapor and AGW-induced releases of CH4; “HEAT BUFFERS” consist primarily of the oceans; and “LATENT HEAT” consists mostly of melting ice.
Feel free to write a comprehensive explanation of your forecast analysis which explains your reasoning in greater detail, including any refinements you would make to the list of Postulated Influencing Factors which might be needed to better explain your forecast.
Beta Blocker says:
August 16, 2013 at 10:36 am
….
I happen to disagree with your projections for future temperatures evolution, and since ‘GMT’ are well correlated, I base my views on the long term CET extrapolation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
Peter Foster
In my linked article there is a whole section on how CET was assembled
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
Its pretty good with some allowance made for UHI by the Met office.
No historic record is perfect but CET is pretty good if you bear in mind Hubert Lambs maxim of course that we can ‘understand the tendency but not the precision’. The temperatures would have gone up and down as per the data but it is not accurate to tenths of a degree.
tonyb
Sobering. Mr. Brown, thank you very much.
salvatore del prete says:
July 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
My question is how does the decline take shape, is it slow and gradual or in jagged movements as thresholds are met. I think some jagged movements then a leveling off then another jerk etc etc. Will thresholds be met?
I KNOW THEY ARE OUT THERE.
I think the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends within 6 months, and once the sun winds down from this maximum it is going to be extremely quiet.
Solar flux sub 72, although sub 90 is probably low enough.
Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
AP INDEX 5.0 or lower 98+ % of the time.
Solar Irradiance off .2% or greater.
UV light off upwards of 50% in the extreme short wavelengths.
This condition was largely acheived in years 2008-2010 but the number of sub- solar years of activity proceeding these readings back then was only 3 or 4 years, this time it will be over 8+ years of sub- solar activity, and no weak solar maximum will be forthcoming.
Lag times come into play mostly due to the oceans.
It is clear that the greenhouse effect ,how effective it is ,is a result of energy coming into and leaving the earth climatic system. The warmer the oceans the more effective the greenhouse effect and vice versa.
With oceans cooling in response to a decrease in solar visible light the amounts of co2/water vapor will be on the decrease thus making the greenhouse effect less effective going forward. At the same time the albedo of earth will be on the increase due to more low clouds,ice and snow cover.
ROUTE CAUSE OF THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE
Very weak solar magnetic fields, and a declining weak unstable geomagnetic field, and all the secondary feedbacks associated with this condition.
SOME SECONDARY EFFECTS WITH WEAK MAGNETIC FIELDS
weaker solar irradiance
weaker solar wind
increase in cosmic rays
increase in volcanic activity
decrease in ocean heat content
a more meridional atmospheric circulation
more La Ninas ,less El Ninos
cold Pdo /Amo
I say the start of a significant cooling period is on our doorstep, it is months away. Once solar cycle 24 maximum ends it starts.
This has happened 18 times in the past 7500 years(little ice ages and or cooling periods ) ,number 19 is going to take place now.
Two of the most recent ones are the Maunder Minimum(1645-1700) and the Dalton Minimum(1790-1830).
I say this one 2014- 2050??
Reply
Climate consist much more then just cycles, one can not extrapolate the climate based on cycles. Past history shows this clearly to be the case,if one goes back far enough..
Thresholds are out there that has caused the climate to change abruptly from time to time and in a dramatic fashion which will not allow the climate to fit into some neat cycle.Two recent examples are the 8200 year cold period and the Younga Dryas cold period.
Until one can explain the reasons for the causes of abrupt dramatic climate changes in the past (like in the above) any climate forecast for the future based on just climate cycles is not going to work out.
There are too many unknowns and the phasing of the items that control the climate need to be known as well as the duration of time of the phasing and the degree/direction of magnitude change of the items that are phasing that control the climate undertake.
To make matters worse does the phasing evenually lead to a climatic threshold being reached.
The phasing is tpoward a cooling trend starting around now and continuing at least to 2040, the question is what will be the character of the cooling tred. Will it be gradual or abrupt with spurts then a leveling off etc etc.
How deep will it be ,how long will it last?
Beta Blocker most climate indicators are pointing to a temperature decrease for the next several years. Probably to 2040,if not longer..
Chuck L says:
August 16, 2013 at 7:15 am
At one time I had a link to a survey that contained extreme weather events dating back thousands of years. Does anybody still have that link? Thanks to all.
Here are two I know of, the one on ‘breadandbutterscience’ is a large PDF near the bottom of the page.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/
Tony Brown’s approach is wrong and does not work.
D.I. Thanks! The links under “Climate History” are the ones I formerly had bookmarked (until my computer died last summer). I directed my AGW believer friends to these historical accounts every time the media called an extreme weather event “unprecedented,” “1 in 500 years,” “never recorded,” etc.
Visually translating your own analytical framework into mine, then I evaluate your method of analysis as translating into a fall in GMT between the years 2007 and 2100 of somewhere between 0.1C and 0.2C — if it were to be translated into my own framework; i.e. Beta Blocker’s CET Pattern Picker .
OK, using my simplistic analytical framework as the documentation method; and taking a somewhat subjective look at your own prediction and at how it is being generated, let’s identify your prediction as being “0.3 C fall in GMT by 2100” as carried within the Beta Blocker Analysis Framework.
As documented on the pattern picker form, “0.3 C fall in GMT by 2100” would carry an Expected Probability of Realization (EPOR) of “High”.
My next question for you is this: If you were to use my simplistic approach to documenting the basis of your prediction, using the pattern picker form as your data entry sheet, what values — “H”, M”, or “L” — would you put down for each of these Postulated Factors?
GHGs, Direct
GHGs, Amplified
AEROSOLS
PARTICULATES
HEAT BUFFERS
LATENT HEAT
SOLAR / TSI
CLOUDS
ALBEDO
FEEDBACKS
OSCILLATIONS
INTERNAL VARIATION
More questions will follow once you have made your choices for H, M, or L.
Tony Brown
Great article . Do you have a similar graph as the first graph for CET WINTER only. Have you done any analysis on the winter data in terms of cycles.?
In reply to Chuck L,
There are other sites that cover historical weather events, but I too have lost them.
I cannot understand why Anthony Watts hasn’t created an ‘Historical Weather’ page so people can see that whatever happens, It is not ‘Unprecedented’.
TonyB:
BetaBlocker :
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 16, 2013 at 12:36 pm (replying to)
All: Let me “push” the question – perhaps a bit further than any of the three of you are willing to go even.
Let us assume that the CET thermometer record is both adequate for its purposes of recoding temperature, accurate enough to be useable over along period of time, and that local conditions around this thermometer have not changed very much between the year 800 (600 BC ? even, if one were try to include the Roman Warm Period) and today. Further, assume that the CET record is adequate to show the world’s “average” temperatures as well. ( Funny, isn’t it that we “have” to make all of those very important, very wide-ranging, very explicit “assumptions” about something as basic as a single, unmoved “thermometer” when one tree ring sample from one tree was enough to remove the Medieval Warming Period from the entire world.)
If a “curve” – not defined as either a sine wave with a fixed period and single amplitude though! or even a sum of sine waves – and NOT a straight line – were extended through the average of the CET using an 11 year solar sunspot as a smoothing interval, when would the MWP, LIA, Dark Ages, and RWP show up as high and low points?
1) That is, can we establish when these periods actually occurred, and how long their peaks and troughs lasted, accurately with this thermometer record laid on top of other proxies?
2) If such a curve can be laid on the CET record, its latest rise will of course be visible, and must be extrapolated into the future. Not an exact science, else we would have profitable fortune tellers in abundance, but does the 2000-2010 temperature “flat spot” occur as a slowing point on the long term rise from the LIA (perhaps to peak one or more 66 year periods later in 2050-2060, 2120-2130)?
Or do today’s 2000-2010 high temperatures lay at the top of the Modern Warming Period, and we will start sliding downhill into the NIA? (Next Ice Age)
That could well be so. (Or not.) Even if GMT is generally headed down, what will the overall GMT trend pattern look like as the years progress towards 2040, and then what will it look like after 2040?
The alarmists generally use 2100 as their standard reference year in marking an end point for their long-term GMT and sea level predictions; but of course, almost no one who is reading these predictions today will be alive in 2100.
Chuck L says:
August 16, 2013 at 7:15 am
Do you mean this: http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/11000_4000BC.htm ?
RACook
You ask some good questions.
In this article I posted only one graph
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
CET is graphed against co2 levels but it’s format more clearly shows the temperature ‘shape.’
The answer to question 1) is yes.
As for question 2)
I am ambivalent as to whether there is good correlation with sunspot numbers. It certainly matches better than co2 but is by no means perfect. Perhaps it is one of a number of drivers which needs to work in conjunction with jet streams and ocean current and ocean warmth.
As can be seen in the graph linked to above, the cet is currently heading sharply downwards. So laying a curve on it will not extrapolate the rise as the rise is no longer happening. Is that temporary? It would be extraordinary of, after 350 years of rising, the temperature should now be on a downward curve.
So are we turning down from the peak of the modern warm period or are we witnessing merely a blip?
Tonyb
Herkimer
Here is a link to my various graphs
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/
There are two that show CET seasonal temperatures, one in decadal and the other in 50 year steps
Tonyb
“Section 4 Comparison of paleo to Glacier movements”
That glacier plot makes sense in its general picture, including indirectly showing the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period in it. Such is rather binary, though. For the past thousand years, finer curvatures in trends can be seen in Kirkby’s comparisons for glacier advance/retreat versus temperature reconstructions (and cosmic ray forcings), as illustrated in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif
.
As for the question of whether we will this century be going much down from the high of the Modern Warm Period, the answer is yes. Like Salvatore Del Prete implied, there have been a number of cold LIA-like events over the past 7500 years (like Dr. Abdussamatov’s publications have observed), and we are due for another in coming decades. The 20th century high of solar activity (relatively extreme for the Holocene up until after solar cycle 22 of 1986-1996 ended) was about as intense as the sun seems to ever get in this period of geological history. The 21st century can be expected to be with lower solar activity, less deflection of cloud-seeding galactic cosmic rays, higher average cloud cover, a more reflective planetary albedo, and a cooler planet.
.
Really the big question for me, once aware of all in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif and much else, is whether or not coming cooling in the 21st century will end with a somewhat brief LIA-like event, or, via amplification of cooling through further albedo change from snow cover rise then, continue far longer into a non-little Ice Age afterwards.
.
Studies can be found claiming the end of this interglacial is due around this century or millennium and other studies claiming it is impossible, but the latter are by CAGW-movement types with related assumptions. The ice age scare of the 1960s-1970s actually occurred for a reason, and that was before enviropolitical agendas much encouraged dishonesty.
On Wikipedia’s CET graphic, there are possibly six historical examples of a rising temperature trend being followed by a sudden steep drop, then followed by another rising trend, with the overall trend over 350 years being gradually up at a rate of approximately ~0.3C per century.
CET Patterns, 1659-2007, Wikipedia Graph
The patterns of CET rise and fall which happened between 1659 and about 1880 happened before the modern industrial era, and in some periods produced bursts of temperature rise occurring over a thirty-year period which approximated a rate of +2.9 C per century.
If instead of attempting to make precise predictions for CET based on some kind of very detailed technical analysis, could we accurately state that the future tops of the CET peaks will follow the previous tops of the CET peaks, generally upward; and that the future bottoms of the CET troughs will follow the previous bottoms of the troughs, also generally upward — without attempting to predict any specific periodicity inside the overall upward CET trend pattern?
Assuming that natural variation is responsible for CET trend patterns between 1659 and 1880, assigning causation to the post-1880 CET trend patterns is the next sticky wicket. How different are the post-1880 trend patterns from previous CET patterns? How different will future CET trend patterns be from pre-2007 historical patterns, and for what reasons?
I’ve had some very slight involvement with Tony’s work, as translator of agricultural records. Certain things struck me. Firstly, while I was not surprised that certain docs may never been translated – till recent times, scholars would have been familiar with the rough local Latin and seen little point in translating – I was surprised that there is so little interest in these docs at a time when climate is the sexy topic and main event everywhere you turn. Disagree with Tony’s conclusions all you like…but why avert the eyes and block the ears in such a suspiciously hurried fashion?
Also, while a translator is usually just puzzling over funny localisms and abbreviations, you do take time to ponder. The clerks whose words one reads tend to gloss over mass tragedy from war, returning plague etc except as these events affect prices and labour availability. In the 14th century, there was just no point in dramatising the misery which was everywhere, but every point in safeguarding the agriculture which stood between medieval humans and complete tragedy. Yet the sense of terror over climate comes through the dry words. While some of the weather described in the period after the Black Death put me in mind of harsh Australian conditions in the 1930s or 1990s, it was just impossible to ignore the descent into hostile and cold conditions just after 1400. A tiny blip in a hockey stick handle just won’t cut it.
Tony has not suggested I say this, but is it not odd that he works largely unsupported? I’m not suggesting he get his own private jet for Pachauri-style commutes, but maybe some bus fare or something? A few more resources and a little more official interest? (Hope I’m not embarrassing you, Tony. I’m not arguing that you are right, just that people should be more curious as to whether you might be right.)
Mosomoso
I am expecting a large cheque from big oil at any time. If it doesn’t come I will have to lay off my large team of highly paid researchers. You may have to send back one of your company cars I’m afraid
Seriously, there are many of us trying in different ways to unravel climate, I do it by looking into past history, others try to sort out why certain types of weather occurred.
One thing is for certain and that is that our knowledge of our past, present and future climate is currently at a very limited level. It is somewhat concerning that certain national governments seem to be in a panic over what appears to be perfectly normal variations in climate and using imperfect information on which to make important decisions that will impact on all of us.
The hockey stick and its derivatives remains a powerful influence on leaders as it is so graphic and certain. Trouble is these paleo reconstructions appear to be incorrect. Of course the climate was variable in the past but how do we get our alternative message in front of those people with influence?
Tonyb
Well, I for one don’t need a graph to tell me that. Just take a look around you, here in NY, it is drastically going back and forth from 80-60 degrees or 100-70 degrees. Now if anyone thinks that is normal they have completely lost their minds as far as I am concerned
shras789
I hesitate to ask, since I wonder about your ability to judge, but what exactly do you mean by “normal.”
I know you don’t need no stinkin’ data, but let’s see what you have to say.
Always enjoy your articles, Tony.
mosomoso is also correct. When one reads these archives, one gains as much or more insight into what actually happened as the recorded temperature data.
Thx Tony, must say the annual and the decadal climate variability shown in the
CET record indicates climate’s surprising variability. Looking at these compared
to the 50 year periods , climate variability’s greater in the LIA than now and, heh,
where’s that ol’ Hockey Stick? Reminds me of a joke I read somewhere …
Pilot to billionaire in Billionaire’s private jet: ‘We’re just about ter fly over France.’
Billionaire ter pilot: ‘Fergit the countries, jest concentrate on the continents.’
Beth the serf.
Note 1 of Tony’s post references sources for glacier advances, church and
town records, taxes on farms, harvest dates etc. The CET record is well cross
referenced by historical observations, this from Geoffrey Blainey’s ‘A Short History
of the World.’ (2000)
Referring to the LIA: ‘For the typical labouring family in some regions of Europe
and China, lean years were punctuated with an occasional year of abundance…
The climate was colder, and Baltic Ports such as Riga were closed by ice more
often.’ ( p 416.) ‘ Farms on the foothills of the Alps were devastated by cold
seasons and the advance of glaciers. ‘ Glaciers, more formidable around 1600,
reached the houses of villages on the lower slopes and crushed them…Small
processions of villagers, led by a priest or even a bishop, went to the edge of
a glacier and prayed that it might halt. (p 417)
Indeed figure 1 does show greater temperature variability back in the LIA than now in the CET record (like a 1976 National Geographic global cooling article suggested, for cooling as opposed to warming, and like a recent study of storm frequency in the LIA compared to the MWP observed).
Thanks Tony, nice work. I particularly like the way you remind us of Lamb’s dictum re temperature records – wise man that he was.
I had occasion a while back to research weather data for a smallish area of the US, following an absurd claim someone made to the effect that only the official records (about 100 years) were reliable enough to provide sound evidence. With little difficulty, as the area had been settled and farmed for about 300 years, I found on the internet diaries, newspapers, municipal records, crop data and various other sources that went back to the earliest days of settlement. No doubt someone who lived there could unearth even more material which has not been put online.
It is true that this stuff doesn’t have the granularity of the CEI, or the (shorter) US Weather Service data. But it was not difficult to build up a pretty good picture of wet and dry years, warm and cool years, floods, droughts, and quite a bit of temperature and rainfall data kept by weather obsessed farmers from the earliest times.
More power to your arm. It’s a pity that some of the loot splashed around on computer models and the like isn’t made available for the kind of work that you do.
mosomoso mentions the sense of terror over climate in the 14th century.
H Zinsser’s book, ‘Rats, lice and History’ refers to epidemics of dancing
mania in the Middle Ages, known as St John’s dance or St Vitas’ dance,
that became common during and after the Black Death and presenting
none of the characteristics of epidemic infectious diseases of the nervous
system. They seem more like ‘mass hysteria brought on by terror and
despair, in populations oppressed, famished, and wretched to a degree
almost unimaginable today. ‘
In K Popper, ‘Open Society and Its Enemies’ 1945. Vol 2 p25)
shras789
Please look at the first part of the article which referenced variability from decade to decade which in itself is highly variable. The annual variability is much greater. There is really no such thing as ‘normal’ although as humans we like to believe there is weather ‘typical’ to a particular season.
A glance through the records we have from our forefathers dating back to the domesday book from nearly 1000 years ago demonstrate astonishing changes from one year to the next. Todays climate is very benign compared to many parts of the past. We need to look longer back than a few years or our own lifetimes experience.
tonyb
Thank you, Tony Brown, for sharing so generously all your hard work. You are a treasure.
*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, TONY B!
(a bit belated)
Best wishes for a year full of joy!
Janice
*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!
In honor of your birthday, history with scenery of your beautiful,
and much beloved, I know,
England
As we discussed a couple of months ago (v. a v. hydropower), her magnificent history of grand accomplishments makes it pardonable, I hope, that those of us whose ancestors forsook her shores long ago forget that England is relatively small land.
Tonyb says:
August 16, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Mosomoso
I am expecting a large cheque from big oil at any time. If it doesn’t come I will have to lay off my large team of highly paid researchers. You may have to send back one of your company cars I’m afraid
Seriously, there are many of us trying in different ways to unravel climate, I do it by looking into past history, others try to sort out why certain types of weather occurred.
One thing is for certain and that is that our knowledge of our past, present and future climate is currently at a very limited level. It is somewhat concerning that certain national governments seem to be in a panic over what appears to be perfectly normal variations in climate and using imperfect information on which to make important decisions that will impact on all of us.
The hockey stick and its derivatives remains a powerful influence on leaders as it is so graphic and certain. Trouble is these paleo reconstructions appear to be incorrect. Of course the climate was variable in the past but how do we get our alternative message in front of those people with influence?
Tonyb
An awful lot in this comment. It is very detailed.
” Seriously, there are many of us trying in different ways to unravel climate, I do it by looking into past history, others try to sort out why certain types of weather occurred” This is where Hubert Lamb started and finished. It how Joe Bastardi improves his commercial foecasts.
The biggest problem, and one that will only get bigger, is finding data on which one can rely. Personally I hate the use of anomolies and would much prefer to see absolute temps but I am also aware of the calibration issues around absolute.
The Beta Blocker approach is an interesting one “I think temps will rise. What do you think? ” but at the end of the day it is only going to be a guess in the same way that the models are only a guess. Whether those guesses are educated or not is immateriel.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:48 am
Co2 and for that matter the greenhouse gas effect are a result of the climate not the cause of it.
The climatic system /oceanic system are driven by the sun,therefore it stands to reason any changes in solar output (variations) will have an effect on these two systems which in turn will have an effect on the climate.
The catch is the degree of magnitude change and duration of time of the solar variations must reach certain LEVELS in order to overcome the inherent negative feedbacks in earth’s climatic system ,along with natural earth bound random climate events(examples enso,volcanic activity).
In addition there are climatic thresholds that may be or may not be reached, which are directly tied to the degree in variation (magnitude change /duration of time)of the various items that control the climate. The sun being the source.
This is why it is very difficult to come up with correlations because there are so many parts of the climate system moving at the same time and many times in opposition as far as their evenual impacts on the climate
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 16, 2013 at 10:01 am
That article came out today on the web-site iceagenow.com, and supports what I have been trying to say.
We will find out one way or the other ,because this current solar cycle will be the WEAKEST since solar cycle 5.
I bet my bottom dollar that solar cycle 24 has now entered it’s declining phase.
The evidence has been mounting toward global cooling in contrast to global warming from the atmospheric circulation patterns(more -ao), to low solar activity, to the an end of the global temp. rises, to the cold pdo/more la ninas,no further ocean heat content rise, to antarctica sea ice expansions, while the arctic sea ice is no longer on the decline,to arctic temp. north of 80 degrees north latitude continuing to display record cold conditions this past summer, low tropical activity, low tornadic activity etc etc.
Still no tropospheric hot spot near the equator, still no pronounced stratospheric cooling especially near the poles both of which are cornerstones of the global waming models, along with the more zonal (+ao) atmospheric circulation pattern.
I am fairly confident that the decline in temperatures will commence once solar flux readings decline from here which will not be that far off
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 16, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Climate consist much more then just cycles, one can not extrapolate the climate based on cycles. Past history shows this clearly to be the case,if one goes back far enough..
Thresholds are out there that has caused the climate to change abruptly from time to time and in a dramatic fashion which will not allow the climate to fit into some neat cycle.Two recent examples are the 8200 year cold period and the Younga Dryas cold period.
Until one can explain the reasons for the causes of abrupt dramatic climate changes in the past (like in the above) any climate forecast for the future based on just climate cycles is not going to work out.
There are too many unknowns and the phasing of the items that control the climate need to be known as well as the duration of time of the phasing and the degree/direction of magnitude change of the items that are phasing that control the climate undertake.
To make matters worse does the phasing evenually lead to a climatic threshold being reached.
The phasing is toward a cooling trend starting around now and continuing at least to 2040, the question is what will be the character of the cooling trend. Will it be gradual or abrupt with spurts then a leveling off etc etc.
Tony Brown mentioning Dr. Mann’s hockey stick as having any sort of validity or even just mentioning it makes this article useless when it comes to having an approach to solve the climate puzzle. FALSE reconstructuions of past temperatures does nothing to further the study of climate science.
In addition Tony Brown, does not go back far enough to show a fair representation of past climate change. I say one should go back at least 20000 years, the maximum extent of the last major ice age and bring all the climatic changes forward from that point up to the present.
If done correctly one will see one of the most STABLE climate intervals since then, has been the period 1850-2000.
Climate changes 20000 -10000 years ago being many many times greater in degree of magnitude change both up and down then what the period he talks about shows, much less the 1850-2000 period.
The 1850-2000 period was when the sun emerged from the Dalton Solar Minimum and displayed a steady 11 year sunspot active cycle with peaks and lulls which kept the climate relatively warm since the Dalton , and in the same climatic regime . Variations yes(but in the same climate regime) due to random earthly climatic items changing such as enso, volcanic activity etc etc., which would mask any minor solar changes due to the regular 11 year sunspot cycle once the sun came out of the Dalton Minimum.
However this has changed (year 2005) when the sun entered into a prolonged solar minimum period which likely will result in the climate going back to a climate regime similar to the Dalton , if not even more severe, in the near coming years.
Cycles do not work over time.
Well, Mr. Brown, apparently I missed with my attempt at a greeting above. Just in case you’d prefer this lovely song, sung in 1940 when things looked pretty hopeless, this American sends you belated birthday greetings and a reminder that even when all looks lost, THERE IS, EVEN NOW, HOPE.
“There’ll Always Be an England”
Happy Birthday
Salvatore
I look forward to reading and then commenting on the article you no doubt intend to write that expands on the various theories and assumptions you have set out in your numerous posts here.
Good luck in being able to find enough detailed observed material to be abe to step back 20000 years and we all await with interest your clarification as to how the climate has evolved since that time
Tonyb
” The author is preparing a piece for peer review entitled; ‘ Is CET indicative of Global or Northern Hemispheric temperatures?’”
Very interesting. The problem is that the same thing that makes the AO/NAO go positive also increases the trade winds.
Janice
Thank you very much for your double birthday greeting. The travelogue was particularly enjoyable.As a belated birthday present from my son, this evening we went to an open air production of ‘waiting for godot’ in our local park.
It rained throughout the production and we all sat there in our waterproofs sheltered by gazebos and umbrellas. The actors pretended it wasn’t raining at all. That’s the mad British spirit for you! My regards to you
Tonyb
You are so welcome, Tonyb. My pleasure. Thank you so much for letting me know you read them!
(“That’s the [FINE] British spirit for you! imo)
Nice riposte to the Amazing Del Prete and His Never-ending Comment.
{Please leave square brackets to the mods. 8<) Mod}
Tonyb:
At August 17, 2013 at 3:16 pm
You say
Ah. It seems you have not attended plays at the Minack Theater.
http://www.minack.com/webcams.htm
So it seems you have not had the glorious experience of being wrapped in bin liners against the driving rain while sat on the grass seating and drinking red wine when packed together with hundreds of others also watching the players leaning into an Atlantic gale.
In good weather, the Sun sets over the sea beyond the stage as you watch a play. And that is a great experience, too.
Cornwall is not that far from you so you can get to Porthcurno with a weekend visit (I will put you up if that helps). You can spend a day on the beach (sand, sea with safe swimming, surf, cliffs, caves and rock pools) or if the weather is bad a visit to the amazing telegraph museum
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/inspiring/casestudies/researchcasestudies/porthcurno/
And you can follow that with a meal in the excellent pub before walking up the path to the top of the cliff for an evening at the Minack.
A truly great ‘British Day Out’.
Richard
Richard
We stayed at Marazion just a couple of weeks ago and went to the excellent Telegraph Museum and also Walked up to Minack so saw the setting. The show had not had a good review so we didn’t stay.
.We sent our sister there when she came over from Australia a couple of weeks ago-she said the setting was glorious but the show was dull.
We like St Michaels mount and the Gardens so the main attraction is Marazion. I wrote about it here at some length as you may remember as its a good indicator on non existent sea level rise since Roman Times
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
Good to see you posting again.
Tonyb
tonyb:
Thankyou for your reply to me at August 18, 2013 at 4:00 am in response to my post at August 18, 2013 at 12:22 am.
You did not mention the link I provided to the item from Exeter uni.. It was this
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/inspiring/casestudies/researchcasestudies/porthcurno/
I had thought you may have mentioned it because I know you make use of that uni, in your studies. Indeed, my reason for posting was really to draw attention to the work the link mentions because I thought it may have pointed you to additional useful contacts. For example, the link says this
“the harsh conditions of outstations around the world”
does sound potentially useful to you.
Research of the documents is already being conducted so the researchers may be willing to provide you with info. they come across which is of use to you if you tell them what you want.
I hope this is helpful.
Richard
Yes, that is a good summary of the Beta Blocker Analysis Framework. Make your best guess as to what will happen and why, while also recognizing how much uncertainty exists in our current knowledge of climate processes.
If you don’t want to go to all the trouble of performing your own detailed analysis and then documenting the results in Beta Blocker’s simplistic format, then just throw a dart at the CET 2007-2100 Dart Board.
For myself, I think that 200 years from now, the fitted trend line on the graph of CET as it appears in the Year 2200 edition of Wikipedia is likely to be roughly at 10.3 C in the year 2200, or about 0.6 C higher than in 2007; and that GMT will have followed roughly that same upward trend.
If one suspects as I do that the height of the MWP has not yet been reached, and that Mother Nature intends to follow a rough pattern of jagged ups and downs that is roughly similar to CET over the last 350 years in order to reach the height of the MWP, then naturally one wants to know what the absolute Global Mean Temperature was at that time.
Is there some approach or method which could be used to make an educated estimate of what the absolute Global Mean Temperature was at the height of the Medievel Warm Period — whatever that temperature was, whenever it actually occurred?
Suppose it happens that way between now and 2040. Under that scenario, how far does GMT have to fall, and how fast, before the Climate Science Industrial Complex (CSIC) generally acknowledges that something is amiss with their models?
Or do they just hang tough between now and 2040, all the while claiming that an upward trend in GMT is just around the corner, and would have already appeared had all that excess heat not gone into the deep oceans?
Four stations provide the information for the CET – Rothamsted, Malvern, Squires Gate and Ringway. One of those stations is at ‘Ringway’, which sounds charming and rural. So why do they still call it ‘Ringway’??
In reality, Ringway was renamed as Manchester International Airport in 1975, and that puts a whole different spin on the temperature readings from that station. The Stevenson Screen is next to the engine run-up bays, as can be seen on the Tinypic image. Manchester became a significant jet airport from the ’80s onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Airport
Coordinates of the Stevenson screen, 53.3564 -2.2801
Picture of airport, and Stevenson Screen:
http://i42.tinypic.com/2dcantt.jpg
CET Measurement Uncertainties – by the Met Office 1878 to 2003
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ParkerHorton_CET_IJOC_2005.pdf
.
Update:
It looks like the Ringway station (Manchester Airport) was replaced by Stoneyhurst in 2004.
Google Coordinates: 53.8449 -2.46847
This does look like a better site, but no doubt its temperature readings were calibrated by Ringway before they moved the station.
Richard
my apologies, I thought it was just a link to the telegraph museum as a tourist attraction which I was going to return to this evening when I had more time to explore the various highways and byways of the various threads.
Yes, it looks interesting. I will see if I can follow up on anything. Many Thanks
Tonyb .
ralfellis
The met office made uhi adjustments to CET to compensate for the move but have made none since, presumably because of the move back to a more rural site.
Philip Eden the weather man tries to keep a track of the ‘real’ CET on his web site. No historic temperature data set has great precision so a few tenths of a degree doesn’t change the worth of CET. However, there are many other stations worldwide that are substantially compromised and really shouldn’t be used in a historic global database.
tonyb
To what do you attribute the sudden ,almost instantaneous jumps in Temperature, either up or down, as seen in the red and green data ? What is it that triggers a jump. and how can you predict when the next one will occur ?
Things, in nature tend to not change suddenly, specially over large areas.
george e. smith:
At August 18, 2013 at 10:10 pm you say
Really?
What about earthquake-induced elevation change, coastal erosion change following a cliff fall, temperature and precipitation change from variation in ocean currents, effects of ENSO, PDO and AMO, etc.?
And the CET is a small area compared to regions affected by the changes I have mentioned.
I don’t know what caused the variations in the CET time series, but they are plausible. The mistaken idea of stable, unchanging climate underpins the AGW scare.
Richard
George
As you can see in the first graph sudden and noticeable climate change on a decadal basis is very common. In Britain we have just had one such change from around 2000 but it will be more noticeable from 2002.
You can see this most clearly in the Met office chart linked below
.http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
I attribute it to natural variability caused by the position of the jet stream, local and national currents, warmth of ocean water, direction of winds etc.
All these important effects are disguised in the global record.
tonyb
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
Wednesday, August 14, 2013Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph is the most laughable & widely discredited object in the history of science
Dear Richard Courtney,
I was sorry to see Mr. Brown did not respond (I would have thought he would have accepted with pleasure!) to your gracious invitation to come visit you. Perhaps, he just got in a hurry in writing his comment. Anyway, I know how it feels to have invitations rejected or ignored and felt for you and, thus, wrote.
I hope YOU are enjoying your lovely seaside.
Your American ally in the fight for Truth in Science,
Janice
P.S. O Moderator, I will abide by your request above (8/17 re: my 10:12pm post) to cease from using [ ]’s. Please forgive me, though, if I do use them by mistake in the future — I have a decades-long writing style habit of using them for edited text. I will do my absolute best to comply.
“”””””…….richardscourtney says:
August 19, 2013 at 12:58 am
george e. smith:
At August 18, 2013 at 10:10 pm you say
Things, in nature tend to not change suddenly, specially over large areas.
Really?
What about earthquake-induced elevation change, coastal erosion change following a cliff fall, temperature and precipitation change from variation in ocean currents, effects of ENSO, PDO and AMO, etc.?…….””””””
Well yes really. Now the graph claimed to be data for the Central England Temperature. Now I don’t know if that is a larger area than “””…coastal erosion change following a cliff fall, …”””; How often do the white cliffs of Dover fall ? Maybe that’s a large enough area. But by the steepness of the Temperature steps, the change in Temperature occurs in one year or less.
I’ve spent the best part of a century, living in and visiting a variety of relatively large areas and spending time there. I can’t recall a single case of something natural changing stepwise in a year or less, and then persisting for decades.
Well I missed out on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but then they weren’t natural events either; and not really that large an area (climate wise).
Now I didn’t say it never happens; meteor craters and all that. I guess the Mt Tarawera eruption in 1886 (or was it 3) did change a large area overnight; but that was a geologic event, not a climate one.
In any case those red and green data curves, look totally phony to me.
TonyB
Thanks for your analysis, and I also appreciate all the discussion it has generated.
A couple of points. I presume your anomalies are measured against the average of the whole series, rather than the 1961-90 used by the Met Office? In other words, about 9.2 C rather than 9.47.
And how did you get such a big drop in the last period? The average for the last 10 complete years (2003-2012) at 10,20 degrees is still fractionally above the previous 10 year period ending in 2002, which was 10,18. On the other hand, if your “decades” end in years ending with a 5, then does the last period represent only 7 years. This would give averages of 10.30 (anomaly 1.10) for 1996-2005, and 10.09 (anomaly 0.89) for 2006-2012, but this still appears a smaller drop than that shown on the graph.
Incidentally, the running 120-month mean has just dropped below that of the corresponding period from 10 years ago, for the first time since 1989.
We shouldn’t be too surprised at the decade by decade variation. If you do a similar analysis on this data set using a different number of years for your intervals, (say 8 or 13 for example), the anomalies also jump around. Indeed, it would be a coincidence if 2 consecutive periods were the same.
This year can lay claim to one record – not that it has any particular significance – the biggest warm up from March to July in the whole record – at 15.64 degrees C (28 degrees F). Not quite a continental rise, but quite suprising for this island, and very welcome
If one goes to the Watts Up With That article June 2, 2013 by guest essay Dr. Don Easterbrook, titled Multiple Intense ,Abrupt Late Pleistocene Warming And Cooling , one will find much detail on the climatic changes that have taken place over the past 20,000 years and show how trival Tony Brown’s article is ,along with his reference to the hockey stick.
Again the climate has seen much greater swings both up and down over the past 20,000 years in comparisome to recnt times , ,while the very recent climate say the climate for the past 150 years has featured one of the most stable climate intervals going back at least 20,000 years.
Salvatore Del Prete:
re your post at August 22, 2013 at 12:03 pm.
NO! The article by Tonyb is NOT “trivial”.
If it were then it would not still have an active thread nearly a week after it was posted.
So, the article by Tonyb is not “trivial”. However, your posts …
Richard
Believe in what you want to believe in.
After reading this article more carefully it is not that bad. I got bent out of shape by his mentioning of Mann and his hockey stick, which Tony just references.
My fault ,went to fast, the reality is he does give a good assessment of what the temperatures did over the past 400 years or so.
I stupidly assumed he was in support of the hockey stick. Have to be more careful.
Janice Moore
I Know Richard and intended to reply privately rather than publicly to his kind offer.
Now, purely for scientific research purposes I am looking for accommodation in Ski resorts during the coming winter and then Various Australian cities that will just coincidentally coincide with the next Cricket Test series 🙂
tonyb
Salvatore
It would help if you had actually READ the article BEFORE commenting wouldn’t it?
As you can see I am pointing out the many flaws in the Hockey Stick. It remains an important icon in climate science and to activists and it is important that it is scientifically-rather than emotionally- rebutted. It is like a vampire, we keep driving stakes through its heart but it refuses to die.
tonyb
Salvatore
One more thing I meant to mention concerns your frequently repeated comment typified by this one
‘Again the climate has seen much greater swings both up and down over the past 20,000 years in comparison to recent times , ,while the very recent climate say the climate for the past 150 years has featured one of the most stable climate intervals going back at least 20,000 years.’
As you may have noticed by now my subject was NOT about the climate of the last 20000 years, nor to focus on the last 150 years. To therefore complain, as you did, that my article was wrong as I had not made reference to them seems somewhat bizarre.
Personally, I have no interest in the climate of 20000 years ago as the world circumstances were so different then that I do not think any useful analogies can be drawn to today. For example, at that time much of Europe was covered by ice and Britain was physically attached to Europe.
I agree that the climate of the last 150 years or so is benign and have said so numerous times.
tonyb
Tony good points, when wrong I admit to it.