A short anthology of changing climate

Guest post by Tony Brown

Context is everything, and nowhere more so than in climate history, where a graphic such as this seems to illustrate an alarming uptick in temperatures that has been blamed on modern man and his profligate burning of CO2;

tbrown_figure1

Table 1 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

But take one step back;

tbrown_figure2

Table 2 http://www.berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php

And the recent analysis from BEST seems to illustrate a tantalizing suggestion that the warming observed by GISS to 1880 was merely part of a longer term trend.

Take several even longer steps backwards, through the medium of Central England temperature (CET) the oldest and most examined instrumental data set in the world- maintained by the UK’s Met office- and this puts GISS into further historic context, in that the temperature rise extends-with numerous advances and reverses- all the way to 1659.

tbrown_figure3

Table 3 http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

This long slow thaw is clearly at odds with the current view of climate history, best described by the UK Met office-a prime contributor through the Hadley centre to the IPCC assessments, who assert:

Extract “Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.”

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html

The IPCC themselves say;

1 IPCC FAQ 6.2 Page114 of TAR4.

All published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 16th 17th 18th 19th centuries, then warmed rapidly after that.’

The author has twice requested the Met office to provide the studies used in their assertions, but to date, although acknowledgement of the request was made, no information has been forthcoming.

The Met office and IPCC view of climate history appears to have been formulated as a result of the iconic ‘hockey stick’, which reversed the existing knowledge of climate history.

tbrown_figure4

Table 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

The hockey stick shows a relatively stable climate with a modest cooling trend from 1500 –after the brief dip and recovery immediately preceding it -until the dramatic upsurge in temperatures from around 1900. The period prior to 1900 was calculated through a variety of proxies such as tree rings, and appears to be at odds with the many instrumental records available, and also of -currently unfashionable- first hand historical observations and records which are available in abundance.

That temperature trends were rising gently throughout the instrumental period from 1659 to the present day should prompt the question as to when it commenced, as it would be the most amazing coincidence should it start during the first year that instrumental records became available.

After extensive research- including in the archives of the Met office- my own estimate would be that the low point was reached around 1607/8 (the subject of a future article) following a period of decline from around 1560, which in itself had reached a peak around that time following the short lived but intense cold of the first ‘little ice age’. In this context therefore the official Hadley/Cru global temperature figure from 1850 or Giss from 1880 can be seen as a continuation of this warming trend-which had already started by the time the Mayflower set sail- and not the start of it.

Other intriguing things that commenced in 1607 are mentioned here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607

In this article we shall therefore follow this gently warming trend from the first decades of the 17th century, after first identifying the dates of the decline seen in the previous half century.

First it is useful to mention that the expression ‘Little Ice age,’ is something of a misnomer. What we can determine with certainty, by looking at the available instrumental data and related historical observation, is that there were undoubtedly some anomalously cold periods which captures the episodic and very wide spread nature of the mis-termed Little Ice Age. It is mis-termed because during this era there were also some very warm periods, and every condition in between, and the popular impression of unremitting cold for 400 years or more is inaccurate. The episodically severe nature-often on a year on year basis- may explain why some reconstructions appear to be unable to accurately model the considerable fluctuations in climate experienced during this time.

The LIA was in fact a phrase first introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes as recently as 1939, who subsequently believed the term ‘neo-glaciation’ was more accurate.

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

The second phase of the LIA was at its intermittent severest for some 150 years from around 1560, with the coldest year probably being 1607/8 and a further notable-and well documented- prolonged dip in the second half of the 17th century. The severity of the episodic LIA sharply diminished around 1700 (although it did recur, in successive centuries) and the dramatic rise in temperatures during the early part of the 18th century is unparalleled in the entire CET record. This long steady (overall) rise is therefore evident throughout the instrumental record of CET from 1660, and confirmed by other instrumental data sets from the early 18th Century onwards, although the general warming was still interspersed with several relatively short lived reverses.

These next two links show the long, gentle, warming trend, evidenced from numerous historic instrumental records. Virtually all the cities concerned have become heavily urbanized, thereby also demonstrating the likely effects of UHI, especially in recent decades.

tbrown_figure5

Table 5 http://i47.tinypic.com/2zgt4ly.jpg

tbrown_figure6

Table 6 http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg

(both sets of graphics copyright 2009 Nick Willmore)

Historic instrumental data, plus other articles are carried here on the author’s web site.

http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/

The global 1850 Cru and 1880 Giss records can thus start to be seen more readily in their broader context, as merely plugging into the middle of an already well-established long warming trend-and not heralding the beginning.

In the remainder of this article we will primarily concern ourselves with demonstrating the reality of this long warming trend by highlighting the somewhat lesser known periods of warmth, up until the modern era, that punctuated the better documented cold, from approximately 1560 onwards. However we shall start the observational portion of this short (and by no means comprehensive) climatic anthology with a somewhat chilling quote from 1300 years earlier. This marked the precursor to the intermittent start of the Dark ages cold period, following another notable climatic epoch-that of the warm Roman optimum. (The first comment noted hereunder is eerily reflected by the quote immediately following, which heralds the start of the new cooling epoch in the middle decades of the 16th century.)

Saint Cyrian was Bishop of Carthage around 250AD.* (see Note 1) He was talking about the huge increase in Rome’s population which had caused wars against Carthage and the building of 500 towns in North Africa to satisfy the eternal city’s ever increasing needs for timber, cereal, and exotic animals for its gladiatorial contests. Here is an account of lack of sustainability and climate change caused by a variety of factors, with the hints of a decline in the warm climate that had sustained Rome now starting to work against them as it intermittently turned cooler

The world has grown old and does not remain in its former vigour. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the suns warmth are both diminishing. The metals are nearly exhausted the husbandman is failing in his fields. Springs which once gushed forth liberally now barely give a trickle of water.’

Around 1560 the Rev Schaller, pastor of Strendal in the Prussian Alps wrote;

There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earth’s crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.”

The reality of this period of cold is reinforced by this account from 1610 when John Taylor, talking of the hills around him in Deeside Scotland, remarked that “the oldest men alive never saw but snow on the top of divers of these hills both in summer as in winter.”

(Both quotes from the book ‘The Little Ice Age’ by Brian Fagan)

However, that mild conditions can prevail even during the harshest periods of the LIA can also be seen here, when we examine the arrival of the Mayflower in America in 1620. The initial cold weather quickly gave way to a mild winter described here;

http://www.stormfax.com/thanksgv.htm

The winter of 1620-’21 was “a calm winter, such as was never seen here since,” wrote Thomas Dudley of Massachusetts Bay in 1630.  Edward Winslow, one of the original Pilgrims, also wrote about the “remarkable mildness” of that first winter in Good Newes from New England, published in 1624.  There was testimony by others to a mild end of December, a moderate January, a brief cold spell with sleet and some snow in early February, followed by definitely mild conditions and an early spring.”

A brief breakdown in the cold trend in Britain was also observed in the diary entry of Samuel Pepys for January 1660/61-the year the Royal Society was established- when he wrote;

It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.”

That summers could still be hot was felt during 1666 when the UK had an extremely hot dry summer (brought on by a blocking high pressure system over Scandinavia). The hot dry North easterlies helped spread the devastating Great fire of London in 1666. The following winter, however was so cold that the great oak trees of the English Midlands split. (Humidity has a great part to play in temperatures)

The growing warmth of the early part of the 18th Century was noted here by Hubert Lamb on page 12 and 13 of this study;

http://tinyurl.com/5vvvp9r

The remarkable turn of the climate of Europe towards greater warmth from soon after the beginning of the eighteenth century and affecting all seasons of the year in the 1730’s seems to have produced little comment at the time, though by then the temperatures were being observed with thermometers and entered into regularly maintained observation books in a number of places.”

Our modern bouts of amnesia regarding previous climatic conditions can be seen to be nothing new by reading the comments from the annals of Dumfermline Scotland from 1733/4, when it recorded that wheat was first grown in the district in 1733. Lamb wryly observes that was not correct, as enough wheat had been grown further north in the early 1500’s to sustain an export trade (before the 1560’s downturn).

This information also usefully confirms a warm period around that date, to one that had changed to a cold period by the time of Pastor Schaller commenting in 1560.

The warmth in the early decades of the 1700’s could also be discerned in the author’s article here, where CET records can be matched to that of Uppsala Sweden and where observations from the Botanical gardens illustrate the growing warmth. There is also a comparison to nearby Stockholm, where the effects of UHI on urbanized stations can be seen.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/

The following, condensed from the records of the Hudson Bay Company, also demonstrate that climate change is not a new phenomenon, and was not restricted to Europe.

Over the fifteen years between 1720 and 1735, the first snowfall of the year moved from the first week of September to the last. Also, the late 1700s were turbulent years. They were extremely cold but annual snow cover would vary from ‘extreme depth to no cover’. For instance, November 10th 1767 only one snowfall that quickly thawed had been recorded. June 6, 1791 many feet of snow in the post’s gardens. The entry for July 14, 1798 reads ‘…53 degrees colder today than it was yesterday.”

This next excerpt comes from the extensive weather records of Thomas Jefferson; (the warm weather of the early 1700’s has given way to intense cold then another period of warmth)

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JEFFERSON/ch07.html

A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance. The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits. From the year 1741 to 1769, an interval of twenty-eight years, there was no instance of fruit killed by the frost in the neighbourhood of Monticello. An intense cold, produced by constant snows, kept the buds locked up till the sun could obtain, in the spring of the year, so fixed an ascendancy as to dissolve those snows, and protect the buds, during their development, from every danger of returning cold. The accumulated snows of the winter remaining to be dissolved all together in the spring, produced those over flowings of our rivers, so frequent then, and so rare now.” (From observation 1772 to 1779)

Here the warming trends in Prague 1770 hint at an intriguing example of subsequently adjusted data;

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-czechgate-pragues-klementinum.html

In the Australia of 1791 we have a record which has clear resonance with modern times.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tench/watkin/

But even this heat was judged to be far exceeded in the latter end of the following February, when the north-west wind again set in, and blew with great violence for three days. At Sydney, it fell short by one degree of what I have just recorded: but at Rose Hill, it was allowed, by every person, to surpass all that they had before felt, either there or in any other part of the world. Unluckily they had no thermometer to ascertain its precise height. It must, however, have been intense, from the effects it produced. An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the ‘perroquettes’, though tropical birds, bear it better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats.”

The account later relates-reinforcing the realities of inconsistent methodologies commented on over a century ago by the eminent climatologist Dr Von Hann-“The thermometer, whence my observations were constantly made, was hung in the open air in a southern aspect, never reached by the rays of the sun, at the distance of several feet above the ground.”

From America we have this contemporary comment;

The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times. … Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.” —Noah Webster, 1758-1843 (founder- Webster’s dictionary)

In this next article the author looked at the lives and times of famous people living in Teignmouth on the South Coast of England in order to examine the warming trend-punctuated by cold periods- experienced in Europe through the 19th Century by following one of this town’s famous sons-the harpist Elias Parish Alvars- as he travels through Europe on concert tours.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/travels-in-Europe-part-1/

His birth in 1808 saw a distinctly Little Ice age CET mean temperature of only 8.84C with a decadal 1800-1809 CET of 9.17C a prelude to what remains as about the coldest decade from that day to this during 1810-1819 at 8.798C.” (This era of growing warmth following this bitterly cold decade was also recounted in my account of the early life of Charles Dickens referenced later)

Following observations from whalers from the same port of Teignmouth, we have this from the annals of the Royal Society in 1817;

It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated….”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688

This quote –from a book of the period-comes from the same source;

The uncharted coastline of east Greenland became clear of ice around 1820, and in 1822 Scoresby, in the midst of an arduous whaling voyage, sailed along some 400 miles of this inhospitable landscape, charting it, and naming point as he went in honour of scientific and other friends, chief of which was Scoresby Sound, named for his father. Almost all his place names survive today.”

This melting was described by the author in the article referenced above, which examined the little known period 1815-60 when the Arctic ice melted and the Royal Society mounted an expedition to investigate the causes. This period of melt during the 1820’s is also mentioned here;

From an examination of the Greenland captains, it has been found that owing to some convulsions of nature , the sea was more open and more free from compact ice than in any former voyage they ever made: that several ships actually reached the eighty-fourth degree of latitude, in which no ice whatever was found; that for the first time for 400 years, vessels penetrated to the west coast of Greenland, and that they apprehended no obstacle to their even reaching the pole, if it had consisted with their duty to their employers to make the attempt.”

http://tinyurl.com/6c525cl

This intriguing reference to ‘400 years’ illustrates that Arctic travel was also possible in the 1400’s and possibly relates to the last known settlements of the Vikings, who had experienced hundreds of years of relative warmth in Greenland before ice closed the sea lanes as the temperatures turned down around the 1300’s during the first Little Ice age, from which temperatures subsequently recovered to a peak by around 1560.

(Arctic melting appears to have been happening with some regularity, from the Ipiatuk civilization some 3000 years ago, the Vikings a thousand years ago, at various times during the LIA- most notably the early 1700’s and 1817 onwards- and prior to the current warming there was another episode recorded between 1918 to 1940.)

The steady rise in temperatures during the 19th century was documented here, when the author asked tongue in cheek if Charles Dickens had shaped our perception of climate change through his portrayal of Victorian winters in his book ‘A Christmas Carol.’

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/bah-humbug/

Dickens life demonstrates the extraordinary variability of the British winters during that era, when the coldest and warmest winters in the CET records can be juxtaposed. Generally there are few examples of constant cold winters year after year-the LIA was becoming much more sporadic than it had been several centuries earlier, when bitter cold weather appears to have been the norm. To put this era into perspective mature English people might be surprised to learn they lived through a much colder winter than Dickens ever experienced. 1962/3 at -0.33C was the third coldest in the entire CET record compared to Dickens coldest year 1814 at 0.43c, the fourth coldest in the record. (1962/3 was a bit of a one off-Dickens experienced a greater number of relatively cold winters)”

Hubert Lamb, in ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’, says: “Indeed, the descriptions of ‘old-fashioned’ winters for which Charles Dickens became famous in his books may owe something to the fact – exceptional for London – that of the first nine Christmases of his life, between 1812 and 1820, six were white with either frost or snow.”

Lamb also points out that the decade from 1810 to 1819 was the coldest in England since the 1690s. However, Dickens published ‘A Christmas Carol’ in December 1843 during what remains to this day as one of the warmest Decembers in British history. The two warmest winters on record occurred in 1868 and 1833.

These accounts from Russia contradict the popular notion of a shiveringly cold country and have obvious parallels with the fires of 2010.

1831: Summer was unbearably hot, and as a consequence of numerous fires in the forests, there was a constant haze of smoke in the air, through which the sun appeared a red hot ball; the smell of burning was so strong, that it was difficult to breathe.

The years of 1839-1841 were known as the “hungry years.” In the spring of 1840, the spring sowings of corn disappeared in many places. From midway through April until the end of August not a drop of rain fell. From the beginning of summer the fields were covered with a dirty grey film of dust. All the plants wilted, dying from the heat and lack of water. It was extraordinarily hot and close, even though the sun, being covered in haze, shone very weakly through the haze of smoke.

1868: the weather was murderous. It rained once during the summer. There was a drought. The sun, like a red hot cinder, glowed through the clouds of smoke from the peat bogs. Near Peterhoff the forests and peat workings burnt, and troops dug trenches and flooded the subterranean fire. It was 40 centigrade in the open, and 28 in the shade.”

http://therese-phil.livejournal.com/171196.html

The steady rise in temperature during this period was also commented on by the author in this article, which links three long temperature records along the Hudson River in the USA. They illustrate that with a start date of 1880 GISS misses out on the preceding warm climatic cycles and that UHI appears to be a big factor in the increasingly urbanised temperature data sets from both GISS and Hadley/CRU.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/triplets-on-the-hudson-river/#comment-13064

That the temperature dropped from the start of James Hansen’s’ famous GISS record in 1880

tbrown_figure7

Table 7 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

places it somewhat out of context to the warmer period that preceded it, and this is reflected in this intriguing reference from the records of the Canadian Horticulturist monthly of 1880 (page 7).

“I do not know whether or not the climate of Ontario is really becoming permanently milder than formerly, but I do know that for the past 18 years or 20 years we have not experienced the same degree of cold as the seven years preceding.”

http://www.archive.org/stream/canadianhorticu03stcauoft#page/6/mode/2up

This period of transition and fluctuation between virtually modern day warmth and intermittently severe ‘Little Ice Age’ conditions- roughly 1700-1850- resulted in great storms;

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com:443/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9780631222736/higgit.pdf

(Page 8)

Hubert Lamb also wrote of the great storms during this period in his book ‘’Historic storms of the North sea, British isles and Northwest Europe’ showing that such events are not restricted to current times.

Coming closer towards the modern era this paper ‘British Winters in relation to World Weather’ published in 1926 provides a scholarly examination of the relationships discovered, which gives us an insight into what was happening elsewhere in the world as regards a changing climate. This portion from the summary is intriguing;

The results indicate that conditions in the Southern Hemisphere play a part comparable with that of the North Atlantic oscillation in controlling subsequent winter weather in the British Isles.”

http://www.rmets.org/pdf/blissmem1-6.pdf

That CET has intriguing parallels with Northern Hemispheric and the Global climate was also noted by Hubert Lamb and other researchers, and places CET as a potentially interesting, scientifically valid, proxy for the global situation.

The warm period during the 1920’s and 30’s resulted in the Arctic melting (again) recorded in this excellent free online book by Dr Arnd Bernaerts

http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_1.html

A farmer from Buchan in North East Scotland, one of the snowiest parts of lowland Britain, wrote in the agricultural section of the local newspaper during the exceptionally mild winter of 1933/34.

1934 has opened true to the modern tradition of open, snowless winters. The long ago winters are no precedent for our modern samples. During the last decade, during several Januarys the lark has heralded spring up in the lift from the middle to the end of the month. Not full fledged songs but preliminary bars in an effort to adapt to our climatic change.”

It then goes on to say;

“It is unwise to assume that the modern winters have displaced the old indefinitely”

and also; “Our modern winters have induced an altered agricultural regime”

John Steinbeck’s’ classic novel ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ spoke eloquently of the hardship caused by severe drought and heat waves in part of 1930’s Dustbowl America-a period that remains arguably the warmest in recorded history in that country.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/oklahoma/155903-grapes-wrath-classic-okie-book.html

We have numerous other pieces of evidence to demonstrate cyclical climate change throughout the instrumental record, when periods of cold were replaced by welcome warmth that helped to kick start the age of industrialisation and exploration which has shaped the modern world.

The Met office claim that there was little variability prior to the modern era appears to have little merit, and is all the more surprising as their Exeter UK base is but ten miles from upland Dartmoor, where numerous examples of climate change from both the Bronze age and MWP can be readily found.

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

The majority of the prehistoric remains on Dartmoor date back to the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age. Indeed Dartmoor contains the largest concentration of Bronze Age remains in the United Kingdom which suggests that this was when a larger population moved onto the hills of Dartmoor…..The climate at the time was warmer than today, and much of today’s moor land was covered with trees. The prehistoric settlers began clearing the forest, and established the first farming communities.”

The climate worsened over the course of a thousand years from around 1000BC, so that much of high Dartmoor was largely abandoned by its early inhabitants. It was not until the early mediaeval period that the weather again became warmer, and settlers moved back onto the moors.”

Clearly, there was great fluctuation between warm and cold periods throughout the historical record. As for the IPCC, from their Geneva HQ they have ready access to the world’s extensive literature on climatology and also must be aware that the city they are based in can boast of instrumental records back to 1753. These illustrate not only natural variability and the centuries long warming trend, but the effects of UHI as the city’s population has escalated from around 9000 back then, to some 190,000 today-with the Geneva canton being about double that of the city.

tbrown_figure8

Table 8 http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Europe.html

Above; Geneva from 1753 with a centuries long rise in temperatures. (This record was also shown with a trend line earlier in the article). If the records only went back a few more decades the Geneva graph would also include the notable warmth during the first few decades of the 18th Century, already remarked on here, further demonstrating natural variability.

Conclusion.

The globe appears to have been gently warming for 400 years- with numerous reversals and cold periods interspersed with warm ones. Within this overall trend can be discerned regions running counter cyclical to the warming trend, as was observed in the article ‘In search of cooling trends’.

http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/

We estimated around one third of all stations to be cooling, a figure now endorsed by the Berkeley study. The assertion regarding lack of climate variability cited at the top of this article by two of the most prestigious climate organizations cannot be supported-there were periods around as warm as today as well as very cold periods, demonstrating great variability, no doubt there were also areas running counter cyclical to the prevailing trend, as can be seen today.

Note 1 * The quote from St Cyrian in 250AD provided earlier would be considered ‘anecdotal,’ a particularly derisory term in the Climate Science Dictionary, who prefer computer models or intriguing proxies. However, in this instance the journal ‘Science’ comes to our aid. On their website they quote Ulf Buntgen of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape, who produced a study looking back on 2500 years of climate change. He wrote ‘increased climate variability from AD250 to 600 coincided with the demise of the western Roman Empire and the turmoil of the migration period. Distinct drying in the third century paralleled a period of serious crisis in the western Roman Empire marked by barbarian invasion, political turmoil and economic dislocation in several provinces of Gaul.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

164 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 1, 2011 1:10 pm

Hi Tony
Great post and a reference article. Every climate scientist should start his/her training with the CET.
Here is something to ponder:
June:
maximum insolation, high radiative heat transfer and CO2 back radiation
temperature response: flat
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETjun.htm
January:
minimum insolation, the lowest radiative heat transfer and CO2 back radiation
temperature response: maximum rise of ~ 0.5 C/ century
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETjanuary.htm
I have strong reasons to think that the climate change in the CET area has lot to do with the ocean currents moving heat from the tropics polewards and vice versa.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm
……………….
There was once a scientist who wanted to rewrite the sun’s past (every cycle amplitude SSNmax =120), in the way some climatologists persist rewriting the temperatures.
But the sun does what it has done for billion of years:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm

dp
November 1, 2011 1:12 pm

You don’t need pages of graphs to see the face of true climate change vs climate variability. It is all around us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratic_Rock_State_Natural_Site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
http://www.columbiagorgebedandbreakfast.com/ice_age_floods.htm
Google images: Missoula floods for specatcualr scenary of the affects of climate change.
Check the weather pages around the world to learn more about what range of weather the current climate allows.

November 1, 2011 1:13 pm

M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:10 pm
There was once a scientist who wanted to rewrite the sun’s past (every cycle amplitude SSNmax =120), in the way some climatologists persist rewriting the temperatures.
But the sun does what it has done for billion of years

Since your do not know what you are talking about, it might be better not to embarrass yourself any more.

Editor
November 1, 2011 1:15 pm

Stephen Richards
Thanks for your comments. Hubert Lamb is one of my favourites and I have several books of his. As most of his work was pre (powerful) computer I suppose he researched things in a different manner to many of todays climate scientists. He was a very thorough person and would have marvelled at the idea of having c0llective climate knowledge so readily available via the internet.
We miss his calm voice on climatic matters
tonyb

John B
November 1, 2011 1:18 pm

Tony:
Correlation with CO2:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KfE5s-4q1s4/ScLVic4P0hI/AAAAAAAAAB0/IWBy3fClff8/s1600/fig4.jpg
Oh yes there is!
(This chart was linked on wuwt just a couple of days ago)

November 1, 2011 1:43 pm

@Leif Svalgaard says:
November 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm
“Solar activity is now and has been for the past cycle similar to what it was a century ago, but climate is quite different, so the effect does not seem to be a major factor.”
100yrs before SC23 is SC14, at half the size of SC23:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
it followed two cycles that were both much smaller than SC`s 21 and 22:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl13.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl12.html

November 1, 2011 1:52 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:43 pm
100yrs before SC23 is SC14, at half the size of SC23:
When I say 108 years ago, people get upset, but that is what was meant. SC23 should be compared to SC13, and SC24 with SC14.
it followed two cycles that were both much smaller than SC`s 21 and 22
All cycles after SC17 are wrongly calibrated and are 20% too high. You can see the correct calibration in slide 33 of http://www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Weighting-on-SSN.pdf

November 1, 2011 1:53 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Since your do not know what you are talking about, it might be better not to embarrass yourself any more.
Year or two ago many readers appreciated your knowledge and experience in dealing with some complex issues, then you started this ridiculous idea of ‘flat sun’, which no one as far as I can find out is taking seriously.
Tony wrote an excellent article (the subject he knows far better than most of the so called experts) so it appears nobody here is interested in your solar revisionism.
I would call that embarrassing.

LazyTeenager
November 1, 2011 1:56 pm

Mike D says
It will be a bummer. Ice Age conditions are not conducive to life. Warmer is better. The planet could warm up 20°C and life would abound, but it’s not going to.
———-
Hopefully indeed it’s not going to. This would mean that room temperature currently at 20C would become 40C. And a heat wave instead of 40C would be 60C. We would all be dead. Literally!!!!!

November 1, 2011 1:58 pm

John B says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm
…….
This correlation is even higher at R^2 = 0.9
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ATc.gif
for the rest see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC.htm

November 1, 2011 2:01 pm

First I want to point out that ground-based measurements of temperature in the satellite era (i.e. since 1979) do not agree with ground based values you show (1). These thermometers (?) feature a steady warming that does not exist in satellite records. What warming satellites do see is a short spurt of that started in 1998, raised global temperature in four years by a third of a degree, and then stopped. There was no warming before or after it, and in particular there was none in the eighties and nineties which Hansen used in front of the Senate to claim that warming had started. This short warming in satellite records makes a well-documented case for a step warming, something nobody has bothered to study. Its cause is the huge amount of warm water that the super El Nino of 1998 brought across the ocean. This is another aspect of global temperature that these so-called “scientists“ don’t know about. Which brings up the influence of the ocean and in particular ocean currents in determining our climate. Arctic warming is well known and its symptoms – reduced summer ice cover, melting permafrost, polar bears in trouble, etc. – are currently used as evidence for existence of the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately the cause of Arctic warming is water carried to the Arctic Ocean by Atlantic currents and not any carbon dioxide in the air. It started with a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the twentieth century which directed warm currents like the Gulf Stream into the Arctic Ocean. Warming paused from 1940 to 1970, then resumed, and is still going strong. It started very suddenly and since there was no concurrent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide the greenhouse effect is completely ruled out as its cause. Nils-Axel Mörner (2) has carried the role of Gulf Stream as a cause of global warming/cooling even further by postulating a connection between its behavior and solar cycle strength. His idea is that if solar activity as measured by the intensity of sunspot cycles is weak the ionization of higher atmosphere is reduced. Reducing it removes part of the protection we have against the direct effects of the solar wind. And the solar wind will then start to interact with lower parts of the atmosphere and thereby change the angular momentum of the earth. His contention is that this change in angular momentum is large enough to divert the Gulf Stream, which normally is aimed at the North Sea, so that it terminates further south at the Bay of Biscay. The result is that the North Atlantic, the Arctic, and Northern Europe will experience a cold wave. He suspects that this is what happened several times during the Little Ice Age and may happen to us again by 2050. It is food for thought since the Little Ice Age was not simply a unitary cooling but seems to have fluctuated according to your data. It would also be interesting to check out the theory that LIA was not world wide as some have suggested. We don’t really know why there was an abrupt change in currents at the turn of the twentieth century nor do we have any idea how or why the former current system temporarily returned in 1940. But we do need to know more about these and other ocean currents if we want to understand what controls global temperature.
References
(1) Arrak, “What Warming?“ available on Amazon
(2) Nils-Axel Mörner, E&E April 2011

November 1, 2011 2:10 pm

Any temperature reconstruction that shows the 1930s and 1940s as being significantly colder than the last two decades automatically cannot be trusted to be unbiased. End of the story, and it really is that plain simple.

Editor
November 1, 2011 2:14 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: “Quite wrong, for most of the last 500 years the climate has been miserable. Luckily it has now warmed up a bit.”
That almost sounds like the voice of experience, Leif. Are you related to Mel Brooks’ 2000 year old man? I’ll tell you, some days, I feel that way. Oy!

November 1, 2011 2:21 pm

M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Year or two ago many readers appreciated your knowledge and experience in dealing with some complex issues, then you started this ridiculous idea of ‘flat sun’, which no one as far as I can find out is taking seriously.
“[1] Variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI) associated with solar activity have been argued to influence the Earth’s climate system, in particular when solar activity deviates from the average for a substantial period. One such example is the 17th Century Maunder Minimum during which sunspot numbers were extremely low, as Earth experienced the Little Ice Age. Estimation of the TSI during that period has relied on extrapolations of correlations with sunspot numbers or even more indirectly with modulations of galactic cosmic rays. We argue that there is a minimum state of solar magnetic activity associated with a population of relatively small magnetic bipoles which persists even when sunspots are absent, and that consequently estimates of TSI for the Little Ice Age that are based on scalings with sunspot numbers are generally too low. The minimal solar activity, which measurements show to be frequently observable between active‐region decay products regardless of the phase of the sunspot cycle, was approached globally after an unusually long lull in sunspot activity in 2008–2009. Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be
provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
Slide 33 of http://www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Weighting-on-SSN.pdf shows that your assertion that Rmax is always 120 is rooted in ignorance.

November 1, 2011 2:24 pm

Arno Arrak says:
November 1, 2011 at 2:01 pm
…………….
I agree with the general sentiment of your post. You are correct about onset of the sudden warming periods, and there is occasionally reversed process of sudden cooling.
I have an idea why that may be so since the changes expressed in the data I plotted have a simple physical explanation:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CDr.htm
No ‘flat sun’ here.

Rosco
November 1, 2011 2:26 pm

The problem with IPCC stuff is you can find absolute contradictions to the Policy Maker Summaries in the body of the actual reports but it is damned difficult.
How can the IPCC AR4 report be considered authoratative when there are many examples of contradiction ?
The sections presented in the summary and the FAQs are carefully constructed to convey a message yet one does not find much support for that message in the text.
An obvious example is the use of Kiehl & Trenberth’s graphic showing 342 W/sq m as the solar insolation – a carefully crafted distorted message in my view – yet in the body of the report there is a section on Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance –
“Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m–2, which encompasses the current estimate of 1,365 W m–2.”
The simple question is How did they measure this ? If Kiehl & Trenberth’s graphic showing 342 W/sq m as the solar insolation is in any way accurate how did terrestrial bound scientists measure a now accepted value ?.
Perhaps they actually did measure 342 W/sq m and multiplied it by four to account for the disk versus sphere geometry – Yeah right !
Clearly the IPCC are being deceptive in placing Kiehl & Trenberth’s graphic “front and centre” to generate a false impression that the poor old sun can only manage ~ -18 C without the help of the magic roundabout on the right hand side of the graphic.
Of course this is deceit and so easily debunked when you consider the moon can be heated to ~120 C during the day but poor old Earth would freeze with the wonderful magic greenhouse effect.
If they try to deceive as blatently as this why should anyone trust them ?

John B
November 1, 2011 2:31 pm

M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:58 pm
John B says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm
…….
This correlation is even higher at R^2 = 0.9
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ATc.gif
for the rest see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC.htm
—————-
Interesting!
Two questions:
Why pick the field at the point you did?
How does GMFz correlate to global as opposed to Arctic temperature?

November 1, 2011 2:47 pm

@Leif Svalgaard says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:52 pm
“When I say 108 years ago, people get upset, but that is what was meant.”
Well you should have said 108yrs rather than “a century” then. SC13 is still following a cooler period than SC23 did, so the comparison is not that useful.

Spector
November 1, 2011 2:50 pm

RE: John B: (November 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm)
“Correlation with CO2:”
Based on the minimal change in forcing between 300 PPM and 600 PPM CO2 concentration, I would say this is more likely a simple coincidence. To establish a true correlation, I think one needs to show that this relationship holds over several full cycles of rising and falling temperatures.
***************************
For General Reference: Here is a similar subject WUWT article about a 2000-year, non-tree-ring proxy reconstruction of first and second millennium temperatures:
Loehle: Vindication
Posted on September 28, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Guest Post by Craig Loehle (cloehle -at- ncasi.org)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/

November 1, 2011 2:57 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minard.png
Charles Minard’s 1869 chart showing the losses in men, their movements, and the temperature of Napoleon’s 1812 Russian campaign.
Another valuable climate document showing the temperatures experienced by L’Armee Francaise upon its retreat from Moscow Late October-November 1812. These historical records seem to me to be at least as valuable as other proxy information in determining temperature in days gone by

November 1, 2011 3:10 pm

lol, well, I had my head down, working for most of the day, and from time to time today sporadically writing a post. Had I seen this one, I may not have bothered. But, here, is the last two 33 year periods of time with temp trends. I back-casted a few years of CO2 levels, and put it on a graph for comparison to the temp trends. I don’t know what’s driving our climate, but I know what isn’t.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/historical-correlations-between-temps-and-co2/

Bill Illis
November 1, 2011 3:11 pm

Good post Tony, we have to rely on historical actual data (or we are stuck with the climate models – and some people are stuck thinking there is real data produced by climate models)
—————–
For the CO2 correlators, the formula that global warming theory is based on is;
TempC Anom = 3/LN(2)*LN(CO2/280) – 0.5C
See how that works for you.
—————
John B says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Whatever chart you posted, the regression formula listed on the chart is not what the line in the chart is based on, so, yeah start over … There is a lot of really bad math in climate science, especially on one side of it.

Ian W
November 1, 2011 3:30 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 1, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Mick says:
November 1, 2011 at 12:30 pm
how different? 0.5deg Kelvin out 273K ??? That is remarkably constant, just like the TSI.
If you claim the climate is constant then the influence of a variable sun is clearly irrelevant.

But we _are_ observing changes in the Sun. Livingston and Penn are currently plotting the apparent reduction in sunspot magnetism which you are commenting on in another blog. Just because we have not made a complete link to such changes from climate does not mean that if it isn’t a TSI change it has no effect on climate. The CERN CLOUD experiment would appear to provide a potential mechanism, there may be others. For example Nir Shaviv in his paper “Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing”, shows that the effect of solar changes appears to be amplified in ocean temperature changes (measured in multiple ways). We shouldn’t fall into the IPCC trap of ‘we cannot think of anything else so it must be X’.

Rational Debate
November 1, 2011 3:47 pm

Tony, very nice article – thank you!
re: Stephen Wilde says: November 1, 2011 at 10:54 am

A nice summary of much that was once well known but which has been ignored for the past 25 years or so. The obvious implication is that natural variability can adequately explain ALL climate variations observed to date. That is the really inconvenient truth.

Even more unquestionably so when one looks at proxies of the Younger Dryas. Talk about massive and rapid climate change!! Ok, I grant you, we could argue the accurracy of those proxies, but just sayin’ it seems awfully clear from the best records we currently have both instrumental and proxy, that we’re nowhere near out of the ‘null hypothesis’ bounds of natural variability for the holocene, let alone going further back.

John B
November 1, 2011 3:52 pm

,
You are right, the line is something close to 0.009x-2.97 (not 0.01x – 2.89). Not sure why. Better ask Stevo, who posted it in the first place.
But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a clear correlation. Your formula is the famous “3 C per doubling”. That would fit pretty well too, but by my calculations, 2.1 C per doubling gives a better fit to that data.