HH Lamb–“Climate: Present, Past & Future–Vol 2”–In Review–Part I

Guest post by Paul Homewood (reposted from his blog Not a lot of people know that please visit and  bookmark) Part 1 of a three part series.

Lamb-HHubert Lamb was one of the leading climatologists of his time, indeed described in one obituary as the greatest. He spent most of his career at the UK Met Office before founding and becoming the first director of the Climatic Research Unit. He wrote many books, but perhaps “Climate: Present , Past & Future” was the most significant. Here we review Volume 2, amounting to 836 pages, which particularly looks at climatic trends over the centuries.

Originally published in 1977, the volume offers great insights into the thinking not only of Lamb himself, but also of many of his peers. Not only does Lamb give us the benefit of his own work and experience, but much of his research is into work carried out by a host of other scientists of his time and earlier.

Everything that follows is based on Lamb’s writings in this volume; any comments of mine will be within [ brackets ]. I would also point out that sections in italics are direct quotations from the book.

Climate during the Holocene

The Holocene begins around 10000 BC, at the end of the last Ice Age, and continues to the present. In this section, we will look at the period leading up to the Medieval Warming Period.

How did temperatures in this first part of Holocene compare with today’s and what confidence can we have in their accuracy and extent? Lamb presents a good deal of evidence to suggest that, for much of the period, temperatures were warmer than now. For instance he presents much evidence from glaciers.

It was after 2000-1500 BC that most of the present glaciers in the Rocky Mountains south of  57 o N were formed and that major re-advance of those in the Alaskan Rockies first took place.

And at their subsequent advanced positions – probably around 500 BC as well as between 1650 and 1850 AD – the glaciers in the Alps regained an extent, estimated in the Glockner region, at about 5 times their Bronze Age Minimum, when all the smaller ones had disappeared.

 

Treeline studies, including Southern Hemisphere sites, paint a similar picture. Quoting a study by Markgraf in 1974, which encompassed the Alps, Carpathians, Rockies, Japan, New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, East Africa and the Andes, Lamb writes :-

Summer temperatures in these regions were 2 C higher than now in the warmest postglacial times (around 5000 BC).

He then quotes a similar study by Lamarche in 1973:-

Study of the Upper Tree Line on the White Mountains in California, similarly indicates warm season temperatures about 2C higher than today all through the warmest millenia, from before 5500 BC until about 2200 BC.

[Many recent studies in Baffin Bay, Greenland and Iceland come to similar conclusions, i.e. that for much of the Holocene, temperatures were higher than now and also that the Little Ice Age was probably the coldest period in the last 10000 years.]

What about the cooler periods Lamb mentions?

He describes this as the “Sub Atlantic Period” from about 1000 BC.

Glacier advances, changes in the composition of the forests, and the retreat of the forest from its previous northern and upper limits, indicate significant cooling of world climates, its start being detectable in some places (e.g. Alaska, Chile, China) from as early as 1500 BC.

In Europe, the most marked change seems to have been from 1200-700 BC. By 700-500 BC, prevailing temperatures must have been about 2.0C lower than they had been half a millenium earlier, and there was a great increase of wetness everywhere north of the Alps.

Another aspect of the centuries of colder climate around 500 BC in NW Europe was evidently their storminess. There was perhaps a final climax of the first of these epochs of marked storminess in the great North Sea storm, or storms, about 120-114 BC, which altered the coasts of Jutland and NW Germany in a great sea flood, “The Cymbrian Flood”, which set off the migration of the Celtic (Cymbrian) and Teutonic peoples who had been living in these areas.

The probable course of prevailing temperatures in Europe and the Far East has been presented in Fig 16.22. [Not shown]. In both regions, the last few centuries BC register some general rise in temperature, representing a recovery from the coldest conditions of the onset of the Sub Atlantic climatic period, which had culminated in great glacier advances in the Alps (HEUBERGER 1968), at various times between about 900 and 300 BC, and apparently a lower snowline in the high mountains of Lebanon and elsewhere in the Near East and Equatorial Africa.

 

Lamb goes on to describe how temperatures recovered in the period leading up to the MWP.

There was a gradual fluctuating recovery of warmth in Europe over the 1000 years after 600 BC, particularly after 100 BC, leading to a period of warmth and apparently high sea level around 400 AD. [We would recognise this as the Roman Warming Period].

The Roman agricultural writer, Saserna, wrote that in the last century BC, cultivation of the olive and vine were spreading further north in Italy, where in the previous century, winters had been too cold for transplants to survive (WARNER ALLEN 1961).

After some reversion to colder and wetter climates in the next 300-400 years, sharply renewed warming from about 800 AD led to an important warm epoch.

.

 

Medieval Warming Period

Lamb had no doubt that the MWP was real and global.

Evidence already cited at various places in this volume suggests that, for a few centuries in the Middle Ages, the climate in most parts of the world regained something approaching the warmth of the warmest postglacial times.

He cites many examples in Europe and North America which indicate warmer temperatures than now.

  • The northern limit of vineyards with a long history of cultivation lay some 300-500 km north of the limit of commercial vineyards in the 20thC.
  • In many parts of England there are traces of medieval tillage far above anything attempted in the present century, even in wartime: up to 350 m above sea level on Dartmoor and 320 m in Northumberland.
  • The tree line and upper limits of various crops on the hills of Central Europe were higher than today.
  • Mining operations at high levels in the Alps which had long been abandoned were reopened, and water supply ducts were built to take water from points which were subsequently overrun by glaciers and are in some cases still under ice.
  • In Central Norway the area of farming spread 100-200m up valleys and hillsides from 800 – 1000 AD, only to retreat just as decisively after 1300 AD.
  • The Viking colonies in W and SW Greenland were able to bury their dead sheep in soil that has since been permanently frozen.
  • It was also a warm period generally from N Mexico to N Canada, where forest remnants between 25 and 100 km north of the present limit have been found, radio carbon dated between 880 and 1140 AD.

[Recent studies, that have found evidence that Alaskan glaciers were smaller in the MWP than now, tie in with this North American conclusion.]

But as Lamb makes clear, the warming was not limited to the Northern Hemisphere.

  • Holloway (1954) has reported evidence from the forest composition of a warmer climate in South Island, New Zealand, between about 700 AD and 1400 AD, than in the centuries before and after.
  • On the coast of East Antarctica, at Cape Hallett, a great modern penguin rookery seems, from radiocarbon dating tests, to have been first colonised between about 400 and 700 AD, presumably during a phase of improving climate, and to have been occupied ever since.

Little Ice Age

Lamb has this to say about the extent of the LIA.

The period we are discussing has been dubbed “The Little Ice Age” because, not only in Europe but in most parts of the world, the extent of snow and ice on land and sea seems to have attained a maximum as great as, or in most cases greater than, at any time since the last major ice age.

Lamb also recognises that there were timing differences between the two hemispheres when he points out

On the whole the culmination seems to have come earlier in the NH, particularly in N America, the Arctic and China/Japan, and later in the SH, where the maximum advance of the glaciers in Chile seems to have been in the 18thC and the greatest extent of ice on the Antarctic Ocean may have been as late as around 1900.

There was, however, an important late climax of the Arctic sea ice around Iceland between 1780 and 1830, and many glaciers in the Alps reached their greatest extent towards 1850.

He sums this period up very well.

The course of the climatic deterioration over 500 years from 1200 AD can quite well be traced by its effects under the following headings.

  1. Increasing spread of the Arctic sea ice into all the northernmost Atlantic and around Greenland, forcing the abandonment of the old sailing routes to Greenland, which had been used from 1000-1300 AD.
  2. Advances of the inland ice and permafrost in Greenland and of glaciers in Iceland, Norway and the Alps.
  3. Lowering of the treeline on the heights in Central Europe and the Rockies.
  4. Increasing wetness of the ground and spread of lakes and marshes in many places in North, West and Central Europe, and all over Northern Russia and Siberia.
  5. Increasing frequency of the freezing of rivers and lakes.
  6. Evidence of increasing severity of the windstorms and resulting sea floods and disasters by shifting sand.
  7. In the records of harvest failure.
  8. In the records and archaeology of abandoning crop growing, tillage and vineyards, abandoned farms and villages.
  9. In the incidence of disease and death among human and animal populations.

As to the causes, Lamb explains

It is reasonable to consider the whole sequence, from about the time of Christ, through the early medieval warm centuries and the cold climate that followed, to our own times, as an oscillation on the same time scale, and possibly of basically the same nature, as the Bolling & Allerod oscillations in Late Glacial Times, the Piora oscillation [around 3000 BC], and the Bronze Age and early Iron Age changes in the last 4000 years.

[For further information on the LIA, I would recommend Brian Fagan’s excellent book “The Little Ice Age].

In Parts II and III, we will look at how climate changed during the 20th Century, what the future had in store, and the impact of man on the climate.

I believe that the book is currently out of print, but a new publication is due out in December from Routledge.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
climatereason
Editor
June 24, 2012 4:14 pm

jayhd
Phil Jones is much maligned, he is very knowlegable on the basics.
He helped edit this book which is really excellent;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Climate-Memories-Phil-Jones/dp/0306465892
I think he is more ambivalent about the real extent of warming than is often portrayed, but painted himself into a bit of a corner with his need to maintain his reputation as a leading player. I wonder if a number of leading climatologists such as him are secretly wishing they hadnt been quite so forthright in their beliefs before temperatures stabilised.
tonyb

Peter Miller
June 24, 2012 4:30 pm

Hubert Lamb was a climate scientist.
Today, they are almost all ‘climate scientists’ motivated by things other than the honesty of true science, such as fame, comfortable lifestyles, the demands of their political masters and the modern day environmentalist industry.

June 24, 2012 5:06 pm

Neville says, June 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm:
Our present slight warming of 0.7C ( last 100+ years) comes after the end of a minor ice age, so what is unusual or unprecedented about this increase in temp?
I don’t know why this figure of a 0.7degC warming in the past 100 years persists. The actual figure is 0.41degC/century of warming over the whole 150 years of the instrumental record. See:
http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempsworld.html
Why exaggerate the reality? It has been warming by a much smaller amount than skepics widely quote.

mysteryseeker
June 24, 2012 5:06 pm

Thank-you to Dr. Tim Ball for enlighteneing us all on the very good work that Dr. Lamb accomplished during his illustrious career. signed, Rod Chilton.

Louis Hooffstetter
June 24, 2012 5:08 pm

Sir Isaac Newton said (paraphrased): “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Phil Jones is a disgrace to everything Dr. Lamb stood for. Not only did The Team miss the opportunity to stand on Dr. Lamb’s shoulders, they’ve made a concerted effort to cut his legs out from under him. Were he alive and publishing today, they would likely be pushing to have his doctorate degree revoked for blasphemy against their Gospel:
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2009/12/miffed-climatologists-want-uw-madison-to-revoke-global-warming-skeptics-phd/

Robert of Ottawa
June 24, 2012 5:10 pm

I like the use of historical evidence, rather than hysterical models. It was ultimately the historical evidence that convinced me the Warmistas were plain wrong and deliberately ignored natural variability because they were paid by governments to perpetrate a lie.

nofreewind
June 24, 2012 6:19 pm

Here’s a nice picture of tree stumps in Alaska that were uncovered during the recent glacier revession. The tree were growing about 3000 BC according to the article.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vbWLK5dTl2NWQzYzNkOGMtMDg0Yi00MWRmLTk5MTMtNTczMGU5YjU0NDdj/edit?authkey=COqm8-gP&pli=1

Khwarizmi
June 24, 2012 6:57 pm

dp says:
Cooler and wetter. Colder and more storms. That is definitely not what we are deluged with today.
=================
This is because in the brave new world order of post-modern “science,” reality only exists as a social construct. It works like this…
Why is it so cold?
Why is it so wet.
More snow. More wet.
Winter blast arrives early.
Freezing conditions again.
More freezing conditions.
Ice, Ice, and More Ice.
More snow, More ice.
—>Study reveals: Hottest year ever!
See for yourself:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2010

Anthony Scalzi
June 24, 2012 7:03 pm

phlogiston says:
June 24, 2012 at 2:35 pm
There seems to be a shortening wavelength of oscillation between warm an cold periods:

Is it not perhaps just an artifact what we can observe from ice cores and the like, with the older portions of the record in poorer shape such that only larger oscillations can be observed?

FrankK
June 24, 2012 7:32 pm

David Socrates says:
June 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Neville says, June 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm:
Our present slight warming of 0.7C ( last 100+ years) comes after the end of a minor ice age, so what is unusual or unprecedented about this increase in temp?
I don’t know why this figure of a 0.7degC warming in the past 100 years persists. The actual figure is 0.41degC/century of warming over the whole 150 years of the instrumental record. See:
http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempsworld.html
Why exaggerate the reality? It has been warming by a much smaller amount than skepics widely quote.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Yes I agree with the exaggeration David. But of course the rate of warming depends directly on the starting point of the linear fit. In your example it is 0.41 deg C per Century. But look at the graph that is Figure 1 in :
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
for the UK Central temperature record from 1659 to 2010. It shows a warming rate linear fit of 0.24 Deg C per Century. That result is interesting as I have also plotted this temperature record independently some time ago with exactly the same result. So over more than 350 years the temperature has risen 0.8 to 0.9 Deg C, not necessarily over 100 years but over about 350 years since the little Ice Age (LIA). The more recent rise since the second half of the 20th century is an increase superimposed on this longer term trend from the end of the LIA and is the rising limb that can be attributed more to Pacific Decadal Oscillation periodicity than any other cause, that has now reached a “peak” (flatlined) and appears to heading for a decline.
Clearly the obsession has been about the most recent (late 20th century) rising limb in the temperature record but its attribution to CO2 is clearly flawed given its not following the CO2 trend.

RobertInAz
June 24, 2012 8:06 pm

This 2009 presentation by Lindzen is worthy of re-emphasis. Posted on WUWT back in 2009.
Q&A at the end is illustrative.
“…the field is corrupt…..” “..the students are aware of it, but they cannot bring it up ….”

FrankK
June 24, 2012 8:44 pm

PS to my post Above to David. Socrates
Of course just to put another “spanner” (US wrench) in the warmists works go look at recent post at Jonova site and see what the South –East Australian temperatures were doing from the late 1800’s to recently:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/has-north-victoria-cooled-not-warmed-and-is-that-a-solar-cycle-signal-we-see/
Sure, there is again a average temp rising limb from mid 20 century but overall from the late 1800’s there has been a 0.5 Deg C drop. This applies for a range of weather stations in the region.
Looks like they’ll need to “adjust” down the pre 20th century temps to match the computer models!! /sarc. Post modern science – fit and filter the data to the theory.

Owen in Ga
June 24, 2012 8:45 pm

Looking into the deep future when this quasi bistable attractor heads for the real warm attractor after bouncing around near the cold attractor for a while (geologically of course), will the future climate scientists, imbued with an overweening sense of human infallibility, assume that we are thus influencing the setting of this position. Chaos (deterministic or otherwise) won’t care.
I do wonder about the bistable nature of these chaos plots though, is it that the Earth’s climate is a bistable system, or is it that the big yellow thing in the daytime sky is a bistable system. I don’t think we have enough evidence to conclude anything about cause and effect relationships for the phenomena at hand. Both things could be caused by an unseen third or fourth (or fifth, sixth seventh…ad infinitum) phenomena we haven’t even discovered yet.

FrankK
June 24, 2012 8:48 pm

Should read:
“‘adjust’ down the late (from 1950) 20 century temps to match…………”.

FrankK
June 24, 2012 8:50 pm

Goodness me I’ll get it right this time.
20 century temps pre 1950. There.

phlogiston
June 24, 2012 9:59 pm

Owen in Ga says:
June 24, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Looking into the deep future when this quasi bistable attractor heads for the real warm attractor after bouncing around near the cold attractor for a while (geologically of course), will the future climate scientists, imbued with an overweening sense of human infallibility, assume that we are thus influencing the setting of this position. Chaos (deterministic or otherwise) won’t care.
Are you referring to the future jump back up to 22C, the mean temp for most of the phanerozoic, from the present 12 C, the periodic lower attractor? Some have commented that the dip to 12C occurs every 150 million years, roughly our galaxy’s orbit time, so we could for instance just be orbiting through some dirty space with more cosmic rays a.k.a. Svensmark. But it does also have the appearence of an attractor. One dominant factor in global temps is the continental configration, and its effect on ocean currents. Our cold epoch probably wont be ended until the current Arctic configuration is disrupted, and also for something to block the Antarctic circumpolar current.

The iceman cometh
June 24, 2012 11:23 pm

Reading this portion of Lamb’s work makes me realize where the IPCC originally got its first temperature reconstruction from – the one that showed the MWP and that they seem to think was sketched on a paper napkin at a gathering of the clan. Lamb makes so much sense, and backs his claims so magisterially. What a pity the science then went mannic.

June 25, 2012 12:00 am

It is the Lamb’s temperature graph that alerted me to similarity with the changes in the Earth’s magnetic field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HL-GMF.gif
Made some progress since than
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-SH.htm
but with time even climate science may take notice.

June 25, 2012 12:04 am

Reading it, it is like looking at the GISP2 core record.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/11k-GISP2.png

tonyb
June 25, 2012 12:55 am

FrankK
You reference my article showing the longer temperature record and re-emphasise the point I continually make. The 1880 Giss or 1850 Hadley record merely show the CONTINUATION of ‘the long slow thaw’ (since 1660) they do not pick up the start of it.
In my own humble way I attempt to use historical records in my various articles, but unfortunately many scientists sneer at them (warmist bloggers are worse) and insist they are merely ‘anecdotal’ -meant in a pejorative way. Lamb said this just before he died, in his preface to his re-issued book
‘ Climate History and the Modern World.’;
—– —— ——
“The idea of climate change has at last taken on with the public after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant. But it is easy to notice the common assumption that mans science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environnment must be due to us. It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance. Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.”
Hubert Lamb DEC 1994 ”
——- ——
It is good that Paul brings Lamb to the attention of a modern audience, where it is plain to see that his books still have much to tell us.
Tonyb

Stephen Richards
June 25, 2012 1:14 am

phlogiston says:
June 24, 2012 at 2:35 pm
There seems to be a shortening wavelength of oscillation between warm an cold periods:
Lambs work, when building his past climate temperature graph, shows a shorter and shorter warm period as the planet approached the ice ages. So maybe you are right? Who knows?

June 25, 2012 3:26 am

This lay person read Lamb’s book only last week. I found it very easy to follow, and fascinating, As noted above, the climate he dealt with is clearly a very different one to that fabricated by today’s generation of “scientists”. The poor man must be spinning in his grave

John Marshall
June 25, 2012 3:28 am

It would seem that Dr Lamb’s book has its results confirmed by the latest high resolution ice core data sets from Antarctica which show exactly as he describes.

June 25, 2012 3:51 am

FrankK says, June 24, 2012 at 7:32 pm says: …Yes I agree with the exaggeration David. But of course the rate of warming depends directly on the starting point of the linear fit. In your example it is 0.41 deg C per Century. But look at the graph that is Figure 1 in :
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
for the UK Central temperature record from 1659 to 2010. It shows a warming rate linear fit of 0.24 Deg C per Century.

Excellent, so we are agreed that a global warming rate of 0.7degC/century (as suggested here by Neville, on June 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm) is a wild exaggeration and that a more likely rate is 0.41degC/century as shown here:
http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempsworld.html
All we can hope is that Neville and other skeptics will now note this FACT from the longest global instrumental record (HadCRUT3 Land+Sea) available and use it in the future.
You are so right to say that the mean rate of warming depends critically on the starting point. The 0.4degC/century figure is the mean from 1850 onwards. This is for the simple reason that records before that date are considered doubtful. So finding the linear regression slope over the whole period available is the best we can do with that particular data set.
Of course warmists often prefer a starting date around 1970, a mere 40 year span. I wonder why. Looking again at the graph above, starting at 1970 gives a mean warming rate of 0.6degC over the following 40 years. That is equivalent to a rise of 1.5degC per century – nearly four times steeper that the 0.4degC/century long term average. Warmists then say that this is so anomalous that it must be due to the significant increase in man-made atmospheric CO2 that has occured since World War II, ignoring of course that there was an almost identical rate of rise of 0.5degC in the 40 year period between 1905 and 1945, a period when man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 was comparatively minor.
Referring to the latter 40 year period from 1970, you rightly say: Clearly the obsession has been about the most recent (late 20th century) rising limb in the temperature record but its attribution to CO2 is clearly flawed given it’s not following the CO2 trend. .
Yes, taking the whole 160 year data record and running one’s eye along the red curve (11 year symmetrical running mean) in the chart linked to above, the naturally undulating nature of the temperature record is very obvious, with a roughly 67 year periodicity, and with an up-and-down amplitude of around plus or minus 0.25degC (red dotted tramlines). And just as I have predicted for the last several years, the curve is now turning down again. I predict it will continue to do so for the next 30 years as we experience the next downward cycle of a natural climate oscillation.
Just as it did between 1880 and 1910.
And just as it did between 1940 and 1970.
So the moral of this story is that if you cherry pick short intervals on the global mean temperature data set you can prove almost anything. Statistically, therefore, the only sensible thing to do is to take the mean over the longest possible range which in this case is the full 161 year period from 1850. And then look at the underlying oscillations about that mean and come to a sensible view on whether or not they are natural. I think most skeptics have long ago come to the correct and sensible view.
Concerning your reference to Tony Brown’s article on the Central England Temperature record, yes this certainly does show an even lower rate of 2.4degC/century – a figure that I also support here:
http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempscentralengland.html
However the CET is a regional average, not a global average, and so will be heavily pounced on by warmists who are increasingly desparate to grasp at straws. (Likewise, with reference to your later post on the South East Australia temperature record.)
So I suggest it is best to stick with the 0.4degC/century which, being a sufficiently trivial temperature rise per century to neutralise alarmism, is probably a better standard measure to use for the most likely long term rise in global mean temperature.

phlogiston
June 25, 2012 5:32 am

Anthony Scalzi says:
June 24, 2012 at 7:03 pm
phlogiston says:
June 24, 2012 at 2:35 pm
There seems to be a shortening wavelength of oscillation between warm an cold periods:

Is it not perhaps just an artifact what we can observe from ice cores and the like, with the older portions of the record in poorer shape such that only larger oscillations can be observed?
The degree of agreement between various cores (Vostok, Law etc.) on the major warming and cool periods would seem to argue against such a poor condition of the ice core temporal record, although if this is true it would seriously undermine the value of the ice cores. I thought the problem with ice cores was the most recent century or two where contamination from the surface was possible, not the record further back – although of course dislocation/shearing is a problem for the older records.

Verified by MonsterInsights