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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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/