1709; The Disparate Economic And Political Impact of Weather And Climate

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 Report claimed that neither the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) nor the Little Ice Age (LIA) occurred. They created the ‘hockey stick’ graph to prove their point. It wasn’t produced specifically to eliminate those climate periods but to show that today was warmer than “ever” before and that most of the increase occurred in the 20th century. Their nemesis was a graph presented in the 1990 Report (Figure1).


Figure 1: Graph 7c from the 1990 IPCC Report

The dotted line on the graph is the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1000 years. The ‘hockey stick’ allowed them to claim the 20th century as anomalous. They had to eliminate the natural temperature increase from the nadir of the LIA in 1680. They also rejected historical evidence of the events, but the facts don’t go away. Their scientific manipulations were exposed, although few understood or realized the gravity. Others refuse to face facts, as Paul Ehrlich’s mindless review of Mark Steyn’s book attests. However, few are familiar with the historic evidence because most don’t read history, fewer read climate history and most don’t know how much climate changes. If you are 80 years old, you have lived through four climate changes; the warming from 1900 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1980, the warming from 1980 to 2000 and the slight cooling from 2000 to the present. There are individual years within each period that had a significant impact. The summer of 1934, the winter of 1936, the winter of 1947 and so on.

Historic Reports

The year 1709 is one that stands out during the LIA. It was a particularly cold year in a long cold spell. Gabriele Bella (1733 -99) painted his vision of people cavorting on a frozen lagoon in 1708 (Figure 1).


Figure 1; Ven(ice)? 1708

People were painfully aware of the cold conditions. To help them cope the Reverend John Shower gave and published a sermon in 1695 titled, “Winter Meditations: or, a Sermon concerning Frost, and Snow, and Winds, &c.” He produced a second edition in 1709 (Figure 2).


Figure 2. John Shower’s Sermon.

England was hard hit in what they called The Great Frost. The impact was greater in France where they called it Le Grand Hiver. Estimates place related deaths in France, mostly due to famine, to 600,000 by the end of 1710. Of course, the famine did not affect Francoise-Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Orleans, who only complained of the cold. She wrote,

“I am sitting by a roaring fire, have a screen before the door, which is closed, so that I can sit here with a sable fur piece around my neck and my feet in a bearskin sack and I am still shivering with cold and can barely hold the pen. Never in my life have I seen a winter such as this one,”


Today we call these “first world problems.” The Duchess died of natural causes in 1749 so missed a likely unnatural death during the French Revolution. The death would have been at the hands of descendants of the peasants who suffered and died while she shivered. Here was what was happening to them, according to a report from Beaune in Burgundy.

“Travelers died in the countryside, livestock in the stables, wild animals in the woods; nearly all the birds died, wine froze in barrels and public fires were lit to warm the poor,”

Naturalists were measuring and observing the conditions. William Derham, a contributor to the Royal Society Philosophical Transactions, recorded a low of -12°C on the night of January 5, 1709. The low temperatures were wide scale because,


People across Europe awoke on 6 January 1709 to find the temperature had plummeted. A three-week freeze was followed by a brief thaw – and then the mercury plunged again and stayed there. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south, and from Russia in the east to the west coast of France, everything turned to ice. The sea froze. Lakes and rivers froze, and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken’s combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travellers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years.


IPCC and ‘hockey stick’ supporters attacked claims about the invalidity of their work saying the MWP and the LIA were, at best, regional. This was based partly on the fact that 7c was for the Northern Hemisphere. However, much historic evidence shows they were global. For example, in New York for April 5, 1709,

The cold is so intense that water thrown upon the ground at noon freezes immediately in NYC.

Notice the comment that “trees exploded”. What does it mean? Derham produced a summary later in the year when he wrote.

Fish froze in the rivers, game lay down in the fields and died, and small birds perished by the million. The loss of tender herbs and exotic fruit trees was no surprise, but even hardy native oaks and ash trees succumbed.


Economic Impact

International trade was stretching around the world as the rich and powerful reached out for opportunities. Creation of the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1670 was a good example. In 1690, the Company London warehouse was full of furs but they were all gone and demand significantly increased after 1710. The furs were for the Duchess of Orleans and her English counterparts. The profits were for the English Royal family and a few select investors. With colonial expansion import of an increasing variety of products created financial opportunities. Every wealthy person wanted part of the trade but also the latest most exclusive item to signify their wealth. Consider the following,

The pineapple made its way to England in the 17th century and by the 18th century, being seen with one was an instant indicator of wealth — a single pineapple could cost the equivalent of $8,000 today. In fact, the fruit was so desirable and rare that consumers often rented a pineapple for the night to show off to fellow party-goers.

Mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni) from the West Indies, especially Jamaica, was one exotic product trying to establish itself in furniture of the houses of the powerful (Figure 3).


Figure 3: Swietenia mahagoni

Most of the furniture in Royal and aristocratic homes across Europe was made from European Walnut (Juglans regia) Figure 4. Walnut, especially Burl Walnut with its fantastic colors and patterns, is still the wood of choice for luxury cars like a Rolls Royce.


Figure 4; European walnut

Naturally, there was resistance to imports of mahogany from Central America by walnut producers. Before1709, walnut was the wood of choice for furniture makers in Europe and the wealthy. It is hard to imagine that few people had even basic furniture. Samuel Pepys’ diaries give a good insight into the amount and value of furniture. He clearly measures his financial and social success by the furniture he can afford. In southern England, where walnut was introduced, along with chestnut trees, during the warmer Roman period, it was not as plentiful but still very much desired.

Estimates claim that the frost killed half the walnut trees. The trees “exploded” when the sap froze and destroyed the cell structure causing large slits in the trunk. Loss of the resource didn’t force an immediate change because furniture producers let the wood mature for up to five years after it was cut; they had a stockpile. This shrunk and forced change when in 1720 France banned exports of walnut. As a result, in 1721 English furniture producers appreciated reduction of tariffs on mahogany from Jamaica under the Naval Stores Act.

The English furniture producers needed a suitable replacement and began pushing for change.

they realised mahogany’s unique properties – its ability to hold finer detail than walnut and its higher comparative strength.


The final stage occurred in 1733 when Sir Robert Walpole (1676 – 1745) eliminated all taxes on imported timber. Walpole is considered the first prime minister. His power and wealth were expressed in the construction of Houghton Hall (Figure 5).


Figure 5: Palladian Architecture of Houghton Hall, Home of Sir Robert Walpole

Much of the furniture, including Walpole’s desk and dining table, are made of mahogany (Figure 6). The furniture and designs from Houghton are so highly regarded that a modern Houghton Furniture Company continues the tradition.


Figure 6: Houghton Hall Dining Room

Maybe when the oil company cheque arrives, I will be able to afford such luxuries, but I still will not be able to vote for who leads the country. Canada has a new Prime Minister, chosen by a Liberal Party that received only 39 percent of the vote. It is a continuance of the aristocratic patronage practiced by the Duchess of Orleans and Walpole. The Liberal Party chose the Prime Minister because they know what is best for the citizens. His energy policies for Canada parallel those of Ontario so the people will be left out in the cold once again.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Antero Järvinen
November 18, 2015 1:59 am

Hi Tim,
Thank you for a very interesting post! As a Finn I would like to draw your attention to another but more recent cold event which happened in 1939-40. Prof. Ole Humlum in Climate4you tells the story were well here:
Best, Antero Jarvinen

Reply to  Antero Järvinen
November 18, 2015 5:52 am

On the flip side, I’m just reading Gerhard Herm’s book “The Celts,” published in 1975, which in chapters 5-7 goes into a GREAT DEAL of detail about the Bronze Age warm period, clearly stating repeatedly that it was “much warmer than today” and giving myriad examples. He also clearly states that the migration of “northern barbarians” into the Mediterranean area when the warm times ended were clearly driven by the COOLING caused droughts, crop failures, etc.
This is a common history book which like many others can be found in any library.
The only people the alarmists can put their nonsense over on are those seriously lacking an education in ancient history!

Bryan A
Reply to  Goldrider
November 18, 2015 6:38 am

In Paris
Le Grande (s)Hiver

Reply to  Goldrider
November 18, 2015 8:13 am

A great book! I have read it twice and am working on it for a third time. This time I am Googling the places and things mentioned to see what they are like today.
In addition, the reference to trees exploding, this occurs when the warm growing season is followed by a quick, very cold time. The trees do not have time to become dormant, so the sap is still in the cambium layer and moisture is in the adjacent wood. this happened last year in Central Oregon. Temperature went from mild to 12 below zero in only a day or so. All the grafted fruit and ornamental trees died because the graft limited how fast the tree could enter dormancy. Many of our trees died because the bark exploded and let the unprotected cambium layer dry out.
I suspect the world wide cold was not a constant cold, but changed from warm to very cold very rapidly.

Reply to  Goldrider
November 18, 2015 8:53 am

In talking of this period it is useful to then tie in the very warm 1730’s as another example of rapid climate change
This from a 2005 paper by Jones and Briffa about the very warm period noted in old records and especially CET;
” The year 1740 is all the more remarkable given the anomalous warmth of the 1730s. This decade was the warmest in three of the long temperature series (CET, De Bilt and Uppsala) until the 1990s occurred. The mildness of the decade is confirmed by the early ice break-up dates for Lake Malaren and Tallinn Harbour. The rapid warming in the CET record from the 1690s to the 1730s and then the extreme cold year of 1740 are examples of the magnitude of natural changes which can potentially be recorded in long series. Consideration of variability in these records from the early 19th century, therefore, may underestimate the range that is possible.”
Phil Jones has written several good books on historic climate and is somewhat more sceptical than some might think. In recent years the Met Office has also moved away from their notion of a steady climate until mans influence from 1900, to one in which natural variability is somewhat more centre stage. The biggest Hockey Stick in the CET series from 1659 (and there are several) is the period noted in the article and not the modern period.
It is an interesting paper – the title is ‘UNUSUAL CLIMATE IN NORTHWEST EUROPE DURING THE PERIOD 1730 TO 1745 BASED ON INSTRUMENTAL AND DOCUMENTARY DATA’. Jones and Biffa. Revised version published 2006.
They note that CET and other sources indicate a series of mild years in the 1730s, with the period 1729–1738 0.3C below the average for the last ten years before publication. But then came 1740, when temps plummeted 2.4C to give the coldest year in the entire series, famine in Ireland, and featuring the coldest May and October in the record. Somebody bent the hockey stick back on itself.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Antero Järvinen
November 18, 2015 12:40 pm

That map for the winter 39 – 40 looks very similar to Joe Bastardi and weatherbell’s forecast for this winter. Certainly across the US

Reply to  Antero Järvinen
November 21, 2015 8:34 am

Not only in 39/40 but continuing till and incl. 41/42

November 18, 2015 2:09 am

Here’s how to tie the climate summit, terrorism and womens rights into a political campaign. http://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/pause-stand-together-then-make-paris-climate-summit-more-important-ever/

Wm. Thomson
November 18, 2015 2:42 am

-12 degrees C equals 10 degrees F. The Celcius temperature scale was set in 1742 so I think maybe Mr Derham recorded a temperature of -12 F. on Jan. 5, 1709.

Reply to  Wm. Thomson
November 18, 2015 5:08 am

Yes, I was wondering about that, too. -12 Degrees C wouldn’t be that uncommon in France.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 5:21 am

I’m pretty sure -19C was recorded at Gatwick Airport (Southern England) in 1985/1986.

richard verney
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 5:52 am

I can remember a night in Shropshire in the late 1970s/maybe early 1980s where temperatures of -20degC were recorded. I spent about an hour (probably around 2am to 3 am) warming up my car before driving back home. It was very very cold.
I can remember a night in Norway (close to the Swedish boarder) which was -29degC. Strangely, it did not seems as cold as the night in Shropshire, no doubt to less humidity, but my car doors were frozen solid, and I thought that I would rip out the door handles when trying to open it. I had to push the car, which was in gear with the handbrake on, into a barn and apply some serious heat Of course, the ground was so icy, it was not so difficult to push the car.
In those conditions you need to be well prepared, as disaster can quickly creep up on you. Personally, I do hope that we get this promised global warming since warm is good, and cold is bad. God knows why people fear a warming world especially since there has been little warming in the equatorial/tropical regions, and most of the warming is at high Northern Latitudes, particularly at night and with less cold and shorter winters. Sounds a much better climate pattern to me.

Maureen Matthew
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 5:58 am

Richard – those temperatures are common on the Canadian prairies. -35 or -40C in January is the usual wakeup temperatures and it doesn’t get much warmer when the sun does come up around 8:30 a.m. and sets at 4:30 p.m. Add a small wind chill (and the wind blows always on the prairies as there is no land feature to stop it) and you will hear on the radio warnings that exposed flesh will freeze in 30 seconds. If you don’t plug your car in (via a block heater), the engine block will be frozen and good luck starting your car!

Reply to  Wm. Thomson
November 18, 2015 7:55 pm

It’s possibly Reaumer. That still comes out to only -15C or 5F.

Ivor Ward
November 18, 2015 2:57 am

Another excellent article by Dr Ball.
His statement:”… a Liberal Party that received only 39 percent of the vote…” is, unfortunately, the indicator of a true democracy. A third of the electorate don’t bother to vote at all and the other two thirds vote in diametrically opposite ways. However this is better than the 100% majorities found in North Korea and other totalitarian states. In the Afghan election 119% of the electorate voted. The alternative is the gun and bomb as we have seen in the middle East. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government except all the other forms.

Reply to  Ivor Ward
November 18, 2015 5:15 am

Well, another alternative is proportional representation. In Canada, as in other electoral systems base on the British one, each electoral district elects the candidate with the most votes, and the votes for all other candidates/parties are simply discarded.
Canada’s recently elected prime minister has announced plans to reform the electoral system, which may come down to the introduction of proportional representation, so Dr. Ball’s legitimate complaint may soon be addressed.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 7:02 am

Proportional representation is no more fair. It is simply unfair in different ways. The blg problem in a multi party system is PR almost certainly prevents anyone from gaining a majority.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 7:14 am

Trudeau got about the same proportion of the popular vote as Stephen Harper got in the last election. Then, there was a great hue and cry about the unfairness of it all. This time, barely a peep.
Trudeau may have said that he will change the system, but really, why would he when it has served him so well? He would not be prime minister today if the system had been proportional representation.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 8:26 am

You can be sure the liberals wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t best for them. Immigration policy by progressives is a similar vote accumulating activity and damn future demographics.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 9:42 am

Proportional representation gives the party bosses more power.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 11:41 am

Be careful what you wish for! There are many forms of proportional representation, and all suffer from one or other problems and faults. We have MMP in New Zealand, which forces coalitions even when only one party polls massive support, as has the National (conservative) Party at present. This system was designed to prevent a Hitler-type ever coming into power in post-war Germany, but it leads to “tail wagging the dog” when minor parties hold the balance of power, and undue power to the party apparatchik who control who goes on the unelected party list that makes up half of the parliament, and thereby have an easy run to power, but are forever indebted to the party. So you get completely incompetent MPs and power to one issue parties. So we have a Green Party who busily trying to wreck the economy in their pursuit of a cooler world and the destruction of the benign capitalism that is the norm in NZ.
And MMP would fail in its fundamental purpose as it would never prevent a dictatorship – it was a legal coalition after all that enabled Hitler to seize power in Germany.
If you want insane economic policies then institute proportional representation.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 12:57 pm

Monna Manhas you are incorrect, Trudeau would have still been elected under a proportional representation in the last election, but there would have been more conservative, ndp, and green MP’s elected, so the liberal’s would not necessarily have a majority. With proportional voting, there is no need to vote strategically, so with that in mind the result could have been completely different. Details here on a CBC segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laUPeXZlPEg

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 1:02 pm

As a Canadian opposed to proportional rep. I have to say that I am confused as to how the introduction of this electoral system by a government which received only 39% support is in any way democratic. Surveys have consistently shown that there is no majority support for this policy. If there was, a private member’s bill could be introduced at any time, by a member of any party-to pass this into law. A bunch of Canadian hot air is the only connection to global warming here

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2015 6:31 pm

I fear Trudeau will enact all kinds of Liberal global warming legislation and other Liberal nonsense and THEN change it to PR, thereby ensuring those catastrophic laws can’t be repealed until the greater damage is done. I feel he would sacrifice his own chance to get a majority again to “the cause”.

Reply to  Ivor Ward
November 18, 2015 7:35 am

I recall reading a comment, long ago, that during the American revolution, a third of citizens were opposed to separation, another third supported it, and a remaining third didn’t care one way or the other. Perhaps that’s the “normative” distribution of political opinion for human populations. It does seem many elections are closely decided by a minority when voting isn’t required by law.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  bh2
November 18, 2015 10:13 am

How would forcing those who don’t care about voting help? If forced to vote, would they care who got their vote? Many would probably vote for whomever promised them the most benefits.

Reply to  bh2
November 18, 2015 10:38 am

“Many would probably vote for whomever promised them the most benefits.”
Isn’t that what most do now?

Reply to  Ivor Ward
November 18, 2015 11:54 am

Trudeau got the urban votes where the most seats/ridings are located.
Urban residents don’t know, care much, or are scared about climate change issues.

Reply to  Barbara
November 18, 2015 6:45 pm

Parliament of Canada
Edited Hansard Number 101
Thursday, February 1, 2007
House of Commons Debates
Volume 141, No.101, 1st Session, 39th Parliament
Government Orders
Opposition Motion, The Environment
Hon. Stephane Dion
Scroll down to:
His remarks on Canadian Environmental issues and what should be done.
Compare what Stephane Dion said back in 2007 with his position on the Environment and Climate Change now.
Sustainability and climate change in Canada goes back to the UN Rio 92 conference chaired by Maurice Strong.
A government is now in place to carry out the UN Rio 92 agenda.

Reply to  Barbara
November 18, 2015 7:47 pm

In Dion’s remarks to Parliament he mentions Steven Guilbeault, Greenpeace Quebec.
Steven Guilbeault is a co-founder of Equitierre Quebec and now on the Steering Committee of Tar Sands Solutions Network. Was with Greenpeace Canada and Greenpeace International for 10 years.

Reply to  Ivor Ward
November 18, 2015 2:39 pm

In Australia we have a two perty preference system. Ie votes from lowest get redistributed to those left until only two remain. A couple years ago the rep. From motor-enthusiasts party got in with 0.6%of primary vote.

Reply to  Ivor Ward
November 19, 2015 6:33 am

“…a Liberal Party that received only 39 percent of the vote.”
It’s not even 39% if you take into account the turnout rate which was 69%. Which means it was only 27% of canadians who voted for the Liberal Party. 27% and this buffoon gets a blank check for the next 4 years?
The Liberal candidate who was elected here received 32% of the vote which means that 68% of those who voted don’t have any representation in the parliament. Their votes ended up in the garbage can. Anyone who thinks this kind of situation is a “true democracy” isn’t thinking clearly. There’s something fundamentally wrong with this electoral system.

November 18, 2015 3:04 am

Thank you Dr. Ball.
I am sure you are well familiar with the following, but might be of interest to some of the readers of your excellent essay.
UK MetOffice has temperature data for Central England going back to 1659.
As far as the regional warming, analysis of data shows that there are two distinct months: June and January.
– June shows absolutely no warming whatsoever during past 355 years.
– January shows the greatest degree of warming of just under 0.5C/century.
– All other months fall in between, with summers showing low and winters the higher degree of warming
Going back to January, the period up to 1830 temperatures were still declining at significant 0.27C/century, while all of the warming occurred since 1830 (the end of LIA?) at a rate just under 0.7C/century, which is nearly 2.5 times rate of the overall CET’s annual rate of warming.
(click on the graph to enlarge)
By far the greatest proportion of warming has occurred in the winter months, consequently it has been of the great economic and social benefits to the local population.

Antero Järvinen
Reply to  vukcevic
November 18, 2015 3:20 am

UHI visible in winter temperatures!? Antero

Reply to  vukcevic
November 18, 2015 3:40 am

Great information. Do you know why winters have been warming and summers have not been warming?
I have been analyzing USHCN stations in North Carolina and many of them show declining Maximum temperatures and increasing Minimum temperatures.
In insights into this would be appreciated.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  ItsGettingHotinHereSo
November 18, 2015 5:29 am

Do you know why winters have been warming and summers have not been warming?

The answer to your question in stated in vukcevic’s post, to wit: “while all of the warming occurred since 1830 (the end of LIA?)
The temperature of the ocean waters have been slowly warming back up post- LIA 1830 ….. and the near-surface “wintertime” land temperatures are simply “following suite”.
England, northern Europe and Scandinavia ESPECIALLY, ….. depend upon the “warm” waters of the Gulf Stream to keep from freezing to death or dying of starvation.
And the ocean water is still “warming” to this day and thus the “wintertime” temperatures are still increasing ………. but not the “summertime” temperatures.

Reply to  ItsGettingHotinHereSo
November 18, 2015 2:08 pm

So why would winters be warmer and not the summers? Would’nt warming oceans effect both seasons?

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  ItsGettingHotinHereSo
November 19, 2015 5:58 am

So why would winters be warmer and not the summers?

Thermal “heat” energy always transfers from “hot” to ”cold”, …. “warm” to ”cool”, … NOT “cold” to ”hot”.
During “wintertime” the ocean water is “warmer” than the near surface air temperature therefore the thermal “heat” energy transfers from the water to the air resulting in “warmer winters”.
During “summertime” the near surface air temperature is “hotter” than the ocean water therefore the thermal “heat” energy transfers from the air to the water resulting in a “warming of the ocean water”.
Because of the horrendous volume of water in the ocean …. its “warming” is an extremely slow process.
Note: The Medevial Warm Period “warmed” up the ocean waters …. but then the Little Ice Age “cooled” the ocean waters …… and now the Late 20th Century (Modern) Warm Period is “warming” them up again.

Reply to  vukcevic
November 18, 2015 5:03 am

Antero & IGHHS,
January is the UK’s coldest month of the year, UHI certainly should not be ignored.
Invention by Sir Humphrey Davy of a safety lamp in 1815 meant that a miners could have light underground but without having to use the exposed flame of a candle, greatly reducing the risk of explosions. Winter coal heating and its use in the industrial revolution may be an important factor.
England’s coal production in millions of tonnes:
1700 2.7
1750 4.7
1800 10
1850 50
1900 250

richard verney
Reply to  vukcevic
November 18, 2015 6:08 am

Very good info.
Before I had seen your post, I made a similar observation but very general observation in the final paragraph of a response that I posted at richard verney November 18, 2015 at 5:52 am.
Being lazy, and probably you have this information to hand, I recall reading that CET winter temperatures (I presume that this is the 3 month period between December to February) have fallen by more than 1 degC, perhaps by almost 1.5degC this century.
In your plot, that covers only December temperatures, you can see a substantial drop in temperatures as from 2000. Do you have at hand, the info for the winter season (December to February) as from 2000 onwards? Whilst this is only a short period, and whilst I do not like reading much into short time series data, it may be indicative of colder times coming to and around the Arctic, and perhaps a regrowth of some of the ice.

Reply to  richard verney
November 18, 2015 12:07 pm

Hi Mr. Verney
You are correct, the CET’s winter (DJF) shows rapid decline since 2000, the trend line is – 0.094, or fall of just under 1C/decade. However, this is not unusual, such declines are relatively regular, there were two or three during the last century, usually followed by equally rapid rise.
p.s. the above graph shows the CET-January (not December).

Reply to  richard verney
November 18, 2015 7:34 pm

Take a look at this glimpse of arctic region conditions several times a day…http://www.weather-forecast.com/maps/Arctic?symbols=none&type=lapse
The deep cold shown had been increasing in breadth rapidly over the last 3 weeks. Just in the last week, the purple regions spread across Alaska and as can be seen now, the deep cold is penetrating further east into Canada. Plus, take a look at Eurasia which is looking seriously cold for this time of year.

November 18, 2015 3:34 am
November 18, 2015 3:39 am

The MWP and LIA have been confirmed as world wide based on drilling that show the types of pollen from plants that are hardier during cold periods and plants that live when it is warmer. Ironically, the science is settled.
The examples of historical warmth and cold are many, and world wide. The IPCC chose for the purpose of promoting CAGW to ignore them. How could they have connected co2 with temperature if other time periods had warmer and colder climates? They would have had to have shown additional co2 and where it was or how produced.
The trick was to flat line temperature along with co2 levels. Of course the mystery only deepens when considering how large the sink of co2 is today. By today’s sink of co2, if we weren’t adding co2, plant death would have occurred years ago. So, has there every been a sink in history as large as this one, or is there a natural variations that has stopped producing co2. Indeed, calculating co2 produced, the sink is eating into man made co2 at an increasing rate.
Maybe the IPCC reconstruction of temperature and co2 levels are both wrong. And having nothing do with each other. As evidenced by yearly increases in co2 levels and what has to be a disappointing rise in temperature for the IPCC. The math doesn’t allow for nearly 20 years of basically flat lined temperature. It looks like the only way they even got a slight rise was to cool the past and raise the present.
This settled science is going to haunt just not the western world but all of us for a long time. If there is something of consequence that we find after this, it will be difficult to make a case. The CAGW crowd has used every thing they could dream up to make this a fact for political reasons. The use of the term deinier from the beginning stands out. They deftly combined a argument of warming temperature with co2. If you agreed that it was warmer, you agreed with the entire stance. If you disagreed you looked like you needed a few screws tightened. The 1990s are over, now what?

richard verney
Reply to  rishrac
November 18, 2015 6:52 am

A lot of good points.
Anyone interested in the global nature of the MWP should check out:
Where this is a plethora of papers and articles discussing the extent of the MWP, and that it was not confined to solely the Northern Hemisphere as the IPCC now wishes to infer.
I note that there is a new paper in this line of enquiry: Abu-Zied, R.H. and Bantan, R.A. 2015. Palaeoenvironment, palaeoclimate and sea-level changes in the Shuaiba Lagoon during the late Holocene (last 3.6 ka), eastern Red Sea coast, Saudi Arabia. The Holocene 25: 1301-1312.
It concludes: Based on these observations, and noting that “the LIA lasted for about 300 years and immediately followed the prolonged MWP (~550 years),” Abu-Zied and Bantan concluded that their findings were “indicative of “a quasi-cyclical natural climate variability,” which would thus suggest the Earth’s current period of warmth to be merely a continuation of the natural climatic oscillation that had brought about the MWP and LIA, as well as the prior Roman Warm Period and subsequent Dark Ages Cold Period. And this impressive back-and-forth oscillation of the Earth’s thermal climate suggests that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the Current Warm Period in which we find ourselves imbedded
See more generally: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/nov/a8.php

Reply to  richard verney
November 18, 2015 1:58 pm

Just that information, if acknowledged by the IPCC, would invalidate the AGW Theory. They’ve thrown their entire weight behind co2 levels being constant during those times. They’ve literally left themselves no way out. They also ruled out every other possibility as well.

Reply to  richard verney
November 18, 2015 7:48 pm

Thanks for sharing the links.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  rishrac
November 18, 2015 12:44 pm

Here is a thought that seems to receive little consideration: Atmospheric CO2 levels are simply pursuing an equilibrium value between the atmospheric and oceanic concentrations. This is Le Chatlier’s principle. In view of the vast source/sink qualities of the oceans, it shouldn’t matter what is happening on land. My opinion is that atmospheric CO2 would have the present concentration even if no human beings were on the Earth.

Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
November 18, 2015 1:51 pm

There’s a lot more to this. The IPCC contends that atmospheric co2 is well mixed, yet there is a saw tooth pattern through out the year dependent on the season of the NH. it shouldn’t be there. Next is the dramatic swing in the amount of co2 that is present, it requires not only a bigger sink, but a much bigger release. Much bigger than than the total released in a year in 6 months. Really look at the numbers, they’re wrong. Or something is.

November 18, 2015 3:41 am

The reality is, the global warmists want us to return to the Little Ice Age. Increasingly, they are asserting that conditions back then are ‘normal’ and conditions more like the Medieval Warm Period are evil and bad for survival.
This insane belief is partially due to people who like myself, became an adult during the very cold 1970’s with all those blizzards, etc. When I lived in Tucson, AZ, back then, it was so cold at night in my barely-heated 1900 built shanty, I went to Value Village to buy old fur coats to turn into blankets and so did all my friends. It was COLD.
Then we moved to NYC and I became a super for an apartment building in Brooklyn and the second winter, demanded a bonus for all the snow I had to shovel not just in front but OFF THE ROOF. Roofs were collapsing all over the place due to too much snow.
Now, we are being told, this is ‘best weather for everyone’. Sheesh.

November 18, 2015 3:54 am

Thank you for pointing out a couple of examples where the wording of the reports themselves is so different from what alarmists say was in the reports.
TB is comparing the reality with what alarmists SAY that the reports said.
Another point is that the content of the reports does not accurately reflect the input from the scientists who contributed data and interpretations of that data.
Those scientists were generally far more cautious and doubtful than those vague and weak early IPCC reports suggest.
The original IPCC material distorted the reality then the alarmists further distorted the content of the IPCC reports.
Nowadays the more recent reports are tending to follow the alarmist misinterpretations as if they were new data themselves.
Hopelessly unscientific.

November 18, 2015 3:59 am

Well, I don’t think the UK has elected a Prime Minister with 50.1% of those who voted, much less 50.1% of those eligible to vote, since at least 1951. As soon as you have more than a binary choice, majority is very rare.
But I think your story well illustrates that lawmakers make laws for them and their kind mostly, often under pressure from those rather richer than them.
It’s why the rich don’t tend to want to make the laws. They want those less rich than them who will be given the carrot of becoming slightly richer, but still less rich than their patrons, if they do what they are told.
Britain, with 1000 years of coal under its soil, has now declared death on coal-fired power. It is the financial district’s way of ensuring that manufacturing requiring energy in the UK will die. Of course, their computers for trading pointless derivatives will continue to whizz, but making steel will die. We will be totally dependent on the benevolence of the Indians, the Chinese etc.
The fact that Germany is now building new coal-fired power stations, not to mention the Chinese, is neither here nor there. Our moronic, cretinous politicians do what they are told, and the only question is this: ‘who is telling them to do this’?
My guess is that it is Indian, Chinese billionaires who want tax avoidance schemes in the UK and who might invest a little bit of money if they are awarded them.

November 18, 2015 4:13 am

Canada has a new Prime Minister, chosen by a Liberal Party that received only 39 percent of the vote.

That’s the problem with first-past-the-post.
There are other systems. During the election proportional voting was discussed. It has its drawbacks and, in any event, once a party has obtained a majority it is suddenly silent on the subject. 🙂 The big problem is that many tiny parties get representation. They then get outsized power by holding the bigger parties to ransom in a coalition. Italy and Israel are held up as examples of this.
Exhaustive ballot requires additional votes (with low scoring candidates dropped) until someone gets more than 50%. It gets rid of the vote splitting problem and is more likely than proportional voting to produce a majority.
If Canada had used Exhaustive Ballot, its electoral history would have been very different. Jean Chretien would not have got a free ride and Stephen Harper might not have got his majority.

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2015 5:29 am

During Harper’s minority government the opposition passed a global warming – climate change law that was killed by the senate.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2015 5:36 am

FPTP enables a) stable government b) a government that was directly voted for c) the ability to kick the bums out.
ANY PR system gives a continuous ruling clique, a government that no one directly voted for and the inability to kick the bums out.

richard verney
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2015 7:15 am

I am one of those who do not vote because there is so little genuine difference between the parties, they all lie and reality keeps them in check, and they all appear to be absolutely hopeless and out of touch with the citizens that they are supposed to represent. When difficult issues arise, they have no spine, and offer weasely words that solve nothing at all; as can be seen from the problems facing Europe. I do not like the idea of voting for the lesser of 2 evils, and that is essentially what voting is. You are guided not by who you would like, or who you think is up to the task, but rather by who you dislike or who you think would be a hopeless disaster and vote to keep that person out of office. Not only are politicians not representative of the people, there is no accountability for action taken in holding public office. With power comes responsibility, and those wielding power should be held accountable for policy failure, unless that particular policy has been put as a separate referendum issue, and a majority of citizens has endorsed the specific policy.
But I agree with you that there is a lot to be said for FPTP voting. A coalition represents nobody, and fringe parties who have attracted the least votes, often end up yielding the most power since they turn out to be the make or break power broker making up the necessary numbers. A very distasteful and unrepresentative form of government then ensues dominated by professional technocrats and not by conviction politicians.
In this day and age, we ought to be able to let the people decide on most major policies, on a policy by policy basis. Only Switzerland has some passing resemblance to democracy, In other countries it is an illusion, we just keep on telling ourselves that we have democracy when it is really nothing more than the same oh, same oh all the way down the line no matter which party is in power, no doubt partly because powerful business groups, and powerful NGOs, and powerful charities hold a great deal of influence behind the scenes. Lobbying needs to be greatly curtailed, and not only should there be proper disclosure of financial interest, directorships, trusts and the like, when any issue comes up in which a government representative (Senator, Congressman, MP etc) has some interest his vote should mandatorily be cast in which ever manner is least advantageous to those he has some interest in. That is the only way to avoid conflict of interest.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2015 10:41 am

Richard, I would urge you to vote for the candidate that you really like, assuming there is one, casting a throw away vote won’t affect the outcome anymore than staying home will, but at least if marginal candidates start picking up 5 to 10% of the vote, the major parties will be forced to start paying attention in an effort to get those disaffected voters back on their side.

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2015 5:40 am

New Zealand has a proportional representation system and the smallest parties dropped out fairly quickly (1 electorate win or 5% nation-wide to get in). Currently there are seven parties in Parliament, 2 having 1 MP each. The party with the biggest numbers isn’t being held to ransom by anybody. The system is actually pretty hard on small parties: if you make a deal with the big boys what’s the point of voting for you instead of them, and if you don’t, you don’t get anything done, so what’s the point of voting for you?

Maureen Matthew
Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2015 5:54 am

I’m fine with FPTP as it is easy to understand and elections are easy to run. But what I’m annoyed at is the different slogans that emerge from it, During Harper’s majority his opponents always referenced that 60% of Canadians didn’t vote for him – funny how we don’t hear that so much now that King Justin is in charge, And more to the point – the Conservatives actually got more of the popular vote in 2011 that the Liberals did in the 2015 election. Like the MWP and LIA – that is a fact that will never appear in the MSM!

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2015 6:04 am

British Columbia (a province of Canada were Vancouver is located, the Vancouver to the north of Seattle, not the Vancouver to the north of Portland and south of Seattle) had 2 referendums on Proportional representation and both were rejected.
One of Trudeau’s 300 election promises was to get rid of first past the post. I don’t recall a tanker ban off of British Columbia’s coast being one of the election promises, but it’s happening.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  garymount
November 18, 2015 7:35 am

Trudeau mentioned the tanker ban back in July. It will probably tick off all the First Nations bands in northern BC who support the Eagle Spirit Energy pipeline (their alternative to Northern Gateway). It will also likely “bust” the current economic surge in northwest BC, but who in the Liberal government cares about the economy of northwest BC?
Urban environmentalists have no idea of what life is like outside of the clearcut they live in.

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2015 6:32 am

It’s possible to do exhaustive balloting on a single ballot by having the voters select the candidates in order of preference. Instead of making a single mark for one candidate, the voter can mark his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc choice. If no candidate gets a majority of first place votes, then the candidate with fewest first place votes is eliminated. On those ballots that selected that candidate as first, the 2nd place choice gets promoted to 1st place, and then they check to see if any of the remaining candidates has a majority. If not, the process is repeated until someone does.
An advantage of such a system is that you get to vote for your favorite candidate, even if you don’t think that candidate can win.
With first past the post voting, people will often ignore the candidate that they really like, because friends and the media have convinced them that their candidate can’t win, therefore it’s better to vote for the lesser of evils who can win.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2015 7:43 am

Around the time of the first BC referendum on proportional representation, I read that 40 percent of the adult population in BC is functionally illiterate. My mother-in-law was one of them – an immigrant whose father didn’t believe in educating girls. Someone would go into the voting booth ahead of her and then tell her where the name of her preferred candidate was on the ballot so she could cast her vote.
I said at the time that a more complicated voting system would only disenfranchise her and others like her.

Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2015 10:46 am

She’s already affectively disenfranchised already. If she has to trust someone else to point out where her favorite candidate is, why can’t she trust the same person to point out where her favorite three candidates are?
Staying with a bad system just because a better one would be too complicated for a small percentage of the population sounds like a good argument for competency tests for voters.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2015 3:36 pm

Forty percent of adults is not a small percentage of the population, MarkW. And while your solution (get someone to point out the favourite 3 candidates) seems easy to someone who can read and write, I think it would be a lot more difficult for someone who cannot read and can barely write. It’s one thing to put an “X” in a single box. It’s quite another to write numbers in the correct boxes indicating which is your first, second and third choice.

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2015 6:37 am

One example, from Norway if I remember correctly, has seats assigned to party members at the top of their “lists” of the “best” candidates. Presumably, the list leaders would be major fundraisers for the party. Using that logic, in Canada, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy would be 1 and 2. Gives me some pause, for sure….

November 18, 2015 4:47 am

Many of my greenie friends are in denial about the MWP and the LIA, they claim they happened in the northern hemisphere only. They also deny th 18 year plateau in global temperatures.
Climate alarmists are the true science deniers.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Klem
November 18, 2015 6:17 am

When my greenie friends are in MWP and LIA denial, I usually just show them a globe and ask them where the temperature readings and anecdotal evidence, prevelant in Europe and North American, were supposed to come from in the Southern hemisphere…
Then I sic them on http://co2science.org/subject/g/globaliceage.php, which they will attempt to fob off as an “industry-funded” propaganda website. So then I just give them the links to the papers themselves, which they ignore. You can’t have too much science when you’re actually arguing politics, of course.

John Law
November 18, 2015 4:55 am

Lots of early deniers?
Pity the climate inquisition was not around at the time

Don B
November 18, 2015 4:59 am

“Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century,” by Geoffrey Parker is a detailed overview of the coldest century of the LIA. It was a Global Crisis, not a regional cold spell.

Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2015 5:34 am

Yes, the historical evidence is overwhelming; it is what finalized my view on Global Warming. The Warmistas must demonstrate that any climate changes are NOT of natural causation.
BTW Here in Ottawa, we are having an unusually warm November … and NO ONE is complaining 🙂

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2015 6:07 am

Our local Cypress Mountain near Vancouver, B.C. has more snow now than at any time last winter.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  garymount
November 18, 2015 6:20 am

I guess it would be appropriate to dust off those “the death of the skiing industry” articles from last year…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  garymount
November 18, 2015 7:31 am

Well, last winter’s snowpack in the Pacific Northwest was incredibly low…

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2015 6:19 am

No one is complaining where my brother lives, either (near Huntsville, Ontario): they had almost a meter of snow by the end of last November.
Here in Toronto, we’ve had ONE night below freezing in November (20 all of last year, so it won’t even be close).

richard verney
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2015 7:21 am

In the UK we have had a pleasant October/November, but it is forecast to get cold by the end of the week, about 10degreesC below average, and wide spread snow, even down to the London region, at least on the SE coast.
Let’s see how accurate that forecast is.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  richard verney
November 18, 2015 2:32 pm

Is this a typical pattern for Europe during a strong El Nino?

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2015 8:36 am

Stephane Dion is complaining….
Climate change is the ‘worst threat we are facing this century’: Stephane Dion
Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion says climate change is the “worst threat we are facing this century,” and that current emissions-reduction targets from major emitters don’t go far enough.

Reply to  Cam_S
November 18, 2015 3:35 pm

Former conservative PMs, Campbell & Clark along with Preston Manning, got on-board the global climate agenda and urged a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. This in effect was a big help in removing conservative opposition to this agenda.
The intent was to exchange tar sands oil and pipelines deals for some kind of carbon taxation?
Large sums of money were brought into Canada to kill oil production and pipelines and in the end this may be the case.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2015 9:09 am

In Calgary we were having a warm winter until last night… We had a full out blizzard. It should arrive in Ottawa in 3 to 5 days.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 18, 2015 1:18 pm

Gee, thanks !!

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 18, 2015 8:06 pm

That was due to prolonged surface winds flowing north from the Gulf of Mexico and all the way up through Canada and into the Arctic. That stream shut down around 10 days ago. The result of that was to let surface winds start on an easterly path bringing cold northern winds which are now blowing across your region. Alaska experienced a sharp temp drop around 5 days ago, and how you are getting the same. Almost all of Alaska has been close to 18F below the average ever since. Take a look at this…http://www.weather-forecast.com/maps/Arctic?symbols=none&type=lapse

Jim Berkise
November 18, 2015 5:42 am

Given that the issue is whether or not the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were global, as indicated on the graph (regardless of how the figure was actually numbered) in the 1990 IPCC report, asserting that “evidence does not support” that they were “globally synchronous” differs from TB’s version only in being more direct. If the Medieval Warm Period didn’t happen everywhere at the same time, then in terms of its effect on global average temperature it didn’t happen, Is it possible you’re grasping at straws?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Jim Berkise
November 18, 2015 2:43 pm

Mr. Layman here.
It would seem that to say the MWP was NOT global would require some strong evidence that the Southern Hemisphere was proportionally cooler. A lack of evidence is not strong evidence.
To say the Little Ice Age was was not global would require the same.
Where and what is it?
Vikings didn’t farm the Galapagos Islands during the MWP because they were to cold but they did farm it during the LIA?
“The rings on Mann’s tree go round and round. Round and round the World.”

November 18, 2015 5:43 am

Are CO2 dogmatists going to now burn books and paintings that document past climate trends that tend to falsify their theory?
Hey, maybe the Fire of London never happened either. Maybe the Holocaust didn’t. Who are the “deniers” now?

Maureen Matthew
November 18, 2015 5:50 am

If these periods were ‘regional’ as the global warming crowd claims, then how can there ever be GLOBAL warming? Big surprise – most things are regional and their is NO global climate. So trying to corral governments to spend big money to address global activities is nonsense

November 18, 2015 6:06 am

I’m not sure if this is the right site or if I am arriving late to the party – BUT – regarding that graph showing the medieval warming period. If anyone is interested, then I’m pretty sure that I could reconstruct the temperature record, with none of those unsightly deviations from the x-axis.
Let’s face it, the whole record needs ironing out. For the sake of neatness.
We could quite easily select some arbitrarily chosen “thing from the past” and claim that it shows a strong linkage to temperature.
The weaker the actual link to temperature the better. Because we wouldn’t want the actual temperature creeping into to our analysis and making it inconveniently bumpy.
Even if we get some bumpiness then we could pick a measure with very poor temporal resolution and add lots of these on top of one another until all the bumpiness is gone.
Obviously, we would need to cherry-pick the data and use multiplier weightings – because as a great scientist once said, “you have to pick cherries to make cherry pie”.
If we still have some bumpiness, then we could possibly try adding the data to the negative of itself.
Anyway, just trust me. It can be done. One way or another, I can erase history for cash money.
Anyway, if anyone is interested then please get in touch.
(some sarc in the above).

Caligula Jones
November 18, 2015 6:09 am

You do understand that, like Admiral Nelson, the IPCC didn’t find global confirmation of the MWP and LIA is because they didn’t look, right?

Brett Keane
Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 18, 2015 1:15 pm

Very much so. We have excellent pollen etc records, volcanically-dated, in New Zealand, for instance.

Robert O
November 18, 2015 6:15 am

I recall reading a very old text on the exploration and settlement of Greenland about the 12th. Century: anyhow they had a few good years, but then it was not possible to either come from or return to Iceland due to sea ice and when they finally got back there a century or two later they found all had perished.

November 18, 2015 6:24 am

If the hockey stick was created to show global temperatures as opposed to regional ones, why does it have only a single proxy to cover the entire earth for large periods of time?

Caligula Jones
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2015 12:09 pm

Look up in the sky, its a bird, its a plane…no, its Super Proxy!
Or, in conspiracy-speak, its a Magic Proxy…

Jim Berkise
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2015 5:46 am

Mike Mann and Phil Jones published a paper in 2003 in Geophysical Research Letters aimed at dismissing the MWP (and the LIA by “association”). In “Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia” Vol.30, No.15 , 1820; they address your question in their conclusions thus: “To the extent that a ‘Medieval’ interval of moderately warmer conditions can be defined from about AD 800–1400, any hemispheric warmth during that interval is dwarfed in magnitude by late 20th century warmth. The sparseness of the available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere lead to less definitive conclusions for
the SH or global mean temperature at present.” Nothing to see here, move along.

Reply to  Jim Berkise
November 19, 2015 8:13 pm

“To the extent that a ‘Medieval’ interval of moderately warmer conditions can be defined from about AD 800–1400, any hemispheric warmth during that interval is dwarfed in magnitude by late 20th century warmth. The sparseness of the available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere lead to less definitive conclusions for
the SH or global mean temperature at present.”
Wow, what a big fat lie.
He’s saying it didn’t happen because you don’t have confirming Southern Hemi data annnnnnd
he says it wouldn’t matter anyway because the current warming dwarfs it ? Double lie.
Holy mama jamas.
It’s such a bold lie and so many smart people have to go along with it.
Obviously, they all know it’s a lie.
It’s just too simple.

richard verney
November 18, 2015 6:28 am

Obviously you are right to point out what the text actually says.
But one thing that is not properly mentioned is that the IPCC changed its stance on the global nature of the MWP not because there was evidence that it did not occur, or that it did not occur on a global basis, but rather due to the lack of evidence in the SH that the MWP did occur in the Southern Hemisphere.
In other words, the IPCC use the absence of evidence as ‘proof’ that something did not happen. That is a failure of basic logic.
It is of course the same failure of logic that underpins the entire CO2 global warming conjecture, namely although we know that there have been similar rates of warming in the 1860s to 1880s and the 1920s to 1940s, and even though we cannot explain those events, we cannot think of anything other than CO2 which can explain the late 1970s to late 1990s warming, even though the rate of warming during this period is no different to the rates of warming in the 1860s -1880s, and again in the 1920s – 1940s warming episodes. Phil Jones admitted that these were not statistically different to the modern warming. Unfortunately, logic is not one of the strong points for the IPCC
Of course, it is difficult to get evidence in the Southern Hemisphere since there is a lack of land masses, and at the time there were no advanced SH civilisations to leave written records. So it is not at all surprising that evidence for the MWP in the SH may be sparse on the ground, and that is not a reason to say that the MWP was not a global event, but is a caveat that should be placed on our understanding and acceptance of the MWP, ie., there is less certainty as to the extent of the MWP in the SH.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Question (BBC Interviewer): “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”
Answer (Phil Jones):
“An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

November 18, 2015 6:37 am

Maybe someone can help me here:
Does anyone know what the CO2 levels were during the LIttle Ice Age and/or during the American Revolution??
Any response will be appreciated.

richard verney
Reply to  JohnTyler
November 18, 2015 7:23 am

The IPCC claim that CO2 levels have been largely flat for millennia prior to the Industrial Revolution, ie circa 260 to 280ppm.
A lot depends upon how good ice core data is.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  JohnTyler
November 18, 2015 7:57 am

Hello John T,
It is generally believed that atmospheric CO2 levels were around 280 ppm (parts per million) at the beginning of the industrial age, in the 1700’s. That is our best guess, derived from the study of proxy measurements, since no one was measuring CO2 in the air, back then. Today, CO2 atm is ~400ppm avg.
The American Revolution took place during the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the later years of the 19th Century.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 18, 2015 10:51 am

The colder temps during the LIA should have enabled the oceans to absorb a non-trivial amount of CO2 from the air.

William Astley
November 18, 2015 6:56 am

In criminal law the prosecution must present and explain all of the evidence. The defense has an opportunity to ask questions about all of the pieces of evidence. The prosecution must prove their case. The court room discussions are documented so independent third parties can check the proceedings and conclusions. There are sever penalties for fabrication of evidence and lying. Criminal law proceedings force the analysis to be holistic, stop the prosecution from hiding and ignoring evidence.
There is a logical reason why the cult of CAGW will never participate in a formal written debate to defend CAGW where the participants are forced to address all of the observations. They would lose.
The Medieval warm period which was followed by the Little Ice age is a Bond cycle. The Bond cycles correlate with solar cycle changes and happen again and again and again and again. The planet cyclically warms and then cools, sometimes abruptly cools.
It is an urban legend that the cause of the Bond cycles is ‘chaos’, magic wands. It is an urban legend that orbital changes to summer solar insolation at 65N has anything to do with the glacial/interglacial cycle. Big surprise massive cyclic climate changes occur for a physical reason. Solar cycle changes cause the Bond cycles and cause the interglacial cycle. The sun is significantly different the standard model.
If I understand what is currently happening to the sun (there is observational evidence that the solar cycle has been interrupted) and the mechanisms we are going to experience the most extreme of the Bond cycles, a Heinrich event. The Heinrich events occur roughly every 8000 years to 10,000 years. Interesting Heinrich events both initiate and terminate interglacial periods.
During the Heinrich events there is a tenfold increase in dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet. The dust is coming from Mongolia. The increase in dust is due to high latitude drought caused by the temperature drop and a massive increase in speed of the jet stream. The increase in the wind speed at 40 to 60 degree latitude increases evaporation cooling over the ocean which is one of the principal mechanisms to explain the sudden cooling.
A good analogue of what to expect is the 8200 year before present abrupt cooling.
If and when there is the start of in your face cooling, I will explain the whole dang mess. Based on what is currently happening to the sun and how the climate is currently changing, I would expected cooling to start late this winter.
The sun is currently essentially spotless. The recent warming has caused by solar wind bursts which were caused by a never ending string of coronal holes on the sun. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn causes current flow from high latitude regions of the planet and at the equator which changes cloud properties and cloud lifetimes in both regions. The solar wind bursts caused the recent Niño event. The solar coronal holes are now starting to dissipate.

Reply to  William Astley
November 18, 2015 7:18 am

The 8.2kyr event registers as warm on the Vostok ice core proxy.

Reply to  William Astley
November 18, 2015 7:27 am

3200 BP was a cold-dry climate for the Mediterranean, that’s when the Minoans collapsed, so did the European Neolithic. They originally flourished from around 4700 BP, where GISP is really cold. The warmest part of the MWP for western Europe was in the 8th century, when GISP is at it’s coldest since 8.2kyr BP.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ulriclyons
November 18, 2015 7:36 am

Ulric, which illustrates why averaging temperatures is bollocks.

Reply to  ulriclyons
November 18, 2015 8:01 am

Which illustrates that Greenland temperatures and Europe temperatures move inversely through the Holocene. The cold Dark Ages period ~380-540 AD is warm on GISP too, in fact GISP shows it to be warmer than the first few centuries AD, which is the real Roman warm era.

Reply to  ulriclyons
November 18, 2015 8:04 am

In fact Jeff, this why AGW causing the Arctic region to warm is bollocks.

Reply to  ulriclyons
November 18, 2015 9:53 am

Ulric, do you find that Greenland temperatures and Europe temperatures still move inversely?

Reply to  ulriclyons
November 18, 2015 12:14 pm

Certainly the positive NAO periods though 2013-2015 have given warmer conditions in Europe, and a relative increase of Arctic sea ice extent, and a cessation of Greenland melt.

Reply to  ulriclyons
November 18, 2015 12:59 pm

CET annual generally declined from 2007 until mid 2013, the Arctic region warmed strongly through those years. The fastest warming years of the AMO from 1995 to 2005 will show some amount of parallel warming between the Arctic region and say the UK, particularly a rise in Autumn temp’s, but UAH shows a cooling trend in the north pole region from Dec 1978 to Mar 1995:

Reply to  William Astley
November 18, 2015 7:46 am

(there is observational evidence that the solar cycle has been interrupted)
No, there is no evidence that the solar cycle is dead or dying or ‘interrupted’. The polar fields are strengthening and are already so strong that there is a good chance that cycle 25 will be as strong as cycle 24, see e.g. http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 18, 2015 2:57 pm

I understand there are studies that support the possibility that the solar cycle could enter a Dalton type grand solar minimum after solar cycle 25, around 2030.

Reply to  William Astley
November 18, 2015 9:41 am

It is an urban legend that orbital changes to summer solar insolation at 65N has anything to do with the glacial/interglacial cycle.
I would disagree.
In fact every Interglacial warming occurred during a Milankovitch Great Summer ** season in the Northern Hemisphere. Even the attempted but failed Interglacials all happened during the NH Great Summer season, while none happened during the SH Great Summer season. See the graph below.
We therefore know that the NH Great Summer season (measured at 65ºN on this graph) is a critical aspect in the modulation of Interglacial warming periods, due to the great landmasses there. So just as the normal increased summer insolation in Canada melts the annual winter snows to produce a NH summer, so the Great Summer increased insolation in the NH melts the northern Ice Age glaciers to produce an Interglacial. So the true modulators of interglacials are:
a. The Great Summer season in the NH providing up to 80 wm2 extra regional insolation.
b. Albedo changes providing up to 190 wm2 extra regional absorption.
c. Plus the puny CO2 providing up to 4 wm2 (globally) of feedback-forcing.
From this we can deduce that CO2 plays little or no role in the feedbacks that modulate Ice Ages. It is not global insolation that is important here, but regional insolation and warming in the NH. Please see the following paper:
Albedo Regulation of Ice Ages, Without CO2 Feedbacks:
Milankovitch Cycles.
Each blue sine wave is a 21,700-year Seasonal Great Year.
The crests mark the 5,400-year Great Summer season in the NH.comment image
** Notes:
a. The Precessional cycle of the Earth’s axis is traditionally known as the Great Year, and measures 25,700 years.
b. The Great Year has summer and winter seasons, just like a normal year.
c. Due to orbital eccentricity the Great Year seasons can be strong or weak.
d. Due to apsidal precession, the Seasonal Great Year is only 21,700 years long, instead of 25,700 years.
e. So all the references above are actually to the Seasonal Great Year, rather than the Celestial Great Year.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 18, 2015 3:08 pm

Not so fast ralfellis,
As can be seen in your graph the MI Stage 5 problem (Termination II), also known as the causality problem, has scientists arguing about the end of the glacial period before the Eemian interglacial. Data from Devil’s Cave in Nevada and from coral reefs in Bahamas and Barbados, and sediments in the Iberian Margin show very clearly that termination was essentially completed by 135 kya, when 65°N summer insolation was still below the levels of 70% of the previous 100 kyr, indicating that the effect appears to precede the cause.
65°N summer insolation is not the main director of glacial-interglacial cycles, but the obliquity cycle is, as some authors have pointed out. Glacial-interglacial cycles are symmetrical in nature, with both poles warming or cooling at the same time, and while the obliquity cycle is symmetrical, the precession cycle that governs 65°N summer insolation is antysimmetrical.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 19, 2015 1:01 am

The whole point of this analysis is that the warming is bound to be asymmetric, because it is only NH insolation that matters, because of the large landmasses in the NH. From this and other evidence we can deduce that the primary feedback driving interglacials is albedo, not CO2. Dust lowering albedo on ice sheets starts the process, and greatly lowered land albedo continues it.
Obliquity is a red herring, because the Obliquity cycle not match the interglacial whatsoever. The Ice Ages have approx 88 k year and 105 k year spacings, and that does not match the 80 k year Obliquity cycle at all. But they do match the Seasonal Great Year cycle. Also, Obliquity does not have the strength of forcing that the Great Year has – about half, if I remember correctly.
As to the Eemian interglacial, this probably has a chronology error. If you read the papers, there are many that strongly suggest a 5k year or more counting error. In which case, forcing would preceed warming. But don’t rest your opposition on just that single issue. Look at all the failed interglacials. Each and every one of these coincides with a Great Summer season in the NH. Do you really think this is coincidental? How does Obliquity account for warming during each (and almost every) Great Summer?
And this reaction only to increased NH insolation strongly suggest that oceanic insolation is not a significant factor in climate. The Interglacials and failed interglacials are all responding to NH landmass insolation, not SH oceanic insolation, and so perhaps the vast expanse of the oceans are not quite so important as many people think. (The Great Summer in the SH would occur during the troughs in the graph above. And there is no warming response to any of the troughs, despite this graph being taken from an ice-core in Antarctica.).
The reason for the oceans not being significant, in my view, is that the primary warming feedback is albedo. Landmasses allow the ice sheets to spread towards the mid latitudes, thus changing the albedo by a large factor. The southern oceans do not allow this to the same degree, and so the albedo changes in the SH during the Seasonal Great Year are much smaller than in the NH. And if albedo is the primary feedback regulator of climate, we can throw CO2 out of the window.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 19, 2015 1:57 am

Perhaps I should make it more clear that while the Great Year insolation and warming is asymmetric to the NH, the ultimate response global. There are sufficient heat transport mechanisms within the oceans and atmosphere to spread a NH warming around the world.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 20, 2015 2:07 am

65°N summer insolation does have an effect on global temperatures, but it has a number of issues that dispute their being the pacer for glacial-interglacial oscillations. The MIS 5 termination problem cannot be dismissed as a chronology error without any evidence of such error. Before the Mid-Pleistocene Transition glacial-interglacial oscillations were governed by the obliquity cycle with a pacing of 41 Kyr. After MPT the glacial-interglacial cycle started to skip one or two obliquity oscillations producing the 100 kyr average. The capability of the obliquity cycle to set the pacing of glacial-interglacial oscillations has been demonstrated. See some selected references:
Huybers, P. 2007. Glacial variability over the last two million years: An extended depth-derived agemodel, continuous obliquity pacing, and the Pleistocene progression. Quat. Sci. Rev. 26 37-55.
Huybers, P. and Wunsch, C. 2005. Obliquity pacing of the late Pleistocene glacial terminations. Nature 434 491-494.
Liu, Z., Cleaveland, L. C. and Herbert, T. D. 2008. Early onset and origin of 100-kyr cycles in Pleistocene tropical SST records. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 265 703-715.
The obliquity cycle provides a superior explanation for the MIS 5 causality problem (termination II causality effect), the 100 kyr problem (also called the eccentricity myth), the symmetry between both poles at glacial-interglacial and vice-versa transitions problem, and the pre-MPT 41 kyr pacing of glacial-interglacial cycle. The obliquity pacing of glacial terminations is therefore a better hypothesis than 65°N summer insolation.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 20, 2015 7:14 am

Not much critism of this theory. Does that mean that nobody can see any holes in it?? Interesting.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 20, 2015 10:02 am

>>The MIS 5 termination problem cannot be dismissed as a
>>chronology error without any evidence of such error.
As you well know, the chronology of the Eemian has had many amendments over recent years. I know the following is only a Wiki page, but the data given here seems to be solid.
The date for the MIS 5e interglacial peak is given by Aitken & Stokes (1994) as 130 ky, while Lisiecki & Raymo (2005) give 123 ky. A 7 ky difference. Which is why the graph I presented above gives a peak interglacial warming about 127 ky ago, while the SPECMAP chronology below gives 122 ky.
So if we take the revised data, the Seasonal Great Year turned from winter to spring 138 ky ago (graph above), while the warming trend stated 134 ky ago (graph below). In which case, the warming is following the increasing insolation in the northern hemisphere, by around 5 ky.
SPECMAP chronology of the Eemian ice Agecomment image
Yes, we know that previous cycles were governed by Obliquity, but that changed for some reason. And let’s not talk about an 100 ky average for recent Ice Ages – they are actually approx 88 ky and 105 ky intervals, not 100 ky. And they are spaced like this for a reason – because they are responding to the 21.7 ky precessional Great Summer season cycle — they are 4 cycles and 5 cycles respectively. So let’s not average out these important intervals, and lose their meaning.
And how does a 40 ky Obliquity cycle create 88 ky and 105 ky intervals?? Answer, it does not. The Interglacials are responding to Precession, not Obliquity.
Why Obliquity was the dominant cycle prior to 2 million years ago, I do not know. I have postulated in my paper that there was reduced orbital eccentricity at that time. But why that should be, I do not know. Eccentricity does change, but I see no reason why it should reduce for an extended period of time.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  William Astley
November 18, 2015 3:47 pm

IMO, Heinrich Events only occur during glacial intervals. They require the North American and British/Scandinavian ice sheets.
Bond Cycles, IMO, are the interglacial equivalent of D/O Events during glacials. They have about the same period but only around a tenth of the temperature amplitude, since glacials are so much colder.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
November 19, 2015 1:17 am

The D-O events are most probably caused by forest fires depositing soot on the pristine white ice sheets, and lowering their albedo. If so, then again it is albedo that is the primary regulator of warming and climate, not CO2. (Dansgaard–Oeschger events.)

Reply to  William Astley
November 18, 2015 8:15 pm

Interesting, Washington State just experienced a big wind storm which caused 3 deaths, and much damage to trees, power lines and other infrastructure. They are also having much flooding in many rivers as it has been raining hard and steady for a month or so. The good news is that the drought is over.

November 18, 2015 7:10 am

The slide into the LIA that the 1990 IPCC chart showed is also known as the ages of exploration and (European) colonial expansion. Cooling logically would have been one significant factor spurring overseas exploration and settlement.
In addition, the end or the Roman warm period and slide into the cold Dark Ages corresponded with barbarian invasions of the Roman Mediterranean world. Not hard to see climate as a driver of world history and migration.

November 18, 2015 7:16 am

“The year 1709 is one that stands out during the LIA. It was a particularly cold year in a long cold spell.”
West Europe temperatures were in fact generally very warm from 1706 for over 30 years, apart from the occasional seasonal severe cold hit like Jan-Feb-Mar 1709, and winter 1715-16. There are useful heliocentric analogues for both of those events in the colder than normal Feb-Mar 1888, and Jan-Feb 1895. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

November 18, 2015 7:25 am

I wonder how many millions of deaths there will be when next we get a winter like 1709 in the UK. Power failures, blackouts, no heating, no transport. It doesn’t bear thinking about.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 18, 2015 7:32 am

Not as many as millions hopefully, but Jan-Mar 2017 and Jan-Mar 2020 will be severe.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 18, 2015 9:24 am

Well, if Greece is a good indication, something like this will happen:
1) government will raise taxes on heating oil (in this case to cure global warming)
2) people will burn diesel oil as a replacement, causing huge air quality problems
3) government will raise taxes on diesel oil, not lower taxes on heating oil (that would make sense, of course)
4) people will burn wood and garbage

Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 18, 2015 10:55 am

5) govt will raise taxes on wood and garbage
6) people will burn politicians

Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 19, 2015 3:10 pm

As they are rich in fat due to pork barrel hogging, it is best that they be rendered first and the copious fats used. Treatment with 1% lye and 19% alcohol yields bioDiesel, a great heating oil, for those wishing a “green” solution.
/drysarc; of course… but the tech is accurate… and bioDiesel does not smoke as much …

richard verney
November 18, 2015 7:34 am

It would be good for Tonyb to come along and give us a little insight into the variability of Northern European climate during this period.
Tony has thoroughly reviewed historical texts from a wide range of sources from which, ignoring the RWP and MWP, it appears that the warmest decade in Central England was the 1530s/40s. It appears that that decade was warmer than the most recent decade. Temperatures peaked in the 1540/41 period accompanied by a 9 month drought.
There is a relationship between rainfall and temperature, since this part of the water cycle cools the atmosphere, at least close to the surface. Thus when we see warm temperatures this may be due in part simply to a lack of rainfall/drier than usual conditions. There was a recent article suggesting that much of the variation in the Australian temperatures can be explained by variation in rainfall patterns, and thus not due to rising CO2. I linked that article sometime ago on another post.

Reply to  richard verney
November 18, 2015 9:57 am

Thanks. I posted a comment very early in the thread in which Phil jones himself confirms the Variability of the climate at the time including the very warm 1730’s and the bitterly cold 1740 winter which caused him to realise that natural variability was greater than he had originally believed. See my comment here for a link to his paper.
Regarding your comments about winter, I am currently talking to the Met office about the observed decline in CET whereby we have lost entirely the half a degree hump in the late 1990’s that caused such panic.
I have a number of graphics that show the evolution of the various seasons over the last few decades.so if interested contact me direct on tonyATclimatereasondotcom

November 18, 2015 7:42 am

An oversimplification at best. What was actually said ( http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/ ), for example, in the summary for policymakers was:

The data show a relatively warm period associated with the 11th to 14th centuries and a relatively cool period associated with the 15th to 19th centuries in the Northern Hemisphere. However, evidence does not support these“Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” periods, respectively, as being globally synchronous. As Figure 5 indicates, the rate and duration of warming of the Northern Hemisphere in
the 20th century appears to have been unprecedented during the millennium, and it cannot simply be considered as a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” of the 15th to 19th centuries. These analyses are complemented by sensitivity analysis of the spatial representativeness of available palaeoclimatic data, indicating that the warmth of the recent decade is outside the 95% confidence interval of temperature uncertainty, even during the warmest periods of the last millennium. Moreover, several different analyses have now been completed, each suggesting that the Northern Hemisphere temperatures of the past decade
have been warmer than any other time in the past six to ten centuries.

Their nemesis was a graph presented in the 1990 Report (Figure1).

In the same way that the nemesis for Galileo’s Theory was Ptolemy. The graph shown in the 1990 report was never claimed to be anything but a rough sketch, based mainly on temperatures in Europe, not the entire northern hemisphere. Furthermore, that graph didn’t even go beyond the first half of the 20th century and hence missed much of the modern rise in temperatures. If you append that data on, you get the conclusion that by the late 20th century, temperatures are higher than the Medieval warm period.
So, as usual, Tim Ball’s diatribe here is based only very loosely on actual fact.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  joeldshore
November 18, 2015 11:41 am

You didn’t even take a breath when you read “available palaeoclimatic data”?
How much palaeoclimatic data can you get in the southern hemisphere, compared to the nothern?
And as mentioned above, maybe its because they simply didn’t LOOK.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  joeldshore
November 18, 2015 5:27 pm

As usual, your diatribe here is based upon nothing at all.
Overwhelming evidence from every source shows that the LIA and MWP were global in scope, just as were the Dark Ages Cold Period which preceded the MWP, the Roman WP which preceded the DACP, the Greek Dark Ages CP and the Minoan WP, as well as the Holocene Climatic Optimum. All of those warm periods were warmer than the present.

Reply to  joeldshore
November 18, 2015 5:55 pm

Gloateus Maximus: If by “global in scope”, you mean that some time during a several century period dubbed the LIA, a particular place had relatively cold temperatures and that some time during a several century period dubbed the MWP, a particular place had relatively warm temperatures, then yes, these were global in scope. However, because the cold and warm were not very synchronous from place-to-place, the LIA and MWP seem to be a broad a shallow dip and peak on the global scale.
As for your claim that “all of those warm periods were warmer than the present,” it seems to be based more on motivated reasoning than scientific analysis.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  joeldshore
November 18, 2015 8:29 pm

That the Minoan WP was warmer than the Roman WP, that the Roman WP was warmer than the Medieval WP and that the Medieval WP was warmer than the Modern WP are facts, that is, observations based upon the paleoclimatic data.
But as a climastrologist, a trough-feeding bureaucratic computer gamer, scientific facts mean nothing to you.
Happily, after Jan 2017, your anti-human cult will be swept into the garbage can of history.

Reply to  joeldshore
November 18, 2015 7:06 pm

GM says:
As usual, your diatribe here is based upon nothing at all.
I’d agree. There are lots of similar charts to the one below, showing that previous global warming episodes were warmer than now:
Here’s more ice core data:comment image
And just to show how silly the “dangerous AGW” hoax is getting, here’s an animation with some needed perspective”

Reply to  dbstealey
November 19, 2015 12:09 pm

You guys do understand that central Greenland is not the whole world don’t you? I also would challenge you to show me where in Alley’s paper that data that was plotted actually comes from. I don’t see any graph in Alley’s paper that is available here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621
As usual, the fake skeptics are showing how they uncritically accept any piece of data that seems to support their ideological viewpoint, without any attempt to find out where the data comes from and what its limitations might be.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  dbstealey
November 19, 2015 12:50 pm

Not just Greenland, but the reconstructed CET shows the Medieval WP warmer than the late 20th century warming, as does evidence from all around the world.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 19, 2015 1:52 pm

One of the issues with the Greenland data is apparently that the last data point is from the year ~1855, not the current climate (See http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/ ).

Reply to  dbstealey
November 19, 2015 2:00 pm

Your claims still don’t address the synchronicity issue. For example, it could conceivably be (not saying that it is!) that the temperature in China was warmer in the period 1050-1100AD than it is today, and the temperature in Northern Europe was warmer in the period 1250-1300AD than it is today, and the temperature in the Western U.S. was warmer in the period 900-950AD than it is today. However, it does not follow from this that the average global (or even Northern Hemisperic) temperature during any time during the period 900-1300AD is warmer than today, because today the warming appears to be much more synchronous than it was during the vague multi-century period that is referred to as the MWP.

November 18, 2015 7:44 am

Sorry…in my above comment, the first quotation from Tim Ball was accidently omitted:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 Report claimed that neither the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) nor the Little Ice Age (LIA) occurred.

Maureen Matthew
November 18, 2015 7:57 am

What I think would be an interesting study for some graduate student would be to search the records of the Royal Navy and the Hudson’s Bay Company to examine climate trends. These two organizations documented everything. The Royal Navy had a worldwide presence so their records could show conditions around the world. I can’t find the reference, but I seem to recall that one researcher was looking at the reports of Royal Navy vessels trying to go through the Northwest Passage in the early 1800s.
HBC was mainly in Canada, but had extensive outposts throughout and the Factors were responsible for documenting many things. In fact the quality of the furs brought in would be one indicator of temperatures (colder winters produce better furs) – if Mann can use a couple of trees for his hockey stick then the quality of furs should also be used,
But it is highly unlikely that any graduate student would receive any funding to do such research – so this is just wishful thinking.

November 18, 2015 8:01 am

One can actually read the context in which the graph from the first IPCC report occurred here: http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf It is Figure 7.1 in that chapter. Note that the caption calls it (and the other two graphs in this figure) “schematic diagrams of global temperature variations” and the text itself notes that for changes since the end of the last glaciation “it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global”. (They do say that the Little Ice Age lasted several centuries and was “global in extent” but don’t comment on the specific issue of the exact synchronicity between different locations.)
By the way, as a more minor quibble, the horizontal dotted line shown in the figure is said in the caption to “nominally represent[] conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century”. It is not said to represent what Tim Ball says it does (“the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1000 years”).

November 18, 2015 8:17 am

Tim, great article, an interesting perspective.
One minor quibble: I’d suggest updating this sentence: “This was based partly on the fact that 7c was for the Northern Hemisphere” to “This was based partly on the fact that Graph 7c applies to the Northern Hemisphere”

November 18, 2015 8:53 am

It is a bit warm in France these days; apparently, in the rest of the world also; I know it disturbs you. I think you have a problem, we all have on, you just pretend not to notice.,

Alan Robertson
Reply to  François
November 18, 2015 10:24 am

Misinterpretation of your words is not due to translation issues. Your writing style is so general and noncommittal, that your words could be understood in many contexts. If you have something specific to say, then say it (please.) Otherwise, why should anyone use their precious time, guessing what your meaning might be?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  François
November 18, 2015 1:08 pm

François, Il fait chaud en France mais li fait froid aussi. Il n’y a pas de longtemps que la temperature ici du sud-ouest a touché -19C et elle n’a pas dépassée -5 pendant 6 jour. Il a fait aussi chaud cette année. J’ai ramassé mes dernière frais cette semaine. C’est vrai que les autumn sont plus chaud que normale récemment mais les hiver ont été plus froid. Préparez vous pour un hiver comme 1956. Ill s’arrive.

Reply to  François
November 18, 2015 9:02 pm

The reason for that above average warmth which you have experienced was that there was a steady flow of surface winds blowing from North Africa, across the Mediterranean, and into Europe. These surface winds blew steady for several months, and finally stopped several weeks ago. After that, the surface winds came from the warmer southwest off of the Atlantic and then east across the top half of France. This is still the case now and is part of the reason why the region is above average in temps…http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=5.97,39.02,819

November 18, 2015 8:56 am

Sorry, your American system made a couple of mistake in my spelling.FM

November 18, 2015 8:58 am

Those pushing weak and unpopular points often resort to fraud. After all it’s for a good cause right.

Samuel C. Cogar
November 18, 2015 9:03 am

The following cited paper is a really good read on the subject being discussed.
First I would like to inform everyone that the originally published paper did not include the preface “disclaimer” of …… Note to general public:
Thus I have to assume that political pressure was threatened against the author(s) and said “disclaimer” was then included out of fear of retribution by the proponents of CAGW.

November 18, 2015 9:04 am

Good essay. However, Tim’s understanding of Canadian politics seems a little lacking. Under our Westminster Parliamentary Monarchy, our governor general (Queen Elizabeth II’s representative to Canada) selects the prime minister. Of course, the selection is normally narrowed down to a single person, he leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament. However, to suggest that the Liberal party selected the prime minister is simply wrong (while sometimes it does happen when a leader resigns mid term, that was not the case with our current prime minister). More Canadians voted for the party lead by the new prime minister than voted for any other party. Some people don’t like this setup. But it is the way it works in a 3 party representative democracy. Our current prime minister promised to reform the system, but what are the odds he will when the current system is what allowed him to have the power he does with only 39% of the vote? When I look at other countries with direct representation, they always have unstable governments with crazy mishmash coalitions. I, for one, don’t want that. While it cheeses me off that Jean Chretien had, and Justin Trudeau has, majority governments with less than 50% support, I enjoyed the government of Stephen Harper, even though he didn’t have 50% support. It is the way our system works, and it seems to work as good as any other system.

November 18, 2015 9:34 am

Warmer is not a problem.

Reply to  Monroe
November 18, 2015 1:21 pm

I’m a strong supporter of Global Warming, Monroe. It is expensive to travel to warmer climes during the winter months. With a bit of luck, we might break the glacial/interglacial cycle that’s been going on for the past couple million or so years and stay warm for a few hundred-thousand years. But I’m not holding my breath. The geological record is against me,

November 18, 2015 9:42 am

We should call them “previous climate change deniers”

Eugene WR Gallun
November 18, 2015 11:13 am

Dr. Tim Ball
i enjoy your articles. Good stuff for people like me who “can’t do the math”.
This article does not talk down to climate skeptics but rather talks up to alarmists who are woefully ignorant of even the basics of climate history and climate science. Historical facts and climate data presented enjoyably — who could ask for more?
Eugene WR Gallun

November 18, 2015 12:39 pm

Number one smoking gun in the CAGW hoax.
It was warmer, was even warmer during the Minoan period.
Free tshirts with a logo for all skeptics.
Maybe even a full page ad in the NYTs with the logo.
The IPCC preyed on everyone’s trust.
Gore purposely deceived the public in his movie.
A big fat lie.
Liars need to be embarrassed.
Believers need to be ashamed.
Dragging any well meaning scientist into a discussion about the relevance of CO2 or any other version of some totally meaningless variable is a trick of the trade.
The skill of the con artist.
Well lookie here this new fangled vacuum cleaner.
::: you look and see that that it doesn’t have suck power … its a POS ::::
And the con artist continues
But look at the sleek new design.
See the gel grip handle.
The touch to turn on technology.
The remote control potential of it’s program.

November 18, 2015 12:44 pm

Are you really that stupid or are you just practicing to be a liberal politician ??????

November 18, 2015 12:46 pm

Gabriele Bella (1733 -99) painted his vision of people cavorting on a frozen lagoon in 1708..

Is that right? How did someone born after 1708 paint a picture of what happened in 1708?

Reply to  TomB
November 18, 2015 1:10 pm

If you’d like to try it yourself, you can paint your vision of people cavorting on a frozen lagoon in 1708.
I must confess, that jumped out at me too when I first read through the post. Then I realized a vision wasn’t the same thing as a recollection. For some artists, that’s all they do; paint their visions. Other’s spend their time painting what they actually see or have seen.
Hope that helped you through the time warp thingy ;o)

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  TomB
November 18, 2015 2:47 pm

Sigh, Its normal you talk to anyone left from the time
(People tended to keep diaries more back then along with sketches. In truth sometimes in the past records are more accurate because of this.)
Like this one.

Reply to  TomB
November 18, 2015 9:07 pm

Maybe he had a mother and father who talked to him about how hard it was in the olden days.

Reply to  goldminor
November 19, 2015 4:54 am

Yup. They probably told him how they had to walk two miles to school, barefoot, through 3 feet of snow, uphill both ways ;o)

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Knute
November 18, 2015 3:09 pm

Knute Friend,
Note coral island. NOT meant to last. Erosion, Its the people on the islands themselves who are destroying them. Simply by being there. Walk, kick up dust -blows off where? ocean.
Now if they want to dump this C.C. and ask if we can ship them X number of freighters of dirt.. hell yes
I don’t think anyone would disagree once presented with the “economic benefits”
The Chinese are building islands we should follow suit

November 18, 2015 2:17 pm

@J Murphy, when this settled science was occurring during 2001/till now basically, they were not slicing and dicing words. In effect they said and meant with out having to explain it that neither the LIA or MWP happened. It was local and not world wide. According to the IPCC.
Otherwise, regardless, why aren’t they answering the data that provides ample evidence that these events occurred world wide in context of both temperature and co2 levels? What you did is deflection. Ah, naw, that’s not what they said. Really? Then why haven’t they answered? They’ve had 10 or 12 years to do so. However, they keep going to the government’s with the same line. CAGW! Tell I’m wrong here.

Mike the Morlock
November 18, 2015 2:18 pm

Dr. Tim Ball.
Good.( I would have liked better citation of William Derham’s temperature records but that is because I have not been able to find them myself. Do you have a ” Primary Source? Even if it it is a Library that is difficult to access. )
Many people still don’t understand how overwhelming the little ice age was.
You could spend years documenting the effects in North & South America, Asia that matches Europe.
For Climate Scientists with arguments that the little Ice Age was local in effect, yes perhaps, for a year or two at best, but past that explain the mechanism that would cause a regional “Climate Change” past that. You claim to be Climate Scientists after all. Fish or Cut Bait.
Regional C.C does not last fifty to a hundred years . Are alarmist really this stupid or do they take a pill in the morning

Gloateus Maximus
November 18, 2015 2:18 pm

For extreme WX in the USA, check out the 1930s and ’40s. A number of states recorded their highest and lowest temperatures in those decades. But, the US, like Britain, also suffered severe winters in the 1960s and ’70s.
The past 40 years have been nothing special, so the “climate change” null hypothesis can’t be rejected.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
November 18, 2015 2:56 pm

I’d suggest people use TheWayBackMachine to check those periods for their local area.
“The temps, they’ve been a changin’.” 😎

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 18, 2015 4:51 pm

True. Some state records have been changed or attempted to be changed. And when the same record recurred in the same state, the more recent date is always given. Texas & OK in the 1930s and ’90s are examples.

Trausti Jónsson
November 18, 2015 3:21 pm

Please note that the winter and spring of 1709 were noteably warm and favourable in Iceland

Monna Manhas
November 18, 2015 3:36 pm

Forty percent of adults is not a small percentage of the population, MarkW. And while your solution (get someone to point out the favourite 3 candidates) seems easy to someone who can read and write, I think it would be a lot more difficult for someone who cannot read and can barely write. It’s one thing to put an “X” in a single box. It’s quite another to write numbers in the correct boxes indicating which is your first, second and third choice.

November 18, 2015 5:03 pm

It’s nice to see an Article on WUWT about historical weather events.
There should be a lot more of these pushed into the faces of the ‘Alarmists’.
For the benefit of ‘New Readers’ who have an interest in historical weather i suggest you read through the information on these sites.

Paul Westhaver
November 18, 2015 7:46 pm

Sturgis Hooper

November 18, 2015 9:53 pm

Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but how can 1709 be the coldest winter in 500 years when Figure 1 shows that it was substantially colder about 1640?

November 19, 2015 2:51 am

Its always been an irony that [not] only is Mann a ‘climate change’ denier , in fact his ‘reputation’ is largely built on denying past climate change . And yet he is a prophet of ‘the cause’ , whose scientifically worthless work ,in which he carries-out this denial , is a icon of ‘the cause’ . which goes to show how rotten the whole thing is.

November 19, 2015 4:00 am

Great article yet again Dr. Ball. Thanks for all you do.
It is the real denial that so-called scientists try to claim there was no little ice age or there was no medieval warm period. How did “big oil” cause all those historical accounts???? Does “big oil” have time machines?

Reply to  markstoval
November 19, 2015 5:23 pm

markstoval November 19, 2015 at 4:00 am

Does “big oil” have time machines?

Naahhhh… but Bush and the Koch brothers do ;o)

November 20, 2015 8:13 am

If I am not mistaken, the Winter of 1947 was downright awful in Europe. I believe a very stubborn block of High Pressure anchored itself across Eastern Scandinavia. Strong north-easterlies brought moist cold air across the UK in bands. In much the same way Lake Affect Snows blanket the Great Lakes, the UK received very large amounts of snow throughout the island nation. Trains were shut-down, as were high ways. Villages were cut-off, and power outages ensued. Reminds me of reading about winters in the Great Plains circa 1880-1900.
Additionally, I believe the Winter of 1960-1961 was the coldest winter for the NH during the 20th Century. The entire hemisphere went into a cold lock-down for about 3 weeks in January-February. Blizzards plagued Asia, North America, Europe and the Middle East.
And who could forget the Winter of 1678? During the coldest decades of the LIA, Sweden and Brandenburg went to war. In January 1678 the Elector William attacked the Swedes using sleighs to maneuver his outnumbered forces across East Prussia and the Courland. During a period when temperatures fell -10 to -15 deg F during the night, he attacked and defeated the Swedes at their flanks. The icy snow drifts were 3-5 foot high; but the sleighs held out. Maneuver warfare at its best.

%d bloggers like this: