The whole concept of the ‘Little Ice Age’ is ‘misleading’, as the changes were small-scale, seasonal and insignificant compared with present-day global warming, a group of solar and climate scientists argue.
Explanations for the cooling to Earth’s climate, thought to have occurred between the 16th and 19th centuries, include low solar activity, volcanic eruptions, human changes to land use and natural climatological change.
But in a new paper in Astronomy & Geophysics, the house journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Professor Mike Lockwood, of the University of Reading, and his collaborators, note that the temperature shift was smaller than that seen in recent decades resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases, and that although low solar activity may have been one driving factor, it certainly was not the only one.
Professor Lockwood said: “Commentators frequently refer to the Little Ice Age in discussions on climate change. We wanted to carry out a comprehensive study to see just how reliable the evidence is for a cooler climate, how big an impact it really had and how strong the evidence for a solar cause really was.
“On the whole the Little Ice Age was a manageable downturn in climate concentrated in particular regions, even though places like the UK had a larger fraction of cold winters. Our research suggests that there is no single explanation for this, that warm summers continued much as they do today and that not all winters were cold.”
Researchers scrutinised historical records, such as the accounts of ‘frost fairs’ when the River Thames froze solid, and looked at the paintings from the era, such as the landscapes of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, with ‘Hunters in the Snow’ depicting a cold winter scene. Both of these are cited in support of the Little Ice Age concept.
From around 1650-1710, and to a lesser extent from 1790-1825, periods respectively known as the Maunder and Dalton Minima, sunspot numbers were unusually low, an indication that the surface of the Sun was slightly cooler. This external influence is often suggested as an explanation for the colder conditions.
Part (b) shows the lowest monthly average in each winter whereas part (c) shows the hottest monthly average in each summer. In both cases blue shows lower temperatures, and red shows higher temperatures than the long-term average.
The cold winter months match up very well with the years in which frost fairs were held (vertical mauve lines) or years when the Thames was reported as frozen solid (vertical orange lines). However these years are not usually also associated with colder summers, unless there was a large volcanic eruption (measured from the sulphates that it deposited in polar ice sheets) such as Tambora in 1815.
The top panel (a) shows the level of solar activity as seen in sunspot numbers (from telescopic observations and deduced from Carbon-14 stored in tree rings). It can be seen that, contrary to common claims, the Thames did not freeze more often during the Maunder minimum (c.1660-1710). Thames freezing events ceased after the demolition of the old London bridge in 1825 and the installation of the embankments, completed in 1870 (both dates marked with black lines): the faster flow meant that the river no longer froze, even when temperatures fell to values that had previously caused freezing. CREDIT M. Lockwood
The Reading-led team looked at the various pieces of evidence in more detail. They compared direct temperature records and proxy data such as ice records, with the years when the Thames was frozen over (whether or not a frost fair took place), and with the indications of solar activity.
Historical climate change is assessed through a variety of means. The Central England Temperature (CET) dataset tracks temperature from 1659, making it the oldest and longest running meteorological instrumental data sequence in the world. This direct record is supplemented by studies of biological proxies such as tree rings, corals, insect numbers and molluscs, all sensitive to climate change.
The authors draw comparisons with the ice ages proper. Cores taken from Antarctic ice allow global temperatures to be inferred, by measuring the proportions of deuterium (2H), a heavier atom of hydrogen, and of the heavier oxygen atom 18O, compared with their lighter ‘normal’ counterparts. It takes more energy to evaporate water with a higher proportion of these atoms, and they are more easily lost from rainfall, before they are deposited in ice found nearer the poles. The changing proportion of these atoms then allows researchers to assess how the temperature has changed over millions of years.
From these comparisons, the scientists argue that the description of the period as an Ice Age is misleading, as temperatures in that period fell far less than in a glaciation. During the Little Ice Age (LIA), the average temperature in the northern hemisphere fell by around 0.5 degrees. In contrast, in the most recent major glaciation that came to an end around 12,000 years ago, global temperatures were typically 8 degrees Celsius colder than today.
Frost fairs also seem to be a poor indication of overall climate, as they often did not take place despite the Thames freezing, partly for many reasons including puritanical authorities or safety as lives were lost when the ice melted. The ending of the frost fairs had nothing to do with climate change or solar activity, instead being due to the increased river flow when the original London Bridge was demolished in 1825, and the first Victoria embankment opened in 1870. Both of these prevented the river from freezing completely, despite many subsequent cold winters.
Selective use of art historical evidence appears to reinforce the illusion of a prolonged cold spell. Yet ‘Hunters in the Snow’, depicting a January scene, is part of a series by Bruegel known as ‘The Twelve Months’. Seven of these paintings may have been lost, but ‘The Gloomy Day’ (February), ‘Haymaking’ (July), and ‘The Return of the Herd’ (November) all give no indication of unusually cold conditions. Consistent with this, Lockwood and his team note that even at the height of the LIA period, colder European winters were still accompanied by many warm summers.
For example, 1701 is close to the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, yet in both Paris and London the summer was reported as being unbearably hot and the CET for July that year is the 10th hottest on record, with average temperatures for the month reaching 18.3°C. The year 1676 is the second hottest June on record at 18.0°C, yet it too was in the middle of a run of cold winters. Such high summer temperatures do not fit at all with the name “Little Ice Age”.
Much more dramatic variations can result from large volcanic eruptions. Samalas, a volcano which erupted in 1257 in what is now Indonesia, ejected large amounts of dust into the atmosphere, causing a temporary cooling effect. The years between 1570 and 1730, corresponding to the coldest part of the LIA, also saw continuous lower level volcanic activity that may have suppressed temperatures. Volcanic eruptions undoubtedly cause both cold winters and cold summers. One of the clearest examples was the Tambora eruption of July 1815, which caused the next year to be called “the year without a summer”.
Professor Lockwood said: “This study provides little solace for the future, as we face the challenge of global warming. Solar activity appears to be declining at present, but any cooling effect that results will be more than offset by the effect of rising carbon dioxide emissions, and provides us with no excuse for inaction.”
###
The paper: (paywalled)
This illustration is from the paper
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ML-IA.gif
I can see what he is trying to do, but in my view this graph is more confusing (look at left hand scale) than informing.
These activists mean a fluctuation in temperature of ~ – 0.5°C, LIA is for all intents and purposed harmless and a natural cycle?
Yet warmists claim their “claimed” 0.3°C rise is the road to a boiling parched hell?
Rather than what it probably is, a natural cycle, if it actually exists outside of fudged data anyhow…
We are indebted to Ed Hawkins for making his paper readily available, but before noticing that access I had looked for previous papers by M Lockwood and found one co authored with several others that had a very interesting collection of data (to 2010) on the quantitative assessment of solar variability impact on temperature and climate .It is 53 pages, but extremely readable by a nonspecialist reader. The following qualitative abstract gives some idea of the aspects covered :
“Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability,solar‐terrestrial interactions, and the mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide a summary of our current understanding in each of these three areas. Observations and mechanisms for the Sun’s variability are described, including solar irradiance variations on both decadal and centennial time scales and their relation to galactic cosmic rays.
Corresponding observations of variations of the Earth’s climate on associated time scales are
described, including variations in ozone, temperatures, winds, clouds, precipitation, and regional modes of variability such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation.
A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is provided. Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate observations are described, including the effects of variations in solar irradiance and of charged particles.
Finally, the contributions of solar variations to recent observations of global climate change are discussed.
Citation: Gray, L. J., et al. (2010), Solar influences on climate, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282. ” (Open Access)
Perhaps I am easily impressed but the paper does appear to deal quantitatively with many topics regularly discussed here and seems to support some of the suggestions posted today such as that of rtj1211 above .
Yes, Leslie Gray is one of the leading scientists researching the mechanisms for solar variability influence on climate. A very difficult issue, but progress is being made. We know quite a lot more than we did 20 years ago.
concentrated in particular regions but not as concentrated has ONE magic tree which it would seem could be used to ‘prove’ the temperature of the planet .
Has for solar activity , hilarious they should claim its possible to make a judgment on that given the state of knowledge about this and the ability judge and measure it during this period .
Pretty sure it was the Little Ice Age that caused the Vikings to leave Greenland and move to Minnesota.
“A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeo-temperature proxy records never previously included in any large-scale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. ad 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. ad 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. ad 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. ad 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology” (Ljungqvist 2010):
http://www.lwhancock.com/images/Ljugzvist2010.gif
The funny thing is, if you look at the above graph, the “Current Warm Period”, is exactly on time. The gap between the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period is the same as the gap between the Medieval Warm Period and the Current Warm Period.
It’s even “worse” than that!
The peaks of all the warm periods are about a millennium apart. We might not have reached the peak of the Current WP yet, but roughly speaking, the MWP was about a thousand years ago, the Roman WP about 2000, the Minoan WP around 3000, the Egyptian WP some 4000 and the Holocene Optimum 5-8 thousand years ago.
The cooked book “instrumental”, “record” doesn’t count. As you know, it’s not justifiable to tack that bogus artifact onto proxy data.
So far the Current warming has not produced an interval as warm as the hottest 150 years of the MWP, which was cooler than the Roman WP, which was cooler than the Minoan WP, which was about the same as the Egyptian and latter Holocene Optimum, in ice core data at least.
Medieval Warm Period? Mann alive, warm? Nah, that was nothin’ special guv. Bit chilly if you ask me. 1940s blip? Nope, dunno what you’re talkin’ about either. Was that sumink we put up in the skies to stop those pollutin’ Jerries from blitzing us with particulates. And, as for that Little Ice Age malarkey, well, that was bloody toasty weren’t it? There weren’t no frost fairs on the Thames. They was fright fairs. Yep, fairs designed to warn the simple folk away from fallin’ into the balmy river heated up by the onset of Mann made global warming. Can I have some money now please Mr Grantham? Er….what about you Mr Gore? Maybe you Leonardo? You seem like an honest geezer. Would love to stay at your eco gaff just a smidgen above sea level in Belize before that dodgy flood hits that you’ve been bangin’ on about (that won’t arrive anytime soon accordin’ to a sexy brochure that’s just been shoved under me nose. Just sayin’).
Bloody ‘ell!
“On the whole the Little Ice Age was a manageable downturn in climate concentrated in particular regions, even though places like the UK had a larger fraction of cold winters. Our research suggests that there is no single explanation for this, that warm summers continued much as they do today and that not all winters were cold.”
I am surprised at the cultural blindness of this text. How can you eradicate or change history? The Little Ice Age is not only a question of pretty old English paintings of ice fairs but something that changed the whole of European history. After the Peace of Westphalia (1648) Sweden was on of the great powers of Europe. This was the time of the socalled “Swedish empire” which comprised not only the present-day Sweden but Finland with Ingria, Estonia with Kurland, Livonia, parts of Poland and Germany. In 1658 as a result of the March Across the Belts Denmark had to cede Scania and other parts of the Scandinavian peninsula to Sweden. The whole of the Baltic became in fact a Swedish inland sea. In the March Across the Belts the whole Swedish army, artillery and cavallery and all which had been plundering Poland and northern Germany crossed the frozen Danish straits from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt to Funen and the Great Belt to reach Zealand and Copenhagen. This was no ice fair but a daring military coup that cemented Sweden´s momentary standing as a great European and military power. However -there always seems to come a however when you are dealing with the climate- beacause of the changing climate Sweden´s moment of greatness lasted only a few decades more.
The Thirty Years’ War and the worsening climatehad put a great strain on the Swedish homeland including Finland It became colder and drier. The crops failed more and more. The Crown saw no other possibility but to reduce the privileges of the warrior nobility. This is known as the Great Reduction, that is the return to the Crown of fiefs that had been granted to the Swedish nobility. Several reductions are recorded, from the 13th century until this final one of 1680. One can argue that this started the social class leveling that led to the democratic society that is typical of Sweden today.
But the climate became worse. According to Wikipedia during the 1690s, climate in Europe was characterised by cold springs and summers. It is generally estimated that temperatures were 1.5 deg C lower during the 1690s than the average during the Little Ice Age. This impacted other countries, France suffered the worst famine since the Middle Ages, ice floes formed in the Thames while Lake Constance and Lake Zurich froze completely over. In Estonia and Livonia a fifth of the population died, in Finland and northern Sweden a third of the population died. The story of the “Swedish empire” ended a few years after that.
I shall stop here but the story of how climate change and the Little Ice Age impinges European history still today goes on. It is sheer crazyness to to try to “get rid of the Little Ice Age”.
Examples can be multiplied of catastrophes around the world during the LIA, however defined. The Thirty Years’ War is one major example. Witch hunts are another.
As has been noted, Russia became a major power by defeating Sweden with the aid of General Winter.
North America and West Africa both experienced famines and savage wars.
In North America, the collapse of this civilization owed to the LIA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
Even sunny California was affected by climatic deterioration:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/98w335dh
The European colonization of the rest of the world can also be seen as a result of worsening climate.
As Geoffrey Parker wrote in the NYT in 2014:
“Few areas of the world survived the 17th century unscathed by extreme weather. In China, a combination of droughts and disastrous harvests, coupled with rising tax demands and cutbacks in government programs, unleashed a wave of banditry and chaos; starving Manchu clansmen from the north undertook a brutal conquest that lasted a generation…In India, drought followed by floods killed over a million people in Gujarat between 1627 and 1630. In Japan, a mass rebellion broke out on the island of Kyushu following several poor harvests. Five years later, famine, followed by an unusually severe winter, killed perhaps 500,000 Japanese…In the 17th century, the fatal synergy of weather, wars and rebellions killed millions.”
Climatic swings in China during the LIA.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589401922835
“The whole concept of the ‘Little Ice Age’ is ‘misleading’, as the changes were small-scale, seasonal and insignificant compared with present-day global warming, a group of solar and climate scientists argue.”
Only a perfect hockey stick graph deserves our most sacret devotion to the Global Warming Religion and keeps the gravey train rolling because a religion it is.
If you keep cooling the past it doesn`t take long for the Little Ice Age to become a warm period, (LOL)
If they really think that the LIA was such a minor thing, perhaps they should try and live in one. Without modern conveniences like heating, washing machines and electric dryers. It was so grim in those days that people would go all winter without bathing because the cold water was such an obvious danger of hypothermia.
Fine. Then call it the Cold Miserable Period That Wasn’t A Little Ice Age. Or shorten it to the Long Cold Period.
Seems we’ve seen these authors names in other papers.
Did Phil Jones ever find the original data?
CET has been compromised since Climategate revealed Jones’ involvement.
That is amazing praise and description for CET; you wouldn’t believe those people are associated with CET in any way, would you?
Then that following proxy list is amazing in it’s simple brashness coupled to the obvious assumption that people are idiots.
• Tree rings: Mann at large.
• Corals: Ah yes, they’ve been conflicted by activists too. Fortunately that hijack is opposed.
• Insect numbers: Better hurry! Before new age snowflakes develop insect recipes! (more ketchup, please).
• Molluscs: Sure, and every mollusk sampling has yielded daily, monthly, seasonal and yearly temperatures.
Indeed!?
So the above author’s believed ice age ice cores could provide exactly what knowledge in direct comparison to non-ice-cores?
Is there something CET provides that is usable when comparing ice cores to CET, paintings and written literature?
Beside full blown idiocy?
Anyone notice a familiar practice here?
Straw man red herring distraction!
The illustrious authors use their depths of knowledge to fault someone’s wording for the period nick named “Little Ice Age”.
Imagine that, the LIA was not a real ice age?
Well, except for all of the glacier records showing glacier advancement during LIA period
Notice the casual diminution of a drop in hemispheric full year average temperature?
First, use some proxy combination to develop a very rough estimate for an entire year’s temperature average for the Northern hemisphere.
Then casually and condescendingly drop a 0.5°C temperature estimate…
Does anyone remember while reading that nonsense, the CAGW claims for how destructive 0.5°C temperature increase is bringing to Earth?
Indeed?
Then why isn’t London’s Frost Fair(s) described in detail; as in year by year?
From “London’s Frost Fairs”, the authors jump right to paintings.
Especially the paintings of one artist, a “Pieter the Elder Bruegel” and his commission to represent the twelve months of seasons.
From ‘http://www.pieter-bruegel-the-elder.org/biography.html’
“Whatever his reasons for leaving Antwerp, Bruegel took up residence in Brussels in 1563, where he was to remain until his death in 1569. His reputation as one of the greatest of all Netherlandish painters is mainly founded upon the works of this brief but highly productive period.
…
In 1565 Bruegel was commissioned to execute a series of pictures of the months for Niclaes Jonghelinck of Antwerp. Based upon the medieval idea of the labors of the seasons as seen, for example, in cathedral sculpture or the illuminations of late Gothic books of hours, Bruegel’s series represents a magnificient culmination of this tradition. Of the original group, five paintings have survived. De Tolnay (1935) has very plausibly suggested that each panel portrayed the activities of 2 months, so that only the painting for April and May is lost.
In these beautifully conceived and executed panels Bruegel has achieved a moment of resolution of the previously existing duality between man and nature. The central theme of the cycle is that man, if he follows the order of nature, can avoid the folly for which he is otherwise destined. The role of mankind is portrayed by peasants – anonymous symbols of humanity – who live and work close to the soil in a state of beneficent unity with nature.
The months of December and January are represented by the Hunters in the Snow. A work of great compositional unity, it demonstrates that the activities of men, in order to be good, must conform to the seasonal patterns of nature.
The Dark Day and the Hay Harvest depict the labors of February-March and June-July respectively. In both panels broad panoramic landscapes dominate visually as well as in terms of content the affairs of men, which once again accord with the will of nature.
The months of August and September are portrayed by the golden-hued Wheat Harvest, one of the most lyrical panels in the series. Here Bruegel achieves a greater degree of spatial and figural integration than in the previous paintings, as well as heightened atmospheric effects.”
Sticking with Elder Pieter’s paintings:
When fulfilling financial commission, what painter commits to canvas depressing horrors and sufferings?
Not the sane ones, that is sure.
Reading deeper, it is interesting to note the painter painted those artworks in Brussels.
Instead of focusing on ice fairs, why didn’t the authors focus on ice skating events? The Dutch have kept quite meticulous records.
Odd that CET involved CAGW supporters would not want such records.
Nothing like a little cherry picking and CET interruptions to inspire confidence…
Which leaves readers wondering so many things:
Such as where are other real world records?
Japan?
China?
Russia?
Germany?
Danish?
Norwegian?
After all; it is a very big North Hemisphere and there should be more information than just CET, London and proxies.
When so many erudite countries and their very long detailed records are ignored in favor of CET and proxies; one wonders where the science is?
Funny how someone can make a movie using Antarctic ice cores to make a fake point and win a Nobel prize and everlasting admiration of a worldwide throng of fawning sycophants based on the fake correlations drawn, but no one ever pays much attention to this one…I think they want to forget it even exists:
How right you are….
https://youtu.be/RTI3GlYYHUs
Besides other evidence discussed here I don’t buy the 18 degree C being warm enough to use the term hot in any context. That’s around 65 degrees F. Imagine what the overnight temperatures were like followed by many hours of temps below 60 degrees during the heat waves. Think about Spring temperatures too cold for crops to even get started north of London, Ireland and Scotland, across Northern Europe, Russia, Northern India, and China. Cold kills in many ways. We have been seeing killer cold waves and deep snow across all of the Northern Hemisphere in recent years and the sun hasn’t actually finished the current cycle yet. The MSM has been ignoring this and reporting on areas where the weather has been unusually warm this year.
From the other side of the World:
A unique data set that can potentially be used as a reliable proxy of temperature is the record of annual cherry blossom festivals in Japan. Cherry blossom festivals are a special feature of Japanese life that really has no equivalent in other countries. During festivals, all ages spend time outdoors, enjoying the beauty of the cherry blossoms by day and by night. The festivals have been the subject of numerous poems and songs and have been depicted in paintings, pottery, and textiles for hundreds of years. Because of their great popularity and cultural significance, local governments, meteorologists, botanists, and newspapers have recorded the flowering date of cherry blossoms for an extraordinarily long time. Researchers have been able to estimate March temperatures in the beautiful city of Kyoto going back to the 11th century, Figure below, showing that during the 11th through the 13th centuries, average temperatures were at their warmest averages, often as high as 8°C, as indicated by early dates of the cherry blossom festival:
http://www.leif.org/research/Kyoto-Cherry-Blossom-Dates.png
There were occasionally very cold years, as indicated by late flowering years, but on the whole this was the warmest average period. From 1400 to the mid 1500s, temperatures were variable, but they appear to have declined slightly on average. Certain decades, both before and after 1600, were noticeably warmer. In the following centuries, temperatures generally declined to 6°C, with particularly low temperatures in the periods from 1690 to the 1710s, and from 1810 to the 1830s, e.g. the year without a summer, 1816, likely caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia. The recent rise of temperatures is attributed, primarily to the warming associated with the urbanization of the Kyoto area (estimated to be of the order of 3°C), and secondarily with the general global climate warming of Japan.
Sounds as if the Maunder and Dalton Minima show up in Japanese cherry blossom dates, too.
Thanks!
Poor Lockwood, has little clues about meteorological events under a cold scenario or a warm scenario; especially that hot summer is certainly no contradiction to very cold winters since in the end it is the the prolonged presence of high pressure anticyclonic conditions that will give scorching heat waves in summer and lasting cold waves in winter, both contributing to extended droughts, all signs of a rapid mode of circulation brought out during cold periods and glaciations.
I hardly trust peddlers like Lockwood who have demonstrated having a horse in the race with statements like this one “This study provides little solace for the future, as we face the challenge of global warming. Solar activity appears to be declining at present, but any cooling effect that results will be more than offset by the effect of rising carbon dioxide emissions, and provides us with no excuse for inaction.”
However I do trust climate historians such as Emmanuel Garnier who have done their specialty of studying and most importantly assessing historical sources. His book (in French) is a must read:
http://www.plon.fr/ouvrage/les-derangements-du-temps/9782259208987
Although it should be noted that a summer peak of 18.3 C could only be considered hot by someone suffering through an LIA. By my standards, that would be a pleasant Spring day. Not even summer yet.
LIA?
CENSORED (© M Mann)
I’m allways a little surprised noting that so very little attention is given to researches performed by historians, like the French Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie… His first book on the topic, back in 1967 (“Histroire du climat depus l’an 1000”), has a LOT of info about the DRAMATIC consequences of LIA on people… just aks why the English edition, in 1973, got the title “Time of feast, time of famine”.
His new book on the topic, “Canicules et glacieres – Histoire humaine et comparee du climat”, published in 2005, is still more detailed in reconstructing the consequences of COLD climate extremes on the lifes of peoples during LIA. And some data are really dramatic… the great famine in 1709 lead to a death toll to France similar to the one that country suffered in WW1…
in the conclusions to his book (a really suggested reading), Ladurie states that, in the 1300 – early 1700 period, in Europe there were more than 80 catastrophic episodes of famine, but more or less 3/4 of them were because of COLD episodes…
Just my two cents (and sorry for my not so fluent English…)
Dario, thanks for the suggested reading! Funny how the religious fanatics of the Church Of Man Caused Globall Warmining are so desperate to stop people from looking at actual historical facts. And as to your fluency in English, you are far more fluent than many of the highly credentialed “scientists” who endlessly screech without end that humans have to shutdown all our energy production, manufacturing and agriculture in order to save the planet.
The AGW doctrine, just like the burning of food turning crops into bio-ethanol is part of the 1974 Genocide Agenda, NSSM 200, The mass looting of our economies, the perpetual wars of the past decades, the flooding of Europe with refugess that only just started is part of the package our sociopathic establishment has dumped on our societies. Believe in warming so you won’t be prepared for the cold shift that is in the pipeline, a process that started 3000 years ago. We really have to wake up.
“Rethinking the Little Ice Age” I haven’t read all the comments, but doesn’t proxy evidence show there was a global temperature drop as well? Not just “colder winters in some areas locally”