The Little Ice Age Was The Coldest Period For 10000 Years

Posted: April 4, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Following the post on the climate modeller who admits they assume the eEarth was in balance at the onset of industrialisation

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://vimeo.com/14366077

Jørgen Peder Steffensen is Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and one of the world’s leading experts on ice cores. Using ice cores from sites in Greenland, he has been able to reconstruct temperatures there for the last 10000 years. So what are his conclusions?

  • Temperatures in Greenland were about 1.5 C warmer 1000 years ago than now.
  • It was perhaps 2.5 C warmer 4000 years ago.
  • The period around 1875, at the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, marked the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.
  • Other evidence from elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere confirms this picture.

His final comment is particularly telling :-

I agree totally we have had a global temperature increase in the 20thC – but an increase from what? ..Probably an increase from the lowest point in the last 10,000 years.

We started to observe meteorology at the…

View original post 25 more words

Comments
  1. markstoval says:

    “The period around 1875, at the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, marked the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.”

    I have said this or something like it for since the 80s when the scare mongers got on the warming train and pretended they had never talked up a “new ice age”.

    Simply put, there is no way that CO2 has a darn thing to do with climate and we need to drop this religious belief in a magic molecule and get on with trying to find out exactly how the climate does work.

    The climate works in cycles so we should start looking there first — but that was what got the physics journal shuttered and produced howls of glee by the WUWT crowd. Still, the answers are in what causes the cycles.

  2. ren says:

    Galactic radiation level is gradually increasing. Solar activity decreases.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Even Wikipedia knows about climate cycles. Computerised models don’t, it seems.

    ‘There are close correlations between Earth’s climate oscillations and astronomical factors (barycenter changes, solar variation, cosmic ray flux, cloud albedo feedback, Milankovic cycles)’

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

    WUWT et al take note.

  4. ren says:

    Explicit asymmetry in the level of ozone in the zone of the ozone in the southern hemisphere.

  5. The Little Ice Age ,as was the Medieval Warm Period clearly correlate with solar activity. .

  6. Dataset of datasets. The mean of the GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere temperature anomalies shows no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero over the 18 full years from March 1996 to February 2014. The 0.14 Cº trend over the 18-year period is within the ±0.15 Cº combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties in the datasets. There may have been no global warming at all during the entire lifetimes of all students now in high school. Not that their teachers will have told them that.

    Key facts about global temperature
    •The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 212 months from August 19996 to March 2014. That is just over half the entire 423-month satellite record.
    •The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century – before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault.
    •The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
    •The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
    •Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
    •The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
    •In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 3.5 Cº per century.
    •The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – two-fifths of what the IPCC had then predicted.
    •In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to 1.7 Cº per century – just half its 1990 prediction.
    •Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its centennial warming prediction of 3.7 Cº warming to 2100 on business as usual.
    •The IPCC’s prediction of 3.7 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
    •The IPCC’s 3.7 Cº-by-2100 prediction is more than three times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
    •Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the dataset of datasets is zero – 0.0 Cº per century. No warming for 13 years 2 months.
    •Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
    •RSS shows the least warming over the past 18 years; UAH, the other satellite dataset, shows the most. The difference is caused by varying adjustments to the data.
    •Averaging the RSS and UAH data, and averaging the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC data, shows a difference of only 1/30 Cº between the two trends.

  7. oldbrew says:

    The IPCC and its followers like the UK Met Office prefer their inadequate computer models to real data.

    That can only end badly as we are now seeing, and will continue to see unless or until they wise up.

  8. Don Keiller says:

    I’m sure Richard Betts (Met Office) will want to comment on this.

  9. Roger Andrews says:

    This post makes the following claims:

    “The Little Ice Age Was The Coldest Period For 10000 Years”

    “Temperatures in Greenland were about 1.5 C warmer 1000 years ago than now.”

    “It was perhaps 2.5 C warmer 4000 years ago.”

    How do these claims stack up against the data? Here are 200-year smoothed versions of seven higher-resolution ice core records from the Greenland area. (Temperatures are estimated using Willi Dansgaard’s degrees C = (d18O+13.6)/0.69 relationship and average temperatures between 0 and 1000 years BP are set to zero so that all the records end at the same level.)

    Adding to the uncertainty is the question of whether d18O is even a reliable temperature proxy in ice cores. There are reasons to believe it isn’t.

    The only conclusion we can draw from these results is that temperatures in Greenland might have been higher a few thousand years ago that they are now, but we can’t even be certain of that.

  10. GISP 2 ice core data shows temperatures trending down for last 10000 years.

  11. Bolling–Allerod

    A period of warm climate beginning abruptly approximately 14 700 years ago, following the end of the Pleistocene, and extending to approximately 12 700 years ago.

    This warm period ended with a return to cold conditions during the Younger Dryas. Traditionally, this period is divided into the Bolling (warm), Older Dryas (cold), and Allerod (warm) intervals, but recent, more detailed climatic records indicate that the entire Bolling–Allerod period was generally warm with several abrupt coolings.

    Broeker, W. S. 1992. Defining the boundaries of the late-glacial isotope episodes. Quat. Res.. 38, No.1. 135– 138.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    New Animation:
    (polar views added 2014-04-05)

    Sun-Climate Multidecadal (MD) Wave
    = Marcia Wyatt’s “Stadium” Wave

    background

  13. Roger Andrews says:

    Paul:

    The animation displays “corr monthly _ with ERSST v3b2 SST”. Does “corr” stand for “corrected” or “correlation”, and if the latter what is ERSST being correlated with?

    And what are the scale units?

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Roger A:

    Above I give a link to the minimal background needed to interpret.

    Regards

  15. ren says:

    Tallbloke interesting article.

    Click to access Bra2005e.pdf


  16. Solar/Thermohaline Circulation/1470 year climate cycle connection – Southwest Weather, Inc. supports the theory that states the superposition of the DE VRIES – SUESS 210 year solar cycle, and the Gleissberg 87 year old solar cycle creates a solar variability every 1470 years, that impacts the fresh water concentrations put into the North Atlantic, which in turn either weakens or strengthens the Thermohaline Circulation. The effects, depending on the initial state of the climate; that being glacial or interglacial. Since we are currently in an interglacial period, we will examine the Solar/Thermohaline circulation possible connection for this initial state of the climate when solar activity is in a minimum state.

    OVERVIEW

    The connection between the Thermohaline Circulation and the Solar Cycle is if solar activity should reach a certain level of activity, it could through a modulating effect of the atmospheric circulation, either amplify or reduce the amount of sea ice entering the subpolar North Atlantic. This would then change the fresh water concentration of the subpolar North Atlantic, leading to a change in the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) production, which would either enhance or decrease the Thermohaline Circulation.

    FOR EXAMPLE:

    If solar activity were to reach a certain minimum magnitude (every 1470 years), it could modulate the atmospheric circulation, resulting in a negative Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which in turn would amplify the transport (due to a stronger northerly wind flow over the North Sea to the Sub Polar North Atlantic, in response to a negative NAO) of drift ice into the Sub Polar North Atlantic, causing the salinity concentrations and the temperature of the Sub Polar North Atlantic waters to decrease. (Density decreases overall despite colder water temperatures)

    This would cause a reduction in NADW formation, which would lead to a weakening of the Thermohaline Circulation. The result would be a further cooling in the higher latitudes, due to less northward transport of heat via the Thermohaline Circulation.

    This would then have a PROFOUND EFFECT on the temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere much MORE, then what the solar reduction in activity itself would suggest.

    FACT 23 – CONTINENTAL DRIFT – Southwest Weather, Inc

  17. Ren, my take on what you sent which I did about a year ago.

  18. I think what is going to be needed going forward to settle the solar/climate connection is for the sun to meet extreme solar minimum criteria which I will post.

    Once this criteria is reached or even approached with a sufficient amount of time (which has a good chance of happening this decade) much more will be known about solar climate connections.

  19. THE CRITERIA

    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

    IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.

  20. A period of time to study is around 1275 AD -1350 AD a time when the earth transitioned from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age.

    I see similarities to that time period versus this time period. Low prolonged solar/increased volcanic activity being the prime reasons. Will it happen again?

  21. ren says:

    Let’s see how the decreased magnetic activity of the Sun.

    You can see that fell from 22 cycle, the trend is evident.

  22. Ren, exactly . Sometime in the year 2005 the Ap index under went a major change.

  23. E10.7 FLUX running north of 150 units for past few months. Needs to be less then 110 units and stay at that level or lower in my opinion to have a strong enough effect on ozone production and hence the atmospheric circulation.

    I think once this solar maximum ends this reading will be sub 100 for years.

  24. Climate science for the most part does not address abrupt climate changes and thresholds in the climate system.

    The AGW models which are useless are even more so in that they have no capability what so ever to show abrupt climate changes and or thresholds that might cause such an event to happen.

    Climate models would never nor can they today forecast an event such as the ending of the Medieval Warm Period transitioning to the Little Ice Age around 1300 AD.

    They have no clue.

  25. ren says:

    Salvatore Del Prete
    We are thinking the same way. From history we know that may be at risk of cultivation, when suddenly a cold front descends to the south. It will be surprising phenomenon, as in October in South Dakota. In addition, to increase the incidence of cancer. This requires mental preparation. We have a bit of time.

  26. ren says:

    Blocking polar vortex also occurs in the south. You can see the polar vortex shifted at a height of 30 km due to changes in the ozone.


    The reason is the high level of of the galactic radiation clustered by the Earth’s magnetic field.
    Weak vortex longer causes the block at 500 hPa.

  27. dscott says:

    Where did the heat go? Into the oceans? Nope:

    Temperature fluctuations: Atlantic Ocean dances with the sun and volcanoes

    Natural fluctuations in the ocean temperature in the North Atlantic have a significant impact on the climate in the northern hemisphere. These fluctuations are the result of a complex dance between the forces of nature, but researchers at Aarhus University can now show that solar activity and the impact of volcanic eruptions have led this dance during the last two centuries…

    …Although the temperature fluctuations are small — less than 1°C — there is a general consensus among climate researchers that the AMO phenomenon has had a major impact on the climate in the area around the North Atlantic for thousands of years, but until now there has been doubt about what could cause this slow rhythm in the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean. One model explains the phenomenon as internal variability in the ocean circulation — somewhat like a bathtub sloshing water around in its own rhythm. Another model explains the AMO as being driven by fluctuations in the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, and as being affected by small changes in the energy radiated by the Sun itself and the after-effects of volcanic eruptions. Both these factors are also known as ‘external forces’ that have an impact on the Earth’s radiation balance.

    However, there has been considerable scepticism towards the idea that a phenomenon such as an AMO could be driven by external forces at all — a scepticism that the Aarhus researchers now demonstrate as unfounded “Our new investigations clearly show that, since the Little Ice Age, there has been a correlation between the known external forces and the temperature fluctuations in the ocean that help control our climate. At the same time, however, the results also show that this can’t be the only driving force behind the AMO, and the explanation must therefore be found in a complex interaction between a number of mechanisms. It should also be pointed out that these fluctuations occur on the basis of evenly increasing ocean temperatures during the last approximately fifty years — an increase connected with global warming,” says Associate Professor Mads Faurschou Knudsen, Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, who is the main author of the article.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331114502.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

    As much as these people cling to their AGW belief system, somehow they still have to deal with the facts and now there is grudging acknowledgment that the sun affects the AMO and climate. It is a stunning admission with vast implications when you digest it. IF the sun affects the Atlantic Ocean then clearly it affects the other oceans as well. IF the sun affects the oceans, then by implication there must be a change in the solar output in some manner that causes this effect. IF the sun changes then the entire concept of a solar constant is WRONG. The two pillars of the AGW hoax is the falsehood that 1.) the sun doesn’t change in any meaningful output and 2.) Water Vapor, that is Specific Humidity in the atmosphere doesn’t change leaving the only variable as CO2 to account for any change in Earth’s temperature (GAT).