The Little Ice Age Enigma
The Earth’s climate is a coupled, nonlinear, and chaotic system, influenced by a multitude of factors beyond any single variable. While the current rise in global temperatures is a concern, it’s crucial to understand that climate history is full of changes in surface temperature with little change in GHG concentration. For example, the Little Ice Age (LIA), a period of regional cooling between the 16th and 19th centuries, offers a valuable case study for understanding the limitations of solely attributing global temperature variations to CO2 levels.
During the Little Ice Age, Earth experienced a significant cooling period although CO2 levels were relatively stable. This contradicts the popular belief that CO2 is the primary driver of surface temperature. Several factors contributed to the cooling during the Little Ice Age:
- Decreased solar activity: During the LIA there were periods of significantly diminished solar activity known as the Spörer Minimum (1460-1550) and Maunder Minimum (1645-1715).
Reconstructed from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-010-0795-1 - Volcanic activity: Large volcanic eruptions during the LIA injected vast amounts of ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which reflected sunlight and caused cooling. In fact, a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience found:
We conclude that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by the recovery from a sequence of volcanic eruptions, which makes it difficult to define a single pre-industrial baseline.
- Ocean circulation: Changes in ocean currents during the LIA redistributed heat around the globe, leading to regional cooling. A study published in the Journal Nature Communications found:
The cooling transition into the Little Ice Age was the last notable shift in the climate system prior to anthropogenic global warming. It is hypothesised that sea-ice to ocean feedbacks sustained an initial cooling into the Little Ice Age by weakening the subpolar gyre circulation; a system that has been proposed to exhibit bistability.
- Orbital changes: The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is not a perfect circle, and its tilt and orientation change over time. These variations, known as Milankovitch cycles, can influence the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface however they operate at timescales that likely had little influence on the LIA.
This historical period suggests that factors other than CO2 levels can significantly influence Earth’s climate, highlighting the complex interplay of various natural mechanisms (e.g., solar variability, volcanic activity, ocean currents, orbital mechanics) in climate regulation. While it’s true that CO2 is a GHG influencing surface temperature, the LIA underscores the importance of understanding broader climatic forces that likely operate today.
During the Little Ice Age, CO2 concentrations were significantly lower than today’s levels and showed little variation, yet Earth experienced considerable cooling, further challenging the view that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature changes.
The LIA primarily impacted the North Atlantic region, characterized by colder winters, shorter growing seasons, and increased glacial activity. While the Northern Hemisphere did experience a significant cooling trend, it wasn’t uniform across the globe. This regional disparity underlines the complexity of climate dynamics, where factors like ocean circulation patterns and volcanic activity can create localized effects and further underscore the absurdity of a global average temperature.
Furthermore, cold temperatures have historically posed a greater threat to society than warm temperatures. Cold spells and frost can damage crops, leading to reduced food production and famine. In contrast, warmer temperatures can extend growing seasons and increase agricultural productivity.
Cold weather is associated with increased mortality due to hypothermia, respiratory diseases, and cardiovascular issues. While heatwaves can also be dangerous, they are less frequent and have a smaller impact on overall mortality. In fact, a study published by the journal The Lancet concluded:
From 2000–03 to 2016–19, the global cold-related excess death ratio changed by −0·51 percentage points (95% eCI −0·61 to −0·42) and the global heat-related excess death ratio increased by 0·21 percentage points (0·13–0·31), leading to a net reduction in the overall ratio.
Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Cold weather requires more energy for heating, which can strain energy grids and increase costs and cold temperatures can cause damage to infrastructure through frost heave, ice formation, and the expansion of frozen water in cracks. This can lead to costly repairs and disruptions to transportation and communication networks.
In summary, The Little Ice Age (LIA) underscores the complexity of Earth’s climate system, which is influenced by a myriad of factors beyond CO2 levels. This period of significant cooling occurred despite relatively stable CO2 concentrations, challenging the notion that CO2 is the primary determinant of surface temperature. Factors such as decreased solar activity, volcanic eruptions, changes in ocean circulation, and possibly even orbital changes played a part in the LIA’s climate dynamics. These historical insights emphasize the importance of considering a range of natural mechanisms in our understanding of climate change. Today, as we observe rising global temperatures, it is crucial to remember that climate change is a multifaceted issue. The lessons from the LIA illustrate that while CO2 plays a significant role, the Earth’s climate is shaped by various interacting factors. Acknowledging this complexity is key to fully grasping the challenges and implications of current and future climate change.
Source: Irrational Fear
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
MattH
| #
Why would anybody include Mann’s hockey stick in a climate article?
Reply
Terry Shipman
| #
I was going to point that out but you beat me to it. It’s as fake as a three dollar bill.
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Do you mean my vault full of three dollar notes are fake?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
https://youtu.be/WMqc7PCJ-nc?si=SQ6oiRC-TktIc0a0
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Also fake is GHG climate warming. The IPCC model had upper tropical troposphere warming the surface, particularly in the fatally-flawed climate models. The problem is that the upper troposphere is -17 deg C and the surface is 15 deg C. The cooler one cannot warm the warmer. All downward IR would be reflected. Also, IR is absorbed by the 1st few nanometers of the ocean and any warming lost immediately to evaporative cooling.
No gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can warm the climate as the surface is almost always warmer than the atmosphere.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
My biggest complaint it that, if you are going to address long term climate cycles or changes, one should at least have a decent science training, as in Henry’s Law and the Laws of Thermodynamic dynamics.
It is ignorance not to recognize that CO2 goes in and out of the oceans according to temperature and that CO2 is 50 times more soluble in water than the atmosphere.
It is also ignorance not to examine critically the GHG model of the IPCC. The climate models are also fatally-flawed and have no night-time, being expanded models for small stars, which have no night-time. One has to look at the real world temperatures to see that the upper troposphere CANNOT warm the surface—its basic thermodynamics.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
If you know the basic laws and relationships of physics, water, and gases, one would be able to see through the gross generalities of the longer term graphs. Concluding that CO2 and temperature are in synchronous change, is not to discern that a closer look shows that temperature changes always precede CO2 changes at any time scale. It’s that simple to negate bad science.
So, if CO2 changes always follow temperature changes, it is junk science to pretend that suddenly CO2 drives temperature. That’s junk science based on a political agenda and not reality.
In fact, CO2’s ability to re-radiate IR simply means that more IR is lost to space, thus cooling the planet.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
You cling to the belief that the chart produced by a thermometer represents the ke of the molecules in the atmosphere. The flow of energy does not pause or reverse direction as the zig zag graph shows. It flows from molecules with greater energy to molecules with less energy. The temperature graph shows the energy for a constant volume of gas but because the number/mass of the air molecules decrease with increasing altitude the graph shows the energy of a smaller number of molecules per unit volume. To get an accurate indication of the energy of the molecules you must divide the temperature reading at an altitude by the number of molecules (density) transferring energy to the thermometer. The instrument is telling how much momentum is being absorbed by the liquid, not how much energy the molecules have.
Herb
Reply
VOWG
| #
Climate, changing for millions of years, until man came along.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Why does nobody mention the fact that CO2 always changes after the climate warms or cools—it outgasses from the oceans with warming and then is reabsorbed with cooling, the latter being slower and more passive.
Reply
Lorraine
| #
When has the climate of earth not been in process of change? It’s a dynamic process much like geological change. Humans have no control over them.
Ignorance, on the other hand, is a human foible.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Dr. Matthew Wielicki,
Your articles are well researched and thought out.
However, you are simply countering the ‘circumstantial evidence’ arguments presented by the Climate Change folks.
Instead, I believe we should focus on the ridiculous ‘GHG Theory’, which was first invented by a guy named James Hansen, in his PhD Thesis at Iowa University. Remember him? The guy who worked at Columbia in NYC with a bunch of filthy hippies, and pretended to be NASA scientists? Raised up to notoriety by Al Gore and John Kerry in Congressional hearings?
Yes, that guy.
His ‘theory’ is complete non-sense. His academic advisors should have been canned for their lack of understanding of basic Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer.
As others have pointed out: No gas in the atmosphere, being the same temperature or colder than the surface, can warm anything! No exceptions! Not even Kryptonite gas can perform this miracle.
Radiation is not additive. If it were, then I could place a cold cup of coffee next to a hot one, then magically the cold cup would increase the temperature of the hot cup, bringing it to a boil.
Does anyone, other than a five year old believe this nonsense?
At least it is hard to disprove the existence of the ‘Tooth Fairy’. However, GHG Theory is very simple to disprove, and dismantle.
Laws of Thermodynamics are not mere suggestions…
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
I understand Libraries are quaint, old-fashioned things, but if one goes into any research library in the world, and researches Green House Gas Theory, they will find zero mention until the mid-1980’s.
A skeptical mind might ask, “So, brilliant engineers and scientists landed men on the Moon in the 1960’s, and calculated the exact temperature of the Moon landing sights (so the astronauts didn’t die)? Yet, none of those dumb folks discovered the obvious threat of CO2 Green-House Gas Theory?”
It never entered into their minds because it doesn’t exist.
It is pure fantasy sold to a public, which is 99% technically illiterate, and politicians who are 100% technically illiterate.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
Actually the GHGT was first proposed in the 1870s as an explanation as to why the Earth was growing warmer since the end of the little ice age. Knut Angstrom argued because there was so much more water in the air any. effect due to CO2 would be un-noticible and in 194 R. J. Woods did experiments showing there was no greenhouse gas effect. Savante Arrhenius withdrew his GHGT admitting it was wrong and the science was settled, just like phlogiston was disproven. The GHGT was revived by politicians (Margaret Thatcher, Al Gore) as a means to create an imaginary crisis so they could control people and steal money. People like Hansen and Mann (not scientists) saw they could get a lot of government money in grants by telling the politicians what they wanted to hear and the government proceeded to destroy science using money converting it into propaganda to further their agendas. Anyone who believes there is any science supporting the GHGT can’t think or examine evidence objectively. and are just shills, not scientists.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Actually the GHGT was first proposed in the 1870s as an explanation as to why the Earth was growing warmer since the end of the little ice age.” You may understand a little science but your knowledge of history seems none existence.
It was only until about 1870 when a few measured air temperature records began to become available for analysis. And Arrhenius, a chemist, turned his attention to using this data. Except you can read that he considered the measured air temperatures were a proxy for the Earth’s surface temperatures which were not available.he But I assume he was aware, as I am, that the earth’s solid and liquid surfaces did not instantly warm as the rays of the sun struck these surfaces. after sunrise I read that he exerted much effort to collect the air temperatures which it seems you haven’t even read this history which I have read.
Have a good day
Reply
Mike Jamison
| #
Have any true believers bothered to calculate the total energy from natural and man-made sources that is simply released within the atmosphere, in watts/m^2? The info’s pretty easy to look up, and in doing the calculations I came up with about 0.1W/m^2. That was just for estimated total energy used per year plus energy from forest fires (doesn’t include volcanic activity). Conversion is pretty simple, just divide the total Joules/year by (365243600) to get watts, then divide again by the area of the planet in square meters to get to the ~0.1 W/m^2.
Reply