A new analysis has Poland’s July temperatures hitting 20.6°C in Medieval times, whereas they’re only 17.4°C today.
The temperature record for this region also shows today’s temperatures are not much different than they were during the Little Ice Age.
Another chart contained in the study (Pleskot et al., 2022) shows North America’s and Europe’s mean annual temperatures are nearly the lowest of the last 4,500 years.
Image Source: Pleskot et al., 2022
And any warming in Poland in recent decades can easily be explained by the documented increase in absorbed solar radiation, or global brightening (Bartoszek et al., 2021).
[…] New Study: In Northern Poland The Medieval Warm Period Was 3°C Warmer Than Today […]
Precipitation and cloud cover are connected to dust/smoke in the air.
Since 60-70 years we are switching away from coal-ovens to electric stoves, from cars with big particle output to cars with miniscule particle output, industry-exhausts are cleaned also from particles. Cannot be it the case that our health-policies are directly connected to “sunshina duration” and also to temperature rises? I am not an expert just an interested amateur asking questions
Hi Mr. Kenneth,
i am following very closely your work, and i would like to say that is an amazing job. Nobody in the world is collecting that huge amount of evidence to, at least, being skeptical in order to claim that science is settled.
That being said, i would appreciate if you could shed light about CO2 as the climate forcing for cloud changing since a couple of decades. As you are collecting, more and more scientific papers are providing evidence ASR (more energy coming from sun because of less clouds and different composition) is driving temperatures at surface, so that greenhouse phenomenon (letting less energy to scape to space) is not the only variable driving temperatures.
But, what is driving clouds behaviour? according to mainstream science, CO2 is the driver, the force, the original perturbation that is making this feedback, earth having less clouds. Do we have evidente for the opposite? that behind clouds recent behaviour there could be internal variability or another exogenous force?
For my point of view, this is a crucial question.
waiting for your help.
Regards.
The “mainstream science” has a consistency problem with this claim. They say that H2O in gas (vapor) and droplet (cloud) increase in response to warming, but then they turn around and claim only H20 in gas form increases as the droplet form decreases. They can’t have it both ways.
Sfica et al. (2021) point out that the climate models have long claimed clouds would increase as CO2 rises. They also point out that internal/natural changes in atmospheric circulation drive cloud cover changes, and cloud cover changes modulate the Earth’s radiation budget. Cess et al. (2003) also suggest internal unforced natural variability drive changes in cloud cover.
Considering global-scale climate changes of 5-15C within only decades can and do occur due to unforced natural variability (i.e., no external driver), the idea that a 1 degree change over a century is something unusual or outside the range of what occurs naturally is dubious.
Much more to say about this topic, but hopefully this gives you a brief answer to your good question.
Hi Mr. Kenneth,
Thank you very much for your answer. Step by step, more studies start to point out, with real observations, that modern temperatures can have multiple root causes, and i appreciate your references.
In fact, as a complement to yours, we have also papers like Uwe Pfeifroth et al. 2018″Satellite-based trends of solar radiation and cloud parameters in Europe”, writing at the conclusion section the following paragraph: “The negative trends in cloud cover over Europe can be due to changes in the tropospheric dynamics, i.e. in the large scale circulation (Trigo et al., 2002), which needs further investigations. Large scale circulation changes might be indicated by an observed negative tendency of the North Atlantic Oscillation Index (Barnston et al., 1987) since the early 1990’s (not shown). However, it is very likely that there is no single reason for the observed large scale and long-termchange in SSR over Europe, but a combination of different reasons.”
We have also Svensmark et al. 2021″Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing”, where he points out, through observations, that cosmic ray particles have a big impact as a possible driver and original perturbation for modern cloud properties.
Ya Song et al. 2021 “The Effect of Solar Cycle on Climate of Northeast Asia“ finds “Using statistical methods and solar radio flux (SRF) data, this paper investigates the impact of the solar 11-yr cycle on regional climate of Northeast Asia in recent decades. Significant differences in winter temperature, precipitation, and the atmospheric circulation over Northeast Asia are found between peak and valley solar activity years”
As you said, in the early beginning mainstream science claimed temperatures were driven by greenhouse effect, CO2 not letting energy scape to space in form of longwave radiation. After years of observations giving the opposite results (observations from the mid 80’s, thanks to ERBS and CERES, shows an OLR increase trend at ToA), Donohoe et al. in 2014 had to rewrite models to give an explanation. Of course, if you set CO2 as the initial perturbation for your algorithm, what can you expect as a result? Different symptoms coming from the same diagnostic, that CO2 is the initial and only perturbation.
This is the same situation than what Sfica et al. (2021) pointed out. Past mainstream scientist claimed that with increased temperatures, water vapor and clouds would increase as a feedback. You have to travel in time and see climate scientists doing modification to their models and algorithms, again setting CO2 as the original perturbation, to let the algorithm claim what is the truth, what are the chain of causalities & reasons for this events to happend. Because the truth is inside algorithms, not observations.
The more you read about climate science, the more you suspect there has to be a kind of bias between all those mainstream climate advocates. The moment you show them papers that could point out to alternative and complementary causes to antrophogenic ones, the moment you start to realize they only accept the percentage of science that confirms and reinforces their bias. It’s a shame. It is really annoying how modern mainstream climate scientists takes as ultimate truth what an algorithm claims it is the truth. And how little honesty they have in order to accept publicly that the truth is changing over time because observations are forcing them to do it.
I think its a must you open a new categorie section related to this topic.
Cheers and keep up your amazing job.