"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 31/07/2019 19:45, JGD wrote:
On 31/07/2019 16:15, Spike wrote:


The problem you have with the 100-200 years time-scales is that if you
applied it to the LIA, one would swing between squandering a nation's
resources battling warming, or battling cooling, depending on where in
the LIA you chose as a datum.


Global temperature effects during the so-called Little Ice Age are
estimated to have been relatively small, maybe 0.5C as a maximum and more
likely significantly less than that. (Granted, in some regions like
Western Europe there were greater effects, but we're talking about GLOBAL
cooling/warming here.)

In contrast, the present warming period shows a global rise of 1C in the
past 100-150 years (with something like 0.7C in the past 40 years) and
the rise is continuing inexorably at 0.1-0.2C/decade - probably 1.5C by
2050.

So any appeal to the LIA doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.

I don't know about you, but the five separate curves shown in the middle
of the NASA link originally given

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

look to me to correlate far too well to be considered "independent".

I wonder how much of the argument that the LIA was "local" is actually
down to there being relatively good data for the UK and Europe at that
time, but not much for other regions that might have been similarly
affected.

The whole of the first world and most of the second world
were doing met records just as accurately in 1900 as they
were being done in the UK and Europe at that time, even
in the wilds of Australia etc, And we had the Federation
Drought at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Drought