Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.

Written by Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann

Recent global climate variation is entirely within natural cyclical variation, cooling trend now underway and is likely to continue to 2030’s, according to best data.

Until the early to mid 2000s, global temperatures were more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer when compared to the overall 20th Century mean. From August of 2007 through February of 2008, the Earth’s mean reading dropped to near the 200-year average temperature of 57 degrees.global temps 2500bc to present 

Since that time, the mean reading has been fluctuating. But, the recently expired winter of 2013-14 was the coldest and snowiest in modern times in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, including the U.S., Canada and Japan.

We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades.

From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet’s warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. These researchers and scientists also concluded that the Earth’s ever-changing climate likewise has influenced global and regional economies, human and animal migrations, science, religion and the arts as well as shifting forms of government and strength of leadership. (See Long-Term Chart).

Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded ‘510-Year Drought Clock’ that he detailed at the end of the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the late 1930s.

During the early 1970s, our planet was in the midst of a colder and drier weather cycle that led to concerns of another ‘Little Ice Age.’ Inflationary recessions and oil shortages led to rationing and long gas lines at service stations worldwide. The situation at that time was far worse than it is now, at least for the time being.

The Weather Science Foundation also predicted, based on these various climate cycles, that our planet would turn much warmer and wetter by the early 2000s, resulting in general global prosperity. They also said that we would be seeing at this time widespread weather ‘extremes.’ There’s little doubt that most of their early predictions came true.

Our recent decline in the Earth’s temperature may be a combination of both long-term and short-term climate cycles, decreased solar activity and the development of strong long-lasting La Ninas, the cooler than normal sea-surface temperature event in the south-central Pacific Ocean. Despite the recent rise, sunspot activity since in the late 2000s has averaged near the lowest levels since ‘The Little Ice Age’ ended in the mid-to late 1800s. By 2020, some scientists state that solar activity will plummet once again that could lead to much colder weather across the globe. This recent “cool spell,” though, may have only been a brief interruption to the Earth’s overall warming trend. Only time will tell.

Based on these predictions, it appears that much warmer readings may be expected for Planet Earth, especially by the 2030s, that will eventually top 1998’s global highest reading of 58.3 degrees. It’s quite possible we could see an average temperature in the low 60s.

We at Harris-Mann Climatology, www.LongRangeWeather.com, believe that our prolonged cycle of wide weather ‘extremes,’ the worst in at least 1,000 years, will continue and perhaps become even more severe, especially by the mid 2010s. We’ve already seen a huge, disastrous “Mega Storm” hit the East Coast in late October of 2012. The Great Plains and Midwest has recently experienced the worst drought since the ‘Dust Bowl Days’ of the 1930s in 2012. Since the turn of the century, we’ve seen widespread flooding, crop-destroying droughts and freezes and violent weather of all types including ice storms, large-sized hail and torrential downpours.

The harsh conditions will likely lead to additional crop damage or losses resulting in higher food prices. This has been already the case since 2011.

Dr. Wheeler also discovered that approximately every 102 years, a much warmer and drier climatic cycle affects our planet. The last such ‘warm and dry’ peak occurred in 1936, at the end of the infamous ‘Dust Bowl’ period. During that time, extreme heat and dryness, combined with a multitude of problems during the ‘Great Depression,’ made living conditions practically intolerable.

The next ‘warm and dry’ climatic phase is scheduled to arrive in the early 2030s, probably peaking around 2038. It is expected to produce even hotter and drier weather patterns than we saw during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

But, we should remember, that the Earth’s coldest periods have usually followed excessive warmth. Such was the case when our planet moved from the Medieval Warm Period between 900 and 1300 A.D. to the sudden ‘Little Ice Age,’ which peaked in the 17th Century. Since 2,500 B.C., there have been at least 78 major climate changes worldwide, including two major changes in just the past 40 years.

By the end of this 21st Century, a cool down may occur that could ultimately lead to expanding glaciers worldwide, even in the mid-latitudes. Based on long-term climatic data, these major ice ages have recurred about every 11,500 years. The last extensive ice age was approximately 11,500 years ago, so we may be due again sometime soon. But, only time will tell.

Read more at www.longrangeweather.com

Disclaimer: the views expressed by the authors are not those necessarily of Principia Scientific International, whose scientists affirm that carbon dioxide (CO2) has only ever been proved to act as a coolant in the atmosphere.

Comments (15)

  • Avatar

    wookie57

    |

    Global scientist base their facts only since the Industrial Age to present date.
    125 years isn’t viable to make an accurate account of Global Warming and Cooling trends throughout history. The propagandizing of bloated media sources that buy into global government meteorological agencies enforcing a carbon tax is a hoax. United States is financially broke. Even before I read Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann 4,500 year Global Weather pattern synopsis I already knew their was something uncanny in what other similar scientists are saying likewise about Weather throughout long global history. People only see what they experience in the here and now.
    125 years makes for a poor litmus paper.

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    It is clearly impossible to determine what the climate system will do in the short term and the long term.

    And it matters not whether the future brings warming or cooling.

    What matters is we insist the IPCC produce just one peer reviewed study that demonstrates carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is causing catastrophic warming, and is the key driver of climate change.

    What matters is we insist the IPCC proves the validity of its “back-radiation” supposition by physical observation and experiment.

    What matters is we insist the IPCC demonstrate how its water-vapour feedback mechanism (which is just IPCC supposition) is able to breach the proven laws of thermodynamics.

  • Avatar

    albertellul

    |

    Thank you Cliff Harris and Andy Mann for the graph showing the variability of the world’s climate commencing when human beings began leaving written records of their achievements and tribulations, wars and other events. Basically the graph shows that humanity flourished during warm periods and suffered during cold ones.

    I had seen this graph some years back in a report published on sceptic’s blog but could not locate it again. Now I’ll make sure to save this report for future reference.

    What actually hit me in this temperature-time graph, and it stands out so clearly, is the increasing amplitude of the cold phases with time. Draw a line along the bottom of the cold curves and one gets trend of an increasingly colder phases. I just wonder how deep the next one will be.

    Our climate-science consensus keeps harping about a warming world that would destroy us all. They base their predictions on a questionable 20-year warming trend (1975-1995) but what they are not seeing, or failing to tells, is the what is happening in the longer term. The longer term shows catastrophic cooling. I just hope I’m wrong.

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    Humans extract Hydrocarbons from Earth and using combustion, combine Carbon atoms with Oxygen atoms currently in the atmosphere, creating 28 giga-tons of CO2 annually. By atomic weight, Carbon is only 27% of this weight. Converting 28 giga-tons to volume is less than three cubic miles of CO2. Air has a Specific Heat of 1.0 and CO2 has Specific Heat of 0.8, meaning CO2 heats AND cools faster than air. Heat transfer equations have three variables,

    Temperature difference > Specific Heat > Mass

    For simple comparison, we’ll substitute volume for mass. Earth’s oceans have 310 million cubic miles of water with Specific Heat four times greater than air at an average temperature of 3C. The solid/molten Earth has 259 billon cubic miles of matter, with Specific Heat magnitudes greater than air and an average temperature of +1500C.

    It is impossible for the tiny Carbon hair on the stubby air tail of the atmosphere to WAG the massive planetary DOG.

    Climate alchemy is intentional, elitist directed FRAUD.

    • Avatar

      PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

      |

      FSS: Good points, but not really striking at the heart of the problem wherein back radiation should not be included in Stefan Boltzmann calculations, and water vapor cools rather than warms – for reasons which can be explained with correct physics.

      See my previous comment and read the linked website and both linked papers. It will blow your mind and give you real meat in your campaign, because the hypothesis works for all planets and explains all the necessary heat transfer mechanisms.

  • Avatar

    PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

    |

    Agreed John. The whole radiative greenhouse effect is totally invalid, because they “explain” surface temperatures by adding 324W/m^2 of radiation from the colder atmosphere that supposedly can be added to 168W/m^2 of solar radiation. Then they deduct over 100W/m^2 for convection and latent heat to get a net figure of 390W/m^2 which is the exact flux for a perfect black body to reach 288K. But the back radiation does not add thermal energy, so they should use 390-324 = 66W/m^2 which of course gets nowhere near sufficient radiation to support the surface temperature. That’s why the whole paradigm is wrong and it is gravity which traps heat on all planets and downward convective heat transfers provide the energy which back radiation cannot.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      “…gets nowhere near sufficient radiation to support the surface temperature.”
      There you go again Duggie, the “insufficient radiation” garbage, derived from the WRONG solar radiation number of 168w/sq.m. When will you ever learn?
      …”the whole paradigm is wrong…”
      …”downward convective heat transfers…”
      Either the whole paradigm is wrong or we believe Doug Cotton with the New Paradigm of giant electric fans in the sky blowing hot air all over the surface to support its temperature.
      Oh, and incidentally, keeping the Earth’s core temperature too !
      Aaaahahahahahahahahahaha…cor blimey.

      • Avatar

        PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

        |

        You have to deduct the outward sensible heat transfers (conduction, convection) and evaporative cooling (latent heat) which in total are over 100W/m^2 because most of the solar radiation supplies that energy first. Only what’s left (66W/m^2) could raise the surface temperature. Even the IPCC realized you had to do this, so they added 324W/m^2 of backradiation to that 66W/m^2 to get 390W/m^2 thus explaining a temperature of 288K using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Learn the basics of what they claim first I suggest.

        [b]Whatever you think the mean is, you need to deduct just over 100W/m^2 for the above heat losses that are not by radiation. Then you need to explain another 390W/m^2 for the outward radiation. That makes about 500W/m^2 that you need to explain my friend.[/b]

        That’s why only the new [url=http://www.earth-climate.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]21st century paradigm[/url] provides correct answers.

        [b]Sorry to embarrass you by pointing out more errors on your part.
        [/b]

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          “Sorry to embarrass you by pointing out more errors on your part”
          Not in the least Duggie boy. I’m not embarrassed…there’s no errors, to my knowledge, on my part…but you should sure as hell be embarrassed. You’ve got a jumble of watts/sq.m. going in all directions, all hypothetical, all calculated, all unreal, and all wrong.
          Your total stuff up starts at your very 1st sentence..
          “You have to deduct the outward sensible heat transfers…which in total are over 100w/sq.m. because most of the solar radiation supplies that energy first”
          What !! No Duggie, The solar energy in watts/sq.m strikes the surface BEFORE the sensible energy (expressed in different units)is released or accounted for. You’re reducing the solar radiation to the surface before it even arrives at the surface. Then, to underscore your deluded confusion..the next sentence…
          “Only what’s left(66w/sq.m.)could raise the surface temperature.”
          Oh go on Doug, why not go the whole hog ,be the total embarrassment and say you’ve only got about 20 or 30watts/sq.m. of solar radiation to energise the Earth’s surface…and let gravity, heat creep, downward convective heat transfers, downward diffusion, and anything else your New Paradigm of pseudo-physics would like to imagine, do all the bullshit talking for you.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            OK, right, there was a small error in my sentence…it should have read…”..the sensible heat (expressed in different units) is released or accounted for”
            Not “sensible energy.”
            What I’m doing is correcting your piece of crap logic when you said…”You have to deduct the outward sensible heat transfers….because most of the solar radiation supplies that energy first”
            You’re fucking around pulling the energy apart BEFORE or DURING (your choice),it’s impact on the surface and is converted into heat, you loon….and for your edification the watts/sq.m striking the Earth’s surface is 340w/sq.m. not 168w/sq.m. Got it?
            Just close your eyes and say after me…mmmmmm, 340w/sq.m at the surface..mmmmm 340w/sq/m mmmmmm 340w/sq.m mmmm surface 340w/sq.m.
            It’s reverse psychological therapy…it may help..but the prognosis after 40yrs of your institutionalised ignorance is doubtful.

      • Avatar

        PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

        |

        There is absolutely no wind of any form playing a part in the new paradigm. Why the hell did you think that, with your reference to giant fans? You haven’t a clue what is explained in the peer-reviewed [url=http://www.earth-climate.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]paper[/url] have you? Oh well, silent readers can have their laugh at you.

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          The reference to giant fans is in response to this “downward convective heat transfers”
          “Downward convective heat transfers”?..what the hell are these “downward convective heat transfers”?
          Firstly I always thought that convective heat transfers in the atmosphere always went UPWARD….like hot air always rises eh Douglas.? So for hot air to come DOWNWARD you would need those giant fans in the sky, wouldn’t you.
          This is the only logical explanation for your “downward convective heat transfers” Are you sure it’s not Al Gore with a giant hairdryer? You and big Al should get together and consolidate the New Paradigm of Physics…a fine couple of cranks..only he’s slightly fatter than you and much more charismatic

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Doug has his own, unique understanding of convection/buoyancy.

            Wind and the resulting mixing of air masses has to do with vortices, as observed in jet streams and severe weather (tornadoes, hurricanes). Very little of the mixing (which cools the surface warms the higher altitudes through simple exchange of air masses) is a result of convection.

            The popularistic but blatantly stupid notion that convection causes the above mentioned mixing is nonsense created by meteorologists.

            Storms are the origin of the winds and storms have nothing to do with convection. Meteorology is even worse that climatology when it comes to failing to test their basic assumptions. These fools actually believe moist air is lighter than dry air. They literally believe this nonsense and refuse to test it.

            Doug is a bozo. But he’s not less than a bozo than all the other pretenders, PSI and Postma included, that refuse to substantiate their basic assumptions before they pretend they understand what they acutally do not
            http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

      • Avatar

        PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

        |

        What keeps the core of the Moon at over 1300°C my friend? Knowing that the surface cools to -150°C I suggest there’s been plenty of time for that core to cool right down. Only the new paradigm lets us explain it using the Second Law of Thermodynamics which you don’t understand and probably could not recite, let alone explain the terms like entropy used in that statement. You live with 19th century physics.

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    I do not see how the mimiscule amount of CO2 we inject into the atmosphere will cause warming since the GHE is not valid in any way. Also the RWP was warmer than the MWP because the Romans grew red wine grapes some way north of York, near 54N, but this was not possible during the MWP.

Comments are closed