An article by Tony Brown makes much the same point:

https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

He also adds a lot of anecdotal information and historical research to show that the CET reconstruction, so derided by comical Phil (can he tie his shoelaces without grabbing a quote from SkS?). In addition it shows a CET reconstruction that quite clearly shows a LIA. By the way, Phil, if you compare the daily temperatures in Utrecht and England you will see that they are pretty similar. But then, i guess you are not worldly enough to know where Utrecht is on a map. Note that Brown does not claim his reconstruction is accurate, but that it shows the direction of travel of temperatures and that it corresponds with contemporary experience.

"An even more unlikely source of information comes from this study of witchcraft trials, events possibly precipitated by superstition of changes in climate which subsequently impacted on the economy of the time. Written by Harvard economics PhD Emily Oster it is entitled ‘Witchcraft, Weather and Economic Growth in Renaissance Europe ‘ and published in Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2004. This is included as it covers our period of interest-especially figure 1- and also provides some intriguing and little seen sources of references. (29)

Dr Pfister reported to Hubert Lamb that for several decades prior to 1564 the Swiss climate was on average 0 .4c warmer than today (1990’s) In Switzerland, the first particularly cold winters appear to have begun in the 1560s, with cold springs beginning around 1568, and with 1573 the first unusually cold summer (Pfister, 1995).

Dr Pfister has an interesting graph of central Europe temperatures showing a progressive cooling of winters from the 1540’s, a subsequent recovery around the 1620’s, with another deterioration in the 1690’s (Fig 76 Lamb– Climate History and the Modern World.)

The following extract is from ‘The Little Ice Age’ by Brian Fagan;

“It was not only the cold that was a problem during the Little Ice Age. Throughout Europe, the years 1560-1600 were cooler and stormier, with late wine harvests and considerably stronger winds than those of the 20th Century. Storm activity increased by 85% in the second half of the 16th Century and the incidence of severe storms rose by 400%. “

There are many other references dating from this period available from the Alps: records of advancing snow and ice burying silver and gold mines, alpine villages, farms and pastures being abandoned due to colder climate, even physical evidence recovered today under retreating glaciers.

There are also the German chronicles of devastation, cold and starvation from the period before and during the Thirty Years War. These are discussed in the book, “Power, violence and mass death in pre-modern and modern times” by Joseph Canning, Hartmut Lehmann and J.M. Winter (pp.94-95) (29a)

“For the constitutive paradigm of the “Little Ice Age”, matters of power, violence and death depended on a fundamental change of climate. To be sure, in the 1570s the average temperature fell by only a few degrees, and equally certain, after the 1570s we can observe periods of remarkably stable, warm weather. However, as Christian Pfister and others have shown, after 1570 and continuing for more than a century and a half, these stable conditions were the exception, not the rule. What the people of Europe were forced to experience after the 1570s were long, cold winters, the late arrival of spring, cold, wet summers, and an early winter. In sum, weather conditions in the growing seasons of agricultural products tended to become too short causing the produce – if any grew at all – often to be of poor quality. Ensuing food shortages triggered an avalanche of reactions: while some people turned to God, confessing their sins and imploring God to grant the food necessary for survival, others hunted witches whom they considered to be agents of the devil and whom they held responsible for the failed harvests. As a result of malnutrition, illnesses of all kinds spread rapidly, including the plague. Thus long before the outbreak of the Thirty Years War, population began to decline in many European countries.”

Brian Fagan noted that Glaciers in the Alps advanced significantly between 1600 and 1610 again from 1690 to 1700 and around 1820 and 1850 and that there had already been some movement from around 1546. There seemed to be some retreat around 1563 for a decade, but 1670 saw the Maximum advance in the Eastern Alps, which started retreating again around 1712.

A downturn in climate between 1560 and 1610 in Spain is noted here; (30)

There is an especially good graph by Prof. G. Patzelt who has reconstructed the declining summer temperatures in the Alps some 7000 years back in history (30a)

(Note; Prof Patzelt of the University of Innsbruck has been a noted glaciologist for many years. This graph was part of a presentation to controversial climate group Eike, but the venue should not detract from the science and reputation of the Professor)

Another study by Patzelt below, on forests, glaciers and temperature anomalies, shows how the tree line rose and fell over time: (30b)

An additional study by him from 2008; (30c)

“An Gletscherrändern werden immer wieder Holzreste freigelegt bzw. ausgespült. Sie deuten darauf hin, dass es in den letzten 10.000 Jahren häufig wärmer als heute gewesen ist.”

Translation; “Pieces of wood are found repeatedly at the edges of receding glaciers. These provide evidence that it was frequently warmer than today over much of the past 10,000 years.”

That Glacier advance is thought to have begun around 1560 and reached their maximum around 1740 is noted here; (31)"/blockquote>

A recurring theme in this debate is that the radiation budget and various 'forcings' for Earth's climate are well understood. Witness the statement by EM where he asks if you have something else with a forcing powerful to replace CO2 now's the time to show your numbers. I have referred EM before to the work of Shaviv and others and don't know if he has read any of their papers.

As a starting point I recommend:

Shaviv, N, 2005, On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget, Journal of Geophysical Research, V110, doi:10.1029/2004JA010866

The abstract states:

"We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. Under the assumption that the CRF is indeed a
climate driver, the sensitivity to variations in the globally averaged relative change in the tropospheric ionization I is consistently fitted with m (dTglobal/dI) 7.5 ± 2°K. Additionally, the sensitivity to radiative forcing changes is l dTglobal/dF = 0.35 ± 0.09°KW 1m2, at the current temperature, while its temperature derivative is undetectable with (dl/dT)0 = 0.01 ± 0.04 m2W 1. If the observed CRF/climate link is ignored,
the best sensitivity obtained is l = 0.54 ± 0.12°KW 1m2 and (dl/dT)0 = 0.02 ±
0.05 m2W 1. Note that this analysis assumes that different climate conditions can be described with at most a linear function of T; however, the exact sensitivity probably depends on various additional factors. Moreover, l was mostly obtained through comparison of climate states notably different from each other, and thus only describes an average sensitivity. Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced
CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04°K.

Here Shaviv estimates that over the previous century natural variations in the CRF could have led to 50-60% of the observed warming. Of course this is not controversial finding and I think is in accord with the IPCC who state that there is confidence that more than 50% of the warming is due to anthropogenic factors.

I wish those who express such confidence in the radiation budget really did read all the relevant literature. Note that this particular paper also deals with several of EM's favourite topics such as the Eocene, the last Glacial Maximum etc. It there is no recognition or understanding of the research on CRF effects then it is impossible to have a debate.

Paul,

Here Shaviv estimates that over the previous century natural variations in the CRF could have led to 50-60% of the observed warming. Of course this is not controversial finding and I think is in accord with the IPCC who state that there is confidence that more than 50% of the warming is due to anthropogenic factors.

Sorry, but it is clearly controversial. The IPCC statement is that it is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. This was a standard frequentist test in which they rejected (at the 95% level) that more than 50% could be non-anthropogenic. In other words there is only a very small probability of more than 50% of the warming since 1950 being non-anthropogenic. In fact, the IPCC itself says that the anthopogenic contribution is probably similar to the observed warming (i.e., almost all of it, or maybe even more than all of it). I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it's easy enough to find.

There is no currently known mechanism for cosmic rays to produce significant warming (i.e., relative to what we've observed over the last centuries). There are studies looking at cloud nucleation, but as I understand it, these are - at best - inconclusive. As I understand it, Shaviv's work does not provide an actual mechanism for cosmic rays to produce warming (other than suggesting it could be cloud nucleation). You have to be slightly careful with clouds since changes in clouds is expected as a response/feedback to anthropogenic and/or natural warming. Given that, it's quite possible for there to be apparent correlations that are not actually indicative of a causal link.

aTTP,

I don't see that what I said was significantly different to what you said. You may want to quibble about the 50%. Lets make it 40% natural. I still maintain that the point made by Shaviv that a significant component of the warming could have natural causes isn't controversial. It may be amongst the faithful.

You may also want to quibble about lack of a mechanism but as you point out there are experimental studies underway, notably Svensmarks and Kirby's separate studies. The lack of a fully understood mechanism does not undermine the fact that there are a number of different observations that are difficult to account for using the current paradigm and that the cosmic ray link is a plausible hypothesis that is worth exploring.

It wasn't so long ago that we had a 'controversial' suggestion of continental drift because of lack of a mechanism. The geological evidence was very strong and uncomfortable to deal with using the then paradigm of geosynclines.

Paul,

It may be amongst the faithful.

That's speaks volumes. You're on the right site.

Paul.
In fact, think about this for a minute. You appear to be promoting that the uncertainty in paleo reconstructions might be masking variability comparable in magnitude to what we've had over the last century, despite there being little evidence for such variability (with some exceptions). You're promoting an as yet largely unknown mechanism that could account for a siginificant fraction of our observed warming, which would also require that our understand of GHG-driven is significantly wrong (either in terms of the response to forcings, or the feedbacks). And you have the gall to refer to others as the "faithful".

Anthony Watts is predicting a Dalton Minimum. based on the weakness of solar cycle 25. If Shaviv and Svenmark are correct, then we should be cooling.

This is difficult to reconcile with UAH, which has just recorded the warmest February and March on record.

Nor is it consistent with GISS, which shows 2014 and 2015 as the two warmest years on record, with 2016 on course to beat them both.

Speaking as a parent, if EM or ATTP had been my children, I would have left them on the wayside. They seem to lack any kind of intellectual capability.. What would we lose by letttinhg them die? Other than a source of unending amusement. But it is like watching the chimps tea party to observe ATTP and EM chatting idly and inexpertly about scepticism.. Embarrassing now. Lets just laugh at the climate deniers.

Nail on head, Entropic Man. Since we've had direct measurements of GCR flux, the trend has been flat. Global temperatures, not so much. No trend=no explanation.

Did you read Phil Clarke's comment on the poor reliability of CET before 1770? [...] (ad hom stuff) not exactly a source of objective information.

I make mistakes, as we all do, but I try to correct them. What was incorrect in what I wrote?

aTTP, Phil Clarke and EM apparently have not heard of El Nino. It as always anticipated that the AGW faithful would use its effects to hype up their creed.

Mark 1 Eyeball, beats mathturbation.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

From the Tony Brown article:

Due to its longevity CET is probably the most scrutinized instrumental data set in the world, which makes it especially valuable as a useful resource. As much of this paper is concerned with instrumental records deriving from thermometers it should be noted that in Chapter 5 of his book ’Climate History and the Modern World’, Lamb makes many good points about the relatively limited accuracy of instrumental records. As observed in my own article on the same subject, at best we can believe in the general direction of travel of the local instrumental record-especially when backed by such things as crop records/ observations-but not in their accuracy to tenths of a degree

The eye of faith.

Paul Dennis, from what I've read of CLOUD the results to date don't support the cosmic ray hypothesis. And it is obvious that late 20thC warming was not due to GCRs, as GCR levels have been flat - oscillating with the solar cycle, but no trend.

Have you seen evidence of any observed 11-year cycle in cloudiness that one would expect if oscillating levels of GCRs affected clouds (and if it has been observed how would you know it was GCRs and not a direct response to changes in solar radiation)?

That doesn't rule a GCR-climate line out, but it remains unknown and perhaps unlikely. Other mechanisms that do affect climate are well known, however. What do these mechanisms not explain that makes an alternative like GCRs necessary?

Not really. Isn't the rate of change constant zero if there is no trend?

Is raff saying there is no trend in the global temperature index? He might face fines from the warmunistas.

Glebekinvara

I am not sure what El Nino has to do with GCR, but since you mention it:-

The 1998 and 2016 El Nino peaks give a rare opportunity to compare like with like, two years with the climate in a very similar pattern. This lets ussee how the long term climate trend has changed temperatures over the period between them.

In reference to Mike Jackson I will use GISS rather than satellite data.

The 1998 El Nino peaked in February at anomaly 0.88C. In February 2016 the peak was 1.35C.
That is a like-for-like increase of 0.47C in eighteen years.

GCR has stayed constant over that time, but CO2 has increased. CO2 is more likely to be the cause.