Scientists Reconstruct Millennium's Coldest Winter

Ponca City, We love you writes "In England they called it the Great Frost, while in France it entered legend as Le Grand Hiver, three months of deadly cold that fell over Europe in 1709 ushering in a year of famine and food riots. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken's combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travelers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years with temperatures as much as 7 degrees C below the average for 20th-century Europe. Now as part of the European Union's Millennium Project, Scientists are aiming to reconstruct the past 1000 years of Europe's climate using a combination of direct measurements, proxy indicators of temperature such as tree rings and ice cores, and data gleaned from historical documents."

Comments

Not that cold

[Dan East]

"On 10 January, Derham logged -12 ÂC, the lowest temperature he had ever measured. In France, the temperature dipped lower still. In Paris, it sank to -15 ÂC on 14 January and stayed there for 11 days."

For the imperialists among us, -15 C is 5 F. That's really not that cold, and I don't know about the whole "exploding trees" and "combs falling off of chickens" stuff supposedly going on at that temp. I live in Virginia, which is considered the South. We're at a significantly lower latitude than France, and we've had at least 5 days of single digit F temps just this winter alone, and that is typical. Of course our cold temps pale in comparison to Canada, and the northern New England states Maine, New Hampshire, etc.

So maybe those temps are atypical for parts Europe, but trees, and chickens and many types of livestock endure temps that low regularly every single year, which makes me wonder if there was some hyperbole going on back in 1709.

Re:Not that cold

[Dekortage]

Of course our cold temps pale in comparison to Canada, and the northern New England states Maine, New Hampshire, etc.

Where I live in upstate New York, we've hit -15 F (-26 C) several days this year. Further upstate from me has gotten to -25 F (-32 C) below. Friends in Maine tell me they've seen -35 F (-37 C) this winter. These weren't just for a day, but for several, even more than a week at times, before returning to ever-so-slightly warmer temperatures.

Even if things were cold back in 1709, methinks they doth protest too much.

Re:Not that cold

[jwilty]

"Before the year was out more than a million had died from cold or starvation"

I'd like to see the actual breakdown of deaths from cold and from starvation. Even with buildings designed for warmer temperatures, I have a difficult time believing "Livestock died from cold in their barns..." at +5 F. The combined body heat of many livestock gathered in a small indoor space should have raised the temperature significantly.

Perhaps many of the memories of the harsh winter were influenced by the poor crop and subsequent food shortages the following summer?

Re:Not that cold

[Lumpy]

non judicious trees that dont handle EXTENDED periods of sub 20 degrees temperature will freeze and "explode" as in very slowly split open from the expanding ice.

the "cold snap" would have to last at LEAST 1 week and have no temperature rises or direct sunlight to cause bigger trees that have enough water in them to "explode".

as for chicken combs freezing and breaking off, sounds like raging old coot embellishment to me, the chicken would have suffered frostbite and had it blackened and dead far before it froze solid and broke off. Livestock dying inside is suspect as well, but I'm guessing what they called "inside" was a lean-to with 2 or more sized wide open and not a modern barn where you can close off all four sides and maintain at least 10deg higher temps inside just from the body heat of the animals.

yes I grew up on a farm, we also forested the land as well.

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[Anonymous Coward]

My biggest issue with the global warming debate, is that it's not a debate. It's religion. Your side calls the other "denialists", the other side call yours "fanatics" or "hysterics".

It doesn't help that scientists/politicians/news have claimed the onset of catastrophic climate change in both directions several times before in recent history. The burden of proof is just huge ("yeah, right, like we'll believe you _this time_"), and that cannot be ignored by deriding the ones that point out flaws.

In all other scientific theories, if a prediction is proven wrong it requires updating or invalidating the theory. When it comes to global warming it is never anything but "the denialists reading it wrong".

You can't first claim "this is probably the last year you can ski here". Then, after several years of record snow fall, change it to "this is extreme weather, just like we said global warming would lead to!" and expect that to convince anybody that disagrees with the theory.

This "the world is flat", "no it isn't" bickering is what makes me not give a damn. Come back when this is no longer a religion and I'll reconsider.

Re:So what about global warming ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just have a lot more faith in the models if they were open source.

Yes, because climate scientists would rather act as gatekeepers for patches submitted by kids in their basements than focus on the work they're paid to do.

And how do you know that open source principles aren't in play with the work they're doing? Just because they don't have a project up on SourceForge doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't working with any and all interested parties. It might just be that they don't throw the doors wide open and say "Come on in everybody" for a project that you need a high level of expertise to be involved with.

Re:what?

[Captain Hook]

The problem is not absolute temperature, it the difference between what is expected and the actual temperature was.

The supply of seasoned wood would not have been large enough to last a longer colder than expected winter. Similar for food supplies for both people and livestock.

Barns would not have been build with thermal insulation as a primary concern, far more important would have been rain proofing and making sure enough air gets in to prevent suffication so a very cold snap would have caused serious issues for livestock welfare.

A story for Depression II?

[smchris]

When oil will start to become as common as it was in 1709 and we'll have more homeless?

-15 C? Give me a break. I live in Minnesota. -15 C is a _good_ night in January. I've seen more than -30F (-34C if I Qalculate! correctly) and over -100F (-73C) wind chill by the old calculations. I had to start the car once at -24F this year -- and that was what it got _up_ to by a sunny holiday 11 am.

Dang. Never seen a tree explode though. That sounds exciting.

Re:So what about global warming ?

[Timothy Brownawell]

I would just have a lot more faith in the models if they were open source.

Yes, because climate scientists would rather act as gatekeepers for patches submitted by kids in their basements than focus on the work they're paid to do.

"Open source" doesn't have to mean "patches welcome :)".

it's all relative

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen several comments here saying "It gets colder than that here. Grow a pair, wusses!" I'd like to point out a few things to you idiots.

First, cold is relative. If you're in a place that rarely goes below freezing, then having it suddenly go to -15C is a huge change. If you live somewhere that gets colder than that, well then good for you. But not everyone does. I suppose you'd tell people in Hawaii that they're morons for not keeping snow gear around for that once-in-a-lifetime snowfall that they might get.

And second, we're talking about life 300 years ago. If it suddenly got that cold, you couldn't just turn up the heat, or run down to the corner store and get a thicker hat and blanket. These were different times. There was no electricity. Whatever supplies you had were pretty much what you lived with.

So to say "But it gets colder where I live" really doesn't say anything of value. It just shows how self-centered and narrow-minded you can be.

The code is not the model

[Anonymous Coward]

The physics included is the model.

And if you don't know that the equation in filre #6273, line 182-9 is actually wrong (it should be +0.034*THETA, not +0.043*THETA) then the code can be 100% correct but the model wrong.

Look at MS's products for interoperability. Is the code being asked for? NO. Documentation on the protocol is. Why?

Well you tell us. Why is interoperability not being served by the CODE being opened?

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[MrHanky]

There has never been a "this is probably the last year you can ski here" statement from climate scientists. It's straw man attacks like these that make denialists into denialists: instead of criticising the models, the predictions and the findings, you come up with your own stuff. Or you choose to criticise moonbat environmentalist hippies instead of the science.

Re:So what about global warming ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the code is not supplied, it's probably because the scientists haven't got around to it yet, or because no one needs it, or because the code involved is trivial.

I'm involved in scientific computer modeling, and I've had requests from other researchers to use my code. Though I love everything open-source and believe in sharing information, so far I've decided not to give my code to anybody. The reason is that when you write code only for your small research group, it's usually not very well documented or easy to use. Therefore I know I would get flooded with support requests and questions about the code, and unfortunately I don't have time for that. I wonder how other researchers have dealt with this problem.

Re:So what about global warming ?

[Burnhard]

I don't know where you've got this idea from, but this doesn't really happen. Researchers may keep ideas quiet until they publish to avoid someone else claiming the glory, but after they publish it's in their interests for as many people to use their work as possible. If people replicate their results, then that's independent verification of their results -- wonderful! If people build on their model to produce a better one, they get cited and gain influence -- great! The difficulty for researchers is actually the opposite problem -- getting people to notice and user their work. I'm sure there are counter examples, but that has been my experience.

Your faith in the scientific method is very sweet; unfortunately it has been shown (Wegman, McIntyre et al.) that Climate Scientists often don't publish all of their data and code. With a lot of these studies it's almost impossible to provide independent verification and a lot of work involves reverse engineering from their results to find out exactly what they did (`Mannian' PCA for example).

With respect to getting people to notice their work, in Climate Science it consists of a simple press release warning of (take your pick) catastrophic warming, catastrophic flooding, catastrophic cooling, catastrophic extinction, catastrophic weather, dead penguins (Linux fans please note!).

And what about proven scientific fraud?

[Garwulf]

"They get called deniers because that is exactly what they are: in the face of overwhelming evidence, they continue to deny, using logic that is identical to 9/11 wonks, moon hoax nutters and, yes, even Holocaust deniers."

And what about proven scientific fraud?

A couple of years ago, two Canadians named Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (aka MM) decided to try to recreate the famous "Hockey Stick." As I recall, one was an economist, the other a mathematician - their work was just to reproduce the results Mann had published using Mann's own model and technique.

They couldn't do it.

In fact, they found two things:

First, Mann and his team had cherry picked their data. They took only the lowest samples from the Medieval Warm Period, and only the highest samples for the modern period. In the case of the former, quite a lot of data was collected and then withheld, data which placed the Medieval Warm Period as considerably hotter than today. This is the equivalent of a historian trying to erase the Roman Empire from history.

Second, Mann's model itself would generate a "hockey stick" out of any data that was fed into it. MM fed a number of samples that were actually random noise into the model, and every single one came out a hockey stick.

Once MM corrected the graph and collected more representative data, what they found was a Medieval Warm Period quite higher than temperatures today, followed by a dip in temperature, and a rise in temperature in the last few years, but NOT one that was out of the ordinary in terms of size or scale.

The paper in which this was published ( http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf ) raised enough questions that in 2006 it was put before a committee led by a statistics professor named Edward Wegman, which performed an independent review of both Mann and his team's "hockey stick," as well as MM's work on debunking it. Not only did they find and report to Congress that the "hockey stick" could not be reproduced, but also that the entire paleoclimate field had become isolated and often unwilling to share important data, or clarify their methodologies - in some cases claiming that a bad methodology was fine because the answer was correct anyway. MM's work was upheld, and the "hockey stick" was debunked.

Sources so far:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

When it comes to the IPCC report, the committee broke its own rules to use Mann's "hockey stick." This is documented here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

This is very far from "logic that is identical to 9/11 wonks, moon hoax nutters and, yes, even Holocaust deniers" - it is, however, a damning observation that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

Re:And what about proven scientific fraud?

[russotto]

Not only did they find and report to Congress that the "hockey stick" could not be reproduced, but also that the entire paleoclimate field had become isolated and often unwilling to share important data, or clarify their methodologies - in some cases claiming that a bad methodology was fine because the answer was correct anyway. MM's work was upheld, and the "hockey stick" was debunked.

The IPCC, though, and the "global warming consensus" people, still claim the hockey stick is valid and label anyone who says otherwise as a k00k and a denier.

To me, the most damning part of it is the feeding of "red noise" into the model and getting a hockey stick. If a model doesn't have the power to distinguish between the phenomenon you are looking for and noise, it's clearly worthless, and there should be no further argument about it.

Re:And what about proven scientific fraud?

[Garwulf]

You might want to look at the source there. Realclimate is a website operated by Michael Mann, who created the "hockey stick" graph in the first place - and who also shocked the Wegman panel by citing his own papers as "independent verification."

If you want some more detailed information on this, you should read this: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf - it discusses the way MM found climatology circles to work, as well as discussing the censored data and why it's important.

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[russotto]

There has never been a "this is probably the last year you can ski here" statement from climate scientists.

There were some rather dire predictions about the 2006 and 2007 hurricane seasons.

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[UnknowingFool]

The situation with climate change is the same as evolution. In the field itself, there's not really any debate about whether it exists. There is some limited debate about whether man-made activities are to blame but the general consensus is that man-made activities are to blame. However outside of the field, there is lots of debate. It's not religion; it's a bunch of outsiders who have a vested interest and are trying to create a controversy where it does not exist.

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[Anonymous Coward]

There has never been a "this is probably the last year you can ski here" statement from climate scientists.

Who made the claim is irrelevant. It was all over the media, and the media is what people go by, not scientific papers. If any scientist stepped forward to say "that's bull", they got a tiny little block of text on page 27. If any scientist stepped forward to confirm it, they got the cover.

That's how skewed the coverage is. It's not "allowed" to voice any other opinion but the "correct" one. That's not a good trend, regardless of topic. As this example would seem to show rather well.

So how does the media react now? I read an article where a meteorologist stated "after a few oddball years, they're now back to normal". He'll probably be ridiculed for forgetting what he was supposed to have said to be politically correct.

Re:One can only hope

[UnknowingFool]

What is often misconstrued about global warming is I think the result of bad reporting. Climate scientists are not saying that the Earth is getting warmer. The Earth has in the past experienced periods of warming and cooling, and doubters often use that flawed argument against it when it isn't valid. The whole tenet behind global warming is that the Earth is warming up faster than at any period in history. It's not that change is occurring; it's that it is occurring at an accelerated rate. Scientists fear that the rate is faster than flora and fauna can adapt which leads to environmental disaster.

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[Abcd1234]

This is probably a troll, but...

If you can not say with any sort of certainty that it will be 20-22 next week on friday. How am I supposed to take your word for it that it is going to be X degrees warmer/cooler next CENTURY?

I can tell you, right now, today, that the temperature six months from now will be warmer than the temperature today. Why? Because what you're talking about is weather, and it's short-term chaotic. What the climate science community is talking about is climate. They deal with long term trends, where that short-term noise is factored out. The fact you don't understand the difference speaks to your lack of education in science and statistics.

Here is a theory maybe its just warmer because there have been less volcano? Or maybe something in the earths core has started emitting more heat? Or maybe the sun is giving off more solar radiation (on its cycle)? There are tons of these things which can change the weather.

And, believe it or not, climate scientists have looked at them all. Yes, it's true... you aren't actually smarter than the entire world's climate science community. And bad news: none of them can account for the level of climate change that's been observed. In just the last 50 years there's been a staggering increase in global temperatures, and none of those factors that you cited can account for them.

I just am saying that the models are mostly based on data that is being fudged around to fit a particular agenda.

According to whom? Have you looked at the models? Examined the data? And if you're so sure, why haven't you written a peer reviewed article refuting these models you've apparently debunked? I'm sure the scientific community would appreciate it.

Even Einstein did this he had his great 'cosmological constant'. As he was trying to fudge his theory to fit his world view. He called it one of his greatest mistakes.

Ummm, that wasn't a "fudge factor". That was a valid term in the equations he produced. The only "fudge" was to assume the value of that constant was zero. Ironically, in that sense, he got it wrong: Go look at cosmic expansion, specifically the fact that it's accelerating. This just happens to coincide with a positive value for that constant you're happily deriding.

WTF is a 'denialist' anyway!

[slashbart]

I'm a physicist. I happen to doubt some of the claims that AGW proponents think represent the behaviour of the climate.

Why do you claim the right to call me a 'denialist'. I'm not calling you a 'believer' am I?

One of the huge problems with this whole climate change discussion is that it's gone way beyond science, and has become religion!

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[MrHanky]

Yes, and one of the reasons for those predictions was in fact the natural cycle of hurricanes, mentioned here, and explained away here (note that Christopher Landsea actually thought there was no evidence for linking hurricanes with global warming when he withdrew from the IPCC in 2005).

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[luzr]

Well, there e.g. was "arctic summer will be ice free by 2013" claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm So, if arctic summer is NOT ice-free by 2013, are you going to reconsider the science?

realclimate.org the name says it all

[slashbart]

If your site name itself claims that you own the TRUTH about climate, than you obviously are not part of science.

Try http://sciencebits.com/ for instance for some interesting insights.

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[adonoman]

Or you could read the article where it states:

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

So you have one Professor going around saying "Hey everyone! The ice will be gone by 2013! - Well actually I don't know that I just wanted your attention so I could point out that the albedo affect of sea-ice plays a slightly larger role than we had previously thought."

Then everyone else responding: "Yes, it does appear that the ice may disappear earlier than we had thought - 2013 is a little unlikely though - maybe 2030 or 2040, but 2013 is not outside the realm of possibility."

The media then listens to this and goes: "Hey everyone! The ice will be gone by 2013!"

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Rockoon]

I'd MOD him up, but he cited Mann as verification for Mann... which is presented on a site which actively sensors content contributions that are contrary to what Mann is pushing.

Re:Ask and you shall receive...

[Abcd1234]

1. There were two congressional panels, not one. The one done by the statistics experts that upheld MM's findings was headed by Edward Wegman - its report can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

Sorry, that report is *highly* politicized. Hell, it wasn't even peer reviewed. And despite the issues that report identified, they don't substantively change Mann, et al's results.

From what I understand, you have to read this one carefully - apparently the report and the media spin are in opposition. An op-ed discussing this can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.op-ed.pdf

On the contrary. The BBC's article on the topic does an excellent job of outlining both aspects of the report: a) that the fundamental conclusions of Mann, et al, are sound, and b) statistical rigor needs to be improved in climate science. Go read the summary yourself, it's pretty clear:

"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."

Sounds to me like you're the one who's spinning.

The more I looked at both sides, the more I saw the deniers using critical thinking and attacking the results and methodologies,

On the contrary, I see a bunch of people who have a series of preconceived notions about the scientific process, and/or earth's climate and our ability to alter it, and are thus coming to conclusions and then searching for evidence to prove them. Like I've said elsewhere, it's disturbingly familiar to the arguments between creationists and biologists.

and people like Mann and Al Gore launching character assassinations in response

Yup, I have to agree with you, there. The attacks have clearly gotten personal. Again, the ID/Evolution debate rings rather true, here.

But Mann did commit what amounts to an academic fraud that changed his field, and in the process undermined a lot of the research in it and relating to it.

Again, you repeat this, despite plenty of evidence that indicates this isn't at all true. Who's cherrypicking now?

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[Abcd1234]

One degree is staggering?

Yes. It really is, when you're talking about the global mean, mere fractions of a degree are enormous. YOu do realize this, don't you?

Oh, BTW: that one degree was already erased in the time span from 1998-2008.

Citation, please.

Re:So what about global warming ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, competitive computer models remain closed source.

Sure, for the fields you listed it might be, but we're talking about climate modeling and it's almost entirely open source.

Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation

[techno-vampire]

I can tell you, right now, today, that the temperature six months from now will be warmer than the temperature today.

Not if you're talking about Melbourne, Australia, it won't be. You have to be a tad more careful in making these blanket statements.

Re:So what about global warming ?

[ozbird]

In short, competitive computer models remain closed source. The theory might be well published, the implementation remains within those who want to publish some-thing before someone else does.

So it's a pissing contest first, and the progression of science comes a distant second?