Re: BBC clickbait
We have a surprisingly good idea what the climate was like in 536 AD, through dendrochronology and surrogates like nitrates in ice cores. Weather not so much, except maybe as area under the curve
Nope, we do not. Dendrophrenology attempts to convert wood density into temperatures. It gave the problem of the Hockey Stick and hiding the decline. All proxies have the same challenge, ie you calibrate the most recent say, 100yrs of ring density against known instrumental temperature records, assume a density:temperature correlation and work backwards. If the instrumental record is 'adjusted', so lowering the 1913 temperature record, the calibration is no longer valid, and neither are the results nor conclusions. For ice cores, the challenge is different give snowfall takes a while to compact and dissolved or trapped gases diffuse. So the most recent snowfall is going to be the hardest to calibrate. Then if you calibrate using wooden thermometers, you're just compounding errrors and uncertainties. Ice cores are also very low resolution, ie Vostok's 600ka record is made from (memory) only 36 slices. So it'll tell you nothing about 536AD, only the time interval contained in that specific slice. And being spatially constrained, it doesn't really tell you anything about global temperatures, only the location the sample was taken from. And are you sure about nitrates? It's usually stuff like CO2, CH4, O-18 isotopes.
Alternatively, there's other historical evidence like tax records. Phil Jones of Climategate fame once famously drew conclusions about global warming from old Chinese crop harvests. Slight snag when China changed it's calendar system, and it took a while for Jones to realise. But those kinds of records show past climate change, sometimes with catastrophic results, eg the LIA conditions leading to crop failures, food shortages and the French Revolution. Climate 'scientists' deny this evidence of course because they're inconvenient truths. Especially when it also shows CO2 follows warming and the rain doesn't follow the plough. Then there's just the homeopathic aspect, ie the exact relationship between CO2 and temperature. If temperatures were higher, or even similar to today, but CO2 levels were both much higher, and lower, there's clearly very little correlation and CO2 sensitivity must be low. But crop scientists already know this, hence CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to improve crop yields via photosynthesis, not to warm the greenhouses.
So if this is weather and not climate, can you give me a valid weather forecast for the northern hemisphere for tomorrow?
Sure-
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts
This is a current best guess based on a shedload of number crunching from a lot of collected weather data. As technology and science have improved, day-ahead and longer range forecasts have become more accurate.
...you're on the path that leads to communicating with points and grunts. Maybe further than you realise.
Or waving hocky sticks and believing they're accurate and reliable thermometers. They're not. Science says 'no'. Hence climate 'science' behaving like a religion with anyone disagreeing being labelled as a heretic and a 'denier'. Meanwhile, if you're a 'climate expert', you can jet off for a quick summer break-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/07/21/justin-rowlatt-flies-to-spain-to-tell-us-its-hot-there/#more-65828
The Bbc's top climate expert flies to Spain to tell us it's hot in summer. Who knew? It's ok though because the Bbc can probably buy offsets for sending a gormless twat jetting off to Spain to promote climate dogma.