Temperatures have been FALLING for 8,000 years

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Temperatures have been FALLING for 8,000 years

By Ray Kraft

Short term variations, local record hots and colds, don’t mean much, that’s just weather. What matters is long term global trend lines over decades, centuries, millennia, eons, epochs.

Expanded record of temperature change since the end of the last glacial period

The only ‘normal’ in climate is constant change

Some places are always hotter than average, some places are all cooler than average, on any particular day (I don’t use ‘normal’ because the only ‘normal’ in climate is constant change).

Average global temps
In the 1880s:                 56.7 F.
1920s to 1980s:             57.2 F.
Circa 2000 to 2010:     58.1 F.

These are not ‘hot’ temps. Below 60 degrees most people start putting on sweaters and jackets. At 58 degrees F in your living room you’re probably gonna turn up the heat! It is a good temp for longer term wine storage.

Source of graph (I added the red arrow):


Thanks to Ray Kraft for these links

31 thoughts on “Temperatures have been FALLING for 8,000 years”

  1. Note that the 2004 “extreme” point is closer to the dark average line than the other specific entries (thin lines) are from the average. We are having an absolutely normal warm swing of the specific measure now, indistinguishable from the prior thin line swings. All consistent with the long term downtrend of the averages.

  2. My thermometer is less than 10 years old, and is calibrated for full degrees. The average temperatures above are in decimals of a degree. I learned that it is a principle of statistics, that a derivative number (e.g. average) should not have more decimals than the measurements. Therefore, the averages above are 57, 57 and 58 degrees. If weather stations at some stage switched to thermometers calibrated to tenths of a degree, then a first decimal would be acceptable for averages. However, measurements with different accuracies (at different times) are not directly comparable. Modern data can only be compared with historic data for exactly the same weather stations.

  3. According to ice core records, the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of our current Holocene interglacial. This point is more fully illustrated with ice core records on a millennial basis back to the Eemian period here:

    Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial, although cooler than the Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago, has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to the most recent technologies.
    Viewing the current Holocene interglacial on a millennial basis is rational. But sadly it seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis / religion Climate alarmists irrationally examine the temperature record at too fine a scale, weather event by weather event, month by month, or year by year.
    From the broader perspective, each of the notable high points in the current 11,000 year Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
    The ice core records from Greenland for its first 7-8000 years, the early Holocene, shows, virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium, including its early high point known as the “climate optimum”. But the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at around 1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen temperature fall at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium .
    The Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and just judging from the length of previous interglacial periods, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
    Nonetheless, the slight and truly beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to a Modern high point has been transmuted by Climate alarmists into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Alarm”.
    The recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been wholly beneficial when compared to the devastating impacts arising from the relatively minor cooling of the Little Ice Age, which include:
    • decolonisation of Greenland
    • Black death
    • French revolution promoted by crop failures and famine
    • the failures of the Inca and Angkor Wat civilisations
    • etc., etc.
    As global temperatures, after a short spurt at the end of the last century, have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last nineteen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or probably now non-existent further warming.
    Warmer times are times of success and prosperity for man-kind and for the biosphere. For example during the Roman warm period the climate was warmer and wetter so that the Northern Sahara was the breadbasket of the Roman empire.
    But the coming end of the present Holocene interglacial will eventually again result in a mile high ice sheet over much of the Northern hemisphere. As the Holocene epoch is already about 11,000 years old, the reversion to a true ice age is becoming overdue.
    That reversion to Ice Age conditions will be the real climate catastrophe.
    With the present reducing Solar activity, significantly reduced temperatures, at least to the level of another Little Ice Age are predicted quite soon this century.
    Whether the present impending cooling will really lead on to a new glacial ice age or not is still in question.
    As an interested layman, I would say that the betting is more heavily weighted towards a catastrophically cooling world rather than one that will be overheating because of the comparatively minor CO2 emissions from mankind.

  4. im quite happy with the range its been so far in my near 60yrs
    any warmings been appreciated as chilblains n being cold are no fun at all

  5. Had to argue with graph that shows a very distinct downward trend.
    Thanks for sharing. Continue to share so that the rest of the world starts looking at climate changes on a macro level vs. the constant focus of the micro level.

  6. The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.

    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
    Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

    Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.

    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable, as per Al Gore
    * * *
    * * * * * *
    I must apologize.

    I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 94 years ago.

    This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?


  7. OH no – GLOBAL COOLING! I spoke to Mr. Gore and, believe it or not, he explained through the Hockey Stick Theory and the reason the North Polar ice cap disappeared in November of 2013 (Man, I miss the North Polar ice cap) was because of Global COOLING. You see, the global cooling “gobbles up the cool” (his words, I’m totally cereal) and then there’s “no room for the cool” so there is only room for heat. So this 8,000 year cooling trend is actually global warning. Thanks for making it all clear, Mr. Gore.


    Your Friend, Ned

    • Man did not ruined it because it a cycle the fact we had times even warmer then today should be more then enough proof that we don’t have much effect on the climate cycles the earth will still warm and cool with us on this planet or not we simply can’t control the climate and anyone that thinks we control it is fooling them selfs.

  8. OH no – GLOBAL COOLING! I spoke to Mr. Gore and, believe it or not, he explained through the Hockey Stick Theory and the reason the North Polar ice cap disappeared in November of 2013 (Man, I miss the North Polar ice cap) was because of Global COOLING. You see, the global cooling “gobbles up the cool” (his words, I’m totally cereal) and then there’s “no room for the cool” so there is only room for heat. So this 8,000 year cooling trend is actually global warning.

    Thanks for making it all clear, Mr. Gore.


    Your Friend, Ned

  9. Its all in the numbers. Select 8000 years it looks one way. Select 1000 it looks another. Simply consider the change and more importantly the “Rate of Change”. That is where the data tells all. We will soon know the final answer to the question…

  10. Where and how are these temperatures derived? Averages of land mass recordings? Average of sea temperatures? Really, this is all speculative and it is difficult to achieve a true “normative” range. The reality is that the climate has always and will always be changing. The real questions are whether human activities affect (notice I say affect because we don’t know if and how so) global temperatures and if so, are they favorable or unfavorable. Only morons drink the kool aid and they should take their carbon foot prints to zero.

  11. Am concerned with corelating this truth with other things that are going on such as polar shift and increasing activity in the ring of fire. Underwater volcanos will also heat the planet. There are Climate Change Enthusiasts applying their own changes, denying them, and then publishing their results. We need to examine the big picture and make it available to all.

  12. Telling that your graph doesn’t show the dramatic upswing after 2004. If we were to use your method of trend line analysis in the stock market, using a “past performance as future performance guarantee” we would fail miserably.

    I’ve looked at your other graphs as well and can say you certainly can cherry pick well enough. Matt Drudge certainly had to look hard to find you! Welcome to the front page!

  13. I’ve been saying this for quite some time. The idea that we have a star that somehow has linear output is both ridiculous and impossible. The most basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics would presuppose that has a star consumes its fuel which occurs in a linear fashion its output decreases in a similar linear fashion. When a star is Young it is very hot and its habitable zone extends much further outward. Has the star cools over time is habitable zone gradually moves inward as it shrinks.

    We will find this pattern occurs throughout the Galaxy as intelligent species evolve on outer planets they find their planets cooling from their shrinking star, and they must migrate inward because their Planet eventually turns into a desert. Desertification is the Smoking Gun that we’ve ignored for a very long time. Earth has been undergoing desertification for millions of years. Venus will soon be habitable if it isn’t already. To think that people have to figure this out when it’s plainly common sense makes me shake my head in wonder. Our species is in all likelihood from Mars, and has been rather poorly genetically adapted to life on this planet.

  14. The author suffers from the same thing he implies in this article – taking too short a view. He comments about that temps have actually been falling for 8,000 years. If instead you look at the global average temp from the millions of years scale, you will see temps were actually falling over the past 30+ million years.

    Earth’s current ave temp is around 58F. However, the normal average when Earth is not in an ice age cooling period is around 75F. On the larger scale of time – Earth has been in an ice age for that 30+ million year period. Within that ice age period, Earth has had glacial periods, and interglacial periods.

    Glacial periods are the cooling phases that we often just call ice ages where the average Earth temp is around 50F. Interglacial periods being the relatively warm parts of the larger ice age period where the average Earth temp is around todays ave of 58F. Today, Earth has been in an interglacial period for the past 10,000 years.

    The real question is where does it go from here? There have been about 5 larger scale ice age periods in Earth’s history (remember, within a single ice age there are many glacial and interglacial periods). While there isn’t a typical length of time that an ice age period lasts, the range is 30 million years to 350 million years long. The current one is 2.588 million years old. If Earth were to exit the larger scale ice age now that would be much sooner than any of the previous ice ages.

    If we ignore the potential for human impact, it is far more likely Earth remains in the larger scale ice age and that in fact we are about to go back into a glacial period. This would support Robert’s book.

    However, if we do look at historic temps and add in atmospheric CO2 it is clear the current pattern IS changing over the past 100 years. In particular, while you could make a small argument that the temps fall within larger scale trends, the atmospheric CO has broken a much longer trend. It could be that Robert will be right and temps will reverse and decline as well as CO2 will decline and ice will soon return to spreading. But data suggests that may not be the case. If Earth does leave the ice age and warm up it would most certainly be human caused in order to have broken trends like this. Realistically we should hope Robert is right because the normal non ice age ave temp is too hot and would be more problematic than the ice.

  15. This is the most ridiculous website I’ve seen in a long time and I can’t figure out why Drudge would take “iceagenow” as a website that covers legitimate science.

    Looking at the source (Wikipedia is not a good source btw, have you ever written a school report? First thing they tell you), it clearly says the first graph cannot resolve temperature fluctuations smaller than 300 years.

    That page also gives another graph, which contradicts everything you just said.

    Lastly the average temperatures you give are increasing! Also remember, that’s not the temperature around the entire globe. So not everyone is experiencing good “longer term wine storage” temperatures. What a piece of garbage!

    Also, why is it that my comments aren’t showing up?? Fake news censorship much??

    • Well I see Robert Felix has certainly set off a nerve in you.you can keep be
      leaving the human induce climate change as you wish but just know that most on here will be talking about cooling trends and cycles and how it fits into the ice age cycle.its good to see Robert has gotten some added viewers but it clear it has caused the warmsters to troll as well so there’s a good and bad effect that the grunge report has had.

    • If “this is the most ridiculous website I’ve seen in a long time” (evidently you not me) Why are you here??? Probably your last neuron has died of loneliness…

    • AGW fails because of physics. In order to get the warming from CO2 the Global warming advocates papers claim will happen the earths atmosphere would have to have 35% CO2. Even this would result in only 1.7 degrees warmer during the hottest part of the day in the hottest deserts in the world and only about 2/10s of a degree warmer in the polar regions. A ten fold increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere will result at most 0.3 degree C in the hottest deserts in the world and about 0.007 degree C increase in the polar regions. Engineers that work with air compressors, furnaces and air conditioners have known this for about 100 years. The equations I used to come up with these numbers are well proven and confirmed by experiments and successful equipment designs. The AGW advocates are for the most part “scientists” who are not in the field of thermodynamics. Granted engineers do not have the same prestige as “scientists” do. Scientist do research, write papers and build computer models, go to conferences and get grants from he government. Engineers research, apply the laws of physics, write reports and use computer modelling to predict what something will do. The main difference between scientist and engineers is at some point what engineers come up with actually has to work.

      • Do not confuse scientists with pseudo-scientists. I am a scientist with geology (post graduate)-chemistry (major)-physics-mathematics university training. Am fully aware of the laws of physics and chemistry. Nowadays even “environmental science” passes for science. As a geologist I have one mining right application pending and another potential world class deposit identified. Your last sentence is not applicable.

  16. It’s interesting to see how we are essentially at the same “stabilization” point 10,000 years ago. I wonder if that cliff also operates in reverse, plunging the temperature downwards over the next millennium or so.

    P.S.: good to see all the outsiders here after following the Drudge Report. Knowing that now they are exposed that a site actively collecting all news and studies that go against the narrative that Earth is burning is by itself good news, no matter all that bitching of theirs. =)

    • The truth is some can’t handle the truth and the information brought by Robert simply because they been feed of the agenda at hand and once they get here read all the cold posits it like a all out blank to them.

  17. ALL temperature data from the past are wrong.

    Unless we can TIME TRAVEL back with a particular temperature measuring instrument(s), and use that one for all readings, what we call temperature data, from the past, is useless.

    I’m not a statistician, but I took a class in college, and unless the RANGE of error, or variability, is provided for each and every Temp data point (like +/- X degrees), then it is all garbage and NOT Data.

  18. Yeaugh the 8000 year trend is correct on the chart but the average global temps are inaccurate on the summary below. Land areas have cooled considerably since the 1930’s to 80’s time frame and especially after 2000, so those numbers are misleading and have been falling (over land at least) since that time. The oceans may have warmed a bit since the end of the 20th century, but since land areas only cover about 30 percent of the entire Earth’s surface compared to 70 percent covered by oceans – this cooling cannot be easily seen.

    • I also think the uhi is having a fake warming reading of sorts in a local since.and in fact the temperatures readings are being placed in the citys where the uhi local effect is at it greatest and it giving a false idea for what really going on.

Comments are closed.