an independent record of the last 130 years

[Trakar]

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL054271
Global warming in an independent record of the last 130 years
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL054271.shtml
Key Points

• Global warming is observed in an independent record of the past 130 years
• Vets upward trend in thermometer record including two periods of upward trend
• Paleo data with physical links to temperature can be used without calibration

Abstract: ...From 1880 to 1995, the index trends significantly upward, similar to the GST. Smaller-scale aspects of the GST including two warming trends and a warm interval during the 1940s are also observed in the paleo index. The paleo index continuously extends back to 1730 with 66 records. The upward trend appears to begin in the early 19th century but the year-to-year variability is large and the 1730-1929 trend is not significant at the p<0.05 level...
[/quote]

Mostly a proxy study but as they use an index comprised of "170 temperature-sensitive proxy time series (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, historical documents)," and correlates tightly with calibrated instrument records where there is overlap, this seems fairly rigorous. Of course their methodology and data will have to be fully vetted in field peer-review now that the paper has cleared editorial publication peer-review and has been published in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS.

 

[SSDD]

And does this study show anything that might be construed as unprecedented in the historical record?

The issue isn't whether there is warming (the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age after all) the issue is whether we are causing the warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

First, the rate of introduction of GHGs is unprecedented. Even in the leadup to the Great Dying in the P-T Extinction event, the rise of GHGs in the atmsphere was slower than today.

Second, we have long exited the ice age, and should be slowly entering a new one, slowly in terms of thousands of years.

Milankovitch Cycles ? OSS Foundation

 

[SSDD]

The question was, rocks, does this study show anything that might be construed as unprecedented in the historical record. Your answer suggest that the answer to my question is no.

As to the ice age rocks, we are still in it and there isn't any predictialbe short term progression of warm and cool periods in that exist as has been aptly demonstrated by the Vostok ice cores. Long term patterns, yes, short term, no. So clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about....no big surprise there.

 

[Trakar]

And does this study show anything that might be construed as unprecedented in the historical record?

The issue isn't whether there is warming (the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age after all) the issue is whether we are causing the warming.

Actually, this too is incorrect. The earth was not in the process of exiting an "ice age" (interglacials are periods within an ice age when glaciation retreats towards the polar regions and high altitudes), up until the last couple of centuries, the Earth was slowly proceeding into a period of renewed glaciation, which would have peaked in ~20-30k years, IIRC.

Our planet should be slowly cooling, instead it is experiencing an accelerating warming. Science identified the cause of this more than 120 years ago and projected that the warming trend would occur, and indeed that warming has been observed in accordance with the causation identified.

 

[skookerasbil]

And does this study show anything that might be construed as unprecedented in the historical record?

The issue isn't whether there is warming (the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age after all) the issue is whether we are causing the warming.

Actually, this too is incorrect. The earth was not in the process of exiting an "ice age" (interglacials are periods within an ice age when glaciation retreats towards the polar regions and high altitudes), up until the last couple of centuries, the Earth was slowly proceeding into a period of renewed glaciation, which would have peaked in ~20-30k years, IIRC.

Our planet should be slowly cooling, instead it is experiencing an accelerating warming. Science identified the cause of this more than 120 years ago and projected that the warming trend would occur, and indeed that warming has been observed in accordance with the causation identified.

But nobody cares except the internet hobbyists.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, this too is incorrect. The earth was not in the process of exiting an "ice age" (interglacials are periods within an ice age when glaciation retreats towards the polar regions and high altitudes), up until the last couple of centuries, the Earth was slowly proceeding into a period of renewed glaciation, which would have peaked in ~20-30k years, IIRC.

Actually, I was correct and your never ending quest to be the smartest person in the room has failed again.

You seem to like wiki...here, from wiki:

The present ice age is the most studied and best understood, particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for temperature and ice volume.

Our planet should be slowly cooling, instead it is experiencing an accelerating warming. Science identified the cause of this more than 120 years ago and projected that the warming trend would occur, and indeed that warming has been observed in accordance with the causation identified.

[/quote]

Again, you don't know what the hell you are talking about because you have been duped into not using your brain. Here is the long term temperature history of the earth. Tell me now in which direction the long trend temperature is moving?

Here is the entire Vostok record. Now tell me what you base your claim that the present "should" be cooling. There is nothing there that indicates any sort of predictable short term pattern.

It may come as a surprise to you but you are not the smartest guy in the room.....but you do rank highly among the most duped.

 

[Trakar]

Actually, I was correct and your never ending quest to be the smartest person in the room has failed again.

You seem to like wiki...here, from wiki:

There you go projecting again. I make no claims with regards to my intelligence and have repeatedly stated that outside of a few very narrow fields of specialty my understandings are only based upon the materials that I have read and studied. As for wiki, you are incorrect there as well; I consider wiki to be one of the least reliable and accurate sources on the internet, anyone can log in and change anything on any page in wiki. This is not the recipe for reliability or accuracy.

(BTW - personal blogs, in general, are one of the few places that are even more unreliable than wiki)