Is the warming in the 20th century extraordinary?

[IanC]

from Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline)

Conclusion
Nature has provided us with data telling a simple story: For periods on earth comparable with today, we see many examples of temperature increases in the magnitude of 1 K for all kinds of natural reasons. Very rarely does any temperature rise (via supposed positive feedbacks) reach 3 K within 100 years.

It is thus surprising that IPCC and others with big confidence can claim large temperature rises of up to 3 – 6 K as most likely result from just a minor temperature increase, for example induced by CO2 warming.

More, it appears (fig 4.) that the temperature rise of 0,7K from 1900 to 2010 is as normal as can be when comparing with other temperature rises during other warm periods.

interesting article on temperature spikes in the last 1/2 million years via the Volstok Ice Core Data. it seems as if our present temp spike is pretty average.

on a different topic, the two factions fighting it out on this forum are acting like idiots by pretending that only their side has real evidence and that the other side is driven by distorted reasons such as politics, pseudo-religion or stupidity. there is a lot of evidence, some falling distinctly on one side or the other but most of it is equivical. exaggerations seem to rule the day, more on the CAGW side but that is only because they have more studies and more access to the media, many of the skeptics would be just as bad if given the chance.

 

[IanC]

no one finds it interesting that the many 1-3C spikes in the similar interglacials patterns of the last 1/2 million years has led to the runaway warming predicted by the CAGWists?

lukewarmers think that the globe has warmed up in the last 150 years since the Little Ice Age. they also believe that CO2 has played a part, probably small, 1C per CO2 doubling minus the standard negative feedbacks that the earth has for just about any disruption of the staus quo. there are many, many factors involved in the climate, some of them manmade. what is the net result for black carbon? no one knows for sure. is arctic ice melting a net heat gain or loss? does the loss of an insulating barrier cancel out the loss of albedo (the ice is there when the sun is high and gone when the sun is low). different experts have different opinions. are land use and urban heat island effects more significant than CO2? is population growth the real problem? this is no simple problem that can be solved by turning off the power.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are these the same ice samples that showed a CO2 increase on average 800 years AFTER the Warming?

 

[IanC]

Are these the same ice samples that showed a CO2 increase on average 800 years AFTER the Warming?

yes. but I havent heard of any convincing explanations as to why there should be a long lag time like that. the oceans equilibrate faster than that for warming/CO2 release or cooling/CO2 dissolving.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Too bad it can't tell us how much water vapor was in the atmosphere at the time

 

[IanC]

Too bad it can't tell us how much water vapor was in the atmosphere at the time

the water cycle always adapts to the conditions. thats why there was liquid water billions of years ago when the suns output was much less than today. - think future science may just find that the crazy hungarian was on to something.

 

[Old Rocks]

The glacial periods, and interglacial responded to the Milankovic Cycles. The response varied the CO2 in the atmosphere from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. At no time in the last 15 million years was the CO2 at 390 ppm, and the CH4 ran around 700 ppb for most of this period. Now the CH4 is at 1800 ppb.

The response to the present level of GHGs lags about 30 to 50 years, so what we are seeing right now is the response from the level between 1960 and 1980. Even if we ceased all output of GHGs right now, there would still be rapid warming for the next 30 to 50 years.

That warming is not including what may be the real player in this game, the feedbacks from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and permofrost in Siberia and North America.

Yes, there have been prior periods of rapid warmning or cooling. The Younger Dryas, for one. And the planet survived just fine. The problem is not the planet, today, the problem is the 7 billion humans that inhabit the planet. An increasing dicey weather pattern and a huge population that is dependent on that weather pattern for the growth of the agriculture needed to feed those people is a recipe for disaster.

 

[IanC]

The glacial periods, and interglacial responded to the Milankovic Cycles. The response varied the CO2 in the atmosphere from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. At no time in the last 15 million years was the CO2 at 390 ppm, and the CH4 ran around 700 ppb for most of this period. Now the CH4 is at 1800 ppb.

The response to the present level of GHGs lags about 30 to 50 years, so what we are seeing right now is the response from the level between 1960 and 1980. Even if we ceased all output of GHGs right now, there would still be rapid warming for the next 30 to 50 years.

That warming is not including what may be the real player in this game, the feedbacks from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and permofrost in Siberia and North America.

Yes, there have been prior periods of rapid warmning or cooling. The Younger Dryas, for one. And the planet survived just fine. The problem is not the planet, today, the problem is the 7 billion humans that inhabit the planet. An increasing dicey weather pattern and a huge population that is dependent on that weather pattern for the growth of the agriculture needed to feed those people is a recipe for disaster.

the higher temps in the other climate optimums didnt cause runaway warming. are you really worried about CO2 or do you just want to find a way to control the climate? I think that the land use parameters of 7 billion people has as much influence on temperature readings as CO2. are you willing to have a draconian crackdown on population as well as on energy use? its cheaper to just move people if the sea level rises, if it ever does dramatically increase as predicted.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. I'll just pick out which chunk of Canada I like best right now. That fine with you?

 

[IanC]

people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.

 

[RollingThunder]

people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.

Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.

A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangldesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.

 

[RWatt]

Conclusion
Nature has provided us with data telling a simple story: For periods on earth comparable with today, we see many examples of temperature increases in the magnitude of 1 K for all kinds of natural reasons. Very rarely does any temperature rise (via supposed positive feedbacks) reach 3 K within 100 years.

It is thus surprising that IPCC and others with big confidence can claim large temperature rises of up to 3 – 6 K as most likely result from just a minor temperature increase, for example induced by CO2 warming.

More, it appears (fig 4.) that the temperature rise of 0,7K from 1900 to 2010 is as normal as can be when comparing with other temperature rises during other warm periods.

The main flaw with this analysis is that Vostok temperature is not global temperature. Many of the short term temperature jumps and falls at vostok would have been local and not global. Temperature changes at vostok greatly exaggerate global changes as vostok temperature variation is particularly high.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Conclusion
Nature has provided us with data telling a simple story: For periods on earth comparable with today, we see many examples of temperature increases in the magnitude of 1 K for all kinds of natural reasons. Very rarely does any temperature rise (via supposed positive feedbacks) reach 3 K within 100 years.

It is thus surprising that IPCC and others with big confidence can claim large temperature rises of up to 3 – 6 K as most likely result from just a minor temperature increase, for example induced by CO2 warming.

More, it appears (fig 4.) that the temperature rise of 0,7K from 1900 to 2010 is as normal as can be when comparing with other temperature rises during other warm periods.

The main flaw with this analysis is that Vostok temperature is not global temperature. Many of the short term temperature jumps and falls at vostok would have been local and not global. Temperature changes at vostok greatly exaggerate global changes as vostok temperature variation is particularly high.

Yes, Vostok is so different from every other place on Earth. So you can just ignore the data because it does not fit your theory. Well, it's not even a theory is it? Because you can test theories. It's more like a wishful thinking.

 

[RWatt]

The main flaw with this analysis is that Vostok temperature is not global temperature. Many of the short term temperature jumps and falls at vostok would have been local and not global. Temperature changes at vostok greatly exaggerate global changes as vostok temperature variation is particularly high.

Yes, Vostok is so different from every other place on Earth.

Actually quite the contrary, in this regard vostok is no different than anywhere else.

Any single location will show far more variation than the global average. For example US average temperature can differ by as much as 1 degree C from year to year. Whereas the global average changes by a few tenths of a degree per year.

This is of course logical because averages tend to smooth data. So if we want to compare past changes to the current rate of change, or to some prediction of 3C future global warming, we need to compare it to past changes in global average temperature, not changes in particular locations like vostok.

 

[Old Rocks]

A good point here is that while the 20th century warming was major, it will pale beside what we are going to see in the next 30 years. Even the last 10 years has been extroidinery. Look at the graph in Ian's avatar. Note that the running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous high point in the running mean except that of 1998. In fact, for 8 of the 10 years from 2001 to 2010, this has been the case.

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[IanC]

Conclusion
Nature has provided us with data telling a simple story: For periods on earth comparable with today, we see many examples of temperature increases in the magnitude of 1 K for all kinds of natural reasons. Very rarely does any temperature rise (via supposed positive feedbacks) reach 3 K within 100 years.

It is thus surprising that IPCC and others with big confidence can claim large temperature rises of up to 3 – 6 K as most likely result from just a minor temperature increase, for example induced by CO2 warming.

More, it appears (fig 4.) that the temperature rise of 0,7K from 1900 to 2010 is as normal as can be when comparing with other temperature rises during other warm periods.

The main flaw with this analysis is that Vostok temperature is not global temperature. Many of the short term temperature jumps and falls at vostok would have been local and not global. Temperature changes at vostok greatly exaggerate global changes as vostok temperature variation is particularly high.

actually proxy series tend to dampen short term variations and I would gladly take that as a valid criticism. I cant really accept the local vs global argument because the point was to compare past variations to the present variation. ours is a perfectly normal change right in the middle of the pack and there is no evidence of a tipping point where the earth jumps 5-10C via Old Rocks clathrates or whatever. some of the other 'optimum' eras of this interglacial have had temps warm enough to trigger the predicted disaster but it didnt happen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A good point here is that while the 20th century warming was major, it will pale beside what we are going to see in the next 30 years. Even the last 10 years has been extroidinery. Look at the graph in Ian's avatar. Note that the running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous high point in the running mean except that of 1998. In fact, for 8 of the 10 years from 2001 to 2010, this has been the case.

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

And the reason you can't replicate your cute little "theory" in a lab is...?

 

[IanC]

people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.

Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.

A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangldesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.

why dont you just compose a general all purpose insult for the skeptics and put it in your signature? it would save you from excess typing and the rest of us from having to scan through to where you actually have a comment.

you dont seem to understand how delta areas are deposited. it is a function of height above sea level, which is yet another negative feedback that are so common in nature while positive feedbacks are as rare as hen's teeth.

brackish fresh water is associated with overuse of the aquafers not a few inches of sea level rise.

one of the things that the alarmists fail to publicize is how draconian the energy cuts would have to be to make any realistic change. hobbling the developed nations while allowing the rest of the world to continue producing CO2 is the surest way to delay the advacement of new technologies that are the only long term solution other than catastrophic population reduction and a return to bare sustenence survival.

 

[edthecynic]

Are these the same ice samples that showed a CO2 increase on average 800 years AFTER the Warming?

Does Vostok cover the WHOLE globe?

 

[RWatt]

The main flaw with this analysis is that Vostok temperature is not global temperature. Many of the short term temperature jumps and falls at vostok would have been local and not global. Temperature changes at vostok greatly exaggerate global changes as vostok temperature variation is particularly high.

I cant really accept the local vs global argument because the point was to compare past variations to the present variation...some of the other 'optimum' eras of this interglacial have had temps warm enough to trigger the predicted disaster but it didnt happen.

We don't know the temperature of 'optimal' eras to be able to conclude they were much warmer than present. The ice core records are not good enough to tell us that because they only speak of temperatures at the poles. They even disagree on that. The vostok ice core puts the last glacial maximum at about 9C cooler than present for example, but the GISP2 ice core puts it at about 15C cooler. They even disagree over short term changes, sometimes it gets warmer in GISP2 while it gets colder in vostok. Is that a contradiction? No, vostok is central antarctica and GISP2 is central greenland. They both depict conditions local to those locations. All they tell us is that central greenland was 15C cooler than present during the LGM and central antarctica was about 9C cooler.

We can't get a global average from 2 datapoints and we if we can't get a global average we definitely can't compare rates of warming and cooling in that period vs the rate of recent warming or future projected warming.