Paleoclimate Page

472 Years – CET Extended Graph – Tony BrownGraph Background

Tony Brown – Climate Etc. – Click the pic to view at source

600 Years Arctic Temperature – Overpeck et al. 1997

NOAA NCDC – Click the pic to view at source

1,100 Years – Ljungqvist et al

CO2Science.Org – Click the pic to view at source

1,100 Years Ljungqvist et al

JoNova.com – Click the pic to view at source

1,100 Years Kirkby 2007

Imageshack – Click the pic to view at source

1,100 Years – LambIPCC Assessment Report 1Graph Background

JoNova – IPCC AR1 – Click the pic to view at source

1,205 Years  – M.L. Khandekar et al. 2005, K.J. Kreutz et al. 1997, Keith Briffa and Timothy J, Osborn 2002

BioCab.org – Click the pic to view at source

2,000 Years – “Loehle and McCulloch 2008 Graph Background

Craig Loehle, Ph.D. and J. Huston McCulloch – PLUSAF.com – Click the pic to view at source

2,000 Years – J. Esper et al.

J. Esper et al. – Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) – Click the pic to view at source

2,000 Years Christiansen

JoNova.com – Click the pic to view at source

2,000 Years Christiansen

JoNova.com – Click the pic to view at source

2,100 Years – Law Dome O18

Climate Audit – Law Dome – Click the pic to view at source

2,500 Years – GISP2 – Alley, 2000

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

3,000 Years – GISP2 – Alley, 2000, Moberg, Keigwin & HadCRUT3

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

4,000 Years – GISP2 – Alley, 2000

GreenWorldTrust.org.uk – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – Vostok – Petit et al., 1999

BP.Blogspot.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – Vostok

McLean.ch – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – GISP2 – Alley, 2000

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – GISP2 – Alley, 2000

SkepticalScience.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – GISP2 – Alley, 2000, Ljungqvist et al and HadCRUT3

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – GISP –  Alley, 2000 – Vostok – Petit et al., 1999 – Click for Animation – Disputed Graph – The x axis labels should read Years Before Present (1950 AD)

WUWT – GISP – Hadley – Click the pic to view at source

10,700 years – GISP2 – with CO2 from EPICA DomeC

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

20,000 Years – GISP2 – Cariaco – Dome C

NOAA NCDC – Click the pic to view at source

110,000 Years – GISP2

Imageshack.com – RockyHigh66.Org – Mike McMillan – Click the pic to view at source

110,000 Years – GISP2 – Vostok

University of New Hampshire – Click the pic to view at source

120,000 Years – GISP2

JoNova.com – RockyHigh66.Org – Mike McMillan – Click the pic to view at source

120,000 Years – Byrd Station – Camp Century

University of Michigan’s – Global Change Program – Click the pic to view at source

135,000 Year – NGRIP-extended, NEEM, Epica DomeC Antarctica and the estimated Global temperature

Bill Illis – S12.postimg.org – Click the pic to view at source

140,000 Years – Vostok –  Petit et al., 1999

BP.Blogspot.com – Click the pic to view at source

140,000 Years – C Dome

C3Headlines.Typepad.com – Click the pic to view at source

140,000 Years – Vostok – EPICA Dome C – GRIP – NGRIP

Wikipedia – Click the pic to view at source

150,000 years Taylor Dome -Ross, Antarctica E. J. Steig, et al 1999:

E. J. Steig, et al – University of Washington Click the pic to view at source

400,000 Years – Vostok – Petit et al., 1999

CDIAC ORNL – Click the pic to view at source

400,000 Years – Vostok – Petit et al., 1999

APPINSYS.com – Click the pic to view at source

420,000 Years – Vostok – Petit et al., 1999

Arizona University – Click the pic to view at source

423,000 Years – Vostok

BP.Blogspot.com – Click the pic to view at source

450,000 Years – EPICA Dome C – Vostok

EssayWeb.net – Click the pic to view at source

450,000 Years – EPICA Dome C – Vostok

GlobalWarmingArt.com – Click the pic to view at source

450,000 Years

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

740,000 Years – EPICA Dome C

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) – Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) – Click the pic to view at source

750,000 Years Rate of Change of Ice Volume and June 65N Insolation

TBD – Click the pic to view at source

800,000 Years Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability

NOAA – National Climate Data Center – Click the pic to view at source

800,000 Years (Click the Pic and zoom in)

Robert Bateman – Click the pic to view at source

800,000 Years Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability

University of Michigan’s – Global Change Program – Click the pic to view at source

1,000,000 Years

carleton.edu – Click the pic to view at source

5,500,000 Years Antarctica/Vostok Temperature

http://www.oocities.org – Click the pic to view at source

5,500,000 Years Antarctica/Vostok Temperature – Reversed

Robert A. Rohde – GlobalWarmingArt.com – Click the pic to view at source

65,000,000 Years

Robert A. Rohde – GlobalWarmingArt.com – Click the pic to view at source

65,000,000 Years

ImageShack.us – Click the pic to view at source

108,000,000 Years – Cramer et al., 2011

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH – Cramer et al., 2011 – Click the pic to view at source

540,000,000 Years

GlobalWarmingArt.com – Click the pic to view at source

543,000,000 Years Area of Continents Flooded, Concentration of CO2 and Temperature Fluctuations

Nasif Nahle 2009 – BioCab.org – Click the pic to view at source

545,000,000 Years

http://c3headlines.typepad.com – Click the pic to view at source

570,000,000 Years

Bill Illis – RockHigh66.org – Click the pic to view at source

600,000,000 Years – C. R. Scotese and R. A. Berner

C. R. Scotese and R. A. Berner – Geocraft.com – Click the pic to view at source

750,000,000 Years

http://s4.postimg.org/5nwu2ppdp/Temp_CO2_750_Mya.png S4.Posting.org – Click the pic to view at source

4,500,000,000 Years

Biology Cabinet – BioCab.com – Click the pic to view at source

Disputed/Incorrect Graphs

2,000 Years – Incorrect Graph The data in this graph should only extend to 1935, not 1980. Per “Correction to: A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREE RING PROXIES
” by Craig Loehle, Ph.D. and J. Huston McCulloch, “With the corrected dating, the number of series for which data is available drops from 11 to 8 in 1935, so that subsequent values of the reconstruction would be based on less than half the total number of series, and hence would have greatly decreased accuracy. Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935 AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007). The paper is listed here and a comment addressing the issue can be found here.

Craig Loehle, Ph.D. and J. Huston McCulloch – PLUSAF.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – Incorrect Graph – GISP2 – Alley, 2000 The x axis label, “Years Before Present (2000 AD)”, should read Years Before Present (1950 AD)

David Lappi – JoNova.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – Incorrect Graph – GISP2 – Alley, 2000 The x axis label, “Years Before Present (2000 AD)”, should read Years Before Present (1950 AD)

Easterbrook – Figure 5 – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years – Incorrect Graph – GISP2 – Alley, 2000 – The x axis label should read Years Before Present (1950 AD)

BP.Blogspot.com – Click the pic to view at source

12,000 Years – Vostok – Disputed Graph: Graph is based upon this article, however per this comment, the article provides no explanation or quantitative support for the line fitted to the graph

David Lappi – JoNova.com – Click the pic to view at source

Falsified Graphs

10,000 Years – Falsified Graph GISP2 – Alley, 2000 The graph presents model output as “GISP site temp”, erroneously refers to “recent direct measurement” and mixes incompatible data sets,.Graph Background

Tinypic – Click the pic to view at source

(Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.)

About these ads

18 thoughts on “Paleoclimate Page

  1. While a good combo overall, one link is broken but could be fixed.

    For 1,100 years Kirkby 2007, this page presently has:

    “Figure 2 http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=land

    The above does not work because it is missing 3 letters, by having the link as:

    http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=land

    What does work is instead adding ing to the end, as follows:

    http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=landing

  2. I have been wanting this. Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post described the Republicans as “pathetically inarticulate”. We need to get together a good presentation, mainly visual with graphs, that shows the paleoclimate and goes forward to the issues of present temperature and CO2. Most people do not follow the science closely, but really need to know what is happening. I have not heard anyone mention the very important observation that the temperature of our interglacial is decreasing, that each warming, from the Minoan forward, has a lower temperature; this should be alarming.

    People who vote need to have a clear, concise knowledge given to them so that they can vote the science and not the hysteria. I’ll look through my stuff and send it.

    Thank you

  3. http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/012_2012WEB.pdf Figure 19 gives 9000 years of Central Southern England temperature (and rainfall for 20,000 years in Fig 20)

    To quote the report:
    “Interestingly, the changes predicted for the 4000-4500BP period by the Bridge CGM are actually quite similar to the predictions of future climate change in the UK (Wilby et al 2006), which implies that we are moving back to a 4000-4500BP climate in the UK”..

  4. May I add a graph, labelled “Past 740 kyrs Dome-Concordia ice core temperature reconstructions”.
    It’s buried in Wikipedia and omitted from any reference to where it concerns.

  5. Good graph and lots of climate info for 2 billion years worth of geologic history at paleogeographer Chris Scotese’s website:

    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    Scotese refers to todays world as an “Ice house” climate compared to most of geologic history.

    Darn that Isthmus of Panama for closing and helping to give us the current ice ages!

  6. This was posted here recently, but here is the original link to
    Source: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/news/press_20120202.pdf

    Where the graph was posted a few weeks ago

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/31/japans-cool-hand-luke-moment-for-surface-temperature/

    The beauty of this recent ( 1890-2011) global temperature record is the constant linear slope, no acceleration, no hockey sticks. Same slope before big industrialization/fossile fuel of 0.68C/centuary. Maybe the Japanese global temperature is less adjusted.

  7. The 11,000 years GISP2 Temperature Since 10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC
    Graph shows CO2 levels @ ~260 ppm levels at 0 year. What year is 0 in hat graph?

  8. What is the lag time in the reflection of air temperature trend changes in ice cores? How should ice core temperature data be presented when it is used to comment about changes is air temperatures? What constitutes a valid use of ice core temperature data when making public statements about current and future climate conditions?

    The only thing that we can conclude from these graphs is that we are experiencing a rapid increase in temperature over a short period of time,

  9. The IPCC 1st Assessment Report Graph should at least be relegated to the disputed graphs sections. There are a number of reason that I can elaborate. Briefly: 1. it was give as just a ‘sketch’. 2. Its sources are poor and invalid – based on Lamb’s estimations for Central England.

  10. berniel says: April 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    The IPCC 1st Assessment Report Graph should at least be relegated to the disputed graphs sections. There are a number of reason that I can elaborate. Briefly: 1. it was give as just a ‘sketch’. 2. Its sources are poor and invalid – based on Lamb’s estimations for Central England.

    Steve McIntyre had a good thread on this graph.

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

    which I’ve added to the graph for reader’s reference:
    1,100 Years – LambIPCC Assessment Report 1Graph Background

    I also reviewed Skeptical Science’s take on the IPCC graph;

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=338

    and I don’t see any references to Lamb’s “poor and invalid” sources within either thread. Please post links to references supporting your assertions about Lamb’s “poor and invalid” sources.

  11. The top graph on the page does not match its title:
    472 Years – CET Extended Graph – Tony Brown – Graph Background
    The article linked to under ‘Tony Brown’ on Judith Curry’s blog contains many graphs, this is not one of them.

    The graph itself contains an error of attribution. It claims to be based on US meteorology data, but the actual source URL given is to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The URL does link to a time series of what appears to be temperature anomaly data. However, the person who produced the chart has obscured the values by seemingly adding a constant to them, perhaps 15. This is nowhere in the source data. The actual data vary in a range of -0.6 to 0.6, and the chart would be more valuable to this page if it was redrawn from the data at the URL.

    Looking around on the Australian BOM site, I haven’t been able to find an indication of which anomaly time series this is supposed to be, So the chart, even if redrawn to a proper scale, would be of little value for users of this page.

    My suggestion – do not use this chart on this page. Choose one of the charts in the long post referred to in the title, for example

    Best of luck!

  12. dvunkannon says: April 15, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    The top graph on the page does not match its title:
    472 Years – CET Extended Graph – Tony Brown – Graph Background
    The article linked to under ‘Tony Brown’ on Judith Curry’s blog contains many graphs, this is not one of them.

    The graph itself contains an error of attribution. It claims to be based on US meteorology data, but the actual source URL given is to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The URL does link to a time series of what appears to be temperature anomaly data. However, the person who produced the chart has obscured the values by seemingly adding a constant to them, perhaps 15. This is nowhere in the source data. The actual data vary in a range of -0.6 to 0.6, and the chart would be more valuable to this page if it was redrawn from the data at the URL.

    Looking around on the Australian BOM site, I haven’t been able to find an indication of which anomaly time series this is supposed to be, So the chart, even if redrawn to a proper scale, would be of little value for users of this page.

    My suggestion – do not use this chart on this page. Choose one of the charts in the long post referred to in the title, for example

    Best of luck!

    You are absolutly correct, that was the wrong graph. I was working on several things at once and inadvertantly overwrote the graph on this page with a graph someone had posted in another thread, i.e.:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/ – Click the pic to view at source

    Your critique of this graph is valuable and I will link to it if anyone uses this graph again.

  13. I see a lot of graphs representing ice core data. There are other climate records that exist besides isotopic reconstructions. One hole in an ice sheet in a single hemisphere, no matter how far back it goes, is not representative of global average temperature. Also, many of the events that are pointed out in those graphs have ranges associated due to error and or geographic location. They are not single data points on a line.

    You have put forth a grate effort supporting your hypothesis that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring. I am going to pose the next logical question.

    I would assume you acknowledge CO2’s properties as a greenhouse gas. You must have some type of theory or hypothesis as to what is mitigating the effects of releasing millions of years of stored carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere over an unequivocally short timescale. You must have quite a bit of evidence to support this theory to be so emphatic. My advice would be to not keep this to yourself. Instead of spending your time attacking “alarmists”, a better use of your energy and resources would be to explain your theory, and educate the rest of the scientific community, as well as the public, as to why there is no reason for concern. I am posing this as a serious question. Please elaborate.

  14. d,

    Did you view the charts above? For example, this chart is one of several that shows something interesting: both hemispheres track global temperatures very closely. Therefore, the question of ‘geological location’ is answered. Furthermore, in each hemisphere there are a number of ice core bores, and they all agree with each other.

    Regarding CO2 as a ‘greenhouse gas’, most folks would agree that CO2 has had some effect on global temperature. However, that effect is too small to measure. Why? Because most of the warming effect has taken place within the first 20 ppm of atmospheric CO2. At current concentrations, even a large CO2 increase will not measurably raise global temperatures. We see that despite the 40% rise in CO2, that global warming has stopped for the past fifteen or more years.

    The “carbon” scare is fueled primarily by government grants. CO2 [AKA: "carbon"] is actually a very minuscule forcing agent. There are no verifiable, testable measurements of global temperature change due to CO2 — and anthropogenic CO2 is only a small fraction of the total, so human emissions are not a factor.

    Anyone who adheres to the Scientific Method must agree that the “carbon” scare is based on assertions and conjectures, but not on measurable data, because there is none. But I for one appreciate your asking the question. The more the answers are explained, the better decisions the public can make.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s