One of the favorite buzzwords of alarmists is “unprecedented” when talking about present day warming. Yah, the Earth’s never, ever, been hotter, the “hockey stick” proves it, it’s unprecedented, and its all your fault!
Well, we’ve known it’s unsubstantiated spin for quite a long time. NOAA apparently has too, because the data presented in this video is in fact from NOAA and is from the year 2000 on their website. But you don’t see it publicized much. Why? Well, because it totally destroys claims of “unprecedented warming” in our present day.
The source of inspiration is from my post Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data. And the source of inspiration for that is from J. Storrs Hall, writing here.
WUWT reader “docattheautopsy” produced a YouTube video for us for distribution for which I’m grateful and you can see below. I’ve also produced an animated GIF which is done somewhat like a video, since not all blogs and websites can support video. Here is the low-res version at 480 pixels wide. As you go back in time, our “unprecendented” temperatures of the present day don’t seem quite so large, when put in perspective of geologic time.
Here are the permalinks to both the low-res and hi-def versions:
Low-res: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif
Hi-Definition: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
And here is a YouTube video showing the same process:
Just a couple of caveats to mention:
1) The ice core data from Greenland doesn’t go past the year 1900
2) The reason for this is that ice is formed by the compaction of snow, that takes time. Young snow, and snow in transition to becoming ice through compaction is not a reliable indicator yet.
3) From the observed temperature change in the last century, one could add about a .5C to 0.7C line to the end of the ice core data. It does not change the conclusion. UPDATE: Upon further thought, In version 3 of the animation, I decided to do this to be a better comparison to the Mann/IPCC chart shown, since that is what they did also. The instrumental record for the last century (~ 0.7C) is shown in red, approximately fit to each scale.
4) My first animated GIF had a labeling error due to using a template. I forgot to label the Vostok Ice Core presentation separately. Fixed now and links updated. If you grabbed links in the first 30 minutes, please note they have changed.
UPDATE: I’ve added the source images for those that may want to include them in a slide show or display independently. Click each image below for full sized version suitable for saving on your local disk.
Bill P (20:38:53) :
Because ice has covered Vostok in East Antarctica for far longer and so is much older than the ice in Greenland.
Here is an explanation video of ice coring from West Antarctica
http://www.waisdivide.unh.edu/about/
Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference in Berlin
http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/
H/T Krishna Gans (13:16:47) :
Good article with excellent graphics in Mail On Sunday (UK). One of clearest MSM articles to date (apart from the redoubtable Christopher Booker)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html
Well, this puts it all into perspective, thanks for all your efforts.
BUT who is going to tell those who would give our money away because of our alleged carbon dioxide emissions? Who’s going to tell all the churches around the world who are going to ring a peal of 350 equating to the predicted “ppm of carbon dioxide”? Who’s going to tell the greenies, the MPs, the gullible public at large, the mainstream media? And who dares tell those sad people who won’t accede to reason? (Lord Monckton gave it a sterling effort, and failed).
And if anyone tries, will they listen?
I’ve tried submitting this page to slashdot.org but it hasn’t been run – in fact it’s already disappeared from the recent page. Can a few more people submit / mod up this page/ story over there- if it gets run there, it’ll get a wider audience – it’s too significant not to share with the world and slashdot represents a broad section of the IT/science community.
What annoys me is this data was available on the NOAA ftp site from 2004 and not common knowledge until now.
Must this video run under one minute? I could use more time to look at the graphs and read the text. However, the spectacular ending seems the most rushed. One barely has time to take in the awesome, humbling reality of the short periods of Warmth on Earth before the graph (and the Warmth) disappears. We do need more Warmth, not less; more fossil fuels for the affluence to develop the technology to deal more effectively with the coming Cold. For goodness sake, we should be enjoying this brief interval of respite from the Cold, not bemoaning “our evil ways”.
I’m working on a new version with voice-over and a longer run time. The fact that it’s one minute exactly was not intentional. I’m also going to edit some of the slides to include some questions asked on here. It should be up sometime today– I’ll post here when I’ve put up the updated video.
An absolutely fascinating graph. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at this and you realize the expansion of human civilization corresponds with the warm periods.
Look at the spike at 1500 BC , a time when there was a huge expansion of trade and knowledge amongst humans.
A. Syme said;
“… you realize the expansion of human civilization corresponds with the warm periods.”
Almost convincing proof that “warmer was better” for our ancestors. I know that many civilisations flourished in the warmer climate but were any destroyed or damaged ?
This is an effective way of putting the climate change “problem” in perspective.
My daughter used some of these graphs in a presentation she made at her high school last May. The one with the ice ages, together with lagging CO2 vy temps, usually drives it home.
This is a slightly revised letter sent to Science Magazine and rejected by them. I must admit, I understand why.
An article by Michael Mann and colleagues in the current Science Magazine acknowledges the existence of the Medieval Warm Period: “Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly” (27 Nov p.1256). Even if they mandate its name become “Medieval Climate Anomaly”, this is a welcome departure from the previous opinion of his colleague (Overpeck?), if the released emails are accurate, that it needed to be “got[ten] rid of”, and it is welcome even if they allege it to be a merely local phenomenon. Perhaps his moderate current posture means that simple renaming will be sufficient for his purposes.
I was disappointed that the (podcast) interviewer did not inquire of Mann his opinion of the not insubstantial evidence for the existence of a corresponding warm period in Russia, China, Pakistan, North America, and Patagonia.
I believe we should respectfully request that Science magazine consider reviewing not only his previous publications in their journal in light of the University of East Anglia material, but also the rejected papers submitted by authors previously disparaged or intimidated by this cabal, including but not limited to Steve McIntyre, Roger Pielke, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Craig Loehle and Richard Lindzen. It seems to me that a moral debt has been incurred by the choir boys of the AGW priesthood, and that penance must be said and amends must be made.
I have uploaded a second version of the video, this one with improved annotation on the graphs and a voice-over narration:
Magnus A (15:35:38) :
Very enjoyable presentation by Joseph D’Aleo, especially from my point of view.
At 4.00 min in the presentation he mentions 106 year cycle. Some 6-7 years ago I devised a solar anomalies formula which precisely shows such cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CycleAnomalies.gif
On number of occasions here and elsewhere, I was told by an eminent solar scientist that my conclusion is nonsense, and that such cycle does not exists. Solar cycles’ spectrum analysis, kindly provided by Dr. L. Svalgaard, indeed shows peak in the response at 106 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png
If global warming is preceived to be caused by man, whole new industries are formed. New taxes are raised and redistrubuted. Governments gain more control, get larger, hire and control more employees. Newly formed companies which are favored by the government receive government money.
If it is not caused by man, they can only slightly increase control over what they now have.
The bottom line, follow the money – and the control.
Complimenting this expose’ there is also plenty of recent proof that belief in AGW is a mistake.
A fairly simple model accurately predicts average global temperatures since 1895 with no need whatsoever to consider changes in the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses do.
The Argo float data shows that global warming stopped abruptly in about 2004 (graph on pp4 of http://www.oceanobs09.net/plenary/files/Wijffels_HeatContentTemperature_2Aa_vfinal.pdf )
Lindzen of MIT has presented measured data that shows that the IPCC’s GCMs are wrong at slide 4 at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf . Monckton (Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor) also shows IPCC to be wrong at slides 7, 8, and 9 of this presentation.
Since 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased 18.8% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies (four since Climategate), the average global temperature has not changed much for several years and during the seven years from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century. This SEPARATION between the increasing carbon dioxide level and not-increasing average global temperature is outside of the ‘limits’ of all of the predictions of the IPCC and ‘consensus’ of Climate Scientists. The separation has been increasing at an average rate of about 2% per year since 2000. It corroborates the lack of connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and average global temperature. If you would like to check the data, a list and the links are given at the July 30, 6:52 PM post at http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/28/hfcs-and-climate-change/#comment-83310
The seasonally adjusted Arctic sea ice area has been increasing as shown by the graph that is updated daily at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png .
And now Climategate has shown that some of the advocates of AGW have at best misled the public by suppressing data.
“Vikings grew crops on land that is permafrost now. This happened because it was warmer on earth 1000 years ago than it is now.”
No, it happened because it was warmer in Greenland than it was now. Globally it was cooler. Same with the 1930s canard. The hottest decade in the U.S. -not globally. The reason the YouTube video of this thread is meaningless is that scientists don’t dispute it was warmer at times in the past – because of the cycles of movement between the sun and earth. This is climate change 101.
Go up to a climate scientist and say: “Look it was hotter many times before”. The reply: “We know, you think we don’t know that? And your point is? Where do you think this data about temperatures 100 of thousands of years came from? Us. The point isn’t whether it was hotter in the distant past – the point is whether is was hotter than 100 years ago, and how much hotter it’s going to get. Hell, if the temperature rises 2 degrees in the next 40 years the consequences are going to be serious. Do you think then you’ll be comforted by the fact it was warmer some time about a million years ago? “
“Complimenting this expose’ there is also plenty of recent proof that belief …”
Sorry, I couldn’t find the academic journal that these links were published in. Could you please post them?
Gazzer (12:50:01),
Regarding the worldwide MWP, you unequivocally state: “Globally it was cooler.”
So you claim the MWP was only in Greenland? Citation, please.
This is wildy off topic:
Has anyone else noticed from the last graph from Greenland the initial spike about 12000 years ago coincided with the beginning of the Mayan calendar? You know the one that all these doomsday people love to go on about 2012 being the end of the world and that there was a recent ‘disaster movie’ about? Maybe all the their calendar represents is the end of whatever cycle led to this abnormally warm period for the last 12000 years? Shrug.. I’ll guess time will tell.
The expansion of human civilization during warm periods may also be due to increased CO2 levels. Warmer temperatures liberate CO2 from the oceans, but more importantly, plant growth increases.
Research has shown that the availability of CO2 can be a driving or a limiting factor for plant growth over and above the impact of other growing conditions.
Recent research into crop yields report significant increases between crops grown at todays level of CO2 and those grown under conditions predicted for 2050. However what is of even greater significance is that studies done on plant growth in depleted CO2 environments indicate that todays plants may produce 200% more biomass than plants grown in CO2 levels half todays levels.
The increase in plant growth would play a significant , if not primary role in the ability of populations to expand, and perhaps individuals themselves increasing in size.
@Plato says:
Doesn’t surprise me at all, frankly. Behind his slightly hip, left-field pose, he’s actually pretty mainstream. e.g. anyone who tries to counter the established orthodoxy on cholesterol for example gets pretty short shrift from him, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. If you read Gary Taubes’ excellent “Good Calories, Bad Calories”, you will see that it’s not just in climate science where scientific opinions contrary to orthodox opinion get sidelined, or suppressed, and where the MSM all sing from the same (orthodox) hymnsheet.
@gazzer:
So it was warmer in Greenland because of cycles of movement between the sun and the earth? That sure sounds like a global change to me, rather than a local one.
Just a question from a non-scientist here. I notice that the 400000 year chart shows 4 periods of gradual cooling interspersed with sudden jumps and collapses in temperature. Is there an explanation for this? Is it possible that the warming periods have been gradual as well, but that the layers corresponding to those years were effectively wiped out when arctic temperatures rose above melting point, thus leaving a misleading record of sudden and by implication catastrophic climate change in the past? If that be the case, doesn’t it leave the door open for the possibility that past temperatures may have reached well above melting point and remained there for millennia, instead of suddenly collapsing?
Meanwhile, here on Planet Stupid, check this awfully lazy reporting from the NZ Herald…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10614517
Hmm, long ice ages with intervening, short, warm periods.
CO2 levels lag about 800 years behind onset of higher temperatures…and then, blip, geologically speaking, the Earth enters another long ice age.
That pattern suggests high CO2 layers cause global cooling.
But that idea was already tried in the 70’s and it didn’t work.
Laboratory science provides little evidence that CO2 levels at 400 parts per million has any effect on climate, beyond helping plants grow better.