Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
1934 has long been considered the warmest year of the past century. A decade ago, the closest challenger appeared to be 1998, a super-el nino year, but it trailed 1934 by 0.54°C (0.97°F). Since then, NASA GISS has “adjusted” the U.S. data for 1934 downward and 1998 upward (see December 25, 2010 post by Ira Glickstein) in an attempt to make 1998 warmer than 1934 and seemingly erased the original rather large lead of 1934 over 1998. The last phases of the strong 2009-2010 el nino in early 2010 made this year another possible contender for the warmest year of the century. However, December 2010 has been one of the coldest Decembers in a century in many parts of the world, so 2010 probably won’t be warmer than 1998. But does it really matter? Regardless of which year wins the temperature adjustment battle, how significant will that be? To answer that question, we need to look at a much longer time frame‒centuries and millennia.
One of the best ways to look at long-term temperatures is with isotope data from the GISP2 Greenland ice core, from which temperatures for thousands of years can be determined. The ice core isotope data were obtained by Minze Stuiver and Peter Grootes from nuclear accelerator measurements of thousands of oxygen isotope ratios (16O/18O), which are a measure of paleo-temperatures at the time snow fell that was later converted to glacial ice. The age of such temperatures can be accurately measured from annual layers of accumulation of rock debris marking each summer’s melting of ice and concentration of rock debris on the glacier.
The past century
Two episodes of global warming and two episodes of global cooling occurred during the past century:
1880 to 1915 cool period. Atmospheric temperature measurements, glacier fluctuations, and oxygen isotope data from Greenland ice cores all record a cool period from about 1880 to about 1915. Many cold temperature records in North America were set during this period. Glaciers advanced, some nearly to terminal positions reached during the Little Ice Age about 400 years ago. During this period, global temperatures were about 0.9 ° C (1.6 ° F) cooler than at present. From 1880 to 1890, temperatures dropped 0.35 ° C (0.6° F) in only 10 years. The 1880 –1915 cool period shows up well in the oxygen isotope curve of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
1915 to 1945 warm period. Global temperatures rose steadily in the 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s. By the mid-1940s, global temperatures were about 0.5 °C (0.9° F) warmer than they had been at the turn of the century. More high temperature records for the century were recorded in the 1930s than in any other decade of the 20th century. Glaciers during this warm period retreated, temperatures in the 1930s in Greenland were warmer than at present, and rates of warming were higher (warming 4°C (7° F) in two decades). All of this occurred before CO2 emissions began to soar after 1945, so at least half of the warming of the past century cannot have been caused by manmade CO2.
1945 to 1977 cool period. Global temperatures began to cool in the mid–1940’s at the point when CO2 emissions began to soar. Global temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped about 0.5° C (0.9° F) from the mid-1940s until 1977 and temperatures globally cooled about 0.2° C (0.4° F). Many of the world’s glaciers advanced during this time and recovered a good deal of the ice lost during the 1915–1945 warm period. Many examples of glacial recession cited in the news media show contrasting terminal positions beginning with the maximum extent at the end of the 1880-1915 year cool period and ending with the minimum extent of the recent 20 year warm period (1977-1998). A much better gauge of the effect of climate on glaciers would be to compare glacier terminal positions between the ends of successive cool periods or the ends of successive warm periods.
1977 to 1998 global warming The global cooling that prevailed from ~1945 to 1977 ended abruptly in 1977 when the Pacific Ocean shifted from its cool mode to its warm mode in a single year and global temperatures began to rise, initiating two decades of global warming. This sudden reversal of climate in 1977 has been called the “Great Pacific Climate Shift” because it happened so abruptly. During this warm period, alpine glaciers retreated, Arctic sea ice diminished, melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet occur.
The abruptness of the shift in Pacific sea surface temperatures and corresponding change from global cooling to global warming in 1977 is highly significant and strongly suggests a cause-and-effect relationship. The rise of atmospheric CO2, which accelerated after 1945 shows no sudden change that could account for the “Great Pacific Climate Shift”.
1999 to 2010 global cooling. No global warming has occurred above the 1998 level and temperatures have declined slightly.
The past 500 years
Temperature oscillations recorded in Greenland ice cores over the past 500 years (Fig. 2) are truly remarkable. At least 40 periods of warming and cooling have occurred since 1480 AD, all well before CO2 emissions could have been a factor.
The past 5,000 years
Figure 3 shows oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 Greenland ice core for the past 5,000 years. Note that temperatures were significantly warmer than present from 1500 to 5000 years ago.
The past 10,000 years
Most of the past 10,000 have been warmer than the present. Figure 4 shows temperatures from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. With the exception of a brief cool period about 8,200 years ago, the entire period from 1,500 to 10,500 years ago was significantly warmer than present.
Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
It’s really much to do about nothing.
Hi, could someone please explain why Figure 2 looks very different from the end of Figure 3? I understand that there is some smoothing going on, but even so, there doesn’t seem to be a justification for the big dip in Figure 3 at around 1700 or so.
thanks
I’m sorry I don’t check here often enough to be a really active part of the conversation.
I *think* I stated before that I did a research project many years ago – it was mainly gathering data from others, I didn’t do any original research on the subject. I don’t have the results handy, but I may have used the original GISP2 data, the dates are about right.
In either case, I do suffer, like most people, from not being able to put enough effort into the fact that the debate isn’t evolving, it’s just spreading. The arguments are the same as they were 15 years ago, just more often.
That’s the most disheartening part, the gigantic waste involved in having the same argument over and over and over and over. Everything seems like that these days, maybe it’s just one of those years.
A couple of people have tried to become “neutral brokers” for the basic facts, but the concept was immediately and dramatically abused in every major case.
It’s sad there’s nowhere that neutral discussion actually takes place – everywhere I’ve been is either “pro or anti” CAGW, the Pro sites delete and ban the Anti visitors, and at the Anti sites the Pro visitors mostly seem to be after blood rather than the facts.
And so, not wanting to contribute to the pile of bodies, I’ll shuffle off to lurker status again.
tarpon,
Yes, the alarmist scientists are trained with grants the same way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits. But cognitive dissonance explains their Cult of Doom acolytes, who wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit ’em on the ankle. True belief is enough for them.
I enjoy debunking the warmist contingent’s lame arguments because it’s so easy. But this post is no longer on the main page, so I will leave the wild-eyed, arm-waving head-nodders agreeing with each other over their terrifying fear that CO2 will cause climate catastrophe, heh. As if. Sorry 2010 didn’t make the hot list.
For everyone else, I’ll leave you with something that will drive away our cognitive dissonance-impaired friends like the dawn drives away Dracula:
EIGHT HUNDRED peer reviewed papers debunking CAGW.
Enjoy☺
I was given the argument yesterday about the last 10K years being warmer than the current decade to such an extent that this, the warmest decade in the instrumental record, would not rank in the top 9,000 of the last 10K years. After some searching I came across this recent post by Dr. Easterbrook which seemed to be the source of this argument. While looking at the graphs I thought they were odd.
Figure 1: The first one appears to be the instrumental record via some kind of smoothing, but no source is given and it cuts off at 2000. The assignment of “warming” and “cooling” periods seems arbitrary (especially since the overall trend is undeniably upwards), but I’m sure Dr. Easterbrook has some prior assumption that readers here are familiar with the reasoning. I’m not, personally, so an explanation would be helpful.
Figure 2: Cuts off right at 1960, so it’s unhelpful if trying to put late 20th/early 21st century temperatures into context, which is what I thought Dr. Easterbrook was getting at with this.
Figure 3: Again, it cuts off without showing any recent temperatures. In fact it seems to cut off somewhere in the 1800s, so it’s totally unclear what that means for current temperatures except that I happen to know off-hand that the globe has also warmed at least a degree since then, by the instrumental record. This would put the current decade firmly among the warmest periods on that graph, wouldn’t it?
Also, I have no idea why there are horizontal lines around -35 degrees in either this graph or in Figure 2, other than that it’s used to divide the “cool” and “warm” periods. What does it represent? The current temperatures at those sites in Greenland? It’s not clear.
Figure 4: It’s a bit hard to tell what’s going on since it’s so small and pixelated. As for the horizontal line apparently indicating “present temperatures,” see below. Also, apparently it’s Cuffey, not Cuffy.
Figure 5: The last tick on the X axis is 95 years before present, which would seem to put that at 1905. That time was significantly colder than either 1934, 1998, or 2010, so again this graph is misleading if the labels are accurate. But I’ve stumbled across something worse, which Phil caught in his comment above: “Present” for the purposes of Alley’s paper is 1950 (apparently a convention in paleoclimate), and 95 years before that is -1855-. This has been confirmed by Alley himself; the last year in that series is in the middle of the 19th century.
That’s well before we see any of the “modern warming” in the instrumental records, and again we’ve reached a point more than a degree above that by now. The horizontal line showing “present” temperatures is woefully out of date, so much so that I don’t think it’s appropriate to leave this up without a correction explaining the usage of the term and what it means with the graph. Furthermore, I think that taking into account this mistake significantly weakens Dr. Easterbrook’s case regarding the comparison between the recent temperature and the norm over the last 10K years. I don’t think he’s accomplished what he set out to do here; instead it seems he avoided it somehow by never referring to current temperatures in his comparisons.
As a final note, like others before me I’ll question the appropriateness of using a single site in Greenland as context for the average global temperature today. As pointed out before, it sounds unconvincing if we’re also supposed to believe that measurements from 7,000 sites worldwide is insufficient for taking the world’s temperature.
Umm, “global temperatures in the Northern hemisphere?”
Of course, ’34 is a US record, not global, and Greenland temps may or may not reflect the global mean, and. . .
Well, there’s just a whole lot of confusion going on here, isn’t there?
Henry@Oregon P, Peru, Bgood2creation, &.
I am going to say this just once more:
if you have read my blog,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
you would come to understand that my simple basic question to all of you is how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by the CO2. As carbon dioxide also takes part in photo synthesis and since this reaction also needs warmth we would also need to know how much cooling is caused here by the CO2. We need all this info to make up a balance sheet, i.e. what is the net effect of the warming and cooling of CO2? Seeing that the CO2 has increased by about 0.01% over the past 50 years, it seems logical for me to expect this info from you in units like
W/m2/m3 air containing 0.01%CO2/unit of time
Now if you claim this info exists and if know how the experiments were done, why not just give the results to me and tell me how the experiments were done?? I have been though all this before with Weart and Alley and now you. I don’t have time anymore for stories.
Not knowing what the exact measured net effect is of the cooling and warming of the CO2, has made me have a look at the pattern of the warming. I have given you the results of two weather stations, one in Spain and one in northern Ireland. Both show no increase in minimum temperatures over the past 50-200 years.
My conclusion is: modern warming is not caused by an increase in GHG’s as otherwise the minumum temps. should have shown an increase (due to the trapping of heat).
You have deliberately chosen not to react to these simple questions and observations. Why then must I further answer to all of your quotes and references? Even if I am all alone, I still have to be faithful to the truth. I will not follow the majority just because you have hundreds of papers and scientists but no one can answer my simple questions and observations…
CO2 is not a pollutant and not a poison. People trying to kill themselves in car exhaust fumes do not die of CO2 poisening. They die because of a lack of oxygen and CO.
If you want more food then more of the carbon dioxide is good.
I cannot help you further. There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
I can only pray that God will open your eyes.
I almost forgot to give ‘bgood2creation’ the resource he wanted when he asked if I “can produce any peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the MWP caused any of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, I would love to see it.”
Well, of course I can. Glad you asked: click
The peer reviewed papers are cited in the article, along with the empirical data used. And for those who throw out a few links as if they somehow settle the issue, note that I’ve provided 800+ peer reviewed links debunking the CAGW conjecture. That is more than the alarmist total in this thread — doubled and squared.
So far, the only response to my request for empirical, testable evidence showing any direct harm to the planet as a result of the increase in CO2 was the Argumentum ad Ignorantium response claiming that “extinctions” were the result. It didn’t take long for that baseless response to be thoroughly deconstructed. If that’s the best you’ve got, then you’ve got nothing.
So how about it, folks? The gauntlet is down. Can you show that the rise in CO2 has caused specific, measurable damage to the planet — damage that cannot be attributed to any other cause? Remember that models are not evidence, and avoid the usual Argumentum ad Ignorantium. Conjecture is also a no-no, and remember the climate null hypothesis, which has never been falsified.
Show us conclusively that increased CO2 has caused measurable, quantifiable global harm. Be specific. After all, that is the central premise upon which the entire “carbon” scare is based.
In fact, CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. If it caused global damage, the 40% jump in ppmv — a very substantial increase — would certainly have shown measurable and testable world-wide harm to the planet by now.
But of course CO2 has not caused harm to the planet. It is as essential as H2O. Without CO2 life could not exist. More CO2 is better. The biosphphere is currently starved of CO2. Further, if global temperatures rose another 1°C, it would be entirely beneficial. Immense new tracts of agricultural land would become productive. In a world where one-third of the population is on the edge of starvation, more warmth and more CO2 are a Win-Win for humanity.
So the ball is in your court: show us conclusively that the rise in CO2 has caused measurable, testable harm to the planet, if you can. No models allowed; they are not evidence. No speculative arm-waving, no Argumentum ad Ignorantium. If you can, show that the rise in CO2 is the exclusive cause of specific, quantifiable global damage. Because after all, that is the central claim of the promoters of the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
Good luck. You will be on the short list for a Nobel Prize if you can meet those criteria — which are simply another way of saying: use the scientific method.
I am not sure how many times and by how many people this story (about Greenland’s Holocene history) needs to be debunked before even the hard-core skeptics would concede that it has no merit.
“from Peru” already noted the fallacy that the presentation combines the LOCAL Greenland GISP2 record of the Holocene with the GLOBAL record for recent years.
And “WheelsOC” pointed out very convincingly that the problem with many of the graphs (and specifically the only graph with a reference (GISP2) which is figure 5) stops in 1905.
In other words, none of the (most important) past century temperature record, where AGW would have any effect, is even included in this presentation by Easterbrook.
So how much did the temperature change on Greenland AFTER 1905 ?
Well, not sure about 1905 to present, but we have a very accurate (satellite) record of 1987 to present :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic_Temperature_Trend_1987-2007.jpg
Thus we see that in only 30 years, Greenland warmed 2 – 3 C overall.
Put that number in fugure 5 and you see that temperatures in Greenland are currently WAY above anything we have seen in the past 10,000 years, possibly even the Minoan warming period.
So unless Easterbrook comes up with some evidence that the satellite record is incorrect, OR that 1905 was significantly warmer than 1987 in Greenland, such findings completely destroy the conclusions that Easterbrook draws.
2010 may indeed very well be the warmest year in the Holocene, even when cherry-picking a location (Greenland) that has showed cooling over the past 10k years due to natural (Milankovitch cycles) reduction in solar irradiance.
Rob, again you bring in the M-cycles but you don’t say where we are in each of the 3 cycles and by how much W/m2 the radiation increases or decreases due to each of these. Do you have anything on that?
I also think we must find out exactly what the increase was in warming at the location of sample because there are some places in Greenland that show white. (no warming). Another problem is that large parts of Greenland are elevated – I think the core analysis was taken from a place at 3 km high. I don’t know how that graph of yours was made. I suspect that they may have applied some correction for height – which again could be completely faulty. Furthermore, acc. to your picture graph, it looks like northern Europe and England also increased by the same amount as Greenland, which we know is simply not true. All to do with the “hide the decline” climate gate affair, I am afraid. People’s income on the line and all that..
Sad.
Really.
Regarding the temp record : Actually the UK temps 1987 – 2007 do show a 2 C increase, but I admit that that would be cherry-picked interval, since 1987 was particularly cold across Northern Europe. We don’t know how cherry-picked 1987 was for Greenland. So we are still looking for a sensible graph of Greenland’s temperature increase from the point where Easterbrook left off (around 1900) and today’s Greenland temperatures.
Regarding the Milankovitch cycles, there is a 20 W/m^2 reduction in summer solar irradiance at 65 N over the past 10,000 years. That is very much a part of the story (winter irradiance and precipitation patterns and ocean currents play a major role also), but it certainly explains why Greenland got cooler and not warmer over the Holocene.
Also, not sure why you would bring conspiracy theory issues in (like climategate) or other strawman arguments, since after all the very key problem with this post by Easterbrook is that it focuses on a single spot on the planet (GISP2) while the issue (where 2010 ‘fits’ in the warm years over the Holocene) is about the GLOBAL temperature record.
Rob!
Climategate was very real. You should read up on that. The problem with so many people’s jobs on the line is that you do not know anymore what data you can trust. Where it comes from is important: it must be un-biased.
As stated before, it is not temp. as such, global oftenot, that is important. What is important is average minimum temps. as this would prove man made global warming due to GHG’s.
Looking at a few weather stations from where I could find records which I know I can trust I could not find that minimum temps. have risen significantly over the past 30 years., in line with global warming. That means no heat entrapment and from there it follows that modern warming is not caused by an increase in GHG’s, but it is just natural.
if you have data from other weatherstations that would show otherwise, I will keep an open mind!
If we agree on modern warming being due to natural causes, then there is not much that we can do. It could well be due to one or more of the 3 M-cycles that you mentioned working in tandem that is causing it. I still have to do an investigation on that myself. It could also be due to the output of the sun or some of the factors I mentioned in my blog
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
HenryP:
You accuse the climate scientists of “hiding the decline” when Easterbrook hide the INCLINE chopping off the last 105 years of data!
This is selective skepticism at its worst!
Rob: And “WheelsOC” pointed out very convincingly that the problem with many of the graphs (and specifically the only graph with a reference (GISP2) which is figure 5) stops in 1905.
Actually it stops in 1855. The parenthetical (2000) in the graphic referring to “present” is mistaken, and the data do not go up to the 20th century.
Henry@peru
look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
J.Storrs Hall mentions here in the beginning that he expects the last century’s missing data to be at least half a degree up, which would bring us to about -31. (current)
If I look at Easterbrook’s last graph (figure 5), that would still leave us at quite a bit below the medeviel warm period. We know this must be true, because Greenland is not yet as green as what we know it was before….(look in the museum in Copenhagen)
The rise is steep but not unprecedented in history (still going by figure 5).
It happened a few times that we see steep rises in temperatures.
We know for sure these rises were definitely not man made.
So what is your argument? I am sure nobody here including Easterbrook is denying that modern warming is happening. The question is: is it natural or is it man made?
What do you think is the answer to that question?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Smokey says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:37 pm
… “No models allowed; they are not evidence.”
Smokey, your understanding of the world is a model built in your head.
Every day, we each modify our internal model of the external world based on past experience, then project possible futures, choose which is more likely, and act. That ability to act based on models is what separates humans from lower life forms that are unconscious of the possible outcomes of their actions.
Every day, every moment, each of is asking “what will happen if …”. If I don’t get up, if I punch my boss, if I run the red light, if I save for retirement. We value models according to how accurate and useful they are. Those individuals, societies, and civilizations whose models yield the best answers are more successful.
Our world is built, run, and guided using shared models. Some are very dependable; others contain hidden flaws. The difference can be unemployment, disaster, and death.
So how accurate and useful are our climate models? We have disagreements on that. But we also have ways to test them.
30 years ago, Jim Hansen proposed that most climate models were missing a key variable, the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperature. Here is a link to that paper: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
To me, Hansen’s paper is it’s an impressive for its analysis and its predictions of the future for global temperatures, climate science, and politics. It introduced into the discussion most of the concerns that some critics, such as Smokey, Henry, and Easterbrook, are recognizing only now.
Over the past 30 years, Hansen’s group, and other research groups from around the world, have addressed those concerns in a systematic way, to build our current climate models, constantly testing them for accuracy against new data on past and present climates.
A 2008 paper from Hansen’s group summarizes their retrospective approach to model testing: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the ability of current climate models to explain the last 400,000 years and 60,000,000 years of climate variability, from before the formation of the polar ice sheets to the present day. Past climate changes are only explained if the concentrations of greenhouse gases contained in polar ice cores are included in the model.
From this past record, the contributions (forcings) by different variables to global temperature can be estimated, including changes in solar, albedo, and GHG. See figures 4 and 5.
It is figure 2 that updates Hansen’s concern of 30 years ago, that today, for the first time in the history of the earth, CO2 is forcing global temperatures change far beyond the effect of all other variables.
So we depend on models, as individuals, societies, and civilizations. We use them to build, run, and guide our world. Some are very dependable, preventing conflict, disaster, and death. Others, through hidden flaws, cause those very things.
So how accurate and useful are our climate models? We can test them by how well they explain the past and predict the future.
What were Hansen’s predictions using his model of 30 year ago?
“When should the CO2 warming rise out of the noise level of natural climate variability? … Nominal confidence in the CO2 theory will reach – 85 percent when the temperature rises through the l-sigma level and – 98 percent when it exceeds 2-sigma. … The predicted CO2 warming rises out of the l-sigma noise level in the 1980’s and the 2-sigma level in the 1990’s. ”
So, 30 years ago, Hansen simple climate model including CO2 accurately predicted the global temperature trends of the next two decades. No other scientist or models did that.
Today, Hansen’s more complex climate models extend these predictions 60,000,000 years into the past, into a time before polar ice, and into a similar future after.
What are Hansen’s predictions today (2008)?
“If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet, preceded by a period of chaotic change with continually changing shorelines.”
No one has been a better predictor of climate science or climate politics. Both papers are well worth reading for the accuracy of their models.
Sharkey, models need to be tested for their accuracy and usefulness.
But to reject models is to reject thinking and to reject responsibility.
Oregon, you miss the entire point. I asked someone, anyone, to show empirical [real world] evidence of actual damage to the planet as a result of the increase in the trace gas CO2.
Anyone can invent/fabricate a model showing global anything. And we already have plenty of empirical evidence that the rise in CO2 has been greatly beneficial to the global biosphere.
Now I want physical evidence showing global harm as a direct result of the rise in CO2. Models are tools; they are not evidence. So produce evidence of global damage due directly to the rise in CO2 — if you can. Be prepared to show that CO2 is the direct cause; “what ifs” and implausible chains of inference fail the test. And logical fallacies such as the Argumentum ad Ignorantium used in the claim that extinctions are caused by CO2 fail as well because extinctions have a multitude of causes, and have happened continuously throughout geologic history. Failing to show that extinctions are directly due to the rise in CO2 are an example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium: “Because I can’t think of another reason, then the cause must be CO2.” Obviously, that line of argument fails. Show us direct cause and effect.
Take your time.
Oregon Perspective says:
January 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm
“But to reject reality is to reject thinking and to reject responsibility.” Fixed it for you. It is funny that the GCMs model the earth as a flat disc. Don’t they call us flat-earthers?
From Peru says:
Wrong as usual.
Dr Easterbrook did not “chop off” anything. He was using Alley’s data and showing a millennial time scale, as he explained up front.
Your psychological projection is a guilt response to Michael Mann’s deliberately and mendaciously “hiding the decline” by overlaying lines in his Hokey Stick graph. Mann’s mendacity is discussed throughout http://climateaudit.org Just do a search of “Mann” or “Hockey Stick” or “MBH98”, etc. You will see the Mann’s outright deception. There is no comparison with this article by Dr Easterbrook. Your accusation is simply psychological projection in an attempt to cover up Mann’s scientific misconduct.
HenryP says:
January 4, 2011 at 12:29 pm
“Henry@peru
look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
J.Storrs Hall mentions here in the beginning that he expects the last century’s missing data to be at least half a degree up, which would bring us to about -31. (current)
If I look at Easterbrook’s last graph (figure 5), that would still leave us at quite a bit below the medeviel warm period. We know this must be true, because Greenland is not yet as green as what we know it was before….(look in the museum in Copenhagen)”
Unfortunately your graph, as the Easterbrook’s one, ends in 1905.
Here is your graph:
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
Now COMPLETE it with the last 105 years, using the instrumental record in Greenland:
For the decade 2000-2010 the anomaly with respect to 1900-1910 is:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=1212&year1=2000&year2=2010&base1=1900&base2=1910&radius=250&pol=reg
Based on this station data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=1&name=&world_map.x=291&world_map.y=42
A whole 2-4ºC of warming!
Now add the medium of the range found, approximately 3ºC. It is 2ºC warmer now than in the Medieval Warm Period, 1ºC warmer than the Roman Warm Period and comparable to the Minoan Warm Period.
Looking at the entire Holocene:
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
Add to it 3ºC of warming in last 100 years and you found warmth comparable to the Holocene Thermal Maximum, when solar insolation over the Arctic was significantly bigger than today.
A review is found here:
“Cooling-gate: the 100 years of warming Easterbrook wants you to ignore”
http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2010/05/27/cooling-gate-the-100-years-of-warming-easterbrook-wants-you-to-ignore/
This are not models, this is paleoclimatological and instrumental DATA. And it shows that Greenland is as warm (if not warmer) than the most warm periods of the Holocene (when solar insolation in the Arctic was significantly bigger) and far more warm than in the Medieval Warm Period.
Are you ready to accept the DATA?
Can you make an hypothesis on what erased millenia of cooling?
Venus is a good example.
Hansen began his career studying the atmosphere of Venus, where high CO2 rendered the planet uninhabitable. He predicted that the result of increasing CO2 at earth’s distance from the sun would not be as severe.
Do you want to run that experiment to its conclusion on earth? The one habitable planet that we have?
Here’s a prediction from Hansen’s current model, whose human and economic impact we can accuracy assess: “a period of chaotic change with continually changing shorelines”.
NASA satellites now continuously measure changes in ocean heights in response to global warming to an accuracy of millimeters. So far, change in ocean levels match predictions.
Sharkey, do you consider evnetual increases in ocean levels of tens of meters beneficial or catastrophic to the billion humans who currently live there?
And that ignores the consequences to oceanic ecosystems from changes in temperature and depth and to terrestrial ecosystems from changes in temperatures and precipitation.
To me your position is like saying, “What damage have the growth of my cancer cells caused so far? None that I know of. I will only acknowledge that I have cancer and act to prevent it when its symptoms are clearly developed.”
30 years ago, Hansen and others said, “You may have cancer.” Over the past 30 years, cancer specialists around the world have agreed that you very likely do, but that you can reverse its spread at this early stage, if you act quickly.
Many people make your choice, and that’s their right, to live and die as they wish.
But what if it’s your daughter’s cancer? Do you have the moral right to ignore her diagnosis?
Perhaps her cancer will carry her to a better world? In our world, making that decision for her is considered a crime.
When does ignoring the melting of ice, the rising of oceans, and the predicted consequences of our best climate and environmental models become a crime?
Smokey says:
January 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm
“Dr Easterbrook did not “chop off” anything. He was using Alley’s data and showing a millennial time scale, as he explained up front”
The last 105 years of temperatures is missing. If this is no “chopping off” what is it?
“Your psychological projection is a guilt response to Michael Mann’s deliberately and mendaciously “hiding the decline” by overlaying lines in his Hokey Stick graph.”
That was a poor graph, where wrong the tree-ring data were deleted. (And were obviously wrong data, because it differed from the instrumental temperatures)
“There is no comparison with this article by Dr Easterbrook.”
That is true. What Dr Easterbrook has done is much, much worse.
Easterbrook didn’t show the instrumental temperatures, hiding a whole 2-3ºC increase in temperatures. Mann (or more specifically, Mann and Phil Jones) did was not showing the portion where one of the tree-ring proxies diverged from the instrumental (true) temperatures. That was a poor decision. It would have been better to eliminate the series entirely, as it was flawed at least in the last decades.
“Your accusation is simply psychological projection in an attempt to cover up Mann’s scientific misconduct.”
No, mr. Smokey.
Mann did a poor job, and that must be recognized. What Mann did was really stupid, he should have not included the flawed tree-ring series (and that was just one series, many others don’t have the divergrnce problem). That is something I recognize. But what Dr Easterbrook was far worse: he eliminated the Instrumental data, hiding how much has Greenland warmed.
Compare that massacre (What Dr Easterbrook have done is a massacre with trhe data) with the Mann’s “trick”, that “hide” the uncertainty of just one of the many climate proxy series.
This is a monstruos difference. I will not defend the Mann’s poor work, but you are defending something much worse. I admit that things are wrong when they are wrong. You don’t.
Sharkey-
Here is a nice summary page of NASA’s global monitoring, with ocean height at the top: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#seaLevel.
What’s your diagnosis?
Smokey says:
January 4, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“I want physical evidence showing global harm as a direct result of the rise in CO2.”
To append to my earlier response at 2:06 pm, citing Venus and ocean height …
Here is a nice summary page of NASA’s global monitoring, with ocean height at the top: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#seaLevel.
What’s your diagnosis?
From Peru says:
“The last 105 years of temperatures is missing. If this is no “chopping off” what is it?”
I feel like I’m trying to teach calculus to a toddler. This has been explained more than once in this thread: the reason the past century can not be used from an ice core is because there is no ice core. Is that not clear enough??
It takes time for snowfall to compress into ice. Get it? No one has an ice core of the past centurey.
*Sheesh*
Oregon perspective,
Why did the current rate of ocean rise start in 1930?