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.
Oregon,
Who is “Sharkey”? Are you losing your grip on reality?
OK, about Venus: The first thing you need to understand is that Venus is not Earth. Nor is Mars, which also has a 95% CO2 atmosphere — and is extremely cold year round. But on Earth, CO2 is only a minor trace gas: 0.00039 of the atmosphere.
On Venus and Mars, CO2 is over .95 of the atmosphere. Neither one is remotely comparable to our planet. See here and here.
That takes care of Venus. And Mars. There is no relevant comparison. At all. Now, about the sea level.
Since the glaciers began receding following the last Ice Age, sea levels have been rising. They follow a curve that has nothing to do with changes in carbon dioxide.
3 mm/year is about average since the LIA. Since 1994 the rise has averaged about half of that.
Sea levels are difficult to measure. Over the past century there have been regular cycles riding on a trend. Like everything else, they go in cycles. And different oceans have different [natural] rates of increase.
For example, here are the two largest oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific. You can follow the anomalies in this NOAA animation.
Well then, could the water be piling up in the South Pacific? Nope. John Daly has more on sea level rise.
The University of Colorado also follows sea levels, and they also show that sea level rises have been slowing.
Willis Eschenback provided this graph, also showing that sea level rise is slowing.
So now we know that CO2 is not causing any harm due to the sea level rising. When you speculate about “ocean levels of tens of meters,” just keep in mind that the planet has already falsified the conjecture that CO2 causes sea levels to rise.
I won’t bother responding to the rest of your comment, because it’s just fear-based emotion. I will stick with supportable facts.
Now that the Venus red herring is deconstructed, and the facts show that sea level is a non-issue, my challenge remains: try to show actual global damage resulting from the rise in CO2. So far, there has been no harm to the planet due to CO2. But I don’t know everything; maybe you can think of a credible, convincing example, now that Venus and sea levels have been debunked.
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
Oregon Perspective says:
January 4, 2011 at 2:06 pm
What is it with warmists and using cancer as an analogy?
Are you the Mad Dhog by any chance?
Henry@peru & Rob
Peru, you are seriously wrong. The sample point for the ice was much further north in Greenland and here your graphs clearly state: grey= missing data. I thought as much, even before, when Rob brought up the same issue in that picture graph. I don’t know how they could have painted that Greenland was 2-3 up when they had missing data up north and wrong (manipulated) data from Europe.
If what you say were true, then Greenland would be back to what it was in the MWP. That is just not on, if you go by normal history (as explained)….there are paintings and artifacts, remains of churches, etc.
I think the expectation of -31 that Storrs Hall mentioned is more or less correct and you are totally off the mark.
As explained (thanks to Smokey!) the last 100 years is missing because apparently the snow has not yet “icified”
Nobody here is denying that modern warming is not happening.
I note again that you have not answered my question as to what you believe caused modern warming and specifically why you believe that?
I honestly believe that warming is good for the planet as I have never seen forests grow much where it is cold. Don’t you agree? I think we are lucky. I think Storrs Hall mentioned that as well?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
OregonP says:
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?
Nasa shows the data of the CO2 and the warming but that does not prove a link.
it is the other way: warming causes more CO2 in the air. (a lot of CO2 is dissolved in the oceans and comes out when it gets warmer)
see here: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
it appears the CO2 comes out of the oceans and increases lags the warming periods by 800 years. Cause and effect, get it? Seeing that you like cancer stories: Smoking causes cancer but cancer does not smoking….or does it?
So you are still missing the point.
We are not denying that modern warming is happening
we just say it is natural
it happened before
many times.
It will happen again after it gets colder first.
Like I said: be happy now
Did you ever see a forest grow where it is cold?
Smokey says:
January 4, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“I feel like I’m trying to teach calculus to a toddler”
Again proyecting your faults on people that don’t think like you. Because you said:
“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??”
You should then use the INSTRUMENTAL TEMPERATURE RECORD. It is no obvious enough??
I have put records to it in previous comments. It shows a warming between 2ºC and 4ºC in GREENLAND.
You want “actual global damage resulting from the rise in CO2”, then see the link I previously posted:
“Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE”
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/increasing-rates-of-ice-mass-loss-from-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-revealed-by-grace.pdf
That implies that sea level rise will accelerate as the ice sheet meltdown does. So far in the last decade more than 1 mm/yr of sea level rise come from ice sheets. A decade before that number was close to zero.
And before you say that “sea level rise slowed since 2004”, see the University of Colorado graph again. After a pause during the 2007-2008 La Niña, the trend returned to previous levels, as is evident from the fact that the sea level curve runs parallel to the 1993-2010 trend since 2008.
So as actual global damage due to CO2 we have, for example:
1)accelerating meltdown of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets.
2)dramatic reduction of summertime Arctic sea ice (30% reduction in extent and 80% reduction in volume)
3)Acceleration of meltdown of Mountain Glacier meltdown, for example the meltdown of the Peruvian glaciers (a thing that directly affects me)
4)The melting of the permafrost in Canada and Siberia, that menaces to liberate huge amounts of carbon stored there as CO2 and methane
5)The proliferation of pine beetle parasites that have killed extensive portions of Boreal Borest in Alaska and Canada
6)Incresing coral bleaching events in the tropical seas as a consecuence of warmer sea surface temperatures
And then is the more straightforward ocean acidification. The oceans acidity has increased by 30% as a consecuence of the reaction:
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 (carbonic acid)
Then it happens:
H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3-
H+ + CO3– = HCO3-
The resultant reduction in the carbonate ion (CO3–) is very bad news to calcifying organisms such as corals, foraminifera, pteropods, etc. When the carbonate ion concentration drops so that the aragonite saturation state drops enough to approach unity, their shells begin to dissolve.
This is basic chemistry. There is no way that CO2 could not cause this.
So, even if you are right and CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, the ocean will still acidify. The resultant disruption of marine life in a more than enough reason to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
Peru,
You have to crawl before you can walk. As a toddler on so-called “ocean acidification,” you need to be provided with some much needed training wheels:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
Read and learn, sport. Spouting the repeatedly debunked globaloney about “ocean acidification” is just another talking point coming from the spittle-flecked, wild-eyed Doomsday Cult. It is a baseless scare tactic that scientifically literate people laugh at.
The oceans have an essentially infinite buffering capacity, which means that they will never become acidic, even if the atmosphere was 100% CO2 for millions of years. Read the articles and comments, and the other links. You need to learn about the chemistry and physics before you mindlessly opine — leave opinions like that to Al Gore.
Peru, you are seriously wrong. The sample point for the ice was much further north in Greenland and here your graphs clearly state: grey= missing data. I thought as much, even before, when Rob brought up the same issue in that picture graph. I don’t know how they could have painted that Greenland was 2-3 up when they had missing data up north and wrong (manipulated) data from Europe.
If what you say were true, then Greenland would be back to what it was in the MWP. That is just not on, if you go by normal history (as explained)….there are paintings and artifacts, remains of churches, etc.
I think the expectation of -31 that Storrs Hall mentioned is more or less correct and you are totally off the mark.
As regards to the Co2 reacting with water:
as long as it is warming, more dissolved CO2 will be released from the oceans
(if you know chemistry then you will understand that if you heat a kettle with water, first the CO2 comes out?)
that will decrease the acidity of the oceans
H2CO3=> H2O + CO2
which is what we want.
Are we good?
The additionalCO2 released from the oceans and from our combustion of fossil fuels in the air will be used up quickly by better crops, more greenery, more forests, more marine life, etc.:
earth will be like paradise again!!
more carbon dioxide is good, remember?
Makes me happy.
@Smokey:
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??
When there is no ice core for “the present,” you do not label 1855’s temperature as “the present” on your graph and mislead people into thinking that 1855’s temperatures reflect 1934’s, 1998’s, or 2010’s temperatures. Easterbrook is seriously, demonstrably in error when he labeled “the present” temperatures on these graphs and consequently his claim about today’s temperatures (“Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010.”) is wrong, no matter how you slice it. Continuing to push this line of argument in the face of these facts is dishonest. Do you disagree?
HenryP says:
January 4, 2011 at 8:48 pm
“Peru, you are seriously wrong. The sample point for the ice was much further north in Greenland and here your graphs clearly state: grey= missing data”
You prefer to use the global average instead of the temperatures recorded by the nearest stations to the GISP2 ice core site?
This is the best information about the temperatures there. You should use them. It will be some error , but much less than if you use the global average. Certainly the Greenland average is far better than the global average.
“for the If what you say were true, then Greenland would be back to what it was in the MWP. That is just not on, if you go by normal history (as explained)….there are paintings and artifacts, remains of churches, etc”
Well, wake up! Greenland is melting!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/25/850908/-Rapid-melt-spreads-to-NW-Greenland,-400ppm-CO2-may-melt-cap
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html
“As regards to the Co2 reacting with water:
as long as it is warming, more dissolved CO2 will be released from the oceans
(if you know chemistry then you will understand that if you heat a kettle with water, first the CO2 comes out?) that will decrease the acidity of the oceans
H2CO3=> H2O + CO2
which is what we want.
But on Earth, the rate of ocean absorbtion of CO2 is far bigger than any degassing due to warming water. The data tell that:
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/OAdocs/SPM-lorezv2.pdf
(see the graph on page 3)
“The additionalCO2 released from the oceans and from our combustion of fossil fuels in the air will be used up quickly by better crops, more greenery, more forests, more marine life, etc.: earth will be like paradise again!!
more carbon dioxide is good, remember?
Makes me happy.”
Keep living in your fantasy world. Dreaming is good for the soul when the reality is nasty… unless you need to act to save yourself… in that case, your delusion can kill you…
I should perhaps just clarify one point to all of you.
the thing that I am sure about is that modern warming is not caused by CO2.
because
1) actual lab. test results proving warming properties show that CO2 is a very, very weak green house gas, when tested at the relevant concentration range.
2) we donot know exactly how much cooling is caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere, but purely by looking at the spectra of CO2, over the whole of the wavelength area from 0 to 15 um, I would say that it is pretty much evens with the warming and cooling of CO2.
3) we donot how much energy is being used by photo synthesis (do we?)but it is logical for me to expect that the cooling caused by CO2 taking part in photo synthesis on its own cancels out any warming due to a weak green house gas effect.
that leaves me to expect a net effect of close to zero warming or cooling due to CO2 increasing.
and that leaves modern warming being due to
a) natural causes
b) man made causes other than carbon dioxide
c) a) + b)
When considering b) and c) above
you should perhaps again read my blog:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Because if any of you like Peru and Oregon P and Rob were to prove to me that modern warming must be man made, as such enormous warming now witnessed has never been observed in the past before,
then I would rather point to another cause:
water vapor
because
1) it is a much stronger green house gas
2) every process we use releases water vapor, including nuclear, hydro, rocket fuel, fossil fuel, etc.
3) it is logical for me to expect that water vapor has been increasing a lot due to human activities in terms of percent per unit of volume per unit of time, even if eventually it does end up in the oceans again
you should perhaps again read what I said in my blog about this:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Peru says
Keep living in your fantasy world. Dreaming is good for the soul when the reality is nasty… unless you need to act to save yourself… in that case, your delusion can kill you…
Was it not in Peru where many people froze to death last winter?
so who is dreaming?
because
coming back to my previous post
you guys were still going to prove to me that modern warming is caused by an increase in GHG’s
e.g. do you have minimum temp. data from the weather stations in your countries that show an increase in line with modern warming? Or is it only max. temperatures that increased in your countries?
HenryP,
You manage to get GHG theory completely wrong, you get ocean acidification due tp CO2 increase completely backward, and when faced with the instrumental temperature record for Greenland you defend yourself stating that the instrument was not at the same spot as the GISP2 core drill, and thus we should take the global record instead ?
I’m completely mystified by your thinking process. Where did you get the idea that CO2 has no effect on the planet’s temperature ? And that the oceans would gas out CO2 because of warming ?
When you hold an opinion like that which are scientifically laughable and also contradict what every climate scientist (including skeptics) tell us, then don’t you at least verify your assertion ? Do you read such things in a blog ? Did you not study at least a little bit of study yourself ? Like some radiative transfer theory (for the GHG effect), or some chemistry (for ocean acidification) ?
When your belief is so strong that you can’t even acknowledge basic scientific facts, the I’m sure you will not accept the fact that Easterbrook left out the past century 2-3 C warming in the Greenland area, and that Easterbrook’s conclusions are therefore false.
Rob says:
I’m completely mystified by your thinking process. Where did you get the idea that CO2 has no effect on the planet’s temperature ? And that the oceans would gas out CO2 because of warming ?
Rob, references are given in my blog spot. If not directly referred to in the main text, then look at the far bottom. I also clarified here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%e2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/#comment-566450
But where is your proof from the instrumental records of temperatures that shows that GHG’s are the cause of modern warming? I would like to see that. No one here has answered that question. Remember, it is the average minimum temps. that must show the warming trend (the trapping of heat by the GHG’s)
of the data from two stations that I observed, both did not show the modern warming trend, if you look at average minimum temps.
WheelsOC says:
“When there is no ice core for ‘the present,’ you do not label 1855′s temperature as ‘the present’ “.
That is nothing but amateur nitpicking.
How many times does it need to be explained to you that the article is a discussion of millennial time frames? ± a century out of millennia is acceptable, and completely understandable – for those who understand what is being explained. You still don’t seem to understand that there is no ice core evidence for the past century. That is because the snow has not yet compacted into ice.
Criticizing someone for not including a non-existent ice core means you are either slow to learn, or a troll. Try thinking in terms of millennia, and it will all become clear. Or keep trolling, whatever.
I am looking for a reference that shows that Co2 was much higher in the far, far past.
I remember vaguely reading about it somewhere, was it in the Cambrium period? many millions of years ago? was it not like a few thousands of ppm?
is there anyone who can help me with that reference? was it also from an ice core analysis record?
@ur momisugly Smokey: That is nothing but amateur nitpicking.
How many times does it need to be explained to you that the article is a discussion of millennial time frames? ± a century out of millennia is acceptable, and completely understandable – for those who understand what is being explained. You still don’t seem to understand that there is no ice core evidence for the past century. That is because the snow has not yet compacted into ice.
“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.” Is Dr. Easterbrook factually correct when he says this? Is this supported by his data at all?
Well said, WheelsOC.
Dr. Easterbrook wrote:
“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.”
So he is making a conclusion about the last decade (leaving aside 1934, that was near record warm only in the US) by comparing the 1998-2010 temperature to a paleoclimate record that ends in 1905.
The 1905 temperature is a lot cooler than the warm periods in the Holocene as shown by the GISP2 ice core drill. This tell us NOTHING about the temperatures in 1998-2010.
Yet Dr. Easterbrook claims that “Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010”. To say this, one must be either completely incompetent or completely dishonest.
The conclusion:
“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.”
Is quite false, as is based in a graph that ends 105 years ago. This is “hiding the incline” at its worst!
HenryP says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:28 am
“you guys were still going to prove to me that modern warming is caused by an increase in GHG’s e.g. do you have minimum temp. data from the weather stations in your countries that show an increase in line with modern warming? Or is it only max. temperatures that increased in your countries?”
I have something better: global average temperatures in the daytime vs nightime:
“Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming”
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf
Where is shown:
1958– 1985:
T mean = 0.036 (0.04)
T min = 0.11 (0.04)
T max =-0.04 (0.04)
DTR = -0.15 (0.01)
1985– 2002:
T mean = 0.38 (0.08)
T min = 0.40 (0.08)
T max = 0.37 (0.08)
DTR =-0.03 (0.02)
Relative Change:
T mean = +0.34
T min = +0.29
T max = +0.41
DTR = +0.12
You see the fingerprint of Greernhouse warming: nights (minimum temperature) warming faster than days (maximum temperature), so that the diurnal temperature range (DTR), defined as difference between TMAX and TMIN, decreases.
You could see that in the 1958-1985 period of flat mean global temperatures, the nighttime temperatures increased while the daytime temperatures decreased (aech offsetting the other), consistent with a greenhouse warming caused by the CO2 (that tends to increase nightime temperatures more than dayttime temperatures) and aerosol cooling caused by SO2 emissions (that reflect sunlight back to space, cooling days but not nights).
You could see that in 1985-2002 the aerosol cooling reversed, consistent with the fact that clean air regulations reduced SO2 emissions but not CO2 emissions. And finally, you see that nightime temperature warming was faster in 1985-2002 than in 1958-1985, consistent with the fact that greenhouse gas forcing has increased in recent times.
HenryP,
I read most of your post, and I respect your faith. However the arguments you present have long been debunked on sites like skepticalscience (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) and grist (http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/).
As I mentioned before here , it seems that here on WUWT there are still many people that do not understand (or do not want to understand) the basic physics of GHG theory, otherwise arguments like you present would not be an issue.
Check here for a good overview of the physics article :
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/greenhouse-effect-revisited/
As you looking for “proof”, in general there is no such thing as “proof” in science. There is just mountains of evidence supporting theory. Also we do not have a second planet Earth to experiment with, so we can only show that 20th century warming (especially from the past 40 years) makes sense if the physics of GHG theory are correct, and does not make sense if the physics of GHG theory are incorrect.
Frm Peru says
Relative Change:
T mean = +0.34
T min = +0.29
T max = +0.41
Now, if those results for Tmax and Tmin had been the other way around or at least equal to each other, you would have a good point. All it shows now is that more heat came in which simply has to linger longer. Do you get that?
So this is exactly confirming what I have observed myself when analysing the results of those two stations in Spain and Northern Ireland. Thanks!
Minimum temperatures do not follow exactly the same line as modern warming.
That de-bunks your theory that modern warming is due to increases in GHG’s, more especially that it is due to the CO2.
More CO2 is good.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
From Peru: Thank you, but again I must clarify that the last data in the core study is from the year 1855, not 1905. The last bar on the graph is “95 years before present,” and in this data “present” is used in a paleoclimate convention to mean the year 1950, as with radiocarbon dating (Smokey might wish to take note so that he can avoid “amateur” mistakes). Dr. Alley confirmed this to Hot Topic’s Gareth Rowenden via email (I double-checked before making my first post in the thread).
There might not even be a significant difference temperature-wise between 1855 and 1905, and either way Dr. Easterbrook is still wrong to draw the conclusions he does. But to put this in perspective, the most recent layer from this data series was already 30 years old by the time Marty McFly rescued Doc Brown from Mad Dog Tannen.
If Dr. Easterbrook considers this ice core data to be representative of global temperatures (and why would he use them otherwise?), then he should consider that the world has warmed significantly since 1855 and that all three years of his interest (1934, 1998, 2010) are between two and three degrees C higher than the marker he drew. That puts them among the top percentiles of temperatures during the last 10K years according to this ice core data. “Hiding the incline,” indeed.
For the benefit of Smokey, we’re not accusing him of chopping off any years from the ice core series (that would be impossible, the chopping was done for him), we’re pointing out that he isn’t including any data on the three years he wants to say are so cold compared to the ice core record.
henry@Rob
I have 35 years of experience in Chemistry, are you telling me I simply don’t know what i am talking about?
Rob, if you have respect for the Truth, then keep away from Sceptical Science:
they kept on wiping my arguments away.
I am warning you not to continue to tell people that the Co2 is not good.
Eventually the truth will come out. It always does.
henry@Wheels OC/ Frm Peru
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
So, you say that J. Storrs Hall was also wrong by asserting that things have been a lot warmer in the past and that the current warming ‘hockey stick’ is dinky compared to what happened in history?
….and here it comes…I hope…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/yes-virginia-you-do-have-to-produce-those-global-warming-documents/#more-31027