MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGES
Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook,
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University
The GISP2 Greenland ice core has proven to be a great source of climatic data from the geologic past. Ancient temperatures can be measured using oxygen isotopes in the ice and ages can be determined from annual dust accumulation layers in the ice. The oxygen isotope ratios of thousands of ice core samples were measured by Minze Stuiver and Peter Grootes at the University of Washington (1993, 1999) and these data have become a world standard.
The ratio of 18O to 16O depends on the temperature at the time snow crystals formed, which were later transformed into glacial ice. Ocean volume may also play a role in δ18O values, but δ18O serves as a good proxy for temperature. The oxygen isotopic composition of a sample is expressed as a departure of the 18O/16O ratio from an arbitrary standard
δ18O =
(18O/16O)sample ‒ (18O/16O) x 103
____________________________________
(18O/16O)standard
where δ18O is the of ratio 18O/16O expressed in per mil (0/00) units.
The age of each sample is accurately known from annual dust layers in the ice core. The top of the core is 1987.
The δ18O data clearly show remarkable swings in climate over the past 100,000 years. In just the past 500 years, Greenland warming/cooling temperatures fluctuated back and forth about 40 times, with changes every 25-30 years (27 years on the average). None of these changes could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they predate the large CO2 emissions that began about 1945. Nor can the warming of 1915 to 1945 be related to CO2, because it pre-dates the soaring emissions after 1945. Thirty years of global cooling (1945 to 1977) occurred during the big post-1945 increase in CO2.
But what about the magnitude and rates of climates change? How do past temperature oscillations compare with recent global warming (1977-1998) or with warming periods over the past millennia. The answer to the question of magnitude and rates of climate change can be found in the δ18O and borehole temperature data.
Temperature changes in the GISP2 core over the past 25,000 years are shown in Figure 1 (from Cuffy and Clow, 1997). The temperature curve in Figure 1 is a portion of their original curve. I’ve added color to make it easier to read. The horizontal axis is time and the vertical axis is temperature based on the ice core δ18O and borehole temperature data. Details are discussed in their paper. Places where the curve becomes nearly vertical signify times of very rapid temperature change. Keep in mind that these are temperatures in Greenland, not global temperatures. However, correlation of the ice core temperatures with world-wide glacial fluctuations and correlation of modern Greenland temperatures with global temperatures confirms that the ice core record does indeed follow global temperature trends and is an excellent proxy for global changes. For example, the portions of the curve from about 25,000 to 15,000 represent the last Ice Age (the Pleistocene) when huge ice sheets thousands of feet thick covered North America, northern Europe, and northern Russia and alpine glaciers readvanced far downvalley.
So let’s see just how the magnitude and rates of change of modern global warming/cooling compare to warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. We can compare the warming and cooling in the past century to approximate 100 year periods in the past 25,000 years. The scale of the curve doesn’t allow enough accuracy to pick out exactly 100 year episodes directly from the curve, but that can be done from the annual dust layers in ice core data. Thus, not all of the periods noted here are exactly 100 years. Some are slightly more, some are slightly less, but they are close enough to allow comparison of magnitude and rates with the past century.
Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.
Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).
Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.
Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.
Magnitude and rate of abrupt climate changes
Some of the more remarkable sudden climatic warming periods are shown listed below (refer also to Figure 1). Numbers correspond to the temperature curves on Figure 5.
1. About 24,000 years ago, while the world was still in the grip of the last Ice Age and huge continental glaciers covered large areas, a sudden warming of about 20°F occurred. Shortly thereafter, temperatures dropped abruptly about 11°F. Temperatures then remained cold for several thousand years but oscillated between about 5°F warmer and cooler.
2. About 15,000 years ago, a sudden, intense, climatic warming of about 21°F (~12° C;) caused dramatic melting of the large ice sheets that covered Canada and the northern U.S., all of Scandinavia, and much of northern Europe and Russia.
3. A few centuries later, temperatures again plummeted about 20° F (~11°C) and glaciers readvanced.
4. About 14,000 years ago, global temperatures once again rose rapidly, about 8° F (~4.5°C), and glaciers receded.
4. About 13,400 years ago, global temperatures plunged again, about 14° F (~8°C) and glaciers readvanced.
5. About 13,200 years ago, global temperatures increased rapidly, 9° F (~5°C), and glaciers receded.
6. 12,700 yrs ago global temperatures plunged sharply, 14° F (~8°C) and a 1300 year cold period, the Younger Dryas, began.
7. After 1300 years of cold climate, global temperatures rose sharply, about 21° F (~12° C), 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cold period and the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
Early Holocene climate changes
8,200 years ago, the post-Ice Age interglacial warm period was interrupted by a sudden global cooling that lasted for a few centuries (Fig. 3). During this time, alpine glaciers advanced and built moraines. The warming that followed the cool period was also abrupt. Neither the abrupt climatic cooling nor the warming that followed was preceded by atmospheric CO2 changes.
Figure 3. The 8200 year B.P. sudden climate change, recorded in oxygen isotope ratios in the GISP2 ice core, lasted about 200 years.
Late Holocene climate changes
750 B.C. to 200 B.C. cool period
Prior to the founding of the Roman Empire, Egyptians records show a cool climatic period from about 750 to 450 B.C. and the Romans wrote that the Tiber River froze and snow remained on the ground for long periods (Singer and Avery, 2007).
The Roman warm period (200 B.C. to 600 A.D.)
After 100 B.C., Romans wrote of grapes and olives growing farther north in Italy than had been previously possible and of little snow or ice (Singer and Avery, 2007).
The Dark Ages cool period (440 A.D. to 900 A.D.)
The Dark Ages were characterized by marked cooling. A particularly puzzling event apparently occurred in 540 A.D. when tree rings suggest greatly retarded growth, the sun appeared dimmed for more than a year, temperatures dropped in Ireland, Great Britain, Siberia, North and South America, fruit didn’t ripen, and snow fell in the summer in southern Europe (Baillie in Singer and Avery, 2007). In 800 A.D., the Black Sea froze and in 829 A.D. the Nile River froze (Oliver, 1973).
The Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D.)
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were particularly evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 meters, but from about 1100 to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 meters, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0 to 1.4° C (Oliver, 1973, Tkachuck, 1983). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about one degree C warmer than present (Fagan, 2007).
The Vikings colonized southern Greenland in 985 AD during the Medieval Warm Period when milder climates allowed favorable open-ocean conditions for navigation and fishing. This was “close to the maximum Medieval warming recorded in the GISP2 ice core at 975 AD (Stuiver et al., 1995).
Elsewhere in the world, prolonged droughts affected the southwestern United States and Alaska warmed. Sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan record warmer temperatures. Sea surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea were approximately 1°C warmer than today and the climate in equatorial east Africa was drier from 1000–1270 AD. An ice core from the eastern Antarctic Peninsula shows warmer temperatures during this period.
The Little Ice Age (1300 A.D. to the 20th century)
At the end of the Medieval Warm Period, ~1230 AD, temperatures dropped ~4°C (~7° F) in ~20 years and the cold period that followed is known as the Little Ice Age. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating (see e.g., Grove, 1988, 2004; Singer and Avery, 2007; Fagan, 2000). Temperatures of the cold winters and cool, rainy summers were too low for growing of cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. When temperatures declined during the 30–year cool period from the late 1940’s to 1977, some climatologists and meteorologists predicted a return to a new Little Ice Age.
Glaciers expanded worldwide (see e.g., Grove, 1988, 2004; Singer and Avery, 2007). Glaciers in Greenland advanced and pack-ice extended southward in the North Atlantic in the 13th century. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as a food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Three years of torrential rains that began in 1315 led to the Great Famine of 1315-1317. The Thames River in London froze over, the growing season was significantly shortened, crops failed repeatedly, and wine production dropped sharply (Fagan, 2000; Singer and Avery, 2007).
Winters during the Little Ice Age were bitterly cold in many parts of the world. Advance of glaciers in the Swiss Alps in the mid–17th century gradually encroached on farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.
Significance of previous global climate changes
If CO2 is indeed the cause of global warming, then global temperatures should mirror the rise in CO2. For the past 1000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels remained fairly constant at about 280 ppm (parts per million). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations began to rise during the industrial revolution early in the 20th century but did not exceed about 300 ppm. The climatic warming that occurred between about 1915 and 1945 was not accompanied by significant rise in CO2. In 1945, CO2 emission began to rise sharply and by 1980 atmospheric CO2. had risen to just under 340 ppm. During this time, however, global temperatures fell about 0.9°F (0.5° C) in the Northern Hemisphere and about 0.4°F (0.2° C) globally. Global temperatures suddenly reversed during the Great Climate Shift of 1977 when the Pacific Ocean switched from its cool mode to its warm mode with no change in the rate of CO2 increase. The 1977–1998 warm cycle ended in 1999 and a new cool cycle began. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, why did temperatures rise for 30 years (1915-1945) with no significant increase in CO2? Why did temperatures fall for 30 years (1945-1977) while CO2 was sharply accelerating? Logic dictates that this anomalous cooling cycle during accelerating CO2 levels must mean either (1) rising CO2 is not the cause of global warming or (2) some process other than rising CO2 is capable of strongly overriding its effect on global atmospheric warming.
Temperature patterns since the Little Ice Age (~1300 to 1860 A.D.) show a very similar pattern; 25–30 year–long periods of alternating warm and cool temperatures during overall warming from the Little Ice Age low. These temperature fluctuations took place well before any significant effect of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2.
Conclusions
Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet show that the magnitude of global warming experienced during the past century is insignificant compared to the magnitude of the profound natural climate reversals over the past 25,000 years, which preceded any significant rise of atmospheric CO2. If so many much more intense periods of warming occurred naturally in the past without increase in CO2, why should the mere coincidence of a small period of low magnitude warming this century be blamed on CO2?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



tty,
Thank you for your response. So the ice core record is asumed to be continuous over the last glacial period and so far in this interglacial. Known-date volcanic ash markers and geomagnetic information correlate well with this assumption.
Thanks again,
Sal
Hmmm… Methinks Dr Easterbrook missed Alley et al 2010. He’s completely missed antiphased events or any local disturbances (ice flows, etc) that are present in the GISP2 data. Nor does he seem to understand that GISP2 is a local record of temperature and implying that it is a global proxy rather than the single site record that it actually is.
“”””” Fred H. Haynie says:
January 24, 2011 at 11:40 am
George,
They are measuring the depletion in the ice of the heavier isotope from a sea water standard. Multiple cycles of evaporation/condensation in route from the equator to Greenland fractionates the lighter from the heavier. They are not measuring changes in the trapped air. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. “””””
Fred, thanks for the explanation. When you use the word “fractionate” then I presume you are using it in the same sense that chemical processing plants; refineries for example have these fractionation columns, that separate slightly different molecules, in a continuous recirculatingg process that slowly dides the two species. Similar concept to the centrifugal separation of Uranium isotopes; well hell milk separators work the same way.
So just what Temperature does the resultant isotope ratio proxy; the tropical oceanic source Temperature, or the snow deposition Temperature. It sounds like it is complicated to calibrate; unless I am just not grasping the whole process. But researchers seem to feel it is a robust methodology ?
Thanks again.
Juraj V. says:
“Keep in mind that GISP2 ends in 1905, but it is a good proxy for North Atlantic/NH.”
Actually that is not true. GISP2 is dated to “0.095 years before present” but Dr Alley states that YBP is the standard 1950 used for radiometric dating. That means the data ends around 1855.
I take offense to ignorant folks degrading the noble Crusades.
The political religion pushing their agenda (21) and earth charter more closely resemble a Jihad, with ‘climate reparations’ resembling global Jizya.
I personally don’t care if the Maldives is flooded. But it STILL hasn’t happened despite tourists being secretly insulted during their marriage ceremony.
There is so much evidence that we have been lied to that I can only surmise that those people who are awaiting the ‘age of aquarius’ by ocean flood want it to happen to prove their faith in progressive religion is not in vain.
Uh oh. Isn’t a half mile thick continental glacier considered a flood?
(I love mentioning that)
You just have to marvel at people who put all of their faith in big government science. Because government is always trustworthy (lol).
“. For the past 1000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels remained fairly constant at about 280 ppm (parts per million). ”
Uh no. The fact that ice cores appear to show this in no way supports the idea that CO2 levels were consistent or that low for extended periods. For the regrowth of vegetation after extreme cooling periods and their survival during those periods it is simply unlikely.
@-tty says:
“There has been special studies made of the younger Dryas interval with much denser sampling than the main analysis series. Those big changes in temperature really happened in a few decades. Perhaps even less as they are at the limit of what can be discerned at that time-depth.”
Yes I know that in the Northern hemisphere there are sedimentry records with very good resolution for the Younger Dryas that show a big temperature change in a few years, perhaps less than a decade. But as you concede later in your post the this was not global.
Perhaps I am misreading it, but I cannot reconcile that with the temperature change from the GISP data.
But it was not the YD that causes me tyhe most problems with the graph. The end of the ice-age AFTER the YD was slower, taking at least 1000 years for the global temperature to rise by ~16degC.
Perhaps I am misreading it, but I cannot reconcile that with the temperature change from the GISP data.
I am unable to reconcile that with a histogram that appears to show a rate of warming of 24degF ~100 years. It seems to be an order of magnitude out.
Vines in England.
There have been a number of posts on this. I have read a number of articles that suggested that in Roman times, vines would grow in the North of England. There is some debate as to how far north; Yorkshire, Cumbria and some articles suggested as far north as Hadrian’s Wall. ie up to the Scottish Boarders. I consider that the quoted passage “…as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible…” errs and probably it would be more correct to say “….as far as the north of England where growing grapes is now not feasible…”
I lived in the Midlands in the 70s and my parents had a number of vines growing against a south facing wall some of which were trailed into a sunlounge. There were a couple 0f good summers in the 70s and in those years I made about 80 bottles (+/-) of very pleasant white wine.
Asim: BBC 2 – Horizon, Science under attack by Nobel Peace Prize Winner Sir Paul Nurse. (January 24, 2011 at 1:15 pm)
I managed to avoid it! But here’s a good piece by Peter Sissons, a former BBC presenter:
The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons… and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html#ixzz1C0IU6EE8
Too many points to put here, just go and read the article!
There are wine grapes grown in England. The question is how far north they used to grow them.
Wonderful post and more the pity that some posters just do not read it. A lot of complaints about is it a true proxy, is it global whilst ignoring what was clearly written.
I find the historical parallels fascinating. The MWP lead to a population explosion on the Mongolian Steppes, resulting in Ghengis Khan And his sweeps across the world. The ending being so sudden and catastrophic enhanced his ravages by6 weakening the civilisations he ravaged.
Even more interesting was the Egyptian Dark Ages, Again bought on by cold, the Nile freezing and Invasion by Assyrians, Persians and Greeks.
All well know records that confirm the proxy data.
Going back further, we see that in the context of change, the Younger Dryas was really a paradigm shift in climate, a massive swing. However, the World recovered but clearly in a range of cycles that seemed to have worked themselves out. If the YD was caused by an astronomical event it may be possible to calculate both the cause and effect of the subsequent cycles.
The 540 event also needs to be pinned down as its place in history is perhaps even more important than the Mongol Hordes. It finished off the roman Empire, turned the Isles of the Blessed into the British Isles and set the stage for a future global event. In China it resulted in Fragmentation and disorder again.
All of these events were triggered by changes both greater than what we see today and amongst societies far less able to cope with or understand the changes.
KD says:
January 24, 2011 at 10:56 am
GregL try reading the article.
*** I did. It fails to mention polar amplification. During the interglacials, the warming in the Arctic is about twice that of the global mean. Thus to use the Greenland cores as global proxies, they need this adjustment and that is never mentioned in the article. ***
crosspatch says:
January 24, 2011 at 1:38 pm
One “Bond Event” and we might tip the balance. If one believes that the LIA was the last such “Bond Event”, we should be due for the next one in about 700 years or so (figuring the last one happened in the early 13th century and the events are roughly 1500 years apart).
Alternatively, if you take the Dark Ages cooling circa 500 AD as the last Bond Event (as EM Smith does) then we can expect the next one much sooner.
Rob Honeycutt says:
January 24, 2011 at 3:17 pm
“Hmmm… Methinks Dr Easterbrook missed Alley et al 2010……………………….Nor does he seem to understand that GISP2 is a local record of temperature and implying that it is a global proxy rather than the single site record that it actually is.”
Easterbrook is well aware that the GISP site is a dot on the map. He is testing the correlation between the GISP temperature records and historical events that all took place in the northern hemisphere. He makes a good case.
He also points out that these same historical events cannot plausibly be attributed to variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
You are right about one thing. The GISP record ends in 1855 rather than 1905.
Louise says:
January 24, 2011 at 11:18 am
Ah Louise, if 2010 is tied for highest temperature with 1998, that means no increase in temperature for 12 years so where is the warming trend?
Greg L says
Quote
*** I did. It fails to mention polar amplification. During the interglacials, the warming in the Arctic is about twice that of the global mean. Thus to use the Greenland cores as global proxies, they need this adjustment and that is never mentioned in the article. ***
Unquote
No they dont, its just a ratio and that does not effect the trend or range. Its far more accurate along with historical supporting data than a lonesome pine taken out of context.
Greg cant you read history, tells you greater changes then were a fact of life with dramatic effects. Todays are minor and we are far more able to cope with it.
I’m happy to see a skeptic including some real data. I do have a few questions, though. First, how many people who are “skeptical” of global warming own real estate in Canada (because that might indicate a conflict of interest). Second, how many people live near sea level today compared with 8200 years ago, when we had the last big warming event. Third, if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations do not correlate with previous rapid warming events (which means that there are other things that affect global climate change) and they do correlate with our most recent general warming trend, doesn’t that fail to eliminate carbon dioxide as a primary cause of warming (or cooling)? It seems like this analysis is working from the assumption that carbon dioxide is either the only factor or it is not a factor at all, which seems illogical. Isn’t it possible that it can be one factor among many?
I wrote a comment earlier today, but lost it. Just as well. I don’t how to say what I want to say. I want to thank Don Easterbrook for clarity of presentation re the silliness of demon-CO2. And I commend a fine summary statement of the research I have been reading about now for many months.
I have a however, however. And I also hope that my however does not sound like a mean-spirited critic. 1) Are ice cores truly proxies? 2) Is Greenland good enough to stand for global temperaturs? 3) What is a global temperature anywa?, This is sounding like a mythology to me. When I read the comments, it seems like many individuals (mostly scientists, I assume) are critiquing the mythology, but no one has put together another hypothesis that can be turned into a theory and tested experimentally. I wish you all well. I very much enjoy the read and the debate. Best peer review I can imagine.
Anthony, tips and notes contribution here — why not a peer reviewed issue of your interest that gets followed up in minute detail? These posts are almost that, but the analysis from post to post is not precise enough for a particular issue. You would need someone among your amazing, commited colleagues to sumamrize the main points and direct the next poster to elaborate on those. I would even try in my limited way to follow the math.
The equation in the second seems a touch odd with the multiplier of 1000 applying only to the second ratio. Left me wondering whether a couple of brackets had been omitted – allowing the multiplier to apply to both terms in the top line.
Correction – it should read “…equation in the second paragraph…”
Thanks, Dr. Easterbrook, excellent post!
The coments are almost all very good too; this is in no small part thanks to Anthony and his moderators.
I come here to learn, WUWT never disappoints me.
Aaron Brand says:
January 24, 2011 at 7:46 pm
I’m happy to see a skeptic including some real data…..(<—-huh?)………It seems like this analysis is working from the assumption that carbon dioxide is either the only factor or it is not a factor at all, which seems illogical. Isn’t it possible that it can be one factor among many?
Well, its possible. Many think so. Here’s a recent post salient to your question. Be sure to click on E.M’s link at the top and go to his site. He’s got some posts with some real data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/23/frostbite-falls/
crosspatch
“And it is the extremely rapid swings in temperature that lead me to believe that orbital mechanics isn’t what is the main factor here. Something else is going one.”
We should remember that as the last Glacial ended, the sea level began a rise of 120m. At some point, the Pacific Ocean breached the Bering land bridge, which would have resulted in dramatic climatic changes. Also there were dramatic floods when dams which were holding back vast lakes created as the ice sheets melted failed. The resulting cold water pulses in the oceans surely had substantial climatic effects as well.
The Black Sea was much shallower during the Glacial as it had no connection to the Mediterranean at the time.
Maybe someone knows if there is a correlation between these events & the sudden changes in temperature indicated by the GISP2 data?
Aaron: “Third, if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations do not correlate with previous rapid warming events (which means that there are other things that affect global climate change) and they do correlate with our most recent general warming trend, doesn’t that fail to eliminate carbon dioxide as a primary cause of warming (or cooling)? It seems like this analysis is working from the assumption that carbon dioxide is either the only factor or it is not a factor at all, which seems illogical. Isn’t it possible that it can be one factor among many?”
I think the primary problem is that the AGW people want to take the “what else can it be?” approach to contemporary warming. In other words, they are claiming that they have evaluated all the things that can effect temperature and they cannot point to anything that is causing todays warming, so, “what else can it be?” other than CO2. But, as all the evidence shows, the current climate models could never account for the drastic, short interval changes that have happened in the past. Those changes tell us clearly that we do not understand natural variability enough to make a “what else could it be” kind of statement. So, yes, we can likely attribute some of the warming to CO2. But the argument that most of the warming is attributable to CO2 and that we will get 3C of temperature increase per CO2 doubling is simply a fiction. It’s very simple Aaron, there is no basis for declaring CO2 an imminent danger to the world. Hansen went off the cliff and too many climate scientists followed him. Having done so, they were well rewarded with research grants. Now they are stuck in a paradigm that they can’t afford to let go.