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.



mods – I did not call Dr Easterbrook a fraud. I asked him to show how he rebutted the accusation of fraud made elsewhere.
I see that calling Hansen, Mann and Jones frauds is perfectly OK on this board?
Hmmm
As I expect my denial of accusing Dr Easterbrook of being ‘f….’ to get stuck in moderation I will repeat it here without using that word.
I did not call him anything. I asked him to point to where his rebuttal of others accusations of this would be.
Not posting my comment yet accusing me of calling him something rude is clearly designed to denigrate me. It is not true. I did not call him names.
Couple of posts refer to 10Be concentration.
My brief research into 10Be records shows an ambiguous situation during the last 350+ years, concluding that 10Be records from the Greenland ice cores cannot be relied from. Only reliable 10Be data are those from 1970’s onwards obtained by satellite detection.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm
WWU [Western Washington University] Geology Department Positions on Current Issues of Geological Relevance
January 17th, 2011
Human-induced climate change.
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geology Faculty at WWU concur with rigorous, peer-reviewed assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed significantly and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources.
Peer Review
The Geology Faculty at WWU believes that all science must be subjected to rigorous peer review and publication before it becomes worthy of serious discussion. We do not support publication of non-peer-reviewed scientific results in the general media. A brief guide to peer review is available at Sense About Science.
GregL says:
January 24, 2011 at 10:26 am
“Isn’t it a stretch to present Greenland ice cap temperature as global temperature?”
So you propose that the younger dryas was a local phenomenon? Interesting theory. I wonder if you can back that up with anything?
Another nail in the coffin for “unprecedented warming”. A recurring argument from the AGW crowd is that all changes in the past was slow and attributed to Milankovitch cycles and other slow orbital changes, as opposed to the modern “rapid” warming. This is clearly a baseless argument when looking at the paleoclimatic record.
Thanks Don, this is a great example of how temperatures move rapidly up and down without apparent trend. Our climate system is driven by deterministic chaos and their is no need to resort to pixie dust (CO2) to explain the historic changes seen. Predictions about the future direction of global climate will continue to fail until this simple fact is recognised and the tools are developed to understand dynamic non-linear systems.
Several people on this thread have been having a go at Louise, who seems to have little grasp about how climate oscillates. She has obviously been brainwashed by the CAGW alarmist campaign and arguing against such personal belief is a complete waste of time.
Louise says:
“Dr Easterbrook – in 2001 you wrote “If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years…”
Bearing in mind that 2010 has tied for the warmest year on record with 1998 (See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/), can you please explain when you expect this global cooling to begin?
Louise, unlike the previous three decades, the last decade has shown no warming for a decade, this clearly shows a trend in the trend towards cooling – in other words a turning point (or in language warmers will understand the “top of the curve”.
Seriously though, whilst I applaud your insistence that predictions should be tested, I would urge you to look at “log in your own eye rather than the splinter here”. Not a single global warming forecast predicted the last decade of cooling (statistically a pause but the actual trend was cooling!), where is your criticism of the CRU when they said: “in a few years kids won’t know what snow is”? (I quote from memory)
Louise says:
As I expect my denial of accusing Dr Easterbrook of being ‘f….’ to get stuck in moderation I will repeat it here without using that word.
Not posting my comment yet accusing me of calling him something rude is clearly designed to denigrate me. It is not true. I did not call him names.
Louise, I wouldn’t take it personally. Most of the posts that get snipped are over enthusiastic sceptics who make personal comments regarding climate “scientists” … I’ve probably had some of my own moderated!!
May I suggest
1. List the facts that you think outline your case…
2. Explain why you think the facts support your case
3. Then … if you want to post an accusatory opinion express it in an indirect way to the facts and not the person say something like …. “I think, if someone were to be doing x,y,z then they would be a f…. (fraud?)
Louise says:
January 24, 2011 at 11:37 am
Does this mean that you think the Russian heatwave, Pakistan flood, Australian drought and flood (all of which may have contributed to food shortages) are as a result of global cooling?
Louise, you obviously have not heard of the Dorothy MacKeller poem “My Country”, written in 1904 which has the stanza:
“I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.”
Further, perhaps Louise could enlighten us as to how the CO2 levels of less than 300ppm (current level of over 280ppm) caused the great floods (3 of them) of 1893 in Brisbane, where the Brisbane River reached heights GREATER than that reached this year (2011)? At the same time she could also enlighten us about what the term “Monsoon Season” means, and how Queensland currently being in the first month of a three month long season would affect rainfall levels, and further why that season has existed since Brisbane was settled (in 1842).
(Source regarding Queensland floods found here: http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/index.shtml )
@-Frank says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:08 am
“So you propose that the younger dryas was a local phenomenon? Interesting theory. I wonder if you can back that up with anything?”
This was covered earlier in the thread.
The S hemisphere shows some slow cooling before the N hemisphere Younger Dryas event, and some evidence in regions of the S hemisphere of warming during the peak of the cooling in the N hemisphere. :-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/nature09313.html
Do I take it nobody bothered to read the WWU Geology Department’s January 2011 ‘Positions on Current Issues of Geological Relevance’ statement I posted above. You really should, you know. Or just Google it.
And Brian of Moorabbin leaves out the detail that in the early eighties, as a response to the 1974 flood, the Queensland government completed another giant dam – Wivenhoe – to mitigate against the repetition of just such an event. Therefore flood marker heights don’t really tell the story of the volume of the water involved in this event, do they? I’m sure the current inquiry into the floods will resolve these matters, but this measure simply doesn’t tell the whole story.
The catastrophic flash-flooding at Toowoomba and in the Lockyer Valley is utterly unprecedented – which is why everyone was caught by surprise.
Ditto the current flooding in the southern state of Victoria, affecting 1/3rd of the state and officially the largest such event in the state’s history. And ‘monsoon season’ can’t apply in the temperate south.
And to forestall the other piece of misinformation doing the rounds the Wivenhoe dam was not ‘full’ shortly before the flooding, therefore meaning it made no difference to the flow into Brisbane. Drinking water capacity may have been around 100%, but because of it’s dual function this dam has a maximum 200-220% capacity. It reached 187%, even with large volumes of water having to be released, which was necessary because at 190% the dam essentially breaches and begins to spill uncontrollably.
Unfortunately the error remains in the histogram that purports to show rates of warming of the glacial/interstadial changes and the recent warming.
The figures of 24degF ~100 years are clearly wrong for the global warming that ended the last ice age. They are out by a factor of about ten.
Which puts them in the same range as the rate of warming seen during the last century from solar changes and CO2 rise.
[Reply: You are welcome to submit an article. Put your request in Tips & Notes. ~dbs, mod.]
have you considered? said: “Ditto the current flooding in the southern state of Victoria, affecting 1/3rd of the state and officially the largest such event in the state’s history”.
How long have people been recording weather data in Australia … not very long … have you considered that?
Why don’t you take a look at the data? Here is the relevant time interval from Alley, R.B.. 2004.
GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2004-013. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
11.594 -36.152
11.611 -36.6413
11.628 -37.8034
11.647 -39.8676
11.666 -41.5342
11.666 -42.4037
11.69 -44.3364
11.723 -45.4358
11.755 -46.8731
The first figure is the age in thousand years before present (1950), the second is temperature. The change is about 10.7 degrees C. (19 deg F) in 160 years or about 7 degrees C per century, peak rate in the middle of the transition is well over 10 degrees C per century.
And here is the entry into Younger Dryas:
12.854 -49.2049
12.887 -48.0428
12.92 -45.9021
12.948 -44.1208
12.973 -42.104
12.993 -41.3517
That is nearly 8 degreees in 140 years, or about 5.5 (10) degrees per century. Also pretty sudden.
There hasn’t been a really wet season since the City of Toowoomba turned those two unseemly sandy dry river beds in the middle of the town into parks and parking lots. So, yes, it was “unprecedented”. Somehow I doubt that those parks will ever be rebuilt.
These D/O events are something to really worry about. They indicate to me some kind of major ocean and/or atmospheric circulation change.
The Gulf stream migrating south and pushing most of its flow east, then south along the southern European/northern African coasts would be my candidate. The North Atlantic and Barents Sea would chill dramatically & the sea-ice edge move southward. Not good, particularly for northern Europe. If it occurs during the waning period of an interglacial (like now), it might even tip the balance to a new glacial period. In fact, glacial periods may just be the result of these ocean-changes becoming the “rule”.
How’s that for a tipping point?
Aaron Brand says January 24, 2011 at 7:46 pm:
“I’m happy to see a skeptic including some real data. I do have a few questions, though. First, how many people —–. Second, how many people live —–. “
Let’s hope that if you re-read your questions, you will soon realize that there are no known answers to:” —- how many people who are “skeptical” of global warming own real estate in Canada?”
Nor can anybody be expected to have any answer to: “Second, how many people live near sea level today compared with 8200 years ago?” – And why should they? (Question marks (?) are added by me for improved clarity.)
Your third question starts with an assumption: “Third, if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations do not correlate with previous rapid warming events -“
The point Aaron is that, according to data from ice cores, they did correlate. Every time the Earth entered a new ‘interglacial’ or warm period, the Earth warmed first and then some time later, atmospheric CO2 started rising too. The “warmists” acknowledge this as fact as there is no other way round it. However they then go on to insist that at some time CO2 started “to take over the global warming”. This insistence is in spite of the fact that there seems not to be any “crossover point” in the two graph lines of CO2 and temperatures.
Furthermore, again according to ice core graphs, levels of CO2 stayed high in the atmosphere, on all occasions, long after the temperature started to fall back and the Earth once again entered into a new glaciation.
OHD.
@-tty says:
“Why don’t you take a look at the data? Here is the relevant time interval from Alley, R.B.. 2004.
GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2004-013. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
11.594 -36.152
11.611 -36.6413
11.628 -37.8034
11.647 -39.8676
11.666 -41.5342
11.666 -42.4037
11.69 -44.3364
11.723 -45.4358
11.755 -46.8731
The first figure is the age in thousand years before present (1950), the second is temperature. The change is about 10.7 degrees C. (19 deg F) in 160 years or about 7 degrees C per century, peak rate in the middle of the transition is well over 10 degrees C per century. ”
==============
(sigh)…
I HAVE looked at the data for both GISP1 and GISP2 here :-
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/ngrip/gicc05-20yr.txt
NAME OF DATA SET: Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005 (GICC05)
LAST UPDATE: Released 27 November 2006, received by WDC Paleo 12/2006.
Original file name: GICC05_NGRIP_GRIP_20y_27nov2006
CONTRIBUTORS: NGRIP dating group.
See complete list of contributors in the reference list below.
File submitted by the Ice and Climate Research Group, Niels Bohr Institute,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
– Here is the equivalent period to that you posted , allowing for the difference in the 1950 and 2000 BPE points :-
11640 1489.26 -36.57 1620.65 -36.72 98
11660 1490.44 -36.68 1621.96 -36.66 98
11680 1491.45 -38.49 1623.11 -37.84 98
11700 1492.33 -39.04 1624.14 -38.85 99
11720 1492.94 -39.6 1624.84 -40.56 99
11740 1493.62 -39.72 1625.55 -40.32 100
11760 1494.26 -40.85 1626.22 -39.4 100
11780 1494.85 -40.55 1626.83 -39.69 101
11800 1495.43 -39.87 1627.44 -40.33 102
Column 1: Age (years b2k = years relative to A.D. 2000)
Column 2: NGRIP depth (meter)
Column 3: NGRIP d18O (permille) resampled to the GICC05 time scale.
Column 4: GRIP depth (meter)
Column 5: GRIP d18O (permille) resampled to the GICC05 time scale.
Column 6: Max. counting error (years)
Note that the indicator of temperature does NOT show the large variation you find in your data source, and I can find no period when the d18O (permille) measure showed a change of 10. You have to go back to the depths of the last ice age around 30,000 years ago to find the d18) value varying by around 5 over a couple of centuries.
Which brings me to my final point about your post. The column you have labeled ‘temperature’ that varies from -46.8731 to -36.152 is NOT temperature, it is the oxygen18 isotope ratio. There is not a simple conversion of d18O values to temperature because it is dependent on factors other than temperature including the relative partitioning of water between oceans and ice. As any period where there is a large temperature change is also coincident with rapid melt (12m sea level rise during that time?) then the conversion factor will change over that period.
I STILL cannot get 24degF ~100 years from a global warming that took over a thousand years to warm ~8degC.
You would have to cherry-pick a short period of a decade or two when the change was ~2.4degF per decade and extrapolate it out. However such a decadel rate is not as implied by the histogram so very different from present rates of warming. Extrapolating then for the thousand year plus period of warming at the end of the last glacial maximum that would give a temperature rise of 240degF total. This would be ridiculous for present warming rates, and it is for past rates.
As far as I know there is no evidence that the water on Greenland went from frozen to boiling.
Jon said
Why, yes I had. But this is, of course, the only direct data we have. For both sides of any debate.
tty says
Yep, it was all that car park that did it! And this explains what happened out at, say, Grantham, in open downs country, precisely how?
Still not a single bite on why the Geology Department at the WWU would feel the need to issue a formal statement confirming the validity of AGW, and state that they ‘do not support publication of non-peer-reviewed scientific results in the general media’? Remarkable…
have you considered
“the Geology Department at the WWU ‘do not support publication of non-peer-reviewed scientific results in the general media’”.
What about a ‘White Paper’ or better still a Papal Bull on the subject.
Let’s set up an inquisition under the auspices of the United Nations and burn a few skeptics at the stake? What about a stoning or two on prime time TV to make the populace sit up and take notice?
Unduly heathen scum. This democracy thing has whiskers on it.
@ur momisugly -tty, izen
The “Temperature in central Greenland” GISP2 series is here:-
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
DESCRIPTION:
Temperature interpretation based on stable isotope analysis, and
ice accumulation data, from the GISP2 ice core, central Greenland.
Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).
[Note that the first data point 0.0951409 BP is 1855 so any comparison to present requires a baseline 1.4-1.5C higher than the value -31.5913 that Don Easterbrook uses in his Fig 5 baseline (previous post). Still well over 4000 years warmer than present over the last 10,000 years after making that change.]
DATA:
1. Temperature in central Greenland
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
Age Temperature (C)
0.0951409 -31.5913
[Your data in question]
11.594 -36.152
11.611 -36.6413
11.628 -37.8034
11.647 -39.8676
11.666 -41.5342
11.666 -42.4037
11.69 -44.3364
11.723 -45.4358
11.755 -46.8731
[This confirms -tty’s 10.7C rise.]
Juraj V. says:
January 24, 2011 at 12:39 pm
CET, Loehle 2008, GISP2 are the best antidote against any hockey stick.
Keep in mind that GISP2 ends in 1905, but it is a good proxy for North Atlantic/NH.
Actually 1845!
Izen says
Dear Izen, I’m afraid you are a bit out of your depth in this field. Let me quote the data description of the dataset I used:
DATA:
1. Temperature in central Greenland
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2:Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
And the one You refer to:
Column 1: Age (years b2k = years relative to A.D. 2000)
Column 2: NGRIP depth (meter)
Column 3: NGRIP d18O (permille) resampled to the GICC05 time scale.
Column 4: GRIP depth (meter)
Column 5: GRIP d18O (permille) resampled to the GICC05 time scale.
Column 6: Max. counting error (years)
By the way, you can’t just tack the instrumental temperature record of a certain site to the end of the ice-core record as some people here seem to think. This is because, contrary to popular belief, the ice-core record does not reflect the temperature where the snow fell, but rather where it precipitated in the clouds. This is higher and therefore colder, so there will be an offset. I strongly recommend anybody interested in this subject to read Dansgaards book that I have already referred to, where these things are very well explained.
Here is the link again:
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/publications/FrozenAnnals.pdf/