From NASA Goddard/GISS: same-o, same-o
Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes

New research into the Earth’s paleoclimate history by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies director James E. Hansen suggests the potential for rapid climate changes this century, including multiple meters of sea level rise, if global warming is not abated.
By looking at how the Earth’s climate responded to past natural changes, Hansen sought insight into a fundamental question raised by ongoing human-caused climate change: “What is the dangerous level of global warming?” Some international leaders have suggested a goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times in order to avert catastrophic change. But Hansen said at a press briefing at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco on Tues, Dec. 6, that warming of 2 degrees Celsius would lead to drastic changes, such as significant ice sheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica.
Based on Hansen’s temperature analysis work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has already risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880, and is now warming at a rate of more than .1 degree Celsius every decade. This warming is largely driven by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide, emitted by the burning of fossil fuels at power plants, in cars and in industry. At the current rate of fossil fuel burning, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have doubled from pre-industrial times by the middle of this century. A doubling of carbon dioxide would cause an eventual warming of several degrees, Hansen said.
In recent research, Hansen and co-author Makiko Sato, also of Goddard Institute for Space Studies, compared the climate of today, the Holocene, with previous similar “interglacial” epochs – periods when polar ice caps existed but the world was not dominated by glaciers. In studying cores drilled from both ice sheets and deep ocean sediments, Hansen found that global mean temperatures during the Eemian period, which began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 15,000 years, were less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today. If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said.
“The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient,” Hansen said. “It would be a prescription for disaster.”
Hansen focused much of his new work on how the polar regions and in particular the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland will react to a warming world.
Two degrees Celsius of warming would make Earth much warmer than during the Eemian, and would move Earth closer to Pliocene-like conditions, when sea level was in the range of 25 meters higher than today, Hansen said. In using Earth’s climate history to learn more about the level of sensitivity that governs our planet’s response to warming today, Hansen said the paleoclimate record suggests that every degree Celsius of global temperature rise will ultimately equate to 20 meters of sea level rise. However, that sea level increase due to ice sheet loss would be expected to occur over centuries, and large uncertainties remain in predicting how that ice loss would unfold.
Hansen notes that ice sheet disintegration will not be a linear process. This non-linear deterioration has already been seen in vulnerable places such as Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica, where the rate of ice mass loss has continued accelerating over the past decade. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite is already consistent with a rate of ice sheet mass loss in Greenland and West Antarctica that doubles every ten years. The GRACE record is too short to confirm this with great certainty; however, the trend in the past few years does not rule it out, Hansen said. This continued rate of ice loss could cause multiple meters of sea level rise by 2100, Hansen said.
Ice and ocean sediment cores from the polar regions indicate that temperatures at the poles during previous epochs – when sea level was tens of meters higher – is not too far removed from the temperatures Earth could reach this century on a “business as usual” trajectory.
“We don’t have a substantial cushion between today’s climate and dangerous warming,” Hansen said. “Earth is poised to experience strong amplifying feedbacks in response to moderate additional global warming.”
Detailed considerations of a new warming target and how to get there are beyond the scope of this research, Hansen said. But this research is consistent with Hansen’s earlier findings that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would need to be rolled back from about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere today to 350 parts per million in order to stabilize the climate in the long term. While leaders continue to discuss a framework for reducing emissions, global carbon dioxide emissions have remained stable or increased in recent years.
Hansen and others noted that while the paleoclimate evidence paints a clear picture of what Earth’s earlier climate looked like, but that using it to predict precisely how the climate might change on much smaller timescales in response to human-induced rather than natural climate change remains difficult. But, Hansen noted, the Earth system is already showing signs of responding, even in the cases of “slow feedbacks” such as ice sheet changes.
The human-caused release of increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they’ve never seen in the 65 million year record of carbon dioxide levels – a drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how rapidly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averaged about .0001 parts per million per year – in other words, one hundred parts per million every million years. Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year.
“Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales,” Hansen said.
Patrick Lynch
NASA’s Earth Science News Team
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Most probable: Humans at GISS will lose their jobs when this agency goes underwater. 🙂
But would the rise of one degree celsius ’til 2100 cause anything at all?
It’s all about believing in fairy tales or not. I do not!
The overal temperature of the troposhere and stratosphere (TTS) has increased from 1987 to date at -0.0001 K/decade. /sarc
‘is not too far removed from the temperatures Earth could reach this century on a “business as usual” trajectory.’
Firstly I am not sure the term ‘far removed from’ actual means it has no scientific value , while I thought Dr Dooms ‘trajectories’ had already proved to be nonsense in reality.
But its models all the way as usual , powered of course by the religions fever of the high priest of AGW , at least he seems to have learnt one thing , don’t make your ‘deadlines of doom’ to close becasue when it does not happen you end up looking like a dam scaremonger fool. Or in this case like a bigger dam scaremonger fool.
“It hasn’t warmed a tenth of a degree in the last decade, that’s nonsense.”
That’s clear. Yet, another nonense but also probably a true assertion.
The nonsense : “…the Earth’s average global surface temperature has already risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880…”
The probably true assertion : “…warming of 2 degrees Celsius would lead to drastic changes…”.
I’m surprised that skeptics are not more interested in this aspect. According to CRUTEM3, many parts of the earth are supposed to have warmed by 2 ° C since 1880. This would correspond for instance to an elevation of isotherms of about 400 m. This is in complete contradiction with all observations.
Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales
Here humans have dismally failed to overwhelm the natural – solar cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-T.htm
How much of the 4-6 metres sea level rise was due to glacioisostatic effects? In Australia interglacial sea levels were only 2m.AMSL..
willis
“These guys can’t even tell a believable lie. It hasn’t warmed a tenth of a degree in the last decade, that’s nonsense.”
============
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:1997.5/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend
over 30 years >0.1K/decade
over cherry picked last 10 years perhaps half that
Since we aren’t driving the temps up as fast as he previously predicted, he must now lower the temperature at which catastrophy will be unavoidable. Disprove one statement and another is waved about to prove that it is “Worse Than We Thought!” We are in the age of Yeah, but…
Peter Taylor says:
December 9, 2011 at 2:30 am
What is so annoying is the way that the left-liberal-green press only ever report Hansen’s opinions thus inflating the carbon currency bubble.
I think the carbon cred bubble burst a year ago. The theory is dead, but hasn’t stopped moving yet. That’s what chicken littles do with their head cut off…
I did not expect Hansen to say anything else.
However, 7 billion people will have an effect on the planet, that is unavoidable. Whether the effect of 7 billion people will be a disaster, is quite another matter.
From 1880 to 2009 is 130 years, 13 decades.
0.8°C / 13 decades = 0.06°C/decade
So after 130 years at an average rate of only 0.06°C/decade, from here on out, with no changes in carbon emission trends, the rate is now nearly doubled to “more than .1 degree Celsius every decade.” Wow, quite a change.
Let’s look at the NOAA-NCDC Annual Global (land and ocean combined) Anomalies (°C):
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
I’ll do a quick figuring of decade-based rates of change. Ex: Sum of anomalies 1890-9 minus sum for 1880-9, divide by 10 years, result °C/decade.
1890's-1880's -0.09
1900's-1890's -0.05
1910's-1900's +0.01
1920's-1910's +0.12
1930's-1920's +0.15
1940's-1930's +0.09
1950's-1940's -0.07
1960's-1950's +0.05
1970's-1960's +0.02
1980's-1970's +0.17
1990's-1980's +0.16
2000's-1990's +0.17
Average rate, 0.06°C/decade.
So three values of cooling to no great increase, three values of warming where 0.1°C/decade was broken twice and almost reached once, then three values of cooling to no great increase, followed by three values of warming significantly greater than 0.1°C/decade.
So Hansen’s “catastrophic” rate of warming has been broken before the late 20th century “great anthropogenic warming.” And if one can justify seeing cyclic trends in those rates, the next three will be cooling to no great increase.
Of course we’ve now suddenly achieved the Brave New World of Unprecedented Anthropogenic Influence, so who really knows what will happen. After all, if we all work together very very hard, we can bend an entire planet’s climate to our will. Heck, according the Hansen we’ve done it without even trying.
The alarmists are getting more and more alarmed about the lack of real reasons for anyone to be alarmed.
Not often I find two comments posted together with completely different points of view, but here they are:
Now if you compare the graphs from the two links you’ll see strong evidence in the first that there’s warming, but did you notice the source?
I’d stick with the second graph ’cause I’ve got a strong hunch the first has been “adjusted” to meet political expediency.
Really? A drastic increase? Perhaps if one ignored available data. Ignoring the fact that the resolution of CO2 determination before the start of actual measurement (by Pettenkofer, etc) is very poor and that the proxies used to provide estimates inherently average out peaks and troughs. There is no decadal resolution in CO2 data before the 1800’s.
It’s way too late to send Hansen a copy of this.
Maybe others will take note.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 9, 2011 at 2:01 am
“My favorite line was:
Based on Hansen’s temperature analysis work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has already risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880, and is now warming at a rate of more than .1 degree Celsius every decade.
These guys can’t even tell a believable lie. It hasn’t warmed a tenth of a degree in the last decade, that’s nonsense.
w.”
Stawman, Hansen doesn’t claim that it has warmed a tenth of a degree in the last decade, a decadal rate of change refers to the mean and that is not required to be met in every decade to be true (see here, many of the decades fail to meet the 0.1°C yet the decadal rate of warming over the entire period is undoubtably 0.1°C).
Peter Dunford says:
December 9, 2011 at 2:48 am
“The map is completely misleading.”
Of course it is…and intentionally so. All part of the corruption that is GISS climate “science”.
As for Hansen [sigh]…just the same old same old. I predict he retires next year after the progressives/liberals are soundly defeated in the U.S. elections.
I’ve found an stunning correlation between Hansen and this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/09/nasa_loses_its_moon_rocks/
hmmm. Back in the Pliocene era conditions changed rather dramatically from warm and wet land surrounded by sloppy oceans to cold and dry land surrounded by shrinking oceans. Animals changed from a majority of methane producing animals devouring all that vegitation to omnivores and meat eaters devouring all those herbavores. What did it take to change conditions back then? Was Mother Earth overly sensitive to all that methane? Nope. Wasn’t even bothered by the smell. Continents crashed together, changing oceanic circulation, building ice at the poles, lowering sea levels and exposing land bridges, causing even more isolated oceaning conditions leading to even more ice formations. Sensitive Earth? Not much.
I tell you what. Wake me up when CO2 causes continents to crash together.
…or pull apart, opening back up that good ol’ warm water to meander about as it wishes.
James Hansen, PhD = Piled Higher & Deeper – Somebody open a window, it’s beginning to smell in here.
@Willis – “It hasn’t warmed a tenth of a degree in the last decade, that’s nonsense.”
I would suggest that neither you, nor I, not Dr Hansen know whether the temperature has risen 0.1°C. Do we really have measurements to that accuracy?
The Eemian is the most interesting paleo-period and worth a look closer: From 128 BP to 117 BP there were 5 temperature cycles, 2200 years each (1100 years temp rising, followed by 1100 years falling temps) with an amazing global temp amplitude (warming,cooling) of more than 6 C !!
This would give Hansen the opportunity to demonstrate how the CO2-content correlates and drives global warming/global cooling….!
Please some Warmist should present the CO2-contents for the Eemian and prove the Warmist CO2 assumption…..!
Hanson completely omits CO2 as driver…..why? Only talk of sea levels, ice melting and temps without details of this amazing climate see saw and how the CO2 content is involved….
….and while he does not even mention a CO2 see saw (what are the values? Anybody knows?) and the CO2 content -to temp relation (how is it?)…. we should be compelled to reduce CO2 emissions…..
In order to understand Hansen’s opposition to 2-deg warming, it is first necessary to understand this: The amount of warming acceptable to him is not based on his estimate of the (predicted) consequences of that warming. It is based on what will justify his agenda. Warming of any quantity will not do it. It is the predicted apocalyptic events that provide the required justification. In order to justify his agenda, it is necessary to predict that those events will result from whatever quantity of warming is generally accepted as likely.
Peter Taylor says at 9 dec 11 2:30 am
The same media does the same to most reports or just doesn’t report them. The lack of media attention on “fast and Furious” is a good example.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
So here is that 0.1deg C per decade of man-made warming..