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.
Pamela Gray says:
December 9, 2011 at 6:26 am
And, pray tell, how does that water warm?
Would someone PLEASE put some clothes on the naked man. GK
Peter Dunford says:
December 9, 2011 at 2:48 am
The map is completely misleading. The surface of the earth isn’ t a rectangle and that red band at the top is infilled from the hottest stations the can find 2,500 miles away. Made up data is exaggerated by the shape of the map.
I completely agree.
Anthony- would it be possible to produce a map that is not based on a Mercator projection a small globe or conic projection to that the actual area of ‘claimed’ warmer than normal is shown to be as small as it is?
Kevin MacDonald says:
December 9, 2011 at 6:11 am
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).
Well, try adding in a few more 10-year series (i.e. add in 200-2009, 2001-2010, 202-2011) and see how things look… well, who’d have believed it 🙂
He must keep the alarmist song going to keep that million dollar a year extra income going.
“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.”
“Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year.”
In my opinion, the above two statements contradict each other .
At the present time, we are at 390 ppm and if it is increasing by 2 ppm each year, in order for it to double from 280 to 560, it would take another 170 ppm. At the present rate, this would be another 85 years, or to the year 2096.
I keep hoping to wake up and this insanity is just a bad dream… And to the above reference to the Muppet’s, just how many people have their hands crammed up the backside of Hanson making him talk?
Hansen’s surface global temperatures can’t be trusted at all, when they especially can’t even get the UK correct with some of the best stations around in the world going back centuries.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/609067main1_earth-temperature226.jpg
Shows warming throughout the UK during 2010 with Hansen’s cooked data above.
Below, even using the 1961-1990 average, UK Met Office shows temperatures below the average almost everywhere for the year 2010.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/2010/17/2010_17_MeanTemp_Anomaly_1961-1990.gif
or
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/2010/17/2010_17_MeanTemp_Anomaly_1971-2000.gif
This below average year in the UK for 2010 is shown up even more using a closer 1971-2000 average.
The year for the UK during 2010 was a particularly cold one and the first sub 9.0c mean for the CET too in a while. Yet in the image from Hansen for 2010 looks like the UK was sweltering. There is no way data from this man can be trusted at all over recent years.
Why is GISS, Hansen’s playground, still receiving taxpayers funding for his fantasy climate predictions? The man ought to be tossed out on his butt for publishing garbage.
What has happened over the past decade?
As a retired physics teacher, let me try to explain it this way. I will define displacement and velocity in the process. Displacement is the change in position. So if you started at sea level and climbed to the top of Mount Everest, your displacement would be 29,029 feet up. Now suppose you rapidly reached the top in 1998 and then started to slowly walk down at the rate of 10 feet per year. Velocity is the rate of change of position. So in this example, the velocity is 10 feet per year down. Now if you walked down for 12 years, your velocity would be down, even though you would still be very high up during those 12 years.
It is perfectly possible to be high up (eight of the hottest years), and at the same time be going down (or possibly cooling in our analogy).
By the way, according to the HADCRUT3 record, 1998 was the warmest year and 2011 so far, to the end of October, it is the 11th warmest. See: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Also note that RSS shows a negative slope from March 1997.
During the last glacial maximum, Greenland had almost no ice. Apparently, it was lost during the Eemian. Almost all the current ice cap formed after the Younger Dryas. To be clear, the ice thickness increased as both the temperature and sea levels increased.
Perhaps warm oceans produce more snow.
Just in time for Durban. What do you mean you’re the only one who is allowed to make that insinuation of motive of timing?
Robert Clemenzi says:
December 9, 2011 at 10:12 am
Have no idea where you got that idea from because Greenland ice cores from different regions all go back at least 100,000’s of years. The longest recent ice core went back to around 840,000 years, so these show there was plenty of ice well before the Younger Dryas.
Bond events?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
Ian W says:
December 9, 2011 at 9:12 am
Peter Dunford says:
December 9, 2011 at 2:48 am
“Anthony- would it be possible to produce a map that is not based on a Mercator projection . . . “
Actually, these maps are based on a Miller-Cylindrical projection, a modified Mercator. At least I think that is the case. Anyway, the colors and map base are not Anthony’s work and they have been commented on many times. Visit the NASA GISS pages and see if they don’t offer a few others closer to your liking. Or produce your own.
Regular readers of WUWT think of these maps as bad cartoons – just as extreme as poley bears dropping out of the sky on to an urban scene or splats of bright red children exploding in a classroom.
I think I am going to hurl.
“…Hansen suggests the potential for rapid climate changes…”
I MAY be terribly concerned about the contingent possible suggested potential, IF I have nothing else to concern myself with, AND given the suggested alleged implied possiblity of MAYBE, IF trusthansen > throwhansen
Jeff Alberts says:
December 9, 2011 at 7:52 am
=====
“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.” — Theodore Roosevelt
Greg Holmes says:
December 9, 2011 at 2:49 am
“…
Why does my left knee still ache when its cold?”
no, no, no. Man Made global warming…it is getting cold because your knee hurts, your knee doesn’t hut because it is cold. What we must do is get your knee to stop hurting so it will be warm again…
Werner Brozek says:
December 9, 2011 at 9:49 am
Hansen could not do arithmetic so he took up statistics.
Paul Homewood
Dec 9, 2011 at 4:14 am
Thanks for the pointer. It might interest you to know that coastal West Africa, at least near the equator, was cooler than normal this summer. A number of people there remarked on this. It certainly didn’t seem extraordinarily hot to me.
If anyone is wondering why I was comparing 1961-1990 data with 1951-1980 is because it is easily available and there is only 0.1c difference between the periods with the CET for example. (0.04c difference between Hadley (0.26c) and GISS (0.30c)
CET 1951-1980 9.4c
CET 1961-1990 9.5c
Problem:The warming is not going as expected even with the adjustments and dirty tricks, Solution: lover the level of the safe temp.
This is strong indication that Hansen thinks global temperatures will not rise like the models have shown and expects a much lower rise like the sceptics using real life observations have proposed. Therefore the only possible solution to continue the alarm in his mind is to lower the temperature range that could be bad for humans. Clearly the science doesn’t at all support CAGW with just temperature increases less than 2c.
Hadley shows a maximum temperature range during the data set between warm periods of only 0.6c, not 0.8c claim from Hansen. Though GISS doesn’t display global temperature from a warmer earlier period like Hadley does. (was this done for the cause?)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1905/to:1934/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1905/to:1934/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1905/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1905/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1880/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1880/trend
…would someone please wake me up when Hansen is done talking? Thank you, CRS, DrPH