
Image Credit: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
From CNN with comments below by WUWT regular Just The Facts:
Global warming has propelled Earth’s climate from one of its coldest decades since the last ice age to one of its hottest — in just one century.
A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years, said climatologist Shaun Marcott, who worked on a new study on global temperatures going back that far.
“If any period in time had a sustained temperature change similar to what we have today, we would have certainly seen that in our record,” he said. It is a good indicator of just how fast man-made climate change has progressed.
A century is a very short period of time for such a spike.
It’s supposed to be cold
The Earth was very cold at the turn of the 20th century. The decade from 1900 to 1909 was colder than 95% of the last 11,300 years, the study found.
Fast forward to the turn of the 21st century, and the opposite occurs. Between 2000 and 2009, it was hotter than about 75% of the last 11,300 years.
If not for man-made influences, the Earth would be in a very cold phase right now and getting even colder, according the joint study by Oregon State University and Harvard University. Marcott was the lead author of the report on its results. Read More
Here is the National Science Foundation article that the CNN article appears to be based upon and here is the paper, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, published in Science today. This is the abstract:
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
While the warming of the second half of the 21st century, and its causes, are the subject of vigorous debate, the fundamentally erroneous element of the CNN article above is the attribution of warming from the first half of the 21st century to human influence. Per Overpeck et. al 1997:
“Together, they indicate that the Arctic has warmed up to 1.5°C since 1850 – the coolest interval of the Arctic “Little Ice Age.” Much of the recent Arctic warming took place between 1850 and 1920, most likely due to natural processes”

If you look at anthropogenic CO2 emissions;

it is apparent that the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 concentrations was minimal prior to 1945, thus attribution of the warming that occurred prior to 1945;

to “man-made influences”, is fundamentally erroneous. CNN should correct this error in their article.
For further information on Earth’s paleoclimate please visit WUWT’s under construction Paleoclimate Reference Page.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So haven’t read the paper but if it says that the current model outputs are plausible then where have they been for the last 16 years.
As I read this its essentially saying that if the models are right then it will be very warm. Well duh!
CNN is in the ‘news’ entertainment business. No fact checking or retractions will be forthcoming.
CO2 does not force the temperature to rise, it is the other way around; due to the voracity of the biosphere after a few centuries of accumulated decomposition.
The ice sheets do not form over the lifespan of the luckiest human but rather over the lifespan of a lucky civilization…like the one after this one.
If the planet is supposed to be sliding into an ice age (true but 10,000 years away) and human activity is warming (not been established yet by direct measurement) then turbulence will be weather locally and globally insignificantly either warm or cool…for awhile until the Sun rules again by then you will be too thirsty, hungry, and wrapped with all of the bickering over which God to hold dear.
In the last million years the Earth has settled into a varied but regular pattern due to the biosphere’s harmony with the Sun’s varying smiles even with a few geological wrenches. Fear not the CO2 folks, fear the results of the sixth mass extinction event on the biosphere. How will this affect climate i do not know, nor shall we ever as long as the Red Herring is being served up for scientific consumption.
How is the concentration of oxygen doing in the atmosphere? Oh i am sorry i forgot that it is the CO2 concentration that is important, my bad.
The thing I get from the report is that we are currently below the highest temperatures seen in the last 11,000 years, and that even with all of the “unprecedented” warming of late, it will take another 90 years of the increasing warming to actually break those records. Which pretty much kills the whole hockey-stick idea. Even with out unprecedented warming, we’re not even half way to matching previous highs.
Just a few years ago the warming in the early 20th century was considered to be due to the sun. However, with the changes in the solar sun spot count that explanation no longer holds water. This paper appears to be part of another revisionist plan to change that attribution to CO2.
Phobos says: March 8, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
The post says, “…the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 concentrations was minimal prior to 1945.”
This isn’t true. When you include land use changes, you find that global anthropogenic carbon emissions were 126 GtC by 1945, or 23% of such CO2 emissions to-date.
Sources:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/1850-2005.txt
Land Use Changes were measured by Houghton et al. as Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere, i.e.;
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html
shown graphically here:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
the most recent paper can be found here;
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp050/ndp050.pdf
and the abstract here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp050/ndp050.html
When you look at the Net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from land-use changes, by region, 1850 to 1990;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
it is apparent that the vast majority of the increase occurred after 1945 and that “the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 concentrations was minimal prior to 1945”.
Don says: March 8, 2013 at 2:41 pm
Not sayin’ I agree with the NSF study or the CNN spin, but the NSF study is about “regional and global temps” and the Overpeck study cited in rebuttal appears to be about arctic temps only. Is this not a problem? What am I missing?
Agree that Overpeck is a regional temp reconstruction, but essentially so is every other temperature record and reconstruction prior to 1979 when satellites allowed us to begin making reasonable estimates of “Global Temperature”. The Overpeck reconstruction reasonably mirrors other reconstructions of the time, and was intended solely as the setup for the point in terms of minimal anthropogenic CO2 emissions prior to 1945. For further background information on all paleoclimate reconstructions, I’d recommend this thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/23/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page/
and for further information on “Global Temperature” this thread should help:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-extreme-weather-update/
If you have further questions or concerns on this point, please let me know.
I recollect that Planet Mars warmed commenserate with Planet Earth last 50 years. No SUVs there.
JTF replies to Abbott:
“Drawing a relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and warming in the second half of the 20th century warming is tenuous at best and potentially erroneous, however there is no substantive relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the warming in the first half of the 20th century, thus implying that there is is fundamentally erroneous.”
Correctomundo. Unless anthropogenic CO2 exactly calibrated the global temperature to precisely offset the putative AGW effect. Does anyone really believe that?
And how many times does “Phobos” have to be proved wrong before he admits that the AGW scare is nonsense?
Well beyond the “in-line” speculation this is a curious story;
http://news.yahoo.com/canadas-arctic-glaciers-headed-unstoppable-thaw-study-190610158.html
Take your typical happy farmer or shepherd from 6000 BC and toss them into the world of today. In spite of being awed by our level of development they’d despise our colder, dryer climate versus what they’s be used to.
RE: High Treason says: March 8, 2013 at 2:19 pm “It is well known that CO2 is plant food. Below about 200ppm, plant life stalls. ”
You’ve no doubt heard of 350.org. But the deepest of Deep Ecologists are more like 200.org or even 150.org. They have a mass death wish. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water. Of course, it would be great to be a slug or fungus, in the event PP(CO2) drops below a certain level. But Bambi? Not so much. As for me, I am more like 1000.org. But we’ll never see that. Our little upward blip is soon to be overcome by forces we cannot stop.
Thanks for the added information and explanation, justthefactswuwt. This openness and responsiveness is what I have come to expect from the “good guys” here, and is one reason why I visit WUWT daily.
Phobos it is likely that there has been an ice age in the late Orodovician with CO2 at 5600ppm.
i love the way “cement” is always the big nasty worth mentioning… but its always the tiny little piece of the pie that the mice might hope for.
big oil bad…big buildings bad…big renewable energy hydro dams bad.. sarc/ off (or not)
justthefactswuwt says: “it is apparent that the vast majority of the increase occurred after 1945 and that “the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 concentrations was minimal prior to 1945″.
The data does not support this. You don’t have to cite any papers or eyeball any graphs — the data is available and you can easily calculate it for yourself. I have. The results are, combining fossil fuel emissions and land use changes, as I said: 23% of total carbon emissions occurred before 1945.
That is not “minimal.”
Leo Danze says: “I recollect that Planet Mars warmed commenserate with Planet Earth last 50 years.”
Says what data? (Seriously, I’d like to know.) I’m dubious that we’ve been monitoring the temperature of Mars for 50 years, especially in anything like a global way.
I see this claim being made often, but never any data to support it.
High Treason says:
March 8, 2013 at 2:19 pm
“It is well known that CO2 is plant food. Below about 200ppm, plant life stalls. ”
Why should we worry that CO2 levels are going to drop below 200 ppmv? They did not during the ice ages, and have not for 100s of millions of years — otherwise there would be no plants today.
Plants need CO2, but too much of it brings warming that stresses them. There is already evidence that for some crops this warming is reducing yields below what they would otherwise be, cancelling out the CO2 fertilizer effect:
Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming
David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
Phobos says:
“Plants need CO2, but too much of it brings warming that stresses them.”
Alarmist horse manure. Note that plants endure a diurnal “stress” of 50º or more every day. So how can a tiny 0.7º temperature blip over 150 years cause stress? Note also that 150 years is far longer than the life span of most plants.
Global warming, which is natural, does not cause ‘stress’. That is just another of the incessant lies told by climate alarmists.
Phobos also wonders about Mars warming along with the Earth. We’ve been ove this many times here. Global warming affects many of the solar system’s planets and moons — another fact that the alarmist crowd would rather not hear about.
Nick in Vancouver says: “Phobos it is likely that there has been an ice age in the late Orodovician with CO2 at 5600ppm.”
Seems not:
Did changes in atmospheric CO2 coincide with latest Ordovician glacial–interglacial cycles?
Seth A. Young et al
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 296, Issues 3–4, 15 October 2010, Pages 376–388
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821000115X
“High-carbon ice age mystery solved,” New Scientist, March 2010
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-highcarbon-ice-age-mystery-solved.html
@Nick in Vancouver: Also remember, the Sun was not as intense during the Ordovician as it is today. I calculate it’s luminosity was about 4% less….
Anything short of bringing a lawsuit against the AGW liars will be insufficient.
The wholesale lies being propagated throughout the journals and MSM will continue!
Phobos,
Wrong again. You’re batting 1.000. From your link:
“The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago…”
So let’s look at 444 mya.
CO2 was far higher than today 444 million years ago.
Still batting 1.000…
Phobos ‘calculates’, heh:
“I calculate it’s luminosity was about 4% less…”
Note in the chart I posted above that global warming naturally shot up following the Ordovician ice age. So much for calculating.
Phobos will never admit what all the empirical evidence shows: that CO2 has little or no effect on temperature. We’re witnessing cognitive dissonance in action.
D.B. Stealey says: “So let’s look at 444 mya.”
I will take published, peer reviewed science over a cartoon from something called “image shack.”
Clearly we have different standards.
Phobos says:
“Clearly we have different standards.”
Yes. Your standard is evidence-free computer models and pal reviewed papers.
My standard is real world evidence and empirical observations.
That is why scientific skeptics are right, and alarmists are wrong. The umpire is Planet Earth.