(Featured image borrowed from http://www.hockeyministries.org/rwt-blog-52316)
Unfortunately this article is behind a pay wall. While some of the points in the abstract are reasonable, these two seem to be totally unsupported in any literature of which I am aware…
An average global temperature increase of 0.6o to 0.9oC from 1900 to the present, occurring predominantly in the past 50 years, is now rising beyond the Holocene variation of the past 14,000 years, accompanied by a modest enrichment of δ18O in Greenland ice starting at ~1900. Global sea levels increased at 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year from 1993 to 2010 and are now rising above Late Holocene rates.
“An average global temperature increase of 0.6o to 0.9oC from 1900 to the present, occurring predominantly in the past 50 years, is now rising beyond the Holocene variation of the past 14,000 years…”
It appears that they are relying on Marcott et al., 2013 for the temperature claim.
Figure 1 from Walters et al., 2016
Here is an enlarged version of the temperature curve…
The temperature curve looks a lot like Marcott et al., 2013.
The problem is that the authors of Marcott et al., 2013 unequivocally stated that their reconstruction was not amenable to such claims
One author, Jeremy Shakun (currently at Harvard) weighed in via Skype for Dot Earth. When more questions came in, the group of authors wrote that they would respond more completely to questions about the work and now they have done so, on the RealClimate blog. Here’s a short excerpt and link to the rest:
Q.
What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A.
Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193).
Q.
Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A.
Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
The most complete Holocene “thermometers” are Greenland ice cores. They do not indicate that the warm up from the Little Ice Age is anomalous…
Temperature Reconstruction
I performed a GISS station search centered on 71.4 N latitude, 23.5 W longitude and downloaded the 12 GISS/GHCN instrumental records with at least 60 years of continuous data up to 2011.
Fig. 1) Station Location Map
Next I calculated a temperature anomaly relative to 1961-1990 for each of the 12 stations and then averaged them together to create a temperature reconstruction. The climate in the Warming Island area is statistically indistinguishable from that of the 1930’s.
Fig. 2) Warming Island Area: Instrumental temperature reconstruction.
Then I took that reconstruction back to 1000 AD with the GISP2 ice core d18O data (Kobashi et al., 2010)…
Fig. 3) Warming Island Area: Instrumental reconstruction combined with GISP2 ice core reconstruction.
The Modern Warming is also statistically indistinguishable from the Medieval Warm Period in the Warming Island / Greenland Sea region.
“Global sea levels increased at 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year from 1993 to 2010 and are now rising above Late Holocene rates.”
The sea level claim is preposterous…
A Geological Perspective of Recent Sea Level Rise
All of the estimated sea level rise since 1700 is represented by the light blue blob and dark blue line inside the black oval. Sea level isn’t doing anything now that it wasn’t already doing before All Gore invented global warming. And Holocene sea level changes have been insignificant relative to the Holocene transgression…
Figure 1. Sea 1evel rise since the late Pleistocene from Tahitian corals, tide gauges and satellite altimetry.
Adaptation: “It’s déjà vu, all over again!”If mankind and our infrastructure adapted to this…
Figure 2. Northern Hemisphere temperature, atmospheric CO2 and sea level since 1700 AD.
We can adapt to this without breaking a sweat…
Figure 3. Projected sea level rise through 2100 AD.
Particularly since sea level rose just as fast from 1931-1960 as it has risen since 1985…
Figure 4. Paracyclical sea level rise since 1931.
Anyone threatened by 6-12 inches of sea level rise over the next 85 years is already being flooded by high tides and/or storm surges. The red areas on this EPA map would be threatened by 1.5 meters of sea level rise.
Figure 5. Coastal areas threatened by 1.5 meters of sea level rise along US Gulf Coast (US EPA).
Bear in mind the fact that it would take an average rate of sea level rise nearly twice that of the Holocene Transgression for sea level to rise more than 1.5 meters (~5 feet) over the remainder of this century. This caused sea level.to rise by ~10 mm/yr for about10,000 years…
Figure 6. Animatiion of Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene deglaciation (Illinois State Museum).
Approximately 52 million cubic kilometers of ice melted during that 10,000 year period.
[…]
The Holocene Highstand
There are at least two schools of thought regarding Holocene sea level changes. The view favored by the IPCC and the so-called scientific consensus is that of a rapid rise in sea level during the early Holocene followed by a static quiescence from about 6,000 years ago up until the dawn of the “Anthropocene” (generally the Industrial Revolution). The second school of thought, favored by many (if not most) sedimentary geologists, is that of a dynamic Holocene sea level and a pronounced Holocene Highstand.
Figure 8. Sea level was 1-2 meters higher than it currently is during the Holocene Highstand.
Evidence for a Holocene Highstand is global in nature, consisting of stranded beaches and other facies associated with shorelines 1-2 meters higher than present day from 4-7 kya.
Another point of contention is their claim about extinction rates. Extinctions in the geologic record are measured at the genus and family level, not the species level. Comparing modern species extinction rates to extinctions in the fossil record are nothing more than Hockey Stick factories.
While at some distant point in the future, an “Anthropocene” may be identified as stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene, Walters et al., 2016 does not make much of a case for it. This appears to be another exercise in splicing modern high resolution data onto lower resolution proxy data (AKA Hockey sticking).
Addendum
I contacted Dr. Colin Waters via email to inquire about the source of their temperature reconstruction. He replied very promptly and cordially. Dr. Colin Summerhayes and Dr. Alexander Wolfe also joined the conversation. I found our discussions to be very enjoyable and informative. Dr. Waters authorized me to post this passage from our email discussion…
“The temperature curve in Figures 1B and 6B of the Science paper on the
Anthropocene was derived from Marcott et al., Science 339, 2013.
In the abridged version of the article the figure 14,000 should be
amended to 1,400 to be consistent with what we say in the main body of the paper”.
PlasticScene maybe but not Anthropocene
It’s also the Overthetopocene and the Trialballoonocene.
One must consider also the ExecutiveOrderocene and UNocene.
From the horses mouth – re: this study =
Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used.
Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Author, Jeremy Shakun
The era of the super-predator, the Unprecedentasaurus.
Harry Passfield
January 8, 2016 1:23 pm
I just remarked on this in ‘Submit a story’, based on a report from the BBC who have reported it as if it is a done deal.
My take on it is, Epochs are not what they used to be.
Given the actual resolution of the data bases, instrumental or reconstructed proxies, they are blowing smoke. Mann et al seems to be an exercise in creative computer programming, not a good faith exercise in paleoclimatology.
Doesn’t matter; we’re the only people paying attention anyway. The general public has moved on, and “carbon footprint” is already sounding a little quaint.
+1 grrrr beat me to it.
There’s a state park near Marathon of a coral quarry commissioned by our FL great robber baron Henry Flagler. The quarry (now above sea level) makes it perfectly clear that sea level was once quite a bit higher. Some of the equipment is being restored and a nature trail with various plants labeled. Really cool coral fossils. If you get a chance it was donation only and self guided tours (with pamphlets)
Ok I got so excited I looked it up.
Windley Key Fossil Reef Geological State Park
Islamorada, Florida 33036 MM 84.9
Perhaps we should start now, in anticipation of the new monicker, to show just how well humans are managing the planet: greening, greater food production, more national parks, more environmental awareness, the substitution of abundant materials for rare, and so on. The unlocking of fossil fuels and the return to better levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be one of the greatest examples of why the period from somewhen (like 1780) should be designated the Anthropocene…
Well, it’s a first attempt.
Warren Latham
January 8, 2016 1:45 pm
Anthropocene seems to get mi’ stove going quite quickly, however, it must be made of that really icky, sticky stuff because the chimney needs sweeping again.
I think the manufacturers must have melted down too many eco-tards in the mixing pot. It burns like crazy but that icky-sticky stuff gives off a really nasty smell. I think it was made in … wait a minute .. the label on the box says … made in Paris !
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
January 8, 2016 1:47 pm
Here’s link to a critique of ‘Anthropocene.’ http://www.episodes.org/index.php/epi/article/view/79720/61837
According to professional sources, the American Stratigraphic Commission has yet to take a position on this, and the publication by the working group is a RECOMMENDATION to the ICS. which has yet to take up this proposal. A forthcoming paper on this topic will appear in GSA TODAY in March or April explaining what lies ahead.
A reliable source reported via a third party that this paper is a republication of other papers by this working group. In short, it is “shingling.” to keep looking like they are getting somewhere.
Hans, I agree it is arbitrary and it is OK. Lots of things about dating are arbitrary. What we have to get correct is the extent to which mankind affects the weather and climate. If it is being overstated or over-claimed by a factor of 100 then it matters.
I am comfortable with giving a name to the period in history reflecting the capacity of us all to transform our environment. We deserve it. We should be good stewards of our common home. We don’t have to pretend that CO2 has magical powers to be responsible. In fact admitting it doesn’t is a good start at demonstrating we can be responsible.
I have just watched a TV show on the fall of Lance Armstrong followed by one on the current collapse of the reputation of Bill Cosby. Neither hold a candle to the scandal that will accompany the broad public unmasking of the global warming scam.
I am very happy with the geological term “recent”, there is no geological need for a new era yet. If we really must set a boundary, take 1950, that is already in use in radiocarbon dating.
Even an eventual sea level rise of 1.5 meters…….
Living in Holland I lived most of my life 3-4 meters BELOW sea level, just protected by dunes and dikes. What to think about countries that are not able to build 1.5 meter high dikes at some places IN NEARLY A CENTURY? In an era with a thousand times more technical possibilities than my ancestors had when they were building the dikes that protected me.
The Dutch had their own solution. They created common institutions called ‘Waterschappen’ which had the task to protect the land against water. The ‘Waterschappen’ could raise a special tax: ‘waterschapslasten’ to be paid by all people involved. Because of the dutch’ understanding of ‘common interest,’ the Dutch could become one of the big players in the world. At that time, in our ‘Golden Age’, Holland was only counting some 2 million people….. But the Dutch understood how to solve problems by looking at ‘common interest’ and by working together when necessary.
Which is why they’re trying to keep us from enjoying our booze. 😉 They will NOT succeed!
Notanist
January 8, 2016 2:15 pm
“Anthropocene” is not bad as a moniker, there is some truth to the idea that mankind is beginning to harness energy on scale that can finally be seen as progressing toward Kardashev’s Type I level of civilization. Won’t likely be seeing Dyson spheres in my lifetime 🙂 but once future historians manage to cull all this latest End-of-Days conspiracy theorizing back out of our science, then the industrial revolution won’t be a bad place to begin tracking humanity’s increasingly efficient use of energy resources as we lift off from the hunter-gatherer and plow-horse agrarian eras.
I suggest to give it the abbreviation yAP, (years After Present). After all, in carbon dating, 1950 is already called “the present”. And astronomers are also working with the stellar Epoch 1950.0
LewSkannen
January 8, 2016 3:05 pm
The new ScientificCredibilityHasLeftDaCene era is upon us.
http://oi47.tinypic.com/1zxb2vk.jpg http://www.martintingley.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PaiCo.pdf
The most pronounced warming phase in our [Arctic] reconstruction [of the last 2,000 years] occurred between 1900 and 1940, which is clearly seen in the measured meteorological records as well. In the instrumental record, positive SAT anomalies were largest in the Arctic Atlantic region during this period (Wood and Overland 2010). This early twentieth-century warming (ETCW) has been subject to many studies, yet its reasons still defies full explanation According to Chylek et al. (2009), the Arctic warming from 1900 to 1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the warming during the more recent decades and was highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting that the Arctic temperature variability is highly linked to the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation at various temporal scales.
—
Esper et al., 2012 Orbital forcing of tree-ring data Nature Climate Change 2, 862–866 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/images/nclimate1589-f2.jpg
—
Cook et al., 2008 Five thousand years of sediment transfer in a High Arctic watershed recorded in annually laminated sediments from Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada, Journal of Paleolimnology http://www.geo.umass.edu/grads/cook/images/lml_temps.jpg
—
Mulvaney et al., 2012. Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history Nature 489,141–144 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/images/nature11391-f3.2.jpg
..Mother Nature laughs at the feeble chains that the Liberal’s l attempt to restrain her with !! Their Fairy Dust is no match for her unpredictable power !
Man’s footprint can be gone in a flash.
Didn’t these folks here of Pompeii?
Ma nature took back large chunks of Detroit in less than a generation http://www.themotorlesscity.com/2009/07/23/150/
dp
January 8, 2016 3:49 pm
Climate science is now a meaningless endeavor ~ worse, it is a political statement no different than a bumper sticker that says “I Voted for Obama”. I would be embarrassed to let it slip that I was a climate scientist today. Hopefully scientists in other disciplines will come out and reclaim the honorable history of science and put the spotlight on the dangers of politicizing science with falsified hypotheses and brain dead models intended to support an agenda. We are in the Juxtapocene where science and data have been juxtaposed with flawed model output and political willfulness.
Mike Bromley the Kurd
January 8, 2016 3:56 pm
“paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century”
Convenient, that. They’ve gone an buggered their own research. Not to mention that all other time periods in the chronostratigraphic record have a resolution of +/- 100,000 years….essentially making the result of this study a comparison of apples and dingleberries. Leaping ahead into the distant future (AD 102016), it is doubtful that there would be any way of resolving the start of the Anthropocene. Maybe “The Earth, plus plastic”, sensu Carlin, but at what resolution?
This entire discussion is as much about the egos of the Technozoic stratigraphers as it is about actually defining a meaningful epoch. And most certainly another huge waste of grant money.
I guess they didn’t notice that the Antartic ice core data uses various intervals of much less than 100 years and temperature changes of over a degree happens regularly over ten year periods.
But then that might invalidate their predetermined result.
They handle this by splicing a high resolution instrumental time series onto a very low resolution multi-proxy time series which has been heavily smoothed.
The instrumental data have monthly resolution.
The multi-proxy data have decadal to multi-century scale resolutions. Each proxy series has a different margin of error on both axes (date and temperature). So, the multi-proxy time series winds up having no better resolution than its lowest resolution component.
Unless the resolution of the instrumental time series is degraded to match that of the multi-proxy time series, the result will always be a Hockey Stick.
James at 48
January 8, 2016 3:59 pm
The concept of the Holocene is being something distinct from the Quaternary was already a crock of steaming …… now this. Enough already!
Technically the Holocene was never distinct from the Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene).
Green Sand
January 8, 2016 4:10 pm
The Anthropocene Has Arrived!!!”
What has more likely arrived is homo superbus – ‘Arrogant Man’
John F. Hultquist
January 8, 2016 4:11 pm
If an “Anthropocene” is to be named it should start when the human race sufficiently altered landscapes such that major and lasting sedimentation began. Many studies have been done. All one needs to do is find an early date and go with it. This is a simple case of geological science and not Climate ScienceTM .
I always thought that when an area of study has to allude to science in its title, general rule of thumb is,….its not real science. You never have to say Chemistry science
—
“An average global temperature increase of 0.6 to 0.9C from 1900 to the present, occurring predominantly in the past 50 years . .”
—
Glancing at NOAA’s Climate at a glance. The warming trend from 1911 through 1944 shows the anomaly going from -0.43C to 0.29C; warming of 0.73C.
Figure 1. Sea 1evel rise since the late Pleistocene from Tahitian corals, tide gauges and satellite altimetry.
PlasticScene maybe but not Anthropocene
It’s also the Overthetopocene and the Trialballoonocene.
One must consider also the ExecutiveOrderocene and UNocene.
New Geologic era: ‘Plastocene’?
Carbonefarious period of the fantacene era ; )
oooooo…. excellent, JohnKnight!
From the horses mouth – re: this study =
Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used.
Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Author, Jeremy Shakun
The era of the super-predator, the Unprecedentasaurus.
I just remarked on this in ‘Submit a story’, based on a report from the BBC who have reported it as if it is a done deal.
My take on it is, Epochs are not what they used to be.
I’m afraid it’s just a matter of time before the ICS designates an Anthropocene.
http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/workinggroups/anthropocene/
The authors of Walters et al., 2016 are essentially the ICS Anthropocene Working Group.
Given the actual resolution of the data bases, instrumental or reconstructed proxies, they are blowing smoke. Mann et al seems to be an exercise in creative computer programming, not a good faith exercise in paleoclimatology.
Doesn’t matter; we’re the only people paying attention anyway. The general public has moved on, and “carbon footprint” is already sounding a little quaint.
It’s the hubriscene.
Or maybe the Frauducene that will abruptly transition into the Lamentocene.
The best name I have seen for it is the Idiocene.
+1 grrrr beat me to it.
There’s a state park near Marathon of a coral quarry commissioned by our FL great robber baron Henry Flagler. The quarry (now above sea level) makes it perfectly clear that sea level was once quite a bit higher. Some of the equipment is being restored and a nature trail with various plants labeled. Really cool coral fossils. If you get a chance it was donation only and self guided tours (with pamphlets)
Ok I got so excited I looked it up.
Windley Key Fossil Reef Geological State Park
Islamorada, Florida 33036 MM 84.9
Perhaps we should start now, in anticipation of the new monicker, to show just how well humans are managing the planet: greening, greater food production, more national parks, more environmental awareness, the substitution of abundant materials for rare, and so on. The unlocking of fossil fuels and the return to better levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be one of the greatest examples of why the period from somewhen (like 1780) should be designated the Anthropocene…
Well, it’s a first attempt.
Anthropocene seems to get mi’ stove going quite quickly, however, it must be made of that really icky, sticky stuff because the chimney needs sweeping again.
I think the manufacturers must have melted down too many eco-tards in the mixing pot. It burns like crazy but that icky-sticky stuff gives off a really nasty smell. I think it was made in … wait a minute .. the label on the box says … made in Paris !
Here’s link to a critique of ‘Anthropocene.’
http://www.episodes.org/index.php/epi/article/view/79720/61837
According to professional sources, the American Stratigraphic Commission has yet to take a position on this, and the publication by the working group is a RECOMMENDATION to the ICS. which has yet to take up this proposal. A forthcoming paper on this topic will appear in GSA TODAY in March or April explaining what lies ahead.
A reliable source reported via a third party that this paper is a republication of other papers by this working group. In short, it is “shingling.” to keep looking like they are getting somewhere.
Once the ICS adopts Anthropocene, it will be enshrined. Hopefully NACS will remain sane.
The problem with the antropocene is that the advent of man is extremely diachronous. So when it does start is a completely abitrary decision.
Hans, I agree it is arbitrary and it is OK. Lots of things about dating are arbitrary. What we have to get correct is the extent to which mankind affects the weather and climate. If it is being overstated or over-claimed by a factor of 100 then it matters.
I am comfortable with giving a name to the period in history reflecting the capacity of us all to transform our environment. We deserve it. We should be good stewards of our common home. We don’t have to pretend that CO2 has magical powers to be responsible. In fact admitting it doesn’t is a good start at demonstrating we can be responsible.
I have just watched a TV show on the fall of Lance Armstrong followed by one on the current collapse of the reputation of Bill Cosby. Neither hold a candle to the scandal that will accompany the broad public unmasking of the global warming scam.
I am very happy with the geological term “recent”, there is no geological need for a new era yet. If we really must set a boundary, take 1950, that is already in use in radiocarbon dating.
Don’t you know that since the paper has been published, it MUST be true!!! All published papers are gospel truth!
Idiocene is more apt.
http://carbon-sense.com/2015/12/13/the-new-geological-era/
Even an eventual sea level rise of 1.5 meters…….
Living in Holland I lived most of my life 3-4 meters BELOW sea level, just protected by dunes and dikes. What to think about countries that are not able to build 1.5 meter high dikes at some places IN NEARLY A CENTURY? In an era with a thousand times more technical possibilities than my ancestors had when they were building the dikes that protected me.
Humans are helpless and need big government to protect them.
The Dutch had their own solution. They created common institutions called ‘Waterschappen’ which had the task to protect the land against water. The ‘Waterschappen’ could raise a special tax: ‘waterschapslasten’ to be paid by all people involved. Because of the dutch’ understanding of ‘common interest,’ the Dutch could become one of the big players in the world. At that time, in our ‘Golden Age’, Holland was only counting some 2 million people….. But the Dutch understood how to solve problems by looking at ‘common interest’ and by working together when necessary.
Which is why they’re trying to keep us from enjoying our booze. 😉 They will NOT succeed!
“Anthropocene” is not bad as a moniker, there is some truth to the idea that mankind is beginning to harness energy on scale that can finally be seen as progressing toward Kardashev’s Type I level of civilization. Won’t likely be seeing Dyson spheres in my lifetime 🙂 but once future historians manage to cull all this latest End-of-Days conspiracy theorizing back out of our science, then the industrial revolution won’t be a bad place to begin tracking humanity’s increasingly efficient use of energy resources as we lift off from the hunter-gatherer and plow-horse agrarian eras.
I don’t really have a problem with the term Anthropocene. I’d be fine with renaming the Holocene the Anthropocene. However, I would demote it to a Stage from an Epoch.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/ElephantEvolution.png
Definitely, since it’s no different climatically from prior Pleistocene interglacials.
excellent appraisal David
I posted about this absurd story on the “Filling in the sparse Arctic weather data” thread. See:
I suggest to give it the abbreviation yAP, (years After Present). After all, in carbon dating, 1950 is already called “the present”. And astronomers are also working with the stellar Epoch 1950.0
The new ScientificCredibilityHasLeftDaCene era is upon us.
…ScientificCredibilityHasLeftDaCene…
lololol good one!
LOL Love the broken hockey stick in the photo!
I think we should call it the “Misanthropocene”, although “Ego-scene” does have its good points …
w.
+1000
Some Anthropocene signatures at the poles…
http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Polar_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0806/images/climate.2008.51-i1.jpg
http://oi47.tinypic.com/1zxb2vk.jpg
http://www.martintingley.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PaiCo.pdf
The most pronounced warming phase in our [Arctic] reconstruction [of the last 2,000 years] occurred between 1900 and 1940, which is clearly seen in the measured meteorological records as well. In the instrumental record, positive SAT anomalies were largest in the Arctic Atlantic region during this period (Wood and Overland 2010). This early twentieth-century warming (ETCW) has been subject to many studies, yet its reasons still defies full explanation According to Chylek et al. (2009), the Arctic warming from 1900 to 1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the warming during the more recent decades and was highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting that the Arctic temperature variability is highly linked to the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation at various temporal scales.
—
Esper et al., 2012 Orbital forcing of tree-ring data Nature Climate Change 2, 862–866
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/images/nclimate1589-f2.jpg
—
Cook et al., 2008 Five thousand years of sediment transfer in a High Arctic watershed recorded in annually laminated sediments from Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada, Journal of Paleolimnology
http://www.geo.umass.edu/grads/cook/images/lml_temps.jpg
—
Mulvaney et al., 2012. Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history Nature 489,141–144
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/images/nature11391-f3.2.jpg
The North Atlantic Anthropocene signal…
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20NorthAtlanticOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1955%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Better late than never.
Who are we to think the planet cares?
..Mother Nature laughs at the feeble chains that the Liberal’s l attempt to restrain her with !! Their Fairy Dust is no match for her unpredictable power !
OK, where did that extra ” l ” come from ??
Man’s footprint can be gone in a flash.
Didn’t these folks here of Pompeii?
Ma nature took back large chunks of Detroit in less than a generation
http://www.themotorlesscity.com/2009/07/23/150/
Climate science is now a meaningless endeavor ~ worse, it is a political statement no different than a bumper sticker that says “I Voted for Obama”. I would be embarrassed to let it slip that I was a climate scientist today. Hopefully scientists in other disciplines will come out and reclaim the honorable history of science and put the spotlight on the dangers of politicizing science with falsified hypotheses and brain dead models intended to support an agenda. We are in the Juxtapocene where science and data have been juxtaposed with flawed model output and political willfulness.
“paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century”
Convenient, that. They’ve gone an buggered their own research. Not to mention that all other time periods in the chronostratigraphic record have a resolution of +/- 100,000 years….essentially making the result of this study a comparison of apples and dingleberries. Leaping ahead into the distant future (AD 102016), it is doubtful that there would be any way of resolving the start of the Anthropocene. Maybe “The Earth, plus plastic”, sensu Carlin, but at what resolution?
This entire discussion is as much about the egos of the Technozoic stratigraphers as it is about actually defining a meaningful epoch. And most certainly another huge waste of grant money.
I guess they didn’t notice that the Antartic ice core data uses various intervals of much less than 100 years and temperature changes of over a degree happens regularly over ten year periods.
But then that might invalidate their predetermined result.
They handle this by splicing a high resolution instrumental time series onto a very low resolution multi-proxy time series which has been heavily smoothed.
The instrumental data have monthly resolution.
The multi-proxy data have decadal to multi-century scale resolutions. Each proxy series has a different margin of error on both axes (date and temperature). So, the multi-proxy time series winds up having no better resolution than its lowest resolution component.
Unless the resolution of the instrumental time series is degraded to match that of the multi-proxy time series, the result will always be a Hockey Stick.
The concept of the Holocene is being something distinct from the Quaternary was already a crock of steaming …… now this. Enough already!
Technically the Holocene was never distinct from the Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene).
What has more likely arrived is homo superbus – ‘Arrogant Man’
If an “Anthropocene” is to be named it should start when the human race sufficiently altered landscapes such that major and lasting sedimentation began. Many studies have been done. All one needs to do is find an early date and go with it. This is a simple case of geological science and not Climate ScienceTM .
I was trying for the Trademark symbol, superscript TM. Failed again. Time to go feed animals.
Climate Science™ (The character entity ™)
You can try things out on the test page, see the top nav bar.
That would make the Holocene vanish.
Better so than the current nonsense.
I always thought that when an area of study has to allude to science in its title, general rule of thumb is,….its not real science. You never have to say Chemistry science
—
“An average global temperature increase of 0.6 to 0.9C from 1900 to the present, occurring predominantly in the past 50 years . .”
—
Glancing at NOAA’s Climate at a glance. The warming trend from 1911 through 1944 shows the anomaly going from -0.43C to 0.29C; warming of 0.73C.