Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study published in SAGE claims that 0.7C / century warming is exceptional, because on average temperature change over the last 9500 years, after smoothing away short term wobbles, was 0.1C -0.01C / century.
The Anthropocene equation
Owen Gaffney, Will Steffen
The dominant external forces influencing the rate of change of the Earth System have been astronomical and geophysical during the planet’s 4.5-billion-year existence. In the last six decades, anthropogenic forcings have driven exceptionally rapid rates of change in the Earth System. This new regime can be represented by an ‘Anthropocene equation’, where other forcings tend to zero, and the rate of change under human influence can be estimated. Reducing the risk of leaving the glacial–interglacial limit cycle of the late Quaternary for an uncertain future will require, in the first instance, the rate of change of the Earth System to become approximately zero.
Read more: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019616688022
The money quote;
… From 9500 to 5500 years BP global average temperature plateaued, followed by a very slight cooling trend (Marcott et al., 2013). Over the last 7000 years the rate of change of temperature was approximately −0.01°C/century. Over the last hundred years, the rate of change is about 0.7°C/century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013), 70 times the baseline – and in the opposite direction. Over the past 45 years (i.e. since 1970, when human influence on the climate has been most evident), the rate of the temperature rise is about 1.7°C/century (NOAA, 2016), 170 times the Holocene baseline rate. …
Read more: Same link as above
What is wrong with this picture?
Marcott himself explained in an interview with Real Climate that his data has been heavily smoothed – that any short term warming trends in the past, which were similar to late 20th century warming, could have been eliminated from the climate record by his methodology.
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;
Read more: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
The instrumental record itself provides evidence of short term warming periods comparable to the modern warming – including warming periods which occurred well before anthropogenic CO2 could have had a significant effect.
The following is from an interview with one of the stars of the Climategate Emails, Dr. Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit;
…
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
…
Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
There is no evidence of anything exceptional about the rate of post 1970 warming, compared to pre-1970 warming. The suggestion by the authors that warming is currently occurring at an unusual rate is nonsense.
Update (EW): Corrected the first paragraph, the authors claim an average trend of -0.01C / century over the last 7000 years, not 0.1C / century.
Update 2 (EW): ClimateReason provided a link to an excellent post he provided in 2013, which uses the Central England Temperature record to demonstrate how dramatic an impact smoothing of historic data has on the representation of the temperature data.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did they use F or C measuring sticks 9500 years ago?
Neither, they used frozen digits.
Blue fingers meant “pretty darn cold”.
One frozen digit meant “ug”, roughly equivalent to today’s sub-zero on either scale.
Two frozen digits …
Three …
… and so forth, until you got to hands and other more distal body parts.
The coldest temps, of course, were registered when your, well, … you know …, froze and fell off.
The simple facts are you can argue about tree rings and thermometer homogenisation all you like but the true test of CAGW is sea level rise. The sea rises because snow and ice on land or the polar caps melt and/or expands due to heat.
Despite all the hysteria the Australian CSIRO’s estimate of global sea level rise in the 20th century is 160mm or an average of 1.6mm/yr. Then Ian Plimer’s pet rocks at Hallett Cove near me show ice began to melt between 15000yrs ago until 6000-7000 yrs ago and sea level rose 130M which can be an average 16.25mm/yr for 8000 years, over 10 times that of the 20th century. Ipso facto I figured anyone who says they can pull the anthropogenic CO2 signal out of 1/10th the rate of natural global warming is completely delusional or lying to me.
I tell people it would be like me going surfing on a rough, windy day and claiming that I can separate out the disturbance I make from paddling from the natural signal.
Good one! I think I’ll borrow it next time I actually have a discussion with a believer that gets beyond “I don’t want to discuss it.”
Can you believe none other than the Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, was the Minister for conservation and environment at the time that actually declared Hallett Cove a Conservation Park because of its great geological significance? Do these idiots actually know what they’re signing?
Most likely both…
There are several general comments we can make:
1) 0.7C for 115ppm of CO2 is about 1/10th the effect of that much co2 in the ice ages and 1/5th what the climate modelers thought we would get. So, in one sense there is change and in another it is much less than they thought we’d get.
2) Comparing smoothed data to unsmoothed data is fallacious. We don’t know what variations happened in the past if you had the instruments we have today. We know the LIA was 1-2C colder on average and that was 500 years ago. We know the MWP was 1-2C warmer than today and that was 1000 years ago. During these upturns and downturns there could easily have been as much short term movement as we’ve seen this century. If this article is trying to re-invent the idea of the hockey stick as in there was no variation in the past and LIA and MWP were falacious then they need to consult the dozens of studies that have come out showing that these phenomenon were real and global.
3) For purposes of avoiding an argument that I see is pointless I am happy to concede that temperatures may have gone up 0.7C this century because in the big picture admitting that essentially kills the “high sensitivity” argument around CO2. Especially as the warming in the early part of the century which cannot be attributed entirely to CO2 means that some of the heating is not even co2. Adding 115ppm essentially produced 0.5C and so adding another 150ppm by the end of the century given co2’s logarithmic activity means another 0.5C which means no significant warming. End of Story.
4) I am not convinced more and more about the warming post 1945 overall. The facts of the warming in the 1930-40s as evidenced by records in the arctic and the data around ships traversing the northern passage, dust bowls in the american west, records set in the 30s and 40s for hear unbroken today, number of days over 90, over 100 or any measure are higher in the 30s and 40s. There are many ways to measure temperature and we know that they have adjusted and adjusted the records to an absurd extent so that now 10390s and 1940s are cold decades. According to the adjusted records every decade after the 1940s was warmer than they were even though we are quite confident that scientists thought in 1975 that we were going into another ice age.
If every year since 1945 has been essentially flat or warmer than 1945 then how come all these records remain? How come the north iced over again and temperatures fell? The adjustments are bogus and it is unbelievable that temps are higher than 1930s and 1940s in a robust way. If you remove all the adjustments the record looks roughly like a drop and then rise and we are back to 1940s. If this is true then of course my point #3 above is even more robust.
THe central problem climate science has to deal with is not these arguments about the temperature but is more fundamental. The climate models are clearly proven wrong. They missed major factors that are still not fully understood. There is big reasons to believe all the work on climate models. All of it is completely wasted because there is no legitimacy to the mathematical basis or the process used in the models.
We need to focus climate science on basic physics and basic science. We need to explore new ideas for the ice age and for the interactions in the ocean and mantle and the sun and clouds. We need to stop arguing about stupid things like will temperatures soar crazily. They aren’t and won’t. The seas are not rising any faster than they have for hundreds of years. This focus on the “horrific consequences” must stop because there are no horrific consequences from 0.5C assuming even that happens. In fact even if it were more all of the horrific consequences have turned out bogus. Therefore, we can end the abnormal fascination with predicting and get back to basic science. Trying to understand how the climate system really works at its basic physics level.
This 140 year span of instrumental temperatures with a 0.7 degree Celsius increase is an extension of the graph Phil Jones produced with his claim of an unprecedented 0.6 degrees Celsius over a 120 year span. It became the “blade” of the original hockey stick. What people keep forgetting is that Jones’s claim had an error range of + or – 0.2 degrees Celsius, or + or – 33 %. As I understand this error factor has not changed with the additional 20 years of data. But then we will never know because Jones (in)conveniently lost his data. Oh, and by the way, all this is the scientific justification for draconian and devastating energy, environment, and economic policy.
Observa, your points are valid as well. Clearly sea level rising for centuries at roughly the same level says that we are above some “stasis” point and have been for centuries. We are not far enough above the stasis point to accelerate sea level so the temperature can’t have risen that much. We aren’t running out of ice.
What people don’t point out ever in the sea level are the following now better known phenomenon which were unknown when Hansen first proposed global warming:
1) Eroding mountains both causes land to “extend” by moving silt lower.
2) Melting glaciers allow continents to lift similar to the way Archimedes showed for free floating ice. Reduced mass of glaciers allows the continents to rise.
3) Acquifers filling due to increased rain has contributed 0.3mm or 1/5 th of all rising is reversed because of increased rain.
4) Man builds coastline and extends it himself significantly
5) Islands grow through volcanic processes and through accumulation of coral and other sea life on the shores making most islands grow in spite of rising seas.
These phenomenon and others seem to have been unknown. When they compute ice loss they aren’t accounting for these phenomenon and so the IPCC estimates fo sea level rise are double the actual tidal gauge data.
Once again, as has become the case on every single thing they’ve said the reality is far less than they predicted. In many cases it’s reverse. On the whole a study came out that showed over the last 30 years sea coastline has increased (not decreased) by 30,000 KM. How can the seas be said to be rising if we are gaining coastline?
According to [1], the natural centennial variability of global temperature–without any data smoothing–has been 0.98+/-0.27 degree Celsius per century, based on the analysis of 8000 years of Holocene records. It’s a rock-solid result.
[1] doi:10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
But it is peer reviewed and published. That means its another log on the fire that politicians can point to when making the argument. Which is its true value.
If you set out to walk from Bangor to San Diego it is useful to know you don’t have to gain any altitude because the trend between them is flat
The equivalent in this paper is to claim that the farther West you go, the higher it gets. The obvious conclusion is that if you keep going West you will get so high you will run out of oxygen so we musn’t go any farther West! If that was true then Californian’s would be unable to make any sense of anything. Wait a minute….!
I thought California was proof that the country was sloped to the west. Since all the fruits and nuts roll to California.
Someone (one of the blog sites) around these parts – within the past week, or so, I believe – posted an observation they’d made while looking at the Vostok temp data regarding large temp changes over short periods of time. Here’s the data: Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core
As I understand this – It’s presented in years before present (1999?) and the temps presented are relative to the then current temp.
So – examples:
Between 552 – 444 yrs ago, the temp rose 1.79 C in 108 year’s time.
Between 1285 – 1176 yrs ago, the temp rose 1.37 C in 109 year’s time.
And so on . .
It’s even worse than that! Look at the RSS trend from 2015 to 2016. It’s 25° C per century!
We’re gonna fry!
Hah! Check out from last night to this morning! I’ll be dead by the time you read th
Heh, I live in SE Virginia and a few years ago when we had one of those Polar Vortex breakouts, the temperature fell ovef 52 degrees (F) in less than 24 hours. Imagine if THAT trend had kept up for even just a couple days.
Me, I just find it hilarious that they claim to be able to measure temperatures millennia in the past to an accuracy of .001C. What is the confidence interval on the first number .01C +- 1C?
Am I reading that correctly? Their comparing unsmoothed recent data with smoothed historical data. And concluding that the recent data is exceptional.
JB Say:
You ask
Yes, you are reading that correctly.
The first example I saw of so-called ‘climate scientists’ joining smoothed proxy data to unsmoothed recent data was the Mann, Bradley and Hughes ‘tree ring hockey stick graph’ published in 1998. I objected to it within a week of that paper being published, someone sent Mann a copy of my email which pointed out the error, and Mann responded with nothing but personal abuse in an email leaked by the Climate gate whistle-blower which included this veiled threat.
but that was merely an early example of Mann’s typical and threatening bluster.
That early example of ‘joining chalk to cheese and saying the are the same thing’ and Mann’s email were discussed on WUWT here.
Richard
JB Say:
The link did not work. Sorry.
It is this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/
Richard
Perhaps this cartoon of mine is apropos:
http://www.maxphoton.com/chicken-little/
Apart from some likely UHI effect the unprecedented warming of the Anthropocene seems to have bypassed Central England:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CentralEnglandTempSince1659%201100pixel.gif
None of these counter-arguments matter if the paper is taken as ‘truth’ by the politicians who have drunk the CAGW Kool-aid.
As with many wrong announcements, the effect is felt long before any retraction or correction is published (usually in small print in the back pages).
What is required is some method for ensuring that the policy makers are informed of the egregious duplicity being foisted on an unsuspected (and un-mathematically trained) public. I sometimes send counter-arguments to local and federal politicians but suspect there are several gate-keepers who send out the standard ‘Thanks for your input” letter but fail to pass on my submission to the politician.
Suggestions?
When the people in power or at the gates are CACG addicts, they cannot recognize their addiction. A problem cannot perceive itself as such.
No suggestions.
It seems to me that a lot of debate has been caused by the treatment of time series data. All such series must show the raw data somewhere so others can independently replicate the “new” time series. I an understand compare why adjustments are done – desire to compare apples-apples, because over time the basis of a raw measurement may not be on the same basis as it was hiurs, days, years, decades ago. I remain astounded by the apparent lack of communication from the raw- data gatekeepers to maintain a raw dataset for future generations to work with. Its so egotistical.
Advertised at TheConservation.com as:
Introducing the Terrifying Mathematics of the Anthropocene
Note that unfriendly comments are not welcome.
Right, so basically their study showed that the rate of change was lower in smoothed ancient proxy data than in actual modern instrumental measurements. That’s shocking.
To clarify…………….what’s shocking is that someone pays these pricks.
0.01 degrees C per century. Does anybody really believe it’s possible to measure such a rate?Does the paper actually discuss much about the uncertainty?
Post-common-sense reality.
Measuring such rates is easy. It can also be quite accurate.
If your beginning temp is accurate, and the your end temp is accurate, then the rate will be the difference divided by the number of years between.
Nobody is claiming that they can measure the change on a year by year basis by that amount.
Minoan warm period, Roman warm period, Medieval warm period….all gone, conveniently smoothed away
The whole paper is utter nonsense……….equations thrown in to make it look like they know what they are writing about
dE/dt = f (A, G) E rate of change of Earth system
A astronomical forcings
G geophysical forcing
Oh really ?
You could expect little else in a “journal” calling itself “The Anthropocene Review”
Oddly enough one of the associate editors is a Will Steffen.
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journal/anthropocene-review
Bit of a coincidence that a Will Steffen is also the co-author of this and several other articles published by the journal.
How to get this rubbish published?
I know, we’ll start our own journal then we’ll have our own private playpen.
I honestly don’t think that we can compare daily data from now with more than 45 years, simply because of the difference in measuring and recording techniques. It is comparing apples with pears.
I have done an analysis of daily data of 54 weather stations. 27 stations each hemisphere. Balanced to zero latitude. Since I am looking at the average rate of change per annum longitude is not important.
My results show that warming in the SH was -0.0003K/annum since 1980. IOW: nothing
In the NH warming it was 0.0205K/annum since 1980.
My global average is 0.01K / annum since 1980 which btw does not compare that bad with RSS and UAH.
That brings my total to 0.1K/decade or 1.0K/century.
Obviously my results also tell me that this warming trend won’t hold but that is another story.
I saw that one commenter here noted that there was no major melting of ice in the antarctic. Indeed, there was not. My question here to the experts is: if it was a given that my results are correct, how would you explain the difference of the results between the NH and the SH?
The head of the climate modeling team at LLNL told me the reason the MWP and LIA weren’t real is because the temperature of the SH went negative when the temp of the NH went positive so it was a regional phenomenon. He said global warming today is global.
That was only < 5 years ago. How fast things change. Now it's the MWP and LIA that appear to be global according to numerous studies and it is current warming that appears regional.
To explain my results
My logic says it was increased heat from outside + earth’s inner core moved north?
Henryp,
It’s clear to me there is a sinusoidal wave at approx 60 years and one at roughly 500. The 500 is less precise. Of course there are also waves at much longer intervals.
The ipcc initially rejected any contribution for short term from ocean or mantle and decided the sun was too small. How convenient they eliminated all the large heat capacity items that might actually have stored heat that could be oscillating over longer periods.
i was willing to beleive that co2 could have high sensitivity but as I looked into it was apparent that they hadn’t proved any of the interactions they proposed in the climate models. They hadn’t even been able so far to prove the first step of the whole process. It should be possible to definitively find and measure the heat in the co2 molecules in the atmosphere expected to be excited by infrared radiation from the surface. Instruments exist to some extent and further instruments could be designed to do a robust detection.
We could also build large scale experiments where we excite these co2 molecules and measure the effect. Why is it important? Because since they haven’t proved that the co2 is in fact contributing anything the first leg of their theory remains unproved.
They systematically have conspired to do only the science needed to refute negative thesis’s or at least to confirm some easy to confirm things. A lot of work measuring ice flows and glacier stuff. They want to leave the basic science unquestioned.
There initial assumptions that the oceans and mantle are unchanging and insignificant factors has been soundly disproved by the PDO and AMO cycle and recently evidence has emerged that mantle releases may be highly affected by gravitational variations that stress the earth as well as moving glacier masses. None of this was known and to my knowledge the amount of research in this area is stunted.
We need a whole new set of people doing this research. These people obviously are looking for a specific answer ahead of time and all research is just to confirm the preconcieved theory and results. Bad science.
Looking at energy from outside in, we have a number of solar cycles. Most important is the Gleissberg cycle sinusoid of about 87 years.
Going by the oceans I agree with you on the 60 years, which is a combination of
energy from outside to in + energy from inside.
That the magnetic north pole has been moving north east is not in doubt.
I have seen no serious studies of people going down [into earth] at varying depths and measuring the exact energy in to out at various places on earth? Anyone?
I agree with you about getting a new team of scientists on the job.
I am 60 ….no one wants to hire me , but like you, I have got some ideas that we must pursue…..
“…other forcings tend to zero…” ? Have non-AGW laws of physics/astronomy been suspended? I would have thought we would have heard about such a violation of the Principle of Relativity.