From the “settled science” department:
UNLV Geoscience Ph.D. student Jonathan Baker has found evidence that shows nearly continuous warming from the end of the last Ice Age to the present in the Ural Mountains in central Russia.
The research, which was published today in top geoscience journal Nature Geoscience, shows continual warming over the past 11,000 years, contradicting the current belief that northern hemisphere temperatures peaked 6,000 to 8,000 years ago and cooled until the pre-Industrial period.
Baker’s research, done in conjunction with UNLV geoscientist Matthew Lachniet, Yemane Asmerom and Victor Polyak of the University of New Mexico, and Russian scientist Olga Chervyatsova, shows that winter temperature variations in continental Eurasia are warmer today than any time in the past 11,000 years.
This study contradicts previous work likely because those studies focused on summer temperature trends and not the more sensitive winter temperature variations that were not previously available, Baker said.
The new finding is based on precisely dated isotope temperature record and supports computer models for Eurasia that predicted continual warming. The research showed that disappearing ice in the Arctic regions of North America controlled the warming trend as the Ice Age glaciers retreated. Later, rising greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, were likely responsible for the continued warming in the Ural Mountains.
The cave climate record has important implications for the future, Lachniet explained. “Because greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing at rates unprecedented for the past 800,000 years, human-caused warming will be superimposed on the ‘natural’ trend,” he said.
Baker added, “Over the past century, winters in continental Eurasia warmed 70 times faster than during the previous 7,000 years, according to our record. At this pace, the warming will continue to pose severe and detrimental impacts throughout the region.”
As modern temperatures are influenced in part by greenhouse gases, both summers and winters are expected to warm, whereas past temperatures in those seasons had opposing trajectories, Baker said.
###
Baker conducted the research while living in Russia as a Fulbright grantee. There he worked with co-author Olga Chervyatsova and the Ufa Speleo Club to collect stalagmites from Kinderlinksaya Cave, located about 750 miles east of Moscow in the southern Ural Mountains.
The data were obtained using state-of-the art geochemical techniques at the Las Vegas Isotope Science Laboratory at UNLV and the Radiogenic Isotope Laboratory at the University of New Mexico. Both facilities were supported by infrastructure grants from the National Science Foundation. The research was also supported by the Ralph Stone Fellowship of the National Speleological Society.
The study was published May 22 in the journal Nature Geoscience: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2953.html
It seems like they have fallen for the CO2 Control Knob Fallacy.
I’ve been reading studies of tree lines 200 or more kilometers north during the Holocene Climactic Optimum 9,000 to 7,000 years ago, and tree lines at that time found 200 meters or more higher on mountains than now. These artifacts were easy to find and carbon date, both in Europe and in Canada, sparing the need for a wholesale rewrite of the past 10,000 years of fluctuating warm and cold periods based on narrow type and site of proxies. Greenland ice cores and Atlantic sediment cores also support warming in the early Holocene, and gradual cooling since. This appears to be another attempt to wipe out the Holocene warm period, Egyptian cold period, Minoan and Roman warm periods, Dark Ages cooling, Medieval warm period, Little Ice Age cooling, leaving only a long, very slowly warming interglacial, At least if wipes out Mann’s hockey stick shaft, which showed a cooling trend based on proxies before the blade was spliced from instrument records. Is this what settled science looks like?
similar tree line studies in the arctic show that temperatures 6-8 thousand years ago were warmer than at present. luckily the cave peoples of the day created a carbon tax and saved the planet for us. we should do the same, create a carbon tax and go live in caves to repent our sins.
If you believe in greenhouse gas theory, total greenhouse gases are dominated by H2O and have not changed all that much. CO2 makes very little difference in the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or in the total radiant greenhouse effect because in additon to the fact that there is so much more H2O then any other greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere but molecule per molecule CO2 is a much stronger IR absorber than is CO2. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. Another troubling aspect to this is that the radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be observed anywhere in the solar system including Earth. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivitof CO2 is zero.
a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere
==============
the dry air lapse rate is 9.8 c/km. this is caused by the force of gravity on earth which is 9.8 m/sxs, which controls the conversion between potential energy and kinetic energy during convection.
only kinetic energy affects temperature, so as air falls its kinetic energy increases and its temperature increases because metric units are designed to be convertable, the 9.8 from acceleration shows up as 9.8 temperature.
and it is the dry lapse rate that prevents co2 from changing temperature, because in effect it has to change either the force of gravity or the height of circulation in the troposphere. alternatively the amount of water in the atmosphere can change the wet air lapse rate and thus change eh surface temperature, but this is quite a bit different mechanism than the mechanism proposed for ghg (back radiation).
You don’t need to believe in things that have been proven.
What do you claim has been proven. In general, in climate science nothing is proven because there are just too many varialbles and one cannot perform definitive global climate experiments.
The papers supplementary information is here:
https://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2953-s1.pdf
From the university, a captioned picture from inside the cave:
?itok=gT9JIvsm×tamp=1495471611
Petr Yakubson / Research study author Jonathan Baker and colleagues examine stalagmite KC-1 prior to collection. This stalagmite, which was analyzed at UNLV and the University of New Mexico, had grown for approximately 10,000 years.
Making a sweeping statement such as this about the vast continental Eurasia based on the micro-climate of one cave in an area that borders the meandering semi-tropical and temperate climates of the region is a real stretch for me.
Anyone been to that region? I have. Open Google Maps. Look at the proximity of Sochi (sub-tropical, called the Russia Riviera), for example, to NW Georgia, where you can freeze your tuches in the spring/autumn and winter seasons while the palm trees are swaying a half an inch north in Sochi-on-the-Black-Sea.
Ditto the Caspian Sea, which is just below the Kinderlinksaya Cave. Semi-tropical in northern areas of the Caspian western shores, while a short stretch southwest (as the map shows), the capital of Georgia (Tbilisi) is g.d. freezing in the winter.
As far as I am concerned, this study is like making claims for the entirety of the US based on the micro-climate of the Bayou.
Consider, for example, that the distance between the westernmost and easternmost borders of Russia is the same distance as Seattle to Tehran, as the crow flies. The vast central portion of the country, “central Eurasia,” ranges from year-round bitter cold to never-ending summer.
Oh no, if only I had opened Google Maps or visited Eurasia before the study began! All that work for nothing!
disappearing ice in the Arctic regions of North America controlled the warming
==========================
what caused the ice to disappear?
are the authors really saying that warming caused the warming?
No, no, Ferd. The melting of ice caused the warming.
What caused the melting of the ice?
WBWilson, the ice is now long melted out, why still some warming?
Just for you, ferdberple:
http://bfy.tw/BxsT
[?? .mod]
Lets see the next 3 decades, my bet is we are already seeing cold and warm going in opposite directions. Look at the cold records that have fallen since 2009 globally..
I bet they by far outnumber the warm records that fell since 2009 even though we are plateaued at the warmest part of our modern temperature record.
It all points to treating the whole planet as an object to be measured to produce anomalies is utter nonsense.
I agree with Lindzen in that it’s merely a residue. In my opinion a residue of many things occurring, much of which we don’t understand at all, and of course unknown unknowns.
What happened in past climates is irrelevant as far as proving AGW goes, it really is. What is happening now is ignored (apart from the lets be honest, mostly made up record 1880 to present, it’s a fabrication, there is just not enough data to create such a temp record especially pre 1920s, am I going insane here?)
Present observations do not back the hypothesis. All of the predictions made were incorrect so it is still a hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is a funny thing. It is backed by papers that contradict each other. Backed by models that contradict each other, and observations that contradict each other.
It’s truly amazing.
“All of the predictions made were incorrect so it is still a hypothesis.”
It only takes one failed prediction to falsify the CAGW hypothesis, therefore, CAGW doesn’t even rise to the level of a hypothesis.
It certainly fails on the PER DECADE warming trend Prediction/Projection,the IPCC has been posting about since 1990,that alone exposes the failure of the AGW conjecture.
I’m a bit confused by the headline. Doesn’t the disappearance of the glaciers in New York prove there has been continual warming?
It seems everyone here has accepted the premise that warming is bad and CO2 is therefore a problem. Atmospheric CO2 is a resource, not a problem. We can feed billions and restore the oceans while using CO2. Russ George has proved it with his iron seeding experiment off Canada’s west coast.
[“Everyone”? “Here”? ??? .mod]
Thanks you have made it perfectly clear now!!
“As modern temperatures are influenced in part by greenhouse gases, both summers and winters are expected to warm, whereas past temperatures in those seasons had opposing trajectories, Baker said.”
But the warming/cooling between summer and winter or between the tropics and polar regions is not symmetrical. As the climate warms, cold regions warm more than warm regions as the difference between hot and cold gets smaller. Similarly, as the climate cools, the poles cool faster. The reason is simple and due to the T^4 relationship between emissions and temperature, where in the steady state, emissions are equal to the total solar forcing and it takes more solar forcing to sustain warm temperatures than cold ones.
For reasons that defy logic, the IPCC and its self serving consensus seems to ignore the fact that as a heated body radiates energy away, it cools and that the SB Law tells us that warmer bodies cool faster than cooler ones. They extrapolate the linear relationship between stored energy and temperature to be a linear relationship between forcing and temperature which is only true if the heated body is not radiating and only approximately true when the rate of heating is far greater than the rate of emissions. For the Earth, the steady state rate of heating is equal to the steady state rate of emissions.
Speleothems ALONE actually say nothing about single factors such as temperature or humidity of the environment.
Decisive is the water permeability of the overburding rock formations and the weigh / pressure of the water reservoir above.
If the load of the water reservoir changes due to slopes or earthquakes, the growth of the speleothems also changes.
A change in the direction of a single river of course also changes the future growth of speleothems.
As always feel free free to correct me where I’m wrong – Hans
This is a new ”Yamal tree”. The whole thing is based on 2 stalagmites from a single cave in the Northern Urals, and furthermore their reasoning that the oxygen isotope record there is a faithful record of winter temperatures is shaky to put it mildly:
“We found that above-average winter δ 18Op near the cave site is associated with enhanced westerly flow over the North Atlantic region at the 500-hPa level, whereas atmospheric blocking in the North Atlantic and Scandinavian regions resulted in a more northerly moisture source and below-average δ 18Op (Supplementary Fig. 4). Therefore, we attribute stalagmite δ 18O variability primarily to long-term changes in winter half-year surface temperature near the cave site”
This is supposed to nullify literally thousands of proxy records that indicate that summers and winters were milder during the Holocene optimum.
Love the first line of the abstract: “The global temperature evolution during the Holocene is poorly known.”
and yet, here comes Mr. Baker with two speleothem proxy records to the rescue.
Good luck soon-to-be Dr. Baker explaining that hubris in your post-doc applications.
Thanks! 😉
Spectral components distribution obtained from the stalagmite data records from another Asian cave closely match the Earth’s magnetic dipole spectral composition, unlikely to be a coincidence.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Stein2-Vuk.gif
(geomagnetic data from the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ, Germany.
“continuous warming from the end of the last Ice Age ”
At least the science has caught up to my anti-climate hysteria rejoinder: “we’re coming out of an ice age. What do you think the temperature SHOULD be doing?”.
Stops them cold every time.
lol, wut?
Lol…care to answer: we are coming out of an ice age, what do you think the temperature should show over 15,000 years? A drop? No rise?
I must ask, why title the post “Contradicting consensus climate science”? Since when was there a ‘consensus’ on the global evolution of Holocene surface temperatures? o.O You have a handful of proxy-based studies that summarize the limited data, which the authors admit lack comprehensive coverage and likely contain some regional/seasonal biases. These reconstructions have been challenged by a number of model-based studies (which don’t contradict the proxy data, but suggest they can’t easily be averaged into a global temperature curve, due to underrepresentation and regional heterogeneity).
Here we have a study that doesn’t contradict other regional proxy data (rather, it supports them) and strongly corroborates paleoclimate model reconstructions. A more appropriate title would be: “Paleoclimate models and proxy data match better than suspected”. But hey, how many clicks would that one get? 😉 I guess we know why this is the ‘most viewed site about global warming’. Thanks for the link, nonetheless.
[??? .mod]
I don’t get how the chart illustrates the thesis. The warmest time in the interglacial is 8,000 years ago. It has pretty much cooled ever since except for the rebound from what appears to be the Little If Age.
Agree, that is what I saw, can anyone explain the claim?