Earth Warmer than Today, Much of Past 10,000 Years

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by mojo, Mar 9, 2017.

  1. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
  2. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    88,161
    39,332
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    warmest february on record. two years in a row, then the march chill kills all the buds on my shrubs and trees. off record, i have no idea.
     
  3. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,536
    2,839
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    From the link:
    Starting years of the graphs. Positive numbers years AD, negative numbers are BC (BCE)

    1946
    1850
    1890
    1810
    -2000
    -2000
    1882
    1940
    1360 (grape-harvest dates*)
    1800
    1800
    1835
    1890
    1978
    1200
    1810
    -9500
    800
    -11500
    -190
    1000
    -750
    -14000
    -9500
    1750
    -2500
    -6000 (the GISP2 ice-core ‘present’ is 1850, as discussed previously)
    -26000
    -17000
    -7000
    -2000
    -3500
    -1200
    0
    -7000
    -6500
    -5000
    -6000

    So, one would first set aside those studies that cover only a fraction of past 10,000 years, as that is the claim. Remainder are temperature proxies, which may of may not have been realistically compared to current (or 20th - 21st) century temperatures. This new GISP2 study is not, and this is by now an old topic here.

    Any that do that are suitable to 'go up against' the long list of temperature proxies, many published since Mann Hockey stick, that indicate past 10,00 years were not globally warmer.

    I hope someone performs that very useful task.

    * the grape-harvest dates study was linked in its entirety and I enjoyed reading authors' disclaimer that technique was only intended to show that harvests after 1258 AD volcanic eruption were different from all other years. In other words they did not claim to present a climatology. But, read it yourself.
     
  4. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Duh, Im referring to the studies which encompass the the past 10,000 years.
    Thats all we have is proxies to determine Earths climate history.Now that there is a consensus amongst peer reviewed studies ,
    which goes against your theory can you please acknowledge that your CO2 theory is unfounded?

    But you support Manns BS proxies but you doubt multiple other scientists peer reviewed conclusions?

    Tohachtu your response is pure BS.
     
  5. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,536
    2,839
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    OK, we are down to about 11 not 30 studies. You might have said so in the first place. Which ones of those realistically correlate paleo-proxy values with current temperature measurements? The cited GISP2 study does not, because that problem has long been clear. Are you volunteering to look into the others, hoping that I will, or neither?

    It is difficult for me to believe that you still are aware of no newer compilations of global paleo-T proxies that Mann Hockey Stick. It is those that ought to be compared with 'survivors' from your above-posted list.

    Paleo-proxies over this time scale show ups and downs. This we have discussed before. Some of your list add to that. It is possible that you will eventually 'get it' that one more step is required to assert paleo-T was (for whatever length of time) higher than present T.

    I have stated that step 2 times now. Not obvious that a 3rd time will help.

    Paleo-proxies over this time scale show ups and downs. what this says to me is that ocean thermal dynamics and albedo feedbacks are inadequately understood. Unless those are remedied, climate models will fall short of what we wish them to do. We could at least agree on that, even if you do not want to go further as above.

    I am always happy to see compilations of paleo-T proxies, whether or not they were (can be) realistically tied to current temperatures. They can still be compared among themselves towards that important goal of concordance. They illustrate ranges and rates of natural variation for different regions prior to human effects on climate.

    Post-hockey-stick studies smoosh them all together to obtain a single metric of T through time. This is not an adequate use of information. Variation through space and time is important. Especially during the most recent 10 k years, during which humans changed from being just the cleverest primates to civilization and planetary dominance.

    We own all that, the good, bad, and uncounted externalities. Not striving to understand it is simply not striving. Asserting that human effects are minor or (essentially) suicidal is neither one enough. Neither is improved by loud repetition nor gratuitous insults.

    There is more work to be done. These compilations help, but they are not enough.

    +++

    As always, the simplest response to "global T was higher during much of these 10 k yrs" is "if so, global sea level would have also been higher and we'd know that". But simplest is not enough either.
     
  6. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
  7. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    88,161
    39,332
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    29 degrees in mahwah, nj.:eek:
     
  8. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,536
    2,839
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    [email protected] may refer to

    Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review
    Stephen E. Lewis et al.
    Quaternary Science Reviews 74 (2013) 115-138.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.09.006

    If so, local site results are in figures 3 through 7.
    For the global situation:

    Lambeck et al 2014 Holocene sea level.png

    As they both work in Australia, it would be simple enough to email Dr. Lewis asking if his Australia results in any way contradict Dr. Lambeck's global review. Such may support mojo's idea, so let's hope to see those results posted here.
     
  9. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    History falsifies climate alarmist sea level claims | Watts Up With That?

    "The facts of history are clear. Sea level was 400 feet lower at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age, 18,000 years ago. Sea levels rose rapidly until 8,000 years ago. As recently as 1066, when the Normans conquered England, sea levels were quite a bit higher than today.

    During the Little Ice Age, 1300 to 1850 – when temperatures were the coldest during any time in the past 10,000 years – snow and ice accumulated in Greenland, Antarctica, Europe and glaciers worldwide. As a consequence, sea levels fell so much that important Roman Era and Medieval port cities (like Ephesus, Ostia Antica and Pisa) were left miles from the Mediterranean."
     
  10. Bill the Engineer

    Bill the Engineer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    993
    2,070
    467
    Location:
    At the beach in Delaware...
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    Argue all you want. All I know is that some of the back streets I drove on 40 years ago in Seaside Heights, New Jersey, are now covered with water at high tide. I don't care who caused it.
     
    Insirt, Trollbait and bisco like this.
  11. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    88,161
    39,332
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    we're gonna take back those streets! it's going to be amazing! make new jersey great again!;)
     
    #11 bisco, Mar 12, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2017
  12. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,536
    2,839
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Facts of history @9. This link from 2013 December merits study. To write something quite misleading while only rarely saying false things - well, it's a skill.

    Here we might stick with the Roman era sea level question because it's on the original topic. Here again Eric Lambeck has published:

    Sea level in Roman time in the Central Mediterranean and implications for recent change
    Kurt Lambeck et al.
    Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224 (2004) 563– 575.
    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.031

    The entire abstract:
    “Instrumental records indicate that ocean volumes during the 20th century have increased so as to raise eustatic sea level by ~1–2 mm/year and the few available records suggest that this is higher than for the previous century. Geological data indicate that ocean volumes have increased since the main phase of deglaciation about 7000 years ago but whether this continued into the recent past remains unclear. Yet, this is important for establishing whether the recent rise is associated with global warming or is part of a longer duration non-anthropogenic signal. Here, we present results for sea-level change in the central Mediterranean basin for the Roman Period using new archaeological evidence. These data provide a precise measure of local sea level of - 1.35 ± 0.07 m at 2000 years ago. Part of this change is the result of ongoing glacio-hydro isostatic adjustment of the crust subsequent to the last deglaciation. When corrected for this, using geologically constrained model predictions, the change in eustatic sea level since the Roman Period is - 0.13 ± 0.09 m. A comparison with tide-gauge records from nearby locations and with geologically constrained model predictions of the glacio-isostatic contributions establishes that the onset of modern sea-level rise occurred in recent time at ~100 ± 53 years before present.”

    +++
    So, did the link @6 refer to Lewis et al. 2013 I mentioned?
     
  13. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    2,036
    998
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius c
    Model:
    Four
    This is fractured logic.
    The supplied facts do NOT logically lead to this conclusion, even if you believe that they are presented 100% correctly.
    It's kind of like "fake news".
     
    dslomer64 and Insirt like this.
  14. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    15,046
    6,797
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Well, duh. When water is trapped in land bound ice, it isn't in the oceans. When it melts...

    My grandparents had a bungalow on the beach in Seaside Park. Being a little higher in elevation than the Heights gave protection during Sandy, but so did the dune that was allowed to grow since the early '80s.
     
  15. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,536
    2,839
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    First question is still hanging. Mann hockey stick seems to persist as a whipping boy. We might look at:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch 5 Fig5-08a.jpg

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch5 Fig 5-08a, comprising much more data and analyses than were in that hated hockey stick. Some readers would want to find out how these dark and light gray T bands were developed.

    All other readers can observe that at about 1970, temperatures rose above the medieval climate anomaly (MCA). Since 1970 surface-T (example HADCRUT4) has increased 0.8 oC. satellite-T proxy started in 1979 (Dec 1978, UAH) and has increased by 0.55 oC. So, whatever recent T you prefer, this is where we are. In 2017, off the top of this chart.

    If there are other prior proxy T records that tell a different story, it would be incumbent on them to make their case. Top journals (Nature, Science, PNAS) are waiting for manuscripts. It is in everyones' best interest to know, as well as possible, how T has changed over this time.
     
    #15 tochatihu, Jun 9, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
    Insirt likes this.
  16. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,536
    2,839
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    But wait, there's more :)

    Maunder Minimum zero-sunspots were from 1650 to 1700 and you can see T then. Short sharp T reduction about 0.2 oC around 1830 also had few (not zero) sunspots. Perhaps it could happen again if the next sunspot cycle fails to develop. But that would fight against larger ongoing T increase and lead to ...what?

    The large and long +T since 1850 co-occurred with +CO2. As CO2 does trap outgoing energy, much mental effort is required to treat that as a coincidence.
     
  17. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,536
    2,839
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    To get from where we are now (0.5 to 0.8 oC above 1970, above MCA) to LIA T would require -1oC or more. And quickly, and with warm oceans. I find it refreshing that we have at least one PC poster promoting that narrow possibility.
     
    #17 tochatihu, Jun 9, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  18. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    15,046
    6,797
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Another thread here had second degree links to studies in which the MCA might have been warmer than previously determined. At least around the South China Sea and the Iberian peninsula.

    I don't think the MCA was preceeded by massive burning of fossil fuels though.
     
  19. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    6temp.chart.n.co2.jpg
     
  20. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Earth was warmer than today for much of the past 10,000 years WHILE CO2 WAS AT 280ppm .CO2 didnt cause that warming.During previous Ice Ages CO2 was at 4000 ppm .No correlation.
     
    Paranormal Rob likes this.
Loading...