The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » 9,100 years of the past 10,000 years were warmer (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Which year was the warmest over the past century?

According to Professor Don Easterbrook:

Quote:
1934 has long been considered the warmest year of the past century. A decade ago, the closest challenger appeared to be 1998, a super-el nino year, but it trailed 1934 by 0.54°C (0.97°F). Since then, NASA GISS has “adjusted” the U.S. data for 1934 downward and 1998 upward (see December 25, 2010 post by Ira Glickstein) in an attempt to make 1998 warmer than 1934 and seemingly erased the original rather large lead of 1934 over 1998. The last phases of the strong 2009-2010 el nino in early 2010 made this year another possible contender for the warmest year of the century. However, December 2010 has been one of the coldest Decembers in a century in many parts of the world, so 2010 probably won’t be warmer than 1998. But does it really matter? Regardless of which year wins the temperature adjustment battle, how significant will that be? To answer that question, we need to look at a much longer time frame‒centuries and millennia.


The comparison is based on the Greenland ice records:

Quote:
One of the best ways to look at long-term temperatures is with isotope data from the GISP2 Greenland ice core, from which temperatures for thousands of years can be determined. The ice core isotope data were obtained by Minze Stuiver and Peter Grootes from nuclear accelerator measurements of thousands of oxygen isotope ratios (16O/18O), which are a measure of paleo-temperatures at the time snow fell that was later converted to glacial ice. The age of such temperatures can be accurately measured from annual layers of accumulation of rock debris marking each summer’s melting of ice and concentration of rock debris on the glacier.


So how warm was it?


Quote:
Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.

The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.


Here's the figure:

Image


Professor Easterbrook's conclusion regarding the global warming hysteria: "It’s really much to do about nothing."

How about that?

Woland
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Your link doesn't work, so I don't know exactly where you got this from. However:

"Don Easterbrook, the retired geology professor who predicted that the world was headed for decades of global cooling at the recent Heartland climate sceptic conference, appears to have crudely faked one of the key graphs in his presentation in order to reduce modern temperatures and make historical climate look warmer than justified. Looking through Easterbrook’s slides, it seems he has taken a graph of Holocene temperature variations prepared by Global Warming Art (used at Wikipedia), and altered it to fraudulently bolster his case."

http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-east......incline/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/......incl.php

The above may well be why Easterbrook's work has (evidently) gotten no other attention worthy of note.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Wow Woland. You found one retired geology professor who agrees with you. You must be right. What were we thinking?

(BTW the link you provided is dead.)

Here is a response to the graphs by New Zealand journalist Gareth Renowden.

Whose lie is it anyway? Easterbrook caught red-handed

by Gareth [Renowden] on May 30, 2010

Don Easterbrook was forthright in his attempt to rebut my discovery that he had used an edited version of a graph of Holocene temperatures originally prepared by Global Warming Art in his recent Heartland conference presentation. He accused me of telling a “dispicable” lie, amongst other things:

The charge by ‘the truffle grower’ that I used a graph “prepared by Global Warming Art” and that I “altered it to fraudulently bolster his case” is an outright, contemptible lie. I have the entire Greenland oxygen isotope data in my computer and use it extensively to plot data, so why would I use anything else? The data I use has never been altered in any way.

Unfortunately for Easterbrook, his own web site contains material that proves he is the one telling “outright, contemptible” lies, and defaming me in the process. Here’s why…

Diligent digging at Easterbrook’s web site by Hot Topic reader Glacier Guy unearthed the Powerpoint file for a presentation Easterbrook gave to the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver in October 2007 (go to Easterbrook’s Western Washington University page, download the pdf of the abstract to the talk entitled Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century and you’ll find a link to the .ppt file there — but to save the effort, I’ve provided a direct link above). Here’s Easterbrook’s slide 17 from that talk. Readers who have been following cooling-gate will find it looks familiar:
Image

Similar to the GWA original, is it not?:

Image


As is obvious, when preparing his 2007 presentation he couldn’t be bothered to get rid of all the temperature proxy “spaghetti” lines from Robert Rohde’s original. He just took out the inset showing “recent proxies”, drew a new baseline (based, by the look of it on an attempt to replicate the 1905 “present” he prefers to use), and labelled the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

By the time of the Heartland conference, however, he’d done a little tidying up and helpfully labelled his new (and entirely fraudulent) baseline:
Image


The genesis of Easterbrook’s slide at the Heartland conference is clear. He “borrowed” the Global Warming Art graph in 2007 (if not earlier), and made some crude alterations to it then. Over the years, he has refined the presentation somewhat, but compounded the fraud. That he was familiar with GWA as a source of graphical material is also confirmed by his 2007 presentation, because slide 18 is a direct lift of this GWA graph of recent temperature proxy reconstructions, edited by the removal of a data point labelled “2004″. Ring any bells?

It is quite clear from the evidence that Easterbrook has not only edited these graphics to change the information they contain, but done so in order to minimise the appearance of recent global warming and to support his own oddball contention that global cooling is about to begin. This is at the very least academic malpractice, particularly by such a distinguished professor emeritus. It might be interesting to discover what the Western Washington University thinks of his behaviour. It is also clear that his aggressive, failed attempt to rebut my original post is defamatory, as is the rush to republish his remarks by other web sites. It would be nice if Easterbrook issued a public apology to me and to Global Warming Art, but I will not be holding my breath while waiting for it to arrive. Meanwhile, the silence from the climate sceptic echo chamber about the scandal in their ranks is becoming deafening.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Magnus,

It isn't clear to me from the discussion you reproduce, what exactly is wrong with the data or the graph presented by Dr. Easterbrook. Even if his opponent is correct, and the origin of his slide was a slide prepared by the GWA, no matter which version you look at, the climate has been warmer than it is now for most of the past 10,000 years.

And that's something for which I am thankful. I would not want to be sitting under a mile thick carpet of ice, as in the last great ice age.

Woland
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3335 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2010-12-29 12:46, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

It isn't clear to me from the discussion you reproduce, what exactly is wrong with the data or the graph presented by Dr. Easterbrook. Even if his opponent is correct, and the origin of his slide was a slide prepared by the GWA, no matter which version you look at, the climate has been warmer than it is now for most of the past 10,000 years.

And that's something for which I am thankful. I would not want to be sitting under a mile thick carpet of ice, as in the last great ice age.

Woland
How about merely under an extra meter or two of sea water? That seems much more agreeable. At least we'll be a couple of degrees warmer, on average.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
It would be.
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3335 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2010-12-29 13:57, Woland wrote:
It would be.
Miami, Venice, New York, Mumbai, Singapore, Osaka, New Orleans, Tampa/St Pete, Dhaka and Tokyo would all probably disagree with you. All of which would be paralyzed or possibly destroyed by such a dramatic climate change, even over time. But I'm sure you're right.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Woland, if you follow Balducci's links you will find

Quote:
Easterbrook has altered the graph considerably. The dotted line across the graph marks the zero anomaly, which Rohde has set at the mid-20th century average values. To put current temperatures in perspective, he has provided an arrow indicating 2004′s temperature and a box providing an expanded scale for the last 2000 years. Easterbrook has erased that arrow, all the individual reconstructions and the detail box, and drawn a new line at 0.25ºC below zero. This he labels “present day temperature”. Areas above the new line are infilled in red, those below in blue. Easterbrook has quite deliberately altered the graph to reduce “current temperatures” by 0.75ºC and make the curve fit his storyline. The original suggests that current temperatures are comparable to, perhaps higher than the warmest period of the Holocene, the post-glacial climatic optimum 8000 years ago. Easterbrook’s version gives the impression that for most of the last 10,000 years temperature has been warmer than today.


You may wish to pursue the evidence in detail for yourself.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Magnus,

I saw that. But the argument really doesn't depend on where you put a dotted line representing "present day temperature." Draw the line wherever you want, it makes no difference: the temperatures we are measuring now are just not really exceptional, and certainly not exceptionally warm, when compared to tghe past 10,000 years.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
He committed fraud. Do you understand that?

Are you still willing to champion his claim that "It’s really much to do [sic] about nothing" even though it is based on demonstrably fraudulent data?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
I don't think the underlying data are fraudulent, even if he did, as alleged, copy someone else's PowerPoint slide.

Do you really think that the climate today is out-of-line warmer than the variable average of the previous 9,000 years?

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
Easterbrook has erased that arrow, all the individual reconstructions and the detail box, and drawn a new line at 0.25ºC below zero. This he labels “present day temperature”.... Easterbrook has quite deliberately altered the graph to reduce “current temperatures” by 0.75ºC and make the curve fit his storyline.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Do you think the climate today is out-of-line warmer than the variable average of the previous 9,000 years?
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21001 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-29 14:05, gaddy wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-29 13:57, Woland wrote:
It would be.
Miami, Venice, New York, Mumbai, Singapore, Osaka, New Orleans, Tampa/St Pete, Dhaka and Tokyo would all probably disagree with you. All of which would be paralyzed or possibly destroyed by such a dramatic climate change, even over time. But I'm sure you're right.


Seems to me this is hysteria at best, and propeganda at worst. But is is certainly not provable that any city will be under sea water.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21001 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Again before we get to multiple pages, can we all agree we agree with our former positions?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-29 15:22, Woland wrote:
Do you think the climate today is out-of-line warmer than the variable average of the previous 9,000 years?


I have no idea, and I do not know if it is relevant to the question of anthropogenic effects on climate.

I do understand the current concern with emissions and I have an elementary understanding of the mechanisms by which these gases are alleged to interfere with the equilibrium radiative cooling of the earth.

I also know enough to recognize that Easterbrook's graph was doctored. Whatever the truth is about current temperatures, Easterbrook's graph appears to misrepresent any known data.

At the end of the day, I am convinced by the body of evidence that I have examined that human activity is having an effect on global temperatures. I lack the necessary training to deeply assess the evidence and counter-evidence. The counter-evidence brought to the Café so far has been laughably weak, and it has had no effect on my beliefs whatsoever.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27237 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Have you read Charles Stross's concerns regarding the increase in computation? This has been foreshadowed in a way by Pullman's discussion of 'dust'. It's not called a stress-energy tensor for nothing, you know.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Woland, the reason those years were warm was because nature anticipated the horrific damage that the US would do and was issuing a warming warning. Yes, nature is psychic. How DARE you challenge the beliefs of the warmers! Remember the Jim Croce song:

You don't tug on supermans cape
you don't spit in the wind
you don't challenge the beliefs of a global warmer
and you don't mess around with Jim.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27237 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
So, where are we in the period between ice ages and warming over the long term of tens of thousands of years?

Gotta start with some basline data as context before we worry that a long rain is another biblical flood.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
I should have learned that lesson by now, MagicSanta. I am just a glutton for punishment.

Jonathan, I am not familiar with either of those authors, but Dust seems very interesting. I am indebted to you for the reference.

Woland
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » 9,100 years of the past 10,000 years were warmer (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL