Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.

It's pretty damn hot where I'm at. Anything you humans can do to improve the air quality, or possibly lower the temps is much appreciated.

 

Temperatures from a warm period that happened around 1050 years ago, and one between 5000 to 9000 years ago are around the temperatures of today. Ignoring that the research presented were looking at local regions for the time frames, and not globally, that means the Medieval Warm Period peaks of this graph should be about even with today's, which is higher than the 2004 point.


Nothing presented in the link is claiming the Little Ice Age and the time between it and modern day temperatures should be warmer. With the recent climb in temperature s over the past decades still being rapid, how does this prove that today's heat rise isn't unprecedented or remarkable? The period before the MWP wasn't as cold as the period before the modern age.

The lower ocean heat content and surface temperatures raise an interesting question, where did that heat go? Someone can correct me, but I don't think it can skip over the atmosphere and return to space. Is it going deeper, or transferring to the air?

 

Your stupidity isn't "Unprecedented, Or Remarkable" either.
It is just boring.

And the proper word is not "demonstrating". "Speculating" would be more accurate.

 

Do think that the orbit of the earth around the sun is exactly the same every year? A relatively small change in distance between the sun and the earth would make a difference in temperature.

 

It is good to know that notrickzone has assembled this list. Better for mojo to work through them to see which ones' proxies end in 1850 (as does GISP2 which was among these citations).

Because most paleo-T proxies do not extend to present, for a variety of (perfectly reasonable) limitations. And we'd rather not make that same GISP2 error here, again again again.

So mojo would make that effort. Or content himself with the heavy lifting of posting a URL, and assert that additional work is somebody else's problem. Let's watch and see...

 

Graph@3. Posted so many times, but 2004 is neither current nor right time scale. Color squiggles have about 30-yr time constant. So it would seem better to extend the black squiggle (which is surface instrumental T damped to that same time constant) forward to include newest data.

 

Source: Berkeley Earth

Since 1850 to within one year of today, an excellent global thermometer where people live. I appreciate the paleo efforts but gosh darn, Berkeley is contemporary data:


Bob Wilson

 

I just grabbed the first graph I came across to show that these new higher values being reported, for some areas of the world, for the Medieval Warm Period have lead to the lower temperatures between these warm periods being adjust upward.

 

So?
Unless the graph is showing the Little Ice Age to be colder than it actually was, my point stands.

Your link in the OP sites several papers that have reached the conclusion that the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Holocene were warmer than previously thought. It seems to think that this means, "scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability."

You need to do more than just throw up some charts. You can start with answering some questions.
Why and how do these local analysis apply to the global temperature levels? Do they reflect global trends of the time or are they exceptions to it?
How does there being warmer periods within human history negate the rapid the temperature rise of the past few decades?
Are these new highs also preceded by a more rapid temperature increase; did the rate get faster than having a new high would imply?

 

For the purposes of this thread, the year-to-year changes in our orbit around the sun are negligible. The changes are tiny, and not in random weather-like patterns.

Over longer periods, such as ice age cycles, then the accumulated changes do become significant.

 

"That graph is"@10. It is not, but more importantly, what does IPCC report contain? As IPCC support was chosen as a metric. See panel A below:

...hmmm not so easy if I cannot upload an image. Defer that and just say that the highest paleo-T (within most likely range of compilation since 850 AD) was exceeded in about 1970.

Or one could obtain IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch5 Fig 5-08 directly.

 

Hey Mojo, I like the da Vinci quote. I proves itself every day.