Is global warming “unprecedented”?

Not at all. It’s a regular cyclic phenomenon on planet Earth.

Average near-surface temperatures of the northern hemisphere during the past 11,000 years compiled by David Archibald after Dansgaard et al. (1969) & Schönwiese (1995).

Global warming has happened many times before in human history. We’ve had the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum, and the Medieval Warm Period in addition to the current warm period (Dansguard et al., 1968; Schönwiese, 1995; Keigwin, 1996).

Huang et al. (1997) determined that the depiction of the Medieval Warm Period in this graph may be somewhat conservative. According to their study of 6000 boreholes worldwide, the global mean temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period dwarf the changes of the Twentieth Century.

The evidence shows repeatedly that global warming is a regular cyclic phenomenon on planet Earth. In fact, the normal global mean temperature for planet earth given the Phanerozoic history, is actually 19.5 degrees Celcius; a full three degrees higher than the present mean.
Thanks to F. Guimaraes for this link

17 thoughts on “Is global warming “unprecedented”?”

  1. There is an article in the Yahoo News stating that, of course it was warmer in other periods of our history BUT that was due to natural causes – like no volcanoes in the Medieval Warm Period – but our warming is caused by co2. Talk about needing a reality check.

  2. The climate has shown a increase in extremes starting around 2009. This is due to a more meridional ACI, atmospheric circulation index. This is very likely tied to the low solar activity which started in year 2005.

    Less UV light ,impacts concentration /amounts of ozone in such a way that a more meridional atmospheric circulation results. Maunder Minimum/Dalton Minimum ,also had a more meridional ACI. Both were periods of low solar activity.

    Let’s talk about the pathetic global warming models.

    What needs to be exposed here, because it has not been exposed enough, is the global warming models all predicted a more ZONAL atmospheric circulation(+AO,arctic oscillation),due to increases in CO2 ,hence LESS EXTREMES in the climate going forward.
    They (the global warmers ) have only recently(last few years) changed their story ,in an effort to try to cover up this latest global warming model blunder.

    The global warming models have got the basic atmospheric circulation patterns wrong, and the atmospheric temperature profile wrong(hot spot in upper trop. near equator missing,stratospheric cooling not taken place)therefore any climatic forecast they should make, should be considered a joke.
    The chances of a temp. rise between now and the end of the decade ,due to a TRACE gas(co2)with a TRACE increase,I rate as ZERO probability.

    I fully expect a temperature decline, and a contiued increase in climatic extremes ,along with an increase in geological activity. The latter,also associated with prolong solar minimums, such as we have now.

    • I basically agree with you, but I expect the extremes to decrease as the present grand minimum becomes more manifested, mainly due to the rebound of the glaciers of the Arctic region.
      I believe they have a more immediate response to solar radiation than the Antarctic glaciers and after they rebound the climate should stabilize in considerable colder temperatures than now.

      • The Antarctic sea ice anomaly continues its unabated trend upward for nearly 33 years now,

        So far this year we have had only positive anomalies, with minimum of ~ +0.1 mil Km2. Notice that there is no other year in the graph when this happened, since 1979!
        That can be considered “unprecedented”, as far as the records of the graph go! 😉
        Not even in 2008, 2009 and 2010 when the present solar minimum started and the maximum anomalies reached record highs.
        The trend is very obvious and clearly intensified after 2008, which BTW is the year when the glaciers in Alaska started to show signs of rebounding too.

  3. Looks to me like a big Leftist push is on to keep the fraud alive. They are even daring to use the phrase “global warming” instead of the slippery euphemisms they resorted to. One that I read was pretending theat he “was a global warming skeptic” then he saw the light. He goes on to pretend that Roman and Medieval warming were merely local climate not global. The scam seems to be to pretend that warming that is primarily hemispheric, or not a full fledged ice age of millenniums means it was just local and not significant. Holding on to the fraud a few years longer, until the solar behavior brings colder climate starting around 2014 or so, likely means billions or trillions to these insects.

  4. Can’t get much clearer than this. It still won’t convince the global warming fanatics though.

  5. There is no global man made warming. Infact before this decade ends global temperatures will be lower, in response to the prolong solar minimum which started in year 2005.

    If one goes back to 1850 -2012, one will find a rather abrupt end to the Little Ice Age, followed by a temp. increase of +.6c till 1998, followed by more or less neutral temp. since 1998.Solar activity picked up substancially after 1850.

    The climate since 1850 has gone into the regime we are currently in, from the Little Ice Age climatic regime.

    Nothing noteworthly has happend to the climate since 1850 ,(other then the natural oscillations within the same climatic regime,some dramatic to a point, but all in the same climatic regime)
    This could change this decade, due to the prolong solar minimum we are currently in,and at the very least temperatures will be in a lower range.

    One last note ,the reason for the more extreme climate events since 2009, is due to the ACI index becoming more meridional, the opposite by the way of what the AGW models predicted.

    • The ACI index shows an obvious positive correlation with solar radiation, but it seems nonlinear.
      See e.g. fig. 1.4 of the following pdf
      “,Cyclic Climate Change_Fish.pdf”
      The strong cycle-22 cannot be noticed, but the low cycles 14 and 20 are clearly there.
      The sharp peak at the end of the 1930’s correlates with the maximum of cycle-17, the know general warmth of that period and the trend of increasing solar radiation of that time, corresponding to cycles 17, 18 and 19.
      I believe the factor that dampens the direct influence of solar radiation are the oscillations in ocean temperature, PDO, ENSO, etc.

  6. The scientific cart is before the horse. Temps dont ‘make or break’ the iceage glacial inter glacial periods they are a ‘result’ of them. Just plain thermodynamics of heat transfer between cold snow ice covered earth to ice free earth. As the precipitation increases the air temp drops. The so called ‘average temp of the earth is fictitious nonsence and un-physical. At any one time on earth there are temperatures of -50degC (siberia in winter) to +50degC (e.g Sahara desert in summer) thats 100C differential! There is NO regulator of temps. Thermodynamics says if you put heat in it gets hotter (unless there is some form of heat ‘sink’) till infinitum! (Star temps at 10^8C from nuclear processes). I would guess that in an iceage there were places (probably nearer the equator) that had 30C days.

  7. I notice that our fading warm period was much briefer than in the past…and I tend to think that the “norm” for Earth is cooler rather than warmer. Wonder if anyone has thought to see if the core of Earth was warmer in the past than it is now? Seems to me that the temps at the center of our planet might also affect the planet.

Comments are closed.