A picture of global warming

It’s crystal clear......modest CO2 increases in the first half of the 20th century yielded similar temperature increases... about 0.7 degrees ....to dramatic CO2 increases in the second half of the 20th century....about 0.7 degrees.

"It’s crystal clear......modest CO2 increases in the first half of the 20th century yielded similar temperature increases... about 0.7 degrees ....to dramatic CO2 increases in the second half of the 20th century....about 0.7 degrees."

The early warming of the 20th century was caused predominately by natural factors.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.522

Natural factors that are not presently occurring.

Nor was the rate of warming as fast as the current rate of warming.

Of course it was caused by natural factors that you  warmer groupies believe stopped and stayed exactly the same through the second half of the century. Nonsense of course because if an even temperature is applied to a kettle in continues to get warmer.

Of course the 1900 to 1950 natural factors continued in the second half of the century, maybe at a diminished impact....but they were dramatically pushing temps right up to 1949. They didn’t stop on a dime.

The rate of warming was not as fast....it was faster.

1950 peak to 2000 peak plus 0.4 degrees.

1900 peak to 1950 peak plus 0.7 degrees.

Inconvenient huh?

"Natural factors that are not presently occurring."

What were they?

What's also pretty funny is that Shark claims that the graph covers too much time to be able to focus in on a 150 year period.

He then uses the same long graph to illustrate why the last 50 years have been abnormal.

Does anybody else see a problem there?

Shark, what you should do, if your being fair, is to take that long graph, isolate all the 50 to 300 year periods where temperatures increased....and then see how the current rise compares to those. 

Here Vissie

I count 8 similar rises over the last 12 thousand years, some not as long but just as steep.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File%3AHolocene_Temperature_Variations.png

That's 12 000 years.

What happens when I take 100 000 years or more of data and look for similar rises? Will I find another 8, 50, 100 or a 1000 similar temperature rises that occurred without humans being being involved?

Also look at the most recent dip...and notice how the current rise is returning the line to where it was 800 years ago.

This is from the same page where you lifted the previous graph that you posted here.

Even longer term records exist for few sites: the recent Antarctic EPICA core reaches 800 kyr; many others reach more than 100,000 years. The EPICA core covers eight glacial/interglacial cycles. The NGRIP core from Greenland stretches back more than 100 kyr, with 5 kyr in the Eemian interglacial. Whilst the large-scale signals from the cores are clear, there are problems interpreting the detail, and connecting the isotopic variation to the temperature signal.

What goes up, must come down.

It seems to be the case that when you take periods of 10 000, 100 000 or 1 000 000 years...there is nothing special about what is happening now. 

Sharky probably interoperates graphs the same way he interprets blood alcohol level...very badly haha.

Yes, Draad, that last graph you posted is the one I referred to with the link.

Look at the most recent dip...how steep the drop and steep the climb. It's basically a laterally inverted i mage when you divide the dip in half at its lowest point.

I guess temperature, according to our climate change pals, is supposed to drop rapidly, then rise much more slowly than it dropped. 

Even though it hasn't done that previously in earth's history.

"Blikkies

See what happens when you point out almost symmetrical rises and falls from Vissie's page...

Green = Further from same rise/drop ratio

Red = Closer to same rise drop ratio.

That's over 12 000 years...the time "modern humans" walked the Earth after the Ice Age...how will we survive the next "plunge" if we spend all our resources in preventing it...we should rather focus on adapting to the inevitable.

@plum

As you'll note, Star, I'm sticking with this particular red herring for now.

The last time earth was very hot and had extremely high(highest ever) CO2 levels, were there more or less droughts?

It's simple, the earth was 5-7 degrees warmer during the PETM and it rained about 4 times as much as today.

Having looked at various papers and articles on the PETM, it isn't clear. For example you quoted from a blog that was referencing a a published scientific paper on the PETM that suggested less drought than expected but that was looking specifically at the South American rain forests and not the whole globe.

Can you give the source for it raining 4 times as much as today globally. Again from looking around I can't find anything confirming that but I can find papers that indicated rain patterns changed but that different regions of the global where affected differently. There may have indeed been more rain overly but that doesn't mean it was evenly distributed across the world. Some regions may same a lot less rain, while others got far more severe cases of heavy rain.

“However, here are two key points that fly directly in the face of your idea of increased droughts... “

Its not my idea, its what the scientific evidence indicates.

“1) There was no large scale die-off of tropical vegetation. It had earlier been speuclated that the PETM might have been too hot for the survival of tropical plants, but at least in Columbia/Venezuela, this doesn't appear to have been the case. The tropical forest persisted, and in fact became more diverse:

2) There is no evidence of increased drought stress from the composition of plants seen in the sediments analysed:”

Have tracked down the source of your quote I can see its from a blog belonging to a scientist (not a climate scientist) who is referencing a published paper on the PETM. I take it by quoting this scientist that you support his position that CO2 drives climate change as he lists it as the leading contender for the cause of the temperature warming during the PETM. I take it we are at least in agreement that CO2 can cause the planet to warm, you just don't agree with me on on the consequences of it?

But again I find it another example of cherry picking. I note you left out this quote from the blog

“ There was a global extinction event, with large amounts of ocean flora disappearing “

But okay while that's another downside of global warming its not really relevant to the topic of droughts so on to those two points.

1. No large scale die-off of tropical vegetation. Note the key word being tropical and other research indicates large extinction of other plant species for example conifers. What your omitting here is the time frame, huge numbers of plant species went extinct and where indeed replaced by new plant species or other plant species that migrated and became dominate in a region, eventually resulting even more biodiversity than before the PETM. This happened in geological terms very quickly but that is still extremely slow process, tens of thousands of year. Humanity can't afford to wait for biodiversity to naturally adapt to the new climate and as the rate of warming now is greater than during the PETM, plant life will have less time to adapt.

No evidence of increased drought stress, but that only pertains to one part of the world and even the the blogger has stated “Of course, it's only one small area of the globe, so that limits how general a conclusion can be drawn. “ Its something worth looking at and trying to understand why the area of the world where the research was conducted suffered less drought than expected. Understanding the cause of it may allow future predictions to be even more accurate. The author of the blog found it encouraging that indicated maybe projected drought would not be so bad. But if you look at the bloggers other posts and more recent posts than the on you quoted in 2010. Its obvious he's clearly a proponent of man made climate change and this paper hasn't convinced to him change his position that urgent action needs to be taken to combat climate change. Why has not reached the same conclusion as you?

“You are adamant that global warming = drought and famine.

However, the fossil and geological record shows that even in the most extreme case of global warming, droughts were less abundant and plants thrived...as well as an increase in biodiversity.“

Can you provide a link to where the fossil and geological records show that even in extreme case of global warming droughts occurred less globally and not in just one specific region.

Can you also show where in the fossil record, that there wasn't masse extinction of plant life with extreme rise in global temperatures and that the time frame for the increase in biodiversity is so quick in compensating for the species that lost that it wouldn't have an affect on human life if it was to occur in the future.

Asia, South America and Europe saw more rain during the PETM. Those are from studies I've found. But I bet Africa saw similarly increased rainfall.

Links to those studies please?

Here, Star

The two points I posted there are from a paper and mentioned in a blog. Relevant exerts from the paper are included.

https://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-tropical-drought-in-paleocene-eocene.html?m=1

I could post all the papers that deal with Asia, South America and Europe as regards higher rainfall during the PETM but why don't you just google it yourself?

Honestly, it's pretty easy to find.

The paper you posted was limited to the South American rain forest not the entire globe during the PETM.

You don't need to link all the papers, just one that states that globally rainfall increase during the PETM. 

I have for example found a paper that said rainfall increased in a region of China, but a region of China does not equal Asia.

I have also seen sources online that say regions along the east Atlantic became increasingly arid during the PETM .

Star

I don't have the patience to catch you up. The fossil record of rainforest trees, plants and animals from the PETM isn't a disputed matter. What is disputed, though less so recently, is what caused the maximum.

In fact, one doesn't even need the plant fossil record. Simply looking at animal fossils is enough. Rainforest animals occur in rainforest areas. On top of that...rainforests need a certain thing...and it's in the name. Yes, there was plenty of rain.

It's true that rainforests in actual fact don't have very fertile soil. But the Amazonians figured out what to do about that problem and I'm sure we can too. Look up terra preta, otherwise known as Amazonian dark soil, if you wanna go down and an unexpected rabbit hole. 

The mere existence of terra preta is an anomaly. However, when you look at how widespread and well used it was, there are anthropological implications that are pretty nuts. Seriously, look into it. You won't be disappointed.

I am particularly discussing your contention that droughts and famine are coming. 

Poor old Rooi peepie, unable to participate (he’s not very bright and doesn’t understand numbers) he stands on the side lines throwing insults.

Climate change can’t be reduced to a mathematical equation or a laboratory experiment....there are too many factors involved. It is essentially an exercise in informed empiricism. But unfortunately to date it’s an exercise in bent empiricism.

Simply dividing the 20th century into it’s two halves demonstrates the dominating role of natural causes.

Here, Star

This guy does a god job of it.

Hey Rooi

Remember when you had a smidge of relevance?

"Climate change can’t be reduced to a mathematical equation or a laboratory experiment....there are too many factors involved. It is essentially an exercise in informed empiricism. But unfortunately to date it’s an exercise in bent empiricism."

They like to extrapolate the data and make lots of assumptions...not very scientific at all.

To me it is obvious that we should urgently find ways to lessen the impact on the environment...the planet is going downhill fast, but it's obvious if the field of climate science has been politicized to the extreme and almost all the focus is on carbon...

"Climate change can’t be reduced to a mathematical equation or a laboratory experiment....there are too many factors involved. It is essentially an exercise in informed empiricism. But unfortunately to date it’s an exercise in bent empiricism."

Be honest here, if the mathematical equations and laboratory experiments supported your side of the argument you be on here praising the validity of them.

"This guy does a god job of it."

Plum, that video supports the position that CO2 drives temperature rises, that rate of temperature rise during the PETM was much slower than the current warming, that sea levels where much higher due to a lack of polar ice caps, that sea temperatures rose and the oceans became more acidified which devastated the marine eco system. It did indicate that tropical plants spread across wide parts of the world but it did not give the time frame. You are free to check but that process took thousands of years. The rate of temperature rise in the PETM, gave the plant life more time to adapt. Even if the process was close to instantaneous as you freely admit rain forest don't have very futile soil, so an increase in rain forests doesn't really support food production for large populations.

The fact that evidence indicates rain forest in South America during the PETM did not experience the expected drought does not mean you came assume the same across the whole globe during the PETM or that without understanding why it didn't experience the expected drought that we should just hope for the same to happen with the current warming the planet is experiencing.

I don't really know how I can make it much clear. CO2 is causing the planet to heat up, higher temperatures cause more drought by evaporating water in soil, water that is need for plants and crop to grow. Plants and crops will die hence famine. There is other factors like ice cover melting too early meaning dams, rivers and reservoirs are topped up to early and our out of alignment with peak water usage.

Yes increasing temperatures will cause increase rainfall but not in all regions. Modelling predicts less rain fall in South Europe, North Africa, South Africa, the middle east, Australia, parts of South America, Central American, South West and parts of central USA as well the Caribbean, the fact that its raining more in other parts of the world does not help these regions. As I said the dry area's of the planet will get dryer and the wet area's will get wetter.

I don't really know how I can make it much clear. CO2 is causing the planet to heat up, higher temperatures cause more drought by evaporating water in soil, water that is need for plants and crop to grow. Plants and crops will die hence famine.

BS...droughts are lack of rain...and without evaporation there can't be any rain...it's not as simple as what's being made out.

Star

Rainforests = rain, is the point. 

Perhaps you didn't know, we are able to curb rainforest encroachment these days. We'll have just the rain, thank you very much.

Anyhow...

"East African vegetation and hydrological responses to the global change occurring at the PETM. Although total organic carbon contents decrease, the concentrations of both higher plant (n-alkanes, n-alkanoic acids) and soil bacterial (glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers) biomarkers increase dramatically at the onset of the PETM negative carbon isotope excursion (CIE), suggesting an increased discharge of fluvial sedimentary organic matter."

Hotter, drier, not tropical but still good for plants. Fancy that.

We know, via similar studies, that Southern Europe experienced a similar higher rainfall. And I'm gonna guess that the rest of North Africa wasn't too much different - similar latitudes and all.

You are going to have to start being more specific if you wish to use "models" as your argument. 

You mention the USA - What size is the landmass that will receive less rain and what type of rainfall does it presently experience?

And, if I go looking, am I gonna find that the PETM resulted in higher rainfall over Australia too?

BS...droughts are lack of rain...and without evaporation there can't be any rain...it's not as simple as what's being made out.

Yup and there will be less rain in hotter regions which will result in less water in the soil which will evaporate quicker.

Mate you're the one pushing all the simple answers.

"
Remember when these dolts were convinced the Gulf Stream was going to stop, turning Britain into an icicle. They dream up these nutty scenarios.....hook googling suckers like Anger....and then just move on when the idea implodes."

Which climate scientists said that and what was the time frame?

You would know about moving on Moz, you're an expert at when it comes to the climate debate. Moving from one long debunked argument to another before eventually circling back to your first argument and beginning the process a new.

@plum

We'll have just the rain, thank you very much.

And what about all the types of plants and crop that can't survive in the higher temperatures?

"East African vegetation and hydrological responses to the global change occurring at the PETM. Although total organic carbon contents decrease, the concentrations of both higher plant (n-alkanes, n-alkanoic acids) and soil bacterial (glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers) biomarkers increase dramatically at the onset of the PETM negative carbon isotope excursion (CIE), suggesting an increased discharge of fluvial sedimentary organic matter."

So your quoting a research paper that confirmed over organic carbon contents decreased right?. I also think you need too look up the meaning of the word fluvial. I'll give you a hint its based on the latin word for river.

"Hotter, drier, not tropical but still good for plants. Fancy that."

Afraid the paper doesn't say. The paper at least the abstract in no way supports your argument.

"You are going to have to start being more specific if you wish to use "models" as your argument. "

You want specific models. Here is a link to a model that combines 38 models showing the predicted rainfall due to climate change.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall

That page also shows model for seasonal changes as well as a model for where it is receive more extreme rain like India and China.

"You mention the USA - What size is the landmass that will receive less rain and what type of rainfall does it presently experience?"

The previous link shows it.

"And, if I go looking, am I gonna find that the PETM resulted in higher rainfall over Australia too?"

I dunno, you haven't linked to any research that shows rainfall was higher. I found a paper saying it was higher in northern China. I'll willing to accept it did rain more overall during the PETM but you're essentially making the claim that we don't need to worry about higher temperatures causing drought as this will be offset by more rain. What you need to show is that this increased rainfall will fall in area's that are and will be affected by droughts in the future.

Global warming is unproven, but copy and paste warming is in full swing. One day Anger will come up with one of his own opinions...but not this day.

The evidence for global warming is clear and overwhelming.

I don't care for opinions, their like assholes, everyone has one. What I base my world view on is on facts and evidence's not my own ideological biases. One day you will understand the importance of such concepts such as evidence and facts...but not this day.

$tar

Do you need a moment to think about why higher rainfall would decrease organic contents?

Hint: It serves as supporting evidence on the matter of increased rainfall in the area.

Kinda surprised that you never understood that.

‘Their like assholes’....oh dear.

"What I base my world view on is on facts and evidence's not my own ideological biases. "

Actually you base your views on how some facts are presented by journalists, reporting on scientific subjects they rarely understand themselves...I'm no climate scientist, but I see how journalists butcher topics in my field of knowledge...

There is a clear agenda and any dissent are bullied into submission/silence...not the scientific/liberal/democratic way at all, but somehow it's OK these days.

"One day you will understand the importance of such concepts such as evidence and facts...but not this day."

Why do you think these dribbling morons will ever see the light? The ones who can't understand climate change are the same brainwashed half-wits who thought Trump was a great president and the US election was stolen. Facts and common sense don't matter to these idiots.

""While I'm strongly against pollution of any kind, I'll start taking the "models " seriously as soon as they start predicting accurately"

"However, this set of partial differential equations is so complex that there is no known exact solution to them (except in a few simple cases). It remains one of the great mathematical challenges (and there is a one million dollar prize awaiting whoever manages to prove a solution always exists). Instead, these equations are solved “numerically” in the model, which means they are approximated.'

And feebly Rooipeepie throws in Trump, a winner in any argument in his circles.

Remember when these dolts were convinced the Gulf Stream was going to stop, turning Britain into an icicle. They dream up these nutty scenarios.....hook googling suckers like Anger....and then just move on when the idea implodes.".....moz

Which climate scientists said that and what was the time frame?....Anger

Sigh.....you really are a newcomer to this Fantasy series. Here’s Global Warming central, the Guardian:

Serious disruption to the Gulf Stream ocean currents that are crucial in controlling global climate must be avoided “at all costs”, senior scientists have warned. The alert follows the revelation this week that the system is at its weakest ever recorded.

Past collapses of the giant network have seen some of the most extreme impacts in climate history, with western Europe particularly vulnerable to a descent into freezing winters. A significantly weakened system is also likely to cause more severe storms in Europe, faster sea level rise on the east coast of the US and increasing drought in the Sahel in Africa. 

The new research worries scientists because of the huge impact global warming has already had on the currents and the unpredictability of a future “tipping point”. 

The currents that bring warm Atlantic water northwards towards the pole, where they cool, sink and return southwards, is the most significant control on northern hemisphere climate outside the atmosphere. But the system, formally called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc), has weakened by 15% since 1950, thanks to melting Greenland ice and ocean warming making sea water less dense and more buoyant.

This represents a massive slowdown – equivalent to halting all the world’s rivers three times over, or stopping the greatest river, the Amazon, 15 times. Such weakening has not been seen in at least the last 1,600 years, which is as far back as researchers have analysed so far. Furthermore, the new analyses show the weakening is accelerating.

........

Note the frequent use of talismanic term ‘scientists’. Admittedly this nonsense hasn’t been so evident lately.

Star,

Goodness, man.

The markers for plants were hugely elevated. That's your evidence for increased plant activity. 

Organic matter in hot and wet climates is quickly cycled and does not remain in the ground to the degree that it would in, for example, a temperate forest. The reason why it's notoriously difficult to find plant fossils in rainforests. 

This is also why rainforests are generally considered to have poor soil quality. 

Do NOT get stuck on that above fact, because we are easily able to avoid this nutrient run-off and/or lessen its effect through soil mix, root modification, fertilisation, drainage, nutrient recycling and and and. Oh, we're also able to stop/reverse rainforest encroachment these days haha 

The point is - Water, more of it.

There is evidence for more rain in almost every area that they have checked. 

And your argument, at this point, is...yeah but it could have been floods. 

My counter is, yeah but it may not have been floods and I'll raise you higher plant density as evidenced through reliable markers.

@ Rooi - you've basically devolved into a sad nothing. Completely uninteresting and 100% a waste of time. Congrats bud.

"Afraid the paper doesn't say. The paper at least the abstract in no way supports your argument."

Afraid the paper does say...right in the abstract. I added that to the post for your benefit.

"However, higher plant leaf wax n-alkanes (C27, C29 and C31) become more deuterium-enriched throughout the same interval, suggesting a more arid and/or hotter, rather than a more humid, environment. This evidence collectively suggests an East African early PETM climate characterised by overall hot and arid conditions punctuated by intense, perhaps seasonal, precipitation events."

 I'll let you off...this time haha

Note - South Africa is semi-arid and has seasonal rain, lots of it. I know the JHB storm drains take a pounding every year. It's fantastic for farming. Natal being wetter and the Free State a bit less wet than Gauteng. 

I did quite a bit of water skiing as a kid and we were never shy of glassy water surfaces between the walls of rivers where water levels had dropped. We're talking 2-4 meters for long stretches.

This place could handle more rain if it needed to, is my point.

JHB received some epic amount of rain this very year. Ask Rooi! I'm certain records were broken. Here's your cue - say "Anecdotal!"