Breckenridge Destinations supports independent journalism. Click for great deals on vacation lodging in Breckenridge.
‘What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective’
New research suggests historical climate change occurred mainly on the local or regional level.
By Summit Voice
SUMMIT COUNTY — Simultaneous warming in the southern and northern hemispheres hasn’t occurred in at least 20,000 years, and possibly longer, according to a Swedish researcher who says his findings refute one of the more common arguments against global warming.
“What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective,” said Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University.
Björck directly addressed the argument that climate has always changed in cycles by showing that, in the past, when when, for example, the temperature rises in one hemisphere, it falls or remains unchanged in the other.
“My study shows that, apart from the larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages, climate change has previously only produced similar effects on local or regional level,” says Svante Björck.
To make his findings, Björck examined global climate archives, searching for evidence that any of the climate events that have occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago generated similar effects on both the northern and southern hemispheres simultaneously.
He used the Little Ice Age as an example, explaining that, while Europe experienced some of its coldest centuries, there is no evidence of corresponding simultaneous temperature changes and effects in the southern hemisphere.
Climate records, in the form of core samples taken from marine and lake sediments and glacier ice, serve as a record of how temperature, precipitation and concentration of atmospheric gases and particles have varied over the course of history, and are full of similar examples.
Instead it is during ‘calmer’ climatic periods, when the climate system is influenced by external processes, that the researchers can see that the climate signals in the archives show similar trends in both the northern and southern hemispheres.
“This could be, for example, at the time of a meteorite crash, when an asteroid hits the earth or after a violent volcanic eruption when ash is spread across the globe. In these cases we can see similar effects around the world simultaneously”, says Svante Björck.
Björck draws parallels to today’s situation. The levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are currently changing very rapidly. At the same time, global warming is occurring.
“As long as we don’t find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today’s global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the earth’s carbon cycle,” Björck said.
“This is a good example of how geological knowledge can be used to understand our world. It offers perspectives on how the earth functions without our direct influence and thus how and to what extent human activity affects the system.”
Filed under: climate and weather, Environment, global warming Tagged: | climate, climate change, Environment, global warming, Lund University, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, Summit County News, Svante Björck
Arapahoe Basin supports independent journalism. Click to visit The Legend online.
Powder's falling at Monarch!! Have you reserved your spot yet?
Innovative energy underwrites coverage of energy stories.
Hope he continues his research and work and is peer reviewed in a paper. We will need it because the is the next stage of the “it is not caused by humans” campaign.
Did he include Oppo, D.W., Rosenthal, Y. and Linsley, B.K. 2009. 2,000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool. Nature 460: 1113-1116 (who found the exact opposite to Bjorck)?
Oppo and others found (by using the same type of proxies) that climate in Indonesia area paralleled that of Europe over 2,000 years, which of course encompasses the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7259/abs/nature08233.html
This is what science is all about. The more research that occurs, the more knowledge imparted. Sometimes, there are those who must be led kicking & screaming to see the new light shed on old beliefs, that are near & dear to them.
What kind of garbage finding is this.
If you compare GISP2 (greenland) & Epica/Vostok (Antarctica ice cores) temperatures you find that they both come out of the ice age with bumps & dips comparable.leading to a warming peak in 7-9000BC. The south led the way warming first
They both had a short sharp cooling which ended around 6100BC, followed by a warming to the 5000 BC period.led by the north, then a cooling more in the north than the souththru 3500-, then a warming thru the 1500BC (more north than south- the Phoenician warmingcooling for 500 year & a rise to the 100BC roman /Han warming. (less in the south)), then the drop & rise to the 1000AD Viking warming (sharper in North) the same Little ice age cooing and the current warming.
Yes the magnitudes differ north & south, but the timing is there.
The current warming is more in the south, & less in the north The magnitudes in the north say this warming is one of 17 of comparable size in 10,000 years. In the south it is only 1 in 10.
The current 1C in 100years is very similar to past history. The GISP chart is in “Gravity causes Climate change” in http://www.scribd.com for the last 5K years.
This is where a WOBBLE THEORY postulates that warming and cooling is due to increased/decreased gravity due to planetary eccentricity. More gravity causes more angular momentum (Earth rotation) which causes friction which causes warming.. The cycles of angular momentum are 60 years (Warming peaks in 1880, 1940, 1998/2003, and 935yrs long, 100B 100AD, 2000AD, which are caused by JUpiter 12, 60 and 935 year eccentricity cycles
The fact that the JUpiter orbit makes it go above & below the SUn Earth Ecliptic plane is a reason why either the north or south would be larger or smaller.
Man & CO2 has nothing to do with it. Man can NOT control Jupiters orbit.
Mr Dodds writes: “what kind of garbage is this”? Mr Dodds might want to consult Richard Muller, who established BEST, to investigate this very happening. I might add, Mr Muller was a skeptic too, but now concurs that indeed, the earth is warming. His team also released a flurry of scientific papers that confirms the Earth is getting warmer. Considering that Mr Dodds likes research himself, he can pursue what Mr Muller & his team found. The BEST stands for the “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature”.
The BEST Muller data recinfirms that the temperature data IS definitely valid. We are warming. As MUller says it DOES NOT address what causes the warming. Muller NEVER was a skeptic that there was NO warming just that he questioned how valid the data was.My comment that the warming is caused by gravity is still valid,
The invalid part I was referring to is the idea that that the North & South are independant, they are NOT They both go up & down at the same time. One maybe more than the other. at different times. AND this warming is certasinly not unprecedented. There are at least 17 times that this has happened in the ;last 10,000 years. The GISP greenland data shows that it has been 2C warmer several times in the last 10,000 years. The garbage is the BJorck contention that the warming is local and not global. The Ice Core data says otherwise even to me a casual observer.
Mr. Dodds, are you a climate scientist, or just someone who has an interest? Your comment that another scientist/researcher writes “garbage” because you happen to disagree with his findings, is rather telling. We are all in this together, it’s not a contest to see who is right or wrong. As the scientific tools that are being put into service today give us a better picture, then it stands to reason we should keep an open mind. Down through human history, there have been many beliefs that were accepted, yet, new research brought a better understanding of those matters, which in many cases, proved the previous ones wrong.
It IS a question of right vs wrong. When science finds an idea wrong it is discarded.
The science has established that the past and Muller data show that global warming exists. There is a question about what causes it. Is it CO2 or something else. THis needs to be investigated. In fact the BEST grounp IS going to review it.
This is not the Bjorck question. of local vs global cause of warming
IN this case Bjorck has come up with an idea (apparently with some justification),that is obviously contrdicted by all the data that already exists. Why do more? Discard his idea. We do not still investigate if the world is flat.
Mr Dodds, being right or wrong, does that also pertain to the people who deny that changes are taking place? The fact that there is much research taking place today, is due to the availability of the tools to do so. As for the flat earth believers, they still believe it, even though science has shown it to be false. The ongoing debate of global warming, should really be looked at with an open mind, not from only one perspective. Because some cling to certain beliefs, doesn’t make such fact. In this rapidly changing world we live in today, one could rightly subscribe to the adage: “People who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw rocks at others”! If you choose, you may have the last word?
Norman,Thank you for the last word.
No reasonable scientist, except maybe some media reporters, denied that global warming was taking place. You can NOT believe the hype you get in the public press and blogs. I am an absolute skeptic that CO2 causes warming. I have debated it with RealClimate.org & Gavin Schmidt. When I see something that is obviously incorrect, I try to correct it (the Bjorck study!) The idea that more CO2 can create the energy required to cause warming violates too many principles of science. CO2 can NOT create warming energy. IT is the added energy photon in the greenhouse effect that causes the warming. It is adding more energy photons in a cyclic manner that causes warming to have a 60 year cycle. and a 135,000 year cycle. More CO2 can not create these cycles. The cycles are indisbutable Even the pre Muller temperature data from the UK (the climategate data) identifies the 1880, 1940 and 1998/2003 warming cycle tops. MY paper “Gravity causes CLimate change” at http://www.scribd identifies when & why. It offers a valid alternative , one that the measurement data reinforces.
SO if CO2 does NOT cause warming, AND there is no mechanism identified whereby CO2 can cause cooling which happens right after each of these temperature tops, then CO2 is eliminated. I will NOT have my taxes used to study let alone implement CO2 reduction schemes. I will take all steps needed to identify incorrect scientific conclusions like Bjorcks.
Thank you for at least having some scientific common sense.
Mr Dodds, I gave you the last word, but your last sentence struck a nerve! You seem to be the one you described. If that’s your opinion, that gravity causes warming only, then I say you fall into the same flat earth group, climate deniers, as well as egocentrics who can’t let go of their belief, due to so much investment.
Standford University has completed a study, one concerning the effects of cities on the warming of surrounding atmosphere. It talked of having all the roofs painted white, which would reflect the heat back into the atmosphere. But, because of the amounts of carbon particles that are in the atmosphere, in stead of cooling, the effect would be to increase temperatures. A suggestion was made to install solar photovoltaic cells on the roofs, thereby producing electricity which would reduce the production of power plants at peak hours. As you know, the cells are black, absorbing the suns rays, instead of reflecting them back into space.
Between co2 and aerosols in the air, the photons are trapped, whereby they increase the amount of heat in the atmosphere. But of course, you are well aware of this phenomena, though I suppose that you could say that gravity is the force holding the co2 & aerosols from escaping into space. I guess 1/4 of the sandwich, is better than none at all.
Point to ponder, you shouldn’t dig someone else’s opinion of research, just because you have so much invested in your own and don’t agree with what they are saying. You show a lack of maturity as well as intellectualism.
Have a good Sunday Mr Dodds, keep an open mind, for everything is changing, even your opinions.
Bob,
What’s happening Wednesday is that you are going to get buried in snow again. Climate models predicted that Colorado skiing was doomed.
Why are you so determined to believe in people who have embarrassed themselves over and over again with their wildly exaggerated forecasts?
Huh!? What does a completely normal October Colorado snowstorm have to do with long-term global climate trends?
The whole Western half of North America, right into Canada, has experienced long cold winters, and record high snowpacks, resulting in summer floods during recent years. Same in the UK.
Gore’s movie showed parched earth, mountains losing snow, mild winters – the exact opposite is true.
And yes, The West Coast and the UK is part of the globe, so there is not “global” warming.