James A. Peden - better known as Jim or "Dad" - Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
Read his Editorial: 'The Great Global Warming Hoax?'
Yes, seems that warming is rapid and cooling is slow.
Mr T,I have no idea about the use of CO2 as a temp proxy.
Joke.
Wonder if there's much paleo data for around 130000 - 125000 years ago.
Further back we go the thinner it gets. There are lots of ups and downs but I think the main point of the exercise is too see actually how little variation there actually is since termination compared to say the periods of (extra) glaciation. The secular trend is ~ -.14 C/millennium which is very small and all the highs and due to whatever are superimposed on this trend.
Jan, I have no idea about the use of CO2 as a temp proxy, I am a mere geo. I had heard they use oxygen, yes.
That table shows several MWPs! However none are particularly warm.
Not very many at +2 are there... You need to go back to 127000 to see a series of them. That's when things will start to get messy. Of course, yes, that's IF we get there. Wonder if there's much paleo data for around 130000 - 125000 years ago.
"Secular" means long term, so the regression from termination will give us a secular trend for the period.
Yes I did say optimum I meant termination there were two optima and could be confusing - meah culpa.
I could have said the early one I suppose.
just by way of example on the CO2 level chart the secular trend basically eyeballing the chart is -.8 ppmv /millennium from 140ka BP to 10ka BP.
Mr T CO2 is not generally a temperature proxy (some might disagree), 018 is here:
.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/o18nat.txt
or
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
The latter is not as patchy and actually has the temperature reconstruction.
Jan, 12000 of secular cooling...
What exactly do you mean by that? I am starting to doubt that I understand what you mean (Or perhaps you don't know).
Edit.
I meant the CO2 has been rising since about 120000 BP...
Jan, Fine.
Well here's the image, I can see what you're getting at Jan
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/icecore/vosbarnco2.gif
Now there's a rather large oversimplification in what you're suggesting (and I think you already know what it is). To reconstruct a cliamet you need more than just the CO2 data. What this graph is showing is just that the CO2 level has been basically falling since around 12000 to a few hundred years ago. Now to claim that this shows that temp has been cooling ever since is little... well it's an idea that's underdeveloped. You should be able to acknowledge that other factors will influence the temp. I think we both understand that. Armed with that information other authors have shown that there were warmer periods - described now as the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Which is really divided into several parts:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPN-45C0W5H-6&_user=659159&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000035829&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=659159&md5=d3e8822b32999287d5ab3d6b4526b606
So to say the temp has been cooling since 12000BP(or for the whole of the Holocene as I think you mean) is not really correct.
Does this mean you actually trust climate reconstructions based on CO2 data?
I'll make a deal with you Mr T, I'll not take your fatuous remarks seriously if you don't take mine seriously.
Who cares about 500 years in 12,000 just round up to 2 significant figures and it's in the ball park. Now why don't you just stop with the red herrings and do your homework get the data
start here :
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icgate.html
and do a linear regression on the data from the holocene optimum where ever you find it it will be around 12,000 years ago give or take a 1000.
If you do it yourself you can blame no one else if you don't like the results.
Sure, just stop saying things like
"Depends on your definition and since definitions tend to change with time I think several thousand years of arctic ice is enough time for the definition to change to include the presence of arctic Ice in the definition of "interglacial"."
Here's a start on the climate of the Holocene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Your dates are wrong for the Holocene Optimum. Especially as the Holocene started at 11500 years BP.
The Younger Dryas lasted between 12700 and 11500. That was a lot colder than now.
Mr T, You're very strange Jan, you seem to think that all definitions and theories need to be parsed by you first.
Can you stop with the fatuous remarks already?
"Not sure about your 12000 year secular cooling. Where are you referencing that?"
Vostok ice core an ordinary geologist like you should be able to do a simple regression on the series from the Holocene Optimum.