This is an important finding.
If such abrupt shifts happen in a single year, then what causes it?
A disruption in ocean circulation, a change or a solar storm, a cosmic event, a volcanic eruption, a small movement in polar axis?

If change is climatic, then may we see early warnings? However, the climate change now is still not for a bigger concern than it is environment distruction and much-need society changes, being global warming real or not.

I'm sure Hansen the adjuster has already made up his mind that there MUST have been some huge CO2 burp that caused all that rise.
Huge amount of lava flows? Meteor perhaps? In any case us doubters have been right all along that the very minor warming in the last 150 years is far from "unprecedented" as we knew all along.
I wonder if Al Gore will make that one of his revisions to AIT along with the forty or so other gross exaggerations.

Ouch ! Another blow to the church of AGW ...

--The first spike occurred 14,700 years ago with a whopping 12 degree celsius (21.5 F) rise in just over 50 years!

--There was a second spike about 11,700 years ago after another cold period.

Hey wow ! ! The climate change existed even then ........I wonder how they'll attempt to blame anthropogenic CO2 for those events.

Come to think of it, haven't we have already confirmed that any amount of increase of CO2 cannot produce such changes in temperatures?

Maybe ......just maybe...... something other than CO2 is responsible for changes in temperatures.

But, just to be on the safe side, let's invent new taxes for carbon emissions, seriously compromise world economies and reduce global production of food for an inefficient fuel.

Hopefully, I hope that real truths are found, by our "experts", before we self-destruct because it's better than doing nothing about something we barely understand!

PaulB, *you* barely understand it. Why are you so determined to keep not understanding it?

It's simple: The trigger for deglaciation is solar insolation changes due to orbital shifts. This isn't enough to melt the ice, but it is enough to rev up ocean currents so that deep CO2-rich water comes to the surface and outgasses the CO2. That still isn't enough to melt the ice, or at least not much of it, but the CO2 in turn warms things enough so that significant extra water vapor (a greenhouse gas) is added to the atmosphere, and all three effects together are enough to melt the ice.

The general nature of these very large changes at the end of the deglaciation has been known for some years. The new information in this paper is that such changes can take place very quickly indeed. Up until a couple of years ago it was assumed that such changes would have to take centuries, but now that assumption is obviously more than just slightly wrong.

The question now is whether there's something about the current climate that makes it immune to a similarly rapid transition to a new climate phase. If you can make a scientific case that we have nothing to worry about in that regard, PaulB, we'd all love to hear it.

A double CO2 burp at the end of the glaciation, Chris F? Who would have imagined such a thing? Oh yeah, Marchitto et al (2007):

Marine radiocarbon evidence for the mechanism of deglacial atmospheric CO2 rise

There was another recent paper with similar findings based on different sediment cores, and I believe Brett may have blogged on that one.

Here are some better references for that paper.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm
"Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age"

and the original paper, if you have access, is
"High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years"
J. P. Steffensen et al
Published online June 19 2008; 10.1126/science.1157707 (Science Express Reports)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1157707.pdf

"The first spike occurred 14,700 years ago with a whopping 12 degree celsius (21.5 F) rise in just over 50 years!"

…and the Polar bear survived even without being on the endangered species list!
Just think, a 21.5 F degree rise in temperature while raising ocean levels also made it possible for human civilization to develop. Without that climate change we would still be sitting by a campfire. We adapted to the change and prospered. Adaptation is human’s finest trait. Unfortunately, the less undesirable trait of nonsensical guilt is making many bow at the alter of AGW. Willingly sacrificing your freedoms and money to others because you “have to do something” is just plain childish.
Humans continue to think they are responsible for everything that happens. Hubris, a feeling of superiority and guilt can be a dangerous combination for those suffering from an over inflated ego. Their fanatical messianic message should be reason for you to pause, reflect and think. Blindly following a crowd doesn’t make you anything but part of the mindless herd with no will of your own.
Maybe it is time to sit back have another latte and understand that there are some things you are not responsible for. Sometimes it is better to do nothing than interfere with a process that you know so little about.
Grow up folks. There are some things that happen in life which are beyond the purview of mere mortals.
Be real careful when you try to fix an issue that you don’t know enough about. Make an intelligent decision based of facts not emotionaly driven guilt.
First do no harm.

Ahhh! Fantastic stuff! I have a childhood friend who related a story to me from his great uncle who was a sailor on some of Admiral Byrds expeditions to the Arctic. In one story the ship mates were running low on food stores, and they happened upon a most fortunate find. A wooly Mamoth, flash frozen. They then estimated the critter was frozen to death! A few tonns of hot meat flash frozen! The plants in the mamoths stomach were also flash frozen. The Mamoth was still good to eat...and it saved the expidition!The question begs...What Happened? What weather event could (what later was found,many mamoths)freeze a large wooly mamoth SO quickly? This is a mystery today. The mamoth was estimated to be frozen 12 to 14 thousand years! But what interests me even more is the Ice Core data from Greanland and other polar regions does show interesting warm spikes followed by quickly occurring cold ages. Perhaps this is coincidental to the rise and fall of Civilizations, use of coal and petroleum fuels, and it is possible there is nothing new under the sun. The precession of the Equinox, a 26 thousand year cycle demonstrates the wobble of the earth's axis of rotation. So, with a pole shift would not climate shift as well? Naturally?

Yeah Brett, I also saw a documentary about this on the science channel not to long ago. They never mentioned 12 degrees C in 50 years though, that's pretty amazing.

There is no possible way C02 or other greenhouses are the cause of this, it seems like the ,most reasonable explanation would be solar activity. Even suggesting that greenhouse gases are responsible for this is a complete waste of time...

What do they mean they don't understand it?

Clearly, it was cro-magnon man and woman tooling around the lava pits in their SUVs while wearing leopard print bikinis.

Or maybe because they had not changed from the incandescent bulbs since CFLs had not been invented yet.

The debate is over, SUVs are the cause of just about anything climate related.

I imagine that Hansen, Mark, BT, and Bloom will soon point out that this study was bought and paid for by BIG OIL or some other nefarious group so it doesn't matter anyway.

This research shows the great extent of natural variability of the climate. Climate can change rapidly -- putting a lie to the 'unprecedented global warming' claims of the AGW crowd.

Another way to look at this natural occurrence of a rapid temperature change within a 1-2 year period is to consider that there obviously must be a given temperature threshold that was crossed and the climate system went into a complete reversal of the previous trend/pattern. This dramatic reversal would tend to provide some support to the threshold idea presented by the "alarmists" (as most of you on this site like to call them). We do not yet know what that threshold may be, but once it is crossed then it obviously can set into motion a climate change so dramatic that all living species may not be able to adapt so readily to that kind of change.

The change doesn't necessarily have to be all the direct result of CO2, but the effects of man-made CO2 (as an initializing force) can move us ever closer to that given (as yet undefined) threshold and then once natural forces kick in, the end result is a rapid climate change of dramatic proportions. To deny this would then mean you deny that this historical event occurred 14,700 years ago. This would tend to put the viewpoint of the "alarmists" into proper perspective.

Yes, the event that occurred 14,700 years ago was all by natural forces, but who is to say we are not setting into motion, by our contribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, an occurrence that could again set those natural forces into the same threshold crossing scenario. If it happened in the past, who is to say it won't happen again, with us being the a reason putting that natural chain of events closer to that possibility? Once we recognize what is happening, it would be too late to correct it, because the climate reversal would already be here.

Weather Watcher: AGW IS REAL!!!
This "snowball Earth" � Is not a fantasy of oversimplified models. Geologists turned up evidence from more than half a billion years ago that the Greenland Ice cores, and marine core samples,and the oceans had actually frozen over, if not entirely CO2 was the very keystone of the planet's climate system. This caused rapid warming. Why doesn't this article tell how much CO2 was in the atmosphere at that time. What was the proportion in the gas data. We know that underground volcanoes can produce CO2 in large quantities. Deniers and delayers don't ask these
questions. They smear Scientists. AGW is here.
Hansen is just another brave scientist. AGW is real.
KIPP

Darren:
What do they mean they don't understand it?

Clearly, it was cro-magnon man and woman tooling around the lava pits in their SUVs while wearing leopard print bikinis.

Or maybe because they had not changed from the incandescent bulbs since CFLs had not been invented yet.

The debate is over, SUVs are the cause of just about anything climate related.

I imagine that Hansen, Mark, BT, and Bloom will soon point out that this study was bought and paid for by BIG OIL or some other nefarious group so it doesn't matter anyway.

Posted by Darren | June 23, 2008 11:23 AM

Darren you are a little late.

CBS News ran a story last week on clean coal.

Guess who at the end negated the whole story.

Dr Hansen, preaching about the bogeyman named carbon dioxide.

Dennis Hlinka: Even though I am a skeptic, your posts are the most scientific and thoughtful of the AGW posters, and I read your posts very carefully;

Unfortunately, others, such as Kipp, contribute almost nothing scientifically, and talk like doomsday prophets. His science is suspect at best, and he gives zero credit to any other influences other that CO2. Statements like the following shows little critical thinking: "Hansen is just another brave scientist. AGW is real." Kipp has never admitted that Hansen has ever made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes.

So, Dennis, thank you for your posts.

Steve,

Interesting though that CO2 did not end the last ice age according to this research.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927154905.htm

If PaulB 'does not understand it', it is because we 'do not yet understand it' either.

Kipp,

Geologists turned up evidence from more than half a billion years ago that the Greenland Ice cores, and marine core samples, and the oceans had actually frozen over...

You sure about that? 500,000,000 million years? Evidence from Greenland ice cores? marine cores samples?

I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Kipp,

Depending on your definition of AGW I may agree with you. If your definition is limited to CO2 and its effects I most decidedly do not. If you include all the human contributions (land use change, UHI, etc.), then I would agree with you. Humans are affecting the climate.

However, we would part ways on the level of CO2 affect. FYI, the last Ice Age did not end as a response to CO2. see here - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927154905.htm -

The issue I have with IPCC and Dr Hansen is that I believe they have overestimated the sensitivity of the climate to added CO2, by a factor of 3X or more. They have also overestimated the positive feedbacks due to CO2 levels. Without the positive feedbacks (IPCC 4AR shows the positive feedbacks accounting for about 75% of the effect) it is physically impossible for CO2 level to increase planetary temps more than roughly 1C per doubling of CO2 amount. Try as we might, we have not noted positive feedbacks at the level the IPCC says must exist for their estimates of temp increase to be valid. In fact, if the positive feedbacks existed at the level the IPCC suggest, it would mean that the climate is unstable (systems with positive feedback bias are inherently unstable and do not naturally seek equilibrium) and most likely the runaway heating would have been triggered long ago (like during one of the episodes in which temps increased 15F in two years).

As an aside it is interesting to note how Dr. Hansen attacks anyone who disagrees with him both personally and professionally, suggesting a few days ago that anyone who does so should be tried and imprisoned for 'crimes against nature'.

Boy! I wonder if these temperature changes were man made? I just can't get over the idea that people like Al Gore, who are not any way shape or form in the science community, can be taken seriously in the debate on global warming. I learned long ago in my science field that our energy came from the sun. Three % of global warming is man made. How are we to control the 97%? If government does to global warming like they do to other things, we better declare hands off to people like Al Gore! John

Say Veets:
Now that you and Pepper the dog, called me out on young oxygen as opposed to oxygen found in marine cores, where is your contribution. How's your Physics.
Ted: You can survive and prosper, and be rich by using better technology and less OIL. Everyone knows CO2 is the culprit. Co2 is like putting a sheet of metal over a cigarette.CO2 cannot let heat escape it. If we use Switchgrass and better biofuels, and if we force this country into nuclear energy the safe way, than we will buy no more fuel. As This article suggests, there are so many REAL SCIENTISTS that are afraid the tipping point is very close and that we should stop OIL use now! Stop consumption NOW! What bothers me is that people don't realize and haven't studied that scientists have been working on Global Warming since 1850.
KIPP

“Another way to look at this natural occurrence of a rapid temperature change within a 1-2 year period is to consider that there obviously must be a given temperature threshold that was crossed and the climate system went into a complete reversal of the previous trend/pattern.”
Dennis there is absolutely no evidence to support the hypothesis that the temperature threshold was reached which suddenly caused a temperature reversal. You have no data to this new and astounding reversal of climate theory. What caused the temperatures to rise is still a complete mystery. Surly you must realize that that your statement is unsupportable because there are no facts offered to support any conclusion. The temperature increased, it happened, that’s all that can be said. The Reason? Completely Unknown

“This dramatic reversal would tend to provide some support to the threshold idea presented by the "alarmists" We do not yet know what that threshold may be,
(Ahhhh finally a statement of fact that can be supported. The AGW side has NO idea what the threshold is. However that does not keep you and the AGW alarmists from jumping to conclusions without any facts to support your speculation.)
“but once it is crossed then it obviously can set into motion a climate change so dramatic that all living species may not be able to adapt so readily to that kind of change.
(A bit dramatic and a scientific absurdity since the KT extinction event proved that life if nothing else is truly resilient. However, nobody even the vast AGW minions have any idea what the “sign” is. The AGW zealots picked CO2 (seemingly out of the air) as the culprit, but you could easily make a case for not enough Italian restaurants in Bangladesh as the cause for cliamte change….the science behind both theories as about the same.)

“The change doesn't necessarily have to be all the direct result of CO2, but the effects of man-made CO2 (as an initializing force) can move us ever closer to that given (as yet undefined) threshold and then once natural forces kick in, the end result is a rapid climate change of dramatic proportions. “
(Again you admit the entire AGW side has no idea what it is talking about but….. “we got to do something!” SO you pick CO2 and run with it without any proof. That’s not science it’s political posturing.)

“To deny this would then mean you deny that this historical event occurred 14,700 years ago. This would tend to put the viewpoint of the "alarmists" into proper perspective.
Yes, the event that occurred 14,700 years ago was all by natural forces, but who is to say we are not setting into motion, by our contribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gases,”

Wait a minute you admit you the AGW side doesn’t know what the “tipping points are” and acknowledge that the last two increases in temperatures were completely natural occurrences. You fail to follow logic by refusing to believe what if any climate change could be completely natural.
“If it happened in the past, who is to say it won't happen again, with us being the a reason putting that natural chain of events closer to that possibility?
I firmly believe that natural climate change will happen again. That is sure and certain. What I know it that all climate change in the past (no matter what the speed) has always happened by natural forces. Man was never the cause before, but now because we are observing climate any change it must be our fault? Again, hubris and Guilt by observation! That conclusion is complete sophomoric nonsense. The logic is just not there.

Wow, the agw ers just still don't get it. Climate changes naturally, its not because they didn't have an Al Gore of there time to save them and control the climate or because they didn't go green, why then, it is a natural thing, climate change is natural, perhaps the earths tilt, revolvement around the sun alters, the sun itself, volcanoes and such on earth, etc.. Really agw ers do you really think the earth will never be cold again, do you honestly believe this, I would love to know. Its funny to read some of the reasonings to why it warmed so fast then and no one considers it could be natural now. You all must have stock in something that benefits from stopping global warming.

What we DO know for CERTAIN is that those changes happend WITHOUT human influence ! Isn't that an "inconvenient truth" ?