Is the present climate really "unprecedented?"?

Question

It seems like there are just innumerable similarities both regionally and globally to the MWP. One can make the argument that "this time we need to brace ourselves because there are more people where it got, and is likely to get, drier, and because we're adding more CO2 and aerosols to the mix" - but on the other hand, one could argue that the similarities to date mean it's not all that different so far and we weren't adding CO2 or aerosols last time, so our effect is probably minimal.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=8

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_etal_QSR.pdf

Answer 1

The CO2 atmospheric growth rate is 20-times greater now than any period in the past 20,000 years.  That sounds pretty unprecedented to me

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

The best meta-analysis on temperature changes over the past 2000 years was done by the National Academy of Sciences.  And this chart demonstrates pretty clearly that the rate of change is significantly faster now than previously:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309102251...

But when it comes down to it, does it really matter?  Who cares if at sometime in the past a major volcanic eruption (or something else) caused a more rapid climate change?  That has virtually no bearing on the cause of the current warming trend, which is known to be the increased forcing of the rapidly rising CO2 levels.  Climate change can clearly have both natural and anthropogenic causes.

Edit:

Nancy - Similarities of effect don't mean identical causes.

You really should quit making multiple edits to your questions when there's no one interacting with you.  That's probably why  your posts are flagged so often as being rants. Try to focus on one issue at a time, you'll come across sounding a lot more rational if you do.

Edit 2:

Nancy - Did you even read the paper you linked too?  It doesn't even address the issue of the warming cause.  It's simply pointing out that the consequences of AGW are likely to have similar severe drought conditions in the US SW (a long suspected consequence of AGW and something we need to try hard to mitigate ASAP).  

If you think Dr. Seagers paper (well written and peer reviewed) supports your position, then maybe you'd like to explain why he made the following statement less than 3 months ago:

"A lot of us scientists think the problem needs a lot more serious attention than it's getting and the remedies have to be a lot more radical," Richard Seager.  

Is he just another alarmist?   Or could it be he actually understands the science and agrees with my position that we need to start reducing emissions ASAP?

http://climate.weather.com/articles/scie...

Answer 2

No of course not - We can see regular changes in ice core data.  Our days are no different from years past.

People's understanding of history begins when they are born.  Sure, these years are warmer than the last 50 years, but no where near the normal highs and lows of the planet.

We're just experiencing normal changes in the climate.

Answer 3

I apologize for the philosophical overtones.I believe they have the science,mechanics,and math right.They seem to be lacking in environmental interactions.One could say it's a  newly acquired field of study.With many possible implications to future predictions.

My answer to your question would be: No..it's just being study more.Producing a more profound influence on they way we perceive our environment.