And then they came for The Holocene: New paper suggests "removing the Holocene Epoch from the geologic timescale"

From The Hockey Schtick
Is there any limit to the extremes some climate propagandists will go?The Climategate team removed the warm 1940’s “blip”, erased the Medieval Warm PeriodHid the Decline, and tortured temperature & sea level data until it confessed, but a paper published Monday in Earth’s Future could take the cake by suggesting removal of “the Holocene Epoch from the geologic timescale” and replacing it with the fictitious, scary-sounding “geologic” timescale “The Anthropocene.”

Excerpt from “Hello Anthropocene, Goodbye Holocene”:

: “As the official timescale keepers deliberate the introduction of the Anthropocene and a Holocene-Anthropocene boundary (Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy; Zalasiewicz, J., M. et al., 2010; ), they should consider the alternative: Remove the Holocene Epoch from the geologic timescale. Whereas any timescale change is a contentious issue, let alone changes to an existing epoch, modern human society’s interactions with its planet and ecosystems, embodied by the Anthropocene, are sufficiently large to produce a lasting geologic marker that supports such modification. This new boundary would remain visible in the geologic record of oceans and continents (see also Corcoran et al., 2014 on plastics), meeting the stratigraphic requirements that ultimately underlie the timescale and marking a shift from the Pleistocene’s Milankovitch forcing to the Anthropocene’s human forcing.

The Holocene is a climate-centric placeholder for change after the latest Quaternary glaciation, but does not, as defined, match the accelerated changes in land, ocean and atmosphere that mark modern times. So, I suggest that (a) we remove the Holocene altogether in favor of a (young) Anthropocene Epoch that reflects planet-wide geologic changes since c. 1900 CE, or (b) we demote the Holocene to Stage/Age status, marking the end of the Pleistocene Epoch. The latter, perhaps more palatable compromise, would recognize historical precedent and allow continued use of Holocene in the literature as a temporal (“Age”) marker. Regardless, slicing the Quaternary Period in ever thinner epochs has no geologic merit. Given the degree and impact of modern, human-induced changes on our planet, a young Pleistocene-Anthropocene boundary seems justified.”

The journal titled The Holocene probably isn’t going to like this idea.

The fact is the tiny 0.7C recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850, which is coincidentally when the global temperature record begins, could easily be natural and 95% explained by solar activity and ocean oscillations, and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene Epoch. Thousands of paleoclimate papers show the Medieval, Roman, Egyptian, Minoan, and multiple other unnamed warm periods within the Holocene were warmer than the present. In addition, the Pacific Ocean has been significantly warmer than the present throughout vast majority of the Holocene.

Further, during the last interglacial ~120,000 years ago, Greenland was up to 8C warmer than the current interglacial warm period, and sea levels were up to 29 feet higher. Therefore, there is no evidence that warmth during the current interglacial warm period is unprecedented, unusual, or unnatural.

Therefore, there is no valid reason whatsoever to remove the Holocene Epoch “blip” from the geological timescale, despite how convenient it would be for the climate propagandists. Kinda bad timing too promoting the silly Anthropocene/Mannocene notion that man-made CO2 controls the climate given the 50+ excuses for the absence of global warming for the past 18-26 years despite a steady rise in CO2.

GISP2 Greenland ice core data in blue, the tiny 0.7C “Anthropocene” warming of HADCRU sea surface temperatures to present-day shown in red spliced at end
Above GISP2 Greenland ice core data with labeled warm periods
Present Greenland temperatures haves been exceeded many times over past 4000 yrs Full paper
Temperatures during the last interglacial period ~120,000 years ago [and several other interglacials] were higher than during the present interglacial period.
Holocene Epoch shown at lower right, as well as the lack of correlation on geologic timescales between CO2 and temperature.
On geologic timescales, we are still in an ice age, because there are ice sheets present at both poles

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The Hockey Schtick writes:
“GISP2 Greenland ice core data in blue, the tiny 0.7C “Anthropocene” warming of HADCRU [sic] sea surface temperatures to present-day shown in red spliced at end”
“HADCRU” (actually HADCRUT) includes sea surface temperature data but it is not only sea surface temperature. HADCRUT also includes CRUTEM land surface temperature data–thus the CRU in HADCRUT.

It was my understanding one can use HADCRU for Hadley Climate Research Unit (making the use here a reference to the provider of the data) and HADCRUT for the actual data set (making it a proper noun). I can see reading the sentence either way. ~”the data from Hadly C.R.U.” or with the T “the data set of these specific temperatures”.


HAD refers to Met Office Hadley Centre ( officially part of the ministry of defence) , CRU refers to U. East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
There is not ‘provider’ or organisation called HADCRU

We have entered a period of time when the science establishment does science fiction rather than science. It is unbelievable that anything that disagrees with their doomsday scenario must be eradicated, no matter how many papers and textbooks say it exists. I once read all of H.H. Lamb — but I guess he did not really exist since much of his work is the opposite of today’s delusions. (or will they just re-write his books?)
Why do they go to all the trouble of collecting temperature data from the field or doing proxy studies if they intend to just “adjust” the reading to suit theory? It would be more efficient to just make up whatever they were going to use anyway.

Jim Watt

Good science fiction has to be believable




Science fiction does not necessarily have to be believable but, it does have to suspend disbelief.

Kelvin Vaughan

If Scotland breaks away from the UK then the UK average temperature will shoot up and the average rainfall will go down.

David A

They use the climate models, and so must adjust the past until the climate models hind cast successfully, with CO2 dominant.


They do it because they have no understanding of the sedimentation of the Earth in time, planet they simply pretend to have a practical understanding of. They have done essentially zero geological field work or mapping of this planet so have no practical concepts or experience of the kind needed to grasp why geological time divisions exist, and why they have been to carefully described and divided as they have been in the first place.
As a result we have a bunch of ignorant coffee-slurping book worms addicted to air-conditioning and watching model-porn (the GIGO type) who are now telling the real observational scientists in the field to which they are not even connected or accredited in, as to how they should divide up geological time, and which terms geologists should use in their day to day professional work and research.
It’s as asinine as it’s pathologically ignorant and arrogant, so of course it’s a still-birthed nonsense from the outset and is much like a cohort of dodgy used car salesman trying to tell a Queens Council how to conduct themselves in a court of law.


Are you sure they don’t just make it up?

michael hart

Field studies often have the merit of taking place in locations spread around the globe. The equivalent of a corporate executive packing the golf clubs on a business trip. One of the perks of the job.


In practical terms, exploration programs, seismic transects, drill core, geochem, dating then mapping the field relations and the structural histories of eight or ten deformed and overprinting major rock units within a 1,200 square mile exploration area, with rocks ranging in age from 90 my to 1600 my old. How are you going to sort that out?
Field studies on a junket with golf clubs and a cup of hot chips is not going to cut it. Doing it right keeps civilization’s lights on, allows it to eat and pays the bills to keeps people happy and oblivious to what goes into creating the ease and long life they enjoy. The alarmists have no understanding why things like the geological time scale matter or how it’s used and how it came to be the way that it is, so they have no place making any proposals about changing any part of it. They’re fools poking at buttons to get attention without a clue what the buttons they stab at even do.

Michael Harris

Agree, it’s like the burning of books. It is how we lost so much info in the past as one civilisation destroyed all reference to the one that they replaced. Learning had to begin again and again from scratch. To think science is performing that very act now to fulfil it’s new theory is frightening and sickening


I can’t help but feel empathy to those who feel hopeless. The dilemma between a worldwide century long conspiracy of deluded scientists and the seventh mass extinction is a false one. 
Humanity has harnessed nuclear fusion and have mimic’d the power of their sun without becoming extinct.
Humanity has caused and then diminished a hole in their ozone layer by modifying their collective behavior with respect to CFC emissions.
Humanity has caused and then diminished a major cause of lung cancer through controlling their collective behavior with respect to tobacco use.
Humanity has caused and then diminished acid rain that used to corrode their statues and poisoned forests, soils, rivers and lakes. 
However, Humanity’s current challenge is coordinated action to mitigate its disproportionate impact on their own environment.
We become overly dependent upon a combustion technology that is creating a waste stream that alters the chemical composition of their atmosphere so that it retains additional heat. 
This is a problem we can solve together.

hanzo says:
Humanity has caused and then diminished a hole in their ozone layer by modifying their collective behavior with respect to CFC emissions.
Well, well, another baseless assertion. Prove it, hanzo.
Likewise, the “acid rain” canard is verifiable nonsense.
There is no major “problem” with fossil fuels. On net balance, fossil fuels are indispensible. People are living longer, healthier lives as a direct consequence of fossil fuel use. I note that none of those telling the rest of us to stop using fossil fuels do without them. Hypocrites, no?
All of the climate alarmism we see is misguided nonsense. Sure, there are always problems. But every alarmist prediction has turned out to be flat wrong.
When someone is 100.0% WRONG in all their predictions, rational folks will disregard them as cranks and nincompoops. Start making correct predictions and people will start paying attention. But as of now, the alarmist crowd is promoting their religion based on always-wrong predictions; nothing more.

lawrence Cornell

“…by modifying their collective behavior…”, “… through controlling their collective behavior…”, “…Humanity’s current challenge is coordinated action to mitigate…”, “This is a problem we can solve together.”
Wow. Quite a sermon Hanzo. I almost want to hold hands, dance around the Sacred Hockey Stick and sing Kum-by-ya. All you’re missing is the choir and the collection plate.
Should I shout “Amen” or “Forward !” after the last refrain ?

I think switching to an Anthropocene epoch at around 1900 would be beneficial to future historians – it could mark the end of the Age of Reason.


You almost made me destroy the keyboard with my morning coffee with that one, Eric… I am still chuckling. Thanks.

Quadruple + ^1


++1 ^^

joe crew

Sad, but true

Walter Allensworth

I was thinking 2009 … 😉

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Tamil Naidu

There is another way to consider this: How about: it is the beginning of the Age of Maturity – from 1992. After that, the ordinary person, educated, informed, thinking and rational, unafraid to ask questions, fearless in their tenacity to cleave to that which is right and provable, began to appear in numbers. They challenged the priestly pronouncements of the ‘elect’ and began a global movement wherein the independent investigation of truth became the norm for the average global citizen. The confounders and charlatans have had the upper hand, but are removing themselves from the ranks of the believable.
Thus freed from the constraints of the past (provoked by the unscientific ruminations of the self-appointed enviro-priests) Ordinary Men step forth from the shadows to take possession of their right to learn for themselves, to investigate and consider the evidence, to challenge the orthodoxy and to create a new foundation for a world based on truth.
The Age of Unreason extends far beyond mere matters of climate. We have a lot of things to undo, we investigators of reality. We are also laying the foundations of an ever-advancing civilization. Raging against the darkness brings naught. We must learn to turn on our own lights to dispel it.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

Everyone, please let me know if you disagree with this thought:
They wish to remove the Holocene because the record of past (much) warm(er) periods is both a distraction from and a damning of, the current slight warming which they are trying to hype as catastrophic.
It doesn’t help their case if people are able to point to said record and ask why we haven’t already been destroyed.
(Mods, please don’t let my use of a possibly-banned word, block this from posting?)


They apparently don’t want to “remove” the Holocene, which is a geological period that can be differentiated from the Pleistocene by various lines of physical evidence. They want to place a termination on it and argue that the most recent past has been affected by human activity to the extent that it will be discernible geologically in the future. That may be true as far as it goes. The “climate” assumption is a fallacy. The definiton of a geological period requires some very well delineated evidence that separates it from periods preceding (and usually following).
Stratigraphic periods are formally recognized and defined officially by the International Commission on Stratigraphy ( and the “anthropocene” has so far gotten very short shrift. There are two queries regarding an ICS official position on the “anthropocene” and no responses.
“The Earth’s Future” journal is plainly not geological, even though it appears to be an arm of the AGU. The “About” blurb states:
Journal Overview
A transdisciplinary journal exploring global change and sustainability. Understanding and managing our new and future relation with the Earth—the Anthropocene epoch, in which humans dominate Earth’s environment and ecosystems requires research and knowledge spanning diverse fields. Earth’s Future explores and fosters interactions among the Earth and environmental sciences, ecology, economics, the health and social sciences, agriculture and population research, and more. Its mission is to focus on the Earth as an interactive, evolving system to help researchers, policy makers, and the public navigate the science.

Entirely too squishy for geologists. Note that it specifically addresses the “Anthropocene.” BTW, what is the difference between “transdisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary”?

In 2009 the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) confirmed a change in time period for the Pleistocene, changing the start date from 1.806 to 2.588 million years BP, and accepted the base of the Gelasian as the base of the Pleistocene, namely the base of the Monte San Nicola GSSP. The IUGS has yet to approve a type section, Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), for the upper Pleistocene/Holocene boundary (i.e. the upper boundary). The proposed section is the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core 75° 06′ N 42° 18′ W. The lower boundary of the Pleistocene Series is formally defined magnetostratigraphically as the base of the Matuyama (C2r) chronozone, isotopic stage 103. Above this point there are notable extinctions of the calcareous nanofossils: Discoaster pentaradiatus and Discoaster surculus.
Thus, maybe the Anthropocene could be dated from the extinction of the passenger pigeon in 1914, or the great auk in 1844, or the dodo c. 332 years ago, or the moa, c. 600 years ago, or, switching to our fellow mammals, the Caribbean ground sloths c. 4400 years ago, or the last mammoths c. 4500 years ago. But how are those man-made extinctions any different from all the prior such species wipe outs?


Those extinctions are impossible to differentiate from “natural” extinctions, though it would seem that a statistical argument could be made. On the other hand, there are critters liken the ceolacanth that have no known fossil record for over 70 MY, yet there they are in Madagascan fish markets, so a statistical argument has its potential hazards. I can understand the argument based upon physical effects in the later Holocene due to the spread and rapid evolution of cities and agricultural effects, which are globally very extensive. However, removing the Holocene is a problem. Faunal markers change on a global basis at the end of the Holocene and there blank-all evidence that this is due to human activity.
Humans do expand remarkably following the Pleistocene, but there is every reason to argue that this is because basal H. sap. is a species that takes advantage of disturbed systems and there was an enormous disturbance at the end of the last glacial. Though it isn’t commonly considered, agriculture is an artificial local “disaster.” Swidden forms employ fire, while others clear trees, till soil and even fully disrupt sod formation. Rice agriculture uses both flooding and fire. When you turn to what’s planted, most plant species we use are descendants of “weeds,” that is, early succession-stage plants that follow fires and landslides and similar disruptions of local communities. That’s every thing from grasses to most berries. These plants all like lots of sun, which in forested environments is only present when something knocks the trees down or kills them. It is likely our early ancestors were drawn to smoke on the horizon, scars on mountain sides, floods and wind damage, just like other animals. But we are more efficient at it and learned to create our own “disasters.”


If you want a little climate alarmism, the figure showing the GISP2 Greenland ice core data with labeled warm periods always does it for me; not a good trajectory. We could use some global warming over the next several hundred years.

Robert of Ottawa

A warm planet is a happy planet.


This post highlights just what is so vile about climastrologists. It’s not enough that they push their pseudo scientific drivel –
“adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability..”
“DWLWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water free to evaporatively cool..”
“radiative subsidence plays no role in tropospheric convective circulation..”
“the oceans are a “near blackbody” not a selective surface..”
– no that’s not enough. They have to go and actively try and trash the work of other legitimate scientists. Climastrologists are not scraping the bottom of the barrel. They have clawed franticly through the rotting timbers of the base and are elbows deep in the feculant ooze below.
These scum know no shame. They have cost the world billions, killed thousands, yet they will just keep on lying to keep their ill-gotten grants flowing. The shame of it all.
But in the end there is a light. Sceptics have a permanent record of every name and every crime.
Sceptics never forgive and the Internet never forgets.


You sound like a crazy person. Take a walk and clear your head.


And you sound like someone who has no understanding of radiative physics.
I listed four false claims of the climastrologists.
Which do you dispute?
Go on. You called me “crazy”. You must be better at radiative physics and empirical experiment design than I am. (I’m sure I don’t know what alternate universe you exist in) Give it your best shot lukewarmner. Try your luck.
Or maybe it’s time to face facts. Lukewarmers were as scientifically illiterate as warmists. Oh the shame of it all!
Let’s get down to tin-tacks.
You aren’t that smart sunshine.


You sound like a troll. Please think before posting and defend your argument with facts.

it is difficult to describe the irrational things the CAGW supporters are doing in a rational way, isn’t it?
The entire CAGW concept only holds up if one ignores reality or, as the OP shows, distorts it.


Brute, Konrad reflects my sentiments exactly. But to be more accurate, these so-called scientists have cost the world not billions, but HUNDREDS of billions.

> Sceptics never forgive and the Internet never forgets.
I disagree.
1) We were quite welcoming of Patrick Moore at ICCC-9, see
2) There are several things I haven’t been able to hunt down on the Internet, even things that used to be there.
Calm down, it’s not that bad.

richard verney

I consider that Konrad has made some valid points, as regards the science and his comment that “They have cost the world billions, killed thousands…” is very probably an underassessment of what has gone on.
My understanding is that trillions of dollars has been thrown at this, and approximately 20% of the EU budget (which is vast) has now been ear marked for climate change matters. The last few years in the UK alone, there have been some 25,000 to 40,000 premature winter deaths, caused in no small part by the escalating cost of energy, and the wasting of government expenditure which if it had not been wasted could do more for the elderly and vulnerable. Just think what improvements might have been achieved had some of the money spent on climate science had instead been directed at cancer, heart, stroke.research etc.
The amount of grain exported from the US which use to form part of the WFP has been vastly cut back no doubt leading to starvation of many in Africa, and some commentators even suggest that the Arab Spring (that has led to tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of deaths) was partly caused by high food prices which in part was brought about by the biofuel programmes in the West.
I accept that some of Konrad’s language was somewhat colourful, but understandable in the circumstances. I suspect that at some stage in the future there will be a big backlash when people appreciate the full extent of the cAGW exagerations, the damage and costs of this to society, and the weak and distorted science upon which it was all based, and the overly politicised claims that it is settled science with the debate long over.


“They have clawed franticly through the rotting timbers of the base and are elbows deep in the feculant ooze below.”
now theres a sentence….


Yeah,I loved that. Got to say I agree with the basic sentiment though, I’m completely fed up with the utter mendacity of the alarmists and the apparent inability to take any cognisance of contradictory evidence.


You can be sure that is being worked on as we type….

Feculant ooze sounds icky.


‘Given the degree and impact of modern, human-induced changes on our planet,’
They could have not made it clearly that is nothing to do with good science , everything to do with what they consider good politics to support their ideology.

lawrence Cornell

Yes, exactly. Just commented the exact same thing to my Wife. This is a sickness.
And in response to Brute (just above). Konrad’s response is a normal acceptable human response to this madness. Maybe you should pay BETTER attention…… perhaps you’re not mad ENOUGH.


Yes indeed this is sheer madness, it truly baffles my mind the outright lies, fraud and propaganda put forth by these sick people we call alarmists. I hope Konrad is right and the day comes when they are to stand in judgement for their crimes.


How long?
And then they came for WUWT

[Please provide a legit email address. ~mod.]

Leon Brozyna

The Anthropocene … when politics and ideology trumped science and reality.


It’s the thin-end of the wedge because then they’ll dig up some dopey quacks who want to eliminate the Quaternary, via pointing out that human ancestors were around for all of it, so that will have to go next.
Just tell them to get stuffed.


So now double-think and history revision time? “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia” No way geos are going to stop using the term Holocene. What’s next, eliminate the Archean to make a bunch of agenda driven fringe astronomers or creationists happy? If they don’t like science stuff they should just get a new hobby that doesn’t involve it.

Jeff Alberts


The Holocene should have never been defined as an Epoch. It should have been defined as a Pleistocene interglacial stage. The only geological significance of the Holocene is the dominance of humans. Otherwise it is an unexceptional interglacial stage. If the ICC wanted to rename the Holocene Epoch as the Anthropocene Stage, it might make sense. The Pleistocene-Holocene transition left a much more significant ‘mark’ in the geologic record than anything humans have done over the last 150 years.


The reason why it is different is because the now and the most geologically recent is distinguished by being our very best observational resolution. Once the icesheet roll that goes out the window. It was defined differently because European geologists looking at the sediments in and around the Alps and other places recognized it was just the most recent and best preserved record of a post glacial warming within an ice age. So the Holocene division is entirely valid and a natural and necessary geological division of time that is not going to be abandoned.
The branch of Arts that has pretensions to becoming a science one day and which actually deals with human beings is called Archaeology and they can call it anything they want to because geologists have nothing to do with them, for the most part.
And if some malcontent warmer ‘climatologists’ want to admit they’re really just artists at heart and don’t like study of Earth, then they can combine forces with Archaeology and Anthropology, and make up their own terms to their heart’s content within the Quaternary and Holocene. As we won’t mind for no one cares what any of them do because we don’t use or abuse their ‘discipline’s’ nomenclatures and stuff.
Contrived nonsense quandry solved.

lawrence Cornell

“It was defined differently because European geologists looking at the sediments in and around the Alps and other places recognized it was just the most recent and best preserved record of a post glacial warming within an ice age.”
Yup……….And exactly why the mad hatters want to get rid of it.

sleepingbear dunes

All the great scientists through the ages are turning over in their graves. Let’s get the historians involved too. What great fun to rewrite human history. I get dibs on the 17th century. Kind of boring. Needs a little juicing up .

IMO the 17th century was one of the most important and least boring in human history.


The climate obsessed in their most extreme form are destructive parasites, consuming history, data, and most of all our money. They ditch their critical thinking, ethics, integrity all in furtherance of their obsession.
The obsessed are as shameless as 19th century Millerites dressed in white gowns standing on their roofs waiting on the rapture, but with none of the Millerite redeeming qualities like caring for others.


removing all ref to the warmists and burning their books:-0 and film dvd etc etc
would be SO much better.


Keep some records as stark examples of the abuse possible by the self-decalred elites.
Like keeping copies of “Birth of a Nation” or propaganda films from tyrannies.

The Holocene is plainly visible here [at the left side of the chart; the clear warming during most recent ≈10,000 years].


I do not understand how they continue to call this “science.” It does not resemble ANY science I ever studied, with the possible exception of science fiction.


It’s a cult based on some bastardzed alchemy and thaumaturgy.

Alan the Brit

Deary, deary, me! What depths have they plummeted to when they stoop to the techniques of fabrication, adjustment, alteration, & re-writing of history, to further a political cause, that their forefathers fought & died to preserve their freedom & democracy, fighting against such tyrannical tactics! How long do we sceptics have before we’re rounded up & sent off to large camps for re-education or worse. I don’t think I am joking at this point. If the greenalists can oust reasonable people from senior positions through political influence, such as is rife at the BBC & other once great & hallowed institutions both scientific & non-scientific, if they can place false labels upon the likes of UK mathematician & educator & former childrens’ tv presenter Johnny Ball, maliciously linking them to paedophile websites purely to discredit them, there is no depth to which they will not sink!


There were people who liked to re-write history when it was inconvenient to their narrative, they were red on the outside as well as the inside. Same people, they just wear Barbour jackets now.


Below is an opinion of an advocate of warming trend. I would appreciate opinions without sarcasm. It is important to me because my belief is that the climate change issue, if it is valid at all, was hijacked by politicians for political and financial gain. Anyway, this is the first Ive heard of the “Equilibrium” factor and would like to know if it is a valid point of contention.
WUWT articles have been influential in convincing me of my belief that CC and/or global warming was a creation of falsehoods and I do thank all of you that contribute in the reader comments.
Anyway here it is:
I want to make an honest effort to help you understand one of the key errors in your recent response. Please set aside all your anger and emotions and just read this as the set of facts that it is.
The concept you missed is called Equilibrium. It is the state that happens when all inputs balance out and the system is in a stable state.
That describes the climate (including water vapor) prior to our introduction. It had a specific energy equation that had roughly the same amount of energy entering the climate as was leaving the climate for a net balance that we call Equilibrium. As long as everything remains the same the temperatures on average will remain the same.
Systems like the climate are also known as chaotic systems. These systems, for various reasons too deep to go into here, respond with large outputs to small inputs. Think of a sand pile. It will remain stable as you add grains until suddenly a single additional grain results in an avalanche. One single grain is all it took at that point to cause the system to migrate to a new state.
The climate is very much like this. For millennia it was in a state of equilibrium that included the effects of water vapor and a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (around 200 ppm or so). The temperature of the earth at that time represents the equilibrium state of equal energy in to energy out.
Now we come along an add a massive (yes, Paul, massive) amount of CO2 to the atmosphere in addition to all the water vapor and existing CO2 that were part of the system when it was in equilibrium.
That additional CO2 traps MORE heat and therefore the system needs to increase in temperature to regain equilibrium. In other words the new state is achieved at a higher overall temperature. It quite literally cannot be any other way.
The point is that you missed the principle of Equilibrium. Your bloogers are counting on such ignorance to make their point which is why I think so little of them. They base their ‘arguments’ on bogus data that is contrived to sound good to an ignorant person.


Equilibrium is easy to miss, because it has never happened. Climate never holds steady for any period of time….dynamic as opposed to static. You are representing an optimum that is only “passed through” as temp rises or falls.


My other response did not include your term “traps the heat”, or your point in how massive the amount of CO 2 we put into the atmosphere. Are you referring to 3% of the total? The oceans release more in one day.

Paul, your friend could easily fool a lot of people with this charade. His entire premise rests on one statement: “For millennia it was in a state of equilibrium that included the effects of water vapor and a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere” Debunk the base assumption and the rest of his logic is obviously flawed.
So, simply prove a few things:
1. The temperature during the last “millennia” (12,000) years has been higher and lower then today.
2. In the past, levels of CO2 were higher, while temperatures were lower.
3. In the past, levels of CO2 were lower, while temperatures were higher.
Good luck!

And ask, “which changed first in the past, the atmospheric temperature or the CO2 level”?

Just saying equilibrium is simplistic. While true, the typical argument assumes a more linear response to the gas mixture than actually exists. Rational folks don’t deny that CO2 has some impact on heat content. The debate is whether it is dangerous or large. An understanding of the absorption characteristics of CO2 is required to understand the situation. Suggest understanding the info in this link

lawrence Cornell

Paul, No one here would accuse me of being a scientist. But the simple fact is that the worlds climate has NEVER been in “equilibrium”. His initial premise is flawed.
Eric Sincere says : “Paul, your friend could easily fool a lot of people with this charade.” That is a true but extremely sad statement. There was a time in the (U.S) education system that an average eighth grader could have easily and confidently seen fallacy of the initial premise.
Sadly education has taken a back seat to indoctrination and social “shaping”.

Take a look again at that Holocene graph up top. It is characterized by a lot of bouncing and jiggling inside of a massive rise, then rounding over, preparing for the next plunge back into a glacial. There is NO equilibrium there.
It isn’t us who have ‘missed it’ somehow. It was never there. It is a fantasy strawman made up to use as a backdrop to confound natural cycles and excursion with human activity.

@ paul: September 16, 2014 at 3:57 am
Anyway, this is the first Ive heard of the “Equilibrium” factor and would like to know if it is a valid point of contention.
Given the fact that the word “contention” is defined as a “heated disagreement” then “YES”, …. when injected into or presented for discussion, ….. the afore defined/explained “Equilibrium” factor, ….. as well as the “Mass Balance” factor, … are both of little more value than any other “junk science” claim and thus will usually always “spark” a heated discussion from a real scientist iffen he/she feels compelled to respond to said display of miseducated and/or intentional ignorance.


” … The concept you missed is called Equilibrium. It is the state that happens when all inputs balance out and the system is in a stable state. That describes the climate (including water vapor) prior to our introduction. …”

Paul, we are not “introduced” to this planet as you so strangely framed the reality of humanity. We evolved here, this is our home, we are the product of that equilibrium. You seem to regard humanity like some “introduced” pest which emerged from an alien spaceship to despoil a perfectly balanced paradise. That sort of stuff is pretty easy to dismiss, so I do reject the orientation of your whole argument that humans are disequilibrium agents from the very beginning.
This is our home planet, we were never meant to exist anywhere else, we are totally adapted to here and now. We are not adapted to the Permian Earth, we are adapted to right now, and so is everything else. We survived everything and WILL do as we see fit to further aid our interests and survival as we judge necessary. And yes, as anyone trained in the basics of palaeontology will tell you, we do in fact have a use by date, we don’t know what it is, but it will in fact expire at some point, so we will do what we do until then, and who knows what things we will do before that. Hopefully we will diversify and travel to the extent we can nullify that use by date.
Now if other critters and plants don’t wish to participate in a planet of the human apes, then that’s unfortunately not an elective at present. Equilibrate to that reality and you’ll see things a bit differently.

Jeff Alberts

You need to re-read the beginning of Paul’s post. Your quote was Paul’s quote of someone else.


@ Jeff Alberts September 16, 2014 at 7:30 am
Ah, thanks Jeff, I see that now, I’d considered he must be referring to himself where he wrote, “Below is an opinion of an advocate of warming trend.” If there were quotation marks, some spacing and a source it would have been clear he was quoting someone else’s opinion.

Jim s

Judth Curry addressed this () argument when testifying before Congress. She said
“All things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet. However, all things are never equal”
Real world chaotic systems are never in “Equilibrium”. Energy inputs to the system (radiation from the Sun, nearby stars, geothermal heat) are not constant. Energy loss into space is not constant either. Small changes in inputs can result in large changes to the state of the system.
Current thinking is that clouds play a far greater role on temperature then CO2. Perhaps an increase in CO2 does in fact lead to a wetter warmer world. Well a wetter warmer world has more clouds which reflects more sunlight which means a cooler world. And there are a bazillion other factors at play.
Personally I thing the best argument against the CAGW theory is that it is not happening.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard P. Feynman

I googled, what R.P. Feynman and A. Einstein said about climate Change. I found nothing. Then I wanted to Google what they said about thermal equilibrium. But I didn’t. Instead I thought about it. A thermal Equilibrium must exist – at least in the laboratory. Otherwise you can’t measure temperature reliably.


Id like to give a VERY BIG TY to all who too the trouble of replying to my post. All of your input was read and I sincerely appreciate WUWT now and into the future.
WUWT I have found to be somewhat of a group think tank and the give and take is of real value to me!

Leo Smith

GO back and study chaotic systems again,and then ask yourself honestly what ‘equlibrium’ you can apply to such systems: they have none.
Also another mistake you made. Chaos does not mean little things case big changes. It may mean that big things cause little changes.
Looking back at the last couple of million years reveals absolutely no equilibrium of any sort, nor any obvious connection between carbon dioxide and temperature.
What is man made here is a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature that is way beyond what the basic physics allows, made for political and commercial reasons, not scientific ones, a now demonstrated to be utterly at odds with reality.


The concept you missed is called Equilibrium
A concept which has nothing whatsoever to do with climate.
These systems … respond with large outputs to small inputs.
And conversely, low outputs to large inputs.

Climate is never in equilibrium. It fluctuates on cycles of various time scales, with everything from oceans of molten lava covering the planet to oceans of water ice. For the past 543 million years, it has been relatively stable, yet still fluctuating through about 20 degrees C average global T. It is now very near the low end of that range.
CO2 has varied widely, if not wildly, during the Phanerozoic, from several thousand ppm in the Cambrian to perhaps 150 ppm during the depths of ice ages. That’s about the level at which C3 plants starve.
During interglacials, global average CO2 gets into the 300s ppm or higher. The move from around 280 ppm c. AD 1850 to ~400 now (if the reconstructed and measured record is to be believed) is nothing special. It means about one more CO2 molecule per 10,000 dry air molecule (from ~3 to ~4). By contrast, the moist tropics have around 400 H2O molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules, ie 100 times as many as CO2 molecules. So the GHE of adding one more GHG molecule is at best negligible there. In the temperate zones and dry tropics, CO2 is still swamped by H2O (global average is around 30,000 ppm). Only in the coldest polar regions do CO2 levels begin to approach the lower H2O concentrations there, but that’s when the sun isn’t shining in the dark Arctic and Antarctic winters. So globally, the heating effect of CO2 is not significant, without making assumptions about positive H2O feedback which are not in evidence.
In any case, the effect of more CO2 is logarithmic (ie most of its heating effect occurs in the first 100 ppm), so that doubling the GHG from three parts per 10,000 to six (ie 600 ppm at some hypothetical future point) would increase global T at most 1.2 degrees C, and then only if the atmosphere behaves as gases do in the lab. That’s not likely.

I think the bigger point is that you missed what equilibrium is yourself. Most people who come to wuwt understand it much better than you do.
The entire concept of homeostasis and/ or equilibrium is nothing but a weird religious delusion you and other cultists use without any thought. This planet has never been in either state… And the data is clear that the one constant on our four billion year old planet is that the climate changes constantly often without a known reason. So where does your religious delusion come from??
Probably straight from Christian texts about this never changing garden of Eden that only exists in the minds of believers. You see, this garden of Eden was perfect until evil man wrecked it, and so you follow in the steps of other cultists who also believe that this promised land did exist and that we can somehow return there after a tribulation.
So in conclusion… Us skeptics do understand that alien concept of equilibrium, we just understand that it’s a delusion.


I believe that homeostasis and equilibrium are valid concepts, regardless of your religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
The problem is defining the system.


Paul – there is no principal of “equilibrium” outside of chemistry. The idea that there is such a beast is a fairy tale at best. If you actually do the literature research to develop an informed opinion – and that is not sarcasm though you may very well feel it to be – you will find that there is no geological period in earth’s history where climate has been at some equilibrium, ever. The nearest thing to evidence that might “support” a hypothesis of a climatic “equilibrium” is seen in a graph on This data indicates a maximum limiting global temperature of about 25 C, which is considerably warmer than the present, which is shown as about 11 C. Since equilibrium implies a central zone around which a physical system tends to, the upper boundary of 25 C really is not an equilibrium value, though it has far and away more presence in the geological record than lesser values.
Plotted against CO2 concentrations over the Phanerozoic, it is clear that unless you consider that limiting temperature at which the global climate has hovered for most of the last half-billion years a catastrophe, catastrophe simply cannot happen because of CO2. Otherwise, it would already have ensued long before upright apes began to develop delusions of grandeur. This is the difference between observational science and models.


I think we should get rid of WWII and the Holocaust. That War makes Germany look bad so I think we should put it aside, it is very inconvenient for me when I try to persuade people that Germany is a superior country. I suggest we consider that time Prehistoric and only consider after 1950 as a time when Man finally became intelligent and civilized. I think we will also need to adjust the Calendar so that 1950 is year 1. In 2145 my technique will work really good on the youth as they will understand Germany is the Superior Country.

Gerry Parker

I’ve loved science all my life. I’m just about done with it- and anyone who claims to be associated with it- as a result of shenanigans like this.


I think ithis can be explained with this well know phrase: For the love of money is the root of all evil…


…well known…


Well known, and the exact opposite of the truth.

lawrence Cornell

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. (First sentence from provided link)
Sorry Dav09, The phrase “money is the root of all evil” is a misquote from the Biblical premise/quote: “LOVE OF money is the root of all evil” (please no Biblical linguists.. I KNOW I’m simplifying). It has an entirely different meaning.
The excerpt you provide starts with the INCORRECT phrase and therefore has no validity or meaning in reference to the actual accurate phrase.
Please don’t get me wrong. I am a capitalists capitalist (lol whatever that means), and I have nothing against Ayn Rand.
It’s a common confusion … one that some have used through the ages to their conscious advantage.


“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? …” (Paragraph part way through link provided by Dav09.)
The “money speech” in Atlas Shrugged begins with a response to the common mistake of the quote, spoken as a cliche at a party.
The accurate quote (another cliche) is also dealt with in the speech, Lawrence. If you read the whole speech to which he linked, there is no cause for confusion. It is chock full of validity and meaning.

lawrence Cornell

BillK, I indeed stand corrected … and embarrassed. I saw the “premise” in the first sentence and of course made the resulting assessment. My wife, who gets called by me on sometimes being less than careful in her reading and not “paying attention” is gleeful at the moment and I am receiving the appropriate “busting” as we speak. You have a fan. LOL
She is preparing the fresh crow now. 🙁


The public won’t buy what the AGWarmistas are selling unless it will help heat the home in the coming 30 year cool down.
The Anthropocene will be the AWP ca. 1900-2016. LIA2 next.


The article referenced in the link indicates 79 foot higher sea levels, but the text of link indicates 29. Both make today’s rising concerns seem rather silly, but I am curious as to which it is: “Further, during the last interglacial ~120,000 years ago, Greenland was up to 8C warmer than the current interglacial warm period, and sea levels were up to 29 feet higher.”


“1900 CE” …do these people based this on the bible?

Rather than just airbrushing out previous eras when Gaia was hot and frisky, why not pay a little visit to that discreet little shop in town?


We are drowning, drowning in nonsense! We’ll send 3,000 troops to fight ebola but only 300 to fight ISIL. Mods, if this is OT I’ll forgive you.

your president, secretary of state, and heads of the military have all announced the climate change is the greatest threat facing the US. because of course the results of fighting this enemy will only be seen long after everyone involved has retired.
IS, Ebola, forget about it. these problems will have immediate results and thus no one wants to fight them, lest their failures become all too evident. it is all about ass covering. that is the real problem they are trying to solve.

In my readings over the years evolutionists hide data, Baptists ignore data, and our society as a whole in the US is so politically oriented, We have lost evaluation judgment. We, in a way have become tribal and the Elite of the Washington Beltway do as they wish.

What data have “evolutionists” ever hidden? Creationism OTOH is based solely on lies. Evolution is an observed fact and a well-supported body of theory, like gravitation, plate tectonics, the atomic theory of matter and the germ theory of disease. The repeatedly falsified conjecture (not even a valid hypothesis) of catastrophic man-made climate change is neither.


What’s so offensive about Creationism or Intelligent Design, if one recognizes that evolution is the process by which it is accomplished?


I guess this is part of “improving the communication” that’s discussed about so much.

Keith Willshaw

As George Santayana said
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Some ‘Climate Scientists’ have no higher ambition than to reduce the population of the world to a state ignorant infancy in which they will become the new shamans. Opposition will then become not just ‘denial’ but blasphemy,
They should recall the final option of the downtrodden ‘A bas les aristocrates. A la lanterne ‘

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Before they are done the entire history of the world will be rewritten and this time will be known as the time that science was eliminated and replaced with propaganda.

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Data, not models.
Scotese has had this,, posted without change since 2002. He had it the same before, but added the light-gray line at the top (recent time). I suppose he was pressured by the alarmists.
Anyway, one of my favorites quotes:
“During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.”
Dr. C. R. Scotese
Cold kills. Warmer is better. (Ask the dinosaurs.)

Paul Vaughan

“[…] a shift from the Pleistocene’s Milankovitch forcing to the Anthropocene’s human forcing”
Milankovitch forcing supposedly OBSolete due to anthropogenic CO2 ???
Name the current political epoch:
The OBScene — an era when OBServations meant SFA (sweet f*** all).
in shorthand:
“The OBS”
where “O” = obsessive
and “BS” = BS (bullsh*t)
Better yet:
Let’s simply call it:
“The BS-cene”
If Milankovitch forcing is supposedly now subordinate to anthropogenic CO2, we’re definitely in the political BS-cene.


Has anyone informed the natural climate cycles the have been let go?


symptomatic of the mistaken belief that mankind is the center of the universe.


Their obsessive-compulsive anthropomorphism is a poor disguise for obsessive-compulsive misanthropy, which and threatens to pull a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde act at any moment.


Lets face it, the only way this type of stupidity is ever going to end is if we enter a new little ice age. Even then, I don’t doubt that there would be droves of climate scientists scrambling for grant money to prove how horrible and disastrous the warming will be once the “slight pause” in global warming ends. They wont be able to use climate change at that point because the climate would have changed against them, so they will return to using global warming.


I tend to agree with you on this.
With the exception of the planet at its birth and sometime after, and its predicted fiery demise when the Sun becomes a red giant, has there ever been a period too warm to support life?
Come to think of it, could average temperature of these hot end points, and all of the ice ages i between constitute an “equilibrium”?


Simply eliminate the Holocene from the record? Up to what date, 4004 BCE? Step by step they are inching towards Creationism to support their belief system.

Don Easterbrook

I’ve got a better idea–forget ‘Anthropene’ as a geologic term altogether. If you consider the vast number of geologic events that left impacts on the Earth (Ice Ages, volcanic activity, tectonic events, etc) and compare it to the discernible, lasting impact of humans it’s laughable–what manmade, significant effect can you now see on Earth beyond the pyramids, Myan ruins, and Mt. Rushmore? Well, maybe the Panama canal, but is that worth naming a 10,000 year epoch after? Man is the flea on an elephant’s back–we’re just along for the ride. Humans have had virtually no lasting effect on the geologic record.
“The Holocene is a climate-centric placeholder for change after the latest Quaternary glaciation, but does not, as defined, match the accelerated changes in land, ocean and atmosphere that mark modern times.” Whoever wrote this is not only uninformed, they are just plain stupid! They want to redo the geologic time scale on this basis?
Is there no end to the climate dogma?

Phil R

The “Panamacene”? 🙂

Walter Allensworth

Perhaps the Arrogantscene?

Thank you Don! I was thinking this myself. What happens to our present world civilization in say 1000 years should we have a complete and utter civilization scale failure? What happens to all the superstructures of steel like suspension bridges and sky scrapers? Should the earth decide to go earth quake and volcanic on us followed by a good ice age, all the works of mankind shall be scraped, crushed, rusted and buried to oblivion. I have been in the New York City subways a lot the past five years, and I have to say as a professional builder I saw the underbelly of NYC simply rusting away, Anthropocene, or whatever “they” are toying with is just stupid and just another fabrication to keep the CAGW scam narrative alive while the earth is cooling….


I’ve never heard such a load of balls in my life


They can have the Holocene as long as they leave the Pleistocene alone, I have more relatives there.

Thanks, Paul.

Centinel2012: September 16, 2014 at 4:55 am
….. and this time will be known as the time that science was eliminated and replaced with propaganda.
Just another “repeat of history”, ….. like was the burning of the Library of Alexandria and thus all science was eliminated and replaced with Religious propaganda ….. and the subsequent 1,500+ years of what is now referred to as The Dark Ages.
And even though the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment reestablished science to its rightful place, there are, to this very day, tens of millions of individuals that believes in and/or adheres to the Religious doctrine that had its origin at the beginning of said Dark Ages.

T Stone

I cannot think of anything that exemplifies hubris, arrogance, conceit or self-importance more than the term “Anthropocene”. The concept is truly laughable and pathetic.


Homo Sapiens Sapiens, maybe?


How about Homo not so Sapiens?

As Orwell noted, revising the past is so much easier than being truthful.
As with Team IPCC ™, unable to produce any scientific evidence for their policies, after all these years of policy based evidence manufacturing, they have reverted to that tried and true tool of Statists; Rewrite History.
The Age of Unreason .
I have wondered if the reality of our place in the Cosmos has made too many people believe they are so insignificant that they should give up now.
We are so insignificant in the face of natural events here on earth, that we seem too timid to tackle getting up out of this gravity well. Instead we have reverted to breast beating, delusion and waiting for the Asteroid.
Maybe those photo’s of this blue/green planet from the Apollo Era, had the opposite effect on our “Progressive” friends, I wanted to get out there, had great confidence we would, instead we have huddled in terror building an unsustainable welfare cocoon, where we bore our children to tears and supply them drugs to dull their boredom.
Is there a connection between the vastness of reality and our cringing self despite?
When did “I do not know”, become a mark of shame rather than wisdom?

Owen in GA

I am at a loss between two Einstein quotes on this one:
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
“The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.”
― Albert Einstein

Jim s

lol, thanks!


I personally would like to eliminate all musical history starting right about the time disco was introduced.
One can only dream, kind of like certain climate scientists do.

I´m for removing the Holocene from the nomenclature, because it refers to the last 2.6 million years, the period of ice ages alternating with short term warmer interglacials. Eventually we will have another ice age, and the cycle should repeat until the continents move around.
Using the term anthropocene sounds a bit premature.

I meant it refers to the tiny tail end of the Pleistocene. THere´s no need to name a geologic time period when it´s so short and there´s no significant change in the overal planet´s condition.

Please see my comment below, advocating the same.

I always liked Wilson’s “Magpies of Picardy”, the penultimate stanza of which reads:
“He said that still through chaos
Works on the ancient plan,
And two things have altered not
Since first the world began—
The beauty of the wild green earth
And the bravery of man.”
Now the verse needs amended to read: “The power of the wild blue earth and the brevity of man”.