![Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/holocene_temperature_variations_rev1.png?quality=75)
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; http://goo.gl/wIm6X0 ), 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 |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don Easterbrook,
Re: GISP2 data set “before present”
“present” is indeed 1950 so the last data point of the set (the surface) is 1855 or at the very tail end of the little ice age.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/notetime.htm
There are three main timescales used on the CD-ROM. For both GRIP and GISP2, these timescales are in years before present (yr BP) where year 0 refers to northern hemisphere summer of the year 1950 A.D. For example, year 1989 (summer) is be referred to as the year “-39 yr BP” on this CDROM, following the convention of the radiocarbon dating method (see e.g. Stuiver and Reimer, 1993). It should be noted that, in general, GRIP publications have not used the A.D. 1950 convention.
saying “nobody knows” and throwing your hands up into the air isn’t really doing research or even basic science.
As the reference articles image shows, the location surface temperature in 2010 was -27.5C which places the GISP2 2010 temperature data slightly above that of the Minoan Warm Period, and SIGNIFICANTLY above the Medieval Warm Period.
jai mitchell says:
As the reference articles image shows, the location surface temperature in 2010 was -27.5C which places the GISP2 2010 temperature data slightly above that of the Minoan Warm Period, and SIGNIFICANTLY above the Medieval Warm Period.
Then your “reference articles image” is wrong. That’s all.
Nice try, thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts…
Someone should tell the authors that the Holocene is not the Holodeck. You can’t just ask the ship’s computer to make it be whatever you want.
The ice core data is important not for the specific temperatures, but for the trends it shows. Ice core data from both poles plus Greenland are in agreement as to trends. They all show the same global warming and global cooling cycles. They are in agreement. Therefore, when ice core data shows that temperatures began to rise, or to decline, that indicates global changes.
That principle is universally accepted by geologists and other scientists. It explains why ice core data is important. The alarmist crowd wants to erase the Holocene is because they do not like what it shows. But they cannot erase the fact that global temperature changes happen naturally, and without regard to CO2 levels.
By attacking the Holocene, the alarmist clique makes it clear that they have decisively lost the debate. Now they’re attacking one graph out of the seven posted in the article, plus graphs posted in the comments. But the big picture is clear: natural climate variability rules. That is what all the graphs show.
Well, perhaps we are not being fair here. I would recommend we give Hanzo, Jai and the dalek the time and space to show us how unbiased they are. I am sure it won’t be too much trouble.
Between the three of them surely there is a significant body of published, public comments and criticism by them concerning the “accuracy” and honesty (or lack thereof) in the IPCC “arts and graphs” being hoisted on the world as “TRUTH”.
With their driving concern for graph accuracy and the honest communication of the details and truth contained within versus “the facts”, I can’t imagine they wouldn’t have a strong opinion recorded somewhere about the ‘accuracy of the graphs” that influence the global debate.
Mistakes are mistakes and the IPCC has their own correction mechanism as each annual report has new data that might supersede older conclusions. But the only peer review available for blogs is the comment section. The goal is to establish the key facts and we can’t do that if there are mistakes in data or interpretation. For example:
This article asserts…”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…”
However, the above data link showed an unexplained graphical comparison of a “time integral” with the mean global temperature anomaly, rather than a straight forward comparison with total solar irradiance (TSI). The claim that “95% explained by solar activity” is therefore unsupported by the very same data that was referenced:
Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SSN-Guess.xls
In contrast, the following source refers to 19 studies that concluded that the contribution of solar forcing was minor during the 20th century and was negligible since 1975. There was is no significant trend in total solar irradiance (TSI), solar UV irradiance nor cosmic ray flux during the last 35 years.
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Hanzo,
You say:
“This article asserts…”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…””
Let’s look at the part of the sentence you left out :
“…and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene Epoch.”
A) The link provided in your favorite part of the sentence has sources to back it’s premise. Including some from your “guy” the venerable Lief.org.
B) As you say “The article asserts… ~ … “and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene.” The Graph in question AND OTHERS supports that.
C) I consider SKS to be as reliable, ethical and accurate as Wikipedia. And I don’t allow Wikipedia to stain my moniter. Peer reviewed my ***.
D) “…and ocean oscillations.” are we ignoring that ?
You say : “Mistakes are mistakes and the IPCC has their own correction mechanism as each annual report has new data that might supersede older conclusions.”
Your Faith is sad and dangerous.
As Lawrence Cornell points out, hanzo is cherry-picking whatever supports his confirmation bias. He always does that. Giant glaciers could once again descend on the midwest a mile deep, and hanzo would still be cherry-picking ‘facts’ that ‘disprove’ reality…
I only have 2 comments:
to show an intent for accuracy and not bias.
1. The GISP2 data indeed ends at 1855 as shown by my previous post, this is the end of the little ice age. At the GISP2 borehole site, a study of recent temperatures was displayed in this article. It is the 4th image from the bottom of the article and the image used in the article can be viewed here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/a36bb-greenland2b40002byrs2bcompared2bto2bpresent.png
The image above is referenced to this paper and indeed the image is taken from Image 1 of the paper titled, “High variability of Greenland surface temperature
over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core”
in the REAL image from the paper it is clear that the image used in the article above has deleted the top half of the image which shows CURRENT temperature data. This current temperature data indicates that in 2010 the measured average temperature was -27.5C.
2 In the article above, the GISP2 data with the “measly” .7C warming attached to the end of the graphic, (which by the way, assumes that the GISP2 data ends at 1905, not 1855), can be seen here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/7175c-holocene2bgisp2.png
if this image is compared with the actual GISP2 image (also used above) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/d1a5b-interglacial2btemperatures.jpg one can easily see that the (measly) addition of .7C to the actual GISP2 data set yields a (measly) final modern temperature of -29.9C average.
To reconcile these two comments it is clear that the paper cited in this article shows a current modern temperature of -27.5C and the GISP2 analysis shows a current modern temperature of -29.9C. This is a +2.5C difference in temperature.
if the -27.5C temperature shown for the current value (2010) and taken from the referenced paper in this article was displayed on the actual GISP2 graphic it would look more like this: http://oi60.tinypic.com/28miyoo.jpg
which, if you compare it with this tried and true WUWT graphic is MUCH different.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/7175c-holocene2bgisp2.png
That is ALL that I have to say about that.
Correction:
GISP2 data set yields a (measly) final modern temperature of -29.9C average.
should say:
GISP2 data set yields a (measly) final modern temperature of -30.9C average.
and
This is a +2.5C difference in temperature.
should say
This is a +3.4C difference in temperature.
Jai,
1.) “…deleted the top half of the image…” NO, deleted the top THIRD of the image which has no bearing on the premise “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.”/ The link under the graph (in this article) that says “Full paper” indeed leads to the full paper where one can SEE the actual graph. No one is “hiding” anything.
2 Again and still … none of that has any bearing on the statement: “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.” which the graph(S) support. / In this article BOTH graphs you reference are shown close enough to see them in the same window at the same time and are referenced and sourced. Comparing and contrasting is not “hiding”, it’s a relatively transparent process. (seen above 😉
Also :
You have failed to show lack of bias on your part for the simple reason that you have failed to show proof of any criticism or even comment on any IPCC “arts and graphs”, or any other CACW graph or source anywhere, any time.
You have demonstrated no bias or deception on the part of this articles author. In fact by using primarily graphs and sources in your own arguments that are readily available here (in this article) you have shown just how transparent and resourced it is.
-dalek ?
Lawrence,
If the top third of an image, omitted from this article, shows that present temperatures are HIGHER than the entirety of the GISP2 dataset, then the statement “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.” is patently false.
. . . as this image shows (with information derived from the data in THIS article) http://oi60.tinypic.com/28miyoo.jpg
The part of the image that was deleted shows a GISP2 temperature location of -27.5 degrees C. This is unequivocally higher than any data point found in the GISP2 record, in its entirety.
Really Jai, Please tell me you are not argueing against the accuracy of a graph here by presenting THIS unlabeled scribbeling. http://oi60.tinypic.com/28miyoo.jpg
Really !? What are you doing here ? I’m sure you can do better. Try some peer reviewed science instead maybe next time.
IF frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their arses when they hop.
The data for this graphic was taken from this peer reviewed journal study: http://t.co/zguUkD3jUX
This is the same study that was cited in this article above. It shows a location temperature of -27.5C and a value higher than any temperature record in the GISP2 history. Please also note that 2012 was even warmer than 2010.
jai mitchell says:
Please also note that 2012 was even warmer than 2010.
Earth to jai: So What? A warmer world is clearly better than a colder world. And why did you delete 2011? Only in the deluded minds of the climate alarmist lemmings is a warmer world bad. The planet has been up to 12ºC warmer in the past, with no ill effects. And you’re worrying about a few hundreths of a degree fluctuation??
Next, the link you posted says that Greenland’s temperature has a “high variability”. That means natural variability, since it goes back many centuries. Jai, why don’t you do what you said you were going to do:
That is ALL that I have to say about that.
Take your own advice. Less of your wild-eyed alarmist propaganda would be a good thing.
There are current and future consequences of global climate change and I’ll mention a few whose increased frequency will have a severe economic impact: wildfires (like in CA), drought, and severe tropical storms that will increase in number, duration and intensity.
You may use the destruction inflicted by Katrina and Sandy as a guide. And that’s just the indirect effects of GHG emissions. The direct effects include reducing the alkality of oceans impacting the food chain, etc.
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Jai,
I said “Try some peer reviewed science maybe NEXT TIME.”
I am DONE with you on this thread, you are just making a fool of yourself now. You sound much like a child trying over and over and over and over and over and over again to convince mommy you deserve a candy bar. I’m almost embarrassed and sorry for you, almost.
Your faithful defense of a dying religion must be painful for you, I get that, but please go mourn amongst your fellow true believers. The rest of humanity is tired of you and your ilk and frankly a little pissed at your nonsense.
Please show some integrity and self control and stand by your own words, Jai Mitchell september 18, 3:48 pm : “That is ALL that I have to say about that.”
The problem with ad hominem statements and speculation of motives is that they don’t add any value. It’s irrelevant to any scientific evaluation.
If Jai’s post were erroneous or if there existed an alternative explanation or interpretation of data, then a concise rebuttal addressing his specific points would be appropriate. This approach would save time & space and afford credibility to the conversation. In my opinion Jai’s posts are interesting, thoughtful and consistent with peer reviewed credible sources. If you had an alternative view, it would be an interesting discussion and we might all learn something. Attacking people with words is a waste of your time.
hanzo says:
There are current and future consequences of global climate change…
Right there you have stated more misinformation.
First, “future consequences” presumes that you know the future, and that you can predict it. But since neither you nor any other alarmist has ever made any valid predictions, I think we can dispense with that particular nonsense. If you could predict the future, you would be heavily into the stock market, making good use of your amazing prescience.
Next, please state who, exactly — and by name — disputes that the climate changes. Here, I’ll give you an example: Michael Mann claimed that the climate never changed before the Industrial Revolution [the long, flat handle of his hockey stick chart, which deceptively erased the MWP and the LIA]. Post the names of skeptics who you believe also claim that climate change does not happen. I’ll wait. But if you can’t, as usual you lose the argument.
Next, against all empirical evidence you claim that extreme weather events “will increase in number, duration and intensity.”
I have posted numerous charts showing conclusively that extreme weather events have diminished in number, duration and intensity over the past several decades. Those are verifiable, empirical observations, which I will be happy to re-post. Just ask.
So that particular claim is falsified. Next, you baselessly assert:
You may use the destruction inflicted by Katrina and Sandy as a guide. And that’s just the indirect effects of GHG emissions.
I challenge you to post testable measurements proving that human emissions are the cause of any hurricanes. As I stated, I can post direct empirical evidence proving that hurricanes have diminished in both duration and intensity. Therefore, that particular claim is also falsified.
Finally, you assert:
The direct effects include reducing the alkality of oceans impacting the food chain, etc.
More BS and nonsense. Ocean pH has remained constant, as I have shown many times. Just ask, and I will re-post charts showing that there has been no long term change in ocean pH.
Next, despite your nonsensical claim, the “food chain” is greatly benefitting from the rise in CO2, which has been measurably GREENING the planet. Agriculture production is up substantially as a direct consequence of the added CO2. There is more food available now. The only ‘impact’ on the food chain has been positive.
I am saddened that you are resorting to easily debunked falshoods in your lame attempt to prop up the carbon scare. If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, you would know that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. The global warming scare is complete nonsense, and I am embarassed for you because you seem to believe in it despite zero empirical evidence.
From now on please just stick to facts, and dispense with your predictions of the future, and your attempts to put skeptics into an invented box of your choosing. The basic fact is that global warming stopped many years ago, but you refuse to accept reality. You are certainly no scientist. Being a religious convert fully explains your beliefs.
hanzo says:
There are current and future consequences of global climate change
Dbstealey says “First, “future consequences” presumes that you know the future, and that you can predict it.”
Using physics and other derived scientific disciplines, I could make a prediction that the structural integrity of a heating pressure cooker will fail at some point. This prediction would have uncertainties since there are, in principle, multiple failure points.
The same physics that predicts the behavior of heat seeking missiles and that of IR thermometers measuring heat remotely, also governs systems involving gases, liquids and solids constrained by gravitation that have periodic behavior (planets & atmosphere). The behavior of any complex system has uncertainty, but not all fundamental behaviors are random. And when diverse disciplines generate diverse yet coherent lines of evidence, the uncertainty diminishes.
“But since neither you nor anyother alarmist has ever made any valid predictions”
Well, all the consequences expected from global heat content rise have happened:
>Surface temp trend will be positive and actual magnitude will be within calculated uncertainty
>Northern Hemispheric ice mass trend will diminish at accelerated pace.
>Sea Level will rise due to thermal expansion and land ice melt.
>Ph trend is negative
The longer term climate model simulations (1951-2012) agrees well with the observed trend, including the so-called hiatus in surface temps.
Source: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Section D.1
“The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}”
Risbey et al showed that the short-term model runs of the last 15 years that accidentally reflected actual ENSOs weather patterns also agree with the observed temps. This clearly demonstrates the influence of weather in short-term trends.
Source: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
Dbstealey asks: “Next, please state who, exactly — and by name — disputes that the climate changes.”
I enjoy our interactions Sir, but that is a red herring. I don’t characterize our differences in opinion based on whether the climate is changing per se, but whether the climate is changing anomalous quickly due to global warming caused predominately by a GHG forcing whose magnitude exceeds that from known natural sources. This usually becomes a semantic trap when rates and time frames are left undefined.
Db says “Next, against all empirical evidence you claim that extreme weather events “will increase in number, duration and intensity.”
This is a reasonable prediction made by NASA as climate change accelerates and is a question under current study by the research community. To the extent that sea level rise is due to land ice melt and thermal expansion, the extra area impacted during storm surges is tied to sea level.
Db says “I have posted numerous charts showing conclusively that extreme weather events have diminished in number, duration and intensity over the past several decades. Those are verifiable, empirical observations, which I will be happy to re-post. Just ask.”
What you said is inconsistent with some studies:
http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Global-Warming/HurricanesandGlobalWarming.pdf
“I challenge you to post testable measurements proving that human emissions are the cause of any hurricanes. As I stated, I can post direct empirical evidence proving that hurricanes have diminished in both duration and energy.”
Growing evidence: http://www.skepticalscience.com/grinsted-hurricane-stronger.html
I refer specifically to impact of storm surges linked to sea level rise; but go ahead and show me your peer-reviewed evidence.
Dbstealy said: Ocean pH has remained constant, as I have shown many times.
What you said is inconsistent with the references herein:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Go ahead and repost your evidence.
Dbstealy said” The only ‘impact’ on the food chain has been positive.”
Maine Lobsters are starting to be impacted:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/09/20/maine-climate-change-taking-toll/P41vVDd9v3knTUeDH2U6SP/story.html
Observation: State biologists last year reported that the number of lobsters with the mottled, lesioned shells caught in Maine increased fivefold from 2010 to 2012.
Reason: Warmer waters promote the bacteria that cause the disease. Moreover, the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is absorbed by the warming ocean has produced more carbonic acid, making it harder for lobsters to build their shells and increasing their vulnerability to the bacteria.
Hanzo says : “Attacking people with words is a waste of your time.”
===================================================
Congratulations on your first factually provable statement of the thread.
Proven by the data (seen throughout this thread) that you will not CEASE your diatribal NONSENSE !
The “…concise rebuttal[s] addressing his specific points…” you demand have been provided to you over and over again by me and others here and you simply refuse to even acknowledge their existence. Instead you provide us with a live visual aid of a caricature of the scare mongering propaganda being fought against here.
In fact, you DEMAND that people attack you with words by the careless use of your own. You will feel better having to been MADE to feel bad by your bullies and tomorrow you will wake up with a new sense of resolve in your quest to be acknowledged.
PLEASE. Knock it off. Take the weekend off… enjoy your family, Gaia, whatever you’re into. r e l a x , refresh, smoke a blunt, get laid… do something ELSE.
That’s what I’m gonna do.
Bye Now.
Happy Constitution Day Americans !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (a little late 🙂
hanzo:
So, you claim to be able to divine the future, eh? Wake me when you make your big score in the stock market.
The fact is that you can predict exactly nothing accurately when it comes to this subject. If you believe otherwise, here’s your chance to prove it: predict for us when global warming will resume. That should be easy-peasy for someone as smart as you.
All of you comments preceded by [“>”] are merely baseless assertions. Therefore, they need not be discussed. Why discuss your idle speculation, especially when most of it is wrong [eg: pH predictions].
You still Believe nonsesnse such as every odd event that happens must be due to global warming, which in turn must be due to rising CO2, which in turn must be due to human emissions, etc., etc. Do you not understand how ridiculous your arguments are?
I post real world, empirical evidence, while you post papers, and vague predicitons that never come true, and in general, you post your religious catechism. This subject is a no-brainer, if you confine your comments to reality. I have asked you to restrict your arguments to verifiable facts and evidence. But you never do. Why not? Because if you did, the argument would be over.
There is NO scientific evidence showing the quantity of global warming due specifically to human CO2 emissions. No such measurements exist. Therefore, your entire argument consists of “what if” speculation. That isn’t even science. That is cherry-picked belief, supported by your confirmation bias: you BELIEVE, and that is sufficient — for you.
But for scientific skeptics, belief is not nearly enough. You need to provide convincing scientific evidence showing that human activity is the cause of climate change. But you have not even begun to do that.
Measurements, hanzo. We need testable measurements! But so far, all you ever post is your belief.
Zeke says:
But the conflict between Kuhn and Karl Popper is instructive for us today in the way that science is carried out, and by whom. Popper showed plainly that agreement by experts on a paradigm was not necessary for scientific discovery, and more often would hinder and destroy scientific advancement. He was right, and we could not ask for a more perfect illustration than Climate Science. Popper should be recognized for having seen this coming, and for his refutation of Kuhn.
Thank you for that, and apologies for hanzo sidetracking your comment, and for my responding to him.
Popper was on to something which Kuhn then screwed up. Dr. I. Langmuir showed in his “pathological science” lectures that Belief is a major problem in science.
That problem crops up constantly among the alarmist crowd. They will take a minor fact and turn it into a major argument, completely unaware that it is not relevant.
If the alarmist cult could overcome their tendency to believe whatever supports their confirmation bias, they would see that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening to the ‘climate’. But then they would have to step outside of their comfort zone. Very few of them are willing to do that.
The contemporary mean global surface temperature rise is faster than any natural global increase of temperature in the last 800,000 years at least. Even the PETM extinction event, characterized by GHG emissions and abrupt temp rise was slower.
Hanzo,
What does that have to do with Popper and Kuhn??
It’s past your bedtime. Put the bottle away and get some sleep.
The hollowscene is certainly BS, but the misanthroposcene would just be piling it higher and deeper. Wake me when these dinglenuts get some clue that it is just another interglacial.
Why debate the 17+ years of temperature stasis, when we can just fraud our way into omitting past temperature optimums, and thereby prove that the current climate is out of hand? This is not science. When we have solid data, there is no need for manipulation and dogma-based censorship.