Mainstream Media Ignores New Study: Present Sea Surface Temperatures “Indistinguishable” From Those During Last Interglacial…

…When Sea Levels Were Roughly 20 to 30 Feet Higher than Today

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Science recently published Hoffman, et al. (2017) Regional and global sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation. Not too surprisingly, the study has been ignored by the mainstream media. Why? As Science writes in their summary (my boldface):

Sea surface temperatures of the past

Understanding how warm intervals affected sea level in the past is vital for projecting how human activities will affect it in the future. Hoffman et al. compiled estimates of sea surface temperatures during the last interglacial period, which lasted from about 129,000 to 116,000 years ago. The global mean annual values were ∼0.5°C warmer than they were 150 years ago and indistinguishable from the 1995–2014 mean. This is a sobering point, because sea levels during the last interglacial period were 6 to 9 m higher than they are now.

Of course, in very basic terms, that suggests today’s sea surface temperatures are still within the range of natural variability, contradicting climate model-based nonsense about current values, while sea levels still have a ways to go to catch up to the past.

The Abstract for Hoffman, et al. (2017) reads:

The last interglaciation (LIG, 129 to 116 thousand years ago) was the most recent time in Earth’s history when global mean sea level was substantially higher than it is at present. However, reconstructions of LIG global temperature remain uncertain, with estimates ranging from no significant difference to nearly 2°C warmer than present-day temperatures. Here we use a network of sea-surface temperature (SST) records to reconstruct spatiotemporal variability in regional and global SSTs during the LIG. Our results indicate that peak LIG global mean annual SSTs were 0.5 ± 0.3°C warmer than the climatological mean from 1870 to 1889 and indistinguishable from the 1995 to 2014 mean. LIG warming in the extratropical latitudes occurred in response to boreal insolation and the bipolar seesaw, whereas tropical SSTs were slightly cooler than the 1870 to 1889 mean in response to reduced mean annual insolation.

And as EurekaAlert! also notes about Hoffman, et al. (2017) in their article Sea-surface temps during last interglacial period like modern temps:

…Their analysis reveals that, at the onset of the LIG 129,000 years ago, the global ocean SST was already similar to the 1870-1889 average. However, by 125,000 years ago, the global SST increased by 0.5° ± 0.3°Celcius, reaching a temperature indistinguishable from the 1995-2014 average. These results suggest that LIG global mean annual SSTs simulated with most global climate models are too low…

Many thanks to blogger “Alec aka Daffy Duck” for the heads-up here.

189 thoughts on “Mainstream Media Ignores New Study: Present Sea Surface Temperatures “Indistinguishable” From Those During Last Interglacial…

      • hahahah — I’m going to pull a George (smiling, smiling, Mr. Smith)! And burst in up here at the top to say…..
        The wonderful discussion below was only possible because of Y-O-U, O Bob the Magnificent! 🙂

  1. I saw one article that claimed the models were just fine and this new result meant that a burst of warming was surely about to occur, so we must act to save the world, or sea levels would rise 9 meters very quickly, ….

      • And the study says it will take 3000 years to rise 6 meters- if, and only if, the climate doesn’t cool in that 3000 years. 2 mm per year takes 500 years for 1 meter. Times 5 is 3000 years and 6 meters. I’m trying as hard as I can to worry about it but it just isn’t working! I keep fixating on the equally likely event of a new glaciation which a few molecules of CO2 will be powerless to stop.

    • It looks like this interglacial started out colder than the previous. Can we actually get another 0.5°C before we slide into the next cold period, considering that we’re already longer than average in this interglacial?

  2. And just like that “Global Warming Vanished” No mention of it on the white page. Praise God. This is the biggest leftist agenda being shoved down the American peoples throats and they try to make it believable or threaten us deniers. But that it the LIE, there is nothing to deny cause it was all made up by a bunch of power hungry people who thought they could fool the ignorant of America.. Haha.. I am one happy women and am so glad we will tap into OIL & GAS since it is so abundant and lowers the cost of energy on ALL Americans. AND JUST LIKE THAT, THEY WAS NO MORE CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH THERE NEVER WERE. The earth has cycles and just cause it warms and cools at different times does not mean you can shove you money grubbing agenda down our throats. THANK GOD FOR TRUMP.. THE SILENT MAJORITY SPOKE AND IT ISN’T FOR DAMN CLIMATE CHANGE. Just that name is ridiculous. Duh of course the climate changes. Hello wake up, its a new day in America.

  3. The last interglacial was 2.5C warmer than the 1880s reference at least on a global basis; land and ocean.
    Antarctic ice cores indicate it was +5.0C in Antarctica and Greeland ice cores, if they were calibrated appropriately would be about the same. Considering the usual 2X polar amplification in ice cores, global at +2.5C is the best estimate.
    I would say sea surface temperatures were more likely to be 1.5C higher in that interglacial.
    This is climate scientists trying to rewrite history again and say that sea level is going to rise 20 feet based on today’s temperature.

    • I agree with the general premise of your comment, although the precise quantitative data is moot.
      I consider that there is a failure to understand precisely how warm it was in the past. So for example, with the MWP when the Vikings farmed in Greenland, I consider that people underestimate how warm it must have been in and around Greenland to enable farming to have been done with the primitive technology then available over such a lengthy period of time.

      • Richard, I think a key difference here is that the evidence for the MWP/Greenland is that it was a relatively local phenomenon, lasting only a few hundred years. Whereas the last interglacial was globally warm and lasted 13,000 years.

      • Dave,
        The Norse in Greenland enjoyed the Medieval Warm Period, which was not just regional but every bit as global as the Roman, Minoan and Holocene Optimum Warm Periods. Ditto the intervening cold periods.
        This study uses non-standard dates for the Eemian, which is usually dated from c. 131 to 114 Ka.

      • “the evidence for the MWP/Greenland is that it was a relatively local phenomenon”
        Local? I must have missed something, what evidence is that? How precise is it as compared to the absolute proof of settlement and growing of rye? How about the tree lines being much further north in Siberia.(30 km at least in MWP)

      • You’re a victim of climate propaganda, Dave. Evidence proves the MWP was at least a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon.

        With the exception of some lowlands at the southeastern and southwestern margins, Glacier Bay was covered by ice as recently as AD 1770 during the Little Ice Age (LIA) (Motyka et al., 2003). The recent loss of the LIA ice in Glacier Bay has had a significant effect on global sea level rise (Arendt et al., 2002, Larson et al., 2006); it is estimated to have contributed as much as 1 cm of global sea level rise of the total LIA rise of approximately 20 cm. This deglaciation of the Glacier Bay watershed is one of the best documented in the world, with ice margins retreating distances as far as 100 km at some of the highest rates ever recorded. During this retreat, forests that were overridden previously by ice have been uncovered and radiocarbon dating of these interstadial forests reveal that in addition to the advance during the Little Ice Age, ice apparently advanced into Glacier Bay several other times beginning potentially as early as 11,500 years ago (Lawson et al, 2007).

    • Interesting comment Bill. I’m just curious about the “polar amplification”. Isn’t it just “arctic amplification”?

      • Not according to data issue by climate orgs. Steig showed Antarctic was warming as well. Not that I accept any of their crap data

    • The last Eemian interglacial here as shown in the ice cores (using the scientist’s temperature calibration compared to 1950 numbers). Sea level 20 feet higher at the peak of this interglacial. If you think Antarctica is 5.0C warmer right now compared to 1950 or that Greenland is 8.0C warmer than 1950, you will believe this study.
      Now there was also a sea level highstand, 20 feet higher, in the Interglacial of 400,000 years ago. This one does not appear to have been as warm as the Eemian but it lasted much longer allowing more ice to melt given it was a longer period of time. This one is also closest to the parametres we have now in terms of the Milankovitch Cycles, except we never get to the big downdip that started the ice age that followed 400,000 years ago. These are all the temperature estimates I have for this period – 6 diiferent ones.

      • the Interglacial of 400,000 years ago… is also closest to the parametres we have now in terms of the Milankovitch Cycles

        This is incorrect. The Holocene is a typical interglacial in terms of obliquity and precession, as MIS 5, 9, 15a, 15c and 19. MIS 11 400,000 years ago was very atypical. It started ahead of the obliquity rise and it expanded two precession cycles. That’s why it was so long. MIS 11 is in no way similar to MIS 1 (Holocene).

      • Yes, it is most similar in that every 400,000 years, there is a dampening down of the big swings in Milankovitch, particularly precession. That is what allowed the interglacial 400,000 years ago to last so long.
        Except what is different today in this Milankovitch period, is there is no downdip to put us into an ice age anytime soon. High latitude summer solar forcing declines extremely marginally (just 0.5W/m2) over the next 2,000 years and then it goes back up again. That is not even close to the “snow not melting in the summer” type solar forcing that puts us into an ice age. Even the downdip at 52,000 years from now on the end of this chart is probably not enough to cause an ice age. After that, the next downturn is 130,000 years from now so that is how long this interglacial is going to last – 145,000 years altogether.

      • Except what is different today in this Milankovitch period, is there is no downdip to put us into an ice age anytime soon. High latitude summer solar forcing declines extremely marginally (just 0.5W/m2) over the next 2,000 years and then it goes back up again.

        Increasing Northern Hemisphere summer insolation due to precession does not prevent the inception of glacial periods. It never has.
        There you have six interglacials. All six of them had increasing Northern Hemisphere summer insolation between 5,000 and 20,000 years after they started. All of them went down with a similar timing. The Holocene is right there at position 11,700, ready to go down regardless of what Northern Hemisphere summer insolation does.

      • It appears that there is a superinterglacial every 400,000 years, as with MIS 19 (800 Ka) and MIS 11 (400 Ka). If the Holocene also proves to be one, then the Southern Dome of the GIS is a goner.
        The eccentricity effect is so great that MIS 19 was warmer (as well as longer) than average, even though it occurred before the Mid-Brunhes Event:
        The mid-Brunhes Event (MBE) represents a step-like increase, between Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) 13/11, in the intensity of interglacial warmth. A transect of palaeoclimatic records in the North Atlantic from 40°N to the Nordic Seas indicates strong differences in the expression of the MBE within this region. Between 40 and 56°N sea surface and air temperature records suggest that all interglacials of the past 800 000 years were characterized by similar levels of warmth, so there is no evidence for an MBE in these latitudes of the North Atlantic. North of 56°N there is increasing evidence for interglacials MIS 19–13 being cold relative to MIS 11–1. As most records of long-term interglacial diversity suggest the MBE is a global event the North Atlantic is clearly anomalous. Furthermore, the strong spatial difference in temperature conditions during interglacials MIS 19–13 in the North Atlantic means that the temperature gradient across this region would have been enhanced, in fact effectively doubled in magnitude, during this interval.

      • The Milanchovitch cycles are very long and are ripe for confounding factors, one that is the real reason, or those cycles work in concert with another factor with a similar long cycle. After all, the match is not perfect as one can see from the comment by Bill Illis. What if the process is right under our nose? With such a large body of water it must take an incredibly long time to warm up to the point of heat capacity, especially with atmospheric conditions that sometimes lead to less than ideal clear sky conditions. Once it begins to evaporate it warms the planet pretty rapidly and prevents adequate re-supply by reflecting sunlight. But with net discharge, there will come a time when net evaporation can no longer be supported. So back down we go while the oceans soak up heat instead of what we want it do, warm us. The Milanchovitch cycles may interject some variations in this process but may not be the main driver.
        I know. Heresy.

      • It appears that there is a superinterglacial every 400,000 years, as with MIS 19 (800 Ka) and MIS 11 (400 Ka).
        The eccentricity effect is so great that MIS 19 was warmer (as well as longer) than average

        This is also incorrect. MIS 19 was neither warmer not longer than the average interglacial. You just have MIS 19 data right above your comment in my figure and you didn’t even check it,
        You have it all backwards. There are no superinterglacials. MIS 11 is an exception due to an unusual set of circumstances. Eccentricity is at a minimum now, 400K and 800K years ago, so it cannot have more effect. It has less effect.
        If you want to understand the glacial cycle you have quite a lot of information in the article that I published at Climate Etc. blog:
        Nothing indicates that the Holocene is going to be a long interglacial except if you believe that >300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere are capable of stopping a glaciation. Some people believe that, but there is no evidence to support that belief.

      • Javier,
        And yet the Southern Dome of the GIS melted c. 800,000 and 400,000 years ago.
        I don’t presume to know how long this interglacial will last, but am also convinced that CO2 at 400 or 600 ppm won’t keep the next glacial advance away.

      • And yet the Southern Dome of the GIS melted c. 800,000 and 400,000 years ago.

        No Gloateus Maximus. You are basing your view of the distant past climate of the Earth on a single article from a single location without proper dating methods, that you haven’t even read! You can’t do worse than that.
        The article that you refer to talks about biological samples found in silty ice at the base of ice core Dye3 that extends only to the past interglacial. Basal ice cannot be dated. Biological samples older than 50,000 years cannot be dated. All they have left is crude, very low resolution, very low reliable methods that appear to agree that the samples are between 400 kyr and 800 kyr old. Not 400 “and” 800 kyr old. The truth is nobody knows how those biological samples got into that silty ice and how old they are. However they say that some time in the past Greenland was a very different place with a very different ecosystem.
        And yet you make a narrative of superinterglacials based on “that”. It cannot get less scientific than that. If you can’t read the article, do not make up a story out of it.
        Willerslev, Eske, et al. “Ancient biomolecules from deep ice cores reveal a forested southern Greenland.” Science 317.5834 (2007): 111-114.

      • Gloateus Maximus
        “That paper from 2007 is not the study which I had in mind. Rather, this one from 2013:”
        I’ve read the original danish (popular) article your link is based on ( It is all about new DNA analysis which has increased the number of species found in subglacial organic material. There is no new informatikon on dating. It is still quite vague “at least 400 000 years ago, perhaps much more”. Interestingly this now also applies to the Camp Century core in NW Greenland, which had previously been thopught to have been possibly ice-free in the Eemian, but apparently not.
        You can find the actual research in Schmidts (not Willerslevs) PhD Dissertation here:
        Quite interesting. I recommend that you read it.

      • Just found this, based on the same research (particularly Camp Century):
        “The last forests in Greenland, and the age of the ice sheet”
        Svend Funder, Astrid M.Z. Schmidt, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Jørgen Peder Steffensen and Eske Willerslev
        (= most of the big names in danish polar research)
        It is a brief abstract from the 2014 EGU conference but extremely intereesting. I will quote the conclusion:
        “From this we conclude that the northern ice sheet dome, which today contains 85% of the total ice sheet volume, has remained within 100 km of its present margin for at least 1 ma, and possibly may go back as far as 2.4 ma. The ice sheet has therefore survived both interglacials and “super interglacials” that were both warmer and longer than the present.”
        A longer paper would be most interesting, but I am afraid that is one paper that is very unlikely to make it into either Science or Nature.

    • But the takeaway should be that anthropogenic-sourced CO2 had nothing to do with it then, and thus likely has nothing to do with it (current global mean SST) now.
      So attempts to control climate from a natural warming process, a process set in motion by an interglacial, by rearranging the world economies is akin to a rain dance or a village priest promising to quiet an angry volcano.

      • @Jolobryan,
        I would alter the last sentence of your last paragraph to:
        “… is akin to a rain dance done by a village priest promising to quiet an angry volcano”.
        Connecting the two points into a single one makes it just that more absurd but truer to the point.
        Just a random thought.

    • What this study did is what alarmists tend to do with many studies. They did an analysis of proxy data and found out that the Little Ice Age was cold based on the proxy data. Proxy data for modern temperatures is difficult to get due to various “coring” problems. Therefore, alarmists compare the proxy data to very highly manipulated temperature records and come to their conclusions. The calibration of the proxy data that they do is to the highly manipulated temperature record usually of the 1870s to1880s. That is why alarmists have tried very hard to cool the past temperature records back as far as possible because that impacts the calibration of all the various studies of proxy data. Given the temperature records are so highly manipulated, they are not valid, the studies are therefore never valid either.

      • I am presently reading ” The Hockey Stick Illusion “. Can some learned individual please assure me that in the wake of Mann’s garbage paper with garbage proxy data tortured into a hockey stick shape- surely peer review is more attentive to the “quality” of data and the statistical manipulation thereof.

      • Sadly, no one can provide that assurance.
        Consensus science means pal review, not peer review. It’s as corrupt as all other Big Government CYA sc@ms.

    • Bill, you may have it on it with the words, “Ice Cores”.
      How far down do you have to drill to get to the time of the last Interglacial? Didn’t melt this time and right there is you Sea Level Rise, sitting as white ice instead of blue water.

  4. Bob, isn’t the issue they are identifying that prior estimates of the LIG temperature had placed it as much as 2 degrees *warmer* than today? This latest data and modeling suggests that it may not have been any warmer than today, but that doesn’t mean that today isn’t warm! Those who prefer to deny that our current global temperatures are approaching the warmest in the last few hundred thousand years have long held that these high LIG temperatures are evidence that natural cycles can push temperatures even higher than our present level, but this study would now seem to cast doubt on that. And even Roy Spencer, in his most recent blog post ( says that he believes that some of the recent warming to this present level (now approaching the peak of the LIG if this new study is correct) is due to human activity. And moreover he guesses that (and I quote):
    “humans will cause somewhat more warming in the future…. I’d put my best guess at maybe another 1 deg. C this century”…..
    And he is basing his rather more conservative estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2. So even if he is right and the further rise is only 1 degree, we are facing global temperatures at least 1 degree higher than those in the last interglacial. It remains to be seen what effect this has on sea level rise in the next few hundred years: remember that the LIG referred to here lasted 13000 years and had sea levels 6 to 9 meters higher than at present.

    • Dunno on what basis Dr. Spencer supposes a significant global human influence. There is no evidence of a human effect globally, although there is of a slight effect locally and maybe even regionally.
      We are not only cooler now than during the Eemian, but also than during the thousands of years of the Holocene Optimum and hundreds of years each of the peak Egyptian, Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

      • He doesn’t specify the basis for his beliefs in this most recent article. But in others he is very clear that man-made CO2 and other GHGs contribute to net warming. His view-point is lukewarmist however: He doesn;t say that this doesn’t occur, but rather that the sensitivity of the earth’s climate is likely to be lower than some alarmists claim (hence his estimate of a further 1 degree is at the low end of those of other climate scientists),
        “We are not only cooler now than during the Eemian”
        That is directly contrary to what this article shows. Where is their error?

      • Dave,
        Their error is that every proxy shows the Eemian warmer than the Holocene, including now. It was especially warmer early on, during the interval comparable to the Holocene Optimum. You name the proxy; it was warmer. Sea level was higher. Natural CO2 was higher than pre-industrial. Hippos swam in the Thames at the site of London.
        Besides which, the authors might simply be wrong. Or right only about a brief interval during cold periods comparable to those observed in the Holocene, like the LIA.

    • “This latest data and modeling suggests that it may not have been any warmer than today”
      Sure, sure. There were monkeys and water buffaloes in Germany, hippopotamuses in England and capybaras in Florida. But the latest modeling says it wasn’t any warmer than today.

      • This article is about sea surface temperatures, not over land masses. I don;t think there is any doubt that it was substantially warmer over land at high northern latitudes during the Eemian than today, but equally there is evidence of it being cooler elsewhere: They refer in the article to the “bipolar seesaw”. In any case, global climate change then or now is not expected to be homogenous. The recent increase in average global temperatures (around 0.5 degrees since 1980 even in the satellite data) is substantially less than over land at high northern latitudes.

      • “but equally there is evidence of it being cooler elsewhere”
        Would you please specify just where it was colder. Because while I can identify some areas (parts of the Mediterranean basin for example) where temperatures were similar to today, the only area I know where it was actually colder is the sea off Norway during the early part of the Eemian.

    • I started in atmospheric chemistry as a professional in about 1968 Dave, and I don’t agree it was local, and I also don’t agree that it wasn’t quite a bit warmer, not just once but many times in the past.
      Your reference to ‘data and modeling’ is nothing more than a handwave to computer programs so ridiculed that even on finance pages’ blogs, when climategate broke and the programming of these ‘computer models’ and their ‘data’ got out, FINANCE guys in their THIRTIES were HOWLING in LAUGHTER at the thought of it being ‘complex, sophisticated algorithms’ and James Hansen’s supervisor Jorgenson regularly called Hansen’s work ‘complete scam, not even containing the proper law of thermodynamics for solving temperature in atmospheric mix.’
      Atmospheric air, gas and vapors, are an independent phase of matter and Hansen claimed that *with the power of modern computing, he had discovered how to calculate temperature of compressible fluids using solely Stefan-Boltzmann and ignoring hydrostatic condition – or in other words, density.
      Those ‘models’ you refer to and the data associated with them are models of crime: faked computer algorithms similarly to those of Keith Briffa; similarly to those of Michael Mann, similarly to those of Phil Jones,
      found to be
      fake math,
      fake math,
      and more
      fake math,
      disguised as real math,
      inside computer programs.
      The entire thing’s a scam. 15 top government employees in ”climate research” supervisory roles were stealing millions in grants while shouting there could be a big environmental emergency. When Al Gore’s movie came out,
      we real scientists
      started telling those fake scientists,
      we wanted the research they signed was transparent when they took public dollars to do.
      They hid everything they could.
      Climategate revealed they were scamming grants and swearing to each other they’d be damned if anyone would get their hands on the very research they claimed heralded trouble for earth and we all have to heed.
      We stopped and checked their bullshit and it is all fraud, all the way down to the claim of being able to solve the temperature of gases, vapors, atmospheric mix, -compressible fluids- without accounting for the hydrostatic condition.
      If you understand that fine. If you don’t then here’s the upshot: there’s a REASON the hydrostatic equation part of solving temperature of the atmosphere, accounting for compressible fluid variable *density*
      has a warmth contribution of exactly 33 degrees,
      and the so-called ‘work’ you believe is real,
      claims to be able to calculate the temperature of compressible fluids without accounting for that
      33 degrees
      and the FAKE Green House Effect you’ve been taught is ” ! oH ! sO ReaL! ” is ATTAINED by not
      ACCOUNTING for that
      33 degrees,
      happens to BE
      33 degrees.
      The story you are being fed about ‘models’ and ‘data’ is the story of FAKE data being written by scientists at their own whims, MUCH of the TIME: by their own admission again and again in Climategate,
      and furthermore being an atmospheric chemistry and radiation specialist for many years, I personally understand every aspect, of every corner of the climate sciences, well enough to know if the people admitting to fraud are actually perpetrating it: and it is absolutely true that it is utterly impossible:
      utterly impossible from first word to last,
      to calculate temperature of the atmosphere properly, without treating the compressible fluid, as compressible fluid, and accounting for the hydrostatic or density aspect of compressible matter.
      This is why we scientists are constantly telling beginning students of this field there is actually no Green House Effect on Venus, nor on Earth, nor on Mars, That’s three different planets to check,
      and our mathematics calculate their temperatures just fine: and we don’t use, any Green House Effect, when solving for temperature of anything. Not in real scientific research, not in industry. There’s no such thing in the mathematics of atmospheric chemistry. Anyone you see claiming their is, can shortly be revealed perpetrating fraud.
      Look around the real scientific internet where working scientists in other fields explain the fraud of AGW Green House Effect mathematics, and pseudo-physics. The reason so much can be so wrong with it,
      is that it was all originally derived from the fake work of about 15 government employees, perpetrating mathematics/physics GRANTS SCAMS in work they never really, thought would get examined. Al Gore’s movie cracked that story wide open and we,
      the real scientists of the world,
      checked their bullshit. It’s fake.
      To the last word. Let the man who says otherwise step forth and defend his work in public. You don’t even need to crack a book to check their stories it’s thermodynamic garbage coupled with voodoo passed as fraud to get grants money.
      By the time you heard about it, the cat was out of the bag to keep the momentum rolling that it’s real while billions upon billions in dollars were made by it’s perpetrators’ political bosses, -Gore, et al – in several nations.
      Al Gore was telling people they could be prosecuted for ‘denying climate change.’
      No, you can’t, but Al Gore can be. And so can anyone else whose research and financial records are examined which is why there has been practically a hole torn in the sky to try to keep the scam up as long as absolutely possible because like Hillary Clinton shouted backstage at ‘The View’
      “All their necks were gonna be in nooses if th(at) guy gets elected.”
      It’s fake, and to the man who says it’s not, let him prove he can properly calculate the temperature of the atmosphere according to standard gas equations obedient to known laws of atmospheric, gas, and vapor chemistry and radiation.
      You can’t claim to be radiating the proper energy,
      when you haven’t accounted for the density of the compressible fluid in question.
      And we, the real scientists of the world, are going to rub out all mention of the fakes who tried to storm the physical sciences through the ”flash mob of stupid” effect.
      We don’t care how many people said it’s real. It’s not and it can be EASILY checked. Just like I just checked it for you.
      End of story as far as those so-called ‘models’ passing for computer programming.

      • Sources would good. Mind passing any along?
        Good luck with that whole expose thing though, regardless. You’ll need it. Even if you are correct you’re talking about convincing some critical mass number of people who will not be able to dissect the math all that well if at all.

      • A.Schauer;really enjoyed your blog on fake statistics etc especially your ref to no effect on venus etc.this sIte seems to share your views : EXPLAIN

    • It was the Daily Mail, but its story about this mentioned that “scientists” say the sea level rise was 8 inches over the last century. If that is true, a 20-30 feet rise in sea level over the next few hundred years seems unlikely.

  5. Its not really propaganda just because you choose to omit certain contrary evidence?
    #Agendas #FakeNews #Money extracted with menaces.

  6. Now, this interglacial is going to last a very long time according to the forecast for the Milankovitch Cycles.
    If this interglacial last for another 5,000 years, the southern third of Greenland is going to melt out and some ice-melt will occur on Antarctica and mountain glaciers. Greenland is too far south to have glaciers in the southern part if interglacials last for a long time. They are only there because of build-up in the central parts during the previous ice age.
    Sea level will probably rise 10 to 20 feet over the next 5,000 years before it stabilizes.

      • What will our schools do, around where I live the life of a school building is 60 years, they build a new school and tear down the old school. I’m scared. Will we be able to build new schools fast enough to get away from the rising oceans? Dodging rising oceans is as scary as dodging a charging stampede of snails. Just like the oceans, in our sense of time the speed of a snail is slow, but just think how fast that snail moves on geological time scales. We are doomed, think of the children. Remember to always think of geological time scares, if it’s fast at that pace then we humans can’t move fast enough, birds can’t move fast enough, and those poor snails will not be able to move fast enough.

    • IMO, if the Holocene should last another 5000 years, like the Eemian, then the Southern Dome of the GIS should only partially melt, as it did during the Eemian, which was warmer than the Holocene.
      It did apparently melt completely during the interglacials of 400,000 and 800,000 years ago, however. So, if, as some imagine, the Holocene should last 10,000 or more years, there could be “catastrophic” natural global warming, where “catastrophic” means sea level rise.

      • Not really. MIS 11 was long (24-30 000 years), MIS 9 short, MIS 7 longish but interrupted by two “mini glaciations”, MIS 5e was 11-13 000 years long and MIS 1 at the monent is about 11 700 years old, give or take a century.

    • Now, this interglacial is going to last a very long time according to the forecast for the Milankovitch Cycles.

      This is not correct. MIS 1 (Holocene) is well withing average variability of MIS 5, 7c, 9, 15a, 15c, and 19 despite a colder start due to a longer glacial period. The average interglacial showed an acceleration in the cooling rate in about 2000-4000 years from present position. This took place despite rising Northern Hemisphere insolation in all cases.
      Our interglacial is well on course to enter glacial inception as soon as present global warming ends, and a good time could be in about 2000 years (4000 AD), when the next low in 2400 year solar cycle is due.

      • @Javier January 22, 2017 at 8:34 am
        Just skimmed your pdf ‘nature unbound 1’ for a first read.
        Fascinating stuff. Quote:
        “The Earth is locked in a very cold stage known as the Quaternary Ice Age. The reasons for this are unknown.”
        I’m pretty confident I have discovered the mechanism that could explain this all.
        Leading to the peak temperature in the Cretaceaous around 84 mya, large magma eruptions took place, totalling some 140 million km^3, ~10% volume wise of the total ocean volume.
        Biggest event the Ontong Java one.
        Without this kind of big eruptions, the deep oceans apparently cool down very slowly, due to the balance between geothermal flux (~100 mW/m^2) and cooling at high lattitudes (eg forming of bottom water etc.)
        We are still waiting for the next big eruption, to take the earth out of the present ice age.
        Requires deep oceans to be ~3K warmer then today.
        During a glacial the increased sea ice cover decreases the cooling area, thus forcing warming of the deep oceans.
        Imo the geothermal flux is required to keep the thermohaline circulation going.
        In case you believe the deep oceans can be warmed from above, pse let me know and I’ll show why this is not possible.

      • could you add a bit more about the here mentioned “forecast for the Milankovitch Cycles.”?

        Nothing compensates for diminishing insolation at 65N. We are close to minimum insolation at 65N and obliquity is decreasing at its fastest pace in 40,000 years. This is when, in a millennial timescale, interglacials take a turn for the worst and glacial inception takes place.
        We just had a rebound effect from the Little Ice Age which was quite close to glacial inception, with all glaciers and sea ice growing to their maximal values. Together with increase in GHGs that has given us unusually warm conditions for this late in an interglacial. In a few thousand years conditions will get colder than during LIA and the next glacial period will start.
        From page 15 it deals with interglacial length and the likely length of Holocene.

    • I’m 65, and come from a long lived family. I just hope this interglacial lasts for at least another 50 years. Then, after I’m gone, the climate can do as it darn well pleases.

    • That would be the good news. Bad news would be a glacial period. 15,000 years ago the place where I am sitting (40°N) was under a mile of ice.

  7. How accurate are these studies of proxies from 100,000 plus years ago? Sea temps, land temps and the rest of it?

    • Exactly! How do you even measure a global sea temp? Or a global average air temp for that matter? Make something up?

      • “tony mcleod January 22, 2017 at 10:08 pm
        Just because you don’t know how to do it doesn’t mean no-one does.”
        Global average air temps? It’s made up! As in Australia, 112 devices to “calculate”, NOT MEASURE, a nationwide average. 1 device for every ~68,500 square kilometers. As for sea temps, if the British Royal Naval records that spans hundreds of years were made public, it would show there is almost no change since records began. But you keep on with your alarm…dud.

  8. I think we should have learned to take proxies with a grain of salt.
    Mike’s Nature Trick was to splice instrumental (ie. thermometer) temperature readings in place of the proxy values. That was because the proxy values showed cooling over the last century. link
    The proxies themselves are a problem and that is compounded by how researchers handle the already sketchy data. It is hard to believe that most proxies are as reliable as some people would have us believe.

    • 100% Cb! And the oldest proxies are the most local. With the least understanding of what physical processes may have affected their present condition. It’s all assumptions and WAGs, mixed with no small amount of incompetence and corruption (aka Mann style research))

  9. All of the hand wringing of what will happen very gradually over the next century or 5000 years seems to ignore that in the last 100 years, civilization made huge technological advances, and likewise, would advance and adapt in the future to whatever happens. A continued rise of less than 2 mm/year could cause 8″ next century, and 10m in 5000 years, but based on almost certain progress, this is almost certainly not a problem. As sea level would rise and temperature increase, new generations would build further inland, and some would move to higher latitudes, which would now be more comfortable. Tree lines would slowly move to adjust. Crop growing would shift, but all of these actions would occur over many generations, even ignoring new progress.

    • Let’s not leave out humans moving off this Planet and establishing life elsewhere. With the way young people are today, Solaria would be a good place to start.

  10. “Thought so”. They base their results mainly on foraminiferal transfer function measurements which are well known to give much lower SST than all other proxies, and they compare with HadISST, not with core-top measurements which would have similar bias.
    If they had used predominantly Mg/Ca and/or Uk37 proxies they would have gotten exactly the opposite result. But then the paper would of course never have made it into Science.
    There has been rather a lot of these “get rid of the Eemian” papers recently. I read one the other day that claimed that winters in England during the Eemian were actually about 5 degrees centigrade colder than now. That implies that hippopotamuses can survive winter temperatures similar to those in e. g. Great Falls, Montana. Somehow it doesn’t feel quite plausible.

  11. Unfortunately the article is pay walled. So we have no way of considering how their estimates depend on error ranges. A possible check is that they say: “Our results indicate that peak LIG global mean annual SSTs were 0.5 ± 0.3°C warmer than the climatological mean from 1870 to 1889 and indistinguishable from the 1995 to 2014 mean.” If so, then is it true to say that the 1870 to 1889 sea surface temperatures were likely 0.5C with an error range from 0.2 to 0.8 Celsius cooler than the 1995 to 2014 mean? I note that the ‘modern’ SST is likely to have been estimated mostly from free floating buoys(?) while the older temperatures would have been made by using canvas buckets – and as one who has used that method, I would say that in good conditions it would be possible to guess the temperature down to 0.1C, in poor conditions one would be lucky to get as close as 1.0C to the correct temperature.
    A question must be answered, during the last interglaciation was the Black Sea connected to the Mediterranean or not. Those who would like to plough through an interesting article may wish to read:
    which deals with the flooding of the Black Sea/Lake. A figure is quoted of 62 000 km3 for 94% of the shelf area of the Black Sea, which is possibly the volume of water needed to cover the shelf from the prehistoric level of possibly 95 mbsl to near full. There are numerous estimates of water volume, but nothing saying definitely exactly what the volume would be from the probable 120 mbsl level before the flood to full.
    Taking this figure, what would be the increased depth of the oceans if this volume of water was outside the Black Sea and not in it? A few inches or perhaps the 6 to 9 m quoted? This would of course have required a barrier 6 to 9 metres to separate the Sea of Marmara from the Black Sea Lake instead of the 2 or 3 metres currently supposed to have been the barrier immediately prior to the barrier being breached. But in the 100 000 years or so since the end of the LIG and the flood such a barrier could have possibly been worn down.

    • “during the last interglaciation was the Black Sea connected to the Mediterranean or not”
      It was. It was flooded in the early Eemian much like in the Holocene and a stratified euxinal sea resulted. However there is some evidence for two separate sapropel layers during the Eemian, so the Black Sea was possibly briefly isolated and freshened during a mid-Eemian cool interval.
      By the way that figure “20-30 feet higher sea-level” one always sees in unproven to put it mildly. It is just as likely to have been 10 feet.

      • An even more interesting question has been raised – was the Black Sea at some point connected through to the Caspian?

      • “Griff January 22, 2017 at 10:52 am”
        What is more interesting is what will happen when the rift valley pulls apart enough to be below sea level and the sea will flood in starting roughly in the Afar region of Ethiopia. I suspect humans will have eradicated themselves through stupidity well before then.

      • The center of the rift valley already is below sea level. However the land between it and the sea are still well above sea level.
        I agree that when it does begin to flood, it will be interesting times. Too bad it’s on the eastern side of the continent, otherwise a shallow sea might provide rain water for a good portion of N. Africa.

      • Yup. The Afar Depression includes the lowest land in Africa.
        In the Great Rift Valley, we can see what happened back at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary when Pangaea started tearing apart between the North American and African plates to form the nascent Central Atlantic Ocean. This CAMP event is associated with the mass extinction event which encouraged dominance of the land by dinosaurs. In some environments the prosauropods were already the largest herbivores by the Late Triassic, but ornithischian plant-eaters and theropod carnivores were still relatively minor.

  12. Another thing. Those pretty diagrams showing temperatures at different times during the Eemian are also extremely shaky from a chronological point of view and almost certainly mix data from widely different time intervals.
    The Eemian began and ended at different times in different places and recent paleomagnetic research shows that in the type area in the Netherlands it doesn’t begin until about 120 000 years ago, i. e. 7-10 000 years later than usually thought:

  13. Distant proxy data is not the same as data collected today. The picture of climate grows hazier and hazier the further back we go which is why looking at fossils in the oceans and landmasses is a better way to judge past climates and yes, it has been considerably warmer than today in the past, we are in an Ice Age cycle that hasn’t stopped, it is wishful thinking.
    And certainly we are nowhere near as warm as the Eemian Warm Period based entirely on plant/animal fossils. We can’t do exact numbers due to the fact, we are using only dim proxies but yes, the fact that African temporal animals lived high up in Europe is proof, it was much warmer that time around and we now know that during the dinosaur era, they went all the way north, too, and it was much, much warmer than the Eemian and today.

  14. They can’t figure an angle to make it look like a bad thing so they ignore it. No creativity in journalism anymore, a Brokaw or a Rather could spin this in a heart beat, and get a journalism prize in the process!

    • I think Bob was a bit flippant with:
      “Mainstream Media Ignores New Study”
      Study published 20 Jan, this piece out 2 days later. I know, making it sound like they are being sneaky gets more clicks.

  15. The climate optimum was 4000-5000 years ago. The Holocene will be short-lived in geologic time. TIME’S UP. We’ll be lucky if the current solar minimum results in just an LIA.

  16. My thoughts on ice cores:
    Ice cores show semi-regular episodes of stadial-interstadial periods over the past 800,000 years. The ice cores are unreliable at the very top and very bottom. Layers also degrade over time as they succumb to more pressure from added layers on top and cannot withstand bedrock grinding. That is to say it is difficult at best to use ice cores beyond 800,000 years old and cannot reliably reflect current conditions. All but one or two indices published on the net have an apples and oranges attachment on the current end that is from CO2 atmospheric direct measurement indices. Matching these periods to Milanchovitch cycles borders on cyclomania. Meaning the mechanism has not been fully described, leaving proposed causes vulnerable to confounding mechanisms. When I want to look for myself, I go to the following research.
    I avoid this Hide the decline nonsense using spliced proxies and observations.
    ice core CO2 record

  17. “Not too surprisingly, the study has been ignored by the mainstream media. Why?”
    Almost all studies are ignored by the mainstream media. Why is this one mainstream news? The AR5 said (5.3.4):
    “From data synthesis, the LIG global mean annual surface temperature is estimated to be ~1°C to 2°C warmer than pre-industrial (medium confidence)(Turney and Jones, 2010; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2013), “
    This new one seems to lower the estimate slightly, if anything. The point they are making is that we’ve just reached those levels, while in the LIG it lasted longer and sea levels were 6-8m higher.
    But beyond that, the concern about warming is not where we have got to (not so bad), but where continued GHG rise will take us.

    • “while in the LIG it lasted longer and sea levels were 6-8m higher.”
      Do You have any reputable source for that?
      And don’t try Kopp et al. 2009. It was that particular piece of junk that originally caused me to begin realizing just how shaky “climate science” actually is.

      • A.Dutton, A. E.Carlson, A. J.Long, G. A.Milne, P. U.Clark, R.DeConto, B. P.Horton, S.Rahmstorf, M. E.Raymo, Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods. Science 349, aaa4019 (2015). doi:10.1126/science.aaa4019pmid:26160951

    • The fact that the Arctic tree lines around Siberia-N Canada were higher (by several hundred km) 6-8 kyrs ago (HTO)… tells me we have got a lot of room left for comfortable anthro-GHG warming.
      The fact that grapes were being grown in northern England during/about (100 AD) where they can’t today…tells me we have got a lot of room left for comfortable anthro-GHG warming.
      The fact that Greenland’s Norse pastoral colonies of 1 kyrs ago are now ice fields and bitterly cold most of the year… tells me we have got a lot of room left for comfortable anthro-GHG warming.
      The clear fact is that the Earth’s climate has been on a downward temperature slope for 2000 yrs, interrupted by 400-500 year warmer periods. (Which is why of course the hockey stick fakery was needed/attempted.)
      Conclusion: Any anthropogenic GHG we are now getting is likely saving our collective butts from a calamity of unspeakable proportions when LIA 2.0 arrives in a few hundred years from present. The bonus of anthro-CO2 is that we are also enhancing photosynthesis productivity across the biosphere during this period. Malthusians concerned about a crash have been wrong for over 200 years, and will likely continue to be wrong, at least climate-related collapses.
      Any coming collapses of humanity is likely to be of a more direct nature. Some possibilities that come to mind: a global nuclear war destroying the worlds interconnected economy, or a rise in completely antibiotic-resistant bacteria that cannot be controlled in the large urban areas/heavily populated w/ poor sanitation like areas of Asia and Africa.

      • Earth has been cooling for more than 3000 years long term. The EAIS stopped receding that long ago, as shown by soil isotopes.

      • Griff,
        Northern England produced large quantities of high quality wine then. Using the methods available then, that would not be possible now. And indeed as to quality, still isn’t, and the risk of crop loss from freezing is high, despite urban heat islands.
        Wine grapes were grown in Scotland in the Medieval WP.

      • The Romans brought there Mediterrean varietal grapes to England. Of course, today there are cold-selectedvarietals that can thrive in N England, but N England is still subject to occasional years of killing freezes that would inhibit a commercial vineyard.

      • Wine was grown in the north of England during the Medieval WP, but wasn’t commercial grade. Its use was mainly liturgical.
        But monks could still get snockered on the erstwhile blood of Christ.

      • Thanks to fossil fuels, I grow tropical plants in my house and they survive even when it’s -40 outside.

      • Well, you can go grapes in most locations, but the question comes as to what can then be done with said grapes. Where I live, we have the hot weather in summer for excellent wine, but we also have temperatures struggling to go above 0 degrees celsius in winter.
        The UK doesn’t really have the consistently needed sunshine and temperatures to produce good wine. The answer is to develop a new grape variety, rather than trying to give the World sub standard wine from grape types that need a warmer climate.

      • “Griff January 22, 2017 at 10:53 am
        you absolutely could grow grapes in N England these days, if you really wanted to.”
        And what changed in farming practices between the Roman occupation of England and today? Farming practices, perto-chemical based fertilisers, pest/disease control, irrigation?

      • “Griff January 22, 2017 at 10:53 am”
        BTW Griff, the Wairarapa region of New Zealand, just north of Wellington, off state highway 1, is a very VERY good growing region for wine, more whites that reds (NZ for while, Aus for red IMO) due to soils. Growers have a neat trick to deal with frost, and it DOES get cold in the Wairarapa, they hire helicopters to “stir” the air over their vines, keeps the frost away. It proves technology and and use of fossil fuels is KEY to human development and progress.
        BTW, if you want to revert to pre-industrial living, I know there are thousands of Ethiopians who would swap their hut for your centrally heated house with all the luxuries you are used to. Electricity?!! Food not grown by you?!

      • Both new varieties and modern cultivation practices, to include giant fans and helicopters:
        It has also recently become possible to graze sheep in Greenland, but they spend the winters indoors, as indeed did the tiny Norse cattle. But it is still not possible to grow enough hay or summer pasture in even the balmiest parts of Greenland for economical dairy farming today.

    • “The point they are making is that we’ve just reached those [temperature] levels …”.
      The problem I have with those comparisons (as a layman) is that the estimated temperatures of the Eemian are averaged over thousands of years.
      I seems ridiculous to draw any conclusions based on the past 40, 60 or 100 years and then attempt to make a prediction about the future.
      BTW notice Stokes referred to GHGs (not CO2), presumably inferring strong water vapour feedback in the system.

    • Nick Stokes January 22, 2017 at 7:32 am
      “Almost all studies are ignored by the mainstream media. ”
      Just seems odd that any study “they” don’t agree with gets lost, while the studies based on junk science models get headline news no matter how absurd and provably wrong they are.

  18. Bob,
    “… today’s sea surface temperatures are still within the range of natural variability, contradicting climate model-based nonsense about current values, while sea levels still have a ways to go to catch up to the past.”
    It doesn’t follow that because sea surface temperatures are still within the range of natural variability that they aren’t currently being warmed by man-made influences and that somehow they won’t continue to warm.
    Anyway, the study paper says global mean sea surface temperatures 129 -116 K years ago, when sea levels were 6 to 9 m higher than they are now, are “indistinguishable” from the modern average.
    A sobering point indeed.

    • Sobering indeed: As I mentioned above, even Roy Spencer sticks his neck out far enough to suggest that humans will cause more warming in future – he suggests 1 degree this century. Of course he is just a “lukewarmist” others suggest more.
      I’m not sure if we will see these effects pan out in terms of sea level in my lifetime, but I do care something for future generations.

      • You care, Dave. Who doesn’t?
        Where you are missing the boat is: there is NO evidence at this time that there is anything you can do about it.
        No matter WHAT Dr. Roy Spencer “guesses.”
        Try reading Dr. Richard Lindzen instead. Or look at what the late Dr. Hal Lewis had to say. Or what the late Dr. Robert Carter wrote.
        Don’t want to bother?
        Have fun wringing your hands, walking around with an oh-so-holy furrowed brow, and feeling good about yourself because you care.
        Try caring about those who are living in energy poverty, thanks to people like you who do their best to keep the conjecture of AGW alive.

      • That’s one degree rise in atmospheric temps, Dave. The oceans are vastly more massive than the atmosphere, and the atmosphere does not transfer it’s heat to the oceans easily. Sea level rise due to melting (land-based) ice, is unlikely to increase much from even a few degrees rise in atmospheric temps, because the big potential ice-melt sources are well below the freezing point virtually all the time . .

      • “there is NO evidence at this time that there is anything you can do about it.”
        Not only that, but there is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 has any warming effect whatsoever in a convective atmosphere.
        The only warming in the satellite temperature era has come from EL Nino’s,
        El Nino are nothing to do with CO2.

      • “The only warming in the satellite temperature era has come from EL Nino’s,”
        The steady rise in background ocean and atmosphere temps are caused by a radiative imbalance. That hasn’t been caused by El ninos. EN just move energy around.
        Queue the graph. But why don’t temperatures just drop back to where they were prior to the EN spike?

      • “tony mcleod January 23, 2017 at 12:23 am
        …atmosphere temps are caused by a radiative imbalance.”
        If that were true there would be a steady adjustment in ground based optics to compensate. In ~80 years, that has not happened. Look up atmospheric scintillation.

      • Fascinating slight of hand you’ve got there.
        You note that Dr. Spencer is a lukewarmist who expects about a degree of warming, then you notice that others expect more (without also mentioning that there are also those who expect less), and from there you just jump to the assumption that it is proven that there is reason for concern.
        PS: a few feet of sea rise over the next century (which is really the highest end of what might be possible) is really easy to adapt to. As buildings reach the end of their useful, the get torn down, and instead of rebuilding them in the same spot, rebuild them a little bit inland.

      • About half of the Netherlands already lies below sea level, including Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

    • Both the SST and sea-level data are questionable. SST are biased low and sea-level high. Both by carefully choosing only proxy data that support the “party line”.

      • tty,
        Sea level rise is monitored by 5 different providers independently using satellite altimeters. They all agree that the rate of rise since 2002 is currently equal to ~ 3.3 mm/yr:
        So they aren’t based on proxy data and there’s no suggestion that any one is biased high (since they all agree). What evidence is there that all 5 producers have got this wrong?

      • DWR54
        That figure of 3.3 mm/yr has included in it a calculated ‘isostatic rebound’ which is to say, that is not the actual sea level rise. If you go and measure it, it is 1.8. If the land didn’t rebound then it might be more, but it does, so it is 1.8 mm/yr. It also sinks in places like E UK.

    • @DWR54…it makes sense that there would be a slight increase in SLR during the peak period of a warming trend. Even at 3.3 mm/yr that is still less than a foot per century, nothing to be alarmed about.

      • goldminor
        “Even at 3.3 mm/yr that is still less than a foot per century, nothing to be alarmed about.”
        Assuming no further acceleration, yes. Big assumption though.

      • It is not 3.3 it is 1.8 and it is not accelerating. And if it did, it would indicate a warming planet which would be good for everyone and everything on it except harbingers of doom who make a living casting errant prophecies about like beheaded chickens.

      • DWR54, people have been predicting an imminent acceleration is SLR for at least 30 years now.
        When exactly is it going to happen?

  19. Most proxies place temperate sea temperatures 1-2C higher duringnthe Eemian highstand, and Arctic temperatures (Greenland ice cores) 5-8C higher than present. The Eemian highstand from present (6-7 meters sea level) also took about 3000 years to reach. That is about 2.2mm/year, the same rate of SLR as diff GPS corrected tide gauges at present. Nothing to be alarmed about despite the PIK spin.

  20. So here we have a new study which suggests that ocean temperature during the Eemian interglacial (MIS-5e) was similar to present. This is DEFINITELY news!!! Why is it news? Because far and away the vaunted consensus among scientists is that the Eemian was several degrees warmer than the present interglacial.
    “At La Grande Pile and Les Echets, an oscillation of higher temperatures at the very end of the Eemian is related to two Pinus peaks before and after a re-expansion of Picea and Abies (de Beaulieu and Reille, 1992b).”
    “However, the magnitude of the reconstructed winter temperature change is higher in the continental records (6º to 8ºC) than in the marine core (ca. 3.5ºC). One should stress that the amplitude of variation of winter temperatures between the glacials and the interglacials is 4 to 5 times higher for the continent, than for sea surface temperatures.”
    “Furthermore, astronomical calculations (Berger, 1978) show that the insolation values underwent much wider variations at high latitudes than at mid-latitudes during the Quaternary. Therefore, the astronomical forcing on climate (and vegetation) might be less at the latitude of the presently discussed pollen records in comparison to the marine record. The North Atlantic Ocean circulation, which directly influences the climate of Europe (Broecker et al., 1989), shows also that sea surface temperatures and salinity are subject to far stronger changes at high latitudes than at lower latitudes (Keigwin et al., 1994).”
    “The result of these high resolution climate reconstructions is the discovery of a rapid (human scale) and significant cooling event within the Eemian interglacial.”
    “Here, we provide an independent assessment of the average LIG [Last InterGlacial] Greenland surface warming using ice core air isotopic composition (δ15N) and relationships between accumulation rate and temperature. The LIG surface temperature at the upstream NEEM deposition site without ice sheet altitude correction is estimated to be warmer by +8.5C ±2.5C compared to the preindustrial period.”
    “When accounting for a reduced Greenland ice sheet and a retreat in sea ice cover in the Nordic Seas, atmospheric simulations can explain up to 5 C annual mean warming with respect to the preindustrial period (Merz et al., 2014a, 2016)”
    “….we find a LIG temperature 7–8 C warmer than at the current drilling site. When corrected for the change in deposition site, this translates to a 6–11 C higher temperature at the NEEM deposition site for LIG compared to the preindustrial temperature level.”
    “The positive feedback resulting from vegetation-induced changes in albedo amplified Arctic summer temperatures, which climbed to an average of 5C above the present (Chapin et al., 2005). Such high temperatures led to the complete disappearance of the south dome of the Greenland ice sheet and to a loss of almost half of its present-day volume, leading to significantly higher SL (Cuffey and Marshall, 2000; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2006).”
    “With polar temperatures 3–5C warmer than today, the last interglacial stage (~125 kyr ago) serves as a partial analogue for 1–2C global warming scenarios.” Articles/Kopp Interglacial sea level 2009.pdf
    The oxygen isotopes in the ice imply that climate was stable during the last interglacial period, with temperatures 5C warmer than today.

  21. I’m not so sure that sea level is a good yardstick. Sea levels change quite quickly in different locations depending on the geometry of the sea floor. Most geologists will tell you that for many of our oceans the sea floor moves, not only laterally but vertically due to new crust formation, tectonics and volcanic activities.
    I would like to see measurement of water volume. Changes to water volume in our oceans would be a far better yardstick than sea levels.

    • Small meteors and comets are bringing new water to the earth all of the time. Over years, even centuries, not enough to make a difference. However, 100K years, it might be a measurable difference.

  22. The Main Stream Media like the National Science Foundation and other U.S. Federal Agencies (European, UK et al. Federal and National Agencies too) and Climate Non-Science (aka Climate Science) use ideology as a test of truth, not experiment, not measurements and certainly not observations. Anything that does not pass the test of ideology is rejected. That will be the case for many decades to come as it will take that long for the champions of Climate Science to die and not pass on their ideology-based machinations to others. Only then in the distant future (as projected by the New York Times for instance) will Climate Science take its rightful place beside Astrology. And like Astrology it will be written about in news papers (digital and otherwise) of that distant future, just not on page one; more like next to the comics section before the obituary section.
    Paint Your Wagon … Yee Haa

  23. So, if the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is correct, we are barely sustaining the natural variability inherent to the system. That seems to be a call to action.
    Mother Nature wants you!
    For too long, Nature’s carbon deposits have been sequestered, and the Earth has languished with its deficits. The population explosion of carbon-based lifeforms and energy sources is evidence of positive progress.
    Burn a lump of coal. Plant a tree. Conceive a child. Help Gaia realize her full potential.

  24. The volume between the surface and tropopause ebbs and flows, and it looks like we have some hundreds of years of typical excursions before the onset toward glaciation begins. The cycles eventually merge (planetary orbital trajectory/tilt and solar output/upper atmosphere matter & EMF flux disintegration)…

  25. WUWT readers, I need your help. I’ve recently started a post titled: Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print. Please post in the comments any articles or videos documenting the harassment of climate realists. Thanks a million in advance.
    Also, check out this article and let me know what you think.

  26. This is not really good news. The last 100 years of warming is just a very short episode, so some hundred years more with the same or warmer temperatures will certainly have some consequenses. At the same time there is no accelleration of sea level rise as models predict. Perhaps 1,5 m sea level rise pr 100 years isn`t unthinkable.

  27. Sure it’s good news. And climate always has consequences. But the consequences of cooling are always negative , while those of warming, on balance, are positive. You can take that to the bank.

    • The speed of change will the biggest determinate as to whether the outcome is good or bad. The Holocene is an interglacial but we are still in an ice-age. So 10,000 years of stable cool (as opposed to cold) has been pretty good for homo sapiens. Even a 2-3 degree rise over a short time – like, in the blink of a geological eye – could prove disruptive in unpredictable ways. Or it might not, lets cross our fingers.

      • “tony mcleod January 23, 2017 at 12:41 am
        The Holocene is an interglacial but we are still in an ice-age.”
        About the only post you have made that is actually correct. Well done!

      • Since the proxies only resolve to centuries to millenia, it’s impossible to say with any certainty that current temperatures are rising faster than they did 10’s of thousands of years ago. You already know this.
        Secondly, the current warm period is cooler than the previous warm periods of this interglacial.
        Do you have any evidence that 2 or 3 degrees of warming will be on net bad? Or do you just fear change?

      • There’s a reason why the Optimum is called “optimum”. The term must have been coined when “warm” was more or less synonymous with “good”. Of course, now we know better and “warming” is a Very Bad Thing and we must do all in our power to prevent it. (better use /sarc – some of our commenters don’t seem to have much sense of humour, probably another negative consequence of global warming /sarc again)

      • There is no evidence whatsoever to support the WAG of a 2-3 degree rise in temperature, whether over a short or long period during this interglacial.

  28. Two comments here:
    First, I have seen this on the MSM, and they took it to imply that sea levels were likely (as in, we’re all doomed) to play catch-up; as in: true, maybe on 8 inches sea level rise in the last century, but we’re due for 8 meters or more this century. Based on nothing, of course, except the difference between the two different cycles.
    Second: in my observation when the warmists claim warming in Antarctica they invariably are pointing at the Antarctic Peninsula. They extrapolate localized warming that has been observed there to the entire continent. The peninsula in tectonically/volcanically acitve. No one knows for sure how much activity is going on under the ice. But using my geological background (and common sense) I can assure you that extrapolating temperatures to anywhere outside the peninsula itself is simply not valid.

  29. Corrupt climate ‘scientists’ are not content with making the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Holocene Optimum warm periods disappear, but now want to work the same magic act on the Eemian and all other interglacials warmer than now.

    • Who was it that reported the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Holocene Optimum warm periods if not the “corrupt climate ‘scientists”?

      • It is not a problem of corruption. The problem is when scientists become activists, like James Hansen. Without objectivity there is no science.

      • Who reported it? Mostly historians, geologists, etc.
        Beyond that, climate scientists were corrupt 50 years ago. It’s only when big government money started flooding the system that the whores started prostrating themselves to produce what their pay masters wanted.

    • Those periods were identified by real climatologists and historians long ago, not by today’s crooked computer gamers. So-called climate science isn’t.

      • Yes, it does.
        A climatologist collects data and practices the scientific method. A climate scientist often isn’t even a scientist but a computer programmer or mathematician who makes assumptions in the absence of actual observations.

      • What you say makes no sense. Scientists are those who practice science in a professional manner, usually associated with a research institution and produce research that is published in scientific journals. Most research positions have a title requirement.
        A climatologist is a scientist that produces part or all of its published research in the climatology field. There are no fake climatologists and therefore there are no real climatologists. It makes no sense.
        When you try to categorize climatologists you fall into a fallacy similar to when some people defend that the consensus is established by those climatologists that publish more often.
        Scientists are good or bad depending on how much impact the data and results that they produce have on other scientists in the field, and how much he or she contributes to the advance of knowledge. All the rest are fallacious arguments whatever their origin.

      • The distinction is between climatologists, who are or used to be real scientists, and government and academic “climate scientists”, who are corrupt fiction writers.

      • PS:
        Dunno if this is still true or not, but when I was in grad school forty years ago, there were more US scientists in industry than academia and the government, despite the huge increase in the number of Baby Boom students.
        Since 2000, the number of science PhDs has exploded, without requisite jobs in public or private sectors. We are producing too many doctorates. Some postdocs have been at the same dead end for six years or more, as you may know.
        I agree with Lindzen, who calls for cutting “climate change” “research” by 90%.

      • Offhand, I’d say a REAL climatologist is a geologist. They have studied REAL climate change over aeons, not hypothetical, computer model climate change.

      • Alan,
        IMO climatology is interdisciplinary. Reid Bryson, the Father of Climatology, was a meteorologist, but earth, physical and life sciences, even history, all contribute. Computer modeling might even have a role to play, GIGO “climate scientists” are antiscientific charlatans. The sooner their funding is cut off, the better for humanity.

    • If you go to the beach this year and stand where the incoming waves don’t quite touch your toes, and then go stand in exactly the same spot ten years later, the waves might touch your toes. It’s an emergency!!

  30. Linking historical sea temperature with sea level and comparing it to the modern situation is tenuous. We don’t know how the marine bathymetry and accommodation has changed. Much of the sea floor is spatially dynamic. There is also the question of displacement through sediment influx over this period of time.

      • “tony mcleod January 23, 2017 at 12:44 am”
        Less! When people start saying that their fizzy drinks are fizzy because of air, and some are actually smart, I wonder. Point out fizzy drinks are fizzy BECAUSE of CO2! Oh no! “CARBON POLLUTION”…lets not talk about bread aye?

      • Ninety percent less on “climate change” “research” and the same or more on real science, not worse than worthless, GIGO computer games.

  31. I gots a question for all you physics guys. If the ocean rises but 20 feet, 1) what would be the volume of the increase? … 2) how much energy would it take to heat that volume of water … 3) how long would that take given the accepted rate of warming of the ocean from short wave energy?

  32. It’s not clear how to interpret this finding. IF sea surface temperature during the Eemian was similar to today’s, yet sea level was 20-30 feet higher, that would seem to imply that the polar regions were warmer during this early interglacial period compared to the globe as a whole and more ice melted then.
    IF so, would that imply that as the current Arctic increasingly warms, greater ice melting might produce a significant sea level increase?

    • 1. Read the comments above (pretty sure that help you). This one of Bill Illis sort of summarizes the details above which answer what you are asking:

      Now, this interglacial is going to last a very long time according to the forecast for the Milankovitch Cycles.
      If this interglacial last for another 5,000 years, the southern third of Greenland is going to melt out and some ice-melt will occur on Antarctica and mountain glaciers. Greenland is too far south to have glaciers in the southern part if interglacials last for a long time. They are only there because of build-up in the central parts during the previous ice age.
      Sea level will probably rise 10 to 20 feet over the next 5,000 years before it stabilizes.
      2. More importantly, see JoelOBryan here:

      … the takeaway should be that anthropogenic-sourced CO2 had nothing to do with it then, and thus, likely has nothing to do with it (current global mean SST) now.
      So attempts to control climate from a natural warming process, a process set in motion by an interglacial, by rearranging the world economies is akin to a rain dance or a village priest promising to quiet an angry volcano.

      • I agree with Bill Illis’ comments about the current interglacial likely continuing for several 10s of thousands of years. Glaciation in both hemispheres begins in the Arctic when northern hemisphere (NH) TOA insolation decreases dramatically due to combination of orbital parameters (but when SH insolation is similarly increased). But that NH insolation decrease by itself is not sufficient to cause glaciers to spread and chill the whole globe. It is sufficient to permit NH winter snow to survive summers, turn to permanent ice, and increase the NH albedo and thus decrease total global insolation at the surface. That, and likely changes in NH land albedo and a decrease in warm Atlantic currents entering the Arctic could cool the Arctic dramatically, increasing ice growth. Because a large insolation decrease is required to trigger such glaciation (as occurred for past glacial cycles) and because no such large insolation increase is predicted for some time, the Earth is unlikely to soon enter a new glacial period.
        So, that implies that Bill Illis’ prediction of more Greenland ice melting could be accurate.

      • Always listen to Janice. Clear, concise and highlighted with quotes, pertinent analogies, cogent analysis and occasionally even a well chosen musical number.
        Thank you, Janice!

  33. “with estimates ranging from no significant difference to nearly 2°C warmer than present-day temperatures.”
    Here’s the other significant point that needs more emphasis.
    Just another fact that proves there is nothing unusual about today’s temperatures.

  34. …Their analysis reveals that, at the onset of the LIG 129,000 years ago, the global ocean SST was already similar to the 1870-1889 average. However, by 125,000 years ago, the global SST increased by 0.5° ± 0.3°Celcius, reaching a temperature indistinguishable from the 1995-2014 average. These results suggest that LIG global mean annual SSTs simulated with most global climate models are too low…
    So in 129,000 years people should have same pseudo sorrows as we lived through now.
    Good if they have 129,000 years old archives to accelerate problem solutions.

  35. We are in an interglacial? Who knew? Bu … bu … bu …. but … it’s different this time. Our CO2 will defeat it! Endless interglacial!
    BTW – I actually did see this in the MSM. Their spin is “well, if it’s the same SST as it was back when SL stood much higher, then by golly, this is proof that our CO2 has cooked the ocean and killlllerrrrrrr SL rise will suddenly kick in … NEXT YEAR …. meters higher by 2040!”

Comments are closed.