Contradicting consensus climate science: Study suggests ‘continual warming over the past 11,000 years’

From the “settled science” department:

UNLV Geoscience Ph.D. student Jonathan Baker has found evidence that shows nearly continuous warming from the end of the last Ice Age to the present in the Ural Mountains in central Russia.

The research, which was published today in top geoscience journal Nature Geoscience, shows continual warming over the past 11,000 years, contradicting the current belief that northern hemisphere temperatures peaked 6,000 to 8,000 years ago and cooled until the pre-Industrial period.

New study suggests there is no cooling in this graph of temperature reconstruction

Baker’s research, done in conjunction with UNLV geoscientist Matthew Lachniet, Yemane Asmerom and Victor Polyak of the University of New Mexico, and Russian scientist Olga Chervyatsova, shows that winter temperature variations in continental Eurasia are warmer today than any time in the past 11,000 years.

This study contradicts previous work likely because those studies focused on summer temperature trends and not the more sensitive winter temperature variations that were not previously available, Baker said.

The new finding is based on precisely dated isotope temperature record and supports computer models for Eurasia that predicted continual warming. The research showed that disappearing ice in the Arctic regions of North America controlled the warming trend as the Ice Age glaciers retreated. Later, rising greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, were likely responsible for the continued warming in the Ural Mountains.

The cave climate record has important implications for the future, Lachniet explained. “Because greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing at rates unprecedented for the past 800,000 years, human-caused warming will be superimposed on the ‘natural’ trend,” he said.

Baker added, “Over the past century, winters in continental Eurasia warmed 70 times faster than during the previous 7,000 years, according to our record. At this pace, the warming will continue to pose severe and detrimental impacts throughout the region.”

As modern temperatures are influenced in part by greenhouse gases, both summers and winters are expected to warm, whereas past temperatures in those seasons had opposing trajectories, Baker said.

###

Baker conducted the research while living in Russia as a Fulbright grantee. There he worked with co-author Olga Chervyatsova and the Ufa Speleo Club to collect stalagmites from Kinderlinksaya Cave, located about 750 miles east of Moscow in the southern Ural Mountains.

The data were obtained using state-of-the art geochemical techniques at the Las Vegas Isotope Science Laboratory at UNLV and the Radiogenic Isotope Laboratory at the University of New Mexico. Both facilities were supported by infrastructure grants from the National Science Foundation. The research was also supported by the Ralph Stone Fellowship of the National Speleological Society.

The study was published May 22 in the journal Nature Geoscience: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2953.html

Advertisements

131 thoughts on “Contradicting consensus climate science: Study suggests ‘continual warming over the past 11,000 years’

    • Baker added, “Over the past century, winters in continental Eurasia warmed 70 times faster than during the previous 7,000 years, according to our record.

      Unscientific apple to oranges, yet again. He should look at all other 100 y periods of warming and cooling in his data to see how usual or unusual the last century was.

      No scientists seems to be able to do objective science any more. They are so brainwashed they arrive at everything with preconceived bias.

      • Since half the recent warming ( the earlier half ) was natural anyway it seems unlikely that the latter half was any different.

      • The site seems to have a 1SD Jan mean temp of ±5°C and precipitation varies a lot. Then further along, the forcing due to GHG seems to vary a lot between winter and summer in order for the model to line up with the proxy measurements. Can that be justified?
        The total change in winter over 10 000 years is 5°C and the site has winters with 95% of winter monthly means within a range of about 20°C ( which seems a little large. Was the 1SD for individual days?)

      • Looking at the graph there are at least 2 periods where the warming shows a much steeper slope than the most recent ….. so warming in the recent past is slower than in those earlier periods.

      • “No scientists seems to be able to do objective science any more. They are so brainwashed they arrive at everything with preconceived bias.”

        Epidemic. Steamrolling facts to favor cherry-picked data that perpetuate narratives.

      • “The cave climate record has important implications for the future, Lachniet explained. “Because greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing at rates unprecedented for the past 800,000 years, human-caused warming will be superimposed on the ‘natural’ trend,” he said.”

        Propaganda, absolutely no evidence for this, period.

        “As modern temperatures are influenced in part by greenhouse gases, both summers and winters are expected to warm, whereas past temperatures in those seasons had opposing trajectories, Baker said.”

        Undetectable effects, particularly in that the real science indicates that CO2 and water vapor serve mostly to cool the planet during the night times that are NOT part of the fabulously flawed compute global climate models. CO2 and water vapor are a wash in sunlight as they are saturated and convert IR to heat and heat into IR constantly.

        Any mention of such models in support of any findings immediately invalidates a paper.

      • “Unscientific apple to oranges, yet again. He should look at all other 100 y periods of warming and cooling in his data to see how usual or unusual the last century was.”

        You say that as though it hasn’t been done. :) But thanks for the pointers! Always great to hear feedback from the Department of Armchair Science. Maybe you’ll get to review the next paper?

  1. So I looked at your cut-and-paste and the original article. I only see cooling in all the figs. Maybe you could add a figure that supports your title?

    • Well that graph comes from WonkyPedia and was part of the “Global Warming Art” project by Rhonde who is an alarmist member of the BEST team.

      Note that he calls it “art” to avoid being criticised for not being scientific. Sticking the since year temp from 2004 on top of a graph which clearly has no better then 200y time resolution is clearly deceptive. I guess that is OK is “art”.

    • The figures all show the present as the zero mark of the X axis, so moving left to right time goes backwards.

  2. Cave speleothems are notoriously difficult to interpret as sometimes speleothems from two different stalagmites from the same cave will give a different profile. If the result is correct, it probably represents regional conditions, as the Holocene Climatic Optimum is pretty well established by numerous proxies including subsurface and benthic marine cores. The attribution to greenhouse gases is just an opinion, as it is not based on evidence. The Holocene temperature profile is different at different locations, so it cannot be due to greenhouse gases that were the same everywhere.

    • Same problem as other proxies: being averages over considerable time intervals, high and low temperature spikes are lost. I have to remain skeptical that the proxies provide good very accurate dating. We’re we to simply average the 1990 to present instrumental average for example with error bars, we would essentially show no definitive warming over that period.

      Also, remember we have had the last 100yrs fiddled and changed to try to match and keep up with the hot-running models. I would recommend just using the temperature proxies up to the most recent data points for which there is decent certainty. Comparison with the instrumental record is a dubious exercise that diminishes any value that the proxy data may have (i. e. a demonstration of the magnitude of natural variation up to, perhaps, the mid, 20th Century). Let’s let rigorous practitioners in statistics also review the sometimes ‘creative’ statistical methods in a science that has demonstrated it’s ineptitude in this field.

    • “If the result is correct, it probably represents regional conditions” Of course it is regional.

      • seaice1:

        Yes, as you say, “Of course it is regional”. Just like ice core data.

        Richard

    • Yes, they can be difficult to interpret, but fortunately not in this particular cave system. There were no such discrepancies between stalagmites or complicating factors due to cave structure/hydrology/atmosphere, which can come into play.

      “…as the Holocene Climatic Optimum is pretty well established by numerous proxies including subsurface and benthic marine cores.”

      Yes, this is acknowledged multiple times in the paper. But these are all regional trends, and we add up those “regional” conditions to improve clarity of the global portrait, no? Currently, the global trend is biased toward several regions and proxy types. We’ve suspected that for some time, and this dataset is one that confirms it. Our goal was simply to fill a gap in an underrepresented region, but it turned out to have much broader impacts. Much like the MWP, the Holocene optimum was more local and seasonal than originally indicated by limited data.

      “The Holocene temperature profile is different at different locations, so it cannot be due to greenhouse gases that were the same everywhere.”

      Not necessarily; you’ve oversimplified here. Greenhouse forcing is only one of dozens of factors, and a relatively weak one during most of the Holocene. Hence, slight warming from GHG forcing was swamped in some regions (like Greenland/Scandinavia) by the cooling effects from summer insolation, ocean circulation, sea-ice extent, etc. By the way, what’s your evidence that the attribution to GHG’s is “just an opinion”?

      • Hi Jon,
        I have not read your paper. I can get it, but haven’t done so yet. Although I can only form an opinion on the information available, I congratulate you and your collaborators. As you say it is always good and important to get evidence from underrepresented regions, and if it is surprising evidence, even better.

        Much like the MWP, the Holocene optimum was more local and seasonal than originally indicated by limited data.

        I disagree. There’s plenty of evidence for the Holocene Optimum from multiple places. For example glaciers all over the world have been studied with detail and the overall picture is clear that the Holocene Optimum represents the period in the past 100,000 years with overall shorter glaciers. Hard to beat that with a speleothem. See for example:
        Solomina, Olga N., et al. “Holocene glacier fluctuations.” Quaternary Science Reviews 111 (2015): 9-34.
        http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Solomina_QSR_2015.pdf

        Greenhouse forcing is only one of dozens of factors, and a relatively weak one during most of the Holocene. Hence, slight warming from GHG forcing was swamped in some regions (like Greenland/Scandinavia) by the cooling effects from summer insolation, ocean circulation, sea-ice extent, etc.

        I am essentially in agreement here. Greenhouse gas forcing must have been small during the Holocene, during the deglaciation, and during the climate variability of the past interglacial.

        By the way, what’s your evidence that the attribution to GHG’s is “just an opinion”?

        I don’t need evidence for that. The burden of proof is on the one making the proposition. Climate sensitivity to CO2 has not been constrained in its 1.5-4.5 range in 38 years, and that range can accommodate one explanation and its opposite. Since Holocene (6000 BP – 600 BP) changes in CO2 have been small (~ 25 ppm, something we do in 15 years), to assign the observed warming to greenhouse gas forcing is clearly a matter of opinion. You can’t possibly have evidence on that or you would be making the cover of every newspaper.

  3. Hard to tell what it means yet. As it contradicts historical proxies for temperature, as well as other data sets using other proxies, it seems like an outlier.

  4. We interpret Eurasian winter warming during the Holocene as a response to the retreat of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets until about 7,000 years ago, and to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and winter insolation thereafter….

    • We interpret Eurasian winter warming during the Holocene as a response to the retreat of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets

      And I thought that ice sheets retreated because it was getting warmer. Silly me.

      • Of course they did. But perhaps in your paleoclimate course, you also learned that ice sheets cause local and regional cooling due to albedo effects (summer) and topographic diversion of air masses. You did take a paleoclimate course, right..?

      • And furthermore, the Sun goes down at night as a response to darkness. And it comes up the next morning as a response to light.

    • Nice chart. I like the way data from 3 different sources are glued together to form a continuous curve.

      Didnt Michael Mann say that was something climatologists never do?

      Also: no error bars and no indication of the standard deviations, as usual in climate science. How is anyone supposed to judge whether these curves are a good fit to the data or not?

      • Simple, without either, assume the “data” provided is about as credible as a politicians promise.

      • Robert B:

        The paper contains Figures 1 to 4 but no Figure S5 so pleased say how I can do as you instruct and

        Look at fig S5 in the paper.

        Richard

      • Is that in supplementary information rather than the paper? I assume in figure S5 the S is for supplementary.

      • Yes, the supplementary in the link above. The forcing from GHG is different for winter and summer. Unless its due to humidity, how did they come up with that?

      • Robert B:

        Thanks for saying Figure S5 is in the Supplementary.
        I read that at https://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2953-s1.pdf

        You say and ask

        Yes, the supplementary in the link above. The forcing from GHG is different for winter and summer. Unless its due to humidity, how did they come up with that?

        The Supplementary answers your question where it says

        4. Holocene transient model (FAMOUS) outputs at study site Figure S5:
        Surface (2-m) air temperature results from the Fast Met Office/UK Universities Simulator (FAMOUS 6) from
        12 ka to PI, parsed by prescribed forcing and season: (left) annual mean; (middle) winter half year; (right) summer half year. Data are taken from the grid cell that includes our cave site (54°N 57°E) and are smoothed by a 1000-year filter for clarity. Glacial retreat produces warming in all seasons until 7 ka. Greenhouse-gas forcing results in annual warming of ~1°C from 6-7 ka until the PI period. A mixed insolation signal between strong summer cooling and weak or negligible (<1°C) winter T change produces a
        net annual cooling of less than 1°C across the Holocene. Because the magnitude of radiative forcing by insolation is almost equal between seasons, these data imply that the winter half year is less sensitive to direct orbital forcing.

        In other words,
        (a)
        they used a dubious Met. Office climate model
        (b)
        to which they input different forcings that they “prescribed” for each season
        (c)
        then smoothed the model output to obtain the result they wanted.

        That is pure GIGO.

        Richard

  5. New study suggests there is no cooling in this graph of temperature reconstruction

    This is not correct. This article does not affect Holocene temperature reconstructions. It refers very clearly to “the continental interior of Eurasia” as the abstract says.

  6. All paleoclimate proxies have multiple issues. As a Ph.d thesis, likely still better than Marcott’s 2013 hockeystick academic misconduct in Science. See essay A High Stick Foul for the forensics. As a serious paper, my personal jury is still out. Way out.

  7. Every time I read that natural warming handed off to anthropogenic warming my BS detector pages and I stop reading. If this supposed event occurred there should be ample evidence by now. If a smooth transition between two disparate driving forces is the claim then credulity is strained. If this was as are all transitions in nature are a tumultuous period that would be in the record.

    • I am not sure why a smooth transition is problematic? All that it requires is that one driving force increases
      gradually and smoothly. CO2 levels has been increasing gradually since the industrial revolution so it would
      be natural to expect that any anthropegenic warming would be even more gradual since the amount of warming depends on the logarithm of the concentration. A non-abrupt transition would be fair more surprising.

      • The implication of a “hand-off” is that the natural causes also decline at a rate that exactly matches the rate of increase by the human causes. Otherwise the curve would not be smooth and continuous; there would be a tell-tale dip or hump. This is implausible. The only conclusion possible is that natural causes are still ongoing and any contribution by man is only adding to it. In that case, the current warming should be noticeably larger than the periods before humans starting adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. But there is no statistically significant evidence of this. At this point I can only conclude that our contribution to global warming is either too small to detect, or virtually non-existent.

  8. Your quote said that recent warming 70 times faster than in the past. Yet they conclude it has been warming for the past 11000 years. It has warmed 1 deg C in the last 100 years. 1/70th of that is 1 deg C in 7000 years. That would be defined in most books as not warming at all. How accurate is their temperature measurement? Do they really want me to believe that?

      • Simple answer, it is impossible to be accurate within a degree Farenheit because 90% of the temperature records came from people who looked at thermometers from random angles.

  9. “The new finding is based on precisely dated isotope temperature record and supports computer models for Eurasia that predicted continual warming.” Bingo!

  10. why does this sound like “wishing to delete all the serious multiproxi estimates and replace it by the belief the holocene optimum didn’t exist”?

    those beach formations in the now with sea ice covered greenland shores? Ah Nature put them there to test our belief in global warming….

    • Yeah, why *does* it sound like that? o.O Not sure how you got that impression. I guess things make more sense when you study the topic in depth, rather than assume that we *never* considered the sea-ice history in an around Greenland before drawing conclusions. Do these beach formations somehow contradict the findings of this study? That’s news to me… :) Keep your thinking hat on, though. It’s almost working.

  11. Gore is in Cannes promoting his “Sequel” propaganda (film critics who viewed it at Sundance called it weak).

    A waste of money-space-time, but … a grad student … has to graduate. Plastics!

    • Well, at least Leo won’t have far to travel from the yacht he’s staying. Last one was owned by an oil billionaire…

    • “Although the 20 ppm
      (100 ppb) increase in CO2(CH4) corresponds to a relatively small
      direct radiative forcing (0.5 W m−2) (ref. 4), equilibration of the
      climate system to positive feedbacks including vegetation, sea ice, and water vapour feedbacks could have dynamically warmed
      global surface climate by 0.2–0.8◦C from 7 ka to the pre-industrial period”….run away global humidity

      …odd that all of their charts show exactly the same “linear regressions”…but they know the last parts were man made

      These nubnuts will drive a sane person over the edge…..they never figure what stops the feedbacks
      …and if nothing stops it…..something happens that has never happened before

      So we’re back to tipping points and run away global warming again.

  12. Not qualified to debate the science but Fulbright was a douche. Need to get his name off things.

  13. Perhaps the money quote is the following:

    “recovery of additional winter temperature records could reconcile global temperature evolution with model reconstructions.”

    That is, the authors have only their measurements in one cave in the Ural Mountains, plus a few other studies also limited to Russia and Siberia as actual observed data to back up their claims. On the other hand, they have their models, which show that the retreat of the ice to present positions ending about 7000 years ago, plus the small (20 ppb) increase in CO2 over the next 7K years up to the preindustrial level, support continued warming throughout the entirety of the Holocene, punctuated of course by the hockey stick.

  14. “Because greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing at rates unprecedented for the past 800,000 years”. Really? I’m no expert but this sounds contrary to anything I’ve seen. Plus, when I see “unprecedented”, I smell a rat. Comments?

      • Where in the ice core records (or any other proxy) do you find evidence of a 125-ppm spike in CO2, or a comparable rise in any other GHG? I’m not sure why you’re concerned about the resolution, unless you seriously believe that a 125-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 could disappear within decades. Oh, maybe Noah’s flood did it? ;) Is that where all the CO2 went?

      • Jon
        May 23, 2017 at 3:20 pm

        The only thing I can say is……Thank you very much Jon, and thank you very much Anthony……

  15. Is the retreat of the ice sheets a cause or effect of Holocene warming? This study suggests that it is a cause which suggest to me a computer model is involved.

    • It can be a local effect if a global cause. That is, the global warming causes retreat, but the retreat has an effect on the local conditions.

    • Gosh…Mosher….give them the f….cking line….oh shit you already done it….please do consider to expand it a little more…if “please” means anything to you….:)

  16. “disappearing ice in the Arctic regions of North America controlled the warming trend as the Ice Age glaciers retreated. Later, rising greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, were likely responsible”

    Since when is “disappearing ice” a “forcing”? Water in the atmosphere isn’t even a forcing, just a feedback, according to the mantra.

  17. It would be helpful for the authors to identify the data they collected, to give their interpretation of that data, and then be content with that.

    Instead they destroy any real claim to be publishing a scientific work with their speculation and gratuitous reliance on dodgy previous pronouncements by others. At that point they cross from science to anti-science.

  18. Ever since reading about stomata methods for C02 concentration, I’ve become pretty skeptical of ice core methods. There is no overlap between modern atmosphere measurements and ice core measurements. It’s possible it’s yet another hockey stick.

    Stomata show that historical PPM during the last 10,000 years are in the 309-330 range, versus the less than 280 indicated by ice cores.

    Would love someone to challenge me on this. What are issues with the stomata methods?

    • What are issues with the stomata methods?

      The primary issue is, ……. the “CO2 causing warminists” hate the stomata proxies with a passion, ……… simply because the use of fossilized stomata proxies for determining atmospheric CO2 ppm is akin to using thermometers for measuring near-surface air temperatures.

      The fossilized stomata, per se, recorded the atmospheric CO2 ppm at the time (Springtime) the leaf foliage developed.

      • Samuel C Cogar:

        You say

        The fossilized stomata, per se, recorded the atmospheric CO2 ppm at the time (Springtime) the leaf foliage developed.

        Actually, the fossilized stomata, per se, recorded the average atmospheric CO2 ppm at the time (Springtime) during the growing season prior to the growing season when the leaf foliage grew.

        This pedantic correction makes no real difference because even with carbon dating it is difficult to determine the precise year when a leaf grew. However, the pedantry is needed because warmunists respond with a ‘no it isn’t’ reaction to the reasonable statement you have provided.

        Richard

      • Thanks, Richard S, ……. and right you are about the warmunists’ response of …. ‘no it isn’t’, …… which is their “pat” answer to comments that they don’t understand or don’t want to acknowledge or discuss.

        And what most all warmunists are ignorant of and/or refuse to acknowledge is the fact that all of the initial Springtime ”greening and growth” of the plant biomass (leaves and/or stems) does not need or require the use of atmospheric CO2 …… because all of the energy (sugars) needed for said initial ”greening and growth” is either stored in the individual seed(s) of the plant or in the root system of the plant. And only after the initial “leaves or leaf growth” has sufficiently matured will there be any absorption or ingassing of atmospheric CO2 for producing the “sugars” needed for the growth of the remaining foliage ……. which is when the growth of the “numbers/location” of the leaf stomata is determined for that particular “growth season”.

        The initial Springtime “greening” or leaf growth of trees, brush, shrubs, etc,, is accomplished via the “sugars” that was stored in the roots during “last year’s” growing season.

  19. This is why many people, if not the majority in North America don’t trust science anymore. And after listening to M@nn testify to congress, they would be right. Climate science is on the rocks, insofar as real science is concerned. Using one regional example from a cave in Russia to try and redefine the entire record of the Holocene, which has had decades of hundreds of real peer reviewed science published, doesn’t falsify 150 years of the accumulation of science on the matter.

    We even have very questionable people here claiming there is no ‘discernible’ evidence for any human warming since 1880, which has had .85 C total warming in 137 years and yet they claim there is absolutely no evidence, nada, zilch, for any discernible human caused warming of any kind. Contrary to the evident massive land use changes and Urban Island heat effect globally. Not even to speak of a fairly small radiative forcing from additional human caused CO2 that almost everyone agrees on about the basic physics of such. Really defies logic how some people get away with absurd statements, and the damage they do to the skeptical side of the climate debates. It is no wonder why we sometimes get labeled as deni@rs with a few nut bars making stuff up out of thin air.

    • Ron Williams:

      I see you are still trolling.

      You say

      We even have very questionable people here claiming there is no ‘discernible’ evidence for any human warming since 1880, which has had .85 C total warming in 137 years and yet they claim there is absolutely no evidence, nada, zilch, for any discernible human caused warming of any kind.

      Bollocks! Nobody has claimed that!

      I have repeatedly told you that,
      There is no evidence for discernible human-caused GLOBAL climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.

      You persistently misrepresent the words of others because you are a nasty little troll. So, you pretend my factual statement is the same as saying “there is absolutely no evidence, nada, zilch, for any discernible human caused warming OF ANY KIND”. It is NOT. Humans affect local climates in many ways (e.g. cities are warmer than their surrounding countryside). There is no evidence for discernible human-caused GLOBAL climate change.

      I again point out that if you have any evidence of discernible human-caused global climate change then publish it because you will be awarded at least two Nobel Prizes (Peace and Physics) and possibly a third (Chemistry) for your discovery.

      Richard

      • Scott adam’s “Attack the messenger” category for how you know you have won an internet discussion. “Being an ordinary jerk might not be a tell for cognitive dissonance. But when you see an attack that seems far angrier than the situation calls for, that’s usually cognitive dissonance.”

      • Pointing out that the messenger has lied is “attacking the messenger”?
        Interesting standard you got there sealice.

      • Richard Courtney, after you left a recent thread, Ron posted a misleading quote from your 2009 WUWT guest post, to attack you with,I responded by pointing out that Ron was twisting your words, Posted you a few other quotes to show than and also to show what your first comment in the thread said.

        I went to get the link,only to see you have read it and thanked me for responding,but he replied with a very nasty serious personal attack that Moderators should have moderated.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/19/brainwash-the-next-generation-to-promote-climate-action/#comment-2509242

        I agree that he is a troll, as he is being misleading and dishonest and now that ugly personal attack. I am surprised it passed moderation,as it was waaaay off topic, into a nasty personal attack on your name.

      • richardscourtney May 23, 2017 at 2:21 am I didn’t even mention you by name Richard S. Courtney, but you have to make claims I am trolling or am ‘a nasty little troll’. I was attacking your ideas in this thread and you show up and say “Bollocks! Nobody has claimed that!” and then start with ad hominem attacks and accusation of just being a nasty little troll. Well Richard, last time you hid behind the word ‘discernible’ as if there was no way to differentiate any change in natural or human induced CC/AGW. You can’t admit there might be some human induced global CC from human induced AGW because it would violate your world view, which is also only an opinion. Yet you go on to freely admit there is evidence of regional warming, globally. The disservice that does to real science and the credibility of true skeptics is very negative to those of us who want to be taken seriously. The stomping of feet and arm waving only show your true colors. When you say that there is no evidence for such, you know it can’t be falsified the same way a lot of ludicrous alarmist statements can’t be falsified. That means this debate is eternal if led by the thought process you are trying to impose here. Which means the alarmists probably get their way with Paris, because you make us all look like deni@rs.

      • Ron, when will you ever address what Richard repeatedly asked you to answer?

        “I again point out that if you have any evidence of discernible human-caused global climate change then publish it because you will be awarded at least two Nobel Prizes (Peace and Physics) and possibly a third (Chemistry) for your discovery.”

        I am not convinced you have yet to seriously answer it,why Ron,why the reluctance to fully answer it?

        You seem to misunderstand where he is coming from,over and over,he NEVER disputed that it has warmed some in recent centuries. He is saying this over and over that you have a hard time understanding:

        “There is no evidence for discernible human-caused GLOBAL climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.”

        How can you fail to understand his specific statement?

        Where is the evidence that mankind has clearly changed the climate,why can’t you ANSWER IT IN DETAIL?

      • Ron Williams:

        I see you have objected to my pointing out that you are a nasty little troll.
        In fact, I correctly wrote

        You persistently misrepresent the words of others because you are a nasty little troll. So, you pretend my factual statement is the same as saying “there is absolutely no evidence, nada, zilch, for any discernible human caused warming OF ANY KIND”. It is NOT. Humans affect local climates in many ways (e.g. cities are warmer than their surrounding countryside). There is no evidence for discernible human-caused GLOBAL climate change.

        I corrected your misrepresentation of my words in this case and in another threasd sunsettommy demolished your repeatedly doing it there. I could cite other examples but won’t bother.

        You are an egregious and obnoxious concern troll. Slither back under your bridge and stay there.

        Richard

    • Ron, only an utter idiot, would claim that 100% of the warming since 1880 was caused by man. Especially since the bulk of it occurred long before CO2 levels started to rise appreciably.

      • Mark, I didn’t claim 100% of the .85 C warming since 1880 is entirely human caused. IMO, it may be reasonable to say that maybe 50% is natural variation, and 50% is human induced. So a little over .42 C increase in warming by human induced land change and CO2 increase in 137 years. That is far less than the alarmists are claiming and if we say there is no proof whatsoever of anything, then we are out on a limb and won’t be taken seriously by lawmakers looking to exit Paris. There is never a way now to tell exactly because we didn’t have another identical planet to conduct a double blind study, and we know the computer models are only as good as the inputs. This is the ‘wicked’ part.

      • “and if we say there is no proof whatsoever of anything, then we are out on a limb and won’t be taken seriously by lawmakers looking to exit Paris.”

        There isn’t any proof that human-produced CO2 is causing the climate to change. How do I know? Because anytime someone is challenged to produce such proof, they never do.

        Being skeptical about what constitutes truth is what a skeptic does. A skeptic doesn’t have to prove anything other than point to the fact that those doing the speculating don’t have any proof to offer. It’s easy to be a skeptic. And it’s easy to convince a skeptic: by providing the proof.

        We don’t know how much net additional heat the extra CO2 is putting into the atmosphere. It might be a little, the current figure seems to limit it to 1.5C or less, but it also might be zero. So noone can legitimately claim that human-produced CO2, is causing the Earth’s climate to change. It’s pure speculation.

        I can be convinced otherwise by seeing some proof.

      • TA…the point is one cannot claim any absolute certain proof, just as the alarmists cannot provide any absolute certain proof what the feedbacks are for the 1.2 C temp increase by a doubling of atmospheric CO2. We would have to start 150 years ago with an exact planet equal to earth to conduct a double blind study to see what the difference would have been between the two the last 150 years. Now that we have made so many changes to the Earth on a land use basis only, there is nothing to compare to and we will never know what would have been had humans not been involved in the earthly changes we have made to the land or the atmosphere. Maybe in a 100 years, we may have a very good approximation of what happened, but we are still arguing what the positive feedbacks might be, if any, or negative.

        Richard C Courtney is smart enough to know he can make his ignorant statement about Nada, Zilch, None, No Evidence for Human Caused Climate Change, because as I propose above, a total proper accounting cannot be given in absolute terms because everything has changed. His argument is a philosophical one, and one he has a diploma in, not a doctorate. But that condescending arrogant attitude is what the alarmists say is wrong with all us Deni@rs, and I don’t want to be called that. I want to be called a reasonable skeptic, that can rationalize my science with those here or in the alarmist camp, presuming there are reasonable alarmists. The longer we just stomp and shout names at each other, the more we will be marginalized. What Richard does is just thumb his nose at everyone with an ounce of intelligence, and makes pronouncements from on high, as if he is some Prophet. Especially as he claims, he has been the voice in the wilderness for 25+ years. He may be part of the problem the last 25 years with his attitude and how he communicates, so that now the world is maybe going to spend trillions on a problem that doesn’t need fixing. At least yet.

        Ok, lets take a quick kick at the cat with a real attempt at proving some human caused global climate change. We already agree the temps are up .85 C since 1880, and for the sake of argument, let’s say it is 50-50 natural and human caused. A lot of thermal heat is released too by the combustion of FF, that is generally not accounted for or water vapor from ICE engines. Let’s just take the global land use change, and city urban island heating effect. If you look at a lot of the continental world, it has already been altered into massive farms, cities, reservoirs etc on a grand scale with millions of square miles affected. So just take maybe 1 square mile of that farm land, or city or reservoir, and one can calculate how much change in Albedo or heat retention, or additional evaporation/ total change in land use to water use. You could write a book about this or spend years just trying to calculate it all, but you know and I know that substantial changes have been made which over time totally change the weather and long term climate. Anyone who would deny this would be extra crazy, since it would be obvious that say Texas, in mid summer, is going to have a lot more convective heat rising into the upper atmosphere causing more thunder storms. I know it can’t be proved, but common sense tells us that it would be so. I know you will dismiss it, so why bother spending the time to try and prove anything to someone who already says I am not changing my mind no matter what you say. And that is the true problem of what to with honest to god deni@rs who destroy the position of true skeptics. There is a saying in economics that could apply to climate study. “The Force of a Correction is equal and opposite to the Deception that preceded it” meaning in this case that the more true deni@rs rule the roost through the type of bullying that Richard S. Courtney has engaged in for the last 25 years, the harder it will be to reason with alarmists and politicians who will decide or not decide to waste trillions on this climate debate that didn’t need to be so messy. I realize blogs can be very tribalistic, so I expect to take my lumps over this, but at least I feel I have been true to my cause.

        I apologize personally to Richard if I have caused him any distress, since I know he is suffering from stroke and I/we wouldn’t wish that on any of us. I hope you get well soon Richard, and don’t take this personally.
        We all suffer from ego, hubris and pride.

      • TA:

        You gave the concern troll an ‘out’ by using the word “proof”.

        There is never a definitive proof in science because there is always the possibility (indeed, hope) that existing understanding may be overcome by a future discovery.

        The word you need is evidence.

        There is no evidence for discernible discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.

        In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found some such evidence but that was almost immediately revealed to be an artifact of his improper data selection. Since then research to find some – any – evidence for the existence of discernible human-caused global climate change has been conducted worldwide at an annual cost of more than $2.5 billion p.a..

        That is ‘big business’ and it is pure pseudoscience which has been a total failure: nothing to substantiate discernible human-caused global climate change has been found.

        And the politicians who provide the research funds agree there has been NO scientific advance in the field.
        Theoretical climate sensitivity was estimated to be between ~2°C to ~4.5°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent at the start, and the IPCC now says it is estimated to 2.1°C to 4.4°C (with a mean value of 3.2°C).

        Richard

        Footnote

        Science is a method which seeks the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which refutes existing understanding(s) then amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in light of found information.

        Pseudocience is a method that decides existing understanding(s) to be ‘truth’ then seeks information to substantiate the understanding(s).

      • “Ok, lets take a quick kick at the cat with a real attempt at proving some human caused global climate change. We already agree the temps are up .85 C since 1880, and for the sake of argument, let’s say it is 50-50 natural and human caused.”

        Ron, my whole problem with this is I don’t think anyone should assume that CO2 is adding any net heat to the atmosphere until there is some kind of evidence that this might be happening. The alarmists start off with this assumption in every study they do, and it gets a little irritating to see all these people assuming things not in evidence.

        I don’t doubt that CO2 might be adding net heat to the atmosphere, but I don’t think we should assume it is until we get some solid evidence.
        The way it’s looking, with CO2 increasing while the temperatures do not, I think we should be very careful about making claims for what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere.

      • TA… You seem conflicted in your reply. First you state “my whole problem with this is I don’t think anyone should assume that CO2 is adding any net heat to the atmosphere until there is some kind of evidence that this might be happening.” Then you state “I don’t doubt that CO2 might be adding net heat to the atmosphere, but I don’t think we should assume it is until we get some solid evidence.” Ok, I realize you want to see evidence, not proof, for CO2 causing some net heat to the atmosphere. Is not the small warming (which is good and benign) we have had in 150 years not evidence? Just look at all the thermal heat we humans produce directly and indirectly through land use change, and that should be evidence enough. Just what is so wrong with admitting that humankind has caused some small warming? It is good and will hopefully save us from calamitous times ahead. Maybe it is even part of the plan, so humanity can survive the blips in severe CC. God forbid a major cooling trend, caused either by natural oceanic, solar or volcanic cause, because then we will be glad we were able to generate some positive thermal inertia.

        My comment was more dealing with just land use change, such as the development of North America from preindustrial times when it was natural grassland to being largely developed with farm land, cities, asphalt, and reservoirs. If you don’t think that is ‘evidence’ for changing weather from land use change and heating/albedo, and therefore long term discernible climate change that is in aggregate globally to a noticeable degree, then you are taking the position of a true deni@r. I thought you were much more reasoned than that, having read many of your reasonable comments in the past.

        I agree to a point about CO2 being marginal, although the 500 billion tons of CO2 we have added since 1850 have apparently added some minor warming to the atmosphere as evidenced by a total increase of .85 C, of which I say only a total of 1/2 that may be attributable to all human activity. IMO, land use change is a much more active hammer in causing CC, while CO2 has maybe added 1/2 of that and then to more of an even warming background everywhere which is totally benign. Nobody can argue that there hasn’t been a slow positive warming since 1880 and to say there is no evidence for any warming caused by that CO2 introduction would be disingenuous to the science of physics. If we skeptics take that position, then there is zero chance of ever having a productive discussion to have any influence ever not only with lawmakers, but other reasonable scientists and the general population. We will just be marginalized to the sidelines as kooks and look as stupid as Dr. M@nn.

    • Ron Williams
      It’s unfortunate that you expression of a moderate skeptic position, i.e. limited AGW, caused a negative over-reaction. Your original point is correct and important: the approach of taking a single very limited new measurement and claiming that it overturns an entire substantial body of research and data, shows a contempt for science by warmist alarmists, and shows the hypocrisy at work when they affect to wrap themselves in the flag of science. Here is your original quote, with which I agree 100% :

      Climate science is on the rocks, insofar as real science is concerned. Using one regional example from a cave in Russia to try and redefine the entire record of the Holocene, which has had decades of hundreds of real peer reviewed science published, doesn’t falsify 150 years of the accumulation of science on the matter.

      • ptolemy2:

        My response to the then latest obscenity from the concern troll was very mild. If anything it was an under-reaction.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney May 24, 2017 at 1:24 pm

        I withdraw any apology I made to you, as I see from above you didn’t even accept it. So bollocks to you and your pea sized brain as well. I have a theory about you Courtney, is that you are some ‘intelligence’ agent who was given the task of infiltrating the Skeptical community to make all skeptics look like deni@rs, so as we are not taken seriously. Very few people except the very gullible or other real deni@rs takes the crap you come up seriously, so I am really puzzled why the Heartland Institute would even invite you to give a speech about your same old tired argument that there is no evidence for manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. Or maybe there is, but it can’t be quantified, you say. That is just straight up hogwash, and the damage you do to the Heartland Institute is significant. It is no wonder they get branded and marginalized so as not to be taken seriously, peddling your crap. Or maybe you and Dr. M@nn are ‘in bed’ together with the same goals of discrediting the skeptic community. You certainly don’t do the skeptical community any favours with your acidic personality.

        I am a moderate skeptic hoping to change hearts and minds about the beneficial aspects of any human induced warming as being a good thing and not to impose undue taxes and hardship upon humanity for the bit of warming we have managed to accumulate. You come to this site to belittle other commenters and start fights, and to divide the skeptical community whenever you can. It is very obvious in your pompous, arrogant nature of communication. I see this is the same as before your stroke, so that obviously is not the cause of your mental failings. Seek help for your personality disorder Courtney, because you are really frigged up.

  20. Because greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing at rates unprecedented for the past 800,000 years, human-caused warming will be superimposed on the ‘natural’ trend

    It seems like they have fallen for the CO2 Control Knob Fallacy.

  21. I’ve been reading studies of tree lines 200 or more kilometers north during the Holocene Climactic Optimum 9,000 to 7,000 years ago, and tree lines at that time found 200 meters or more higher on mountains than now. These artifacts were easy to find and carbon date, both in Europe and in Canada, sparing the need for a wholesale rewrite of the past 10,000 years of fluctuating warm and cold periods based on narrow type and site of proxies. Greenland ice cores and Atlantic sediment cores also support warming in the early Holocene, and gradual cooling since. This appears to be another attempt to wipe out the Holocene warm period, Egyptian cold period, Minoan and Roman warm periods, Dark Ages cooling, Medieval warm period, Little Ice Age cooling, leaving only a long, very slowly warming interglacial, At least if wipes out Mann’s hockey stick shaft, which showed a cooling trend based on proxies before the blade was spliced from instrument records. Is this what settled science looks like?

    • similar tree line studies in the arctic show that temperatures 6-8 thousand years ago were warmer than at present. luckily the cave peoples of the day created a carbon tax and saved the planet for us. we should do the same, create a carbon tax and go live in caves to repent our sins.

  22. If you believe in greenhouse gas theory, total greenhouse gases are dominated by H2O and have not changed all that much. CO2 makes very little difference in the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or in the total radiant greenhouse effect because in additon to the fact that there is so much more H2O then any other greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere but molecule per molecule CO2 is a much stronger IR absorber than is CO2. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. Another troubling aspect to this is that the radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be observed anywhere in the solar system including Earth. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivitof CO2 is zero.

    • a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere
      ==============
      the dry air lapse rate is 9.8 c/km. this is caused by the force of gravity on earth which is 9.8 m/sxs, which controls the conversion between potential energy and kinetic energy during convection.

      only kinetic energy affects temperature, so as air falls its kinetic energy increases and its temperature increases because metric units are designed to be convertable, the 9.8 from acceleration shows up as 9.8 temperature.

      and it is the dry lapse rate that prevents co2 from changing temperature, because in effect it has to change either the force of gravity or the height of circulation in the troposphere. alternatively the amount of water in the atmosphere can change the wet air lapse rate and thus change eh surface temperature, but this is quite a bit different mechanism than the mechanism proposed for ghg (back radiation).

      • What do you claim has been proven. In general, in climate science nothing is proven because there are just too many varialbles and one cannot perform definitive global climate experiments.

  23. Making a sweeping statement such as this about the vast continental Eurasia based on the micro-climate of one cave in an area that borders the meandering semi-tropical and temperate climates of the region is a real stretch for me.

    “Over the past century, winters in continental Eurasia warmed 70 times faster than during the previous 7,000 years, according to our record. At this pace, the warming will continue to pose severe and detrimental impacts throughout the region.”

    Anyone been to that region? I have. Open Google Maps. Look at the proximity of Sochi (sub-tropical, called the Russia Riviera), for example, to NW Georgia, where you can freeze your tuches in the spring/autumn and winter seasons while the palm trees are swaying a half an inch north in Sochi-on-the-Black-Sea.

    Ditto the Caspian Sea, which is just below the Kinderlinksaya Cave. Semi-tropical in northern areas of the Caspian western shores, while a short stretch southwest (as the map shows), the capital of Georgia (Tbilisi) is g.d. freezing in the winter.

    As far as I am concerned, this study is like making claims for the entirety of the US based on the micro-climate of the Bayou.

    • Consider, for example, that the distance between the westernmost and easternmost borders of Russia is the same distance as Seattle to Tehran, as the crow flies. The vast central portion of the country, “central Eurasia,” ranges from year-round bitter cold to never-ending summer.

    • Oh no, if only I had opened Google Maps or visited Eurasia before the study began! All that work for nothing!

  24. disappearing ice in the Arctic regions of North America controlled the warming
    ==========================
    what caused the ice to disappear?

    are the authors really saying that warming caused the warming?

  25. Lets see the next 3 decades, my bet is we are already seeing cold and warm going in opposite directions. Look at the cold records that have fallen since 2009 globally..

    I bet they by far outnumber the warm records that fell since 2009 even though we are plateaued at the warmest part of our modern temperature record.

    It all points to treating the whole planet as an object to be measured to produce anomalies is utter nonsense.

    I agree with Lindzen in that it’s merely a residue. In my opinion a residue of many things occurring, much of which we don’t understand at all, and of course unknown unknowns.

    What happened in past climates is irrelevant as far as proving AGW goes, it really is. What is happening now is ignored (apart from the lets be honest, mostly made up record 1880 to present, it’s a fabrication, there is just not enough data to create such a temp record especially pre 1920s, am I going insane here?)

    Present observations do not back the hypothesis. All of the predictions made were incorrect so it is still a hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is a funny thing. It is backed by papers that contradict each other. Backed by models that contradict each other, and observations that contradict each other.

    It’s truly amazing.

    • “All of the predictions made were incorrect so it is still a hypothesis.”

      It only takes one failed prediction to falsify the CAGW hypothesis, therefore, CAGW doesn’t even rise to the level of a hypothesis.

      • It certainly fails on the PER DECADE warming trend Prediction/Projection,the IPCC has been posting about since 1990,that alone exposes the failure of the AGW conjecture.

  26. I’m a bit confused by the headline. Doesn’t the disappearance of the glaciers in New York prove there has been continual warming?

  27. It seems everyone here has accepted the premise that warming is bad and CO2 is therefore a problem. Atmospheric CO2 is a resource, not a problem. We can feed billions and restore the oceans while using CO2. Russ George has proved it with his iron seeding experiment off Canada’s west coast.

    [“Everyone”? “Here”? ??? .mod]

  28. “As modern temperatures are influenced in part by greenhouse gases, both summers and winters are expected to warm, whereas past temperatures in those seasons had opposing trajectories, Baker said.”

    But the warming/cooling between summer and winter or between the tropics and polar regions is not symmetrical. As the climate warms, cold regions warm more than warm regions as the difference between hot and cold gets smaller. Similarly, as the climate cools, the poles cool faster. The reason is simple and due to the T^4 relationship between emissions and temperature, where in the steady state, emissions are equal to the total solar forcing and it takes more solar forcing to sustain warm temperatures than cold ones.

    For reasons that defy logic, the IPCC and its self serving consensus seems to ignore the fact that as a heated body radiates energy away, it cools and that the SB Law tells us that warmer bodies cool faster than cooler ones. They extrapolate the linear relationship between stored energy and temperature to be a linear relationship between forcing and temperature which is only true if the heated body is not radiating and only approximately true when the rate of heating is far greater than the rate of emissions. For the Earth, the steady state rate of heating is equal to the steady state rate of emissions.

  29. Speleothems ALONE actually say nothing about single factors such as temperature or humidity of the environment.

    Decisive is the water permeability of the overburding rock formations and the weigh / pressure of the water reservoir above.

    If the load of the water reservoir changes due to slopes or earthquakes, the growth of the speleothems also changes.

    A change in the direction of a single river of course also changes the future growth of speleothems.

    As always feel free free to correct me where I’m wrong – Hans

  30. This is a new ”Yamal tree”. The whole thing is based on 2 stalagmites from a single cave in the Northern Urals, and furthermore their reasoning that the oxygen isotope record there is a faithful record of winter temperatures is shaky to put it mildly:

    “We found that above-average winter δ 18Op near the cave site is associated with enhanced westerly flow over the North Atlantic region at the 500-hPa level, whereas atmospheric blocking in the North Atlantic and Scandinavian regions resulted in a more northerly moisture source and below-average δ 18Op (Supplementary Fig. 4). Therefore, we attribute stalagmite δ 18O variability primarily to long-term changes in winter half-year surface temperature near the cave site”

    This is supposed to nullify literally thousands of proxy records that indicate that summers and winters were milder during the Holocene optimum.

  31. Love the first line of the abstract: “The global temperature evolution during the Holocene is poorly known.”
    and yet, here comes Mr. Baker with two speleothem proxy records to the rescue.
    Good luck soon-to-be Dr. Baker explaining that hubris in your post-doc applications.

  32. Spectral components distribution obtained from the stalagmite data records from another Asian cave closely match the Earth’s magnetic dipole spectral composition, unlikely to be a coincidence.

    (geomagnetic data from the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ, Germany.

  33. “continuous warming from the end of the last Ice Age ”

    At least the science has caught up to my anti-climate hysteria rejoinder: “we’re coming out of an ice age. What do you think the temperature SHOULD be doing?”.

    Stops them cold every time.

  34. I must ask, why title the post “Contradicting consensus climate science”? Since when was there a ‘consensus’ on the global evolution of Holocene surface temperatures? o.O You have a handful of proxy-based studies that summarize the limited data, which the authors admit lack comprehensive coverage and likely contain some regional/seasonal biases. These reconstructions have been challenged by a number of model-based studies (which don’t contradict the proxy data, but suggest they can’t easily be averaged into a global temperature curve, due to underrepresentation and regional heterogeneity).

    Here we have a study that doesn’t contradict other regional proxy data (rather, it supports them) and strongly corroborates paleoclimate model reconstructions. A more appropriate title would be: “Paleoclimate models and proxy data match better than suspected”. But hey, how many clicks would that one get? ;) I guess we know why this is the ‘most viewed site about global warming’. Thanks for the link, nonetheless.

    [??? .mod]

  35. I don’t get how the chart illustrates the thesis. The warmest time in the interglacial is 8,000 years ago. It has pretty much cooled ever since except for the rebound from what appears to be the Little If Age.

Comments are closed.