New Paleoclimatology Finding Shows Earth’s Climate Was Typically Warmer than Today

Guest essay by H. Sterling Burnett, originally published on ClimateRealism.com

Archaeologists have published a new paper in The HoloceneDOI: 10.1177/0959683620972775 that confirms what previous research has shown: numerous periods during recent history have been as warm as or warmer than the present.

The press release was covered in The New Scientist, “Climate change has revealed a huge haul of ancient arrows in Norway,”  and discusses the findings of researchers from the Universities of Cambridge, Oslo, and Bergen. The researchers discovered a “treasure trove” of arrows, arrowheads, clothing, and other artifacts, recently uncovered by a receding ice in a mountainous region of southern Norway. The oldest arrows and artifacts date from around 4100 BC. The youngest artifacts date from approximately AD 1300, at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Because present temperatures are only now exposing some of the artifacts were deposited when no ice covered the ground, temperatures were clearly warmer during the many periods when artifacts were deposited.

Along with the arrows and other artifacts, the researchers found nearly 300 specimens of reindeer antler and bone exposed by receding ice. Because reindeer presently frequent the area, the archaeologists say they are confident the area has served as an important hunting ground, off and on, for millennia.

The fact that artifacts were found from several different periods separated by hundreds and thousands of years in time indicates the ice and snow in the region has expanded and receded several times over the current interglacial period.

Elsewhere in Norway, scientists also recently uncovered what they have labeled a “Viking highway,” a route the ancient peoples inhabiting the region used to travel regularly. The route had for approximately 2,000 years been covered by snow and ice that expanded as the region’s climate shifted from a relatively warm period, comparable to present temperatures, to a colder period during which “permanent” thick snow and ice cover formed. This erected the equivalent of a “highway closed” sign.

More evidence for relative warm periods in recent history has recently been found half a world away in frozen Antarctica, where scientists report they have discovered perfectly preserved, 800-year-old penguin remains exposed by a patch of melting ice along the Antarctic coast.

In an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Geology, scientists reported discovering what appeared to be the fresh remains of Adelie penguins in a region currently uninhabitable by penguins. Carbon dating showed the penguin remains were approximately 800 years old, implying the remains had only recently been exposed by thawing ice. Further analysis of the site showed penguins colonized and abandoned the site multiple times between 800 and 5,000 years ago.

Penguins are currently unable to inhabit the area where the frozen corpse was found because “fast ice” (ice that extends from the Antarctic shore many miles out into the ocean) prevents them from accessing the ocean for food. During the Medieval Warm Period, the absence of fast ice allowed penguins to colonize and nest in the area for hundreds of years.

Numerous other frozen and near-perfectly preserved human and animal corpses have been discovered in Arctic and glacial alpine regions in recent decades as the Earth has modestly warmed.

The most famous of these, perhaps, is the frozen human mummy scientists call Otzi, which hikers discovered in 1991 in a then-recently thawed area of the northern Italian Alps. Analysis of the mummy’s clothing, body, stomach contents, and the plants found frozen around it indicate Otzi died, was nearly flash-frozen in place, and then covered over by and ice- and snow-driven glacial expansion more than 5,300 years ago. This fact suggests the Earth was just as warm, and the snow and ice extent just as low, 5,300 years ago as it is today.

Also, in the December 3, 2019 edition of Geophysical Research Letters, scientists examining materials from three lakes on the Svalbard archipelago jutting into the Arctic Ocean found evidence that from 11,700 through 8,200 years BP, temperatures in the region often exceeded both currently recorded temperatures and those projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to occur even under its worst-case scenarios. Such ancient warmth existed for hundreds of years at a time.

According to Svalbard evidence, peak warmth occurred approximately 10,000 years before the present, at which time temperatures in the region were estimated to be 7 degrees Celsius warmer than today.

Proxy data from tree rings, shell middens, and pollen trapped in peat, fossilized remains, and oral and written historical records all show not only that global temperatures have been as warm as or warmer than today, but also that all of these warm periods have been a boon for life, including the expansion of human communities. Indeed, history shows these warmer periods contributed to the rise of agricultural societies, human civilizations with large permanent settlements (which have recently morphed into megalopolises), and modern nation-states.

[Photo courtesy of Wikimedia commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neolithic_arrowheads_Chariez.jpg]

0 0 vote
Article Rating
248 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GP Hanner
December 2, 2020 6:42 pm

Yeah. Here is southeastern Michigan the snow is coming a bit early and is forecast to trend above average snowfall and average temperatures. Take a look around at all the snow covered fields and tell me what is growing.

Global warming is preferable to global cooling and the catastrophes foretold never happen.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  GP Hanner
December 2, 2020 6:56 pm

The catastrophes will come from Climate Change policy. Not climate change. Climate change is non-problem that needs to be ignored.
So when blithering idiots like John Kerry and Jacinda Ardern call Climate Change an “existential threat to humanity,” what they really mean is climate policy will bring on those calamities.

markl
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 2, 2020 7:21 pm

+1M

Pat from Traralgon
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 2, 2020 8:23 pm

For my sins, I was a a Year 2000 project manager for an electricity generator.
To my knowledge ALL of the damage was caused by testing, not the actual changeover that was completely non-eventful.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 2, 2020 8:52 pm

Yes
The corollary of my contention there are no climate change refugees, there are only climate change policy refugees.

One day there will need to be climate change policy crimes against humanity trials, and I suggest they be held in the poorest, malarial ridden country in Africa with the locals as the jury.

Safe to say it will be “worse than anyone thought”.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 3, 2020 8:42 pm

“The corollary of my contention there are no climate change refugees, there are only climate change policy refugees.”

Related to that, there are people who are convinced they SHOULD be CC refugees, and act accordingly.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 3, 2020 3:17 am

+++10 to the nth power

Enginer01
December 2, 2020 6:48 pm

An interesting article, but one that leaves out reference to tree stumps found under retreating glaciers, and the fact that over the Holocene sea levels have risen sever hundred meters.

Loydo
Reply to  Enginer01
December 2, 2020 8:22 pm

The earlier warming periods lasted hundreds of years but came and went so gradually as to have no clear start or finish. Abrupt modern warming has really only got going in the last 50 years in and it’s accellerating. “The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (+0.18°C / +0.32°F) since 1981.” https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201913

Our CO2 pulse will reverberate for centuries.

“the best guess cases, which include air/seawater,
CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an
ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17– 33% of
the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere
1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10– 15% at 10 kyr, and 7%
at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about
30– 35 kyr.”
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

Despite the urgings of The Heartland Institute, not something that can be ignored.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 8:58 pm

Funny
As James Hansen showed, the best thermometer record shows modest warming and nothing near what was recorded 100 years ago

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

As always, fail

Nothing is accelerating except your irrelevance

Loydo
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 2, 2020 9:28 pm

Oof, hits me with data from 1999.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 10:37 pm

OOOF, loy–dumb falls flat on his face..

thinks 20 years is “climate. D’OH !!

Loy do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL that humans have cause any of the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL WARMING out of the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years!

Or are just just regurgitating brain-hosed anti-science AGW yet again. !!

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 11:11 pm

Yes, Loy-dumb,

we are well aware that once-was-data has been HIGHLY MAL-ADJUSTED to suit the alarmist cult.

Thanks for drawing that to everyone’s attention. 🙂

Now, let’s watch you weasel your way out of it, yet again.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Laertes
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 1:42 am

“Oof, hits me with data from 1999.”

From when scientists were allowed to actually publish a paper that contradicted the viewpoint of fanatic ecologists.

Case in point, the study from 2019 that concluded eating red meat is not detrimental to health, which was viciously attacked all along the press, on grounds of health and “climate change morality”. There was a wall of hostile mainstream activity because there were scientists who actually DARED to go against the prevalent ideological dogma. There were also personal attacks on the credibility of the scientists which continue until today.

Now you won’t even get a scientific grant if you don’t pledge to the cult of climate change first.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 9:18 pm

Loydo has been corrected on this point many times in the past. But then, it’s never had anything other than lies.

The proxies used to measure past warming periods have proxies with resolutions of 10’s to hundreds of years. You simply can’t directly compare the rates of change from such proxies to modern records with yearly to monthly resolutions. Of course the previous warming periods look slower, but that doesn’t mean they were.

PS: I love how the liar uses the 2016 El Nino to make the recent few years look like they have been warming faster. Then again the real world has never been kind to the warmunists.

john harmsworth
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 7:16 am

Bingo! Game, set and match. Run off to the Guardian or nearest office of the Communist party, Loydo and ask them what to say next. They have an endless supply of B.S. to choose from. It’s getting really, really old.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 7:41 am

Kinda funny how correction doesn’t stop him or the other trolls from constantly repeating their talking points.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel Snider
December 3, 2020 9:13 am

It’s almost as if they don’t care about data and reality.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 9:41 am

“It’s different this time” seems to be the argument.

James
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 2:35 pm

Just give him a tent and supplies and drop him off on the northern end of the Hudson Bay next week and pick him up in Spring. Then ask him what he thinks about GW, if he can still speak.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 8:48 pm

“The proxies used to measure past warming periods have proxies with resolutions of 10’s to hundreds of years. You simply can’t directly compare the rates of change from such proxies to modern records with yearly to monthly resolutions. Of course the previous warming periods look slower, but that doesn’t mean they were.”

Yes. I just replied in a similar vein just above. I bow to your firstness.

Mr.
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 9:21 pm

“The earlier warming periods lasted hundreds of years but came and went so gradually as to have no clear start or finish.”

I can work with that.

As Neil Young sang –
“This ol’ world keeps spinnin’ round,
It’s a wonder tall trees ain’t layin’ down,
Comes a time . . .”

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 9:24 pm

The earlier warming periods lasted hundreds of years but came and went so gradually as to have no clear start or finish.

This study may be right or wrong, but it does not seem to assert gradual change.

Analysis of the mummy’s clothing, body, stomach contents, and the plants found frozen around it indicate Otzi died, was nearly flash-frozen in place, and then covered over by and ice- and snow-driven glacial expansion….

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Juan Slayton
December 3, 2020 6:31 am

“was nearly flash-frozen in place”

It sounds like he might have been caught in an avalanche.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 3, 2020 9:15 am

Not in the place where his body was found.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 3, 2020 8:51 pm

Yeah, I don’t think Otzi is an indicator of sudden onset global cooling, like on the order of hours. Avalanche would be my bet, or was left to die by others.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 10:41 pm

ROFLMAO.

Loy -dumb thinks that models are evidence

NO , mind-numbed trollette.

Models based on erroneous suppositions are WORSE THAN USELESS…..

… because they give FAKE GARBAGE non-information.

The warming has come ONLY at El Nino events, therefore absolutely NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2.

Try again little sock-puppet. !!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 11:08 pm

0000F… Loy-dumb hits us with modelled non-data from 2004 built of models from 1990 , 2003 and however many more there were.

A whole stack of MEANINGLESS MODELS built on scientific quicksand.

YAWN !!!!

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 11:47 pm

How is it possible to measure a global average temperature since 1880 when 70% of the earth is ocean and/or inaccessible?

I know your answer will be “interpolation”, but just think about that for a single moment and then think again how it is possible to state with confidence the global average temperature has increased by such a minuscule amount when we don’t even know what the starting point was.

fred250
Reply to  Redge
December 3, 2020 12:37 am

The southern hemisphere oceans had less than 20% coverage before 2003, even on the surface.

Whole of ocean depth below 900m not much before 2000.

comment image

Ocean heat content before then, is either from proxies of assumption driven models

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Redge
December 3, 2020 5:25 am

In 1880 some thought there was a ring of ice surrounding a tropical land at the North Pole. The New York Herald (who sent Stanley to find Livingstone) funded an expedition, sending the USS Jeannette north to find out the truth in late 1879. The expedition was a disaster, not finding any tropical lands and losing most of the crew. I doubt if they had any clue what the average global temperature was at that time. And I’m sure the proxies aren’t able to give us a precise, accurate average global temperature either, unless they are based on one tree.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Redge
December 3, 2020 8:53 pm

“How is it possible to measure a global average temperature since 1880 when 70% of the earth is ocean and/or inaccessible?”

The answer is, you can’t. It wouldn’t matter how many thermometers you had all over the planet. Each temperature reading is an intensive property of that point in space and time. Averaging that reading with readings from other locations is physically meaningless.

Redge
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 3, 2020 10:10 pm

I was hoping Loydo would come to that conclusion

Nah, I knew the farce was strong in that one

Climate believer
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 12:20 am

Loydo “Our CO2 pulse will reverberate for centuries.”

Man-made emissions of CO² are 3% of total atmospheric CO². (IPCC)
Which makes our “pulse” 12.45 ppm of total atmospheric CO² . That’s a very weak pulse.

Then there’s the fact that, increases in atmospheric CO² are not tracking changes in human emissions. Increases in global atmospheric CO² are lagging nearly a year behind changes in global air surface temperature. Ice cores also show lag over centuries.

You seriously believe that reducing or eliminating that tiny part of CO² will stop the planet from warming by 0.18°C / +0.32°F over 10 years?

I can totally ignore that, because it’s ridiculous.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 12:20 am

Loydo, how dim are you? Or are you paid, like griff?

DaveS
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 12:47 am

Thanks for confirming that your beliefs are based on guesses. You are something that can be ignored.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 12:47 am

Loydo is trying to move the goalposts again. Faced with unequivocal physical evidence the World was much warmer in the past, WUWT’s resident trollette is now claiming the problem is not actually the warmth, but the rate of warming.

Give up, tollette. You’ve been rumbled.

fred250
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 4:22 am

Only way he/she/it can spin that little piece of fakery by ignorance of the using smeared proxy data over time steps of 100s or years against maladjusted high resolution modern data.

ie.. by displaying his/her/its complete lack of mathematical understanding.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 6:55 am

“WUWT’s resident trollette is now claiming the problem is not actually the warmth, but the rate of warming.”

Even going by the bastardized, modern-era Hockey Stick chart. the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 is statistically the same as the rate of warming from 1975 to the present.

Here’s a quote from that climate change authority, Phil Jones:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/30/what-are-in-fact-the-grounds-for-concern-about-global-warming/

“Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admitted in an interview on the BBC in 2010 [12], that “for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.”

The global surface temperature chart bastardizers changed the slope of the temperature record to make things look like they are getting hotter and hotter, decade after decade, and we are now at the hottest temperatures in human history, but they couldn’t take the rate of warming out of the chart.

Here is a comparison of the real global temperature profile, which is that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, with the bogus, bastardized modern-era Hockey Stick chart.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

As you can see, the US chart on the left shows that it was warmer in the 1930’s than it is today.

The bogus, bastadized Hockey Stick chart on the right artificially cools the 1930’s into insignificance and makes it appear that temperatures today are the hottest in history, which was the purpose in bastardizing the chart.

Not only does paleoclimatology show it was just as warm or warmer in the past than it is today, but the written historic temperature record also shows it was just as warm in the very recent past as it is today.

All these records show that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Laertes
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 1:54 am

” temperatures in the region often exceeded both currently recorded temperatures and those projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to occur even under its worst-case scenarios. Such ancient warmth existed for hundreds of years at a time”

If you think that there’s a difference between “abrupt modern warming in last 50 years” and “gradual warming periods that lasted hundreds of years” from the point of evolution, then I’m sorry but you are the science denier, not us.

The difference in evolution between 50 and 500 years is nil. If the temperatures exceeded what IPCC predicts in worst scenarios, then if it was really catastrophical to the life on Earth, we would live on a barren planet. If life cannot adapt in 50 years, life cannot adapt in 500 years. Only viruses and bacteria can meaningfully evolve along that time scale.

I had genetic algorithms when I studied IT – this is basically how evolution works. You get thousands of iterations of life cycle, and only THEN you see a change, if it is steered in one direction by the function that makes the assessment if the structure is adapted well or not. A cat lives 2 years on average in the wild. Each feline generation can reproduce in the same year it is born – let’s say 2 generations per year. in 50 years, there’s 100 generations, in 500 – 1,000. A thousand generation of cats wouldn’t adapt to changed circumstances if they were as lethal to them as IPCC says (complete failure of life on Earth).

Basic science. Evolution works in much larger timescales.

John Tillman
Reply to  Laertes
December 3, 2020 7:16 am

Generally true but new species can and do arise in a single generation.

A plant may experience whole genome duplication, such that it can no longer produce offspring with its maternal species.

Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 2:11 am

Loydo
The earlier warming periods lasted hundreds of years but came and went so gradually

I think you’ll find that’s an artefact of proxy time-blurring.
This smells of Mike’s Nature Trick.
Comparing high temporal resolution instrumental data with heavily time-blurred proxy data and hey presto! Current climate change is unprecedented.
Yes sharp data is sharper than blurred data.

fred250
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 2:56 am

Phil,

You have to remember that loy is working from a pre junior high understanding of maths and science.

All he has is what he has been indocrinated with.

EMPTY of any actual real science.

TonyG
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 10:22 am

I tried to explain that concept to some people once. It’s amazing how hard it is for some to understand.

Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 3:30 am

The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30– 35 kyr.”
CO2 from oceans will disappear within days ? 😀 😀
What BS, and you believe that quote ? poor Loydo 😀

fred250
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 4:41 am

“The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about
30– 35 kyr.””

ROFLMAO..

so all that 96% of NATURAL CO2 (as opposed t human 4%) will also last 30-35 kyr, right dopey loy !!

Or do you think that human CO2 somehow works differently in the atmosphere..

are you REALLY THAT DUMB !!!

You have got be taking some weird hallucinogenic to believe garage like that !!

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 9:19 am

They used to claim that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for 1000 years.

John Tillman
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 7:12 am

Since the end of the LIA c. AD 1850, the Modern Warm Period has enjoyed three warming cycles and suffered two coolings. We may now be in the third cooling. It is too soon to say.

Present La Niña should last into next year, so in February the world will have endured five years of cooling since Super El Niño peak in February 2016. The Pause between prior 1997-98 SEN and that of 2015-16 might have included the beginning of a new cool cycle. Only time will tell.

The last warming cycle began dramatically in 1977 with the PDO flip that year.

So far the Modern Warm Period hasn’t yet attained the heat of the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian and Holocene Climatic Optimum Warm Periods. Let alone the Eemian and previous other warmer Pleistocene interglacials. Not to mention the rest of the Cenozoic Era, Mesozoic and most of the Paleozoic.

Nothing the least bit unusual is happening with global climate. Human effects on weather are local.

TonyG
Reply to  John Tillman
December 3, 2020 10:24 am

in February the world will have endured five years of cooling
No worries, once they adjust the data it will be the hottest five years on record.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 7:23 am

Loydo –> “The earlier warming periods lasted hundreds of years but came and went so gradually as to have no clear start or finish. ”

And exactly what studies are you referencing that show these periods came and went gradually? As far as I have ever seen the time precision of paleontology is centuries if not millennia. We have not even begun to approach that with our current temperature record. In other words average the last 150 years and it wouldn’t even make a data point in the ancient record.

You can’t compare the two and you shouldn’t even try!

Reacher51
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 7:24 am

Lyod, please provide the thermometer based annual temperature reconstructions for these earlier warming periods, so that we can compare with the data that start in 1880, without which it would of course not be possible to verify your claim.

Alternatively, please take the proxies that are used to estimate temperatures in earlier warming periods and show us precisely what those exact same proxies show us about our current warming period.

Alan Carr
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 7:26 am

Hahahah! Oh me gosh that was funny!

mkelly
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 8:39 am

From Encyclopedia Brittanica about Younger Dryas:”
“In this second warming interval, average global temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.”

Our tiny change in 50 years shows nothing outside what can happen in naturally.

Meab
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 9:12 am

LoyD’oh, As you well know, the science behind predicting future atmospheric CO2 concentrations is poorly known. That’s why there is an extremely large range of estimates. Picking and choosing any one estimate out of this extremely large range without addressing the huge errors involved is at best irrelevant and at worst dishonest.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 11:55 am

I’m not sure where you get your ideas from Lloydo but the earth has been warming for 120 years or more. Its only the last 70 that the IPCC attributes to anthropogenic CO2.

And considering half the annual emissions are removed from the atmosphere every year I find it difficult understand why anything but a small fraction would exist after 1k years. There is an enormous unjustified assumption of reduction of sink effectiveness in that belief.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 8:45 pm

“The earlier warming periods lasted hundreds of years but came and went so gradually as to have no clear start or finish. ”

That’s mainly because proxies typically have such coarse temporal resolution, that so-called “abrupt” warming or cooling could be entirely missed. Or they get averaged away in the making of a single line for “global temperature”. In other words, nonsense.

Philo
Reply to  Loydo
December 5, 2020 7:22 am

Sorry old friend- Why don’t you try putting together a post showing that much of the “data” being used in alarmist headlines has been fraudulently manipulated. If you can come up with a fresh take on this I think you will get a huge number of kudos for it here. Probably not on NPR or CNN though.

Wayne Job
December 2, 2020 6:54 pm

Confusion confusion, I was told that what is happening now was unprecedented.
(sarc)

Len Werner
December 2, 2020 7:05 pm

What a lot of work; could have just asked a geologist. But nice to see; an article that includes a lot of basic facts that alarmists will simply ignore as ‘impossible, it doesn’t fit the groupthink mindset’.

One could try and get some of this into Greta’s head with her being so close to southern Norway, but it would still likely require a drill and a funnel even while she’s staring at the evidence.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Len Werner
December 3, 2020 12:22 am

Much easier to fool people than convince them they’ve been fooled.

Chris Nisbet
December 2, 2020 7:08 pm

Are we meant to think that this was just a bit of localised warming, and nothing that might make us question the view that the current global temperature is ‘unprecedented ‘?

Loydo
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
December 2, 2020 9:00 pm

Yes, if you go back to the sources used for this article and scrape away all the disinformation and selective quoting. Instead of credulously gulping down a Heartland headline confected to confirm your bias, why not be a little skeptical. There are holes in this propaganda piece you can drive a truck through.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 9:19 pm

Once again, Loydo can’t tell the difference between the propaganda it’s paid to spread and reality.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 10:45 pm

We ALWAYS scrape away all YOUR misinformation.

You make it SO EASY, because you only have mindless chihuahua type yapping.

You are left standing naked of any real evidence at every post you make.

As far as science goes, you are an abyss of empty nothingness.. !

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 11:41 pm

There are holes in this propaganda piece you can drive a truck through.

Yet you can’t even manage to start your truck…. poor loser loy !!

There are holes in the AGW propaganda scam that you could drive a fleet of Sherman tanks through.

That has never affected your rabid AGW cult fundaMENTALism., though, has it. !

Try to be a bit skeptical of AGW propaganda, hey loy !!

commieBob
December 2, 2020 7:26 pm

This seems like a good time to remind folks of the CO2 Science website. If you click on the subject index and then click on M, you will see a pile of information about the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). link

The MWP was warmer than today and it was global. Fraudulent hockey sticks notwithstanding, the good science is on the side of the skeptics.

It amuses me when alarmists trumpet thawing artefacts as proof of global warming. They’re right, it’s warmer that it was a while ago during the Little Ice Age … but it was even warmer than it is now during the MWP. The MWP sure wasn’t caused by anthropogenic CO2, it was entirely natural. That means the current warming is probably also natural. That’s why Dr. Mann had to concoct his hockey stick.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  commieBob
December 2, 2020 9:03 pm

Yes
An old link was posted here the other day, Jim Hansen in 1999 that showed the accurate USA continental temperature record before fraudulent hockey sticks and the adjustocene required to make those much warmers temps 100 years ago go away.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Fraud upon fraud must become a crime eventually

markl
December 2, 2020 7:33 pm

Who’d have thunk?

Izaak Walton
December 2, 2020 7:52 pm

It does seem that the people at ClimateRealism don’t read the papers they link to. For instance they state
“Because present temperatures are only now exposing some of the artifacts were deposited when no ice covered the ground, temperatures were clearly warmer during the many periods when artifacts were deposited.”
In contrast the linked paper says that:
“The artefacts were likely lost during prehistoric reindeer hunting on or adjacent to the ice patch. These hunts probably took place mainly on hot days in July and August, when large numbers of reindeer congregate regularly on the ice and snow to cool and avoid botflies ”
which is the opposite of what climaterealism implies.

Loydo
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 2, 2020 8:40 pm

Uh huh.

“…confirms what previous research has shown: numerous periods during recent history have been as warm as or warmer than the present.” Confected disinformation, but don’t the ‘skeptics’ here love it.
Here are a couple of ‘money quotes’ from a paper cited above that ended up on the cutting room floor –
“The Arctic warms much faster than the global average. This amplified response can trigger feedbacks that affect the trajectory of future change….”However, Early Holocene warming was much slower than today..”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL084384

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 9:27 pm

As has been proven over and over and over again, it’s a complete lie that melting arctic ice is positive feedback. However the climate trolls have no facts, so they have no choice but to regurgitate old lies.

At the maximum angle with which the sun’s light hit’s artic water, the amount of light reflected is only a little bit less than that reflected from sea ice. The big problem for the warmunists is that the sun is at this maximum angle for only one day a year. For all the other days, the angle is less to much less.
Beyond that, the time of maximum melt occurs well after the time of maximum sun, which decreases the sun’s impact even more.
Beyond that, ice is an insulator, so it’s presence prevents the heat in the water from reaching the air, and from their escaping into space. The less ice, the more heat that is radiated away from the planet.

For from the positive feedback that the climate clowns claim (but never demonstrate), in reality melting ice is one of the strongest negative feedbacks on the planet.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2020 9:35 pm

Please, don’t give any sources, that would spoil your Make-it-up status.

“Here we provide quantitative evidence that heat input through the open water fraction is the primary driver of seasonal and interannual variations in Arctic sea ice retreat.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08467-z

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 11:03 pm

ROFLMAO

“Representation of feedbacks through a simplified model”

“The model is based on assumptions….. blah blah…..

YAWNNNNNN !!!!

Read your links first loy-dumb so you don’t keep making a fool of yourself.

“which can partly explain the recent drastic ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean”

There has NOT been a “drastic” reduction in sea ice in the Arctic

There has been a HIGHLY BENEFICIAL recovery from the extreme anomalous high of the LIA and later 1970s.

Not only is the land surface GREENING, but the seas are also springing BACK to life after being TOO COLD and frozen over for much of the last 500 or so years (coldest period of the Holocene)

The drop in sea ice slightly toward the pre-LIA levels has opened up the food supply for the nearly extinct Bowhead Whale, and they are returning to the waters around Svalbard.

https://partner.sciencenorway.no/arctic-ocean-forskningno-fram-centre/the-ice-retreats–whale-food-returns/1401824

The Blue Mussel is also making a return, having been absent for a few thousand years, apart from a brief stint during the MWP.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701?journalCode=hola

Many other species of whale are also returning now that the sea ice extent has dropped from the extreme highs of the LIA. Whales cannot swim on ice. !

https://blog.poseidonexpeditions.com/whales-of-svalbard/

Great thing is, that because of fossil fuels and plastics, they will no longer be hunted for whale blubber for lamps and for whale bone.

STOP DENYING that the LIA and late 1970s were extreme high anomalies, and unprecedented for all of the previous 8000+ years.

Petit_Barde
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2020 11:25 pm

And when the sun goes down again, past June solstice, the heat input under clear water decreases (it vanishes past mid September : see referenced article figure 2.a) and the claimed feedback reverse since clear water continue to emit more than ice covered water thus accelerating the cooling.

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 9:21 am

I’ve given the data hundreds of times. I get tired of you just ignoring it.
On the other hand I could do as you do and keep a few propaganda sites on my rolodex for easy reference.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 9:22 am

PS: Everything I gave is basic science 101. Once again, Loydo is a science denier.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 9:23 am

If I were to claim that water is wet, would Loydo demand references?

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 3:48 am

Loydo, how do you know today’s modest warmth is caused by anthropogenic CO2 and not whatever natural forcings that was responsible for much greater warmth during most of the Holocene Epoch, poorly understood though they may be.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Kamakaris
December 4, 2020 5:18 am

Great question, David.

That question should be asked of every alarmist, especially alarmist politicians. They should have to answer that question before being allowed to spend money fixing the climate. If they can’t answer the question, then they shouldn’t get any money.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 5, 2020 11:39 am

“That question should be asked of every alarmist, especially alarmist politicians”

Even better, ask them what causes the seasons to change. Swear to heaven, not one single warmunist (I like that one!) not one warmunist I have asked so far could tell me. They either got it wrong, or they blanked out and started yelling at me for “hating science”.
For Loydo, I include a simple lesson, with pickshurs, no maffs.
https://www.greenpets.co.za/index.php/en/2-greenpets-natural-happiness/136-climate-change

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 4:05 am

No warming in the Arctic this century except from the 2015 El Nino/Big Blob

comment image

NOT CAUSED BY HUMAN CO2.

and from 1980-1995 (before the 1997/8 El Nino), it was actually COOLING

comment image

“The Arctic warms much faster than the global average.” = GARBAGE. !!!

mkelly
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 8:54 am

Ancient tree stumps found under Breiðamerkurjökull glacier in Southeast Iceland are confirmed to be roughly 3,000 years old. RÚV reports.

https://www.icelandreview.com/news/3000-year-old-trees-excavated-under-glacier/

How do you guys explain all the tree stumps and logs found under receding glaciers? Did they get dropped there in the summer when some folks were getting wood for homes?

Rich Davis
Reply to  mkelly
December 3, 2020 10:14 am

Excellent rebuttal. I was going to ask how it came to pass that the “lost” artifacts date only to known warm periods rather than a continuous period. Tree stumps are much stronger evidence, not only because it’s absurd to claim that they were brought to the ice and lost there, but also because trees cannot grow in an area that is permanently ice covered.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 4, 2020 5:22 am

Excellent summation of the rebuttal, Rich. 🙂

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 2, 2020 9:06 pm

Did the reindeer also hide the stumps of trees that were found under the retreating glaciers?

And all the ones growing near the Arctic Ocean too?

Those reindeer are bloody clever, no wonder Santa drafted them in

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 2, 2020 9:21 pm

Actually it isn’t the opposite, not even close.
Until recently those areas have been under ice year round, so for the ground to be uncovered during the summer it would have to have been warmer then.

Do you ever get tired of inventing new lies?

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2020 10:51 pm

Make-it-up Mark, makes accusations of lies, never posts quotes or a link in support AND has his own made-up bs refuted with cited evidence.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 3, 2020 9:24 am

Poor Loydo, can only regurgitate what it is paid to believe.
I’ve given hundreds of links. You always find an excuse to not read them.

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 2, 2020 10:47 pm

Tree stumps, artifacts, human and animal remains, under retreating Little Ice Age glaciers

Stop your childish CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL, Izzy.

nyolci
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 3, 2020 12:12 am

Wait, watts the local habit? Ah, yes: +1M 😉

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 2:42 am

And the self-worthless, ignorant nyholist yaps like a chihuahua behind a 2ft fence.

So sad, so PATHETIC. !

Mike
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 3, 2020 12:20 am

Oh I see. Did the big trees also found buried in a tomb of ice grow there only during the warm summers and then walk back down the mountain for the winter?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Mike
December 3, 2020 12:52 am

Izaak and Loydo are dumb enough to believe that.

Reply to  Mike
December 3, 2020 2:00 am

Fran
December 2, 2020 8:30 pm

The kiddies today expect a controlled environment – after all the thermostat on the wall is sufficient. The notion that natural forces may change environment is an anthema. Not only does the govment control the environment, but it also controls viruses for them. When things don’t happen as expected, a demonstration in the streets will set it all right – sometimes the demonstrations have to include a bit of pyromaniacy to get the message across to the dumb old folks.

Robert of Texas
December 2, 2020 8:46 pm

I love finding ancient proof of mankind where there can’t be any… It’s like God has a strong and maybe sarcastic sense of humor.

Don’t fret, they’ll prove it’s all caused by CO2 somehow. The models cannot be wrong. They run on modern computers after all, and programmers ALWAYS know exactly what they are doing. (I might have met a handful that knew what they were doing in my 40+ years in that field)

Robert of Texas
December 2, 2020 8:57 pm

By the way… That picture of arrowheads…are they supposed to be from Norway? Because they look really American to me. Specifically from the Kansas (southeast), Oklahoma (east), Texas (northeast), Arkansas (west), and Missouri (southwest) region. Extremely typical shapes from those areas.

G. Franke
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 2, 2020 9:56 pm

Robert of T,
That was my thought also! I hope the author will comment on your observation.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 3, 2020 12:33 am

“Because they look really American to me. ”
Robert
Now try thinking that thought the other way round and see where it takes you.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
December 3, 2020 11:29 am

Not sure what you mean. There is a strong line of evidence on the progression of styles, sizes, and manufacturing techniques of “arrow heads” within the North American domain. Most artifacts called “arrow heads” have nothing to do with bows, but it’s a pretty standard term referring to such artifacts.

Large beautifully crafted “spear points” are generally older (including the Clovis Point), then a progression into medium sized points of many styles, and then much later a progression into much smaller points that did actually function as arrow heads. This is a very general rule of thumb and many exceptions exist. The “accepted” ages used to start in around 12,000 years ago but I had always argued it must be at least 20,000 years ago when the larger migrations of peoples started.

By the presence of certain styles of arrow heads on can see gradually shifting crafting norms possible as people adopted new methods or possibly through a slow shifting of territories, or the complete sudden replacement of one culture for another possibly through war or simple over-time abandonment followed by a new culture moving in.

The picture used for this article appears to contain many different styles of arrowheads. I am very familiar with these styles and materials, and would be shocked if these were an example of European stone arrowheads as it would indicated far more interaction than I had believed existed. Some of these styles did not become prevalent in the middle U.S. areas until long after Europe had entered the copper and even bronze ages.

In any case, I would like to know more about the picture used.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 3, 2020 11:52 am

“In any case, I would like to know more about the picture used”
Robert,
I think you are right.
I suspect that the picture is out of context.

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
December 3, 2020 12:54 pm

Robert of Texas
December 2, 2020 at 8:57 pm

I think it’s just a generic photo…the source is given as:

[Photo courtesy of Wikimedia commons,comment image]

Some of the images in the links given in the article are really stunning and well worth a look.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
December 3, 2020 1:39 pm

“well worth a look”
Alastair,
I agree. Am reading it now.

bonbon
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 3, 2020 2:43 am

See : The Archaeology and Paleoecology of the Texas Aubrey Clovis Site
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a391588.pdf
US Army Corp. of Engineers doing Paleontology!
This is a Clovis late Glacial site, ~11,000 BP .
Clovis is a French area where such hunting heads were found, and then in N.America.

Hard to believe Vikings of the Iron Age were still using such tools.

John Tillman
Reply to  bonbon
December 3, 2020 7:24 am

Clovis is in New Mexico.

You have it confused with Solutre, France.

Reply to  John Tillman
December 3, 2020 8:13 am

But what seems to be correct is, that the Solutre precedes Clovis, that Solutre people crossed the Atlantic over ice founding clovis. Spearheads etc. seem to prove the relation

Steven Curtis Lohr
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 4, 2020 6:14 am

I would have to agree with you. The one is clearly a fluted point. I’m no expert.

Reply to  Steven Curtis Lohr
December 4, 2020 8:56 am

“That picture of arrowheads…are they supposed to be from Norway? ”
comment image
They are made from lithic fragments (flint).

The arrowhead shown in Figure 4 (d) is clearly made of metal.
Figure 4. Examples of arrows found at Langfonne.
(d) F106, radiocarbon-dated to 1270-1170 cal yr BP

RickWill
December 3, 2020 12:15 am

Finding artefact uncovered by receding ice is an indicator of orbital changes that varies the evaporation rate of ocean water and the melting rate of land ice. It does not indicate the globe was warmer or cooler.

Earth has an exquisite thermostat that limits heat uptake when ocean surface water reaches 27C:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3qPDHvnq-L6w5-5
And limits heat loss when ocean surface water reaches -1.7C.

Glaciation and subsequent melting are local phenomena. Glaciation is energy intensive because it requires high rate of evaporation and low rate of melting. Evaporation is much more energy intensive than melting.

Evidence of glaciation and melting has no bearing on the “global” temperature or Earth’s surface energy balance.

Mike
Reply to  RickWill
December 3, 2020 1:25 am

”Glaciation and subsequent melting are local phenomena.”

Obviously not always. The penguins in Antarctica were 800 years old which falls within the MWP well documented in the north.

”Finding artefact uncovered by receding ice is an indicator of orbital changes that varies the evaporation rate of ocean water and the melting rate of land ice. It does not indicate the globe was warmer or cooler.”

Well you’ll need to explain further. ie; how does ice melt due to changes in evaporation without similar changes in heat flux?

MarkW
Reply to  Mike
December 3, 2020 9:26 am

Let me guess, Izaak and Loydo will now claim that the penguin was dropped there by hunters during the local summer.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  RickWill
December 3, 2020 11:54 am

If local ice cover volume (area and depth) demonstrates a trend of growing or shrinking, then some local has changed to cause that effect. It boils down to amount of ice lost due to melting and sublimation versus the amount of ice gained through snowing. That might or might not be caused by an change in a an ocean – a shift in wind direction and intensity could have introduced the change for example, as could the appearance of a “hot-spot” underneath glacial ice.

I several non-contiguous local changes coincide shifting in the same direction, it is a strong indication of a wider change. If those locations are spread far a and wide, you are being left with fewer and fewer mechanisms to explain it other then a shift in global temperatures.

You find evidence of man living and farming further north in Greenland than is possible today. You find past hunting artifacts in Norway where hunting would not produce the required reward today. These seem to lead to a warmer northern climate in times in the past – it isn’t a stretch but simply the simplest most straightforward answer.

Why people simply refuse to believe that natural climate changes, has always done so, and has done so numerous times in man’s past is due to a blind belief in CO2’s ability to dictate climate.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 4, 2020 5:32 am

“is due to a blind belief in CO2’s ability to dictate climate.”

I think “blind belief” is a good way to put it.

nyolci
December 3, 2020 12:35 am

Guys, this is getting tiresome. The article’s sources don’t support its conclusions. @Loydo and @Izaak have already pointed this out.

But anyway, certain locations could’ve been (and were) warmer than today, even in the not too distant past, BUT this would (and doesn’t) contradict AGW. Scientists have always pointed out that current conditions are truly global (and the change extremely fast). The warm periods in the recent past weren’t global. For example your constant fixation, the Medieval Warm Period was a North Atlantic phenomenon. On global (or even hemispheric) scale it was barely noticeable.

The mentioning of Ötzi is especially stupid, and I was very kind here ‘cos I could’ve said “deliberately dishonest” instead. Ötzi evidently died outside his normal habitat, in exceptional circumstances, very likely as a result of a fight and pursuit. His body immediately froze, and it was frozen for the next 5000 years, and of course nothing indicates a sudden extremely rapid cooling of an otherwise much more gentle place.

nyolci
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 1:34 am

Typo. “BUT this would NOT (and doesn’t) contradict AGW”

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 2:54 am

There is NO SUCH THINGS as real AGW.. not from atmospheric CO2

The only anthropogenic part comes from UHI smearing of urban affected sites …

and from adjustment of data.. so it is not real warming.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Run and hide, expose your total lack of self-worth, yet again, little nyholist.

Show us that you have something, ANYTHING, that is actually REAL, to back up your brain-hose AGW cult beliefs.

We are STILL WAITING.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 3:24 am

“BUT this would (and doesn’t) contradict AGW””

Nope, even cooling back to another Little Ice Age would contradict AGW in your little brain-washed mind.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 3:30 am

darn typo…….

Nope, NOT even cooling back to another Little Ice Age would contradict AGW in your little brain-washed mind.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 2:49 am

Yep, your CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL is getting very tiresome, little nyholist.

The articles DO support the conclusion that it has been far warmer in the past.

Tree stumps and human artifacts under retreating glaciers,

just close your eye and stamp your feet… all you can do.

FACTS are a real trigger to you aren’t they petal. comment image

Loy-dumb and Izz have not pointed anything out except their DENIAL of REALITY.

Would you like to be the alarmist sympathise/apologist that at least TRIES to answer 2 simple questions

Or will you squirm around in cowardly evasion like loy and griff do !!!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Laertes
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 2:50 am

“But anyway, certain locations could’ve been (and were) warmer than today, even in the not too distant past, BUT this would (and doesn’t) contradict AGW”

This goes to show how dishonest your argumentation is. I am bombarded every day about “we had a temperature record today”, which is the complete opposite of what you’re saying – any and all LOCAL temperature upscale is taken as 100% proof of AGW while any and all documented evidence to the contrary is dimissed in your fassion.

Also, you have already admitted being a fan of communism and China in particular, so you have clearly a vested ideological interest in promoting AGW (since China will build more coal plants at least until 2030 while the rest of the world reduces their CO2 footprint).

nyolci
Reply to  Laertes
December 3, 2020 3:31 am

> I am bombarded every day about
> “we had a temperature record today”, which
> is the complete opposite of what you’re saying
??? You must’ve misunderstood something (this is the friendly phrasing 😉 ). Again, slowly: according to scientists, AGW is truly _global_, so most of the territory of Earth is predicted (and already measured) to show warming in the last decades. In other words, both local and global temperature records _are_ _expected_ and already _happening_. These records are of the “since measurements started” kind.

There’s another kind of record, that’s today’s global temperature versus reconstructed past global temperatures. The picture is getting clearer and clearer by the day, and in terms of _global_ _average_ _temperature_, what we have today is a record both in amplitude and pace compared to the last x thousand years. X is at least 12 but probably much more but reconstructions are getting less and less reliable as we go back in time.

Nonetheless, while global (average) temperature is the highest today after the last ice age, certain localities were warmer in the past than today. At the same time other localities were colder, and on average the whole Earth was colder.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 4:51 am

“The picture is getting clearer and clearer by the day, and in terms of _global_ _average_ _temperature_, what we have today is a record both in amplitude and pace compared to the last x thousand years. X is at least 12 but probably much more but reconstructions are getting less and less reliable as we go back in time.:”
‘”
What a load of mathematical incompetence.

Do you even understand why the crap you are regurgitating is just CRAP

You really don’t have a vaguest clue what you are rabbiting on about, do you !!

nyolci
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 5:53 am

> What a load of mathematical incompetence.
Shit. I should’ve majored math… Oops, I did! 😉

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 9:28 am

Too bad you didn’t get anything out of it.

Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 9:59 am

I should’ve majored math… Oops, I did!
Show it, or did you forget the basics ?

fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 11:15 am

You should have tried to get past junior high as first step.

That way you might not be so GULLIBLE to the junk science that is AGW.

nyolci
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 12:00 pm

@Krishna Gans
> Show it, or did you forget the basics ?
Oops, you took your revenge? 😉

fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 12:28 pm

“Oops, I did!”

Good, then you already KNOW you are being a DELIBERATE mathematical moron. !!

Petty sort of behavior, backing garbage that you must KNOW to be mathematically junk.

Have you NO SELF-WORTH left at all !!!!!

Sad to see someone so pitiful that they have to LIE to themselves all the time.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 4:58 am

“There’s another kind of record, that’s today’s global temperature versus reconstructed past global temperatures.”

Yep and those records show that the first 80% of the Holocene was WARMER than now.

Arctic sea ice was also much less than now as well.

There is NO WAY you can compare speed of warming of proxy data with steps of 100+ years with modern maladjusted surface data.

It is a mathematical NONSENSE.

But your junior high level maths would not allow you to understand that, would it.

Now.. would you like to run away again in panicked avoidance ???

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Batting ZERO so far…..

You have so little self-worth that you haven’t even attempted to enter the field.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 5:06 am

“temperature is the highest today after the last ice age,”

You mean since the Little Ice Age.

Even that is not true..

1930s, 40s had many places with higher temperatures.

Records that are only broken by tiny fractions of a degree.

Untainted data shows this to be the case.

comment image

comment image

(unlike the COLD RECORD broken in the USA recently, that were broken by SEVERAL degrees.)

Temperature were MUCH WARMER over the whole globe during the first 8000 years of the Holocene

Stop your stupid and deliberately ignorant CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL.

nyolci
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 6:20 am

> 1930s, 40s had many places with higher temperatures.
Perhaps because of the Medieval Warm Period ‘cos it didn’t end, they just suspended it in 1350. 🙂

fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 11:23 am

What ignorant piece of fantasy are you attempting to use to BS your way out the pit of deep ignorance and denial that you have dug yourself into.

Stop your deliberately ignorant CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 4:48 pm

He’s a typical warmunist. When he finds out that his imaginary mental brilliance isn’t impressing anyone, he immediately switches over to insults.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 9:04 pm

“Perhaps because of the Medieval Warm Period ‘cos it didn’t end

More arrant anti-science ignorant BS.

DENIAL of the LIA really makesyou look like a total fool.

comment image

Dave Fair
Reply to  nyolci
December 4, 2020 12:21 pm

Please cite specific scientific studies showing that “… and on average the whole Earth was colder.” And no, speculation or lack of data are not a scientific studies.

nyolci
Reply to  Laertes
December 3, 2020 3:40 am

Haha, a gem of confusion, just noticed:
> fan of communism and China in particular,
> so you have clearly a vested ideological interest
> in promoting AGW (since China will build more
> coal plants at least until 2030 while the rest of
> the world reduces their CO2 footprint).
Summary: I’m supposed to be advocating “CO2 emissions are bad” because China, my object of adoration wants to _increase_ CO2 emissions. No comment 😉

At the level of facts, China has just announced its total commitment to CO2 emission reduction. Knowing China (and communism in general 😉 ) it means substantial and very aggressive reduction measures even in the short term.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 4:47 am

” China has just announced its total commitment to CO2 emission reduction.”

ROFLMAO..

Yet STILL BUILDING COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS AROUND THE WORLD.

That will be there for 50 years +

It means NOTHING except they are pulling the wool over the idiot socialists and climate “believers”..

They are “playing the AGW game”

And people like you are so dumb that you actually fall for it. ….. Bizarre !

So hilarious. How do you keep a straight face when you type such arrant rubbish ? !

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 9:30 am

Fascinating how communists are always telling us that we must always believe whatever other communists are saying.

Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 7:04 am

announced
And what is the level of fachts ? 😀

You are a little dreamer and wishfull thinker 😀

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 12:03 pm

> announced
> And what is the level of fachts ?
“Announced” is actually a fact, a few months ago Xi declared China’s commitment, ie. he announced it. Perhaps you don’t (or can’t? 🙂 ) remember, but this was a minor bombshell.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 2:42 pm

To announce s. th. is one thing, realise it a second, and that would be facts.
Announcements are worthless if not followed by realisation.
So I can’t as to repeat it, you are a dreamer and wishfull thinker.

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 4, 2020 10:15 am

@Krishna Gans
> To announce s. th. is one thing
I said, on the level of facts China had just announced its commitment. This is a statement of fact and an easy to check one, whether you like it or not.

> realise it a second
Exactly. In the past, these kind of announcements were always followed by a very rapid and aggressive implementation. This is again a statement of fact, you can check past campaigns. My “guess” was that this time they would do the same, and this is by no means an outlandish assertion. Anyway, we will see.

fred250
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 4, 2020 6:21 pm

“these kind of announcements were always followed by a very rapid and aggressive implementation.”

Yep, like building NEW coal fired power stations at FIVE TIMES the TOTAL wind by 2030.

You are SO GULLIBLE to your whatever your communist masters say, aren’t you nyholist.

STILL are SO DUMB that you haven’t realised they are just “playing the game”.

And SO MANY FOOLS like you fall for it. roflmao !!

REALITY need never intervene in your zero-thought process.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:30 am

nyolci, you really do manage to believe everything you are told to believe.

Would this be the same China that is currently building over 50GW of coal power every year?

The Chinese government says whatever will get it the best press, then continues to do whatever it was already planning on doing. Just as it’s done every year for the last 70 or so years.

kcrucible
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 1:09 pm

“The Chinese government says whatever will get it the best press, then continues to do whatever it was already planning on doing. Just as it’s done every year for the last 70 or so years.”

And more to the point, the more the Chinese help buttress the AGW scare, the more countries are forced to outsource all their manufacturing to China. Even IF (big if) China ever started decomissioning coal, etc, and moved to 100% solar, it’d still be cheaper to do it in China since they manufacture the panels, have cheap install labor, etc. There’s every reason for China to keep playing the game exactly as they’ve been doing. Win win.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 4:03 am

> nyolci, you really do manage to
> believe everything you are told to believe.
??? I feel here some kind of misunderstanding. First of all, I said they had _announced_ this, and it was considered a minor bombshell. Their announcement is a _fact_. I said, in turn, that the Chinese had usually been acting very determinedly after such announcements so we could expect visible gains in the future. So NO, I don’t believe everything I’m told, furthermore I believe in things that are well supported by evidence. That’s why I’m here debunking the denier-bs.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 12:21 pm

WRONG AS ALWAYS

Chine is playing “the AGW game” Building HUGE NUMBERS OF COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS,

… while making “announcements” about pretending to go “green”

Did you know that their increase in coal fired power over the next few years is FIVE TIMES their total wind estimate by 2030.

Or were you IGNORANT of that as well.

Only the most IGNORANT and GULLIBLE fool would actually believe that “announcement”

But you are that most IGNORANT and GULLIBLE of fools, nyholist.

A scientific wasteland, with absolutely no ability for rational or realistic thought .

No wonder you loath yourself so much.

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 10:02 am

We’ve found someone who actually believes what the CCP says.

Ah, bless…

Graemethecat
Reply to  Laertes
December 3, 2020 4:17 am

No matter how much evidence is accrued to demonstrate that temperatures were warmer in the past, often much warmer, Warmunists like Izaak Walton, Nyolci and Loydo will insist that these were local effects. AGW is an inherently unfalsifiable hypothesis.

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 4:45 am

> No matter how much evidence is accrued to demonstrate
Again, slowly: no evidence. Even the papers here directly contradict what the good old denier H. Sterling Burnett tried to read into them. And this is very typical. The “deniersphere” either makes up studies that are quickly debunked or try to use actual scientific studies but these most often _directly_ contradict the deniers’ thesis.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:31 am

Typical, it’s only evidence when it supports the warmunist narrative.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 12:31 pm

Again, since you COWER away from answering

What do we DENY that you have solid scientific proof for ?

You are SO PATHETIC you can’t even answer that simple question.

RUN AWAY AGAIN , like a headless chook, worthless little twerp.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:33 pm

“Again, slowly: no evidence.”

Yep we KNOW you have NO EVIDENCE.

No need to draw attention to that FACT..

Try , just once, little child troll

1… What do we “Deny” that you can produce solid real scientific proof for

2… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

3… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

So far you are TOTALLY EVIDENCE FREE on any of these simple question

You are an empty sock-puppet, just waiting for one of your cult leaders to put their hand up you …..

Dave Fair
Reply to  nyolci
December 4, 2020 12:10 pm

The study documented the dating of recently uncovered (from ice) human artifacts that had been deposited in an obviously warmer climate. The authors at one point SPECULATED that the artifacts could have been deposited in the summertime on patches of ice adjacent to the real (permanently colder) icefields.

Real scientists analyse, pseudoscientists (CliSci) speculate with no real evidence. CliSci wants to replace fruitful capitalism with stifling socialism. Show me where I am wrong.

Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 3:11 am

You fill find nearly hundret or more papers and citations, MWP was global, you find them all (!) on CO2 science linked above, for every global region.

fred250
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 3:36 am

roflmao…… as if nyholist would EVAH look at the actual science !

Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 3:37 am

CO2 Science and MWP
You may have a look to see, MWP was global.

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 3:41 am

> you find them all (!) on CO2 science linked above
Where? 🙂

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 4:40 am

Yep, I’m sure all those authors will agree too 🙂

Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 5:41 am

They wrote them 😀

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 7:27 am

> They wrote them
Exactly! What they didn’t know was that an idiot would use them to “prove” the MWP was global 🙂

Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 8:04 am

Conclusion:
They write it was warmer in xy, but prohibit use by sceptics 😀 😀
Who is the idot ?? 😀 😀

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 9:33 am

Let’s see, evidence has been found from all over the world that the MWP was warmer than today, but that doesn’t prove that the MWP was global.

nyolci is a very proud science denier.

fred250
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 11:18 am

nyholist is really digging deep into DENIAL of science now….. hilarious. 🙂

Stamp your feet like a 5 year old in a tanty, hynolist.. show us you lack of self-worth. 🙂

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 11:59 am

@Krishna Gans
> They write it was warmer in xy
No, they didn’t. Have you tried reading at least a few of these? These articles look to be reconstructions of various environmental conditions, not necessarily temperature. Randomly checking a few I easily found (in Asia and Africa) reconstructions that contradict the thesis of the guy who collected it (ie. the MWP was colder in the record than the LIA). Also, the collector took anything that had a time span roughly centered around 1000 AD as evidence of MIA, in a case a wetter period, in another one a dryer one. Anything’s good if you want to prove your bs.

fred250
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 3, 2020 9:08 pm

Poor nyholist is stuck trying to DENY the real science that is put in front of him.

Yet is INCAPABLE of producing any of its own.

Quite hilarious in a pathetic slop-stick kind of way.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:32 am

Typical, refuses to read them, but already knows what’s in them.
Delusional thinking at it’s very finest.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 12:05 pm

> Typical, refuses to read them
I’ve just read a few, and no, they not support Krishna’s claim.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 4:50 pm

Then either you didn’t understand them, or are lying about reading them.
Both are equally likely in your case.

We’ve already demonstrated your lies regarding the posted article above.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 9:13 pm

Yes they do.

STOP YOUR SCIENCE DENIAL, little child.

Stop being a deliberately blind and deaf little monkey. 🙈 🙉

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 4:23 am

@MarkW
> Then either you didn’t understand them,
Yes I did 🙂
> or are lying about reading them.
> Both are equally likely in your case.
Why do you have to resort to libel? I was a good friend and I kept your secret. But I’m fed up now. So, why did you have to fcuk your mother? Poor lady didn’t deserve it…

> We’ve already demonstrated your lies
> regarding the posted article above.
This is either libel or simple misunderstanding on your part. I suppose the less damaging (to you) version, so you very likely didn’t understand this thing. Again (and read it slowly, perhaps you need lower speeds): Mr. Burnett’s claim is that “Because present temperatures are only now exposing some of the artifacts were deposited _when_ _no_ _ice_ _covered_ _the_ _ground_”. He clearly wants us to believe ice is a later phenomenon and climatic conditions were much gentler at the time of deposition. The referenced article (I read it) directly contradicts this: “The artefacts were likely lost during prehistoric reindeer hunting on or adjacent to the ice patch. These hunts probably took place mainly on hot days in July and August, when large numbers of reindeer congregate regularly on the ice and snow to cool and avoid botflies”. The whole Discussion section is worth reading ‘cos it’s evident that exactly the _presence_ of ice (even in summers) were the factor that made hunting _and_ artifact preservation possible.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959683620972775

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 12:15 pm

Poor nyholist……. CAUGHT IN A LIE..

Shows he/she/it has either

NOT READ ANY…..

Or is totally incompetent at scientific comprehension.

Tries in vain to yap its way out of it, and FAILS stupidly

Yes, ignorant little toad…..

A lot of these glaciers and extreme levels of sea ice…

….. DIDN’T EXIST BEFORE THE LITTLE ICE AGE..

Trees grew, people lived where those glaciers grew

Al because the climate was SO MUCH WARMER in nearly every part of the globe.

As your link shows, (which you also DIDN’T READ and didn’t comprehend)

There was no ice in these areas as little as 1200 years ago..

…… then came the glaciers in a people called the LITTLE ICE AGE

Stop your ignorant, idiotic CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 12:26 pm

Only the most ignorant and dumb nyholist would post a link that clearly states the LIA exists, while denying the LIA existence

Its internal mind turmoil is hilarious to watch. 🙂

So sad to see what once might have been a human mind in such a putrid and deep state of cognitive malfunction.

John Tillman
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 7:27 am

The Medieval and prior Holocene Warm Periods were global., as shown by every kind of paleo proxy data, to include the Medieval Warm Period penguin mentioned in the article.

MarkW
Reply to  John Tillman
December 3, 2020 9:34 am

Until you can prove that every single square inch on the planet was warmer during the MWP, they will continue to claim that you haven’t proven that the MWP was global.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 12:19 pm

> Until you can prove that every single square
> inch on the planet was warmer during the MWP
“They” (actual scientists) have very good reconstructions for most locales especially on the Northern Hemisphere. So they have actually proved that some square inches were cooler.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 4:51 pm

If one percent of the planet cools, while 99% of the planet warms, in what passes as your mind, that proves the planet isn’t warming?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:09 pm

comment image

comment image

comment image

comment image

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:10 pm

Yes micro-mind, they do have good reconstructions

Enjoy squirming away from the next several posts.

comment image

comment image

comment image

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:11 pm

comment image

comment image

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:27 am

They only don’t support the conclusion, when you ignore the article and all of the science involved. As those who have responded to Izaak and Loydo have proven.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 12:07 pm

> when you ignore the article and all of the science involved
I ignore the article ‘cos it’s bullshit. I don’t ignore the science involved, ie. the article referenced in the above article (written by Norwegians). You can check that too, you don’t even have to speak Norwegian.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 4:53 pm

You ignore the data provided and claim that all data that doesn’t support your ideology must be discarded

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2020 8:29 am

> You ignore the data provided
No, furthermore unlike you I did read the Norwegian article.

> and claim that all data that doesn’t
> support your ideology must be discarded
??? I’ve never claimed this. Science is about building a coherent model so every piece of information should be accounted for. That’s why scientists always make sense. You must’ve misunderstood what I was telling you. You deniers sometimes triumphantly push some findings claiming it proves your case. I point out that it does not. You deniers sometimes make up data. I point out that. I’ve never said data should be discarded ‘cos it doesn’t support my ideology. Well, actually, ideology as such has a tangential role here, normal natural science is pretty ideology free (well, philosophy of science is not ideology free of course but climate science as a field of physics naturally is). Actually it is denialism that is quite ideology driven. You are mostly right wing, usually some kinda libertarian nutters. Not everyone but still I think you get the point.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2020 10:53 am

“Actually it is denialism that is quite ideology driven.”

Only person with “denialism” here is YOU, nyholist

You have shown that you cannot name ONE THING that we “deny” that you can provide solid scientific proof for.

Yet you DENY the LIA, MWP even existed, DESPITE huge amounts of real science showing it did.

You have to “DENY” because that is what your idiotology tells you to do.

YOU are the CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.. not us.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 10:56 pm

“I don’t ignore the science involved,”

But that is ALL YOU DO !!

STOP LYING !!

Either that , or you are so scientifically ILLITERATE that you have gross comprehension issues.

You have already PROVEN that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back up anything you say.

And ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that human released CO2 causes warming

You have been given ample opportunity, and have failed to even make a puerile attempt

Here is you opportunity, yet again

DON’T RUN AWAY .. it makes you like like a pathetic little COWARD.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

December 3, 2020 1:56 am

Otzi died, was nearly flash-frozen in place, and then covered over by and ice- and snow-driven glacial expansion more than 5,300 years ago. This fact suggests the Earth was just as warm, and the snow and ice extent just as low, 5,300 years ago as it is today.

It suggests nothing of the sort. It means very little. Glacial advance and retreat is notoriously variable from glacier to glacier, even with nearby glaciers one can be advancing and the other retreating simultaneously. The Otzi finding has significance only for the locality where he was found.

Curious how warmista argue that one buried dude in the ice is a marker of global climate, while the whole continent of Greenland has nothing but local significance (because the Greenland ice cores destroy the alarmist story by showing the last century warming to be small and insignificant compared to changes throughout the Holocene).

nyolci
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 2:33 am

> The Otzi finding has significance only for
> the locality where he was found. [pgbreak]
> Curious how warmista argue that one buried
> dude in the ice is a marker of global climate
I think you’ve misunderstood your fellow denier. He wanted to suggest an extremely rapid cooling of a previously habitable environment, that’s why he came up with Ötzi at all. He wanted to salvage Ötzi for the deniers’ case. As for scientists (your “warmistas”), of course they don’t derive global conditions from a single data point. But today they have at least 20 or so independent _comprehensive_ _reconstructions_, Mann’s “hockey stick” being the first. FYI Ötzi’s fate is a good _illustration_ of the _reconstructed_ _conditions_ of that age.

Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 3:15 am

Mann didn’t “reconstruct” anything, he “constraucted” a hockeystick based on phantasy.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 3:28 am

No DENIERS here except you nyholist..

Tell us what we “deny” that you can produce solid real scientific proof for. Still EMPTY ????

We recognise that REAL science that shows that the planet has been warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 years.

It is brain-washed little minds like your that are locked in CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL.

Now let’s try again… because you have not made even the most pathetic attempt yet.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 4:06 am

Is that the same Mann who based his Hokey Schtick reconstruction on rings from ONE tree on the Yamal Peninsula?

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 4:38 am

> Is that the same Mann
No. FYI the Mann you mentioned doesn’t exist outside science deniers’ imagination. I was talking about the real Mann 🙂

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 5:51 am

Ahole-ci is obviously a paid troll. It uses no logic, has no facts and just regurgitates BS. Don’t feed the trolls.

Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 6:21 am

Mann is the living science denial.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 4:54 pm

Funny how the warmunist actually seems to believe the lies he’s paid to spread.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 4, 2020 1:27 am

“doesn’t exist outside science deniers’ imagination.”

As YOU are the ONLY science DENIER here…

… YOU are saying Mickey Mann doesn’t exist

Oh dear.. how will you cult members cope with that !!!!!

Dave Fair
Reply to  nyolci
December 4, 2020 12:31 pm

Until this posting, I had no real opinion about you personally, nyolci. Your citation of Mann’s “hockey stick” as a scientific work changed that; you are either pitifully ignorant or an ideological liar.

December 3, 2020 2:14 am

Anything that contradicts the Mannian doctrine of Garden-of-Eden unchanging climate before 1850 brings out the alarmists in an angry buzzing swarm.

December 3, 2020 2:25 am

New Paleoclimatology Finding Shows Earth’s Climate Was Typically Warmer than Today

A useful article but a vague and unhelpful title.
“Was typically warmer” … over what timescale? 4 billion years? The Phanerozoic? The Quaternary? The Holocene? A millenium or three?
It makes a difference!

John Tillman
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 8:18 am

Yes, it should have said during the Holocene or since the HCO.

But in fact, most of the past 541 million years were warmer. The NH glaciations of the past 2.6 million years have been colder, but the interglacials often warmer.

The only colder intervals of the Phanerozoic Eon before the Pleistocene were during the Carboniferous-Permian and brief Ordovician-Silurian glaciations. So most of the past 541 million years have been warmer than now. Usually a lot warmer, since we’re still in an ice age.

Jame
December 3, 2020 2:31 am

We find oil in the Artic regions, which means plant life at one time. Plant life means warmer temps.

MarkW
Reply to  Jame
December 3, 2020 4:55 pm

That was 10’s to 100’s of millions of years ago when the oil was laid down. CO2 levels aren’t the only thing that was different back then.

Dudley Horscroft
December 3, 2020 2:45 am

Pat from kerbob December 2, 2020 at 8:58 pm refers us to the James Hansen diagrams 1(a) and 1(b). Interesting that the horizontal scales on the two are the same, but the vertical scale on 1(a) covers 3 degrees, and on 1 (b) covers 1.2 degrees. When you use your brain to correct for this, the Global warming looks much less important.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Ben Vorlich
December 3, 2020 2:48 am

The discovery of all these arrows peaks my interest in two ways which don’t seem to have been addressed.
First there must have been something worth shooting them at, presumably large, and currently there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of much animal life there now.
Second why didn’t they retrieve the lost arrows, whatever they fired at would have been spooked, after they’d either killed one or missed enough for the to become aware they were potential prey. When a decent amount of effort has gone into making something why not spend a few minutes collecting them again.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 3, 2020 3:17 am

* piqued

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 3, 2020 11:40 am

The arrows they recovered are not that old – at least speaking from an evolutionary point of view. The animals would be very familiar to northern hunters these days – reindeer, elk (which we in the U.S. call moose), and musk ox. Smaller creatures are actually more likely as they are so much easier to bring down. Unlike progressives who will apparently stand on a beach until water rises above them and drown them (over hundred of years) an animal population will simply move to a warmer climate if it becomes too cold.

If these animals were shot at while standing/running on snow the arrows can be easily lost under the ground snow. The hunters might have been giving chase and just failed to return to search. If you consider the hundreds or possibly thousands of shots made each year and this continued over thousands of years, it isn’t much of a surprise that hundreds of perfectly good arrows could be lost. If this happened as snow cover was increasing, the arrows are gone until snow cover is again lost hundreds or even thousands of years later.

bluecat57
December 3, 2020 4:56 am

Greenland. Enough said.

fred250
December 3, 2020 5:40 am

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16006-1_2

,blockquote>
The Holocene climate history showed three stages of natural climate oscillations in the Baltic Sea region: short-term cold episodes related to deglaciation during a stable positive temperature trend (11,000–8000 cal year BP); a warm and stable climate with air temperature 1.0–3.5 °C above modern levels (8000–4500 cal year BP), a decreasing temperature trend; and increased climatic instability (last 5000–4500 years).

December 3, 2020 6:45 am

nyolci

What “denier” are you talking about? This post simply reports a recent paper by Norwegian scientists with Cambridge University using archaeological artefacts to help reconstruct glaciation changes (they did happen) and temperature changes over the Holocene. I know that warmist alarmism is by and large an Anglosaxon club so any non English speaking authors are instinctively suspect, but you should approach the paper with an open mind none the less.

What the paper shows agrees with much palaeoclimate research. That’s always a good thing in science – observations agreeing with eachother. For instance Lars Holger Pilo and colleagues discuss evidence of a glacial low point around 6000 years. This is consistent with many papers showing that around 6000 years ago there was a Holocene maximum in ocean temperatures and also ice cap temperatures, and a corresponding minimum in glacial extent, for instance,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589404000870

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2004PA001049

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Didier_Swingedouw/publication/327383426_Multi-centennial_variability_of_the_AMOC_over_the_Holocene_A_new_reconstruction_based_on_multiple_proxy-derived_SST_records/links/5bc394a2a6fdcc2c91fbec67/Multi-centennial-variability-of-the-AMOC-over-the-Holocene-A-new-reconstruction-based-on-multiple-proxy-derived-SST-records.pdf

We understand that palaeoclimate in general is an uncomfortable subject for alarmist climate science whose CO2 warming-causing-catastrophe hypothesis was framed by looking at the last two centuries in the total absence of any consideration of past climates before the industrial age. So palaeoclimate now is an inconvenient rearguard action to downplay climate history and pollute and confuse it with as much false data as possible. The Shakun-Marcott approach of assembling dozens of proxies including very weak and flawed ones and mixing them all together in one big stir-fry, achieves this goal of essentially destroying knowledge of past climate.

nyolci
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 8:12 am

> What “denier” are you talking about?
H. Sterling Burnett

> I know that warmist alarmism
> is by and large an Anglosaxon
??? How is this relevant? Why the hell do you think I dispute the scientific paper? I disputed this bullshit article from the gentleman above. (OFF: science denial is a very characteristically US-american phenomenon.)

> What the paper shows agrees with
> much palaeoclimate research.
Exactly. What it doesn’t agree with is denier-bs peddled here. The artifacts were lost on ice (they didn’t get “glaciated over”) and the authors generally couldn’t establish their original position ‘cos the ice patch has undergone numerous transformations. Furthermore, no one disputed that 6000 years ago ice cover was smaller than today. Actually, Arctic temperatures were higher than today. As a side note these results are coming from the same kind of reconstructions as Mann’s so please decide at last: you accept this or reject. Science is characterized by consistency, please at least mimic it.

Having said this, contrary to the intentions of Mr. Burnett, the referenced article doesn’t prove there were periods _globally_ warmer than today in the Holocene. We also know this from those reconstructions you eagerly try to reinforce your position with. If you read actual scientists you would know too. Actually, Mr. Burnett, the Anglo-Saxon denier tried to use the Norwegian article as an illustration that the artifacts were deposited in an ice free environment _which_ _directly_ _contradicts_ the Norwegian “non alarmist” 🙂 narrative.

Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:11 am

Furthermore, no one disputed that 6000 years ago ice cover was smaller than today. Actually, Arctic temperatures were higher than today. …
Having said this, contrary to the intentions of Mr. Burnett, the referenced article doesn’t prove there were periods _globally_ warmer than today in the Holocene.

Do you accept that a significant part of the Holocene was several degrees warmer than at present, or not? Climate scientists seem to oscillate between accepting and not accepting this, with statements of the uniqueness of current warming going ever further back even beyond the Pleistocene. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

FWIW I think that the approach to palaeo climate interpretation of Steve MacIntyre is the correct one, applying stringent scientific criteria to select the best ones only. Using uncontroversial quality criteria. In stark contrast to “the more the merrier” approach of Shakun and Marcott et al who add in every conceivable proxy including some that scarcely distinguish the Holocene from the last glacial maximum. Finally after Mann’s disastrous foray into palaeo climate with his Yamal “one tree hill” dendrochronology debacle, I would avoid bringing him into the topic. Mann would be better staying in the subject where he is strongest, which is oceanography.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 10:14 am

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Mann discredited himself completely with the Hokey Schtick debacle. Nothing he says or writes should be taken at face value ever again.

fred250
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 11:20 am

He spends his whole life either digging himself deeper into his fraud, or coming up with new pieces of mathematical mal-feaces to try and support it.

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 12:30 pm

> Mann discredited himself completely
> with the Hokey Schtick debacle.
Actually the bullshit slingers very likely (and unintentionally) made Mann a celebrity inside the scientific community that, in turn, knew very well there was no problem with his work. In the last 20 or so years 20 or so independent (from Mann and from each other) reconstructions all resulted in the hockey stick too. In other words, in science (I mean actual science, not the McIntyre type bs) the hockey stick is the accepted, commonplace wisdom.

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 4:58 pm

A bunch of acolytes using the same data and same methods achieve the same results.
At least it’s enough to convince those who want to be convinced. And those who are being paid to support the narrative.

fred250
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 9:35 pm

“Actually the bullshit slingers ” ….ARE Mann and his mates.

I suspect you know that though , don’t you, nyholist.

Otherwise you would be able to produce evidence to back up your mindless tantrums.

fred250
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 3, 2020 10:51 pm

nyholist STILL hasn’t worked out that the AGW farce is a COLLABORATIVE EFFORT

OF COURSE those AGW apologists/aco-lites et al found a fake Hockey Sticks..

Its what the set out to do !!

But its NOT SCIENCE

nyolci
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 12:17 pm

> Do you accept that a significant part
> of the Holocene was several degrees
> warmer than at present, or not?
This is really getting tiresome. How can you not comprehend simple things? Yes, in certain periods the Arctic was warmer BUT OTHER AREAS WERE COLDER AT THE SAME TIME, and the net total global average was lower than that of today.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:16 pm

WRONG AS ALWAYS, nyholist.. griff emulator.

comment image

comment image

comment image

Show us some of these areas that were colder.

Or are you just LYING THROUGH YOU BS, yet again.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:17 pm

comment image

comment image

comment image

Why are you LYING .. do you hate yourself THAT much ?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:20 pm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589411000184

the early-Holocene summer temperatures from 11,500 cal yr BP onwards were already slightly higher than at present, followed by a stable Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) at 8000–3500 cal yr BP when summer temperatures in the tundra were ca. 3°C above present-day values. A Picea forest surrounded Lake Kharinei during the HTM, reaching 150 km north of the present taiga limit. The HTM ended with a temperature drop at 3500–2500 cal yr BP associated with permafrost initiation in the region. Mixed spruce forest began to disappear around Lake Kharinei at ca. 3500 cal yr BP, with the last tree macro-fossils recorded at ca. 2500 cal yr BP, suggesting that the present wide tundra zone in the Pechora region formed during the last ca. 3500 yr.

comment image

STILL WAITING for your evidence of anything….

So far all you have is mindless scientifically unsupportable BS

COWER like a little worm again… slither and ooze away..

but you absolutely CANNOT allow yourself to answer the questions, can you.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 9:21 pm

WRONG, you have no evidence of that

Holocene Optimum was GLOBAL… GET OVER IT !!

comment image

comment image

comment image

nyolci
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 12:25 pm

> FWIW I think that the approach to palaeo
> climate interpretation of Steve MacIntyre
McIntyre couldn’t publish anything in any serious paper ‘cos, well, peer review rejected his writings. And while this is not a 100% proof that he’s a charlatan, the odds are good 🙂 In the meantime, Mann’s scientific reputation has never suffered from the enormous amount of bullshit the McIntyre types have spoken about his works.

Bill Toland
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 1:26 pm

nyolci, I think that you should read the book “A Disgrace To The Profession: The World’s Scientists – In Their Own Words – On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science – Volume 1”.

Calling Steve McIntyre a charlatan proves that you know absolutely nothing about climate science.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 2:38 pm

Nyolci, how do you know today’s modest warmth is caused by anthropogenic CO2 and not whatever natural forcings that was responsible for much greater warmth during most of the Holocene Epoch, poorly understood though they may be.

Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 2:43 pm

Rebuttal of Mann’s latest Edenic stasis paper by Gisela Muller-Plath, Technische Universität Berlin, in Frontiers

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.559337/full

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
December 3, 2020 10:18 pm

” In the meantime, Mann’s scientific reputation has never suffered”

That’s because SCIENCE has NOTHING to do with the AGW agenda.

Its all about the message.

Mickey Mann is just a mouthy-little front man of the far-left non-comedic type.

Nothing he presents has the remotest basis in real science….

But that DOESN’T MATTER to the AGW cultists.

At least he TRIES to invent crap.

You can’t even attempt to answer two simple questions,

STILL WAITING !!!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Squirm on, little worm.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 3, 2020 1:46 pm

BUT OTHER AREAS WERE COLDER AT THE SAME TIME

Just saying that current worldwide warming (except in South America and Antarctica) is unprecedented doesn’t make it so. The website CO2 science has assembled literally thousands of publications documenting the global extent of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period). When you have refuted every one of those papers, then feel free to assert current slight warming as unprecedented.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

nyolci
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 4, 2020 3:56 am

> The website CO2 science has assembled literally
> thousands of publications documenting the global
> extent of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period).
Yep, and there’s another site like this, this is from @Krishna
https://principia-scientific.com/1200-papers-affirm-medieval-warm-period-was-global/
I’ve read a few of these papers, and yes, they are scientific papers (at least those I quickly checked). And we are suddenly at the next topic of yours:

> When you have refuted every one of those papers
Well, no, I don’t have to refute any of these. Because these simply don’t support your thesis. The CO2 project people try to picture this selection as overwhelming evidence for their case but these are NOT. The very likely selection criteria was on your site that the study mentioned the MWP (however passingly) and the area in question was outside the North Atlantic. Most studies concern variables other than temperature and they conclude that this period was special (like “dry”). Of course this doesn’t mean the MWP was a global period of WARMTH. In terms of global temperatures, the MWP was high but not exceptionally outstanding. This is the scientific position.

There are of course temperature reconstructions. One study (down) gives a diagram that is triumphantly included. It has a 30 or so year long peak around AD 1200 and two other high peaks during the LIA(!). The general temperature level of the MWP shown here is a bit less than the last pictured modern global temp (AD 2000). The peaks are comparable or higher, yes. For a 30 year period at one single location, while the complete period was evidently lower (1C), and for two short periods during the LIA. This diagram, if anything, proves exactly what scientists say, that the MWP (in terms of temperature) was a North Atlantic phenomenon, and barely noticeable on the global level.

Zhang, Q., Gemmer, M. and Chen, J. 2008. Climate changes and flood/drought risk in the Yangtze Delta, China, during the past millennium. Quaternary International 176-177: 62-69.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 4, 2020 10:29 am

Out of interest, is there any evidence or measurement that could possibly exist, that would prove that a past period was globally warmer than today? In other words, is this even a scientific (falsifiable) assertion – that current warming is unprecedented? When even the Atlantic ocean is local and insignificant, it seems the community have become skilled at consigning past warmth to being local. (But with a handful of trees in Yamal peninsula Russia Mann proves global hockeystick warming! Sorry but you keep bringing Mann into the discussion so I couldn’t resist!)

I don’t really recognise the “MWP” or “LIA” as distinct phenomena, the climate followed a jagged saw-tooth varying from warmer to colder over the last two millenia. There were cold intervals in the MWP and warm ones in the LIA.

fred250
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 4, 2020 10:41 pm

“Well, no, I don’t have to refute any of these.”

No, you are INCAPABLE OF REFUTING any of them.

They are science.. and you have NOTHING to refute them

They all show very clearly that the NEARLY ALL of the Holocene was warmer than now..

…. and that the LIA was the coldest period in 10,000 years.

I know your understanding of science is very LIMITED to say the least, but really…

Isn’t it about time that you stopped your moronic , childish anti-science Climate Change Denial.

nyolci
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 5, 2020 1:09 am

@Phil Salmon
> Out of interest, is there any evidence or
> measurement that could possibly exist,
> that would prove that a past period was
> globally warmer than today?
Yes. Please note that you deniers are fixated on the MWP precisely because it didn’t turn up warmer than today in the first Mann-reconstruction. Otherwise you wouldn’t even know about it. It’s not like you had had serious previous measurements or any extensive knowledge about it. The nature of the MWP turned out to be such and such as a result of scientific investigations. You deniers are now trying to change science for policy.

> In other words, is this even a scientific (falsifiable)
> assertion – that current warming is unprecedented?
Yes.

> When even the Atlantic ocean is local and
> insignificant, it seems the community have
> become skilled at consigning past warmth
> to being local.
No one claimed that the Atlantic was insignificant.

> (But with a handful of trees in Yamal
> peninsula Russia Mann proves global
> hockeystick warming! Sorry but you
> keep bringing Mann into the discussion
> so I couldn’t resist!)
I’ve got no problem with you bringing up Mann, this is the closest you can get to science here. Mann used various proxy sources for the reconstruction, not just a single series. Furthermore, since then scientists profoundly extended the proxies and all reconstructions show the hockey stick.

> I don’t really recognise the “MWP” or “LIA”
> as distinct phenomena, the climate followed
> a jagged saw-tooth varying from warmer to
> colder over the last two millenia.
Is this a scientific (falsifiable) assertion? 🙂 Now really, this may be your hunch feeling, or fellow deniers told you that etc. but in science you have to prove it. The current state of affairs is that you have to reconstruct temperature (and other variables), clean it from factors that are well known and external (like the variation in orbital cycles) and the rest should show up as a jagged saw tooth. With it at least you can CLAIM an observation. The reasons why climate oscillate is another step. FYI all the current reconstructions show the hockey stick and contrary to your assertions they are mostly independent of each other.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 5, 2020 3:30 pm

FYI all the current reconstructions show the hockey stick

There are hundreds of palaeo reconstructions published over almost half a century. Many show no hockey stick whatsoever like all the original Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. What does your sinister expression “current reconstructions” mean? The ones that have not been cancelled because they support the Khmer Vert party line?

The scientific record belongs to everyone. Your attempts to destroy it will fail.

nyolci
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 7, 2020 12:58 am

@Phil Salmon
> There are hundreds of palaeo reconstructions
> published over almost half a century.
> Many show no hockey stick whatsoever like all
> the original Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.
I think we are talking about a bit different things. Reconstruction may mean global reconstruction and local reconstruction. You are talking about the latter one. There are single series like some (but not all) Greenlandic ice cores that don’t show hockey stick. That’s a local reconstruction. What Mann (and later quite a few other people did) was putting together hundreds and thousands of such local reconstructions to get a _global_ picture. You are talking about single (w/r/t location) data points.

> What does your sinister expression
> “current reconstructions” mean?
Studies in the last 20 or so years. They used all the single reconstructions (including a lot from your CO2 project) to get a global picture. They used various proxies, not just tree rings. And yes, they can be regarded as falsification attempts. They are independent of Mann and the methods Mann use and get the same results as Mann.

> The ones that have not been cancelled
> because they support the Khmer Vert party line?
??? No reconstructions have been cancelled. Actually, how can you cancel a reconstruction that has already been published? FYI the original Khmer Rouge was an US supported terror group that was ousted by the Vietnamese communists against the strong objections of the USA.

> The scientific record belongs to everyone.
Exactly.

> Your attempts to destroy it will fail.
??? What the hell are you talking about?

December 3, 2020 6:56 am

The Medieval Warm Period’s peak was about .2-.3 degree C warmer than 2001 through now (even according to a dataset that I remember Judith Curry seeming to like), even though Scandanavia and Greenland got warmer (The Vikings farmed wheat in Greenland). It looks like global temperature was a little more uniform than it has been the past couple decades. I think the explanation is that during the MWP, Earth’s rotational/orbital mechanics favored more warmth in the polar regions at the expense of warmth in the tropics. Although warming of the Arctic warms the globe as a whole because the Arctic and the near-Arctic have surface albedo feedback that is more positive than it is for the globe as a whole.

This happened to an even greater extent during the previous interglacial period, due to the Milankovitch cycles having favored to an even greater extreme more warming of the polar regions. Global temperature got to averaging at least 2 degrees C above its 1961-1990 average for a prolonged period of time and got to 3 degrees C above its 1961-1990 average, the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica melted enough to raise sea level by a few meters possibly several meters, hippos were in the Rhine and the Seine, but some sources say the tropics were slightly cooler then than now.

John Tillman
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
December 3, 2020 7:37 am

Hippos were in the Thames well during the Eemian.

Warm periods affect the tropics differently, but the temperate and polar regions of both hemispheres warm. Nevertheless, warm and cool periods show up in the tropics.

Each successive warm period in the Holocene has gotten cooler, although the Egyptian was about as warm as the HCO peak, but more brief.

John Tillman
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
December 3, 2020 7:44 am

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/mwp_south_america.pdf

Check out lacustrine pollen record from Peru, for instance. Also look at Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay.

Jim Gorman
December 3, 2020 8:58 am

From an airplane view of the climate It is obvious that the globe has had warmer and colder periods than now. The amount of each is basically arguing about angels on a pinhead. Temps go up and they go down. Sea levels go up and they go down. Ice goes up and it goes down.

It is all evidence of a constantly changing climate. When I see alarmists say that the globe has warmed by 1.5 degrees over the last century+, they are undermining their own argument by not separating this into Natural+Man Made change. It is propaganda for the masses but it is not scientific. It foments the belief that temperatures would have remained constant without man made interference. It is the main reason I became a skeptic.

December 3, 2020 10:54 am

It’s really remarkable, and depressing, how successfully the alarmists have peddled their “unprecedented warmth” meme. Right up there with the “Climate EMERGENCY” horsesh*t. Power of media complicity, and left-wing agenda-setting.

Let’s hope the Georgia voters save us from Bidens’s grandiose (and stupid) climate ideas come January 5!

fred250
Reply to  Peter D. Tillman
December 3, 2020 10:01 pm

“Let’s hope the Georgia voters…. ”

Voters will have NO SAY in the matter.

Mike Dubrasich
December 3, 2020 11:40 am

Where’s the beef? Warmer Is Better. Less ice is a Good Thing. Ice is Death, Warmth is Life. If we (Humanity, Americans, Euros, Chinese, etc.) can warm up Planet Earth, then let’s do it! It’s way too cold now. Brrrr! My Christmas Miracle wish is for a nice 2°F bump up right away. Instead of it being 37°F today, it would be 39°F. That would be a tiny improvement, but I’ll take it, thankfully.

GREGORY J SUHR
December 3, 2020 1:03 pm

More people die from cold than from heat, so if you are against Global Warming you are for human death. That doesn’t seem very nice to me.

Here is a link to the Center for Disease Control site that shows the pattern of excess winter deaths. It’s off this year because of COVID-19, but if you look at previous years, more deaths in winter than in summer.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

MarkW
Reply to  GREGORY J SUHR
December 3, 2020 5:00 pm

Most of the people who are supporting the global warming myth, are the same people who have been claiming for at least 50 years, that the world would be better off if 90% of the humans were gone.

John Monaghan
December 3, 2020 7:33 pm

Here is evidence of an extreme climate change that occurred in ten years.

The change to glacial conditions at the onset of the Younger Dryas in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, between 12,900 and 11,500 calendar years BP, has been argued to have been quite abrupt.[16] It is in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding Older Dryas interstadial. Its end has been inferred to have occurred over a period of a decade or so,[17] but the onset may have even been faster.[18] Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that its summit was around 15 °C (27 °F) colder during the Younger Dryas[16][19] than today.

In Great Britain, beetle fossil evidence suggests that the mean annual temperature dropped to −5 °C (23 °F),[19] and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, and icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas.[20] Nothing of the period’s size, extent, or rapidity of abrupt climate change has been experienced since its end.[16]

JohnTyler
December 4, 2020 9:32 am

So, in the several previous warm periods cited in the article, what were the CO2 levels and how did they compare to today’s level??
Regardless of the CO2 levels during previous warm periods, did the warming occur before or after any changes in the CO2 levels?
It appears that all forms of life thrived during these previous periods of global warmth; so pray tell, what is the problem with an earth warmer than today??
Is it not true that the higher the CO2 levels, the better it is for plant, trees, crop growth? And if this is so, this would suggest that a lot less fertilizers would be needed for crop land and that arable land would expand into areas now to cold to allow crops.
Also, forested regions would expand into regions presently too cold to sustain forests.
The less fertilizer used, the less nitrogen rich runoff into lakes, streams and rivers would occur and thus reduce the extent / likelihood of eutrophication; so why is higher CO2 levels bad??

Andy thoughts anybody???

Reply to  JohnTyler
December 4, 2020 10:09 am

In the previous integlaial to the Holocene, the Eemian, temperatures peaked at 5-6 degrees C higher than now. Sea levels reached up to 30 m higher than today. CO2 levels in air were never higher than 300 ppm.

https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/825/1/Fis1999a.pdf

Ulric Lyons
December 4, 2020 6:18 pm

“The youngest artifacts date from approximately AD 1300, at the end of the Medieval Warm Period.”

Past the Medieval Warm Period, and should be during a centennial solar minimum, which would driving a warmer North Atlantic and Arctic, driving the glacial retreat in Norway. Like currently.

%d bloggers like this: