Revised Holocene temperature record affirms role of greenhouse gases in recent millennia
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Scientists have resolved a key climate change mystery, showing that the annual global temperature today is the warmest of the past 10,000 years – contrary to recent research, according to a Rutgers-led study in the journal Nature.
The long-standing mystery is called the “Holocene temperature conundrum,” with some skeptics contending that climate model predictions of future warming must be wrong. The scientists say their findings will challenge long-held views on the temperature history in the Holocene era, which began about 12,000 years ago.
“Our reconstruction shows that the first half of the Holocene was colder than in industrial times due to the cooling effects of remnant ice sheets from the previous glacial period – contrary to previous reconstructions of global temperatures,” said lead author Samantha Bova, a postdoctoral researcher associate in the lab of co-author Yair Rosenthal, a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. “The late Holocene warming was indeed caused by the increase in greenhouse gases, as predicted by climate models, and that eliminates any doubts about the key role of carbon dioxide in global warming.”
Scientists used marine calcareous (calcium carbonate-containing) fossils from foraminifers – single-celled organisms that live at the ocean surface – to reconstruct the temperature histories of the two most recent warm intervals on Earth. They are the Last Interglacial period from 128,000 to 115,000 years ago and the Holocene. To get the fossils, the scientists collected a core of bottom sediments near the mouth of the Sepik River off northern Papua New Guinea during the Rutgers-led Expedition 363 of the International Ocean Discovery Program. The core features rapidly accumulating sediments that allowed the scientists to recreate the temperature history of the western Pacific warm pool, which closely tracks changes in global temperatures.
How temperature evolved during the Last Interglacial and Holocene eras is controversial. Some data suggest that the average annual global temperature during modern times does not exceed the warmth in the Holocene’s early warm period, called the “Holocene thermal maximum,” which was followed by global cooling. Meanwhile, climate models strongly suggest that global temperatures have risen throughout the past 10,000 years.
“The apparent discrepancy between climate models and data has cast doubts among skeptics about the role of greenhouse gases in climate change during the Holocene and possibly in the future,” Rosenthal said. “We found that post-industrial warming has indeed accelerated the long and steady trend of warming throughout the past 10,000 years. Our study also underscores the importance of seasonal changes, specifically Northern Hemisphere summers, in driving many climate systems. Our method can, for the first time, use seasonal temperatures to come up with annual averages.”
###
Rutgers-affiliated co-authors include Shital P. Godad, a former Rutgers researcher now at National Taiwan University. Scientists at The Ohio State University and Nanjing Normal University contributed to the study.
Oh hully gee! One proxy set in one place, and all the contradictory series of various proxies are now meaningless! Shades of Mann and his treemometer, both for inadequate depth and arrogance.
At least they didn’t present their results in the form of interpretive dance.
I beg to differ.
The origins of New World VooDoo practices came out of West African VuDu and dance.
And the Climate scam is grounded in VooDoo.
So here is Sam Bova’s thesis in Climate VooDoo dance and the mystery of Climate.. The psychedelic bungee jump.
.
“We must get rid of the Holocene Climatic Optimum!”
That is exactly what is going on.
Climate Scam Imperative: Eliminate ALL the Holocene Warm Periods warmer than present.
It’s all part of the cancellation culture.
Just like they disappeared the MWP and minimized the LIA
How does their hypothesis fit against a recent discovery by the UK
Natural History Museum of two bugs in a piece of bog oak that they have dated back 4000 years. Apparently the insects are extinct in the UK as the current temperature is too cold for them, so temperatures must have been warmer 4000 years ago in the UK than at present.
http://www.nhs.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/a-pair-of-perfectly-intact-mysrery-beetles-discovered-to-be-at
That’s real bugs and there are no such bugs in the computer models silly.
NOR in Rutgers methodology. ALL HAIL THE AGW CROWD!! Just goes to show that with enough “correction,” you can prove anything.
This link should work:
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/a-pair-of-perfectly-intact–mystery-beetles–discovered-to-be-al.html
We’ve already had a 1000 year hockey stick are buttering us up for a 10000 year hockey stick now?
Curious thing about the hockey stick. Look at Mann’s high and low range probabilities- part of the same graph- and it should be apparent that one can draw the graph about any way one wants, and it will fit the “Data” about as good as a hockey stick.
Treemometer. LOL.
You know where to stick it.
In case somebody is interested in the paper itself: https://marine.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/s41586-020-03155-x.pdf
and some thoughts of Gavin Schmidt: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1354519057081495570
really interesting….
The authors had to hypothesize a lot to come to this conclusion.
Also significant temperature seasonality change in a sea near the equator??
Gavin getting ready to retire?
Using an avatar of himself wearing a mask tells you something about his unquestioning allegiance to so-called “orthodoxy”. Gotta be part of the herd.
As far as I can determine, that one site is just to the north of Papua New Guinea, basically on the equator
Similar location to data on right hand graph below.
.
.
THERE IS BASICALLY NO SEASONALITY IN TEMPERATURES..
but a large seasonality in rainfall. (ie monsoons season)
They also make this little gem of an anti-science statement
Seems they have never heard of the S-B relationships.
NOTE the word “assumes.” Assume, and you may make an ass out of u and me.
Imagine how many cores and samples they had to lookm through to find this ONE “near the mouth of the Sepik River off northern Papua New Guinea” to fit their narrative. We are to believe that’s the first place they looked?
I always say figures don’t lie, but liars figure!
Science, made to order. Just like Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick.
Except it certainly IS NOT SCIENCE. !
Worse than they thought.
“Our reconstruction shows that the first half of the Holocene was colder than in industrial times due to the cooling effects of remnant ice sheets from the previous glacial period”
Really? Then explain this.
Your picture won’t make the media news releases. The Gas-lighting propaganda campaign of the public on the climate scam continues unabated.
And what happened to Ötzi with that remnant ice sheet in place.
And there are many, many other examples of such “proxy evidence.” Evidence of a near-global MWP is very strong:
https://sealevel.info/resources.html#pages2k_vs_co2science
For instance, here’s a graphed GISP2 ice core proxy reconstruction:
That reconstruction ends circa 1855, so we need to add about 1°C at the end for modern warming, which makes current temperatures nearly as warm as the MWP.
But you don’t need ice core analyses to know that Greenland, at least, was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Norsemen successfully cultivated barley there, and the growing season is too short for that now. They buried their dead in earth that is now permafrost.
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
There are many, many other temperature proxies, most of which support a warm MWP, quite possibly warmer than the current Modern Optimum. Here’s the CO2 Science MWP Project page, and their MWP proxy study map:
● http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
● https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&hl=en_US&ll=17.114712056031436%2C8.155373500000053&z=2
🔴 red markers = warm MWP
🔵 blue markers = cold MWP
(green/yellow are wet/dry)
Notice the large number of red markers, and the small number of blue markers. That reflects the near-global nature of the Medieval Warm Period.
If you believe the Bova et al, Marcott, Pages2K, etc, claims, then all those red markers are wrong, the MWP, DACP & RWP never happened, and I’ve got a terrific deal for you on a very nice bridge in Brooklyn.
Same story, archeological evidence, for northern Scotland. In Roman times the Picts grew barley varieties that won’t grow there now because it is too cold.
But does it ? 😉
Mickey Mann’s hockey stick, and Marcott’s fabrications clearly shows the up-tick starting around 1900, so the end of that graph would be around 1940.
1940 was around the same temperature as now in the NH.
So add OºC
I know, I know! Climate sciencery has finally reached maturity, and achieved quantum conciousness. Those tree rings are from the year 2037 to 2093, time-warped by the final melt-down caused by excessive methane ejaculation caused by too many sciencers screaming doom, doom doom! in the empty streets of post-industrial Yammerika.
The only way to prevent this calamity would be a worldwide programme of shutting up every sciencer talking shit about things they only dimly comprehend. The build-up of methane in their innards may (or may not) cause them to explode in magnificent fireballs, causing catastrophic anthropogenic warming (maybe) around liberal universities and Bolshevik think tanks.
Working, productively-employed engineers from trade schools all over the world are already working on mitigation technology to counter this (possible) disaster by capturing the excess carbon; they are designing better spades for planting more edible crops, instead of inedible poisonous GMO frankenserials, used to make “green” fuels to burn into the atmosphere.
Quite so.
Not many realise it but about 60 million years ago a massive meeting of intelligent post-industrial dinosaurs in the Gulf of Mexico went through a similar process worrying about a coming Ice Age.
There were so many scientists aboard so many cruise ships (powered by methane) that their brains reached critical Excitement Mass and exploded. This also set off the methane in the shop storage units.
The result was a mega-explosion that set the world aflame, covering the skies with soot and in fact cooling the planet for years.
I’m so worried it might happen again..
it appears that obscure and unlikely proxy evidence is better than evidence evidence, in the form of tree stumps, agriculture at higher levels, mining at higher levels, habitation and glacial movements.
What next? They will be claiming you can provide evidence of past temperatures by using tree rings or something.
tonyb
I was hoping to hear something from the usual trolls like Griff, Loydo, and Nyolci. Really strange they’re so quiet, huh?
On an entirely and totally different matter, is it a holiday – being Trotsky’s birthday?
Perhaps?
Auto
LOL Auto. Either that or they’re all banging on tiny cymbals at the nearest airport with the Hare Krishnas.
Yes, David, I was wondering that myself just before I happened upon your comment. Lol!
Great minds think alike.
An incovenient spruce….
There’s a much more obvious problem to be explained, David, and you’ve missed it: The quote you’ve selected claims that the first half of the holocene was colder because of “the cooling effects of the remnant ice sheets”!!! Think about it. A reasonable deduction from that statement is: if not for the cooling effect of the remnant ice sheets then it would NOT have been colder.
“eliminates any doubts about the key role of CO2 in global warming”. Uh, no, I still have doubts….sorry…..but not to worry – you still get paid.
This science article looks like crafting similar to the hockey stick by M. Mann that ran counter to all the other scientific approaches and results!
They needed a fix, and they will use it to ignore all the other original studies that shows something else, just like they did with the hockey stick…
How to save science from the destruction of contemporary politics?
The first lines of the abstract says it all, and why they had to craft it:
<<
Abstract
Proxy reconstructions from marine sediment cores indicate peak temperatures in the first half of the last and current interglacial periods (the thermal maxima of the Holocene epoch, 10,000 to 6,000 years ago, and the last interglacial period, 128,000 to 123,000 years ago) that arguably exceed modern warmth1,2,3. By contrast, climate models simulate monotonic warming throughout both periods4,5,6,7. This substantial model–data discrepancy undermines confidence in both proxy reconstructions and climate models, and inhibits a mechanistic understanding of recent climate change.
>>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x
It doesn’t undo anything. Just because they got a specific result, in a specific place, with a specific proxy, doesn’t mean all the other recons are wrong (though a lot of them are, for different reasons).
Do you remember the PROOF that it was never warm when the vikings were in Greenland? They found a moraine well downstream of present glacier edges and it had a piece of driftwood in it that was carbon dated to when the vikings colonies were there. So OBVIOUSLY glaciers were more extensive at that time, therefore it was colder then than now.
Then there is the ice core from West Antarctica that shows no indication of higher temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period, so OBVIOUSLY this is PROOF that the Medieval Warm Period was not global. Also OBVIOUSLY the other 15 or so ice cores from West Antarctica that do show significant warming during the Medieval Warm Period are bad data.
Where is your faith?
Weird, get funding and go find the answer you need to fit the agenda of the funders…
Large, mature forests found under currently retreating glaciers. Roman sliver mines revealed under currently retreating glaciers. Wine grapes were grown at latitudes where that is not currently possible. Hannibal crossed the Alps, with Elephants, where that is not possible today.
You don’t need to be a scientist to understand empirical evidence.
You need to be a scientist to ignore empirical evidence.
correction….
You need to be a “climate scientist™” to ignore empirical evidence.
Or ignore the fact that YOU DON’T HAVE ANY AT ALL.
Correction: You need to be a fully qualified and sponsored Sciencer* to excell at ignoring inconvenient facts.
*Sciencery: the art of proving anything you get paid for. Sciencers can, for a fee, make any product or service walk upon a cloud of scienciness.
Not to be confused with Science, a mad, uncouth bunch of dissenting tinkerers who spend their life proving others -and themselves- wrong (or at least slightly mistaken) on everything, with no hope of any concensus, ever.
You need to be a climate scientologist.
All apologies to actual scientologists, your beliefs appear rational compared to the climate ones, hard as it is to imagine, that is a compliment.
IMO, to tell someone that his beliefs “appear rational compared to climate scientologists” is no compliment.
However, it does take a climate scientist to not understand it.
I had to mine a sliver out of my finger the other day. Hurt like heck.
Dyslexic fingers and no edit. What can you do?
There s an edit button available, it’s just not visible (but should be) down in the lower
required getright corner of your post for about 5 minutes after the post is visible. You would need to proofread your post though (and yes I am a Pot) (note: “required get” was an autocorrect error for “Right”)So the Romans invented toothpicks?
Any nation that could overcome the freezing temperatures to conquer Northern Europe wearing skirts and sandals could easily invent the toothpick.
They wore trousers. The tunics went out around the end of the C1st CE or just after in the colder areas. When things started to get cooler the Romans weren’t stupid – they covered up!
Don’t forget that Caesar and other Roman leaders crossed the Alps a number of times to subdue tribes like the Helvetii and had easier passages than Hannibal faced.
“Our reconstruction shows that the first half of the Holocene was colder than in industrial times”. Of course — has anyone ever disagreed with that? It’s always been well accepted that temps ramped up during the first half of the Holocene to a peak and have been ramping back down since. These folks are going to be very surprised when we continue to slide into the next ice age.
No doubt they are already working on a study to erase any evidence of the Ice Age cycles. The climate models are not able to replicate those events — so they must be eliminated!
I think we have reasonable explanations[1][2] for the 100K year glaciation-deglaciation cycles: not good enough to be completely predictive, but they’re not really perplexing.
It’s the smaller, more recent cycles which most befuddle the climate modelers:
IACP 🡕 RWP 🡖 DACP 🡕 MWP 🡖 LIA 🡕 Modern Climate Optimum
Isn’t it likely that previous interglacials had all the same small rises among the steady fall back into glaciation that we have seen in the Holocene but technology and proxies don’t allow enough granular data to detect them
Yes, I agree, Pat. In fact, my guess is that even during the mid-Holocene Climate Optimum there were probably alternating intervals a few hundred years in length of warmer and colder conditions, just as there have been Anno Domini. (But that’s just a guess.)
Also, we know from ice core data that during the last glaciation there were dozens of natural “Dansgaard-Oeschger events,” when temperatures changed as rapidly as several degrees per decade in Greenland. (Caveat: Greenland’s temperature changes tend, in general, to be at least twice as rapid as globally averaged temperature changes, due to “Arctic amplification.”)
By comparison, recent warming has been slight & very slow.
The current best guess is that Dansgaard-Oeschger temperature changes were associated with changes in the AMOC, but they were nevertheless global in their effect, though they varied in rapidity and magnitude. We know they were global because their fingerprints are found even in Antarctic ice cores, albeit much more gradual there:
The large, rapid Dansgaard-Oeschger temperature changes often persisted for thousands of years — and nobody knows with certainty why they occurred.
Fortunately, mankind, corals, polar bears, pikas, and nearly every other existing species of animal and plant survived all those large, abrupt temperature changes, so there’s no reason to fear that the current slight warming trend will be catastrophic for them.
Dave
Thanks for the link to the Glossary
That would explain why sea levels were so much higher during the Holocene than they are today. It was so much colder then.
From Eureka Alert: “Meanwhile, climate models strongly suggest that global temperatures have risen throughout the past 10,000 years.”
In other words, the models show that temperatures started to climb, and continued to do so for 9,950 years before anthropogenic CO2 emissions became significant! Therefore, one should expect an abrupt, significant increase in temperatures after 1950. Yet, most of the increase of the last 100 years was before 1950! Similarly, without the Holocene maximum, one would expect a slow gradual increase in sea level until the mid-20th Century, and then have an abrupt, significant increase. That isn’t what has been observed:
From Climate Etc.; Judith Curry
Sea level change ≠ surface temperature change.
Off you go into the depths of YOUR Climate Change DENIAL, simple simon
What causes sea level change?
Ocean warming
Ice melt
What causes ocean warming?
What causes Ice Melt??
Temperature increase
Albedo Decrease
What does it take to melt a vast sheet of Ice with a large Albedo?
Temperature Increase
OR
Vast amounts of soot
Was there a source for vast amounts of soot to cover the ice sheets 10-12,000 years ago to yield a sufficient Albedo Decrease?
Really? You sure about that? Yet we are constantly told by Warmunists like you that sea level will rise and drown us as a result of AGW.
So the frequent claims of the alarmists that rising sea levels prove global warming are not correct? Or are they only not correct when they disagree with what you are paid to believe?
I doubt simon is “paid” to believe anything
He is just a gullible village idiot.
Simon
You are correct that the two are not equal. However, they are highly correlated! Therefore, surface temperature changes can be used to predict (and explain) sea level rise. That is the basis of all the prognostications about coastal flooding. So, your obvious observation about the inequality is really a non sequitur!
The CO2 rise must have been enormous to cause such a rise in sea levels /sarc.
Typical of today’s climate “scientists”: keep massaging the data until it gives the results you’re looking for.
Don,
I’m not sure massaging is the right term. When you have to use hammers and baseball bats to get your data to fit into your hypothesis I think you’ve moved into another realm altogether!
Square peg into round hole territory!
lol… I was being generous. 🙂
“Torture the data until it screams for mercy!” is more likely what they did.
It looks like they may have went right to tasering the data, and the data surrendered in compliance.
Yep. Didn’t take long but they managed to get a confession – the data simply ‘fell down the stairs’.
I’ll see their one study and raise them 1,241.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C-3.7229869544256076&z=2
Excellent map with cited references. It is limited, however, to studies of the Medieval Warm Period. The number of studies of the Holocene Climatic Optimum must be in the tens of thousands. Not that sheer numbers are definitive, but evidence of the HCO is writ large across the globe.
To Anthony and Charles:
The HCO and other paleoclimates/climate history might be excellent topics for Everything Climate — when you get a round tuit.
Cicular logic?
H
They measured temperatures at the site of the Pacific Warm Pool, which they say closely matches global temperatures.
It might be sloppy wording, but what the heck is meant?
If they knew that temperatures from this region matched temperatures elsewhere, why measure them again? Geoff S
Isn’t the Pacific Warm Pool subject to the Whims of El-Nino/La-Nina?
I thought “climate models” required enormous computing power and long run times to project the next 100 years or so. But apparently these folks have run said models for the two most recent interglacials (~20k years) to compare with their core data?
Hindcasts are run at a lower resolution. Data doesn’t exist to run hi-res simulations anyway.
Climate models are just low end computer games, simple simon.
Pertaining to no know reality.
Right. That’s why farmers are flourishing in Greenland again.
THAT’S IT!!! I’m gonna become a scientist! So then, when I open my mouth, science comes gushing out in all it’s glory!
As long as what you say matches the political agenda.
Not going to work! You need laxatives to be a climate scientist. Over-indulging on prunes has been known to assist in small studies, but requires additional effort, so not recommended.
I see. So this ‘science’ would be produced from a ‘glory hole’ would it?
You can’t become a climate scientist until you are properly anointed by those who already call themselves climate scientists.
Marxist scientism; reach a conclusion then torture your facts until they agree with your narrative!
How much longer do we have to put up with crazy Progessive and Marxist religious fanatics preaching their nihilistic anti-human dogma?
I had always been taught that a State religion was a very bad idea. I guess if you try to make the State into God it’s permissible for leftist idiots! But I repeat myself!
How is Marxism different from the slavery of old? It’s got lots of new platitudes and sounds reasonable to people with little experience in the real world like children and college professors; but you still have a privileged elite ruling over the masses who must be kept weak and ignorant to prevent rebellions and uprisings!
Climastrology is just the latest branch of Marxist scientism designed to convince humans to give up their freedom and prosperity for the benefit of a few, privileged and self centered sociopaths!
Sorry for the rant, Charles! Thank you so much for all you and Anthony do to keep us informed! WUWT is truly one of the largest pearls strewn about the pigpen that the internet has become!
Until they stop getting research grants to do the research to ‘disprove’ inconvenient research from other teams. I can assure you as soon as the money dries up the research will stop
When there aren’t any “volunteers” left to bleed to death for the cause!
And what will graduates from liberal universities do with their lives, if not travelling the world on make-work assignments to keep them out of rich daddy’s hair?
Climastrology! Hah! We have a new word in the public domain. Apologies Abolition Man, but I’se gonna ride this one to hell and back!
Ride that horse like ya stole it, goy! But give it a good rubdown and some grain afterwards!
#ClimateScientology has a much better ring. And just as suicidal!
#SeparationOfChurchAndState
the latest branch of Marxist scientism designed to convince humans to give up their freedom and prosperity for the benefit of a few, privileged and self centered
sociopathsmisanthropes!Misanthrope is the word you’re searching for, though it’s not a large leap to sociopath for some misanthropes. When you dehumanize a group (“deniers”) and characterize them as vermin that must be removed to cleanse mankind, then it’s easy to transition to sociopath as the Nazis did.
Marcott (2013) was (almost) right all along:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Marcott.png
Samatha has helpfully produced a simplified version of her paper that ordinary folk who read the Daily Mail (UK) can understand:
That settles it.
What happened to the YD?
It’s colour coded to make it easy to understand. The pictures of the glacier and the factory are helpful too. Nice! I understand now.
Your childishly simplistic figure isn’t actual science, you must understand, nor does it reflect any actual geologic evidence. It’s more in keeping with an arts project. I have no idea who it’s intended to fool.
Sorry Rory, the comment was intended as satire, obviously.
i think that one definitely needed the sarc/ tag
Who it’s intended to fool?
Joe Biden, John Kerry, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ed Markey and the rest.
They’re already fools and require no additional assistance. Not one of them has the lest grasp of the science.
Designed for primary school propaganda.
Just like the rest of the paper.
I upvoted to correct those who did not see that this was intended to be a pinata for mockery.
What is with the higher “seasonal” temperatures, but the lower mean “annual” temperatures? What’s the difference in this context?
The non-seasonal temperatures must have been very cold indeed.
The site they use is right on the equator
Similar latitude and location as data on right hand graph below
.
The graph is designed to appeal to Grauniad readers as well.
Note the absence of any units on the Y axes!
The phrase ‘realscience’ is an oxymoron. And why aim at DM readers? What’s so special about them?
Climate and historical reconstruction seem to be the order of the day. In 30 years no one will know the truth and that’s the purpose.
These proxies have the same calibration issues as other proxies: the measurements of interest are way outside of the calibration range. Thus, the calibration uncertainty is not a reasonable estimate of the uncertainty in the range of the measurements of interest.
I see that their Source Data for fig3 was Kohler et al 2017. Kohler used CMIP6 which runs warmer than CMIP5. What could possibly go wrong?
Their GHG Radiative Forcing data point for 12K yA was .701 and never got that low again. And the forcing climbs even in the LIA.
If we get rid of all that contradictory stuff… we can prove CO2 is the warming influence.
And we won’t have to do anything more for our government funding than add the tag line, “CO2/GW.
😒
Well developed raised beaches (evidence of higher sea level when they were formed) on the presently icebound north coast of Greenland (meaning they have been pounded by extensive open seas) have chunks of driftwood from Alaska and Siberia that date 6000 to 8000ybp, lying on the beach. Whatsupwiththat?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm
This alone totally debunks the Rutgers study unequivocally, as do a goodly number of other proxies (speliotherms, etc.).
BTW as a geologist, I would not have chosen the mouth of a river with headwaters at over 7000ft as a locale for an Indian Ocean sample site.The water may have cooled the ocean surface locally. Ignorance? Or the tradition among GW zealots of cherry-picking proxy sites and samples. Remember Mann selected only ONE Siberian yamal tree sample from a major series collected by Russian scientists! He also chose bristlecone pines (known to have been unsuitable for paleoclimatological studies) and heavily weighted their hockey stickiness in his statistical wizardry. Need we mention his use of the Tiljander Lake (Finland) series, 1) from a section that had been contaminated and disturbed by industry and settlement of the area and, 2) improperly used it upside down to enhance the hockey stick plot despite being told by the scientist who originally created this series!
This is the late Dr. Stephen Schneider’s legacy – coaching Climate Wroughters to underplay uncertainty, give the press a compelling unequivocal narrative and hopefully with enough honesty that their consciences aren’t overly troubled! (It’s for a good cause).
It looks like a nice spot for holidays
Here we show that previous global reconstructions of temperature in the Holocene and the last interglacial period reflect the evolution of seasonal, rather than annual, temperatures and we develop a method of transforming them to mean annual temperatures.
What does this mean, and does it seem plausible?
Seasonal temperatures BECOME annual temperatures. There is no such thing as “only annual” temperatures!
Oh yeah, Hannibal (of the Carthagian Army) wouldn’t have been able to get his troops with its elephants and horses over today’s snow-filled Alps as he did in 213 BC on his surprise attack on Rome! History also debunks the new cold Holocene theory.
I think the gross amorality of the West’s néomarxistes and the fake science and media that supports it can’t be sustained. Am I being too hopeful here?
The myth of Hannibal is an anti-Semitic trope given credence by far-right neo-Nazi Muslim fundamentalist raghead chatbots trying to undermine the role of homophobia in the collapse of the polygender-denying Roman empire.
No-one could possibly believe elephants really existed before Boswell met Wilkie.
You raise an interesting question goy! Was the castration of millions of boys and young men in the Eastern (or Islamic) Slave Trade just an early attempt at gender reassignment? Is this why cultural Marxists do not seem concerned with reparations from Saudi Arabia and other modern Islamic states in North Africa and the Middle East?
Could it be that they are forgiven their sins due to their practice of providing free flying lessons for gays? Just asking for a friend!
Nope it was because of a legal loophole. It was illegal to own slaves in the Persian empire but it was legal to own eunuch’s. With the predictable consequence that no slaves were owned but the numbers of eunuch’s skyrocketed almost overnight.
You a lawyer, or a “narrative steersman”? Like with vicious dogs, you cut a man’s gonads to subjugate him, prevent him from revolting. Making them eunuchs was a tactical requirement, not a loophole. Next you are going to suggest the slaves stood in line to have their manhood removed, in exchange for better jobs, or more privileges? Subtle. Insidious, but subtle.
One day, you will write a post about how eight-year-olds decided to save the world by denying their toxic masculinity?
Gee, paranoid goy, that’s probably what the woke rewrite of ancient history will actually look like! I remember when gays “came out of the closet” I thought reasonably, as a freedom loving type, well sure who really cares how others want to live their lives. Go for it. But, before long, I started to see new research showing how all the famous scientists and writers, generals, philosophers of The Enlightenment were all gay. Then, with time, the closets issued forth a whole QWERTY of other secret genders and soon movements wanting to abolish man, woman, family he, her, and … and… toxic white males and demanding a spectrum of toilets to serve the burgeoning diversity bloom.
You are too hopeful. The last time the media supported a full-blown pseudoscience was in the early 20th century when they promoted Eugenics for many years, even decades with the devastating effect of brainwashing the population into accepting inhuman laws in the name of ‘science’. It took a world war and the Neuremberg trials to tear down that rotting corpse.
And every time there has been a Thermal Optimum (Maximum), A Civilisation bloomed.
Or did it. Really?
Every attempt at civilisation failed, every attempt and EVERY TIME, because “The Climate Changed”
Oh yeah. So what exactly was The Timeline on those attempts?
Because, every place where these attempts occurred are now = Deserts
And Deserts have High Temperatures
Notta lot of energy and thus = Cold Places, but high temps non-the-less.
Simple minds confuse temp with energy, we must make allowances, UNLESS they determine to trash this Civilational Attempt based on that braindead assumption.
And that’s what they’re trying to do. Quite successfully it seems, so far.
Anyway:
Is it really beyond the bound that the Optimum Temperature was NOT the Optimum Temperature – that the higher-than-usual temperature coincided with the decline and daeth of all those Civilational Attempts
Then, Rocket Scientists within the wider citizenry will notice and may then ## enquire, wtf did CO2 have to do with it all?
Then and now.
## I really hope they do, otherwise The Fat Lady (haha get a load of them on that ship **) – The Fat Lady will finish her rehearsals and start singing in earnest and then – ‘Curtains’ briefly followed by:
tada de dah “That’s All Folks“
** Justin Tyme 4 edit – its a Japanese whaling ship and they only do Whaling for The Science.
My bad
I don’t think Greece or Italy are, in actual fact, deserts. Not to mention the Minoans whose civilisation appears to have been ended by the explosion of Thera. Apart from that, I do enjoy reading your posts.
That would explain why Arctic forests were much further north than they are today during the Holocene Thermal Maximum (sarc).
The Adjustocene is alive and well
Climastrology, Adjustocene…What a wonderfully instructive morning I’m having!
This study….
” Here we show that previous global reconstructions of temperature in the Holocene1,2,3 and the last interglacial period8 reflect the evolution of seasonal, rather than annual, temperatures and we develop a method of transforming them to mean annual temperatures.”
A Chinese study based on alder (cold climate) and chestnut (warm climate) leaves/pollen in mud sediments…
”Our results indicate that the Holocene Optimum occurred between ca. 10,000 and 6000 cal yr ago in southern China, consistent with the global pattern”
RWP, MWP, LIA, Dark Ages
All show up clearly in China peat moss study.
Never seen that before. TY.
“The apparent discrepancy between climate models and data has cast doubts among skeptics about the role of greenhouse gases in climate change during the Holocene and possibly in the future,”
who would have thought that? When the data disagrees with a model, it has to be the data that’s wrong. Computer models are empirical proof are they not?
I wrote a computer model the other day that converted kilograms to pounds at 1:2 instead of 1:2.2 and immediately lost 20 pounds. I’m going to patent it a make a fortune in the weight loss industry.
Holy shit. These imbeciles actually think that the models should trump the data.
That’s Climate “Science” in a nutshell.
So how did Boreal forests grow up to the Arctic coastline during the much warmer Holocene climate OPTIMUM? And today there’s just tundra and ice and of course SLs around the world were much higher then as well.
In fact this study found that temps were up to 7 C warmer during that period of the early Holocene. Here’s the abstract and the link to this international study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589499921233
Abstract”Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however, appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation, the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover, greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation”.
But only in winter..
Summers were 10 degrees COLDER than now.
Its that seasonal correction thingy of theirs, y’see. 😉
Also this Roman port was recently discovered 2 MILES INLAND from the present KENT coastline. This was from the Roman invasion in 43 AD. Obviously much HIGHER SLs then and warmer than today.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
Most of the comments do not appear to be addressing the paper.
As I said a few days ago:
Does anyone have access to the paper to see how they managed to resolve this?
On the equator, no less 😉
What they are almost certainly picking up, if it isn’t all a total fabrication, that is)..
…. is the MONSOON SEASON !!
Their original site is slightly left of the middle of the top of this image
So they choose a site where there is a very strong seasonal RAINFALL pattern….
…. and very little seasonal temperature difference.
And pretend to extract a seasonal temperature relationship out of it.
It really is the epitome of JUNK SCIENCE.
Just so you know what I mean about the temperatures.
… the graph on the right is about the same latitude as their “seasonal” site.
.
I would go further than that. I don’t think it’s junk science, I think it’s an intentional deception – fraud.
Because the sacred and holy climate models are the Ultimate Truth. Even though they”ve been refuted numerous times by observations. Proving once again that climate science is actually religion.
At least the full paper is available, that’s a plus. Ran across the story elsewhere and read the paper earlier today.
Clearly a simple exercise in curve fitting. They devise a “seasonal curve” such that anything that falls along it someplace that they don’t like can be taken to be a seasonal effect and adjusted away. When they’re done, what do you know, the proxies now support the climate models, just like we knew all along they should.
What is the ‘seasonal’ vs. ‘annual’ ? What’s the difference?
I wonder how that is reconciled by the fact that sea levels were up to 10 meters higher than now.
Even their LEFTY ABC tells the truth about Aussie SLs just 4,000 years ago. Down our east coast SLs were 1.5 m higher ( 5 FT) after the much warmer Holocene optimum. Similar and higher levels can be found at that time all around the world. Please WAKE UP to these CON MERCHANTS.
https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/narrabeen-man/11010512
QUOTE….
“Dr Macdonald: The date came back at about 4000 years ago, which was quite spectacular we were very surprised.
Narration: 4000 years ago when Narrabeen Man was wondering around this area the sea levels were up to 1.5 metres higher than they are today.
Paul: So that spit would have been much narrower. The water levels in the Narrabeen lagoon would also have been higher and it would have acted like a saline estuary”.
The content of pseudoscience plugged by the media has simply become embarrassing. Attenborough’s latest effusion ‘a perfect planet’ (until humans came along) had a little gem last night. He was really worried about melting polar ice because it could stop all the ocean currents in their tracks and cause all waters to become stagnant death pools. Such jawdropping nonsense shows that it’s not only politicians struggling with old age.
I saw the first part of this last night and ended up screaming at the TV – the propaganda was blatant.
I deliberately didn’t watch it to save the TV!
Isn’t the estuary domain the absolutely worse place to take cores ? I thought the churning and excess sediment from up river would confuse the stratification at the mouth of the estuary
If I didn’t know any better, I would think the Greta Reset is coming. The on board scientific community, will find researchers prepared to advance their own agendas to enable the reset whether Greta or just Great to be accepted as necessary adjustment. Our otherwise comfortable lives are about to come to an end. The strange thing is the scientific community peddling these spurious so called research truths.
I can only suggest the Hockey Stick Mann will be rolled out from his new activities in the Biden administration to say something very profound. ” See I told you so, I was right, the decline hasn’t happened it’s up up and more up.
I am cynical.
Who gets the most funding:
glamorous and sensational research like the above
or plain and boring to the outsider?
Historically the latter has produced the best and most beneficial results while the glamorous has been hugely wasteful. If the climate alarmist scientists had to struggle to get funding like many other scientists, they would go and look for jobs elsewhere.
I remain cynical.
So complete drek- rewriting the past to make the climate models look useful. The fact that this has no basis in reality and flies in the face of what we already know of this and every other interglacial is obviously of no consequence to them. Do they really have so much contempt for people that they think everybody will buy into their lies? How long before they realise that attempting to save their models is a losing proposition, that they are just wasting money propping up a line of research gone catastrophically wrong and should scrap them all.
Apologies for the rant, it’s been building for a long time with these idiots.
Still does not address Dr Patrick Moore’s data showing that if the Earth’s CO2 continues to decline at the rate it has done for the last thousand years, the Earth will no longer support plant life by around 2500 AD, and we will not be far behind its extinction. The effort to reduce CO2 is a particularly dumb suicidal movement, and is still based on unproven models.
“Scientists used marine calcareous (calcium carbonate-containing) fossils from foraminifers – single-celled organisms that live at the ocean surface – to reconstruct the temperature histories of the two most recent warm intervals on Earth.”
What I’d like to know is just how good the science is regarding this method of reconsructing past temperatures? The method is often mentioned with no mention of whether it truly is accurate. Just how accurate is it? How can we know?
The principle site they get there “seasonality” from just happens to be right on the equator.
And they are talking about being able to recognise seasons !!!!
WOW !!!!! That is hilarious.
They invent a “seasonality” for an equator site, then transfer that “assumed” model to other places with a binning of 1kyr.
And still PRETEND that they know anything about “seasonality”
The whole thing is a TOTAL FARCE from start to finish.
I can give a 100% guarantee that this study is WRONG.
The temperature of any tropical warm pool cannot exceed 32C and the regulation control temperature is 30C. So studies claiming to show otherwise are flawed.
If you look at the graph I have posted in other places, you can see that equatorial sea surface temperature sitting just below 30C all year round.
Would also be interesting where exactly their study site were during the last interglacial.
Just like with tree rings, how do these researchers *know* what all went into the formation of the forminifers in the sediment? Like those using tree rings they ASSUME that the only variable is temperature. That’s a HUGE assumption!
“contrary to previous reconstructions of global temperatures”
So rather than figuring out *why* their reconstruction is contrary they just *assume* their reconstruction is correct for the entire globe – which is the same criticism they level at other reconstructions!
And how do they tell whether the CO2 increase led or followed any temperature excursion? Again they just ASSUME things not in evidence.
Funny how often the “word” assume shows up in all of this!
Who taught these people how to think?
I see another ‘Ship of Fools.”
Jesus H. Christ! Climate models may be wrong, but now, if you can find ONE SINGLE temperature proxy that supports your ‘theory’ (actually not a theory but only a hypothesis) then ALL DOUBT is conveniently dismissed? These people are not scientists, they’re just like the people adjusting the actual temperature records downward for the 1930s, the warmest decade of the past many hundreds of years, in order to bolster the reputations of these same climate models and climate modelers,. Their just like the corrupt ClimateGAte e-mailers who wished to make the Medievel Warm Period and the Little Ice Age to go away. Which is to say, they’re Climate Scientologists, those cult believing idiots who think Gavin’s little toys can accurately predict future climate.
HOW HOW HOW can we elect a representative government that will refuse to fund such idiocy? Mitch McConnell, next time you get to be majority leader in the Senate, the US MUST withdraw from the UNFCCC. The next time a Republican is Speaker of the House, funding for all climate models but one, run by NOAA, must go away, and all models that are NOT that ONE single, best guess version, operated by NOAA, must be defunded, be they NASA, corrupt Universities, the DoD or DoE or Justice Departments. We must simply END this current gravy train of funding idiots. No excuses, man. Lead or get out of the way. Everyone who favors individual human freedom and liberty and who wants a limited government that is not the epitome of Orwell, you MUST VOTE to end this corrupt piglet feed bag.
End of rant, sorry about the expletive.
”HOW HOW HOW can we elect a representative government that will refuse to fund such idiocy?”
Very difficult when the lunatics (modern science) is in charge of the asylum.
If you torture the data enough, it will say whatever you want it to say.
Are all scientists obese? It once thought that people with higher education and scocio-economic status were healthier and had correct diet.
Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps with his elephants is mentioned below. I looked up what my German reference ‘Die Alpen in Der Antike’ (The Alps in Antiquity) says about it. There is a source reporting snowfall just as the army crossed the pass. There is uncertainty among the two chroniclers of the period (Polybios and Livius) about which of the 4 or 5 possible routes was taken, but the two contenders are the Little St Bernard pass (2200m) and the Col de la Traversette (2950m). The latter gives a view of the Po river valley, which is mentioned by Polybios; the former, although not as high, would have meant a detour of more than 120km which for an army in difficult terrain could easily have taken 2 weeks longer. The higher route is therefore mostly assumed to be the one used. Pollen research has indicated that at the time the tree-line was 300m-400m above what it was in the 18th century. That means a climate warmer by 2.0C-2.5C (6.0 C/km lapse rate), hence at least 1C warmer than today.
A post doc has come up with proof that a past warming period was not as warm as everyone assumed. Why does that sound familiar?
You can tell from the pic….trip of a lifetime….these desk jocks will publish whatever allows them a chance at their next trip of a lifetime. If their chances of returning were similar to early explorers, their published papers would have the theme “climate is not changing so there is no need to go again”.
1) How can there be any mystery remaining when I’ve been assured over the last decade that “the science (of climate change) is settled”?
2) Regarding the article’s statement “The scientists say their findings will challenge long-held views on the temperature history in the Holocene era, which began about 12,000 years ago.” Uhhh . . . beyond “views” there are many well-documented, paleoclimate proxies (i.e., science-based data) that indicate there was indeed a Holocene interval, 8,000 ± 1,000 years ago where global surface temperatures (averaged over hundreds of years) were warmer than those of the last 100-200 years.
3) I’d like the see a real scientific hypothesis at to why all that previously-established data should now be dismissed out-of-hand based on the above discussed “reconstitution” of Earth’s temperature history over the last 10,000 years . . . but I will not be waiting on such, obviously.
Right now this reconstruction is a total outlier. It really offers nothing to support their hypothesis. It does not analyze and eliminate all other possible confounding factors that could cause the data to be as it is.
Just like analyzing tree rings assuming CO2 is the only controlling factor and ignoring all other confounding variables (moisture, density, etc).
“contrary to previous reconstruction… ” Ever notice how scientists (whom we are to believe) continuously insist that we “stop believing the science”?
Just how do these Rutgers researchers think that calcium carbonate levels in foraminifera in sediments from the mouth of a river in Papua (in the tropics) can indicate anything about climate change in Northern Hemisphere summers?
Is there any way of establishing the age of the sediments, and could the sedimentation rate have been higher or lower in the past due to changes in rainfall over Papua? Could the course of the river delta have changed over the past 100,000 years, and what is now midstream could have been an eddy 100,000 years ago, or vice versa? This could be possible due to earthquakes in the distant past.
We also know that in recent times the El Nino Southern Oscillation causes short-term cyclic shifts of water temperature in the western Pacific, with higher temperatures during El Nino and lower temperatures during La Nina, and such cycles have periods of a few years to possibly a few decades, and cause large fluctuations in the monsoons and rainfall rates in those areas, which could also affect sedimentation rates. Did the researchers figure ENSO fluctuations into their interpretation of the data from 100,000 years, and many ENSO cycles, ago?
Also, during a period of early warming after an ice age, large amounts of water would still be frozen as glacier ice, meaning that sea levels then would have been lower than they are now, and the mouth of the river then would be under the sea now. The current mouth of the river would have been inland then, probably with a faster current which would inhibit sedimentation. Did the researchers take into account changes in sea level over the past 100,000 years? After all, if sea levels are currently rising at a rate of about 2 mm per year, over the past 100,000 years sea levels could have risen by 200 meters…
Just some food for thought before jumping to conclusions!
It’s not obvious that they took *any* confounding variables into consideration.
So, just keep doing “reconstructions” until it matches what you want it to say?
YEP!
Unlike some on here, “studies” like this worry me a lot. These supposed findings are so completely at odds with common sense (many points are listed below that show it was incontrovertably warmer over last 10,000years) and yet they have no compunctions to publishing this garbage.
No consequences so who cares?
Pat, they are at odds with what WE took in school. But they know what we know is wrong…for example, we learned that fire was one of the greatest contributors to mankind’s success….etc….
But this is so clearly wrong and it’s abundantly clear it was much warmer in this interglacial
It’s just so pathetically corrupt.
It’s like Trudeau claiming he released all the info on his WE charity money laundering scheme when he redacted 5000 pages of evidence.
It’s so obviously a lie, like this “paper”
those poor people in the past just keep getting colder and colder
Couldn’t possibly ever be the reduction in albedo from conversion of the primary climate driver from reflective inert to absorbative gaseous form, no no no. Has to be that evil CO2 stuff!
Is the science settled now?
Just one piece of the biggest climate change “mystery”: Why doesn’t nature behave the way our models tell it to?
NO! Modelling the past is not called “prediction”. The “pre” bit means BEFORE, not 10,000 years later.
If your “predictions” of the past are going the wrong way, you model is worth nothing. The solution is to develop a better model, not to attempt to rewrite past climate history to fit the model.
A warming of the Pacific Warm Pool because of the increase in El Nino conditions from 6000 years ago when there was less ice as the sea level was around 2 meters higher.
The basis question still is whether the rise in Carbon Dioxide was a result of rising temperatures or visa versa ? Metabolism rises with temperature ( thus CO2 ).
Not checking again alternative solar hypothesis undermines the study’s legitimacy.