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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.