By P Gosselin
Climate alarmists hate this inconvenient fact: hundreds of temperature reconstructions show that the northern hemisphere was much warmer over much of the past 10,000 years (Holocene) than it is today.
HAT-TIP: Klimaschau here
Massive 66 temperature reconstructions
One recent study: Arctic glaciers and ice caps through the Holocene: a circumpolar synthesis of lake-based reconstructions by Laura J. Larocca and Yarrow Axford, published in the journal Climate of the Past, examined the Arctic ice cap and glaciers over a large part of the Arctic:
Using a comprehensive sampling of sediment cores extracted from 66 lakes and seas, the scientists reconstructed the melting and expansion of the Arctic ice over the past 12,000 years.
What they found was that the Arctic was far warmer 6000 years ago than it is today.
Figure 10d: Arctic-wide summary of lake-based GIC records. The line shows the percent of GICs smaller than present or absent from 12 to 0 ka, calculated in 100-year bins. The dashed line shows time bins in which a low number (<10) of records were available. Bars show 500-year bin averages. Open dots show the timing of earliest GIC regrowth in the middle to late Holocene versus the highest present ice elevation inside the studied lake’s watershed. (e) The line shows the number of records from 12 to 0 ka. Bars show the slope between the 500-year bin averages (above) from the middle to late Holocene. More negative slopes indicate time periods with a higher number of GICs regrowing. Source: Larocca et al, 2022.
In the paper’s Figure 10d (above), the higher the curve, the smaller were the glaciers. Clearly we see that the Arctic region glaciers were much smaller 6000 years ago than today. Many in fact disappeared altogether and so summers were warmer.
The authors write:
We find the highest percentage (>90 %) of Arctic GICs smaller than present or absent in the middle Holocene at ∼ 7–6 ka, probably reflecting more spatially ubiquitous and consistent summer warmth during this period than in the early Holocene.”
Adding:
Our review finds that in the first half of the Holocene, most of the Arctic’s small GICs became significantly reduced or melted away completely in response to summer temperatures that, on average, were only moderately warmer than today.”
Post glaciation, temperature tends higher than it would otherwise be, all else being equal. This, by the glaciers scraping the Earth surface to mineral soils. Outwash plains of silts and clays; and moraines of sand and gravel are what’s left when the glaciers recede.
Wild temperature swings persist immediately after from residual permafrost effects and surface ponding. Then, the surface warms when it dries out.
A few thousand years later, biosystems restore deep organic rich soil, holding vast volumes of water to depth that mineral soil cannot.
The development of soil moisture and transpiring plants on the continents corresponds to a decrease of land temperature over time (again, ceterus paribus.). This, by greater moisture availability for transpiration pulled from deep organic rich soil, over longer periods.
The presence of biota facilitates greater cloud development, enhancing cooling, by transpiring hygroscopic bacteria along with water vapor from rich vegetation and deep organic soils. These bacteria can only emerge from a healthy ecosystem, to nucleate dense cloud.
These lessons can also be applied to modern day warming, whereby 50 percent of the landscape has been rendered to desert and compacted eroded soil, mostly in the northern hemisphere. Not unlike a post glacial period.
Oh, not a plant. Or whale’s uterus. Perhaps it was defined in your first reference.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect readers on here to be familiar with the phrase. And if not it’s easy enough to track down . . .Plus, he used the words “all else being equal” in his first line . . .
So, how do you square that with the fact that the planet has been greening over the last few decades, even in the vicinity of the Sahara desert? link
Desertification means a slowdown of biological cycling into the soils. Most of the ‘greening’ talked about on this site is irrelevant because the leaf litter carbon simply oxidizes by chemical disintegration. Soils are highly eroded compared to 200 years ago, storing vastly less water. Plantae must biodegrade to restore soils. This can only happen with animalia. Today most soils sit idle, despite the appearrance of green veg on top. 75 billion tons of soils are eroded annually. You might have a finger length of humates today, when once organics stored an ocean of moisture to a depth of several feet.
So, how do you square that with the fact that rainforest soils don’t have much biological activity? link Your logic seems to imply that the rainforests should actually be deserts.
The answer is in the very same article you provided. The biological cycling is so rapid that there is little accumulation in the soil in tropical rainforests. Importantly, they have year round growing seasons and unlimited supply of water from hygroscopic ocean salt nucleation. It is the interior mid-latitude soils which have exhibited the greatest change, the grasslands.
Soil impoverishment is a thing. On the other hand, the greening of the planet is by no means irrelevant. Irrespective of the fact that some soils are becoming impoverished, the greening is happening faster. Alternatively, soil impoverishment is not as much of a deal as one would think.
I can’t think of anywhere with much more impoverished soils than the Sahara, and yet some folks think it is a candidate for greening. I find that very interesting.
They will need grazing animals and other biodigesters to restore saharan soils. It is possible. See the work of Allan Savory who erred in recommending the slaughter of 40,000 elephants to save the savannah. he learned the hard way. The soils need a balanced ecosystem of predators and ungulates in such environments.
Thank you for the Savory reference.
link
He admitted and embraced his blunder. What a rare guy.
The above quote reminds me of a line from John Ioannidis
link
Cargo cult science seems to be the norm.
This remains true, and is central to Savory’s methods. His intent is to manage herds in a way that represents a proxy of natural movements, and predator to prey ratios. The bold is what’s new, that’s the difference.
Ungulates!Think of the methane, think of the methane. Sarc.
Yes, people who wish to ban grazing animals are foolish and misinformed. The alternative is fire and desert.
If all these soils are storing vastly less water, wouldn’t that show up in GSLs?
It is possible. For the most part the moisture combined with dust from exposed eroded soils create persistent humid hazes in the atmosphere. This renders the IR windows practically shut for weeks on end, and results in persistent blocking high pressure systems disrupting atmospheric flows.
Deserts are not defined by their scarcity of biota. Deserts are defined by the amount of annual precipitation. Interesting Earth’s southern hemisphere contains far less land mass than the norther hemisphere yet it contains the largest desert which covers most of it’s continent, Antarctica.
Climate is dominated by dynamic energetic interactions of biology and hydrology at the surface. It is a commonly held belief that droughts cause deserts, but it is more accurate to say that deserts cause drought.
I do not understand the relevance of this remark.
Please note that deserts seem to bunch around 30*N & S latitudes, particularly on the leeward side of mountain ranges. Defined, as noted above, by their average precipitation, not their temperatures. It has to do with Hadley circulation.
BTW– you got the Latin wrong too– it should be ceteris paribus (both words in the plural ablative).
I made no such claim.
The hadley cells can certainly get locked into a certain position, aided or hindered by buoyancy and pressure effects of surface processes, among many other dynamics. Other times, they can sway, offering periods of respite from downwelling air.
In the future I shall be careful to watch my typing, as any mistake appears to offer an easy nit pick for people who wish to have an excuse to preserve their pre-conceived ideologies.
The greening is only from one Stutnik survey, now over 7 years old and based on the childlike presumption that CO2 is fertiliser for plants.
(And the poorest low resolution image there ever could be – was that the very best NASA could produce)
The Sahara greening is from abandoned farms being overtaken by invasive and often ugly weeds such as Mesquite.
The farms were abandoned because they were = desert and no longer productive for what the people wanted to grow.
So why, if CO2 is the fertiliser, why did the farmers leave?
Greening elsewhere is coming from farmers planting their arable/cereal crops in the autumn instead of spring.
Thus, as seen by Sputnik, the land surface is green for 9 months of the year instead of barely 2
The Really Enquiring Mind should be asking:
Why did the farmers do that – why do their plants need a head-start in the spring-time when previously they didn’t?
Is is really beyond the bounds that they had to do it because the summer growing season is getting shorter and colder?
C’mon, you should know better. Hundreds and hundreds of experiments and greenhouse CO2 enrichment show that more CO2 increases plant growth. Not really a fertilizer tho, any more than O2 is a “nutrient” for animals — more like an essential & basic ingredient for life.
“Childlike”?!? I figured Newark, NJ was polluted but I didn’t realize there was so much lead in the water.
Exactly…
and is why temperatures fell off a cliff, circa 6,000 years ago when the Sahara was turned from a land of rivers, lakes and forest into the desert we all know and love today
……and industrious little people with axes, fire-sticks and goats did that
The Romans did the same, hence their ‘warm period’ as did the Minoans when they wrecked the Fertile Crescent and had their ‘warm period’
(I have a productive grapevine in my garden (grapes that would make vino – too many seeds for eating) at barely 60 miles south of where the Romans grew wine – lets bury that tired old crock)
Was there also a bit of a temperature blip when the Phoenicians desertified Syria/Lebanon and introduced sheep to the wider world. Bang goes Australia and never to recover
People, over the last 10,000 or so years, created the corresponding Warm Periods – not vice-versa
Right now, we are putting the finishing touches to, and sucking the last vestiges of life out of, a planet that will soon be completely desertified.
And exactly like in modern medicine, because of the insane amounts of money to be made, we are trying to fix the symptom (CO2) and not the cause (eroded soil)
There’s no money to be made crushing up basalt and granite but shedloads to be had at the Government Teat = pounding computers, going to conferences and berating (taxing) everyone else
Agreed, Peta. Once the moisture is completely gone deserts can indeed cool, after an initial warming spike. Unbearably hot days, and frigid at dawn. The overall effects depend on latitude and daytime heating hours. Northern latitude winters rendered colder than usual, and summers with heat extremes, for example. Geographies with an extended range of temperature and hydrological maxima.
Peta.
Yep I can see that patch of desertification in this Australian sheep paddock –
What we cannot observe from one generation to the next are these slow changes. Both to soils, and to climate. For in the picture above, to the casual observer, it might appear to be a lush green scene. It seems normal to us. Yet, the entire landscape there has clear and apparent early desertization qualities. Perhaps this was a good day. Or, perhaps, it’s in recovery. We tend to only take our cameras out when something unusual is happening.
And for the record, it’s the soils that really matter to humanity. Climate change is but a byproduct. The entire problem has been posed incorrectly, resulting in extremely wrong solutions.
Quite an accomplishment when you figure in humans only occupy 3% of the earth surface. I suspect the blame human first crowd is out today in force. Pete of Newark seems to be a card-carrying member of that crowd.
By the way “The Sahara greening is from abandoned farms being overtaken by invasive and often ugly weeds such as Mesquite.” anyone one who thinks that Mesquite is an ugly weed is and uneducated person with low IQ. Not only are they and active part of the desert ecosystem they also fix nitrogen. By the way I have three of them in my yard. At 41 C average in the summer, they do offer nice shade. If you are also willing to grind up their seed pods, they also give a nice starch
We love our Mesquite here in the Sonoran desert. I even have lovely furniture and floors made from them. They do have wicked thorns, though. Maybe that’s why Peta hates on them. One man’s weed…
The Sahara was desert 13 000 years ago. Deserts in Australia are at least 150 000 years old so not even the slash and burn of incoming humans can be the reason for desertification.
So, you’re saying the Sahara Desert is only 6,000 years old? Wow, just wow.
The cooling coincides with the drying out of the Sahara and Arabian peninsula. Started about 6000 years ago and accelerated about 3600-4000 years ago. Some sort of vegetation feedback is also modelled to explain the large effect of a small change in Earth’s orbit. Because it’s a big unknown, the effects of the change in orbit on ocean currents, then weather patterns, is just ignored (because of the effect on sea tides and earth tides, they do take into account the higher summer temperatures in the NH).
I big problem now in the Arizona desert is a lack of grazing, the interduced grasses make nice fuel in the fire season. Grazing would help a lot.
What you are describing is the feedback gain to surface emission, described by Monckton. Changes to the Earth’s surface reverberate throughout the climate system. Plants, animals, and soils are certainly not a passive subject of external climate changes. Terrestrial processes are tightly coupled with the climate. We often view climate change as an external force acting upon the land, but we do not often consider the land-changes acting upon the climate
It certainly wasn’t my modelling. It’s something easier to model than what could conceivably have a bigger effect but the understanding of is barely at hand waving stage, so it gets studied and claimed to be the thermostat. Sound familiar?
The Earth’s crust has tidal movements. Along with the ocean tides, there has to be effects on ocean currents with orbital change. The atmosphere is a chaotic system influenced by the ocean currents and its bigger than a butterfly, but that is all I’ve got. Its unfortunate that the science says that it should be ignored because of ignorance.
No.
I am beginning to understand more about this website. It is not good enough to point out problems with greenhouse gas effects or energy policy. It is about a refusal to acknowledge any human impacts on the Earth system on any scale. An ideology, to find any and all reasons for only natural causes for observed changes; despite any evidence to the contrary. I thought it was trying to advance the science to avoid energy poverty and human suffering, but it runs much deeper than that. I now understand.
The image below is from the great lakes basin, with remnant residues of the once fertile landscape in green. The remainder has been rendered to near-desert. Ocean tides and orbital changes did not do that. What you see here is climate change. It has nothing to do with co2 effects or solar variability. It has nothing to do with ocean currents or chaos principles. It is about our immense power to erode soils, at the core. Sure, you can measure some cash crops as bright green on satellite in high summer, but all the while the soils sit idle and dormant. Eroded, hard, dry, oxidized, devoid of organics, or life. A rock-hard eroded landscape with excessive temperature swings and hydrological extremes. It’s really that simple.
The landscape responds just as deserts do over vast swaths of the Earth. Some of the dead soils remain hidden below tree canopy, or below irrigated crops and lawns. However, much is clearly visible, even from space. Best observed in the non-growing season – the truth can be clearly seen. Unless you’re in untouched wilderness, it’s everywhere around. Try scooping some soil in your hand. You can touch it. It’s everywhere. Is it bad? I don’t know. Does it have anything to do with greenhouse gas? certainly not. All I can say is dumping trillions into that nonsense is a truly remarkable fraud. I am not here to judge anyone for eroding soils. The point is to see and understand what should be abundantly obvious.
Thanks for your many comments. I noticed no one mentioned the obvious issue of what occurred in the great plains with the destruction of the buffalo.
The well-known Holocene climatic optimum.
Now sanitized in some circles to merely the Holocene Warm Period. Sigh.
I have seen it called the Holocene Climatic Anomaly. They don’t want it to sound pleasant, they want it to sound weird.
It’s not “optimum” if it destroys your argument – can’t have that nomenclature!
Yeah, next thing the history books will be revised to label the LIA the “The Cool Little Optimum”.
And the well-known Neoglacial, covering very roughly the last 5 thousand years, and getting colder. Brrr…
The narrative from the Park Service at Glacier National Park is that, yes, there were much bigger glaciers that completely disappeared, but this time it’s different. (As in these relative mini-glaciers are melting so much faster than those giant ones that completely disappeared before the age of thermometers.)
Yup … I’ve read articles and watched television documentaries bemoaning today’s awful state of Glacier National Park – better go see it now before they’re all gone forever! … yet those same articles and shows talk with a straight face about all those massive glacially-induced features such as cirques and the wide U-shaped valleys and moraines left behind by what were obviously far more massive glaciers than have ever existed since humans arrived in the Americas … but somehow, some way, did not kill the planet.
I’ll have to add this to my old https://wermenh.com/climate/6000.html . I wrote it after seeing a few articles one weekend about the warm climate then. One of them, https://www.ngu.no/sciencepub/eng/pages/Whatsup_20_10_08.html , is still there but has lost its images.
It’s almost enough to make me use 6000 as a Google search term.
Explanations I’ve seen were in YouTube videos, especially some about why the Sahara was much wetter and greener until about 7000 years ago. If I remember the number correctly, it was about 56 watts/square meter more summer insolation above 60 degrees north latitude than today’s sunshine.
This was mainly due to changes in obliquity, perhaps with some influence of precession. This is much greater than any differences increased CO2 might produce today but it does not mean that total global insolation was any different than it is today (nor does it say that it wasn’t different). So much more energy in the summer might well mean complete melting of all winter ice every year and the impossibility of glaciers forming. It will be 14,000 years or more before that situation repeats.
The trees stumps appearing from under melting glaciers in Alaska and other places that carbon date to 1000 and 2000 years ago, corresponding to the Medieval and Roman warm periods, as well as the dead trees well above today’s tree lines, such as those found in the Colorado Rockies about 500 feet above today’s tree line, that were living in those same two periods, are evidence of some different influence.
I THINK the higher summer sun angle on the Sahara at those times was able to just lower the air pressure enough to draw the summer monsoon, at least partially, northward into it.
“GIC” is mentioned six times in this post but never defined. Fortunately, it is in the first sentence of the paper’s abstract.
Thank you. I hate when abbreviations are not defined in a document.
Glaciers and Ice Caps. It’s in there somewhere near the beginning
Not in conjunction with the three-letter-acronym (TLA).
There are actually a lot of papers that point at an ice free arctic during the Holocene Optimum.
That’s bad news for the catastrophists who insist that polar bears (PBs) will become extinct when there is no more ice in the arctic. As the great polar bear in the sky would say, “Been there, done that, still around”.
One of the catastrophists, Ian Stirling, is someone for whom I have profound respect. It felt like he was on a first name basis with half the PBs in the arctic. So, before he began predicting doom and gloom for the PBs, you’d think he would have checked out whether the arctic had ever been ice free before.
There are lots of serious problems with the way science is done to the extent that most published research findings are wrong. I think one of those problems is that scientists aren’t actually that well educated.
Defund the universities.
Greenland still had its ice cap 6000 years ago.
Indeed, but the average PB will tell you that there are no seals to be found hiding under the Greenland ice cap. Of course, PBs are kind of unidimensional in that regard.
HIgh mountain and sea level ice exist under somewhat different conditions.
The GIS extends down to sea level at many points, as saltwater glaciers.
Only if it gets cold enough at sea level. Glaciers on Kilimanjaro don’t mean any are producing shelf ice at the coast.
A really good study showing summer Arctic Ice being gone 6k to 7k yrs ago.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm
Doing research and looking at book written by the older generations, god forbid why do we have to do that! When we can just model it from our assumptions.
The scatter of the hundreds of data points from 66 locations ACTUALLY shows that core samples are NOT a valid proxy for anything….except for taxpayer funded “trips-of-a-lifetime”. Look at the data…
Yeah. It’s like one bristlecone pine is somehow a proxy for the whole planet. That might not be so ridiculous except that the same idiot who insists that’s true also says Viking farms in Greenland prove nothing because that was just local. 🙂
I don’t think this new study is new news. There are pictures of spruce stumps emerging from retreating ice in northern Canada hundreds of miles north of the present Arctic tree line. Qualitative is good enough for this general point.
What they found was that the Arctic was far warmer 6000 years ago than it is today.
What they actually found was: “most of the Arctic’s small GICs became significantly reduced or melted away completely in response to summer temperatures that, on average, were only moderately warmer than today.”
Didn’t you know? They HAD to put “moderately” in just to get it published. SOP for any climate article to end with the virtue signal.
Great study, but why not pin down actual temperatures with 5-6000yr old trees. This 5000 year old white spruce is at Canada’s NE Arctic coast at Tuktuyaktuk is still rooted.
It lies 100km N of today’s treeline and a few more 100kms further N of living white spruce this size (yes the same species!).
Assuming Arctic Amplification was 2x the global anomaly then as now, and today’s trees this size are growing at 4-6°C warmer than the Tuk tree location, global avg T anomaly was then 2-3°C warmer than today and with no “tipping points”. Actually, one could average the slope of the cooling over 5000yrs and determine the max that T could reach (it would be lower than 500yrs ago). We must already be in reach. We may have to double coal use to even reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial.
A report of tree remains exposed very recently in Norway, I believe about 2500 feet above today’s tree line, were dated to 7000 years ago. The report’s estimate of temperatures, based on lapse rate, was that sea level temperatures would have been about 3.5 degrees C higher than today.
[Moderators, if you think this is OT, you aren’t watching the real world. Everyone talks about the past – I predict the near future, and this is serious!]
No offense, but we know all that the world has been much warmer in the past – academically interesting, but what is happening NOW?
ARE THE GLACIERS RETREATING OR ADVANCING NOW, ON AVERAGE? It varies all over the world, but I doubt that glaciers are still retreating, on average, any longer.
Our world is definitely IS getting colder, I say since Feb 2020 (some say since Feb 2016 but that was an El Nino temperature peak).
Told you so 20 years ago. This will end badly – for humanity, nature, crops and especially poor societies. {Insert strong expletive here}
The latest from my friend Cap at Electoverse.net. I predicted this, since NINO34 SST’s (a good ~4-month predictor of global average temperature) continue to be cold.
SOLAR CYCLE 25 PROGRESSING SIMILARLY TO THE HISTORICALLY WEAK 24; AMERICA’S SPRING FREEZE; + SHIVELUCH ERUPTS TO 32,000 FEET
April 11, 2022 Cap Allon
From Alaska to Alabama, the next 14 days will see potentially record-breaking lows sweep the majority of the North American continent.
I’m in northwestern Ontario. There is still lots of snow and lakes are ice covered – about 50 cm, more or less. The weather forecast is up to 40 cm of snow over the next three days. The long range (14 day) weather report predicts below average temperatures. Not a single day predicted to hit + 10 C. Obviously, ice will be here well into May. A decade or so ago, the ice was regularly gone by April 20-25. The trend since then is definitely colder. Reflected, by the way, in the collapse of the local whitetail deer herds.
Hey Bruce, sorry about the whitetail deer – beautiful creatures. Was this caused by deep snow and late Spring – lack of food and difficulty to escape wolves?
Please see my post below about the NINO34 global temperature predictor.
Also, remember that there was a crop failure across the Great Plains of North America in 2019, caused by cold, wet weather. Let’s not do that again.
The deer ‘explosion and subsequent die-off’ in this part of the continent is a combination of several factors (logging, wildfire, budworm infestation linked to arboreal lichen abundance) and wolves. However, long winters of deep snow result in a high Winter Severity Index (WSI) which is the death knell of deer. Since 2014, winters have been trending to high WSI. This year is one of the highest since record keeping began, in 1952. And winter is not over yet, as I alluded to in my earlier post. BTW, I’m a Carleton U grad (MSc).
Was the Shiveluch eruption just a belch? link As far as I can tell, it’s not ongoing, or am I missing something?
Hi Bob, good question – see below.
This formula works reasonably well back to 1982, which is the limit of my data availability. Nino34 SST seems to be driven by solar activity and the ~3-year ENSO cycle.
Also, CO2 changes lag temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record – so if you say CO2 is causing global warming, you are saying the future is causing the past. (Kuo et al, Nature 1990, MacRae Jan2008, Humlum et al 2013)
The Sato index is a function of volcanoes, but significant cooling is only caused by century-scale volcanoes.
Major volcanoes (some VEI5 eruptions like El Chichon 1982 and most VEI6 events like Pinatubo 1991+) cause significant (~0.5C) global cooling – but industrial emissions and smaller volcanoes don’t have much impact. Even Mt. St. Helens (VEI5, 1980) did not have much cooling impact because it blew mostly sideways, not up into the stratosphere
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
[excerpt]
5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:
UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)
“world has been much warmer in the past – academically interesting, but what is happening NOW?”
Gee Alan don’t miss the point! It is hugely relevant to show, and continue to show, 1) that marxists scientists are wrong to say today is the hottest in the last several 100,000yrs. 2) to show that it was at least 3°C warmer than now and there were no tipping or any death spirals. Indeed the grandest of civilizations sprung up in the warmth.
Agreed Gary – It’s really old news for people like me with an Earth Sciences background – I’ve known this since forever (actually since Geology 101 in 1967, taught by the eminent Dr Jolliffe at Queen’s U), but not everyone knows this.
One of my first published papers on Climate and Energy was in 2002*, and I recruited Dr Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist, Harvard Smithsonian) and Dr Tim
Patterson (Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U).
We wrote:
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
100% correct, then and now!
Since then, humanity has been lied to for twenty more years (for now a total ~50 years of CAGW lies) and squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources ad millions of lives in the developing world on THE CLIMATE BIG LIE, concocted by leftist scoundrels and believed in by a multitude of imbeciles.
The CAGW scam has been a tragedy, and those responsible for this decades-old blatant scam should be tried, convicted and imprisoned for Crimes Against Humanity.
Regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary
*DEBATE ON THE KYOTO ACCORD,
Published by APEGA in the PEGG, reprinted by other professional journals, The Globe and Mail and La Presse (in French),
by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae, November 2002
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
Yeah, this is old stuff, eg:
Wow….Frankengraph…
These kinds of Reality Checks are another nail in the CAGW coffin. The absence of an anomalous signal against the noisy background of climate variation means there is not any basis for CAGW theories. This is agreed to by the IPCC, who admits they do not know all of the controls of climate variation. It’s getting to be about time we got over this nonsense, and focused on actual threats to humans futures.
‘…actual threats to humans futures.’
Aka, socialism, in all of it’s forms.
Yes, Ron, but how do you get the MSM to publish it?
“Yes, Ron, but how do you get the Marxist Scheming Media to publish it?”
There were a couple of facts that I ran across when the CO2-based CAGW hype really began to get pushed for the purpose of setting up the carbon exchanges. The two facts were enough for me to decide that we were not all gonna DIE! and that temperatures were much warmer long before anthropogenic CO2 could have possibly been a factor.
There are more facts regarding past temperatures along the lines of those two, but those were interesting to me and put paid to any thoughts I might have had that the oceans would boil away.
–
–
One good thing about this study is that it covers a large swath of the Arctic and high latitudes. I consider it more robust than a single tree in Yamal.
Yes, one must truly wonder why people tunneled under the ice of the perfectly static climate conditions thousands of years ago. After all, that is the only way they could possibly get there since the atmospheric CO2 constant of 280 ppm would not allow for any warming to do otherwise.
Ohhhh… That explains the Hanging Gardens of
BabylonGreenland. The Vikings tunneled under the ice and planted seeds in the ceilings.It all makes sense now.
😉
Apparently one would strap a helmet with horns on very tightly and lie down and the others would turn him around and around to form a tunnel.
sarc.
P Gosselin said: “What they found was that the Arctic was far warmer 6000 years ago than it is today.“
Not exactly. One thing that might help with interpretation here is that the authors define 0 ka in reference to before present or 1950 as is standard practice. They aren’t making statements about warmth relative today, but relative to 1950.
P Gosselin said: “Clearly we see that the Arctic region glaciers were much smaller 6000 years ago than today.”
That is almost certainly true, but as mentioned above 0 ka in the graph is 1950 so you’re not seeing the last 70 years of warming and glacial retreat. Also, notice that there is a significant lag in Arctic temperatures and percent of GICs smaller or absent than present.
P Gosselin said: “Climate alarmists hate this inconvenient fact”
By the definition of “alarmist” you espouse this publication is as alarmist as it gets.
Here is the conclusion from the paper.
So yes, then – Arctic conditions being predicted now have all happened before.
Got it.
That is correct.
I haven’t seen any warming, relative to 1950 ….
I have seen warming since the ’70’s.
(And, I did see a bunch of snow this morning)
You’re lying, AGAIN, Badwaxjob.
Leave it up to an dishonest alarmist, such as yourself, to attempt to defend your indefensible position by fecklessly trying to redefine the use of the word “present” to mean 70 years ago. That is NOT how the paper uses the term – in fact it clearly uses “present” as 2021 describing the small glaciers that remain in one location that were totally gone in the mid-holocene. It refers to many dozens of studies done more recently than 1950 and there are 3 dozen references to studies completed using data as recent as 2021
You do realize that when you make these outlandish, totally false statements that you destroy your credibility, don’t you? If you were ever to stumble upon the truth, it’s highly unlikely that anyone will believe you after you tell these whoppers.
meab: “Leave it up to an dishonest alarmist, such as yourself, to attempt to defend your indefensible position by fecklessly trying to redefine the use of the word “present” to mean 70 years ago.”
As of the time of this post “present” as used in the publication is anchored on a date that is exactly 72 years, 3 months, and 10 days in the past.
meab: “That is NOT how the paper uses the term – in fact it clearly uses “present” as 2021 describing the small glaciers that remain in one location that were totally gone in the mid-holocene.”
That is exactly how the paper uses the term. I even looked at the Arctic Data Center download associated with the publication which clearly labels the ka attribute as BP which is a shorthand for before present and defines it as “age in calibrated thousands of years before the present” confirming without a shadow of doubt that they truly mean before present which is 1950.
No, “present” is not referring to 2021 in the publication. I actually searched the manuscript for 2021 and found 42 occurrences. Each and every single one of them was in reference to the date of publication of that manuscript or one that is cited. Not a single occurrence was in reference to the data itself or even anything being described in the publication.
meab said: “It refers to many dozens of studies done more recently than 1950”
That is correct. Most cited works were published after 1950. That is irrelevant though since the date of publication tells you little about the period being studied in that publication.
meab said: “It refers to many dozens of studies done more recently than 1950 and there are 3 dozen references to studies completed using data as recent as 2021”
I’m sorry, but that is not correct. The 2021 figure you see appearing 42 times in the publication is not describing the date of a data point. It is describing the date of publication of a manuscript.
meab said: “You do realize that when you make these outlandish, totally false statements that you destroy your credibility, don’t you? If you were ever to stumble upon the truth, it’s highly unlikely that anyone will believe you after you tell these whoppers.”
I’m just telling everyone how the academic community defines “present” in the context of scientific works of Earth’s distant past. You don’t have to accept it. No one is going to stop you, P. Gosselin, or anyone else from misinterpreting and misrepresenting scientific research because you refused to accept the long held and established tradition of labeling dates. But I will call them out on it. And if they continue to do so I’ll have no choice but to conclude that as opposed to proliferating misinformation (mistaken) it is instead disinformation (deliberately deceptive).
Liar. Almost all of the studies reference observations made in the last few years, NOT in 1950.
While many proxy studies do plot the years before present based on 1950, papers that compare the past with the present don’t. When have you ever seen a current observation referred to as time 0 plus 70?
I’ve got a tip for you, BadWaxjob. When you’ve dug a hole for yourself, you won’t be able to get out by standing on your own excrement.
meab said: “Liar.”
I’m not lying. 0 ka BP means 1950. The publication even says “age in calibrated thousands of years before the present” and before present was long ago established as 1950 specifically to address the usage of “present”, 0 ka, 0 ma, etc. in academic literature and so that everyone publishes using the same anchor. It is literally common knowledge.
meab said: “Almost all of the studies reference observations made in the last few years, NOT in 1950.”
First…just so we’re clear I’m not saying there aren’t references used which do use recent data. In fact, we know for certain there are just by reviewing citation list used to make claims like…
..and numerous other claims made in the article.
Second…it’s actually not true. All you have to do is review some of the cited works so see that Loracca & Axford 2021 are focused primarily on the pre-industrial period.
meab said: “While many proxy studies do plot the years before present based on 1950″
They all do. Well…those that were peer reviewed by reputable journals anyway. Loehle 2007 is an example where the convention was not honored. It is unsurprising that it was published in Energy & Environment and Loehle, not understanding the convention and likely unintentionally, erroneously shifted all of his timeseries forward by 50 years such that data points labeled as 2000 should have landed on 1950.
meab said: “papers that compare the past with the present don’t.”
It’s the whole reason why “present” is assigned the static year 1950. It facilitates comparisons between studies on a common anchor. You can even compare this study and others that use the BP convention to studies presenting data after 1950 precisely because “present” is so rigidly defined.
meab said: “I’ve got a tip for you, BadWaxjob. When you’ve dug a hole for yourself, you won’t be able to get out by standing on your own excrement.”
I stand by what I said. I do that because I want the WUWT audience to understand what they are reading and to be able to make criticisms that are based on what these studies say and not on how P. Gosselin and the like misrepresent them.
Again, I can’t stop you and P. Gosselin from misrepresenting Loracca & Axford’s publication. But I can inform the WUWT audience of the misrepresentation so that they can make better assessments of it. Ya know…you could help by explaining this to the WUWT audience as well.
You’re not only a liar, you’re an idiot. If what you claim was true (hint: it isn’t) there couldn’t be any study comparing current conditions to past conditions without calling the current conditions the future w.r.t. 1950.
Badwaxjob, STOP pretending that you are a scientist. You have exposed yourself as an idiot time and time again.
meab: “You’re not only a liar, you’re an idiot. If what you claim was true (hint: it isn’t) there couldn’t be any study comparing current conditions to past conditions without calling the current conditions the future w.r.t. 1950.”
Kaufman et al. 2020, Osman et al. 2021, and many others figured out how to do it. The solution is easy. I bet the majority of the WUWT audience could figure it out in less than 30 seconds.
You’re wrong and bdgwx is correct. In a scientific context when ‘years BP’ (Before Present) is used it refers to the base year of 1950. It was standardized when radiocarbon dating was starting to be used, for a couple of reasons. Firstly the usual reference sample used to calibrate the measurements from the National Bureau of Standards was dated to 1950. Also the first publication of radiocarbon dates in 1949-50 predated the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and the associated increase in C-14 in the atmosphere.
In fact in the data section of the paper it says: “All ages that delimit GIC fluctuations are stated from the original publications, including original calibrations and any marine reservoir corrections, and are reported as thousands of years before 1950 CE (i.e., ka).” (my emphasis)
One of the Arctic’s regular natural wanders could be seen early yesterday morning way out below 66th parallel.
Around 4am GMT severe geomagnetic storm hit the Earth with Kp index at 7 and ap index above 100)
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/aphisto.png
SURPRISE GEOMAGNETIC STORM (G3-CLASS): Earth’s magnetic field was supposed to be quiet on April 10th. Instead a strong (G3-class) geomagnetic storm broke out. At the apex of the disturbance, auroras crossed the Canadian border into multiple northern-tier US states.
https://www.spaceweather.com
G3-class storms can cause major problems to satellites, particularly to those in lower orbits.
“…natural wanders…”
Hi Vuk, I think you meant “natural wonders“, right?
Yes, a wonder-full display of aurorae were recorded here yesterday, due to high-speed solar wind flux from solar coronal hole #1072, according to Jan Alvestad:
http://www.solen.info/solar/ :-]
And 6000 year ago, Sahara desert was still mostly grassland.
But as Earth cooled, it became the present desert.
It seems doubtful that the increase in CO2 levels, will green the Sahara desert.
But if planted a trillion trees in the Sahara, the trees should do more than higher CO2
levels.
Real climate science, not ‘the science?!’ The heresy! We must suppress this study and cancel its perpetrators at once!
But it appears that changes is glaciers and ice can be caused completely by changes in seasonal temperature oscillation and have nothing at all to do with average temperature. If summer highs are enough to prevent ice build up. So does this study prove anything at all?
Just from a general understanding of systems that operate cyclically, most seem to go through a series of perturbations cyclically that are of smaller magnitude than the overall trend in the state, with those perturbations growing less and less in magnitude until the system settles out, then either stays much the same, or cycles into its opposite major state. In engineering terms, this is called “hunting”. There is usually some form of system damping that gradually lessens the magnitude of the hunting until it becomes more or less steady state.
So certainly, it is plausible that polar ice cap melting due to some underlying cyclic cause of atmospheric and/or oceanic warming would likely follow a similar process.
The subsequent cycles, such as the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age, involving temperature swings of only a couple deg C each, are of far smaller magnitude and lesser duration than the end of the glaciation and the major warming period that followed.
The argument today, of course, is over the underlying cyclic cause of the major scale atmospheric/oceanic warming and cooling flip flops. Certainly what caused the end of the last glaciation was not human induced, and whatever warming may be underway now is inconsequential compared to that massive temperature swing event.
August sunlight, averaged over the northern land masses, is now 22W/sq.m lower than it was 6,000 years ago – Boreal summer top of atmosphere solar intensity substantially higher than now.
However sunlight alone is usually not sufficient to melt pristine glaciers. The albedo needs to be reduced to get the show to absorb the sunlight.
“Arctic Was Much Warmer 6000 Years Ago… 90% Of Glaciers, Ice Caps Smaller Than Present Or Absent!”
As it was 700 yrs ago:
I read the head post and gave it 5 stars, thinking, yeah, here at last is a real wedge, maybe the first one ever that really puts the cat amongst the pigeons. I then went to the original article and saw how selectively it had been misrepresented . . Not a good look! The pigeons are still pretty safe it seems. I’m still not persuaded by the CAGW case, partly because we’re struggling to get even a basic handle on the astounding complexity of our climate, and because my experience has shown that the future rarely conforms to the predictions of experts. But we have to be reasonable and utterly committed to the principles of accuracy and fairness if our scepticism and probing of the narrative is to be seen as exactly that and not due to ideological or other prejudice that blinds us and steers us away from a scientific/logical/fair approach.
Well of course it was warmer… Milankovitch cycle effects meant N hemisphere/arctic got more insolation in summer.
Now it is warmer without that effect…