By Kenneth Richard on 8. July 2025
Holocene (11,700 to 8,200 years ago) Arctic (Svalbard) temperatures “were up to 9°C higher than today” according to the authors of a new Nature journal study. At that time CO2 was thought to only hover around 260 ppm.
Svalbard then cooled as CO2 rose for the next 8,000 years – a negative correlation that wholly contradicts the rising-CO2-drives-Arctic-warmth narrative.
Nonetheless, climate models are predicated on the assumption rising human CO2 emissions (RCP 8.5) will lead to a warming of ~8°C by 2100.
Image Source: Auer et al., 2025
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does explain why there was so much LESS Arctic Sea ice.
“The Arctic Was 9°C Warmer” Of course they did not say that. They studied a small region of Svalbard.
Kenneth Richard has a charming habit of publishing graphs altered to help his case. But here it doesn’t. He has extracted just one of the curves on Fig 7i, and chosen the wrong one. As you’ll see, the green Svalbard composite struggles to reach 4C above current, which makes nonsense of the headline. He probably meant to show the Barents Margin, which is actually a SST and barely reaches 8C above. But that is made more doubtful by the fact that the data stopped a thousand years ago.
Further it isn’t 9C (or whatever)warmer than today. The graph shows anomalies with respect to a pre-industrial base. That is all the detail they give.
7i reaches 5.3, not “struggles to reach 4”
From the text of the paper, it is clear they are talking about summer temperature, not composite
Only one data point exceeds 4. I’d call that struggling. But it sure isn’t 9.
The “summer temperature” is SST, not air temperature. And they explain why it is especially variable. That part of the coast gets either a warm current, originally from the Gulf stream, or a cold Arctic current. It makes a big difference. You can’t extrapolate that to the whole Arctic.
SST changes are usually far less than surface changes.
Watch out for that foot of yours. !
Basically EVERY set of proxy data of any type shows the Holocene has been much warmer than now for nearly all the last 10,000 years.
Woah I can’t believe you said that with the garbage you do on your website. You have lots of blending going on in all sorts of ways one just blushes at. You go where angels fear to tread and you complain about his spacial analysis.
Nick states “You can’t extrapolate that to the whole Arctic.”
Yet that is what is done through out the paleo community.
And the misnamed “climate science.”
Ah yes. One must maintain Pope Michael Mann’s sacred Hockey Stick? An article of faith in Climastrology is there was no
natural variation in climate, and it is all greenhouse gasses.
Two points
A – the climate trend since 10k-12k years ago has been a fairly steady warming trend (plus or minus a small amount). The current HS (assuming the HS is valid) is pretty much right in line with the very long term trend.
B – All the paleo reconstructions are based on “proxy ” data, At best they are only estimates limited by the resolution of the proxies vs the much more accurate instrumental data. The resolution of the proxy is way too low to determine if there was or if there wasnt prior HS periods during the last 12k years. I am not saying there were prior HSs or there were not prior HSs, just that proxy data cant tell us with any level of confidence.
Temperature is a piss poor proxy for heat! Yet climate science adamantly refuses to use the proper metric for heat – enthalpy. Temperature alone can’t tell you much when considering the earth itself is not at equilibrium internally. Yet climate science tries to use the S-B equation to “guess” at what temperature the earth must be at. Both Planck and S-B have the assumption that the body under examination is internally at equilibrium. Yet I never see climate science acknowledge this fact.
An exploding hydrogen bomb’s core has the temperature of 50 mill K but the same enthalpy as 0.1 km3 granite at 20C. I kinda have the feeling that temperature is kinda important, you know…
Why should it be in equilibrium for temperature to tell us anything?
You can’t get even simple things right, so I don’t think you can see anything that climate science acknowledge.
The energy contained in my morning bowl of porridge is greater than that of a hand grenade and would blow me apart if liberated instantly.
See how stupid your argument is?
Don’t ask me, ask Tim, he’s a big proponent of this. I only wanted to point out the absurdity of it.
The only absurdity is you suggesting that temperature is a good proxy for enthalpy.
You should ask someone from Las Vegas that is vacationing in Miami if that is true.
No, what is important in a bomb is the wave front created from releasing the energy in the bomb over a short time frame. How much energy does your granite release over the same time frame as the bomb?
Again, heat transfer is a TIME function. Something you just can’t seem to get into your head!
Heat transfer is a function of time and, more importantly, temperature difference, you genius. And before you start the usual bs-gallop, convection is also temp diff dependent, even if in a non-trivial way. Moreover, heat transfer is definitely not enthalpy, which is a state variable. So which one is important? Or what the fokk? To be honest, I haven’t seen anything that is a proper analysis from you, except confused and convoluted bsing about heat and enthalpy.
Apparently the word “isothermal” means nothing to you. And you are trying to lecture on heat transfer?
“Moreover, heat transfer is definitely not enthalpy, which is a state variable. “
I never said that heat transfer is enthalpy. I *said* that heat is enthalpy, not temperature! For the atmosphere, a moist object, enthalpy is the sum of the heat of dry air plus the heat of the water vapor. That has absolutely nothing to do with heat “transfer”.
Yes, of course, I’m lecturing you, because you need lecturing. Because you don’t understand these things. My guess is you are talking about the Carnot cycle (etc.) where there are isothermal phases, and there’s heat transfer during these. If so, this, of course doesn’t mean that there’s heat transfer without temperature difference just because the working fluid’s temperature remains the same. Heat transfer is the function of temperature difference between the working fluid and the heat reservoirs (the “hot point” in this case). In practical cases, the hot point has to be warmer than the working fluid, otherwise the reaction won’t happen.
By the way, one of your (or Jim’s) counterargument against the greenhouse effect is that the colder CO2 can’t warm the warmer surface. You have said that multiple times, and even in general form (something like “you can’t warm something with a colder object”). Somehow you are unable to understand the fact that in this case the heat loss decreases. But anyway, you know here that heat transfer is the function of temp diff.
What you have said rarely makes any sense. You talk about enthalpy as being much more important than temperature. I ask the question how you can compare an exploding hydrogen bomb and a big chunk of granite that have the same enthalpy. You suddenly talk about heat transfer. I point out that temperature difference is the driving factor in heat transfer. This is the whole story.
“ Heat transfer is the function of temperature difference between the working fluid and the heat reservoirs (the “hot point” in this case).”
Your use of an AI has left you floundering. You can change temperature without transferring heat. Look up the term “adiabatic lapse rate”. The opposite can happen as well.
“You talk about enthalpy as being much more important than temperature.”
Enthalpy explains the difference between the climates of Las Vegas and Miami when they have similar temperatures. So enthalpy *is* more important than temperature, especially when it comes to climate.
“ I ask the question how you can compare an exploding hydrogen bomb and a big chunk of granite that have the same enthalpy.”
Heat transfer is a TIME function. You still haven’t figured that out. An exploding bomb transfers heat over a short period of time. A chunk of granite does the same over a much longer period of time. Hint: they will both reach the same temperature at the heat death of the universe.
No one claimed otherwise, you genius. It is hilarious how you fail even in these simple things. The assertion was about heat transfer that is a function of temp diff, not “what causes temp change”. BTW, heat transfer does not necessarily change temperature, the isothermal state change is a good example.
Three questions immediately: 1. enthaply of what? Don’t forget that this is an extensive property. 2. How? I’m really curious. I have heard this from you numberless times, w/o explanation. 3. How does it refute anything related to global warming? If temperature increases, the enthalpy of an object increases, too. So global warming does affect things.
Wrong, as always. A chunk of granite only transfers heat if it is colder or warmer than its surrounding. If the chunk of granite is buried a few meters, it’s likely in equilibrium with its surrounding and doesn’t transfer any heat. So colder or warmer, you genius, that’s what counts here. Of course, it has a time dependence. But heat transfer is a function of temp diff, foremost importantly.
“No one claimed otherwise, you genius. It is hilarious how you fail even in these simple things. The assertion was about heat transfer that is a function of temp diff”
If there is no temperature difference then how can you get an isothermal transfer of heat?
You can’t even be consistent in the same paragraph?
Jesus Fokkin Christ…
Heat transfer happens between the heat reservoirs and the working fluid, you idiot, not between two different (and temporally separated) states of the working fluid. This is mind boggling how easily you confuse these things…
The heat comes from the warm reservoir that is warmer than the working fluid. The heat transfer from the warm reservoir to the working fluid (that’s made possible with the temp diff) doesn’t change the latter’s temperature but converted to work right away if the reaction is isothermal.
Conversely, heat comes from the working fluid to the cold reservoir (that is colder than the working fluid), and that’s induced by work done on the working fluid that is converted right away to heat.
Oh, I see. Now we are moving the goal post. When H2O goes from water to ice that is an isothermal. What is the “working flued” in such a case? What is the “working fluid” involved when water becomes water vapor?
If the “warm reservoir” is much larger than the “cold reservoir” placed in it, there can be a transfer of heat with no temperature change in either object. What is the “working fluid” in such a case?
I’m always surprised how confused you are in these matters.
The two reservoirs are an abstraction for a system that has no internal heat source in Thermodynamics (BTW IC engines are also modeled this way). The system is in between the two reservoirs, it gets the heat from the “warm point” and the “cold point” gets the heat from the system. The “working fluid” is inside the system. The two reservoirs are just the source and eventual sink for heat. Net heat transfer is only possible if the source is warmer than the sink.
These above are commonplace stuff in Thermodynamics, and I honestly advise you to think before you come up with some bs next time.
“I’m always surprised how confused you are in these matters”
ROFL!!! That’s not an answer to my question!
“The two reservoirs are an abstraction for a system that has no internal heat source”
Huh? So what? It still has *heat* energy contained in it!
“The “working fluid” is inside the system.”
That’s *still* not an answer to my question. You may as well have said “the working fluid is in the universe somewhere”.
All you’ve done here is dissemble while not answering anything! Word salad is not an answer.
You got caught, didn’t you?
(facepalm) I asked you to think before you write something. Heat source where heat comes to existence. Like fire.
It’s surprisingly hard to debate idiots… Imagine a closed cycle steam turbine. The working fluid is water (and some air). The heat source (hot point) is the burning fuel in the boiler. The heat sink (cold point) is the outside air/water that is used to cool the water/steam/vapor in the condenser. (And now this was just direct translation from Hungarian, so my terminology may be off, I don’t give a fokk, this is a fokkin example.)
This hot/cold reservoir and the system in between with a working fluid is the usual and simplest thermodynamical model for these things. I chose an example with actual outside heat and cold source and that is closed to material transfer but the model works without much tweaking for ICEs, too, where the working fluid is air/fuel mixture and the combustion products, and heat transfer is not just conduction, before you come up with a “gocha” bs.
Anyway, THE ONLY relevance of it here is that “isothermal” means no change in the temperature of the working fluid. “Isothermal” doesn’t say there is no temperature difference in heat transfer because heat transfer happens between the reservoirs and the working fluid, not between to temporally separated states of the working fluid, you raging genius.
I wonder whether you feel shame how stupid you are sometimes. If so, you then still have some self reflection.
“(facepalm) I asked you to think before you write something. Heat source where heat comes to existence. Like fire.”
(facepalm) No source no heat transfer. Simple.
A warm reservoir *is* a source of heat, otherwise it wouldn’t be warm.
“The heat source”
“The heat sink (cold point) is the outside air/water that is used to cool the water/steam/vapor in the condenser.”
The fire is *NOT* inside the boiler, it is outside the boiler. The water inside the boiler is the actual heat reservoir. And it contains heat energy. Therefore it acts as a source to the outside air/water.
You are stuck and you know it. You are dancing all around of how there can be isothermal transfer of heat when there is no temperature difference involved.
Keep digging your hole. Pretty soon it’ll collapse in on you.
Told you, terminology may be off.
Jesus Christ… Again, and please read it slowly to understand it: isothermal means there’s no temperature change in the working fluid. Heat transfer is between the working fluid and the reservoirs, where there is temperature difference.
It’s not just terminology. It’s all just word salad. You can’t even define the working fluid in the atmosphere when isothermal heat transfer happens with H2O.
In the atmosphere, the working fluid is what is in the atmosphere, air, water, dust. Obviously. I simply didn’t get you didn’t understand this.
(facepalm) Heat transfer goes from one object to another. So “When H2O goes from water to ice” (your original example), heat leaves the water and goes to somewhere else. It’s not going from the water to the water, it has to leave the water. Heat transfer is happening between two objects, and it’s made possible by the temperature difference between the two objects, with the net flow from the warmer to the colder. So when an object undergoes an isothermal reaction, it doesn’t mean there is no heat transfer, and it doesn’t mean that the heat transfer happens between two objects of the same temperature. Actually, here we have one single object that remains at the same temperature.
And now I try to imagine the ways you fokk up this again, there are numberless. There may be work during the reaction, this fact may cook your brain making you hallucinate. You’d better know it’s irrelevant for the question of net heat transfer between two objects going from warm to cold.
I can imagine that you bs about ice and liquid water as the two objects here. This is of course bs, the net uptake of the liquid water is zero and the heat goes to the environment eventually, but if you look it locally, the water, as a heat transporting medium may heat up a bit, for a short time. The same is true for the classic gas isothermal reaction, in practice, it’s not perfect. But this doesn’t change the overall picture.
Yes, proxies must be used, and the Greenland ice and air proxies show it is far cooler today than 10,000 years ago.
They use the idiotic and meaningless RCP8.5 model to show an 8ºC warming by 2100.. then say
This is comparable to reconstructed peak Early Holocene temperatures around 9.5 kaBP
I haven’t read the paper and don’t intend to (other than the caption to the figure above), but do they indicate the temporal resolution of the data from the lake sediments?
“They studied a small region of Svalbard.”
Yet you and climate science apparently see nothing wrong with infilling/homogenizing temperatures from hundreds of kilometers away into an un-measured area., You and climate science think the temperature at the peak of a mountain is the average of a station on the east side of the mountain with one on the west side of the mountain. It’s the old canard of “do what I say and not what I do”.
IIRC, isn’t there also an issue in England and/or elsewhere, where they have actually been making up and reporting temperatures from stations that no longer work or exist?
“struggles to reach 4C above current”
Why? Should I throw out data where temperature is high while CO2 is low due to the struggle coefficient?
From page 7 of the paper:
“In support of this evidence, the modelled response of Åsgardfonna [glacier] to RCP 8.5 forcing– which predicts summer temperatures that are ~8 °C higher than today and on-par with HTM estimates on Svalbard18,31– reveals that ice remains in the sub-glacial catchments of Berglibreen as well as Lakssjøen by 2100 CE(Fig. 2andSuppl.Fig. 9).”
[My bold]
I was going to make the same point, no indication at all of 9ºC warmer, maybe they meant 9ºF?
From the paper….
“As outlined in the introduction,
the former period is of particular relevance by providing a glimpse into
the future, as summer surface temperatures were up to 9 °C higher than
today (Fig. 7i)18.”
I know, I read the paper, nowhere on the graph referred to does it show SSTs that high.
Story Tip
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
Physical, mathematical, and observational grounds are employed to show
that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in
the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to con-
struct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range
of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide
no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid sta-
tistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of
computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given
temperature field can be interpreted as both ‘‘warming’’ and ‘‘cooling’’ simul-
taneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of
global warming physically ill-posed.
Christopher Essex1, Ross McKitrick2, Bjarne Andresen3,*
Story tip? This was a paper published in 2007. It has been covered many times at WUWT.
Yes, and you have never attempted to rebut it.
Christopher Essex is a mathematician. Nothing wrong with that.But he has written a paper about a straw man, as anyone familiar with climate would know. His objections to averaging temperatures are exaggerated, but have some merit. People can see that, so they average anomalies. Essex does not even mention that.
You are what an ex lab technician / statistician and try to act like a climate expert. Probably need to not throw stones in glass houses 🙂
I am a mathematician. Nothing wrong with that.
You have no understanding of Physics or Metrology, as you have made clear several times.
There is when you operate from the viewpoint that “numbers is numbers” when it comes to measurements of physical reality. The term “intensive property” apparently has absolutely *NO* meaning to you – it’s just “numbers is numbers”.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a mathematician. But expert knowledge in any field has its limits.
Anyone who has any clue about physical reality will know that GAT is an unphysical nonsense. Unfortunately, this does not include you.
That’s because mathematicians only deal in abstract numbers not reality.
I’ve issued a comprehensive rebuttal of the GAT constructs on many occasions, to wit –
“it’s bullshit”.
And is still correct. !
I have a remote outside thermometer located near a lake and is surrounded by native growth for most of the summer. It is hardly an ‘approved’ location. Nevertheless, it’s quite useful to me. If it reads above 72, I go out with a short sleeve shirt. If it’s between 60 and 72, I add a sweat shirt. If it’s below 60 I add a jacket, or coat, or, etc. People can ay all they want about intrinsic, extrinsic, radiation shields, heat islands, etc., it’s still an extremely useful measurement for me. I rely on it extensively. Similarly, thermometer averages for cities, states, countries, and even continents are also useful to me. Computer modeled ‘averages’ are far less useful for me due to the data fudging that is usually included in the results. That’s why I used the words “thermometer data”. A thermometer includes thermocouples, thermistors, alcohol in glass, etc. To me, a “Global Average” can be a rueful number if the calculation method is revealed with it.
I have created my own 20 degree F personal global warming by moving south for the winter. I chose the location based on thermometer data. (I did neglect to include flood data in the selection and based on the current news might have been a serious problem. I lucked out by picking a site some 400 feet elevation above the river).
So true. We don’t live in an average temp. It’s the amount of time at/around the max/min.
How were the daily averages calculated?
It’s a wonderful paper —
I especially enjoyed the example comparing equations 9(a-d) to produce Fig. 1.*
Must add that it leaves one a bit nervous that the example is introduced with temperatures specified on the usual Celsius scale ( 2, 33, and 20 oC ) and then introduced to the (4) equations, three (3) of which would require an absolute (e.g. Kelvin scale), to make any physical sense, right?
Must check the arithmetic to be sure, but an alert reviewer would’ve requested an explicit statement, within that example, that the values were converted (to absolute) prior to calculation.
IMHO, we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard in the conveyance of statistical & probability information, in order to avoid needless confusion / annoyance.
*P.S. Lest anyone think this is a merely formal exercise, consider that one is often confronted by what appears to be temperature averages (over time, space or both) used to calculate an average radiant flux, or vice versa, involving a fourth (4th) power (!), or (1/4th) root, respectively.
“Svalbard then cooled as CO2 rose for the next 8,000 years – a negative correlation that wholly contradicts the rising-CO2-drives-Arctic-warmth narrative.”
No, of course it doesn’t !
Just another example of him/they looking at climate science through anti-CO2 eyes and ignoring events taking place over geological time (in this case Earth’s orbital changes), that through time have been in play.
The NH at that time was receiving in excess of 25 W/m^2 extra summertime TSI, and at 65 deg N around +50 W/m^2 due to the tilting of Earth towards the Sun maximising during June, July and August.
Compare that to today’s anthro CO2 forcing of around 3 W/m^2.
The significance of 65 deg N is that that is the Earth’s latitude of max land mass and of wintertime snow/ice accretion. Hence an earlier spring and summer melt, and consequently over hundreds of years a warming Arctic climate.
Great that you are admitting that temperature is all to do with solar insolation
There is ZERO evidence of any CO2 “forcing”…
It is a mantra imagination, based on nothing but non-Earth models.
That’s great! Thanks for confirming the insignificance of any warming from CO2.
Err, the atmospheric CO2 during the HCO wasn’t anthropogenic.
It was due to natural processes and within the carbon cycle.
Then CO2 acted as a feedback, in this case a +ve one.
Anthro CO2 is a pulse that has been added this last 150yrs (way quicker than natural geological, processes) outside of the CC and is acting as a driver.
It does both depending which comes first the heat ‘pulse’ or itself.
150 years? I thought Anthro CO2 was considered minimal up until 1940’s/50’s or whenever (WWII or just after).
That is just climate cult mantra.
It has no factual basis.
Bizarre that you don’t seem to realise that coal is part of the Carbon Cycle…
… just somewhat delayed.
The de-sequestering of coal has been a MASSIVE BENEFIT to mankind, and the whole planet.
You should be rejoicing hydrocarbon based fuels, because without them your existence would be very sad indeed.
Unfalsifiable handwaving. Fail.
Temperatures can change rapidly and substantially without any change in CO2. Therefore the onus is on YOU to show that any temperature changes are anthropogenic and not merely natural.
“anti-CO2 eyes”
Seems that Ant is related to Greta.. and can see CO2.. ! .. so funny !!
Yes, “climate science” has always ignored events taking place over history…
… they have to, or their meme/religion collapses
In “climate science”, the first rule about climate history is –
there is no climate history.
(h/t “Fight Club”)
Science brings evidence to the table.
Religion?
Hardly.
I know who has the religion here.
Take a bow.
Sciences also allows and is built upon skepticism and disagreement. Religion is based on dogmatic, unquestioning belief. I think you need to take a bow.
“Science brings evidence to the table.”
Yet you are devoid. ! (except your Greta-like religious ability to see CO2.)
Thanks for presenting this absolutely beautiful function, in an appropriate visual-graphical form.
(So nice that big blue dot can represent both the ‘YOU ARE HERE’ label, and also the near-dead – ‘BLUE PLANET’ / Space-Ship Earth, on which we are passengers.)
There is a case to be made (it has been made) that this form relates to the most relevant wisdom — from astronomical & geological history & futurology — that we could have.
Naturally that interpretation is reviled by all the right people, the High Priests of (variously) astronomy, geology, anthropology, mythology / world literature …
… for all the usual reasons of gatekeeping (against each other), but moreover because it would allow the common folks to regain some sense of what it’s all about.
For that reason, it is worth holding fast, and disseminating it carefully to all the perplexed youth.
As with other true principles / practices underlying our civilization, it is always ‘ just one generation from extinction’.
I suspect CO2 was a little bit higher than 260, but the highly biased cherry pickers that constructed that proxy are seeing the fruits of their laborious efforts come to fruition.
All that is left now, is for the minions to explain Arctic Amplification. Why would June,July and August mean average of Arctic air temps show a very small cooling trend, when the maximum amount of solar energy(Arctic Summer) is being re-radiated under the canopy of all that CO2.
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
I still have this problem about Arctic Warming. Look at ocean.dmi.dk and their Arctic temperature graphs since 1958. That is 80north to the pole. About now every year the Arctic thaws about a degree C until end August and then freezes. Golly, in February 2025 it got up to minus ten! My point is that there has been No Change in the top end of the graphs since 1958. So where’s Arctic Warming? Help me, please .
Good point.
IMHO, you gotta look (measure) under the ice (into the eternal waters of the ‘Arctic Mediterranean’ as Fuller called it), to make any sense of what’s going in this second-most important region.
Same thing that happens when you put ice in a drink, as long as there is still ice there the temperature will be at the melting point of the ice, once the ice goes the temperature will go up. The volume of the remaining ice is dropping once the ice clears at the pole the temperature will increase.
Don’t confuse them with facts.
Oceans are the temperature regulator, it pushes warm waters to the poles and it’s warm. When this stops, it is cold and more of the energy gets used to evaporate oceans in the tropics and make deserts where this air descends. So much deserts 20k years.
If you look at temperature sensitive molluscs living at Svalbard Island and it shows about 6 degrees warmer ocean waters. Europe isn’t warmer than Siberia because of a CO2 anomaly. but because it’s furthest from the temperature regulating oceans.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701