A large portion of the Greenland ice sheet that is today over 500 m thick did not exist during the Early to Mid Holocene.
Prudhoe Dome (PD), a 2500 km² section of northwestern Greenland’s ice sheet (GIS), is today 500 to 600 m thick (Walcott-George et al., 2026).
Approximately 6000-8000 years ago, or when atmospheric CO2 was alleged to be ~260 ppm, PD had deglaciated completely, exposing the soil to sunlight.
The primary mechanism for the PD deglaciation was the estimated 3-7°C warmer-than-present regional temperatures. This warming and the consequent ice cap minima was said to be “Arctic-wide”.
Starting ~4000 years ago the GIS gradually began thickening until it recently reached its modern glaciated state, with glaciation peaking in the 1800s.
Image Source: Walcott-George et al., 2026
Does this mean we are due for reparations payments because of the campfires of the Clovis people?
Clovis culture was 13,000 years ago, coincident with the Younger Dryas cold snap.
By contrast 5.2-8.0 Ka was unusually warm, ie the Holocene Climatic Optimum. A natural climate fluctuation, such as our current Modern Warm Period, which will give way to the next cool period, probably worse than the Little Ice Age, which preceded our balmy present. The Holocene Interglacial is on its way out, toward the next glaciation, liable to be worse than the last, which followed the long, toasty Eemian Interglacial, ended about 115 Ka.
Bond events are roughly 1,500-year cycles of North Atlantic cooling, identified from ice-rafted debris in ocean sediments. They often correspond with historical warm/cool phases that shaped civilizations. Here’s how they line up:
Actually, if one examines the last ten or so glacial-interglacial cycles, occurring with an average cycle period of about 100,000 years, one finds an average of about two thirds of the period (around 70,000 years) is spent on the cold side, and about one third (30,000 years) of the period is spent on the warm side, with the demarcation between the temperature regimes being defined as the average temperate between the individual cycle’s minimum and its maximum.
Since Earth exited the last glacial period about 12,500 years ago, into the current Holocene interglacial (warm) interval, historical precedent would indicate we still have 30,000-12,500 = 17,500 or so years remaining before global “cold” reappears. But this is not to preclude relatively brief periods of cooling happening, such as occurred with the Little Ice Age (about 500 years duration).
I blame the Minoans. They were taking their speed boats up their and mining for copper and tin.
“They were taking their speed boats up their … up their… what? Now, be nice.. lol
He pwned himself
It was those pesky ancient Egyptians (or
were they Atlanteans) who caused it!! It is a basic and holy principle of The Movement that all climate change is human caused, right?
Just follow the blessed words of His Holiness, Doctor Michael Mann, and have no doubts!!’
Michael Mann should have his peepee whacked for playing doctor.
So you remember the Cheech and Chong routine?
“Bailiff _ _ _!”
No, must have missed that when Dave wouldn’t open the door.
He wasn’t there.
It is ironic, remembering Cheech and
Chong routines proves we were not really the stoners we pretended to be.
“Hey Elephant!”
Hah! Well, I was in a LOT of smoke-filled rooms in the 70s, going through high school, but only ever took one bong hit. Coughed for half an hour. Didn’t want to do another. Pretty sure I had a lot of contact highs, but none on purpose. The other guys were cool with me passing it along and not toking, mainly because my older sister knew them all.
Oh heck, yes, now I do remember, “Bailiff whack his peepee” now that people have mentioned it. I can only plead that they did a lot of funny stuff.
There was another comedy group called the Industrial Revolution, whose LP was so flexible you could make opposite edges touch and it would return to playable shape. One track was Star … something, where Captain Quirk was walking down a passageway and heard “oh wowee … oh wowee” coming from a closet, opened it up, said in surprise “You can’t do that in there!” “But captain, we’re engaged!” “Well disengage!”
Another track was the Stoned Ranger, beginning with some kid turning on the radio, static as he tuned to the station.
Who wants Ralph and Herbie’s Payday?
Then there was the great Firesign Theatre, whose album “Everything you Know is Wrong” was eerily ahead of its time in cultural commentary.
Rocky Roccoco, at your cervix.
Bailiff, whack his peepee!
Wrong.
If not all- most- that’s the green dogma.
The Movement chooses to ignore that homo sapiens have existed on Earth for some 300,000 years, equivalent to about three full glacial-interglacial cycles within the current Quaternary Ice Age. And, yeah, the change from a global glacial condition to a global interglacial condition does qualify as “climate change”.
However, The Movement would simultaneously like to avoid mentioning the fact that mankind’s large scale emissions of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and production of cement/concrete only began in the mid-1700’s (that is, only about 300 years ago) with the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Go figure.
Not even wrong!
Regional temperature reconstructions show that most of the planet had temperatures 8C warmer than today for centuries. The warmer than ever liars ignore the geologic record.
These are the same people who insist that “long term” only goes back to 1979.
Awww, give credit where it’s due.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (and Climate Pseudoscience) goes back to 1910. Prior to that, all official temperatures have been declared “unreliable”.
This means that the 1895-96 severe heatwave, and the deaths it caused, didn’t really happen. Contemporary reports of heat-related deaths are obviously anti-science propaganda.
Or so the BOM would have you believe.
Australia was rather warm. around 1900.
According to the BOM, whoever is producing those graphs is ignorant and gullible. The experts at the BOM have specifically said that official temperature records prior to 1910 are worthless – unreliable.
Obviously, the pseudoscientists at NOAA don’t care what speculations they base their graphs on. Who do you think is to be believed about historical Australian temperature records? The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, or the US based NOAA?
The Australian continent is about 5% of the world’s land area. Maybe NOAA realises that its GCHN is worthless, at least when using “official” records prior to 1910?
I’d dare to say that we are most of the time dealing with climatic shifts alongside fluctuations.
During the same timeframe the Sahara is said to have been green.
Now it is probably not really possible to say wether Greenland got colder and Sahara got hotter 6000 years ago as result of some atmospheric/gulf stream/magnetic etc shifts while the overall temperatures remained the same
or if everything cooled down and the Sahara got less rain as result of less evaporation.
But overall it is safe to say that nothing can be saved about climate.
Things will happen anyway, no matter what we do.
“During the same timeframe the Sahara is said to have been green.”
A few hundred times in the Pleistocene.
“I’d dare to say that we are most of the time dealing with climatic shifts alongside fluctuations.”
Regional variability is a normal feature of Earth’s climate system. The attribution that CO2 is responsible for that is psyops propaganda.
“During the same timeframe the Sahara is said to have been green.”
Not sure what your point is? Warmer air holds more water vapor.
My point is that, besides climate changes there may be climate shifts = the overall global temperature remains the same, while one region gets colder (therefore ) another has to become warmer(as result of shifts in streams etc)
“The warmer than ever liars ignore the geologic record.”
They ignore the written temperature record, too.
The written temperature records show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, independent of how much CO2 is in the air. That’s why Climate Alarmists ignore it.
Ignoring the reams of data that refute their pseudoscience is what alarmists do best!
Waiting for all the “climate deniers” to appear. 🙂
According to Popular Mechanics….the “Equatorial Blob” has reappeared in the Atlantic. It never went missing in the Pacific and Indian oceans. It is identifiable by salinity and temp. A figure of 2000 meters depth was mentioned. This blob separates northern from southern hemisphere. I’ve never heard of it before but could it affect CC?…..or has CC been figured out completely with or wo the “Blob”?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a69975772/atlantic-equitorial-water-found/
The article is most notable for using the word climate only once!
And it’s not about a reappearance, it’s finally finding a blob similar to the blobs in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and only made possible by the precise Argo data.
“Re-examination of water masses using previously unavailable high-quality large volume Argo data allowed us to distinguish a formerly unnoticed water mass in the main thermocline [transition layer between warm surface water and cooler deep water] of the Equatorial Atlantic and thereby complete the phenomenological pattern of basic water masses of the World Ocean.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL104866
Scientists get so excited over the slightest bit of data.
Really? . . . most of the deployed Argo floats sample only to a depth of 2,000 meters (source: https://argo.ucsd.edu/faq/ ).
However, the average depth of the world’s oceans is about 3,700 meters.
The mass of water comprising Earth’s oceans is still relatively uncertain and debated in the scientific community. Likewise the basic physics of vertical heat conduction/convection through the depth of ocean waters as complicated by subsurface horizontal water currents.
As to “thereby complete the phenomenological pattern of basic water masses” . . . pffftptfffttt!
Unless they are “climate scientists” and the data is “inconvenient.”
No surprise, geologically stable Suriname had an ocean high stand on the coastal plain after the last ice age (Mara Formation), and the current sea level is still 2 m lower.
Now here is what the MSMachine has to say half a year ago about Suriname:
” Every day I see land disappear”
This was a psyop released half a year ago and all of the Unimedia went along with it.
Duh, what would you expect? The ocean had a low stand in 1850, the coldest period after the last ice age.
Wow! The jet stream must have been extraordinarily wavy back then! Lol.
No ice? What a bummer. Really glad it’s 500m thick now. Total frozen death zone. Yippie. It’s where we ought to send all the warmth haters after Trump annexes it.
Greenland’s minimum snow extent is increasing as winter snow is not all melted. At the current rate Greenland will be completely snow covered all year within the next 30-40 years.
Data from https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=2
“Approximately 6000-8000 years ago, or when atmospheric CO2 was alleged to be ~260 ppm, PD had deglaciated completely, exposing the soil to sunlight.”
So NTZ has discovered something well known to climate science and thinks it invalidates AGW.
That’ll be the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO). …..
AI Overview:
The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was primarily caused by changes in Earth’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles, which increased solar radiation, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, coinciding with the final melting of large ice sheets, leading to widespread warming, particularly around 9,000-6,000 years ago. This orbital forcing altered insolation, strengthening monsoons and shifting atmospheric circulation, creating warmer, wetter conditions in many regions before a gradual cooling trend began.
So a quick question, if it was warm enough for there to be dramatically less ice, was it warm enough to have more clouds?
You seem to have conveniently “forgotten” the warm and cold periods since the HCO. Specifically, there have been two previous warm periods – the Roman Warming and Medieval Warming preceding the Modern Warming. There is nothing unusual about the Modern Warming, other than the absurd hysteria about it, which is being both hyped and exaggerated by badly sited Warmometers, among other things.
The fact that it was much warmer in the past while CO2 levels were lower is proof that CO2 is not the control knob that current climate
scientistsalarmists claim it is.You would be amazed how many climate alarmists deny that the earth was warmer at any time since the beginning of this ice age.
“The fact that it was much warmer in the past while CO2 levels were lower is proof that CO2 is not the control knob that current climate
scientistsalarmists claim it is.” — I’m sorry. It only proves that CO2 is not the only control knob. It does not exclude CO2 from being just one of many temperature controls.“You would be amazed how many climate alarmists deny that the earth was warmer at any time since the beginning of this ice age.” — You’re right. But, they needed justification. Thus the Hockey Stick :<)
So much for the “scientific knowledge” of AI. It is well recognized by scientists familiar with Milkanovitch cycles that the shortest period of all such cycles, that of variations in the obliquity of the ecliptic, is about 41,000 years (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ).
It is simply ridiculous for anyone/anything to assert that a gradual phenomenon with a period of 41,000 years could result is an unusual, relatively short “forcing” over a period of just 3,000 years duration.
We are talking of coming out of an ice age and the obvious necessity for kilometre’s of ice to melt over the NH before the “Optimum” for the climate in high latitudes to be reached, which indeed lasted just a few thousand years of that 41,000 year cycle until the maximum TSI waned.
And to be Frank, I am staggered that that is not obvious to you.
What about the kilometers thick ice that hasn’t yet melted over Greenland as well as the kilometers thick ice that hasn’t yet melted over Antarctica.
BTW we are still in the Quaternary Ice Age that begin about 2.6 million years ago, albeit in an interglacial period within that Ice Age.
I am not Frank, but am amazed that you have overlooked these facts. 🙂
I haven’t, they are blindingly obvious.
Point is that at the height of the last ice age, ice kilometres thick extended into ligh latitude landmasses, Vis Europe Russia, Britain, Canada, E US etc – which surrounds the arctic and which didn’t receive warm Atlantic currents until late in proceedings.
It is a fact that the TSI in high latitudes – 65 deg N being important because it encompasses the most land-mass of any latitude and so had the greatest effect in both melting (during summer) the ice sheets but also absorbing that TSI once the land was free of ice. In other words there was a relatively short geological period when the Arctic climate was at an “Optimum” during the 41000 yr cycle..
Please tell me and other WUWT readers the last time Earth’s NH (which includes Greenland) was “free of ice”.
Hint for you from https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/07/20/new-study-pins-time-of-greenlands-last-melting-to-some-400000-years-ago/ :
“A new study in the journal Science says a large portion of Greenland turned to ice-free tundra about 416,000 years ago, plus or minus 38,000 years . . .”
You will need to consider that 416,000 years is far earlier than the period of Holocene Climate Optimum (some 6000-8000 years ago, according to your previous comment) . . . IOW, Earth’s NH was NOT “ice-free” during the HCO, even at the height of NH summer, even at 65 degree north latitude.
FYI, Greenland is situated between the latitudes of 59° and 83°N.
Why should modern warming be anthropogenic whereas all the previous warm periods were natural?
From the study:
In other words, current warming is bang on target to deglaciate large areas of Greenland in summer during the course of the next few decades.
All that water is going into the sea, and guess what…?
Pretty much exactly what scientist have been warning.
“In other words, current warming is bang on target to deglaciate large areas of Greenland in summer during the course of the next few decades.”
Only if you believe IPCC estimates.
I don’t.
They’ve been very accurate so far, but you’re entitled to your beliefs.
You’re entitled to the belief that they’ve been “very accurate” so far.
It’s been set out so many times that there really is no point in repeating it here.
No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it remains a lie.
Have you downloaded the CMIP data and checked it against observations for yourself?
No need to answer; I already know you haven’t.
I’ve posted the peer-reviewed papers. Anyone can download the raw data output.
But you won’t read the papers and you won’t download and check the projections for yourself because you are a fake ‘skeptic’.
So, anything peer-reviewed is the ultimate truth forever?
Have you read “Unsettled”? Probably not.
No, if not challenged and it receives citations, it is accepted as the “truth” (not ultimate mind) if bringing to light new science but only until the next peer-reviewed paper superceeds it.
It’s the best we can do, having peeps who spend their careers studying and observing the science of their choice and publishing their findings.
It’s the best that can be done.
Can you suggest a better way of doing it?
But that’s the point- peer reviewed science has NOT proven that there is a climate emergency such that we need to turn to only green energy. It’s also been shown in recent years that much of peer reviewed science is not repeatable. So don’t put too much faith in it. Also, while at it, read Unsettled.
He is only “entitled” to his belief if that belief is correct.
Funny how those “accurate” predictions have managed to be warm by several degrees for decades.
No, they’re spot on. Maybe running a little below observations as of 2024.
Chuckle. Only if “accurate” means always wrong. I imagine you are still waiting for The Rapture, too.
They are accurate in that, as an ensemble average, they pretty much replicate observations and are certainly well within the expected range.
I don’t know about “The Rapture”. Sounds a bit far-fetched.
So please tell me which of CMIP computer models (as fronted by the IPCC) given in the attached graph are “very accurate”.
ROTFL!
Satellite data ending 2018 when the climate models are based on surface data and are valid up to 2025?
Enjoy rolling on the floor. Just don’t hurt yourself.
And don’t play with scissors unless there’s a grown up around.
UAH goes up to December 2025. It doesn’t show much warming from December 2018. The discrepancy is bigger than ever.
You’re wrong, as always
Here’s an instructive little exercise for you to carry out. Download the monthly UAH data and put it in a spreadsheet.
Calculate the linear warming trend per decade from its starting date (Dec 1978) to your chosen reference point, December 2018. (Use the ‘LINEST’ function in Excel, for example, to do this.)
You will find that the full warming rate per decade (=LINEST(data)*120) is +0.13C.
Do the same thing next for the whole period, Dec 1978 to Dec 2025. You will find that the full warming rate has increased to +0.16C per decade.
So, since your cherry-picked reference point of Dec 2018, the long-term warming rate in UAH has increased from +0.13C per decade to +0.16C per decade. Temperatures may not have risen much between 2018 and 2025, but they have remained at historically high levels, and that gets picked up by linear regression.
Yet here you are saying UAH “doesn’t show much warming from December 2018″.
Go and learn!
Why do you think there should be a linear trend in the first place? I am talking about the huge and growing gap between the model temperatures and observations.
As bnice’s graph below shows, ALL the models are running far too hot.
I guess I have to spell it out for you:
The graph I presented is clearly labeled as being for CMIP5 . . . the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, defined as an extensive international collaboration conducted between 2007 and 2014. I repeat, CMIP5 ended in 2014.
Beyond this, the cited 102 climate models are not “valid” when their predictions since 1975 (yes, including the models performing hindcasting) are so obviously inconsistent with observational data.
They have been manifestly WRONG in their Nostra-dumb-ass prophecies.
Having to rely on the peaks of major El Nino events.
Near zero trend, or cooling until the next major El Nino
They can’t predict El Nino events.. so they can’t predict anything. !
darn image missed again
Thank you for this graph which proves my point that the discrepancy between CHIMP models and observations is as large as ever. TFN is full of it.
Their projections are right on target with their projections, lol
You can drop the ‘lol’. The CMIP multi-model means have consistently matched observed global temperature increases.
Some of the manage to stay barely within the error bars, Many of them don’t. Only in climate science would that be considered “good”.
It’s the multi-model mean that the IPCC says should best represent global surface temperature observations.
After the fact, pick the model runs that come closest to reality, tossing all the rest. Then declare that the official models are good.
That’s ok I’ll keep the lol, it’s either that or waste my valuable time arguing with you over the nonsense you post here and frankly I’d rather beat my head on a wall.
Certainly. Ignore all and any evidence that contradicts your opinion. You’ll be happier.
Now that that is funny.
Chart reading is a skill you should keep working on.
Averaging a large ensemble of incorrect guesses does not make the result correct. Even if one or two of the guesses come close to reality, it doesn’t mean the guess is correct, just lucky.
However, the fact that they had to drop their terror threshold from 2.0 °C to 1.5 °C should be a clue that things are not going as predicted.
Wrong. The models differ mostly because of their varying estimates of the occurrence of things like ENSO, etc. Things that can’t be known in advance with much certainty and have to be guessed.
By taking the multi-model mean, it irons such things out and, the longer the time between the start of the forecast period and the observations, the closer the MMM is expected to get to the observations.
This is what has been observed. CMIP3, for example, the MMM is more or less a bullseye (in fact, it was a little below observations at the end of 2024).
If your excuse was valid, one would expect some model would show cooling.
The evidence is that they are all programmed to always show warming, probably because of increasing CO2.
Some do, over quite long periods. Some run too hot, also. Do yourself a favour and download the CMIP data yourself and compare them to observations.
That’s all I ask.
But they are wrong, right?
Does having both cooling and warming models make you question the models at all?
If I had an airplane model that said the aircraft would fly superbly and one that said in would nosedive into the ground, which would you believe? It appears that you would chose the one that flys.
Naw, he’d probably try to combing ’em and say they proved level flight :<)
….and don’t forget the rather complex collection of tuning knobs. They apparently have at least one knob for each item/function in the climate they don’t (yet?) understand :<)
The graph attached to my previous response above is worth repeating again here.
You’re showing satellite data that ended in 2018!
The CMIP models are based on global surface temperatures and those are current up to December 2025.
I invite you to check what these show, versus the CMIP models.
You won’t like it.
Here, I’ll help you out again.
Please find attached a somewhat simplified graph, this time for CMIP6, with observational data from satellites (“Sat Avg”), radiosonde balloons (“Sonde Avg”) and average surface temperature measurements (“Reanl Avg”) extending out to 2022.
Only the mean of all the models used in CMIP6 is displayed as the red line . . . the gross disagreement between model hindcasts/forcasts and actual measurements is readily apparent, although the range of diversity between models cannot be appreciated to the extent revealed in my previous posts of CMIP5’s “spaghetti” plotting.
Source of the attached CMIP6 graph:
https://climateataglance.com/climate-models-vs-measured-temperature-data/
I invite you to check out the noted discrepancy as it extends from 2018 to 2022 . . . you may not like it.
And as if made to order to further help you out, there is this WUWT article from yesterday, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/01/14/tropical-tropospheric-temperature-trends-1979-2025-the-epic-climate-model-failure-continues/ , presenting the attached graph that shows just how badly CMIP climate models (39 this time, from CMIP6) deviate from measured tropical tropospheric temperatures up to year 2025.
I am sure you won’t like this update!
The 6 chimps are even worse.
And if there is a long pause until the next major El Nino , its going to look totally laughable.
This is Christy’s data. I see. Can you link to the peer-reviewed paper he published these in, please?
(Hint: there isn’t one.)
“Can you link to the peer-reviewed paper he published . . .”
Are you really so naive as to believe that “peer-review” is of any importance or added value in today’s world?
A quick Web search for “major failures of peer-review” will show you how worthless such really is today, other than being a means for active censorship by many organizations having “leadership” or “management” carrying out hidden agendas.
Some links to help you out here:
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
https://howtopublishscience.org/problempeerreview.html
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10294629/
https://www.medlink.com/news/when-peer-review-goes-wrong
We will take that as an admission of defeat. Thanks so much.
You haven’t made a case for anthropogenic warming that needs CO2 to be reduced. So why are we spending trillions to do so? Maybe you should examine cause and effect from a scientific standpoint rather than the Chicken Little standpoint.
Was I supposed to be doing that?
I was pointing out what the study this article is based on actually said, since it is clear that very few of you ‘skeptics’ bothered to check.
“Was I supposed to be doing that?”
Why else are you here?
Why are you here?
Because I’m experiencing first hand the lunacy of the green energy boondoggle, here in Wokeachusetts- and for other reasons.
A slowly rising sea, for whatever causes, isn’t on most people’s top 100 things to worry about.
Neither is a slowly decaying tooth, until it becomes everything to worry about.
Especially when the “trend” goes back hundreds of years, has nothing to do with human activities, and isn’t rising fast enough to threaten anything in any country capable of building a seawall at a rate slightly in advance of 1-3mm per year.
Projections, by the same climate models that predict we should be several degrees warmer in the present.
No model ensemble shows such a thing, so…?
Only after all the bad runs were tossed out.
No, warm-running models are still in the CMIP data sets. As are cooler running ones.
As has been explained many times, no single model is expected to mirror observations in a chaotic system over a sustained period. That would be borderline miraculous.
That is precisely why the CMIP ensembles are composed of dozens of models, including several variations produced by the same groups of modellers, all using slightly different inputs for things like ENSO events, etc.
The reasoning being that a multi-model average would iron out these variations over time. That is exactly what has been observed.
It’s only on sites like this, where such things are not reported (the great ‘free speech’ champions strike again) where these simple facts appear to be unknown.
I find it most odd that only Climate “Science” uses dozens of models and then averages them. Every other discipline (e.g. Aeronautical Engineering) uses a SINGLE mathematical model which has been thoroughly validated by calibration to physical reality.
I give up. What? Are you implying that some deranged “climate scientists” believe that they can look into the future better than a 12 year old astrologer?
Get a grip!
Nobody argues that the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere were warmer during the Holocene Climate Optimum. Summer insolation at those areas was much higher due to changes in precession and obliquity, as explained by Milankovitch theory.
At that time, Antarctica was much colder than it is today for the same reason.
So basically the earth had a constant “global temperature”. Just the locations of varying temperatures has occurred.
I had to check. This is what I found.
“Combined Effect for the Southern Hemisphere (4000 BCE)https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/2714.svg Stronger seasonal contrastDriven by high obliquity.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/2714.svg Warm but not maximally intense summersBecause precession favored the Northern Hemisphere.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/2714.svg Colder wintersAlso due to high obliquity.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/2714.svg Net effect: Southern Hemisphere summers were warmer than today, but not as extreme as Northern Hemisphere summers at that time.”
But but but. This time it’s different! Because CO2 is driving the warming. Even though it never has before. We know this because the models tell us. It’s science!
Signed,
Climate True Believers
“it’s never happened” before because there wasn’t enough humans around to burn enough fossils to put billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the course of such a geologically short time span of ~200 years for it to become a driver.
In the natural carbon cycle it is not a driver – it is a feed-back.
CO2 can act as both a driver and a feedback.
It depends on which comes first – the warming or the CO2.
One exception in that cycle was the PETM ~ 56 mya.
When massive volcanic outgassing caused global average temperatures rise by 5-8C.
No it’s never happened before because atmospheric CO2 is no “climate driver.”
Word salad. Evidence-free drivel. You have precisely ZERO evidence that CO2 is causing warming.
The “natural carbon cycle” has nothing to do with the radiative forcing/feedback properties.
Does anyone know where to get a csv of this?
I don’t know, but I do know that that graph has about the same effect on Warmsters as the holy cross or garlic has on Dracula.
Yup.
Do you know what I did to get that? Here’s a wee tip for all you self-proclaimed ‘climate skeptics’.
There’s a thing called ‘Google’ (Shh!)
I typed in “gisp2 ice core data csv” and, lo and behold, the above page appeared, from which I easily obtained the data in that chart. It took about 20 seconds.
Something you may notice, as you set about replicating my pioneering work for yourself, is that the GISP2 data end in 1855, missing out on the past 170 years of data.
So, the Warmunists don’t want to look at the 98.3% of the 10k year graph, just the last 1.7 %. Cool.
“Cool”… is that a contradiction?
If you mean climate scientists, they did – that’s why that graph exists.
The people who created that graph were Climatologists, who, unlike the computer jockeys known as Climate “Scientists”, actually go out into the field and measure things rather than merely dicking around with models.
Mann shows the little red bit at the end, as starting about 1900,
So the end of the graph is the warm period around 1940, which most real data shows about the same temperature as the the first couple of decades of this century.
Add the missing 170 years and temperatures are still below the MWP.
You really aren’t any good at this, are you?
So much attitude, so little actual ability. Definitely a leftist.
The oceans were 7 degrees warmer. This is how and why. This is what melted the Ice Sheets.
This explains the Sahara Wet Period too. Storms in the equator weren’t causing desertification.
It was still cold enough in winter for ice to form, so reduced precipitation must have been involved. Global circulation was very different 8000-6000 years ago, with humid periods in north Africa and the Middle East, and the lack of El Nino suggests a very positive North Atlantic Oscillation regime. I doubt that was all due to the obliquity angle, I suspect changes in solar particle forcing.