By Andy May
I’ve just been made aware of a paper critical of the “consensus” view that man-made climate change is dangerous. It is by Ashutosh Sharma, Vinit Vithalrai Shenvi, and Mohit Sain of the MS Ramaiah Institute of Technology in India (or MSRIT) (Sharma et al., 2024). It was published just two months before “Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems,” by Marcel Crok and myself (May & Crok, 2024) and makes similar points, at least until we reach the paper’s conclusions. The paper argues that: “climate change policies impose unwarranted economic strains on nations and impede technological advancement.”
Unfortunately, like many papers, after it completely destroys the whole idea of dangerous climate change it turns around and claims the consensus is correct after all:
“The consequences of climate change are already evident in rising temperatures, melting ice caps, and extreme weather events, and if left unchecked, these effects will become increasingly severe in the future. It is crucial for policymakers, businesses, and individuals to acknowledge the reality of climate change and take proactive measures to mitigate its effects.”
I have seen this sort of nonsense in too many papers to count. First, they show there is no evidence that man-made climate change is unusual or dangerous, and then they say that future will be different, trust me. The conclusions in May and Crok are more sensible:
“The infrastructure to replace fossil fuels does not exist and likely cannot be built in a short time. Current realistic estimates of future energy use suggest that fossil fuels will still supply half our energy in 2050 and beyond. Yet no credible evidence exists that this is a problem or will become a problem. Recent research into climate change has suggested that nature plays some role, and certainly greenhouse gas emissions may play some role as well. What we do not know is how much of climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. No drastic changes to our economy are justified until we can figure this out.”
Key points made by Sharma et al.:
- Climate change is not solely driven by anthropogenic factors. The main factor emphasized by the consensus is that increasing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels will somehow create problems for mankind. While some impact from burning fossil fuels on climate is expected, it is likely minor and not dangerous (Sharma et al., 2024) and (May & Crok, 2024).
- The research supporting dangerous anthropogenic climate change is based upon manipulated data, biased methodologies, and political agendas.
- Renewable sources of electricity require fossil fuel backup and cannot provide a consistent and reliable source of power.
- Government subsidies have driven the growth of renewables and distorted the energy market.
- Government spending on renewables has diverted spending from education, health care, and infrastructure, areas that should take priority.
- Trends in mid-late Holocene climate change, particularly the transition from Holocene Climatic Optimum to the Little Ice Age challenge assumptions that recent changes are due to human activities or extreme in a proper historical context. This is also a point made by May and Crok.
- The Holocene period (~9700BC to the present) is a brief warm interlude in a three-million-year ice age. As this paper and May and Crok point out the warmest period in the Holocene, was not the Modern Warm Period (1850 to the present), but 6000 years ago in the Holocene Climatic Optimum. This casts considerable doubt on the man-made climate change hypothesis.
- The dark side of environmental activism has had a significant effect on public perception of climate change, also see the discussion of this factor in May, Politics and Climate Change: A History, 2020.
- They acknowledge that the increase in climate disaster costs in recent years is primarily due to increasing populations and affluence in vulnerable areas.
- The paper accepts the reduced uncertainty in climate sensitivity in AR6, as explained by (Sherwood et al., 2020), yet this new subjective Bayesian analysis technique for deriving climate sensitivity has been successfully debunked by Nic Lewis (Lewis, 2023).
Conclusions
It is an awful thing to read through a good paper that lays out a very good case why there is nothing to worry about regarding man-made climate change and then watch the authors do a complete U-turn in the conclusions and push the idea of potentially dangerous climate change. The change from downplaying concern to emphasizing it is abrupt in this paper and unexpected.
But I’ve seen it many times before. Roger Pielke Jr.’s otherwise excellent book: The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming does the same thing; I explain the discrepancy here. First Pielke completely destroys the argument that man-made global warming and climate change are dangerous, then he states that “carbon dioxide matters a great deal.” He never really explains why but states it anyway. Pielke is an excellent scientist and a good writer but is just as susceptible to unsupported conjecture about the supposed “dangers” of carbon dioxide emissions as most other scientists. Sigh.
Sharma et al. emphasize the importance of critical thinking and evidence-based decisions and then immediately ignore all the fine evidence they present in the earlier part of the paper that climate changes today are not unusual and are not dangerous. They go on to immediately use unsupported conjecture to proclaim that climate change is dangerous and urgent action is needed. It is truly absurd how often this logical error is found in otherwise good climate change papers.
The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2023) is another good example. The detail chapters review the data on extreme weather and find no global increase attributable to human activities, yet in the conclusions and in The Summary for Policymakers they focus on future projections and conjecture to imply the opposite of what the data shows. Roger Pielke Jr. provides a very thorough critique of the Synthesis Report here.
Bottom line: Scientists should stick to the facts as we know them today, conjecture and predictions are fine, as long as they are clearly labeled as such. We all are susceptible to defending our ideas and conjectures, it isn’t just Sharma, et al. However, logic and common sense tell us to stick with clear evidence. Reasonable conjectures should be kept in mind but not acted upon until facts and observations support them.
Works Cited
IPCC. (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
Lewis, N. (2023, May). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence. Climate Dynamics, 60, 3139-3165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x
May, A. (2020c). Politics and Climate Change: A History. Springfield, Missouri: American Freedom Publications. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/POLITICS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-ANDY-MAY-ebook/dp/B08LJSBVBC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3POS1QGAQ2C2X&dchild=1&keywords=politics+and+climate+change+a+history+by+andy+may&qid=1609414686&sprefix=Politics+and+Climate%2Caps%2C186&sr=8-1
May, A., & Crok, M. (2024, May 29). Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12579
Pielke Jr., R. (2010). The Climate Fix, What Scientists and Politicians won’t tell you about global warming. New York, New York, USA: Basic Books. Retrieved from link: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/climate_fix/index.html
Sharma, A., Shenvi, V. V., & Sain, M. (2024). Reevaluating the Concern of Climate Change. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change , 14(3). https://doi.org/10.9734/IJECC/2024/v14i34056
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., J., P. M., Hargreaves, C., . . . Knutti, R. (2020, July 22). An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence. Reviews of Geophysics, 58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678
Bizarre – is it possible the publishers require the last paragraphs?
I’ve often wondered if that is what happened. I’ve seen this pattern where the text of the paper refuted the idea of dangerous man-made climate change and the conclusions say the opposite before, and I wish I had kept a list of the papers where it happened, but I did not unfortunately. Anyway, this one is classic and obvious, so is the AR6 Synthesis report.
Is it not a fact that the IPCC’s Summary For Policymakers group requires the science Assessment Report authors to edit their submitted finding to align with what the Policymakers comittees agree on.
(and isn’t this an arse-about approach?)
I don’t know if this is always done. But it was certainly done that way in SAR (1996), which is the best documented story of the politicians ordering the scientists to change their text. More here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2020/11/09/sar-the-turning-point/
Frederick Seitz, who was the 17th president of the United States National Academy of Sciences from 1962-1969, was horrified by this action and wrote about it in the Wall Street Journal (Seitz, 1996), under the headline “A Major Deception On Global Warming.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB834512411338954000?msockid=3745d4030e2864662adac7fe0f8365aa
The above link to Seitz’s article may not work for people who do not subscribe to the WSJ, if so try this one, it is supposed to work for everyone:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB834512411338954000?st=Qyb1sy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
There may have been peer review comments which withheld approval for publication unless such a paragraph were included. I think in most cases that is what happens. Authors will agree to adding in some compromising wording in order to ensure publication, shrugging off how it contradicts the body of the paper.
Exactly why peer review is corrupt today. I think if the editor finds merit in a paper and wants to publish it, go ahead. Peer review doesn’t add anything, the acid test is when the paper is published and anyone can then criticize it. All peer reviewers want is for you cite their articles anyway in my experience. I don’t think they really check anything.
I am not sure the publishers read any of the manuscript let along made it to the end. Take for instance the sentence
“The amount of that overprediction comports well with a developing body of logical discoveries and
developing understanding that the affectability of the earth’s surface temperature to rising air
greenhouse gas levels-as specifically decided from observations— lies towards (and however
inside) the moo conclusion of the standard (IPCC AR5) surveyed likely run. ”
what on earth does that mean? What is a moo conclusion? The entire paper reads like the bizarre output of an AI program and should not be taken seriously.
It’s easy for people to recognize when someone like K Harris produces a word salad. The motivation of the paper writers and the politician might be similar: if they say what they think they may as well forfeit.
Wasn’t there an article on here a while back, where a young, anonymous, scientist said, “in order to be published, you have to give a H/T to climate change. Even if your paper isn’t about climate change.”
Same for getting funding in academia- on almost any topic.
It’s now des regueur
In poor countries, millions of those in poverty die every year.
· From indoor air pollution from having to burn wood, charcoal, grass and dung, because they don’t have natural gas, propane or electricity for cooking and heating.
· From bacteria and parasites in their water and food, because they don’t have electricity, water treatment or refrigeration.
· From malaria and other diseases, because their substandard clinics and hospitals lack electricity, clean water, sufficient vaccines and antibiotics, even window screens.
For affordable electricity, there are 460 coal plants under construction. Another 500 have been permitted or are about to be, with an additional 260 new plants expected to be announced. The vast majority of all this activity is in China and India.
Global Elites that cling to “Green” Policies, CANNOT explain how the 400,000 wind turbines will make the more than 6,000 products in our daily lives that did not exist before the 1900’s, and the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 jets moving people and products, and more than 50,000 merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space program.
Just another “agree AGW exists” and we’ll publish you.
Actually it’s “agree CAGW exists”. It’s the catastrophic part that matters. There probably is some anthropogenic aspect to climate change, not matter how small. And their paper doesn’t contradict that.
Nights here in Wokeachusetts have been subzero F for the last week and we have over 3′ of snow on the ground- so I won’t lose sleep over CAGW or any other kind of warming. Yet, it’s still a main topic in all of the MSM in this state- and of course on NPR (that is when NPR isn’t ranting against Trump)
Should include a photo of the authors crossing their fingers and winking- like when Paul McCartney was kicked out of Japan for smoking the evil weed – and a journalist asked him if he was quitting that habit. 🙂
Andy,
Vinther et al. (2009) did not fully account for Innuitian ice sheet elevation changes during the early Holocene. This led to an inaccurate assumption that the Renland and Agassiz ice cores recorded a similar paleotemperature history during that period.
Also, the Vinther et al. reconstruction does not extend beyond the 1980s.
Lecavalier et al. (2017) corrected for the effects of Innuitian ice-sheet thinning on the Agassiz ice core record and extended the Agassiz ice-core temperature reconstruction to the present day (2009):
The authors go on to say:
“However, the last few centuries have experienced the highest rates of temperature change in our record, exceeding 1.5 °C/century, which is consistent with data from nearby weather stations in the Canadian high Arctic where mean annual air temperatures have increased at a rate of ∼0.1 °C/decade since the 1970s (7). Therefore, although air temperatures were warmer than today in other parts of the Holocene, the rate of climate warming during the industrial era is unprecedented over the past ∼12,000 y.“
Thus, your conclusion (when your chosen dataset is updated):
“Trends in mid-late Holocene climate change, particularly the transition from Holocene Climatic Optimum to the Little Ice Age challenge assumptions that recent changes are due to human activities or extreme in a proper historical context. This is also a point made by May and Crok.”
unfortunately does not hold.
Source:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
I’ll see your paper and raise the bet with what we can all see with our lyin’ eyes –
nothing untoward happened or is happening with climates, despite all the doomer predictions.
Seeing nothing isn’t that much of a raise, good Sir.
But we know that there is no evidence of any human caused warming in the last 46 years of the UAH atmospheric data.
It has been COOLING since the Holocene Optimum… now it is warming slightly..
So of course the warming trend is higher..
(whatever that red line is.. it is junk science)
“(whatever that red line is.. it is junk science)”
I love how you dismiss the result as “junk science” while simultaneously acknowledging that you don’t know how it was produced.
Don’t be upset when people call you a denier.
warming of over 5ºC.. NOT REAL.
4ºC.
And yes. It’s difficult to wrap your head around, but that really is how fast the current warming is occurring, and…
it’s deeply unsettling.
4C is a total. What’s the rate?
It depends on the methodology you prefer.
Using Andy’s approach (waiting until the warming has already occurred) the implied rate is about 2.5 °C/ century.
Using the authors’ approach, the rate is closer to 2°C/ century.
Certainly whatever they have constructed doesn’t match temperatures.
And Greenland Ice Volume is way up compared to most of the Holocene
Whatever it may be, it ain’t unsettling. Nights here in Wokeachusetts have been below 0 F for the last week and there’s 3′ of snow on the ground. Perhaps it’s one of the 1,000 things we might want to worry about but for most people it’s not on their top 100.
Not sure what you think is unsettling about it .. think there is you and a green/left minority who care about it. Emissions keep going up to underline how little the majority care.
Greenland temperatures since 1850
Greenland’s temperatures show to be warmest during the 1930’s, just like about every other place on Earth.
Climate Alarmists claiming today’s warmth is unprecedented is just a Bald-faced Lie.
Of course, they must continue to try to sell this lie because it’s all they have. Without this Lie, Climate Alarmists would have to lock up the laboratory and go home. It’s all they have and they hang onto it desperately.
Mr. Nice is being creative once again:
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/39/2018/
No wonder he hides his sources.
Psst, Mr. Nice:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/
You might wish to take that one with Roy.
Greenland Ice sheet temperature since 1890
Actually:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD016387
Thanks for the link to Lecavalier et al., 2017 paper, I had not read it before. I would note that the key conclusion of the paper is:
early Holocene temperatures (around 10,000–6,000 years ago) were 2–3°C warmer than present-day values in the High Arctic, peaking during the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM).
I would add that Severinghaus et al., 1998 found evidence of a step change in Northern Hemisphere high latitude temperatures of 5-10 deg. C in just a few decades in 11.6 kyr BP. This rate of temperature rise is much faster than today.
Given these two papers I see no problem with my conclusion. The main difference between Vinther 2009 and Lecavalier et al., 2017 is the timing, not the comparison of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and present temperatures.
His speculation about the modern warming rate being unusual cannot be verified and is contradicted by considerable evidence of very rapid warming in the Arctic 11.6 ky BP, 980BC, and 40BC. All three of these periods show evidence of warming faster than today in the Arctic. And, in any case the temporal resolution of the proxy temperature records prior to 1600AD is very poor and could easily miss a 100-year warming period.
Thus, while a lot of the paper is fine, the authors overstep their data in declaring that no other 100-year period in the past 12,000 warmed faster than the 20th century, they cannot possibly know that and do not show definitive evidence that it is true, just speculation based on a possibly flawed model.
Their elevation corrections are suspect, Lecavalier’s Huy3 model probably underestimates the LGM (last glacial maximum) ice thickness over Greenland (Strunk, et al., 2018, DOI: 10.3389/feart.2018.00129). If we are to determine warming rates that far back with ice core proxies, we must get the ice thickness right, especially when only dealing with a rate of one degree per century, which is nothing compared to the error in the proxies.
Andy’s comment – “Thus, while a lot of the paper is fine, the authors overstep their data in declaring that no other 100-year period in the past 12,000 warmed faster than the 20th century, they cannot possibly know that and do not show definitive evidence that it is true, just speculation based on a possibly flawed model.”
Likewise, As I noted above, the resolution of the proxy data is insufficient to reach the precision and/or accuracy alleged in the paper
Our supposedly man-made warming is no more than about 50 years old because it cooled into the 1970s. Short periods such as a few decades cannot be seen in early Holocene proxies. Hence your “they cannot possibly know that” is even more correct.
Thanks in turn for your technical reply.
“I would add that Severinghaus et al., 1998 found evidence of a step change in Northern Hemisphere high latitude temperatures of 5-10 deg. C in just a few decades in 11.6 kyr BP. This rate of temperature rise is much faster than today.”
The hypothesized cause of deglaciation is increased NH summer insolation driven by orbital configuration alongside strong ice albedo feedbacks and Atlantic ocean circulation changes.
These are different boundary conditions from the Holocene or the present climate state.
For that reason, comparing deglaciation step changes to Holocene or modern warming is, maybe, apples to oranges comparison?
“His speculation about the modern warming rate being unusual cannot be verified and is contradicted by considerable evidence of very rapid warming in the Arctic 11.6 ky BP, 980BC, and 40BC. All three of these periods show evidence of warming faster than today in the Arctic. And, in any case the temporal resolution of the proxy temperature records prior to 1600AD is very poor and could easily miss a 100-year warming period.”
Loss of temporal resolution can certainly erase or mute short lived warming spikes that last decades. But sustained scale warming trends, especially the modern one, would still survive, albeit smoothed and reduced in amplitute.
“If we are to determine warming rates that far back with ice core proxies, we must get the ice thickness right, especially when only dealing with a rate of one degree per century, which is nothing compared to the error in the proxies.”
The modern warming rate is already approaching ~2 °C per century according to panel C, and that estimate is likely outdated given that both Greenland and global temperatures have continued to rise since 2009.
You write:
It is possible that the orbital conditions are different now than 11.6 kyr BP, I grant you that, but that condition is not in Lecavalier et al., 2017. They state their conclusion unequivocally and it is incorrect.
Nonsense. You couldn’t possibly know that for at least 100 years. You need a lot of data after a date to determine the rate at that date.
“Nonsense. You couldn’t possibly know that for at least 100 years. You need a lot of data after a date to determine the rate at that date.”
Ok. I will accept your rule and look backward, rather than extrapolating forward.
The paper states:
“ The extended record indicates that modern air temperatures are ∼4 °C warmer relative to preindustrial values and at their highest in the past ∼7000 y (2σ uncertainty 6.8–7.8 ky; Fig. 3A).”
If we define preindustrial as 1850, then the end of the record (2009) gives a span of 160 yrs. A 4C increase over 160 years implies a rate of:
4/160 * 100 = 2.5°C/century.
That is higher than the rate from the paper and, applied consistently, your framework therefore raises the bar for detecting past rapid warmings of today’s magnitude and makes it even harder to argue that comparable events were erased by proxy resolution.
Well done!
Four degrees! Total BS. See here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2024/03/15/the-holocene-climatic-optimum-and-the-pre-industrial/
According to real proxy data in the Northern Hemisphere (not global) The maximum difference is about two degrees and that is a stretch. Using instrumental data it is about one degree, maybe 1.3 degrees at the extreme. That four-degree number is total BS.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst4/
The ~4 °C figure from Lecavalier et al. (2017) refers explicitly to High Arctic air temperatures at Ellesmere Island.
Vinther et al. (2009) uses a composite of Renland and Agassiz, which is not the same signal.
Renland is a maritime Greenland site, and its temperature variability is expected to be much more muted than at a High Arctic continental site like Agassiz.
So this is an apples to oranges comparison
Oh no! It’s worse than we thought! Only 35 centuries or so until the oceans boil!
You don’t really believe that, do you? You’d have to be pretty stupid.
No, Silly Mikey, I don’t believe the oceans are going to boil in 35 centuries.
but… but… Al Gore said the oceans are boiling now! /s
Gore also said the temperatures at the Earth’s core were “millions of degrees”.
Gore got the Earth’s core confused with the Sun’s core.
Gore also confuses CO2 with a dangerous gas.
I’m interrupting the flow here, and I see that more qualified voices are already on it, but:
“Loss of temporal resolution can certainly erase or mute short lived warming spikes that last decades. But sustained scale warming trends, especially the modern one, would still survive, albeit smoothed and reduced in amplitute.”
How can you write words like that and pretend to mean it?
The argument was that there was insufficient data for the authors to say what warming was fastest. You seem to agree that they lack data to say how fast while disagreeing that they lack data to say how fast. It’s one or the other.
I am saying that smaller and shorter lived spikes can be largely erased as temporal resolution degrades further back in time.
However, large and sustained warming like the modern one, if it occurred in the past, would not be erased. It would survive as a reduced amplitude signal.
Nice theory now can you go back in time and prove it. You know all religions are like that you just have to believe based up the believer.
Mr. de Boer: I submit this translation from whatever language Eldrosion is using to english- “I, Eldrosion, will say whatever will gaslight the board for a few more comments.”
I sincerely appreciate Mr. May taking the time to deconstruct this troll, his replies are little more than a flurry of CliSci assumptions that lead into this rabbit hole- whether it’s ice cores or tree rings, the “resolution” of a proxy always works two ways. It’s good enough to support his CliSci claim, but never good enough to support any other view. Mr. Eldrosion is thoroughly exposed here.
Then there’s the inconvenient admission, even by the IPCC, that there were not sufficient human “emissions” to have an impact (still just hypothetically an impact, since no empirical evidence exists to support “atmospheric CO2 drives temperature”) until after WWII.
So the “sustained warming” is a natural one, interrupted for three decades beginning around the start of “significant” human CO2 emissions, with only a hypothetical “contribution” post 1945 (which kicked off with three decades of cooling, whoops!) to the “modern warming.”
And the warming “trend” that lifted Earth from the depths of the Little Ice Age began nearly a century *before* 1850/the Industrial Revolution.
So zero evidence of human causation, a good deal of evidence that the ‘modern warming’ is natural, like all the other warm periods of the Holocene, all of which were warmer than today.
“a good deal of evidence that the ‘modern warming’ is natural, like all the other warm periods of the Holocene, all of which were warmer than today.”
Looking directly at the Lecavalier et al. reconstruction, modern High Arctic temperatures are roughly 2–2.5C warmer than at ~1 ka BP (the Medieval Climate Period).
The modern warmth is unmatched for at least the past ~7,000 years in the High Arctic, only exceeded during the early Holocene Thermal Maximum.
Given the steep modern trajectory, we are approaching early Holocene levels and not merely recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Andy,
When the Marcott reconstruction was published, there was a lot of concern about temporal resolution and how the instrumental data were spliced onto the proxy record.
Tamino tested this concern and he showed that if there were real rapid spikes in the underlying data, the smoothing from the proxy reconstruction would reduce their amplitude, but not completely erase them:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/
Nonsense, we are debating the rate! I am saying we cannot tell the rate, you are agreeing with me, I think. The presence of an increase is not what we are arguing about, it is the rate of increase. The rate of increase for a 100-year period cannot be detected with proxies, they are not accurate enough. And as for Marcott he was averaging global proxies, so he even lost more resolution through the averaging process.
I’m not agreeing with you. You can’t have a resolved, large and sustained warming without a correspondingly large rate of change.
My original statement isn’t right:
“You can’t have a resolved, large and sustained warming without a correspondingly large rate of change.”
You can accumulate a large amount of warming from a relatively small rate if it persists over long periods of time.
But the modern uptick at the right edge of the record is clearly steep and rapidly approaching the early Holocene temperature levels. If a comparably steep and sustained rise like that had occurred in the past, it would very likely have resolved in the record, even if muted by poorer resolution. That’s the main point.
The modern uptick is measured by thermometers or modern proxies calibrated to synchronous proxies. They are not comparable to 10k BP proxies in terms of rate/100 yrs. In terms of century mean temp maybe, but not in terms of rate.
“The modern uptick is measured by thermometers or modern proxies calibrated to synchronous proxies.”
From the paper:
“A shallow ice core was collected in the Agassiz ice cap in 2010, extending the δ18O time series and thus temperature reconstruction to 2009 (Fig. S4 and Methods).”
They overlap that shallow core with older cores to check consistency and continuity.
Thermometer data are only used for translating 18O units into degrees C, but the data themselves remain ice proxy measurements throughout.
Exactly my point.
That doesn’t support your point. The modern, anomalous blade at the end is already present in the raw 18O data (panel a, Fig. S3), before any conversation to temperature.
Fine. Without a conversion to temperature how do you get a rate of warming? Answer: You don’t.
Again, the modern blade is already present in the raw 18O data. That means the sharp rate of change exists, just without being multiplied by a constant.
At one place only..
Doesn’t match temperature or O18 from other places in Greenland
Don’t compare apples and oranges.
Lecavalier’s estimate of ~4 °C warming since the preindustrial era (1850) is consistent with the observed temperature record for the High Arctic. Since about 1970 (which was warmer than the preindustrial era), temperatures in the Arctic circle have risen on the order of ~2.5-3 °C:
Remember, this is a High Arctic site and this is different from most of Greenland.
Sites like Agassiz are sensitive to changes in forcing and associated feedbacks, whereas many other parts of Greenland integrate a more prominent Atlantic signal (e.g. Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation).
In that sense, the High Arctic is a very good indicator to sea ice driven amplification, which is itself a well established response to global warming. For that reason, it arguably provides a clearer signal than sites strongly influenced by North Atlantic.
Case in point:
Here are Arctic-wide temperatures (64–90°N):
And here is Greenland temperature profile:
Looks like a relation of Mickey Mann has been at it. 🙂
Funny it doesn’t show up in any temperature records or most other O18 or other proxy records.. 😉
I should also note that Tamino was able to detect a ~1C rise in data with an effective resolution of ~164 years, whereas ice core records typically have decadal to multidecadal resolution.
“Detecting a rise”
is very different from determining a rate. Anyway, proxies differ. Changing the subject slightly, attached is a collection of Arctic summer temperature proxies from Kaufman, et al., 2009 (doi: 10.1126/science.1173983). They include (top to bottom) “all proxies combined,” “ice cores,” “sediment,” and “tree rings.” Notice that the ice core and sediment proxies show a decline in temperature recently, only the tree rings show an increase.
Combine this with the discovery by Briffa, et al. in 1998 (Nature, doi: 10.1038/35596) that extra CO2 has caused tree rings to diverge from actual temperature since the 1930s.
This data shows the Arctic temperature rising to ~1940, then falling dramatically after according to ice cores and sediment proxies, with tree rings as a dramatic outlier, just as Briffa noted in 1998. He was a very smart guy. He sadly passed away in 2017.
The test in the April 2013 blog post explicitly imposed a 0.9C warming over 100 years.
That is, by definition, a centennial scale rate of 0.9 °C per century. And, ironically, it satisfies the exact methodological constraint you insisted on: evaluating the rate after the warming has occurred, without extrapolating forward.
Kaufman is arm waving here. The illustration below is from Martin, et al., 2024 doi: 10.1029/2024GL111405. It shows a moving Holocene Climatic Optimum with location (not good for averaging) and a much warmer HCO than the modern warming period. The supposed modern “uptick” is very minor and does not exist at all locations.
Seems like the “radical modern warming” in the Arctic is a myth. Certainly, the modern warming period is not unusual in the Holocene. The unusual warming during the Holocene occurred in the beginning, notice the 10-degree jump in temperature at all Greenland sites at about 11.6k BP.
Article: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL111405
“BP 1950” is the key detail in your image, meaning it does not include late 20th and early 21st century Arctic amplification.
Also note that the temperature axis extends to +5 °C. Since the Arctic has warmed ~2.5–3 °C since ~1970, a modern extension of this record would produce a very large, visually obvious excursion.
The ~10°C increase around 11.6 ka marks a shift driven by the AMOC under significantly different conditions. As mentioned earlier, comparing this event to the Holocene or present day conditions is arguably like comparing apples to oranges.
Since the Arctic has warmed ~2.5–3 °C since ~1970
Cherry picked maybe? Note Arctic temperatures went down from 1940 to the 1970s. I suppose there was no man-made CO2 before 1970? Where would we be if we extrapolated 1910- 1940? Anywhere close to what actually occurred? Speculation is dangerous, and usually wrong.
The plot is from Ballinger, 2020. DOI: 10.25923/gcw8-2z06
Hadcrut show Arctic same or warmer around 1940 as around 2016
That is an outdated HadCRUT version:
“Finally, they have started to produce an infilled data set which uses an extrapolation to fill in data-poor areas (like the Arctic – first analysed by us in 2008…) that were left blank in HadCRUT4 (so similar to GISTEMP, Berkeley Earth and the work by Cowtan and Way). Because the Arctic is warming faster than the global mean, the new procedure corrects a bias that existing in the previous global means (by about 0.16ºC in 2018 using a 1951-1980 baseline). Combined, the new changes give a result that is much closer to the other products…”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/12/an-ever-more-perfect-dataset/
‘Outdated version”
That’s funny!
Not “updated” enough for you?
Svalbard much warmer during the MWP
Arctic sea ice near Greenland just a bit down from its LIA peak
No relevance to the late 20th century and 21st century.
What ‘Age (cal. yr BP)’ means:
Before Present (BP) or “years before present (YBP)” is a time scale used mainly in archaeology, geology, and other scientific disciplines to specify when events occurred relative to the origin of practical radiocarbon dating in the 1950s. Because the “present” time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the commencement date (epoch) of the age scale, with 1950 being labelled as the “standard year”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
“Cherry picked maybe? Note Arctic temperatures went down from 1940 to the 1970s. I suppose there was no man-made CO2 before 1970? Where would we be if we extrapolated 1910- 1940? Anywhere close to what actually occurred? Speculation is dangerous, and usually wrong.”
The mainstream explanation is that anthropogenic aerosol forcing was strong enough during roughly the 1940s–1970s to temporarily offset greenhouse gas warming.
And I chose 1970 as a starting point because the Martin, 2024 figure you referenced is labeled “BP 1950” and therefore does not include late-20th-century or 21st-century Arctic amplification.
If you prefer starting earlier in 1950, the conclusion does not materially change.
Using Arctic annual surface temperature data (link below), the 1951–60 decadal mean is about −1.17C, while the most recent decade (2021-30) averages around +1.0C relative to the dataset baseline.
That is a ~2.2C difference. So regardless of whether one starts in 1950 or 1970, modern Arctic warming is large enough that it would stand out clearly against Holocene scale variability in the figure you cited.
https://arctic.noaa.gov/arctic-indicators/
Andy,
We know the second and third panel reconstructions in your image are not accurate.
Direct surface thermometer measurements show that Arctic surface temperatures in the 1990s closely rival the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s. The 1970s and 1980s were also warmer than the preindustrial period, which again contradicts what your figures show. See my comment posted at 6:22 a.m.
I’ve posted a lot of images, and it is unclear what image you are referring to and why you think it is inaccurate. Explain please.
I am referring specifically to the Kaufman et al. (2009) Arctic proxy reconstructions you posted in your February 3, 2026 6:01 AM comment – the panels showing ice core and sediment proxies without tree rings.
In those panels, the late 20th century (1970-1990s) appears as cold as, or colder than, the preindustrial period and substantially colder than the 1930s-1940s.
That depiction is inconsistent with direct surface thermometer observations for the Arctic (64-90N), which show the 1970s and 1980s already warmer than preindustrial, and the 1990s closely rivaling the warmth of 1930s-1940s.
When instrumental data exist, they provide the ground truth. A proxy reconstruction that fails to reproduce the observed late 20th century Arctic warming cannot be considered accurate for that interval.
Welcome to my world! I’ve been studying temperature and CO2 proxies for many years and contradictions abound. Why do the ice cores and sediment proxies show temperature dropping so much in the late 20th century? Why do tree rings increase? Remember they were the anomalous “hide the decline” proxy that hounded Mann and Jones in the 2009 scandal. Interesting questions for you to research. Paleoclimatology is not easy.
Key take away: Proxies are not thermometers; proxies have a lot of error. Most important, proxies are not the truth. This may count double in recent years when man and additional CO2 mess things up. Or, maybe they are always screwed up. Who can tell?
“Key take away: Proxies are not thermometers; proxies have a lot of error. Most important, proxies are not the truth. This may count double in recent years when man and additional CO2 mess things up. Or, maybe they are always screwed up. Who can tell?”
At that point we are no longer discussing which reconstructions are better supported by observations, but whether paleoclimate evidence is usable at all. That is a much broader claim than anything this thread started with.
“Thus, while a lot of the paper is fine, the authors overstep their data in declaring that no other 100-year period in the past 12,000 warmed faster than the 20th century, they cannot possibly know that and do not show definitive evidence that it is true, just speculation based on a possibly flawed model.”
Phil Jones shows several periods after the end of the Little Ice Age that warmed at the same magnitude as the current warming.
The written temperature record debunks claims of unprecedented warming today. One doesn’t have to go any further back in history than the written temperature record to see that Climate Alarmists are full of BS (Bad Science).
How true, the period 1910 to 1944 jumps to mind.
Greenland temps (as measured) from 1864
A couple of local temps from Greenland
Warming until late 1930s, Cooling to 1970 or later
And a really good study of different regions of Greenland since 2000
The Mannian inspired spike.. nowhere to be seen. 😉
Extrapolating from circa 1998 won’t get you anywhere, Mr. Nice, and you still forgot to cite your source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379448066_Spatial_and_temporal_patterns_of_land_surface_temperature_in_Greenland_from_2000-2019
When the authors state that “over the last decade, warming over
Greenland has slowed down”, they’re not saying that it’s cooling, you know. Don’t be like Javier.
Tom,
Have a look here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/hot-and-cold-curry/
If you want bad science (BS), Tamino is a good place to start. !
“Phil Jones shows several periods after the end of the Little Ice Age that warmed at the same magnitude as the current warming.
The written temperature record debunks claims of unprecedented warming today. One doesn’t have to go any further back in history than the written temperature record to see that Climate Alarmists are full of BS (Bad Science).”
You keep saying that Tom:
And I often post this graph (or similar) to counter ….
Showing thar 1900 to 1940 there was a 0.4C warming ( 0.1C/decade)
And from 1980 to 2010 there was 0.7C warming (~ 0.13C/decade)
And a further ~ 0.45C warming up to current (15yrs 0.3C/decade)
The above analysis is using the mean (red) line AND not the peaks/troughs of the black – 1998 FI (which was a big EN year).
This a (Phil Jones) graph showing the decadal changes in a bar-graph ….
https://www.uea.ac.uk/research/research-archive/taking-the-earths-temperature
“Figure 2a. Global surface air temperature (ºC) increase above the average for the 1850–1900 designated pre-industrial reference period, based on several global temperature datasets, shown as annual averages since 1967. Credit: C3S/ECMWF.”
Finally (you’ll luv this)
https://jimehansen.substack.com/p/global-temperature-in-2025-2026-2027
Ahh…. there is that TOTALLY FAKE temperatures series,
based on basically no measurements for most of the globe for most of the time.
You still haven’t shown us where the oceans were measured for basically ALL of the time period..
And you still haven’t shown us where land was measured in the1800’s
And of course, what land surface data there is, is massively compromised by bad site, massive urban warming, maladjustments etc etc etc
How anyone can even pretend to FAKE a “global” series shows just how low on the “science” ladder “climate science” really is
“You keep saying that Tom:
And I often post this graph (or similar) to counter ….”
I’m talking about the written temperature record, Anthony.
You are showing the bastardization of the temperature record as a counter.
There is no legitimate way to get a Hockey Stick Chart “hotter and hotter” temperature profile out of the written temperature record, which has no such temperature profile. The written record says it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
So, how did Phil Jones and those that followed get a Hockey Stick profile out of data that has no such profile? And why do you have so much faith in it when written, regional records directly refute it?
Interesting how the ‘written record’ is treated as unquestionable truth, while the instrumental record is dismissed, clearly because it doesn’t deliver what you want to see.
If anyone here is the poster child for denial, it’s you. Though, the competition is fierce:
“(whatever that red line is.. it is junk science)”
The written record *is* the instrumental record. I think you are confused.
The written, instrumental record does not have a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile. Instead, the written, regional records show it was just as warm in the recorded past as it is today. And this is the case with all regional temperature records from around the world.
Given that the written, regional, historical, instrumental records are the only data available, and they do not show a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile, please explain how the temperature data mannipulators got the Hockey Stick temperature profile out of data that has no such profile.
People who dismiss the historical, regional temperature records are the real deniers.
Maximum temperatures in Greenland since 1895 show a peak in the 1920-1940
then the “new ice age” scare then a slight warming
Nuuk temperature back to 1870.. again.. total lack of any of the mythical heat spike.
(click on image to see clearly)
No “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile anywhere to be seen in the written temperature records.
The Hockey Stick chart profile is science fiction.
Nuuk is just one city, Tom. Nothing to do with global reconstructions.
But since you like old data series, try Stykkisholmur:
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Annual-temperature-in-Stykkisholmur-1798-to-2009_fig7_259970231
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05517-z
Nice graph.
It shows three of the temperature high points since the end of the Little Ice Age in around 1850. The high points are the 1880’s, the 1930’s, and the 1998, high point. All three high points are within a few tenths of a degree of each other.
And the 1998, high point is within a few tenths of a degree of the high points of 2016, and 2024. So, basically, all the high points are on the same horizontal line on the graph, which shows that after the initial warming from 1850 to the 1880’s, the temperatures have not had a net increase since that time, even though CO2 has increased substantially since that time.
Therefore, there is no evidence for CO2 warming of the atmosphere.
The graph clearly shows the cyclical nature of the climate.
There is no CO2 crisis.
Nice comment.
The first paragraph is false. The second paragraph goes for “but Da Paws”, and the rest is an epilogue about CO2, which has nothing to do with the graph.
Well done!
As you can see, statements like ‘So, basically, all the high points are on the same horizontal line on the graph’ are often treated by many here as a statement of ‘science’.
Meanwhile, actual statistical analysis shows that warming from January 1998 through December 2025 is statistically significant in UAH. This is not a matter of small random variation.
There was cooling after 1998. You and James Hansen ignore this. You make out like there was continuous warming from 1998 to 2025. Look again at your UAH chart (on the sidebar of this page).
What is the temperature today compared to the high point of 2024? Answer: The temperature is about 0.5C cooler than in 2024. Your statistical significance is diminishing.
“What is the temperature today compared to the high point of 2024? Answer: The temperature is about 0.5C cooler than in 2024. Your statistical significance is diminishing.”
The p-value is less than 0.0001, so it would have to drop *a lot* more to turn that statistically significant trend into a non significant one.
Silly.
Prove that the first paragraph is wrong. Hint: posting a bogus Hockey Stick chart is not proof of anything, other than scientific fraud.
Prove that regional temperature charts don’t show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
Show how a Hockey Stick profile can be constructed from data that has no Hockey Stick profile.
Tommy.
You’re just regressing to Step 2 of the Contrarian Tango – Sammich Request. An absurd one, to boot.
“But Da Paws” has no business in a Climateball exchange about very old data. The difference between 1998 and 2015 is immaterial on the scale Andy has decided to audit via a predatory journal.
I only need to look at the graph I just posted to *see* that your first para is wrong.
So spare me your “But MWP”, please.
““However, the last few centuries have experienced the highest rates of temperature change in our record, exceeding 1.5 °C/century, which is consistent with data from nearby weather stations in the Canadian high Arctic where mean annual air temperatures have increased at a rate of ∼0.1 °C/decade since the 1970s (7). “
I am not going to agree or disagree with the statement that is highlight. My only comment is the resolution of the proxy data is insufficient to reach that conclusion. Proxy data is very good at getting the general trend reasonably correct, but getting the accuracy of modern day instruments is not possible. Note also the aleatory and epistemic uncertainty is grossly understated.
Good points.
The authors are not comparing proxy data to instrumental data. They are extending the same ice core time series to 2009. So, this is an apples to apples comparison.
It’s also worth noting that uncertainty is greatest in the earliest part of the record, yet the reconstruction still clearly resolves a very warm early Holocene thermal maximum in the High Arctic. That result is routinely accepted by skeptics, including Andy May in his February 2, 2026, 11:53 am comment, despite originating from the most uncertain portion of the record.
Finally, uncertainty cuts both ways. If proxy uncertainty is considered too large to assess centennial scale warming rates near the present, then it is equally too large to support claims of faster or comparable warming at 980 BC or 40 BC.
So many problems in such a short comment!
#1. Temporal resolution is lost as a function of time; recent measurements have more accurate dating than older.
#2. Bait and switch, a very warm Holocene Thermal Optimum is agreed by nearly everyone. The argument is over the rate of warming.
Absolute nonsense, see point #1.
Be logical!
#2. Bait and switch, a very warm Holocene Thermal Optimum is agreed by nearly everyone. The argument is over the rate of warming.”
No bait and switch. Joe-Dallas made a seperate point about aelatory and epistemic uncertainty which is distinct from temporal resolution.
“Absolute nonsense, see point #1.”
And your point #1 was:
“#1. Temporal resolution is lost as a function of time; recent measurements have more accurate dating than older.”
So yes. That statement also undermines your own claims of very rapid warming at 980 BC and 40 BC.
You yourself argued that temporal resolution prior to 1600 AD is poor, yet you simultaneously assert that rapid warming occurred in those earlier periods.
You can’t have it both ways.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that the warming 980BC and 40BC was more rapid than today? If so, there is no evidence that warming 9,700BC was less than today. You can’t have it both ways.
I’m not claiming there is no evidence of rapid warming at 980 BC or 40 BC.
I’m saying the evidence is insufficient to make confident rate comparisons at those times given the resolution you yourself insist on.
Yet there is evidence that there is no rapid warming 9,700BC and you can make rate comparisons between then and now? Get real.
On your premises, I agree with you.
But I do not agree with those premises. See my 6:34 PM comment.
But… if we instead accept the internally consistent Agassiz ice core record presented, then the conclusion is straightforward: the modern warming stands as scary and anomalous across the last ~12,000 years, including the periods you have cited.
It’s true that temporal resolution degrades with age in ice cores, but I’m deeply skeptical that they can erase a large, sustained, multi-degree signal, even in the distant past.
As I mentioned above, Tamino was able to detect a ~0.9C rise over 100 years in data with an effective resolution of ~164 years in Monte Carlo simulations, which strongly suggets that signals of this magnitude are not simply smoothed away.
When you say “Tamino was able to” you assume that’s a fact or an opinion? Also, “strongly suggests” is not the same as “means”. Maybe there are unicorns dancing on my roof. I doubt it, and if evidence “strongly suggested” that there were unicorns out there… then I’d go have a look. Dang hooves would crack my roof tiles.
lol…”be logical! Simple request but not so easy for some.
Well, that’s certainly a well-mixed word salad.
To be expected, I suppose, from a person who believes that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter. Are you only pretending to be deluded?
“the rate of climate warming during the industrial era is unprecedented over the past ∼12,000 y.“
Blatantly false! I found ten periods with faster warming rates in just the last 3,000 years from the Vostok reconstruction. Proxies from Greenland support that it was global.
The original unprecedented claim came from taking the average rate of warming coming out of the last ice age over thousands of years and comparing that rate to the modern high resolution short term instrument record. The two data sets are like comparing apples to frogs.
dont insult frogs – lol
Vostok is Antarctic.
Talk about comparing apples to frogs.
In the GISP data there are many period of similar steepness and much longer duration, in both directions, than that little tick up at the end.
Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
HIs main tactic is to firehose the thread with misleading information and with little to no regard for context or accuracy.
The OP’s author is no better:
> I’ve no idea how I got here, I am only a very occasional reader of climate change debates, but it started out when an old colleague Andy May shared Javier’s post on LinkedIn. It led to me spending far too much of my time trying to explain derivatives, but Javier understand neither derivatives nor statistical significance. Willard quotes from one of my replies above (starting ‘seems like Tony’s…’) but apparently all my concerns have been addressed and I know nothing about statistics, maths, polynomials or elementary calculus, even though I have a PhD and degree in theoretical physics and quantum field theory from Cambridge and have practised statistics and probability for over 40 years.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/02/17/only-connect/#comment-143683
In a specific thread from a couple of years ago, Javier was asked by another commenter how global temperatures could still be rising while TSI was declining. In response, he claimed that the warming since 1998 was caused by the 2016 El Niño and the Hunga Tonga eruption.
When the commenter repeatedly pressed him further, asking how El Niño could cause the planet to warm for decades, this was the response:
“Javier Vinos
April 21, 2024 11:29 PM
The El Niño we talk about was a very unusual two-year event, as was reported as an El Niño already in December 2014 by several agencies. It is known as the 2014-2016 El Niño event.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/21/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-the-climate-part-i-the-past/#comment-3899917
Of course, that still doesn’t answer the question.
These folks’ mantra really seems to be ABC (Anything But CO2).
Willard,
New post!:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/05/holocene-warming/
I’m going to start reading it now.
You say written, historical temperature charts posted by Bnice are misinformation?
That makes you look like an evidence-free True Believer.
True Believers ignore all evidence that contradicts their particular world view.
Don’t be a True Believer. Look at the facts.
Just looking at the facts has yet to prevent you from saying stuff, Tom.
Mr. Nice often forgets to mention his sources, which is understandable since he tries to pass Kenneth’s transmogrifications as legit.
Besides, if we could just “look at the facts”, why would we need graphs?
“the highest rates of temperature change in our record, exceeding 1.5 °C/century”
I just did this math a few posts back:
1.5 C/century
= 0.15 C/decade
= 0.015C/year
How on earth is that supposed to be scary?
You know old people in USA retire in Florida, right?
The Euro equivalent is retiring on the Mediterranian.
Have you ever tried to find population density vs latitude?
Something that won’t be a problem for several hundred years? Is that a problem?
GRIP oxygen18 from 1300-1990
Greenland Tree ring O18 from 1950
Greenland_ice_sheet_temperatures_interpreted_with_18O_isotope_from_6_ice_cores
“The rate of climate warming during the industrial era is unprecedented over the past 12,000 years”
That’s not true. The Climate Change God, Phil Jones, shows three periods after the Little Ice Age ended around 1850, where the rate of warming was equal to today’s warming. It warmed just as much from 1850 to the 1880’s, as it did from the early 1900’s to the 1930’s, and from the 1970’s to 1998.
If I ever get my Windows machine working again, I’ll show you Phil Jones’ chart.
You do agree Phil Jones is a Climate Change God, don’t you?
The Lecavalier is one of the lowest quality ice-core temperature reconstructions I’ve analyzed. Here’s Agassiz compared to Vinther. The Lavalier doesn’t show temperature fluctuations; not even the 8.2ka event which should be visible at 2700 BC in the shifted data.
Here’s what quality reconstructions look like. All show local climate largely repeating after 3560 years.
Panel B (Fig. 1) directly compares the Vinther (blue) and Lecavalier (red) reconstructions. Both show a clear negative excursion near ~8.2 ka BP.
Vinther’s early Holocene is also substantially colder. So if you adopt Vinther’s reconstruction as the correct baseline, then extending it consistently to the present necessarily implies that modern temperatures exceed all other Holocene values.
Thanks, Eldrosion. It appears I found the wrong Lecavalier data. The correct data can be found here.
Both the Vinther and Lecvalier data likely have a 200+ year timing error. For alignment I shifted the data 3340 years instead of the correct 3560-year shift. This is not something I’ve done for any other proxy ice core or sediment proxy.
I’m not a fan of the Vinther reconstructions. I do find the Alley GISP2 reconstruction to be interesting. It doesn’t have the timing resolution of the Martin reconstruction, but appears to correct, or at least hide some timing errors.
Rate of change is related to duration and modern instrumental rates of change are in line with ice core data with the exception of the last 50 years which appears to be slightly higher, but within the scatter. The Northern Hemisphere graph is still being worked on and is just a place holder. . https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/28/modern-warming-climate-variablity-or-climate-change/
Renee, comparing Antarctic ice-core proxy time series (and their inferred trends) directly to modern Southern Hemisphere and especially Northern Hemisphere instrumental trends isn’t a like for like comparison.
Antarctica and the hemispheric/global mean do not evolve synchronously, particularly on centennial timescales
In the satellite era, you can see this asymmetry clearly in UAH LT trends: Antarctica has warmed at roughly 0.03C/ decade over the 1979-present record, while the Southern Hemisphere warms faster at about 0.13C/ decade, and the Northern Hemisphere faster still at about 0.18C/ decade.
Well then what past global proxy data can you compare to? You’re the one that posted the original Antarctic temperature graph from Agassi.
Very interesting, Andy. Thank you.
“It is an awful thing to read through a good paper that lays out a very good case why there is nothing to worry about regarding man-made climate change and then watch the authors do a complete U-turn in the conclusions and push the idea of potentially dangerous climate change.”
Even in a milder form, with no mention specifically of danger or harmful impact, I noted a similar internal contradiction in a January 14, 2009 web article on NASA’s Earth Observatory internet site. This is what I wrote about it, which was posted here at WUWT in 2022.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
In short, there are several good points made in the referenced NASA article about poleward and surface-to-high-altitude circulation, 4th-power radiative cooling, the “free” escape of energy to space above 5-6 km, all of which work to address any unwarranted concern about energy being “trapped” down here. But then at the conclusion, there is a speculative statement based on a purely static understanding of the influence of non-condensing GHGs – that temperatures must be expected to rise with rising concentrations. Dynamic vs. static.
One more thing. That NASA web article was posted a week before the first Obama administration took over. By the end of 2009, the EPA’s finalized Endangerment Finding had been entered in the Federal Register.
On one hand I’ve spent enough time with scientists to know I don’t want one as president – I’ll say our closest thing to a scientific-minded president was probably Carter, who only won one term and does not do well on historian polls.
On the other hand I see what can happen when an UNscientist becomes president (read Obama’s pre election books to see political thought overwhelm scientific thought).
I have to agree with Eisenhower’s much remembered speech, it would be best for government to avoid creating publically funded complexes with anything.
“I have to agree with Eisenhower’s much remembered speech…”
Eisenhower was 100% on the money with those points as his presidency came to an end!
Wait, hoomans aren’t destroying the planet, and the oceans aren’t going to boil in an acidic goopy plastic mess, and we all won’t asphyxiate from CO2? It’s all Trump’s fault, I tell ya!
“The consequences of climate change are already evident in rising temperatures, melting ice caps, and extreme weather events, and if left unchecked, these effects will become increasingly severe in the future. It is crucial for policymakers, businesses, and individuals to acknowledge the reality of climate change and take proactive measures to mitigate its effects.”
The conclusions don’t say it is anthropogenic climate change, or catastrophic.
It is implied, note they say “mitigate” not “adapt.” Alarmists often use the phrase “climate change” when they mean “man-made climate change.” You have to use the rest of the quote to tell one from another.
Well, “…if left unchecked…” certainly implies that we “anthropoids” have something to do with it! And if it is “crucial” for us to “take proactive measures”, then the alternative must be quite undesirable! Your defense fails!
Any paper which claims that CO2 emissions are harmful while completely ignoring the great BENEFITS of higher CO2 levels for crops and other plants should not be taken seriously. This is what I’m talking about:
Ref: Idso & Kimball (1994), https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/50215 – preprint: https://sealevel.info/Idso_and_Kimball_1994_effects_of_CO2_enrichment_on_Eldarica_pine_trees.pdf
That picture illustrates the benefits of “CO2 fertilization,” under good growing conditions. But the benefits of elevated CO2 are even greater when plants are under drought stress. It significantly mitigates drought impacts, which greatly reduces the risk of catastrophic, drought-triggered famines. That’s one of the reasons that, for the first time in human history, catastrophic famines are fading from living memory.
The elimination of catastrophic famines (usually caused by drought) is a very, Very Big Deal. If you doubt it, then consider:
● COVID-19 killed about 0.1% of the world’s population.
● The catastrophic 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2% of the world’s population.
● WWII (the most devastating war in history) killed 2.7% of the world’s population.
● But the near-global drought and famine of 1876-78 is estimated to have killed about 3.7% of the world’s population.
That doesn’t happen anymore. We still get droughts (though their frequency is down slightly), but they don’t cause such catastrophic famines, even though the Earth now has six times as many mouths to feed. One of the reasons is that elevated levels of “the sparkle in sparkling water” greatly reduce drought impacts, through reduced transpiration and improved water use efficiency by crops, thanks to reduced stomatal conductance.
Except for the famine in South Sudan.
Sudan is a corruption caused disaster.
Bucking the Left has always imposed costs. What’s changed over time is that the price people are willing to pay in order to do so has declined precipitously.
We have to remember that there are two things going on with each paper published about the climate. One of them is science. It is arguably the least important thing to many authors. The most important thing is the preservation of the ‘climate industrial complex’, which only exists because of the alleged man-made climate crisis. Without the perception of a man-made climate crises, most of these authors will have to find other things to do to put food on the table.
When the conclusion contradicts the body of the paper, we can be sure that the man-made climate crisis hoax is being supported, while the body of the paper maintains the scientific integrity of the authors. It’s an attempt to have it both ways.
Very nice Andy. Climate change is not an issue. The only issue we should be discussing is CO2. We all agree that without our atmosphere Earth would be far colder than with it. We all agree that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. CO2 is in second place, it is far behind water vapor as a greenhouse gas. The effectiveness of CO2 is logarithmic meaning each additional unit of CO2 has less effect than the previous unit. There is a limit to how much CO2 can warm the planet. We are approaching that limit therefore added CO2 can’t cause catastrophic runaway global warming.
CO2 can’t cause catastrophic runaway global warming at ANY concentration, period.
7,000ppm didn’t do it, so nothing humanity “contributes” ever will.
It is also worth noting the explicit racism of the authors. See for example:
“Developed countries should not owe any additional responsibilities to the other countries. If the varying levels of socio-economic development are acknowledged, so should their causalities, particularly the differences between the intelligence, awareness and civility amongst people of different races.”
If such things manage to get past peer review you should start to question whether anything in the
paper or the journal is worth worrying about.
The comment is totally non-racist.. just pointing out the blatantly obvious.
The racism is in blocking developing countries from developing reliable energy supplies.
I am curious. Which races do you think are less intelligent or civil than others?
What it says is that there are differences between races..
If you choose to ignore that fact and think one race is less intelligent or less civil…
… that’s up to you.
We definitely should not ignore the fact that you’re an Aussie who had many sock puppets over the years to bypass multiple bans, Mr. Nice!
What is says is that “differences between the intelligence …amongst people of different races.” The authors are explicitly claiming that some races are more intelligent than others. You said that this is “blatantly obvious” so I would like to know which races you think are more intelligent than others? And do you want to explain why?
I take it as fact that individuality exists. Pick any human characteristic, physical or mental, and it is extremely unlikely that any two individuals will have exactly similar characteristics.
Now some will be taller, heavier, or more intelligent than others. This means that some have less height, weight, or intelligence than others.
Some people will howl that I am racist, or fattist, or heightist – and they would be right. Races exist – ask any anthropologist. They even look different (the races, as well as the anthropologists).
Who cares? Not me. I can choose to like or dislike anyone for any reason I want, or for no reason at all. It’s called freedom of thought. Some people might be highly offended.
Stiff cheese. Toughen up, petal.
Actually races don’t exist. Studies of human genetic variation show that there is more variation within groups than between groups. Races are a social construct that has no biological basis. For example look at “The apportionment of human diversity revisited” by Hunley et al. (https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22899)
which states that “It is important to recognize that the biological race concept fails based on this finding alone because no matter how much variation might exist among human populations under a given model of evolution, human populations are not genetically homogeneous within. “
A forensic pathologist can determine racial characteristics, in many cases, from skeletal remains.
If you believe that races have no biological basis, then the anthropological racial divisions are meaningless. However, I believe that I can distinguish between a naked Negroid, Asian, and Caucasian, in lighted conditions. Even more astonishing, I can generally distinguish between naked males and females of any race! The dangly bits give a hint.
Race is a biological phenomenon. Just like biological gender. In my worthless opinion, anyway.
Izaak,
Sorry, I know you were quoting the article. My “toughen up, petal” was not directed at you.
Swenson,
Just so we’re clear, when I said “you’re an Aussie who had many sock puppets over the years to bypass multiple bans”, I wasn’t talking about you.
Mr. Nice is another Aussie.
What an incredibly queer take.
As to climate drivers human CO2 emissions were relatively insignificant before 1950:
Oops wrong spot that was meant as reply to Eldrosion @ur momisugly 10:48 am
That link is baffling.
They left off the emissions caused by windmills and solar.
Very nice post, Andy. Unfortunately, the ‘practice’ you highlight of conclusions directly contradicted by the accompanying evidence is widespread. I documented several big additional non-climate examples from education and health care in ebook “The Arts of Truth”.
The book title is itself an intentionally ironic example explained in the introduction using Harvard Yard’s three line plaque on the pedestal of its famous statue of John Harvard just outside of University Hall, aka the statue of three lies. For those who haven’t read my book or didn’t go to Harvard, the three lines on the 1884 statue plaque are: “John Harvard, Founder, 1638”.
The book is actually about the many Arts of Untruth.
Agreed. It’s a fact that adding CO2 to air doesn’t make thermometers hotter!
Heat, on the other hand, does.
The International Journal of Environment and Climate Change:
https://journalijecc.com/index.php/IJECC
Enough said.
“…. the idea of potentially dangerous….”
There are so many potentially dangerous things to worry about- you just can’t do it. If you’ve survived for several decades, you’ve learned to avoid potentially dangerous stuff and realize very few are truly dangerous if you don’t panic. Panicking itself is one of the MOST dangerous things.
From the article:”I have seen this sort of nonsense in too many papers to count. First, they show there is no evidence that man-made climate change is unusual or dangerous”
Or even exists at all. There is no evidence for that, either.
Unbelievable Andy. The contradiction between the paper’s evidence (no unusual or dangerous change) and its conclusory alarmism is glaring and all too common.
In case you haven’t seen this, a more recent study on Greenland ice core temperatures found a clear HTM at GISP2, NGRIP, and NEEM, with north-south heterogeneous onset timings across the early Holocene. They also found that elevation wasn’t the only component for differences between the reconstructions as indicated by Vinther.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL111405
Thanks for the great link Renee! I’ve only skimmed it, but it looks like a very interesting paper and unusually honest, this bit is good:
Their figure 1 is attached, the gradual movement of the Holocene Thermal Maximum is interesting.
I prefer the original name. The Holocene CLIMATE OPTIMUM.
It was more honest. And of course something else the alarmist camp is attempting to delete from history.
I usually use Holocene Climatic Optimum myself and prefer it, but so many use Holocene Thermal Maximum it is easy to slip.
Andy, this exhibit from Wrightstone is also on point:
“First, they show there is no evidence that man-made climate change is unusual”
Actually, first they fail to show climate change is man-made.