By Kenneth Richard on 11. February 2026
“D–O signals [10-16°C warming events within decades to centuries] are not just seen in Greenland – they are registered globally.” – Liu et al., 2026
From 57,000 to 29,000 years ago, with Last Glacial atmospheric CO2 concentrations flatlining at ~200 ppm, there were 11 instances when Greenland abruptly warmed by 10-16°C within a span of just 50 to 200 years (Liu et al., 2026).
Wide-ranging pollen-based temperature and precipitation reconstructions affirm these Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events did not just occur in Greenland, they were realized across the globe.
Winter warming intervals of 2-5°C and up to 5-20°C within decades (centuries) also occurred at pollen sites in Asia, Europe, South and Central America, Africa, Middle East, and Australia.
Thus, there is nothing remotely unusual or unprecedented about the rate or magnitude of modern global warming.
I found ten periods in just the last 3,000 years with faster warming rates than the modern warm period from the Vostok temperature reconstruction. Proxies from Greenland support that those were global. You don’t have to go back that far to refute the faster that ever warming lie.
Story tip. Ghost of Tone
Britain must abandon its current energy policy to avoid locking itself into years of high electricity bills and industrial decline, a new report has warned.
‘Why Britain Needs an Energy Strategy Reset,’ released today by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change think tank, says the Government’s flagship Clean Power 2030 drive is no longer fit for purpose.
https://www.gbnews.com/news/energy-bills-reset-plan-report
“Sources close to Energy Secretary Ed Miliband described the proposals as “nonsense” and said they would not reduce electricity bills for homeowners.”
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nonsense-miliband-blair-pm-north-sea-oil-drilling-4233345
It’s almost as if Brits are being groomed to own nothing and be happy while sitting in the dark and freezing.
almost?
This supports the new need to challenge man made global warming when there is so much evidence that it is natural.
Not an easy task when so many people have been educated to believe in man made global warming to the depth of religious belief.
But it has to be done for science to progress properly and be funded. Geoff S
The main problem is not even the warming but the narrative that it is somhowa bad thing.
If this were the case all the previous warming periods would have turned everything into trash.
But when we take a closer look we may realize that the warmings have been overwhelmingly beneficial.
Just during the MWP the population numbers in Europe and China went massively up and after the MWP endet there was a significant decline.
The comments to this Daily Mail thing about “surging glaciers” show consistent skepticism. People seem to be waking up.
forgot ref.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15556567/Scientists-discover-3100-glaciers-SURGING.html
We are much colder than in previous times, as we move towards the next ice age.
certainly true this winter!
Especially when you consider the fact that the warming today has been greatly exaggerated by poorly sited thermosensors and UHI. But the Climate Liars aren’t interested in paleoclimatology, and have ample supplies of handwavium on hand to dismiss it. Plus, they have their fave “climate science”-backed hockey stick, so their religion is safe (they think).
“Wide-ranging pollen-based temperature and precipitation reconstructions affirm these Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events did not just occur in Greenland, they were realized across the globe.
Winter warming intervals of 2-5°C and up to 5-20°C within decades (centuries) also occurred at pollen sites in Asia, Europe, South and Central America, Africa, Middle East, and Australia.
Thus, there is nothing remotely unusual or unprecedented about the rate or magnitude of modern global warming.”
Really?
The point in question here is that the modern warming is globally synchronous (but with obvious variability).
That is the uniqueness just as much as the rate of warming.
There were temperature changes globally linked to the DO events but they were not of the same sign globally NH vs SH.
“These reconstructions show that the largest warming occurred in northern extratropics, especially Eurasia, while western North America and the southern extratropics were characterised by cooling. The change in winter temperature was significantly larger than the change in summer temperature in the northern extratropics and the tropics, indicating that the D–O warming events were characterised by reduced seasonality, but there was no significant difference between the summer and winter temperature changes in the southern extratropics. The antiphasing between northern and southern extratropical changes, and the west-east pattern of cooling and warming in North America were generally consistent across the eight D–O events examined, although coherency is greatest during the strongest events. There was no globally consistent pattern between changes in moisture and changes in temperature.”
“The D–O signals are not just seen in Greenland – they are
registered globally (Adolphi et al., 2018; Corrick et al., 2020;
Harrison and Sanchez Goñi, 2010; Sánchez Goñi et al., 2017;
Voelker, 2002) and are reflected in changes in both temperature and precipitation. Both oceanic and ice-core records indicate that temperature changes are out-of-phase between the northern and southern hemispheres, and the southern hemisphere response both in terms of warming and cooling phases is generally less abrupt …”
So this paper is saying that temperatures changes globally were out-of phase with each other.
The claim that there were periods of greater warming globally in the past are then here certainly not confimed.
The presence of large quantities of ice during these times and the likelihood of ocean current disruption when events like the Younger Dryas occurred (generally believed to have been caused by a massive influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic, which disrupted ocean circulation) is bound to have a knock-on effect in the SH, and logically if heat-flow from the south to the NH is disruped then the NH will cool and the SH will warm and vice versa.
Handwavium can be fun.
No, not handwaving on my part, nor on Kenneth Richard‘s part.
But at least I groked the conclusion of the paper correctly.
The only thing you have grokked is your Alarmist ideology you seem so fond of.
Let’s show some of the items you overlooked and/or ignored.
First, these warming periods WERE NOT caused by a rapid increase in CO2 from fossil fuel use. Any comparisons to your idea that anthropogenic CO2 causes unheralded warming is faulty. What it does show is that natural variation can result large amounts of warming, at least in Greenland.
Secondly, the study abstract does say that warming and cooling phases are not necessarily synchronous between hemisphere, however that DOES NOT mean that they offset each other in terms of global temperature. That is a conclusion that you have leaped to with no evidence to support it. The global temperature could easily have been large unless the cooling in the southern hemisphere was also large.
Lastly, the fact that the two hemispheres can be in different phases at the same time only places more emphasis on the fact that the global temperature variance can be very large. The fact that you and climate science in general ignore this when quoting is evidence that scientific rigor is not being used when describing what is occurring. You should remember in the future if you quote a global temperature change without also providing the variance in the distribution from which it comes, you are merely repeating propaganda, not scientific measurements.
“First, these warming periods WERE NOT caused by a rapid increase in CO2 from fossil fuel use.”
I didn’t say they were!
And nor does this paper or any other paper!
The cause of the HCO is well known.
After all these recent articles re Greenland during the HCO, did you not get the fact that it was increased TSI in the high latitude’s summer that precipitated it?
Seems not (par for the course here of course).
“You should remember in the future if you quote a global temperature change without also providing the variance in the distribution from which it comes, you are merely repeating propaganda, not scientific measurements.”
Not the purpose of my post – it was to demolish Richards’ inference that the paper shows that warming periods then where more extreme than modern warming.
I have pointed out that this paper shows that warming in the NH was coincident with cooling in the SH.
Therefore it does nothing to refute the steep trend in modern warming which is globally synchronous.
Oh, and BTW, scientific measurements are not propoganda, no matter how much you need them to be.
More wittering about variance FFS
Take that up with the authors of the paper will you, or Richards for not having your conspiracist thinking.
Now how about critiquing the logic of massive quantities of melting ice in the NH oceans would have disrupted currents such as the North Atlantic drift that bring much warmth to the NH …. and that would necessarily result in the SH being warmer.
Eh?
“ scientific measurements are not propoganda”
This would be true if you were quoting measurements instead of statistical descriptors. No statistical description is complete unless *both* mean and variance are given.
In fact, the description of the NH and Sh temperatures indicate distinctly skewed distributions of temperature. The only valid statistical description of such a distribution would be the 5-number descriptors – something which climate science studiously and subbornly refuses to provide.
And what evidence do you have that the cited eleven prior D-O events (from 57,000 to 29,000 years ago) were NOT “globally synchronous”?
That is, you need to prove your assertion of uniqueness. Good luck with that.
The claim that there were periods of greater warming globally in the past are then here certainly not confimed.
If the Northern Hemisphere warms by 20 degrees and the Southern Hemisphere warms very little (look at a globe, it’s nearly all water down there), then the planetary average- wait for it- still goes up.
OK, so it seems that there’s ample evidence that this globe has experienced spells of ‘sudden’ onset warm-ups from time to time throughout history.
What I’m keen to have explained then is –
how would a null hypothesis for man-made CO2 as the control knob for any 21st century warming rationalise this past warming up from time to time in pre-SUV eras.
(In fact, HAS a null hypothesis for man-made CO2 emissions being the main / only cause of any 21st century warming ever been advanced by the proponents of this conjecture?)
So—in the most simple possible terms— all global warming over the last 200 years (of whatever magnitude of temperature increase and however measured) could in fact be nothing more than a NATURALLY OCCURRING Dansgaard-Oeschger event, as have occurred repeatedly in the past.
And humanity has already spent $TRILLIONS “fighting climate change” without considering this fact??? Good grief!
Empirical data shows that most of modern warming was from reduced cloud cover that allowed more of the suns energy to reach the surface and heat the oceans to depth. Three papers concluded that all of modern warming can be explained by the increase in solar forcing.
The truth of that statement depends on your use of the word “modern” being restricted from about 1960 to the present. In comparison, the IPCC and many other organizations reference “modern (global) warming” as that occurring since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, or since about 1760 (albeit there are some references to the Industrial Revolution really beginning as late as about 1850).
You see, according to Google’s AI (and in agreement with the best of my knowledge):
“The first successful satellite to monitor global cloud coverage was TIROS-1 (Television Infrared Observation Satellite), launched by NASA on April 1, 1960.”
Prior to orbiting satellite coverage/measurements there was no means to measure and record global cloud coverage. Therefore you are referring to measurements taken over the last 65 years compared to the last 175–265 years . . . or even worse, compared to the last 12,500 or so years since Earth exited the last glacial period. I am not aware of any paleoclimatology proxies that are used to derive past global cloud coverage.
Finally, please provide reference to a scientific publication (one will suffice) that backs up your statement that “Empirical data show that most of the modern warming was from reduced cloud cover . . .”. I have certainly not run across such from any reputable source.
Spent trillion to no avail. The globe continues a slow warming, and CO2 continues its climb. But rent seekers did well.
NOTE TO WUWT EDITOR:
I believe there is an accidental wording error in the very first sentence below the subheading of the above article that may mislead readers; I offer this suggested revision:
“From 57,000 to 29,000 years ago, with Last Glacial atmospheric CO2 concentrations flatlining at ~200 ppm, there were 11 instances when Greenland abruptly warmed by 10-16°C, each
withinhaving a span of just 50 to 200 years (Liu et al., 2026).”It would be attributable to the original author. Comment there, if he changes it according to your suggestion, use our contact form to contact us about porting that correction here.
Noted. Thank you.
That was during the last ice age?
File:Vostok Petit data.svg – Wikipedia
“Winter warming intervals of 2-5°C and up to 5-20°C within decades (centuries) also occurred at pollen sites in Asia, Europe, South and Central America, Africa, Middle East, and Australia.”
Forget hockey stick. That’s a full-on industrial T-square. Imagine that today (actually, February is so far running about 10⁰F above average where I live, so I guess there’s that).