The following video from the “Klimaschau” series (No. 256), published by the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), addresses the question of whether abrupt climate changes in the past were natural or man-made.
English and German audio tracks available.
The claim of an unprecedented speed of climate change is one of the arguments from alarmists in science and journalism that has only emerged in recent years.
Proponents claim that the emission of carbon dioxide by European industry has caused the average global temperature to change more rapidly since 1850 than ever before.
But is that true?
Published studies show that science has long been aware of significantly more extreme and rapid temperature shifts throughout Earth’s history.
Researchers have been investigating rapid temperature changes in Earth’s climate. One prominent example of this is a study titled “Global atmospheric teleconnections during Dansgaard-Oeschger events” by a working group led by Bradley Markle from Seattle University in Washington State, published in 2017 in the journal Nature Geoscience.
During the last ice age (approx. 110,000 to 12,000 years ago), there were at least 25 events where temperatures over Greenland rose by up to 16.5°C within just a few decades. These fluctuations were not local phenomena. Researchers like Bradley Markel from Seattle University demonstrated that these events had global impacts, such as the shifting of tropical rain belts or the “bipolar seesaw” effect (where warming in the North coincided with cooling in the South).
The 2017 study proves that the atmosphere reacted to changes in the North Atlantic within a few decades. Storm tracks shifted simultaneously with northern temperature jumps—well before the oceans showed a response.
The EIKE video even references research by climate alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf (PIK) from 2003, which suggested these events occurred in a regular cycle of approximately 1,470 years. At the time, Rahmstorf hypothesized an origin outside the Earth’s system (e.g., solar influences) due to the high precision of the timing.
These earlier findings clash with Rahmstorf’s more recent statements from 2022, where he claims modern warming is ten times faster than natural warming during the transition from the Ice Age to the Holocene.
Summary
The Earth’s history has already experienced massive and extremely rapid climate shifts that were entirely natural in origin.
Good report, and another support for the natural cycles eliminating any useful climate change (CAGW) signal. When Geology students encounter the Geologic History of our planet, they are amazed (at least the good students are) at how dynamic the Earth is. Snowball Earth? Been there, done that. Next.
Except that they don’t seem to realize we’re still in an ice age. What they meant was “Last glacial period”. I know they’re probably catering to the common man who doesn’t know these nuances, but it’s not helpful when they get something wrong that’s easy to get right.
Not a “nuance”; it’s seriously misleading for the public who as a result think the ice age is over and the sky is the limit for temps. The ice age will not end until tectonic activity stops the Antarctic Circumpolar Circulation…50-250 million years, they say. If the planet then returns to the normal Greenhouse State it will get a lot warmer.
the emission of carbon dioxide by European industry has caused the average global temperature to change more rapidly since 1850 than ever before.
It’s a ridiculous claim. And I’m sure they are well aware of it. And then again, speed of the invisible – ie non existent – changes is a main line of ‘attack’ on peoples’ senses by the media and the alarmist community – as they might be called. One such ‘faster than thought’ example is in today’s Grauniad:
[Something out of nothing]
The critical Atlantic current system appears significantly more likely to collapse than previously thought after new research…
Can you guess the nature of that research?
new research found that climate models predicting the biggest slowdown are the most realistic.
[Pick a number]
for the complex Amoc system, these produce widely varying results, ranging from some that indicate no further slowdown by 2100 to those suggesting a huge deceleration of about 65%,
[On average…]
“We found that the Amoc is going to decline more than expected compared to the average of all climate models. This means we have an Amoc that is closer to a tipping point.”
In other words, they have no evidence at all, even the computers are wildly all over the place. Pick a number…
This is the sad state of science when it comes to climate change.
Here we have Climate Alarmists presenting unsubstantiated assertions as established facts.
Computer models, especially ones that are all over the place, are not evidence of anything.
I think we need a new college course: Evidence 101.
Apparently, Alarmist Climate scientists are unable to distinguish evidence from speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. If you can’t tell the difference, then you are not a real scientist, and your opinion is worthless.
Rather than call them climate scientists they should be called climate street preachers – what is the difference? It’s all based on [erroneous] belief.
It is a sad day of present culture controlled by moneyed elites.
This era is very similar to the Roman Catholic Church declaring itself the world’s only intermediary between God and Mankind.
You could buy your way into heaven by doing good things for the Faith.
That all worked fine until some important people started to protest
At present, the incompetent, militant EU elites are desperate to stem the tide of rational thinking
This is a very good example of somebody who thinks he knows a lot when in fact he knows nothing.
For example, he says that “you could buy your way into heaven by doing good thinks fot the Faith”. Firstly, where is the buying in doing good things? Secondly, the Catholic Church has never taught that you can get into heaven just by doing good things.
Then he refers to some important people. Well, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli certainly became important but they were not important at the time of their protest. But what’s interesting about these three people is that they all read the same Bible but came up with very different doctrines, the result of which is that there are now hiundreds if not thousands, of different Protestant Churches all claiming that they preach the correct interpretation of the Bible. It’s as if, if you are a Protestant, you have to imagine a God who is schzophrenic. Go to one Protestant church and the pastor tells you one thing. Go a hundred yards down the road and another pastor tells you something completely different. It’s not just that there are Presbyterian and Methodist Churches to choose between. There are several different Presbyterian Churches to choose betwen and several different Methodist Churches to choose between.
As to rational thinking., one of the greatest philosophers of all time was St Thomas Aquinas. And it is worth bearing in mind that it was the Catholic Church which founded the first universities.
Oh, and any old Jim Bob can set up his own church and make himself the pastor. To be a Catholic priest you have to go through seven years training. Two of those years involve a study of phiosophy.
r
To summarize they have completely lost the distinction between reality and models.
Trans-Reality Activists
What is the optimum global average temperature? It’s a value that has never been established because it can’t be established.
Of course, when you stop and think about it, it is also the same as a global average color or a global average phone number. Those ideas have absolutely no basis in reality.
My own ideal global average temperature would be a few degrees warmer where I live now, but might have been a few degrees cooler when I lived in Phoenix Arizona.
There is a scientific paper on the gender effects of office thermostat settings that says offices (pre-covid “work from home”) favored the male workforce.
Is climate change sexist?
You mean, the temperature is held steady? In my house the femboss changes the temperature up and down well outside my preference.
Well, they certainly claim that climate change affects females more adversely than it affects males. But nowadays it’s de rigueur to claim that anything bad affects females more than it affects males. One feature of the partiarchy is its ability to resist the effects of climate change. Whereas the oppressed females have no such protection. Hence the interconnectedness between climate change and feminism.
“the emission of carbon dioxide by European industry”
The word “European” is doing something interesting in that sentence.
“These earlier findings clash with Rahmstorf’s more recent statements from 2022, where he claims modern warming is ten times faster than natural warming during the transition from the Ice Age to the Holocene.”
He was talking about Global warming.
Not regional warming in Greenland, or even the NH.
The D-O events seen in the NGRIP core (rapid warming/cooling) had a muted effect in the SH.
And we know what caused them.
A marked change in the Earth’s solar insolation distribution from a max tilt of 24.5 deg during the summer, which affected the high northern latitudes, with glaciers and ice sheets melting and retreating. The Greenland core shows the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events which were driven by melt/ice flow into the north Atlantic and a consequent intermittent cutailment/reinstatment oat least to some extent of both the north atlantic drift/gulf stream and the AMOC, which in turn would radicaly alter the advection of sub-tropical air northwards.
BTW: this is something we have known since 1992 ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project
“Studies of nuclear isotopes and various atmospheric constituents provide detailed records of climate change over 100,000 years. From the analysis of the oxygen isotope ratio of the GRIP core excavated in 1992, it became clear that abrupt climate change occurred in Greenland during the last glacial period. This happened more than 20 times. It further became clear that the warm and cold periods alternated. Near the bottom of the GRIP core, oxygen isotope ratios fluctuated sharply; this was initially interpreted as an indication of repeated violent climate change during the last interglacial period in Greenland.[10]”
Greenland is not a proxy for the globe.
Greenland VS Antarctica:
“delta-O-18 from the NGRIP (black) and EPICA (blue) ice cores.
delta-O-18 is a temperature proxy. Higher values are warmer. The left hand side shows the current interglacial. The right hand side is the previous Eemian interglacial which is incomplete in the NGRIP data. During the glacial period the NGRIP core shows clear signs of Dansgaard-Oeschger events which are muted in the EPICA core.”
“The Earth’s history has already experienced massive and extremely rapid climate shifts that were entirely natural in origin.”
Yes, of course it has !
I don’t see any correlation between temperatures and CO2 amounts in the graph.
I wonder how Climate Alarmists can claim a connection looking at that?
Back to the Drawing Board, Alarmists.
They don’t like this graph at all. A great reason to post it when needed.
The biota plays a huge role, hence that steep drop during the Carboniferous.
Also the graph doesn’t show any data for the last 75 years.
Anthony’s post is showing evidence that Greenland’s temperature cannot be taken as a proxy for global temperature and so is a major criticism of the original video. What has this graph got to do with that? This graph of temperature and C02 also says nothing about rapid temperature changes. Stay on topic.
Are you the new WUWT moderator? What happened to Charles?
It’s called context. The only way to create a “global warming” apocalypse is to cherry-pick extremely short-term data, take it out of historical context, average it, anomalize it and make heated claims about rapid, man-made temperature changes. When put in a longer-term historical context you got nothing.
The only places “man-made” temperature change is evidence is in localised land use, urban areas, airports, other bad measurement sites, and from data manipulation.
Yet they use a highly dubious fabrication of URBAN and AIRPORT temperatures as current temperature…
… which in no way could be considered a proxy for global temperature.
So, “Global Warming” affects, well…the globe, but doesn’t affect regional or even hemispheric warming. Got it,
Don’t be obtuse.
You know exactly what I meant.
well, say what you mean then.
and with that expressive discipline in mind, please present a null hypothesis to accompany all the claimed conjecture regarding –
“rapid, globally-experienced, earth systems-harming, (climates) changing caused exclusively in the 20th century by increased human caused CO2 emissions”
No, I don’t. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen arguments along the lines of, It’s only local or regional, or whatever to dismiss any argument against the religious dogma of global warming. Whatever it is that is supposed to affect climate globally by necessity must affect climate locally, regionally, and hemispherically. To claim that local, regional and hemispheric trends are irrelevant is total b@llshit. It’s local, regional and hemispheric trends over time that make up any global trend. If it ain’t happening locally and regionally it ain’t happening globally.
Agree and I’ll take it even one step further. Even modern warming has regional/local differences; for example in the last 100 years modern warming is more prominent at the poles than in the tropics, for entirely natural reasons-through meridional energy transport for example, without having to invoke explanations related to increased CO2. In other words, the earth has forever warmed and cooled unevenly, including recently.
“prominent at the poles “
Actually, only the Arctic, and it is no warmer now than in the 1930s,40s
Antarctic has cooling since at least 1979, and certain been cooling over the last 1000+ years
(need to click on the pic)
That was precisely my point!
“It’s only local or regional,”
Yet when it goes the other way, a highly localised warm month (USA March 2026) is YELLED and SCREAMED as being man-made “global warming”
Not just a warm month. They scour daily reports from around the globe and if they find one record or near-record high temperature they yell and scream about global warming, even if it’s from an obscure backwater in the middle of nowhere that no one has ever heard of.
I wonder why dogma always have to be religious. There are plenty of secular dogma. Take this one as an example:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
You seem to have skipped over this part in the first paragraph:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
We have all seen how the MetOffice CREATES man-made warming !! 😉
In the past few years any weather event regardless of its spatial extent is said by the ClimateCult® to be a result of Global Warming or CO2. It is hard to keep up.
e.g.: King Charles – – “I am deeply conscious that, for many years now, the Northern Territory has endured the harsh reality of climate change and borne the brunt of its destructive extremes.”
Maybe “borne the brunt of” doesn’t mean what I thought it did.
Heh, not only that but the Northern Territory is…wait for it…Regional. By specifically singling out the Northern Territory he’s unwittingly implying that regional changes are important. Then again, I guess it only goes one way. they’re important if they are warming but not important if they are cooling.
One can easily expose the illogical conclusion that climate causes weather, which is what is actually being claimed. Climate is defined as weather in a given area over 30 years. Climate therefore cannot cause weather because the reverse is true. Cause and effect you know.
But we can create a GAST! 🙂
Basically I concur with all, except:
“Greenland is not a proxy for the globe.”
Let’s use Holocene GISP.. It shows MUCH LARGER swings in temperature than the tiny little rise since 1900.
Yes, you can check with Mickey Mann’s hockey schtuff graph.. the bottom of the little spike is at 1900, so the top is around 1930, which is similar to the first decades of this century.
Greenland is still barely above the coldest period in 10,000 years
Strativarius’s response graphic is much more persuasive because his chart communicates data without requiring a reader to wade through acronym-stilted garbage to guess what it says. If you are going to argue based on a chart then add some axis labels. I had to guess at what “6×10 4” meant with no units on the x-axis. Which line is Greenland? Which line is Antarctica? Pretend other people do not already know what you mean before you post it.
The article and the video make some good points, but the introduction is pathetic.
“The claim of an unprecedented speed of climate change is one of the arguments from alarmists in science and journalism that has only emerged in recent years.” Only emerged in recent years?
The proponents of AGW basically have always had only two arguments: speed and magnitude. If the rate of change is not ”unprecedented” and/or the magnitude of warming is mild, then there is no argument to be had. Nothing to see here, get on with your life.
Aside from the energy insanity that has ensued due to climate frenzy, rate of change and magnitude have been my key issues from the beginning. Decades ago, there was already plenty of evidence indicating that neither rate nor magnitude are worrisome, irrespective of possible causation. Before the bastardization of the temperature records, the recent rate and magnitude had already been matched by early 20th century trends. Proxy data from earlier centuries, millennia, and epochs reinforced the conclusion that today’s rate of change is completely within natural variability. As for magnitude using actual temperature rather than so-called anomalies, even the most extreme, implausible IPCC scenarios yield temperatures that are well within the “life zone,” safely above icehouse Earth and far below historical high earth temperatures.
Implausible RCP8.5 projections were the equivalent of moving from northern Iowa to southern Iowa. Meanwhile northern retirees and snowbirds in the United States voluntarily and willingly experience five times that change in climate when they move to Florida, South Texas or other southern locales.
Even the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia have been going on about the Dansgaard events for years:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Dansgaard-Oeschger-event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event
Among the surprises that have emerged from analyses of oxygen isotopes in ice cores (long cylinders of ice collected by drilling through glaciers and ice sheets) has been the recognition of very sudden, short-lived climate changes. Ice core records in samples extracted from Greenland, Antarctica, Canada’s Arctic Archipelago, and high mountain glaciers in South America show that these climate changes have been large, very rapid, and globally synchronous. Over a period of a few years to a few decades, average temperatures have shifted by up to half of the temperature differences seen between the Pleistocene ice ages and their interglacial periods—that is, as much as 5–15 °C (9–27 °F). Although some scientists note that there may have been up to 25 D-O events during the most recent 120,000 years, detailed analyses of the most accurately dated Greenland ice cores show that 13 D-O events occurred between 11,600 and 45,000 years ago, with an average periodicity of 1,470 years. This regular occurrence has led to the suggestion of a 1,500-year cycle of climate change.
Wyner and McShane have a rejoinder discussing problems with alarmists northern hemisphere proxy reconstructions:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2433
(In there are links to various groups making counter arguments.. this represents a very interesting an still relevant discussion)
One important point they are making is the missing discussion of selection bias.
How much uncertainty for the final data stems from the selection of these proxy series as supposed to others next door.
While particular relevant to Mann’s work and his hockey stick (together with his supervisors at that time Bradley and Hughes, who are highly responsible for that mess costing the world trillions!), this is a problem for
ANY proxy reconstruction!
Without discussing this uncertainty in mathematical detail, these articles are worthless and unscientific.
This argument cuts both ways I am afraid.
OT: I have to comment on the disagreement between Pope Leo and Trump on the Iran war.
Pope Leo describes Trump’s war on the Mad Mullahs of Iran as a war of choice, in effect saying Trump had no valid reason to start the war.
But the opposite is true. Trump had no choice but to take military action immediately after he learned that the Mad Mullahs were within just a few weeks of having enough enriched uranium to create 11 nuclear bombs.
Pope Leo should think about this: The Mad Mullahs of Iran are homicidal maniacs. Their goal in life is to bring about the wholesale destruction of the world as we know (Armageddon), which they believe will usher in a new era of radical Shia religion, when the Twelfth Emam returns and Armageddon is the way to bring this about.
Now, if you are a crazy, murderous Ayatollah, and you get your hands on a nuclear weapon, what would be the best use of that weapon to bring about Armageddon?
I would suggest that hitting the Vatican would be the best use. This would pit religion against religion. Just what the Ayatollah would want to bring about the destruction of the world.
So the action Trump is taking is in the interests of Pope Leo and Catholics and the rest of the world. Pope Leo should be thanking Trump. All the other critics, too.
Criticism won’t stop Trump from preventing murderous crazy people from acquiring nuclear weapons. And Thank God for that!
Spot on, Tom. And although it is OT, it’s still a good post.
The Mad Mullahs of Iran are homicidal maniacs
It is fundamental to that faith and its values are the antithesis of Judeo-Christian values.
Since the 1st of January this year there have been:
485 Islamic attacks in 33 countries, in which 2,572 people were killed and 2,266 injured. – RoP
Largely peaceful, as they say… Other religious beliefs have yet to score.
Thanks for the link.
A problem with Islam is lack of vetting of “management” that it is easily co-opted by warlord types to maintain obedience in a population without having to buy many guns…just being selective about who declares themselves to be an Imam will get the job done…plus get you cash donations…a supply of young men to be your soldiers…and Imams can interpret almost any atrocity you wish to pull off as a holy war…and it is really nearly a self declared volunteer position…
sorta like some counties in the U.S. where nobody has ever run against the guy who got to be the local judge by acclamation 40 years ago…
Every ceasefire Iran has agreed to has functioned this way:
Pressure builds to intolerable level
Iran agrees to pause
Western political systems declare success and reduce pressure
Iran reconstitutes
Cycle repeats at a higher baseline Iranian capability level
The ratchet effect:
Each cycle doesn’t reset to the prior baseline — Iran ends each cycle in a stronger position than it entered. The nuclear program advanced through multiple rounds of this. The proxy network expanded through multiple rounds of this. The missile program matured through multiple rounds of this. The trajectory is monotonically in Iran’s favor precisely because only one side treats the pauses as permanent.
The Hormuz specific danger:
Hormuz is uniquely dangerous because Western economies have an almost irresistible incentive to accept a bad deal to reopen it. The economic pain of closure is immediate, visible, and politically costly. The strategic cost of a bad ceasefire is deferred, diffuse, and easy to discount politically. Iran understands this calculus perfectly and can essentially extort a treaty exit whenever the economic pressure becomes sufficient.
The honest conclusion:
Any policy that includes a ceasefire or treaty with Iran as a terminal objective is self-defeating by design. The only strategically coherent endpoint is either the permanent degradation of Iran’s capacity to threaten Hormuz and regional stability, or internal regime collapse. A treaty that leaves the clerical structure intact and capable simply resets the clock for the next cycle — at higher stakes.
The West’s institutional bias toward negotiated settlement as the definition of diplomatic success is being systematically exploited by a state whose doctrinal framework defines that settlement as a temporary tactical retreat.
An old Soviet philosophy: Peace is the time to gather one’s forces.
— Credit Tom Clancey
Sometimes people just get tired of fighting.
The Japanese were fierce warriors. They finally got tired of fighting.
Two nits.
Atomic (uranium/fission) bombs, not nuclear (plutonium/fusion).
Yes everyone uses nuclear, but if everyone jumps off the bridge, does that mean you have to or should?
The 11 atomic bombs would occur if the 80% uranium were enriched to 90%.
Not the full story.
The half ton of 60% uranium could not be rocket launched, but it could be a ship board bomb.
Any of those could be used to create a radiological dirty bomb.
Plus a delivery system.
Iran has a 2 stage solid propellent launch vehicle with a demonstrated 2000 km (demonstrated to 1500 km) range.
The launch vehicle is hypersonic.
What is concerning is the payload is maneuverable at hypersonic speeds.
Iran is also starting to launch satellites.
The difference between a space launch vehicle and an ICBM is the payload.
If I were the fanatic Ayatollah, and wanted to hit my targets with a nuclear weapon, I would not mount the bomb on a long-range missile. A long-range missile fired from Iran, and headed for the Vatican, would be spotted immediately and shot down, and would never reach its destination.
Instead, find an innocent looking cargo ship, load a missile (hypersonic would be best), into the cargo bay and sail close to the Italian coast. Bring the launcher onto the deck and launch it. The missile will have a very short distance to the Vatican, and will be almost impossible to intercept, even if missile defenses are active. The time to respond would be very short.
Or the Mad Ayatollah could just have someone drive a nuclear bomb up near the Vatican.
Negative 1 for too far afield. I agree, but there are websites specifically focused on that topic. Heartland Institute is affiliated with WUWT and has places.
While I’m OT, let me complain about the Fox News military reporter, Jennifer Griffin.
Jennifer apparently doesn’t like the Trump administration, and she lets her emotions distort her reporting on the Iran War.
Today, Jennifer was reporting on the blockade of Iranian ports, and she reported that Trump said he thought the blockade of Iran was more impactful than the bombing of Iran, on Iranian leadership.
Then Jennifer made this stupid remark: “If the blockade is more impactful than the bombing, then why didn’t we just do a blockade instead of bombing? Obviously implying that the bombing was unnecessary.
And you are a military correspondent. You don’t know much about the military, Jennifer.
Here’s the answer, Jennifer. The U.S. military had to destroy Iran’s offensive capabilities before a blockade of the ports could take place without suffering heavy casualties.
It is a sad commentary, but journalists today give journalism a bad name.
Don’t forget that the Iranians have been chanting “Death to America” for 47 years. They mean it, too.
Thursday funny. Heidi Alexander is the Labour Minister for Transport – upkeep of the roads and that sort of thing…
Carma
A POTHOLE took the Transport Secretary’s car off the road in a shocking example of the wrecked state of Britain’s roads.
The Mini Cooper of Heidi Alexander was towed after hitting a “crater worthy of the moon”.
Ms Alexander told The Sun that too many drivers are affected by the crisis — but blamed local councils, including the Lib Dem-run authority where her accident happened. – The Sun
As usual with the Labour government, it’s always somebody else’s responsibility, or fault…
Are any of these identified cycles included in any computer model that people are aware of?
For most of them, they still don’t know what causes these cycles.
But you can trust them when they declare that climate science is settled.
I happen to know as FACT that it is my pet goldfish that causes all of these things.
Now I know you’re off your meds. It can’t be your goldfish because I happen to know as FACT that it’s our new kitty that’s causing all of these things (mostly because he’s mad at just having is noo-noo’s removed).
Quick (hopefully) fun fact. Thee two previous facetious claims are actually models. they are statements about how some facet of the world works. How good these models are is obviously a completely different animal.
Every time the Climate Fascists use the term “unprecedented” in reference to current “climate change,” they are simply lying.
There is nothing new under the Sun, and the power of nature is vast compared with any minuscule “contribution” from humans.
The unprecedented use of the term “unprecedented” by the Climate Fascists is unprecedented.
I quite like this little German show, and the presenter is very pretty, and she has a very lovely voice, which of course doesn’t detract from the overall quality. I’m even worse at German than I am at English (which is saying something), and YouTube’s German → French subtitles are of fairly low quality.
In my experience, it’s not a good idea to invoke D–O events to counter alarmists: they’ll tell you that all of this is perfectly understood, explainable and explained, and that the current situation is different because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, before sending you off with a smirk to your supposed scientific illiteracy.
For my part, I simply look at what has been happening since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, with strong warming during the first half of the 20th century that cannot be attributed to anthropogenic GHG emissions, followed by a period of slight cooling (more or less explained by aerosols), followed from 1975 onward by a warming of similar magnitude to that of the first half of the 20th century, after which came a long pause around 1999, lasting until 2015, before warming resumed at its usual pace.
The irregularity of this warming despite the continuous rise of CO₂ in the atmosphere, which is nevertheless supposed to cause continuous and catastrophic warming; the steady improvement in quality of life; the statistical absence of an increase in wildfires, hurricanes, and droughts; the resilience of corals (which have survived, over their hundreds of millions of years of existence, disasters that would quite literally make us wet ourselves); the explosion in crop yields; the decline of famines; widespread greening, including in arid regions; the clear lack of submersion of atolls; sea-level rise not exceeding 3 mm per year; the sheer insolence of polar bears that refuse to die despite catastrophic predictions; the inability of models to make reliable forecasts; the apocalyptic scenarios instrumentalized by the press and mainstream scientists, driven by ideology, attracted by public attention, or frightened of losing funding and social standing; the ostracizing of any dissenting voice as “denialist” or “conspiracy theorist”; the indoctrination of youth into a movement of resentment and generalized hostility toward the modern world, without which they would be burdened by disease and hardship; the fact that CO₂ and temperature are not at all correlated over most of geological history, including during the Holocene; the predictions of Malthusians, always contradicted by facts yet endlessly renewed with new deadlines, much like Seventh-day Adventists gathering in ever greater numbers on the hilltop only to see nothing above them but an empty sky, and yet feeling their faith in the imminence of the end times redouble— all of this leads me to think, even without considering the abruptness of D–O events, that the world is not about to collapse anytime soon.
The assertions made about how temperatures are changing far faster today than any time in millions of years are easily shown to be rubbish. The attached graphic is one example. The Younger Dryas, Bolling, and the D-O spikes are temperature excursions of around 10C in the Arctic. Globally, the excursions would have been much smaller. Other proxies for rapid temperature excursions exist world wide – recorded in the Arabian Sea for example. If climate change is measurably due to humans, then we are truly pikers by comparison with Mother Nature! Those wearing sandwich boards about climate catastrophe have a financial goal, not a climate goal.
Great post, but we need to get the terminology right. We are currently in the interglacial period of the current ice age. We’ve been in this ice age for the past 2.5 million years or so, experience perhaps 15 similar interglacials in the past. Thanks
Have we had abrupt climate change? Can’t say I’ve noticed.
Getting cool rather quickly around here in Australia, particularly in the mornings.
Had to switch air-con from cooling mode to heating mode, and drag the blankets out of storage
Can we standardize the terminology and narrative of warm and cool periods. As member of the general public my understanding is, that an ICE AGE is simply a period when there is permanent ice in both the northern and southern hemisphere at the same time. This has been the situation for millions of year. During this time, the extent of global ice coverage fluctuated markedly as the Earth’s geology attests.
Times of increasing global ice coverage are referred to as GLACIAL PERIODS while times of retreating global ice coverage are referred to as INTER-GLACIAL PERIODS. The application of ‘ice age’ to regular occurring inter-glacial periods by ‘scientists’ is frustrating. Statements as in this article ‘During the last ice age (approx. 110,000 to 12,000 years ago),’ are commonplace and do not serve the public well.
While it is understandable that the short glacial advance between 1300 and 1800AD was long ago given the label ‘Little Ice Age’ considering limitations of ‘climate knowledge at the time. At best this 500yr event was the first global well documented ‘little glacial period’.
Alarmist ideologues and their compliant MSM thrive on simplistic language that overstates temperature variation to shape their messaging. Scientists, lazily referring to labeling a glacial period as as an ice age simply feeds their narrative.