By Vijay Jayaraj
The predictions of climate doomsayers reveal an embarrassing ignorance of a capricious geological history shaped by natural forces too powerful for human control and too complex to allow for meaningful forecasts.
What can be said is that we are living in the warmth of an interglacial period known as the Holocene Epoch, which began about 11,700 years ago. It followed a frigid span of nearly 90,000 years, when thousands of feet of glacial ice covered Canada and northernmost parts of the region that would become the U.S. Temperatures were lower than the current average by 11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit.
The relatively benign Holocene of nearly 12 millennia has been punctuated by intermittent temperature changes, including 10 warming periods, counting our current one. The most recent era of cold was the Little Ice Age from about 1250 to 1850.
Climate alarmists treat the “preindustrial” era before 1850 as their starting point for measuring modern temperature, without noting that the period falls within the last gasp of the Little Ice Age. Their hysteria and the climate policy they promote are based on a temperature record that begins during a period of unusual cold and on a subsequent warming of a modest 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 175 years.
If the temperature record were expanded to take in the warmest parts of the Holocene, the same planet would be seen as emerging from an intermediate deep freeze. Research published in Nature shows that marine sediment cores place peak warmth in the first half of the Holocene interglacial, between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago.
Biomarker records from sediment cores in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas, published in the Journal of Quaternary Science, show minimal sea ice during the early Holocene, short-term fluctuations through the middle Holocene, and a marked expansion of ice over the past 4,500 years.
Chukchi Sea reconstruction and the broader Arctic picture both trace an ocean that carried far less ice when no factory existed anywhere on Earth. The ups and downs of modern Arctic ice are wobbles inside a range sustained for more than 11,000 years.
Two thousand years ago, Roman farmers grew grapes and grains at higher latitudes and altitudes that later generations had to abandon because of advancing cold. During the more recent Medieval Warm Period – about 1,000 years ago – Norse settlers lived in southwestern Greenland for close to five centuries, grazed livestock, harvested barley, and buried their dead in churchyard ground that later froze solid and stayed frozen. Tree stumps continue to appear from beneath retreating glaciers in the Alps and the Canadian Arctic, rooted in soil that carbon dating places in the warmth of the middle Holocene.
Then came the temperature decline that was accompanied by horrific consequences for humanity. The Little Ice Age closed Alpine passes, swallowed farms, killed harvests across northern Europe and emptied Greenland settlements. Rivers that had not frozen in human history became sites of ice fairs. Two independent temperature reconstructions, one drawn from Greenland ice and the other from ocean sediments off Indonesia, sit 9,500 miles apart and yet track each other closely in recording a fall of around 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit between the Holocene peak and the coldest of the Little Ice Age.
While broad historical climatic trends can be identified, predicting the future with confidence is tricky at best. Ocean oscillations in the Pacific and Atlantic redistribute heat on decadal and centennial clocks that nobody can predict from first principles. Solar output varies. Volcanoes intervene on no schedule. Cloud behavior, the single largest uncertainty in every atmospheric model, responds to all of it. These assemblages of water vapor and aerosols act both as insulators against the loss of nighttime heat and as reflectors sending sunlight back to outer space.
All are mighty forces, along with many others, that operate irrespective of human activity, whose effects are negligible on the grand scale of a climate system of practically infinite complexity.
In the end, what we know is that warmth is better than cold when it comes to human flourishing and that abundant, affordable energy is necessary to build and sustain prosperous societies. And in the meantime, the Holocene climate will keep doing what it has always done, and we will know what that is after it has happened.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Originally published at Real Clear Energy, September 25, 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Tags:preindustrial temperatures, natural climate change, energy abundance, human flourishing, Holocene Climatic Optimum, Greenland settlements, climate predictions, climate alarmism, climate history, climate skepticism, CO2 Coalition, Holocene, Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, Vijay Jayaraj
But His Holiness, Michael Mann proved there was no Little Ice Age, and the only thing True Believers should concern themselves with are the Satanic Gasses.
“Michael Mann proved there was no Little Ice Age,”
He published a paper on the Little Ice Age?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239535106_Little_Ice_Age
Where, exactly, do deniers get their alternative ‘facts’?
It’s the same with the MWP. Mann NOT discredit the existence of the MWP as often erroneously claimed by contrarians. It’s the quite the opposite. Mann fully acknowledges the MWP, provides evidence supporting it, and was even one of the first to hypothesize a cause.
[Mann 2002]
Again, Mann’s Hockey Stick paper (MBH98) would disagree
No it doesn’t. MBH98/99 is not inconsistent with the existence of the MWP. In fact, the evidence MBH incorporate in their global average temperature reconstruction confirms [Lamb 1965].
bdgwx, deniers still can’t even read graphs! Look at this:
“the broader Arctic picture both trace an ocean that carried far less ice when no factory existed anywhere on Earth. The ups and downs of modern Arctic ice are wobbles inside a range sustained for more than 11,000 years.”
The hyperlink surrounding the phrase “broader Arctic” is a NoTricksZone link that takes you to a graph based on Stein et al. (2017):
But look at the x-axis: it says “Age, cal yrs. BP.”
“BP” means “Before 1950,” with the conventional reference point being 1950:
“The process begins with a fixed formula that converts the isotope ratio into a number of “radiocarbon years” on the assumptions that the environmental isotope ratio has always been the same as in 1950 and that the half life of 14
C is 5568 years.[1] In order that the radiocarbon age would be the same no matter when it was measured, this uncalibrated age is usually given in “14C years BP”, where BP (literally “before present“) means “before 1950″.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_calibration
Here’s annual mean surface temperatures for the Arctic:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3/figures/1
As you can see, it has warmed a LOT since 1950.
So pathetic, lol.
So as your pretty graph shows, Arctic Sea Ice cover is higher now than before. The latest years are on the left. WUWT? 😉
No, the graph omits the present-day: September Arctic sea ice extent has declined by nearly 40% in less than 50 years, and the long-term trend indicates that the Arctic is moving FAST toward ice free summer conditions.
Lol.
When the the words of the party fail to match reality, dump reality.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/arctic-sea-ice-loss-part-1/
“All in all, the three direct measures of Arctic sea ice show that the ice pack is in a “death spiral,” disappearing right before our eyes. The decline has accelerated since satellites began detailed observations. There is no evidence of any recent deceleration, despite the faulty opinions of a few.”
And for the inevitable: “But since 2007, Arctic sea ice has…”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63520-0
The slowdown (not a pause) is attributable to changes in internal variability:
“Moreover, the spectrum analysis applied to the NAO reveal a typical periodicity of approximately 40 years (Supplementary Fig. 9). The transition from the peak negative phase to the peak positive phase, starting around early 2010s, is likely to extend until roughly 2030–2040. Given the strong coupled relationship between the NAO and Arctic sea ice, the slowdown in the September Arctic sea ice melt is likely to continue until 2030–2040. Nevertheless, a phase of accelerated Arctic sea ice decline may ensue when the NAO passes the peak positive phase after 2030–2040. In the absence of greenhouse gas emission reduction, we may encounter a sequence of climate and environmental crises triggered by a sharp reduction in Arctic sea ice after approximately a decade or so.”
So tell us YOUR definition of ice free. And now 1/3 is actually 40%?
From Ai : Since 1979:
The conventional definition for an ice-free Arctic summer is when the total sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean drops below 1 million^2 km.
And when was this “convention” adopted Oh the early 2000’s? 😉
Shouldn’t that be weather?
I suppose you would prefer mile-thick glaciers covering Canada, parts of the US, Europe, and Asia? Canada wouldn’t exist, neither would some northern European countries. You would prefer that?
Yes, we should be following Milankovitch forcing.
If a little “excess” CO2 prevents the next glaciation, and there’s no evidence it would, that would be an unequivocally good thing.
“ there’s no evidence it would”
There is:
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/16/1599/2020/
Oh you mean the paper that compared proxies to the models? 🙂
First…that isn’t Eldrosion’s graph. It was the graph Vijay Jayaraj linked to in his article.
Second…the graph doesn’t show the significant decline that has occurred since 1950.
It is a pretty graph and it doesn’t show what he wanted. 😉
Not really. Even less since 1940. Perhaps less than 1 degree. Nothing to worry about. All good and nothing to do with GHGs. Just relax.
Mike, do you want me to tell the WUWT community about that graph or do you want to do it? You know what it says since we’ve discussed it before here, here, and here.
“Mike, my comment here is going to be similar to the last several times you posted that graph. That is HadAT2 which can be downloaded here. Over the most recent 40 years in the dataset the warming rate is +0.19 C/decade.“
Mhmmmmm
Not to mention that the graph only extends to the early 2000s.
I mentioned that the temp from 1940s to the present day sees about 1 degree rise. You have added nothing and have nothing to add.
Nothing to tell. We discussed and agreed that the temp is 1958 was the same as it was in 1997. Thanks for your interest…again.
Still has not caught up with the M and RWPs.
I think we can manage, Mr Twonk.
https://nsmsites.caset.buffalo.edu/briner/buf/pubs/Kaufman_et_al_2009.pdf
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
“The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.”
https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/18/is-kaufman-robust/
“I noticed almost instantaneously that Kaufman used Yamal and upside-down Tiljander (however mitigating the impact of upside-down Tiljander by truncating it at 1800). He used two other Finnish series, both of which are, as far as I can tell right now, used in an orientation upside-down to that proposed by the original authors. Kaufman truncated the Blue Lake varve series because of supposed non-temperature inhomogeneity in the early portion of the series, but didn’t truncate the later portion of the Loso Iceberg Lake varve series where there was a definite inhomogeneity. Kaufman appears to have used an old version of the Hallet Lake series (which was replaced over a year ago in Nov 2008 at NCDC – otherwise, the inconsistencies between the Kaufman version and the NCDC version are inexplicable.) In addition to Yamal, Kaufman used two other Briffa versions, while not using seemingly plausible tree ring series at Tornetrask (Grudd) and Indigirka, Yakutia.”
AAAAAAAha ha ha ha ha.
Yahoo, you may have heard of the Hockey Stick, which I was mocking.
that was so obvious.
Some cannot identify irony even when they trip over it!
The problem is that Tom Halla’s “facts” are wrong. There is plenty of reasons to be critical of Mann. Falsely claiming that he proved there was no LIA (or MWP) undermines legitimate criticisms. As was shown with citations above Mann was one of the researchers that not only provided evidence of the existence of the LIA and MWP, but he was one of the first to hypothesize their cause.
MBH reconstruction (Fig.3) clearly showed a cooler period before modern warming.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999GL900070
Mann has tacked on measured temps with reconstructions in his ridiculous hockey stick (rendering the whole paper a sick joke) and you swallow the whole thing hook, line and sinker. What’s actually wrong with you?
An old button from the ’70s comes to mind-“Drain Bramaged” is what it said…referencing too many recreational chemicals…I’ve known a few folks like that. Sad-no cure. A fried egg is forever (another image from that time).
Vijay Jayaraj doesn’t seem to have a problem with tacking on measured temperatures with reconstructed temperatures.
And apparently, neither does Roy Spencer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/senate-epw-hearing-climate-change-its-happened-before/
I guess that means there must be something wrong with him too, according to Mike.
Yes probably.
I don’t care.
Get lost, stinking troll.
Well we can clearly see where you get your ‘facts’ from.
So you and your fellow commenter are LIA deniers.
Good for the goose
I find it strange how publishing evidence in support of the LIA and even hypothesizing it’s cause is now equivalent to denying it. WUWT can a be strange place sometimes.
“All are mighty forces, along with many others, that operate irrespective of human activity, whose effects are negligible on the grand scale of a climate system of practically infinite complexity.”
But… but… the climate disaster cultists here say it’s now all understood. In fact, they say some oil company researchers had it ALL figure out several decades ago. Yup, they say, it’s now hard science like basic physics. The planet will burn up- the oceans will boil- there is a massive extinction event happening- oh, woe is us. Repent! /s
We have to remember that the alarmists will use the departure from the normal of any weather event to promote their mythical climate crisis agenda. Then when realists remind them that human progress has advanced at the greatest rate as the planet has been warming after the waning of the most recent ice age, they’ll assure us the future is almost guaranteed to be different because the eco-system can’t handle all the carbon emissions that are being poured into it. Yet humans have learned to ignore these doomsters and conclude that if we survived the greatest wars in history during the 20th century while making some of the greatest scientific, technological and medical advances, what’s to worry about if the global temperature rises a degree or more. We’ll just adjust our lives to handle whatever changes occur instead of retreating to another pre-industrial era.
This is a good review of relatively recent geologic and solar system processes. The only addition is that the act of continental drift makes changes in ocean currents (the closing of the Panama waterway was a little bit catastrophic) and moves continents into and out of polar regions, making them more or less ice carriers. A memory clue to remember is: Carol King “I feel The Earth Move Under MY Feet”.
Agreed, there are many cycles affecting Earth’s climate (whatever that is), most of which we have little knowledge of.
There’s also AGW.
Nope, the strength of the greenhouse effect hasn’t changed in decades.
I was unable to replicate Willis’ result. In fact, when I downloaded the CERES data and applied his methodology to it I actually got a result that was consistent with the orange line (expectation). You can see my analysis here.
Have you shown what Willis did wrong? Last I looked, you had not shown where his computations were wrong.
No. I’m not sure what he did wrong. I don’t even know if he did anything wrong. I just know that 1) I cannot replicate his result and 2) my result was consistent with the expectation he posted.
I decided to look a little closer. I suspect Willis removed the ENSO noise from his trend. With a La Nina early in the trend and a Hunga-Tonga enhanced El Nino at the end, a trend driven by the ENSO noise will be created.
You could also just end your trend in 2022 before the endpoint noise creates a trend.
He doesn’t say about ENSO.
Which is why I used the word “suspected”. You can easily see that ENSO affects the yearly data and thus could have an impact on the trend. You could test if for yourself by using ONI values to alter every month of the global temperature in the calculations.
To bad nobody has ever been able to identify any evidence of this AGW.
“To bad nobody has ever been able to identify any evidence”
that you can accept.
Models are not evidence of anything.
You on the other hand believe that if anything has changed, CO2 caused it.
No, I don’t.
Please present any direct evidence that unambiguously implicates human emissions of CO2 in temperature changes. While you are at it, define and quantify “global warming” in the entire Holocene context.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
“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). 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). We calculated rates of temperature change during the Holocene using a Gaussian filtered temperature reconstruction and linear regression (Fig. 3C). The latter approach was applied to provide a rate that is accurate for the past 200 y (a contemporary rate is not possible using the filtered data due to the edge effect associated with the end of the time series). Rates of temperature change have fluctuated throughout the Holocene, but have generally been less than ∼1 °C/century. 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.“
Hardly unambiguous, and they admit to downplaying significant uncertainties. I am unconvinced that their methods are capable of capturing the temporal resolution suitable for the comparison.
But let’s leave that aside and assume that it gives at least a ballpark estimate. One might expect a more rapid rebound in temperature from the anomalous, coolest period of the entire record, the Little Ice Age. There is nothing that unambiguously or directly links the change to increases in atmospheric CO₂, especially considering that the onset of warming precedes significant increases in the trace gas.
There remain far too many uncertainties in our understanding of the system to assign any one factor as uniquely causal.
This paper’s temperature series has a 25-year resolution. Ice cores can provide very high resolution because snow in the Arctic accumulates in successive layers over time, remains buried and preserved, and the isotopic composition of those layers can subsequently be measured.
Your temporal-resolution objection is interesting, to say the least, because this reconstruction is a revision and extension of the Agassiz/Renland work in Vinther et al. (2009), a reconstruction that was linked to in this very article under the phrase “track each other closely”:
“Greenland ice and the other from ocean sediments off Indonesia, sit 9,500 miles apart and yet track each other closely in recording a fall of around 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit between the Holocene peak and the coldest of the Little Ice Age.”
Skeptics are good at being inconsistent.
“ One might expect a more rapid rebound in temperature from the anomalous, coolest period of the entire record, the Little Ice Age.”
But “rebound” by itself isn’t a physical mechanism for warming. And in any case, temperatures haven’t simply returned to their pre LIA level. Modern temperatures are about 4°C above their preindustrial baseline and are now the highest in roughly 7,000 years.
Anthropogenic warming has reversed a substantial portion of the millennia long cooling that followed the local Holocene Climatic Optimum.
“Your temporal-resolution objection is interesting, to say the least, because this reconstruction is a revision and extension of the Agassiz/Renland work in Vinther et al. (2009)”
And just to avoid any misunderstanding about the word “revision”: the principal revision in Lecavalier et al. concerns the elevation correction applied to the early Holocene record.
Accounting for Innuitian Ice Sheet thinning actually makes the reconstructed early Holocene substantially warmer than in the earlier reconstruction.
As such, this revision does not artificially produce the paper’s conclusion that the modern rate of warming is unusually rapid.
I stand corrected as far as the resolution argument is concerned, but I tend to take insistence on the precision of the temperature measurements with great caution. The assumptions taken by the researchers with regard to uncertainty are unsupported.
There remains no direct evidence of the causal mechanism. You simply state it as a given that it is anthropogenic because there is a weak correlation.
No doubt human influence exists, and adding CO₂ to the mix certainly has some effect, but it is far from certain that said effect is substantial, much less dominant among the other influences in the complex system. There certainly is no cause to pronounce it a crisis, whatever the cause.
Corrected to a degree, that is. Age resolution and climate signal resolution are not the same thing. Climate signals become blurred due to diffusion. This is where much is assumed since it does not necessarily follow that a correctly dated layer corresponds to the actual climate of that sample zone.
Yes, a 25 year sampling interval doesn’t mean that every 25-year climate fluctuation is perfectly preserved. But the authors aren’t claiming that it is.
They use a 50 year low pass filter to examine multicentennial variability (a much broader signal that is less sensitive to the loss of variability you’re talking about).
And the long-term cooling expected from declining high-Arctic insolation due to orbital forcing is clearly represented in the reconstruction. The authors specifically note the close correspondence between peak high Arctic insolation and peak Agassiz temperatures.
So, all things considered, I think you areoverstating what these uncertainties imply for the broad temperature history reconstructed here.
I think not. Agassiz is considered a less-than-ideal site for such reconstructions and requires a great deal more in the way of assumptions. I can accept the data as a general trend, something I never disputed. I remain skeptical of the claimed precision and the subsequent claim of rate comparison.
“Agassiz is considered a less-than-ideal site for such reconstructions and requires a great deal more in the way of assumptions.”
Why? Sure, there are site-specific complications, but complications and uncertainties exist with essentially every climate proxy.
And Agassiz is extraordinarily valuable in that it provides a long Holocene ice core record from ~80.7°N on Ellesmere Island. IOW, a genuinely High Arctic record. The High Arctic can behave climatologically quite differently from even lower Arctic / sub-Arctic latitudes, so obtaining information from that far north is particularly valuable.
” I can accept the data as a general trend, something I never disputed. I remain skeptical of the claimed precision and the subsequent claim of rate comparison.”
So you accept the general trend but reject the claimed precision and subsequent rate comparison.
Then the question becomes: what magnitude of uncertainty are you proposing, and how would it affect the rate comparison?
Looking at Figure 3, panel c of the paper (attached), the recent warming stands out quite clearly from the preceding record, with the authors calculating a rate of +1.97°C/ century for the most recent 200-year interval—the highest rate in the reconstruction.
if a signal is defined as x(t) = A sin(2πft) then the low pass filter attenuates frequencies above its cutoff frequency. It makes the signal look less variable by eliminating the variability imparted by the higher frequencies.
If you use a 50 year low pass filter then components with higher frequencies get attenuated. The filter has a cutoff frequency of 1/50years. (f = 1/period, period = 1/f).
Doing this is typically done by using the assumption that higher frequency signals represent a NOISE component. The problem with making this assumption is that you need to be able to justify attenuating *actual* signal components in order to eliminate “noise”. I’ve never seen this justification from climate science.
Can *YOU* justify that attenuating the contributions from higher frequency components in order to attenuate “noise” is applicable?
‘We calculated rates of temperature change during the Holocene using a Gaussian filtered temperature reconstruction and linear regression…’
Papers such as this might actually be informative / persuasive if they (and their respective references to ‘supplementary information’) actually provided graphs of the raw data. What do you suppose they’re hiding? Or constructing? We’re all adults here, c’mon show us.
Raw data is there.
Figure S3 shows the underlying Agassiz δ18O record before the temperature reconstruction is produced, and Figure S4 shows the high-resolution A84, A87 and A09 δ18O series, allowing consistency of individual ice core records and extension through 2009 to be seen directly.
‘Raw data is there.’
No, it isn’t:
“Fig. S3. Agassiz δ18O temperature reconstruction: (A) Agassiz δ18O record with the addition of the 2010 shallow ice core and estimated elevation corrections for (B) isostatic adjustment and (C) thinning of the Innuitian ice sheet along the southeastern coast of Ellesmere Island. (D) Agassiz δ18O temperature re-construction (dark red) with its 2σ uncertainty (light red).”
Again, show us the ‘Agassiz delta18O record’ without appending the undoubtedly (*) blade-like 2010 shallow ice core and the ‘corrections’ for ‘isostatic adjustment’ and ‘thinning of the Innuitian ice sheet along the southeastern coast of Ellesmere Island’.
(*) You do recall Mann’s Nature trick?
Panel A shows the isotope record without those elevation corrections. Panel D shows the reconstruction after those corrections are applied.
“(*) You do recall Mann’s Nature trick?”
Yes, but that criticism doesn’t apply here. The 2010 core isn’t an instrumental temperature record grafted onto a proxy series. It is another ice core whose δ18O is measured using the same type of proxy.
Again, Figure S4 presents the high-resolution δ18O records from A84, A87, and A09 individually.
Importantly, A09 overlaps the older A84/A87 record by roughly 30 years, allowing their consistency and chronology to be checked directly.
‘Panel A shows the isotope record without those elevation corrections. Panel D shows the reconstruction after those corrections are applied.’
Nonsense. Re-read the caption again – it clearly states that ‘Panel A’ shows the ‘Agassiz δ18O record WITH the addition of the 2010 shallow ice core and estimated elevation corrections’. Presumably, these ‘elevation corrections’ have something to do with the ‘data’ shown in Panels B & C, both of which have undoubtedly undergone some undisclosed degree of additional processing. As for Panel D, it’s simply a re-graphing of the Panel A series to which the usual Cli-Sci error bars of unspecified origin have been appended.
‘It is another ice core whose δ18O is measured using the same type of proxy.’
Therein lies the problem. It’s different ice, from a different location, subject to different physical conditions. They should be displayed separately.
Here is the caption:
“Agassiz δ18O temperature reconstruction: (A) Agassiz δ18O record with the addition of the 2010 shallow ice core and estimated elevation corrections for (B) isostatic adjustment and (C) thinning of the Innuitian ice sheet along the southeastern coast of Ellesmere Island. (D) Agassiz δ18O temperature reconstruction (dark red) with its 2σ uncertainty (light red).”
What do you think A, B, C, and D are designated for, Frank? It’s pretty unambiguous.
And importantly, the Innuitian Ice Sheet correction you’re objecting to isn’t what produces the modern temperature rise.
The authors state that this correction primarily affects the early Holocene, when substantial Innuitian thinning occurred.
In fact, incorporating Innuitian thinning is what makes the reconstructed early Holocene substantially warmer than in the previous reconstruction.
“Therein lies the problem. It’s different ice, from a different location, subject to different physical conditions. They should be displayed separately.”
No, Frank. This is what the paper says:
“The Agassiz A84 and A87 isotope records are based on cores (obtained in those years), which were 100 m apart. In 2010, a 16-m core (A09; 80°49’N, 72°53.74’W) was obtained, located between those earlier cores, to extend the melt and isotope records to 2009 CE.”
So A09 wasn’t obtained from some substantially different location. It was deliberately drilled between the A84 and A87 sites, which themselves were 100 m apart and helped form the basis of the earlier Agassiz record used by Vinther.
And the individual core records are displayed separately. See the attached Figure S4.
‘It’s pretty unambiguous.’
It is – find a 5th grader to explain to you that, as clearly stated, the graph in Panel A includes the ‘2010 shallow ice core and estimated elevation corrections’.
‘See the attached Figure S4.’
S4 dates back to, what, 1830-40? I think most folks would agree that it has warmed up since the LIA. And if you really wanted to be honest about it, you’d probably agree that it looks like a linear trend.
Again, show us the raw δ18O data from a contiguous set of cores from the same borehole that extends back to 10-12 ky before present.
See the attached image. That 5th grader will tell me that A, B, C, and D are all plotted separately, and that A looks visually different from D, particularly during the early Holocene. The early-Holocene warmth is substantially amplified in D relative to A, which is exactly what the elevation corrections would produce.
“I think most folks would agree that it has warmed up since the LIA.”
I would as well—though perhaps too much.
And? I suppose you are ignorant and gullible enough to agree with the self-styled “climate scientist” Gavin Schmidt.
Nobody needs billion dollar AI hallucinations when people like Gavin Schmidt can write nonsense at far less cost!
No, adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter. That’s just a fantasy, to scare people like you.
hypothesis. I’m afraid you will have to try harder to convince anyone that is a fact. Lol.
Cooling by -3.0 degrees Celsius, or -1.0% on the absolute-temperature scale of which this past century has reversed a mere third, or +0.3%.
Given that recent trending, can anyone give one good reason …
… why the next few decades won’t see a further rise of ~0.7%, i.e. +2.0 degrees Celsius?
What kind of General Panic would that change induce?
Go Ahead, Give This a Good Try!
Please show your work!
——————
What wouldn’t we try in order to have the Arctic Shoreline restored to a Green & Growing Forest on busy seaports?
These questions are sadly neglected, as a result of our general ignorance of matters volcanic & climatic.
Speaking of the future. It really does appear the natural 60-70 year cycle is changing phases from 30+ years of warming to a new 30+ years of cooling. Arctic changes look to be a leading indicator with the coldest high Arctic summer on record, a relatively high minimum sea ice level and now faster recovery of sea ice.
https://osisaf-hl.met.no/v3p0-sea-ice-index
I wonder how alarmists will handle 30+ years of much cooler temperatures.
We will be able, from data, to reassure them that the drop in temperature will be small and the warming will begin again before the temperature gets as low as the last decline.
In other words, whatever powerful change in the solar system has been operating since the Last Glacial Maximum (~20,000 years ago) will continue its warming influence.
You’re dreaming. Just like you were in 2020:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210507021328/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-453565
“Richard M says:
April 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM
About as I expected. Still had El Nino conditions across the tropics this winter but the winter Arctic warming is starting to fade and the Pacific hot spot has pretty much dissipated.
Since El Nino conditions are still hanging around this will keep the trend higher for a few more months.
I still expect a drop over those next few month until we get back to the 21st century baseline of around .15 later this summer.”
Of course, that drop never came….
As Yogi Berra said, It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
Even the IPCC stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. You obviously disagree, preferring the “expertise” of self-appointed “climate scientists”, such as the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann.
You have my sympathy.
“You obviously disagree”
Lol, and apparently so does Richard M., who has been predicting global cooling for almost a decade, yet you don’t direct that same hostile incoherence at him.
You’re not good at hiding your bias.
My predictions usually include caveats which dishonest folks ignore. I’ve made a lot of predictions about what might occur WHEN the natural AMO/60-year cycle changes phases. It took longer than I expected, but it is looking like that phase change is now underway. Of course, we will have to wait until the El Nino runs its course to see how it goes.
Meanwhile, I’m still awaiting your explanation for why the strength of the greenhouse effect has remained constant throughout the full CERES data set.
“Meanwhile, I’m still awaiting your explanation for why the strength of the greenhouse effect has remained constant throughout the full CERES data set.”
The unprecedented rate of warming during the industrial era, relative to the rest of the Holocene, would disagree.
Silly nonsense which has been debunked time and again.
He doesn’t need sympathy, he needs lithium or another treatment.
I make my predictions assuming all else remains the same. Of course, this often isn’t the case and cloud changes along with the Hunga-Tonga eruption disrupted the assumed future. I have no problem being wrong when it is easy to point out the reason.
“I wonder how alarmists will handle 30+ years of much cooler temperatures.”
They’ll refer to the documentary “The Day After Tomorrow”.
Vijay, you are such a great energy humanism ally! Thank you for your consistently great work.
I’d gather you can’t understand what “Age, cal yrs. BP.” means either.
Earth has been hot and Earth has been cold. Right now, it’s pretty nice. I don’t see the problem.
People like Eldrosion want it much colder. That way there will be far fewer humans on the planet.
All, why do you engage with stinking trolls? They are only here to provoke. Ignore them.