Hiding Earth’s Warm Past

Paleoclimate Reconstructions Continue To Document A Much Warmer-Than-Today Holocene
By Kenneth Richard on 28. December 2023

According to a new study, eastern Mediterranean summer temperatures were 1.5°C to 3°C “greater than the present” from about 11,000 to 7,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were approximately 265 ppm. Then the temperatures “followed a gradual decline towards present-day conditions”.

“The MTWA also showed an increasing trend from 9 ka and reached a maximum of ca. 1.5°C greater than the present at ca. 4.5 and 5 ka, followed by a gradual decline towards present-day conditions. … The TRACE-21k-I simulation shows peak summer temperatures between 11 and 9 ka, when the MTWA was ca. 3°C greater than the present”



Image Source: Cruz-Silva et al., 2023
Another new study indicates the climate average was much warmer (19.9°C) during the mid-Holocene than today (13°C) in Japan. The climate here was also warmer than today ~35-40,000 and ~55-60,000 years ago, when CO2 was said to be under 200 ppm.

“The average temperature during the period from 5.4 to 3.8 ka … is 19.9°C ± 6.0°C and is higher than the present cave temperature of 13°C.”





Image Source: Kato et al., 2023

 

A strong suspicion it's being misused, along with the lack of desire to spend the considerable time necessary to prove that given climate science isn't my area of expertise. Therefore, the rational thing to do would be to rely on actual climate science experts for the details, along with just obvious facts such as that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the earth was warmer when there was less carbon locked in the earth. Such warmth doesn't extinguish life, but rapid changes can cause problems for infrastructure, adequate resources, and biodiversity.

 

We saw.

The El Nino resulted in the hottest conditions in the historical record. 2023 will smash the global average temperature record.

Just as we predicted. Dang, we're good. But then, it's not like it was a difficult prediction, being that we simply followed the science.

No, we don't get tired of always being right. After all, after so many years of it, we're very used to it. It's just that, like Cassandra, we're tired of how our predictions being ignored leads to bad things.

 

Sorry, but no.
Hottest In 125,000 Years?
Guest Blogger
Anybody who claims that this year is the hottest for 125,000 years is fraudulent. . . . .

Just about all of the media have been peddling the “Hottest for 125,000 years” claim, which suggests a very concerted effort by the climate establishment in the run up to COP28.

The claim is self evident and baseless nonsense for a number of good reasons:

• There is no such thing as “a global average temperature”
• Even now we have very sparse coverage of temperature measurements. Prior to satellites, we had virtually no data outside of the US, Europe and a few other built up areas
• The temperature record we do have is thoroughly corrupted by UHI, and only dates back to the late 19thC
• Natural variations, including ENSO, volcanic activity etc, can easily cause temperature swings of a degree Celsius from year to year, and decade to decade. But historical proxies don’t have the fine resolution to pick these up, they merely give an idea of average temperatures over decades and even centuries. Consequently you cannot compare one year now with the general climate of, say, 2000 years ago.

But forget about all of these theoretical objections, because the climatic evidence we do have is overwhelming, and it tells us that the climate has been much warmer than now for most of the last 10000 years, since the end of the ice age.

Here are ten powerful, incontrovertible pieces of evidence: . . . .

 

You mean since increased solar activity to the highest sustained level in thousands of years restored the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

For the period since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

No, your side predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by now, temperatures would be much higher, snow would be a thing of the past, blah, blah, blah.

You mean bad things like agricultural yields being the highest ever, number of temperature-related deaths the lowest ever, deserts shrinking dramatically? Those bad things?

 

Ha ha ha,

Thank you for admitting El-Nino's are driving the warming trend which has been known for over 10 years now, glad you are catching up.

You mean these well sourced prediction failures you run away from all the time?

Failed Prediction Timeline • Watts Up With That?

LINK

Some of the prediction failures are gigantic....... when are warmist/alarmists ever going to wake up and see the obvious government $$$$$'s fueled climate crisis scamming?

 

This one really, really wants to deflect from he and his side always being as wrong as it's possible for someone to be,.

You mean your BigLie list that I've ripped apart before?

How about we accelerate things. Let's pretend you've posted the dishonest sleaze again, that I've I point out exactly why it's dishonest sleaze, and, having no response, you've whimpered and run away. Just to post the same debunked sleaze another time, like you're trying to do now.

Can't you even come up with some new sleazy dishonest propaganda?

 

Dang. You're not even pretending to be in touch with reality any more. That's probably for the best.

So, how's the babbling delusion thing working out for you? Made any converts? No? Well, keep trying.

Denialism is kind of dead. They can't come up with any new dishonest propaganda. They've been recycling the same lies for over a decade now.

 

Once any says something that delusional and reality-defying, it's impossible to take them sseriously on any topic. According to the kook logic of that statement, it's impossible to know the average temperature of anything. It's desperate loser talk.

Totally wrong. The station coverage is far more than is needed. We know this because you can remove 90% of the stations at random, and the results won't change

Again, just no. These people have no idea of how UHI works, or how it's corrected for.

Here's the big hint. Most of the UHI happened over a century ago. Once an area is urbanized, that's it. UHI doesn't get bigger over time.

There's the "You can't absolutely prove it's not fairy magic, so it is!" anti-science argument.

And there's the "Climate changed naturally in the past, so humans can't change climate!" nonsensical logic failure.

I understand why deniers are madly flinging every awful argument at the wall, in the vain hope something will stick. If I had spent decades preaching and profiting from a religion that was proven to be false, I'd do so ...

... oh wait, I wouldn't preach unsupported stories in the first place. And if I ever did, I'd 'fess up.

 

Follow the science.
Examples from our New UAH Urban Heat Island Dataset
Tuesday, November 7th, 2023

A New Global Urban Heat Island Dataset: Global Grids of the Urban Heat Island Effect on Air Temperature, 1800-2023
Friday, November 3rd, 2023

New paper submission: Urban heat island effects in U.S. summer temperatures, 1880-2015
Thursday, October 19th, 2023

Summer warming 1895-2023 in U.S. cities exaggerated by 100% from the urban heat island effect
Tuesday, September 26th, 2023

The Urban Heat Island Effect in GHCN Station Temperatures: Urban Locations show Large Spurious Warming Effects
Monday, July 17th, 2023

 

No one has claimed that humans can't change climate. But recent changes -- human-caused or otherwise -- are well within natural norms. Please see #51 above.

 

You mean your pathetic attempt that ended up embarrassing yourself?

 

How could that prove anything of the sort? If you try to measure the Chinese population's average weight by weighing 9000 obese Chinese people and 1000 normal ones, removing 90% of those weight measurements at random will still give you a sample that is ~90% obese, not a random sample of the Chinese population.

Are you really unable to understand such elementary-school-level scientific logic?

They understand exactly how it is deliberately undercorrected for. You don't, as proved above.

The area affected does, as cities and suburbs have grown enormously since WW II, inundating formerly rural areas and their weather stations. Hello? Moreover, even in still-rural areas, land use changes, pavement of nearby roads, heating of farm buildings, even increased use of outdoor lighting can all increase temperature readings, especially at night, which is when most of the "global" warming has occurred.

The more interesting question is: why have you decided never to know such facts?

Who here, or anywhere else, has said any such thing? You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

Again: who here, or anywhere else, has ever essayed such a claim?

<crickets>

OTOH, the anti-CO2 climate nonscience narrative holds that even though climate change has always been natural in the past, somehow, this time it can't be natural.

I.e., the ones above, that you made up?

And have....

False on both counts, as proved above.

 

Total absence of any attempt to offer relevant facts and logic duly noted.

 

The fact that I brought up, and which you can't refute, is that your side has gotten every single thing completely wrong for 40 years now. That's why you've all been reduced to crying in an online SafeSpace.

In contrast, the rational people have gotten everything right for 40 years running. That's why climate science has such credibility. It's earned it by being right about everything.

So, when's that cooling arriving? I imagine your faith in an icy armageddon must be getting challenged right now. Are you still holding true to your faith?

 

Come on. It's the staple belief of most of your side. It's

#51 doesn't say that. Where do you come up with that?

Natural norms _change_. Anyone claiming "natural norms" remain the same for millioons of years can't be taken seriously.

 

So if your theory is correct, why do rural temps show the same warming as urban temps?

The hard data says your theory is wrong, so it's wrong, no matter how fervent your belief in it is.

As for your links, they don't address the issue. All they show is that UHI exists, which nobody ever denied. They in no way showed that the current warming is an illusion caused by UHI.

You use that bad logic a lot. You'll link to papers that say something obvious that everyone agrees on, and then you'll declare how that makes you correct about something not covered by the papers.

 

That's a false claim.

 

Then why do all of you constantly use the "LOOK HOW WARM CLIMATE WAS IN THE PAST!" bad-logic argument?

 

No millions required.

From #51: ". . . eastern Mediterranean summer temperatures were 1.5°C to 3°C “greater than the present” from about 11,000 to 7,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were approximately 265 ppm. Then the temperatures “followed a gradual decline towards present-day conditions”.

 

They don't.

New paper submission: Urban heat island effects in U.S. summer temperatures, 1880-2015
Thursday, October 19th, 2023

 

The UHI creates a spurious apparent warming effect.
The Urban Heat Island Effect in GHCN Station Temperatures: Urban Locations show Large Spurious Warming Effects
Monday, July 17th, 2023

 

Temperatures change for many reasons. To cite one is not to exclude others. But to support your claim you have to exclude others.

 

Ha ha ha once again the easy refutations you have to ignore to maintain the climate crisis delusion.

Failed Prediction Timeline


LINK

This is why you have no credibility.

 

Spencer there says it's been insignificant since 1980.

That really upset the true believers, and it seems to contradict your side's claims that UHI is the main effect.