Holocene Poses Difficulty for AGW Concept

The Holocene temperature record poses some problems for proponents of the AGW concept. They haven't really dealt with them well.


A Warm Period by Any Other Name – The Climatic Optimum

Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Holocene Megathermal, Anthropogene; Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball There is frustration and reward when an article appears on the same topic of an article you are completing – in this case the Holocene. Such was the case this week with Andy May’s article “A Review of temperature reconstructions.”…

Continue reading →

". . . Even a cursory examination of the Holocene shows why the period is problematic for promoters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). As Steve McIntyre pointed out, the problems began when skeptics noted that the temperature for most of the Holocene contradicted their claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. I know they never used the term ‘ever’, rather, it was left unsaid but implied in the message to the public and not contradicted when used by the media.
McIntyre wrote;It was predictable because it was the same argument they used for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Prove an event was regional, and you essentially eliminate the Sun as a mechanism of change – an issue central to the AGW CO2 argument. The restriction included the claim that only summer temperatures were warmer. Even if true, it is not possible to say based on proxy records with 40 to 70-year smoothing averages applied. Interestingly, the IPCC clung to this “Team” view as recently as AR4 (2007).
The temperature evolution over the Holocene has been established for many different regions, often with centennial-resolution proxy records more sensitive to specific seasons.
Of course, this was before Climategate and the leaked emails that destroyed the Team’s credibility. . . ."

Do you get paid to add a sentence in spamming wattsupwiththat.com ?

Make an argument and cite an article. Don't just post articles with a meaningless title as your only contribution to the OP.

From Marcott et al 2013 (taken from Roger Pielke Jr's blog since I can't access my saved images from my mobile).

Wait, these idiots think "earth has been warmer in the past" is problematic for AGW?

That makes no sense.

These dip****s also think anyone wants to "eliminate the sun as a mechanism of change?" How ****ing dumb do you have to be to buy this crap?

Jack, do you even read this stuff before you post it?

ecofarm said:

Do you get paid to add a sentence in spamming wattsupwiththat.com ?

Make an argument and cite an article. Don't just post articles with a meaningless title as your only contribution to the OP.

Click to expand...

To ask such a question, one must consider...

What is your frame of reference?

Do yo get paid for your spam, so you think others do?

Lord of Planar said:

To ask such a question, one must consider...

What is your frame of reference?

Do yo get paid for your spam, so you think others do?

Click to expand...

Do you get paid for your spam, so you think others do so think others do?

ecofarm said:

Do you get paid to add a sentence in spamming wattsupwiththat.com ?

Make an argument and cite an article. Don't just post articles with a meaningless title as your only contribution to the OP.

Click to expand...

That's already been done, which you would have noticed had you not been in such a hurry.

Deuce said:

Wait, these idiots think "earth has been warmer in the past" is problematic for AGW?

That makes no sense.

These dip****s also think anyone wants to "eliminate the sun as a mechanism of change?" How ****ing dumb do you have to be to buy this crap?

Jack, do you even read this stuff before you post it?

Click to expand...

From further in the OP link:

The official story of weather and climate promulgated by governments through the IPCC and environmentalists’ state that current weather and climate are anomalous and exhibiting more extreme conditions than ever before. The message is amplified and further distorted by a complicit and duplicitous media. Recently, a UK Daily Mail headline read,
“Sizzling UK records hottest day ever.”
The story did not qualify the word “ever” by saying it was the record within the modern span of thermometer measurements. The headline is what stays with the uninformed. Put the claim in the larger perspective of the Holocene and a completely different picture emerges about the official claims. They are creating the Anthropocene to isolate it from the Holocene because it gives the lie to the entire anthropogenic global warming deception. Judith Curry provided an interesting discussion about the lack of evidence for the Anthropocene, especially its mythical threat to humanity.
Weather and climate conditions through the Anthropocene are normal; that is, they are well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. Despite official and media claims to the contrary, there are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will, and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

Mithrae said:

From Marcott et al 2013 (taken from Roger Pielke Jr's blog since I can't access my saved images from my mobile).

Click to expand...

This is the most recent of ten posts about Marcott at Climate Audit.

[h=3]Ground-truthing Marcott[/h]Jan 8, 2015 – 10:35 PM
The MD99-2275 core offshore Iceland is a very high-resolution ocean sediment core, results of which over the past millennium have been discussed here from time to time. Alkenone and diatom results for the last millennium have been available for about 10 years. MD99-2275 results were used in PAGES2K Arctic and Hanhijarvi 2013, also Trouet et […]

Deuce said:

Wait, these idiots think "earth has been warmer in the past" is problematic for AGW?

That makes no sense.

These dip****s also think anyone wants to "eliminate the sun as a mechanism of change?" How ****ing dumb do you have to be to buy this crap?

Jack, do you even read this stuff before you post it?

Click to expand...

And finally:

The Holocene is an interesting warm period that many believe marks the end of the last ice advance of the Pleistocene. It fascinated early scientific attempts to understand the events and mechanisms in the early days of climate reconstructions, which were complicated by a lack of standardized terminologies and central collections of data. For example, I recall long discussions about the need for centralized data banks on tree rings. The Holocene became ignored or distorted after the advent of AGW and the IPCC because the evidence of its existence contradicted most of their claims.

Lord of Planar said:

To ask such a question, one must consider...

What is your frame of reference?

Do yo get paid for your spam, so you think others do?

Click to expand...

Must you defend every single wattsup spam? Do you get a notification when an OP of wattsup is posted? Every single thread, you suck wattsup as hard as he does. You're the wattsup bros. Blogspam ftw, ay? Is this your idea of "alternative education"?

Jack Hays said:

From further in the OP link:

The official story of weather and climate promulgated by governments through the IPCC and environmentalists’ state that current weather and climate are anomalous and exhibiting more extreme conditions than ever before. The message is amplified and further distorted by a complicit and duplicitous media. Recently, a UK Daily Mail headline read,
“Sizzling UK records hottest day ever.”
The story did not qualify the word “ever” by saying it was the record within the modern span of thermometer measurements. The headline is what stays with the uninformed. Put the claim in the larger perspective of the Holocene and a completely different picture emerges about the official claims. They are creating the Anthropocene to isolate it from the Holocene because it gives the lie to the entire anthropogenic global warming deception. Judith Curry provided an interesting discussion about the lack of evidence for the Anthropocene, especially its mythical threat to humanity.
Weather and climate conditions through the Anthropocene are normal; that is, they are well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. Despite official and media claims to the contrary, there are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will, and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

Click to expand...

Oh goodness, the Daily ****ing Mail used a nonspecific and somewhat misleading headline? No.

If you think the Daily Mail is trying to push some global warming agenda.... well, let me respond:

Jack Hays said:

And finally:

The Holocene is an interesting warm period that many believe marks the end of the last ice advance of the Pleistocene. It fascinated early scientific attempts to understand the events and mechanisms in the early days of climate reconstructions, which were complicated by a lack of standardized terminologies and central collections of data. For example, I recall long discussions about the need for centralized data banks on tree rings. The Holocene became ignored or distorted after the advent of AGW and the IPCC because the evidence of its existence contradicted most of their claims.

Click to expand...

Oh, well, if Watts says it contradicts something, it must contradict something.

Because, for some reason, you people think past climate changes somehow disprove human influence on climate, I guess?

Jack Hays said:

This is the most recent of ten posts about Marcott at Climate Audit.

[h=3]Ground-truthing Marcott[/h]Jan 8, 2015 – 10:35 PM
The MD99-2275 core offshore Iceland is a very high-resolution ocean sediment core, results of which over the past millennium have been discussed here from time to time. Alkenone and diatom results for the last millennium have been available for about 10 years. MD99-2275 results were used in PAGES2K Arctic and Hanhijarvi 2013, also Trouet et […]

Click to expand...

It is misleading, hypocritical and rather dishonest for an article to make claims about Holocene temperatures in the context of global warming and specifically attack the notion that particular climate conditions were regional not global, followed up by an illustration of a proxy reconstruction from a single location.

Marcott et al 2013 provides a reconstruction of global Holocene temperatures based on 73 total proxies. But even Wikipedia's eight-proxy average would be an improvement on your GISP-only image:



Both suggest a Holocene thermal maximum c. 9000-5000 years ago, followed by a gradual long-term temperature decline until the 19th century or so, since which temperatures have again risen to match or even exceed the long-term average of the thermal maximum. (Though given the low resolution of the proxy stacks, there were almost certainly particular decades in the thermal maximum which were hotter.)

Title of yet another click-bait spam WUWT promotional thread posted with no discussion from Jack, should be:

"Grossly fraudulent claims from Slayer Tim Ball poses difficulties for skeptics."

Well maybe not. Most just ignore the obvious deceptions and congratulate the tin foil hat fraudster for a 'wonderful article!'.

Isn't it exceptionally dishonest for Ball to assert claims about the last 120 years based on deceptive mislabeled graphs? The GISP2 Greenland dataset ended in 1855. Where are the last 160 years let alone the last 120? Those dishonest graphs that Ball copied from another anti-science truther blog have been floating around the internet for some time.

Isn't it also incredibly stupid to claim that one location in Greenland represents global average temperatures? But what else can one expect from someone like Ball who is an author of the greenhouse effect denying book Slaying the Dragon.

Deuce said:

Do you get paid for your spam, so you think others do so think others do?

Click to expand...

LOP already established that paradigm. You add nothing.

Deuce said:

Oh, well, if Watts says it contradicts something, it must contradict something.

Because, for some reason, you people think past climate changes somehow disprove human influence on climate, I guess?

Click to expand...

No, it establishes that the current climate trend is well within natural variation, even a bit on the cold side, therefor until we understand what drove previous climate we can't hope to establish what drives current climate or future climate.

Mithrae said:

It is misleading, hypocritical and rather dishonest for an article to make claims about Holocene temperatures in the context of global warming and specifically attack the notion that particular climate conditions were regional not global, followed up by an illustration of a proxy reconstruction from a single location.

Marcott et al 2013 provides a reconstruction of global Holocene temperatures based on 73 total proxies. But even Wikipedia's eight-proxy average would be an improvement on your GISP-only image:

Both suggest a Holocene thermal maximum c. 9000-5000 years ago, followed by a gradual long-term temperature decline until the 19th century or so, since which temperatures have again risen to match or even exceed the long-term average of the thermal maximum. (Though given the low resolution of the proxy stacks, there were almost certainly particular decades in the thermal maximum which were hotter.)

Click to expand...

That graph is essentially the same graph presented in the OP with a different zero line.

Also, in a trend that long it isn't very compelling to attribute more to the current upswing than you do to the previous 14 or so, especially when many in the AGW church are already conceding that we will be cooling for the next 30 years or so.

Deuce said:

Oh goodness, the Daily ****ing Mail used a nonspecific and somewhat misleading headline? No.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem.

ecofarm said:

Must you defend every single wattsup spam? Do you get a notification when an OP of wattsup is posted? Every single thread, you suck wattsup as hard as he does. You're the wattsup bros. Blogspam ftw, ay? Is this your idea of "alternative education"?

Click to expand...

Must you employ logical fallacy on every wattsup article?

ecofarm said:

Must you defend every single wattsup spam? Do you get a notification when an OP of wattsup is posted?

Click to expand...

To always call it spam shows you lack intellectual reasoning. Poisoning the Well logical fallacy... You love poisoning the well, don't you?

And no. I don't get notifications.

ecofarm said:

Every single thread, you suck wattsup as hard as he does. You're the wattsup bros. Blogspam ftw, ay? Is this your idea of "alternative education"?

Click to expand...

Again... I have to question and challenge your intellectual reasoning.

Think about it. Am I supporting Watts, or pointing out the stupid reason why you make fun of it?

jmotivator said:

No, it establishes that the current climate trend is well within natural variation, even a bit on the cold side, therefor until we understand what drove previous climate we can't hope to establish what drives current climate or future climate.

Click to expand...

Logical error.

"Within natural variation" doesn't mean we don't understand what is happening.

The earth has been much hotter, and it has been much colder. This doesn't detract from AGW in the least.

Deuce said:

Oh, well, if Watts says it contradicts something, it must contradict something.

Because, for some reason, you people think past climate changes somehow disprove human influence on climate, I guess?

Click to expand...

Well, yes. If the climate warms and cools without human interferance then why does the present climate's temperature cause concearn?

Deuce said:

Logical error.

"Within natural variation" doesn't mean we don't understand what is happening.

The earth has been much hotter, and it has been much colder. This doesn't detract from AGW in the least.

Click to expand...

No, that is exactly what it means. Until we actually understand the processes involved in natural climate variation we have no clue what the future climate with and without anthropogenic influence will look like.

Example:

You have three variables that you have determined produce a given, directly measured outcome - A+B+C=100

We believe we know the value of A and B, and we have a lab value for C... the problem is that A+B+C<100. So you create some models based on the assumption that outside the lab C behaves differently. You then rewrite the equation to A+B+(C*f)=100 where f is the assumed amplification of C outside the lab. Now the modeled C becomes very important to balancing the equation.

Later it is discovered that A+B+(C*f)=100 is not the complete equation, and that there is also a D and E to contend with that are not entirely understood. So you end up with the following equation: A+B+(C*f)+D+E=100

If A and B and C are actually known then any contribution by D and E can only effect the value of f.

So, until you evaluate all contributions in the given equation f will always measure not just any assumed amplification of C, but also the uncertainty inherent in the equation itself.



For as long as this debate has been going on, Aerosols, including clouds, have been D+E+...∞ in the climate equation. If we don't understand that enough to accurately model historical values for these climate contributors then we understand little, and certainly nothing worth hijacking our world economy over.

jmotivator said:

Must you employ logical fallacy on every wattsup article?

Click to expand...

When i see a title and article copy/paste with, at best, a personal contribution of restating the title, I call it out for spam. I don't mean Forum Rules violation spam (though it may be), I mean copy/pasting articles at a debate website. This website is not "copy/paste your favorite blogs . com"

That the OP does not place the argument/point/poition in his own words and cite the article as support, instead of copy/paste, demonstrates that he has no real understanding of the issue or specific point. It's bad enough to make an argument and support it with a citation to a blog, just flat out copy/pasting a blog is worthless crap.

Don't like my opinion on the opening statement/claim? To bad, this is a debate website. If you don't like such OPs being brought into question or criticized, perhaps you should tell him to spam that blog on another blog instead of a debate website.