Unearthed new evidence (Mangerud and Svendsen, 2018) reveals that during the Early Holocene, when CO2 concentrations hovered around 260 ppm, “warmth-demanding species” were living in locations 1,000 km farther north of where they exist today in Arctic Svalbard, indicating that summer temperatures must have been about “6°C warmer than at present”.
Proxy evidence from two other new papers suggests Svalbard’s Hinlopen Strait may have reached about 5 – 9°C warmer than 1955-2012 during the Early Holocene (Bartels et al., 2018), and Greenland may have been “4.0 to 7.0 °C warmer than modern [1952-2014]” between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago according to evidence found in rock formations at the bottom of ancient lakes (McFarlin et al., 2018).
In these 3 new papers, none of the scientists connect the “pronounced” and “exceptional” Early Holocene warmth to CO2 concentrations.
Mangerud and Svendsen, 2018
The Holocene Thermal Maximum around Svalbard, Arctic
North Atlantic; molluscs show early and exceptional warmth
“Shallow marine molluscs that are today extinct close to Svalbard, because of the cold climate, are found in deposits there dating to the early Holocene. The most warmth-demanding species found, Zirfaea crispata, currently has a northern limit 1000 km farther south, indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10.2–9.2 cal. ka BP, when this species lived there. … After 8.2 cal. ka, the climate around Svalbard warmed again, and although it did not reach the same peak in temperatures as prior to 9 ka, it was nevertheless some 4°C warmer than present between 8.2 and 6 cal. ka BP. … The occurrence of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, suggests that climate around Svalbard was 2°C warmer than at present as early as about 11 cal. ka BP. The climate was about 6°C warmer than at present between 10.0 and 9.2 cal. ka BP, as shown by the presence of Zirfaea crispata. One single specimen of Mytilus is dated to 900 years BP, suggesting a short-lived warm period during the Medieval Warm Period of northern Europe.”
Bartels et al., 2018
Wahlenbergfjord, eastern Svalbard: a glacier-surrounded fjord
reflecting regional hydrographic variability during the Holocene?
“During summer, AW [Atlantic Water] rises up to waterdepths as shallow as ~55 m. … Summer surface temperatures [1955-2012] range between up to 3°C at the northern mouth and <-1.5 °C at the southern mouth of the Hinlopen Strait, while winter surface temperatures vary between 0.5 and <~1.5°C (averaged, 1955–2012; Locarnini et al. 2013). … Increased summer insolation probably amplified the surface melting of the glaciers resulting in enhanced meltwater production and in a very high accumulation of finegrained sediments within the fjord […].”
“In addition, during the mild early Holocene conditions, summer sea-surface temperatures probably reaching 8–10°C [~5 – 9°C warmer than 1955-2012] (indicated by M. edulis findings as discussed in Hansen et al. 2011) may have contributed to reducing the number of glaciers that entered the fjord directly as tidewater glaciers and thus causing a diminished IRD input. … In lake sediments from northwestern Spitsbergen a temperature drop of ~6°C is recorded between c. 7.8 and c. 7 ka [-0.8°C per century], which has been connected to a stronger influence of Arctic Water and expanding sea ice (van der Bilt et al. 2018).”
McFarlin et al., 2018
Pronounced summer warming in northwest Greenland
during the Holocene and Last Interglacial
“(Greenland) Early Holocene peak warmth has been quantified at only a few sites, and terrestrial sedimentary records of prior interglacials are exceptionally rare due to glacial erosion during the last glacial period. Here, we discuss findings from a lacustrine archive that records both the Holocene and the Last Interglacial (LIG) from Greenland, allowing for direct comparison between two interglacials. Sedimentary chironomid assemblages indicate peak July temperatures [Greenland] 4.0 to 7.0 °C warmer than modern during the Early Holocene maximum [10,000 to 8,000 years ago] in summer insolation. Chaoborus and chironomids in LIG [the last interglacial] sediments indicate July temperatures at least 5.5 to 8.5 °C warmer than modern.”
44 responses to “New Science Affirms Arctic Region Was 6°C Warmer Than Now 9000 Years Ago, When CO2 Levels Were ‘Safe’”
Wouldn’t have made it past review if they had the temerity to point out the low atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Do you think your logic is sound, Kenneth?
And what would your made-up interpretation of my “logic” be?
I’ll guess: Just because CO2 didn’t cause Arctic temperatures to rise to 5 to 9 degrees C above today’s values in the past doesn’t mean it hasn’t caused the, uh, exceptional and profound Arctic warming of a few tenths of a degree in the last 80 years or so. That few tenths of a degree of Arctic change is 100% human caused…as can be clearly seen here. And here. And here.
In fact, we can clearly see the profound and exceptional effect of CO2 concentration changes for the entire Holocene: as CO2 climbs, ocean heat content declines.
How’d I do?
No K, Seb would not have linked to actual data, just ranted aimlessly or invented some mindless irrelevant analogy.
As for the last graph, you can see the “human CO2 contribution” (lol) in this one.
Yes, and isn’t it interesting that because he/they compared a 55-year anomaly to an 8,000-year trend (Really!), the Rosenthal et al. (and Michael Mann) ridiculously claimed that that little red squiggle was the fastest rate of warming in the last 10,000 years!
The question was if you think that your logic is sound.
The logic being those past incidents of warming with low CO2 levels meaning that warming has nothing to do with CO2 levels.
Please don’t … especially when you guess something like that introducing another logic flaw of yours: comparing CO2 levels to some temperature graph claiming that there is no connection as proof that increasing CO2 levels don’t cause global (and Arctic) warming.
Interesting, so you don’t trust Rosenthal about what he wrote, but on the other hand those temperature graphs of his are rock solid.
OHC of the Pacific Ocean 0-700 m rose by more than 6*10^22 Joule in just over 20 years. The Rosenthal paper has the same OHC anomaly at between 20 and 65 times 10^22 Joule for the 7500-9000 B.P. period. At the mentioned high rate of change (20*10^22 Joule per century), does it seem unlikely to you that the OHC in the Pacific will reach those past levels in a record time?
So how much of the 5 to 9 degrees C of additional warmth in the Early Holocene was driven by the 260 ppm CO2? What’s accepted CO2 attribution?
Those are neither my words nor my claim. I have asked you many times to quote my exact words rather than making up your own wording/claims and attributing them to me.
Trust? Rosenthal compared a 55-year anomaly to an 8,000 year trend and claimed that because there was more change in the decades-long anomaly (of course) than the millennial-scale trend, therefore the anomaly had the fastest rate of change in the last 10,000 years. Do you really not understand why it is statistical malpractice to say that because it’s cooled by -0.5 C in the last 2 years, and this rate is -1.0 C per decade, that therefore the last 2 years have had the fast rate of change in the last 1,000 years?
As for the temperature reconstructions, the Rosenthal papers (2013, 2017) look similar to hundreds of graphs of the Holocene which show a similar trajectory, as shown here and here.
And here’s what that looks like: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/two_millennia_annotated.png Notice that there were about 20 instances in the last 2,000 years when temperatures rose at similar or greater rates than the 1955-2010 period.
What’s “record time” when considering past “record time” periods easily exceeded the modern ones?
Compared to similar times with 5 to 9 degrees C lower temperatures but the same CO2 concentration? Obviously none. You do know that climate science doesn’t say that temperature only changes when CO2 concentration changes, do you?
You wrote “That few tenths of a degree of Arctic change is 100% human caused…as can be clearly seen here. And here. And here.” with links to various graphs comparing CO2 emissions (not even CO2 concentration) to temperatures in a certain region. The claim that follows from this is that you think there is no connection, doesn’t it? What is your claim if that is not what you claim with bringing up those graphs in a reply like this?
Much less than 8000 years (see linked graph in my previous reply), but more than 55 years, yeah.
There are also absolute OHC values given (see graph). Do you think the current rate in OHC change that is driven by elevated GHGs will not reach the same Pacific OHC levels that were present in the early Holocene according to Rosenthal in this century?
How is that not a fast rate compared to what happened in the past, when it took hundreds and thousands of years for an equally impressive change?
It is no secret that it was warmer than today before. I just find it funny that you can justify to support one part of a paper because it feels right to you and be adamantly against other parts of the same paper that follow from the same data.
Except it doesn’t. That graph is a doctored one that doesn’t appear like this in the Rosenthal 2013 article named “Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years”. Here is the original: link
Figure 4 is actually another one, the one that I linked to previously.
I wonder who calculated the IWT value for the current OHC change in the Pacific Ocean for your graph. Besides, the anomaly increased by almost 3*10^22 since that graph was made (2013). That is almost the same amount of increase that happened from 1955 to 2010 according to the available data.
Again, the current OHC increase in the Pacific Ocean has accelerated considerably in the last 20 years. The average increase of 20*10^22 Joules per century over the perioid of 1955 to 2010 doesn’t represent the current rate at all. It’s more like 30*10^22 Joules per century now.
So why do you think that the current increase is unremarkable and well within natural variations? It clearly is not.
They don’t. The current change continued for just a century means the Pacific Ocean will reach the same heat content as in the beginning of the Holocene according to Rosenthal’s reconstruction. How long did it take previously to reach these levels or to come down to current levels?
Yes. The Little Ice Age (1600-1800 C.E.) was -0.9°C cooler than the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 C.E.) in the 0-700 m layer of the Pacific Ocean according to Rosenthal et al. What caused that temperature change, since CO2 did not decline? What are the forcing mechanisms that “climate science” says caused that cooling?
The graphs show (a) no net Arctic/Greenland warming between the 1930s-1940s and today and (b) a rapid rise in CO2 emissions after the 1940s. So temperatures did not rise as the CO2 emissions did rise (dramatically). This does not support the claim that CO2 is the 100% cause of the, uh, lack of net Arctic region warming since 1950 (which is previously what you’ve stated you believe to be true [100% attribution]). As a skeptic, I shy away from using the wording you chose (“there is no connection”), as I prefer less absolutist/certain language.
Trust? Rosenthal compared a 55-year anomaly to an 8,000 year trend
Your linked graph is not of the last 10,000 years. The claim is that it’s the fastest rate in the last 10,000 years, and it comes from comparing an overall 8,000-year trend to a 55-year anomaly. Why do you continue to defend this? Is it statistically OK to compare the temperature change rate of the last 2 years to the overall temperature change rate of the last 1,000 years?
55 years: “Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010, corresponding to ~0.033°C per decade.”
8,000 years: “We assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). Assuming the intermediate depth ocean (0-700 m) cooled between 10 and 2 Ka [8,000 years] by ~1.5°C, we calculate a cooling rate 0.002°C per decade.”
To what extent is the current rate of OHC change driven by CO2 concentration changes relative to changes in water vapor (the main GHG) or cloud cover changes (which radiatively exceed CO2 changes in forcing values via albedo/SW changes)? Do you have an empirical answer for this question? No? Then how do you know that it’s true that OHC changes are driven by human CO2 emissions if you don’t have the quantified attribution from observation and real-world physical measurements? I’m a skeptic. I don’t just accept your presumption that the OHC is driven by CO2 emissions without the supporting evidence. So do you have it?
It’s the 0.18°C of change in the World Ocean for 1955-2010 from the Levitus et al. (2012) paper. That’s the value that is added to the end of the record on that graph (which only goes to 1950) as described by Rosenthal (see the quote from above). Here’s what that 1955-2010 trend of about 0.2°C looks like extended to today (2018):
Again, here’s what that 0.18°C trend for 1955-2010 looks like when added onto the end of the Rosenthal record (which on this particular graph ends at 1950):
Here’s the Pacific Ocean change including the 1955-2010 period from the Rosenthal paper. Do you see that tiny uptick at the end? Does it look more pronounced than the many other centennial-scale upticks in the last 8,000 years?
“The current change continued for just a century”
Your mathematical IGNORANCE astounds even me seb, and I KNEW you were a mathematical inebriate.
If you really think that teensy-weensy squiggle is really going to last for a century.. you really do live is some really wacked out fantasy land!
“That graph is a doctored one that doesn’t appear like this in the Rosenthal 2013 ”
Poor seb, has any of the data been changed?
NO, it hasn’t
so NO it is not “doctored”
Unlike surface temperature data.
It has just been put into perspective so GULLIBLE FOOLS like you can comprehend just how insignificant the current slight warming, out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, really is.
It is slight, to say the least, but what there has been has been highly beneficial
Thanks goodness THE SUN gave us enough energy to crawl out of that coldest of times, hey seb.
Certainly, there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that humans had anything whatsoever to do with this SLIGHT warming.
Thank goodness Mother Earth gave us all that lovely coal, gas and oil so that civilisations could advance, wouldn’t you agree, seb.
“… current rate in OHC change that is driven by elevated GHGs… “
Now that really is a piece of scientifically unsupportable garbage
And you KNOW it.
You have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for that piece of manifest nonsense.
There is NO MECHANISM by which humans can affect OHC.
You are just mindlessly repeating your brain-hosed mantra, yet again.
It is totally DEVOID OF SCIENCE.
Let’s watch you RUN AWAY from those two simple questions.. YET AGAIN.
Q1.. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
OHC rise was steeper than the little red squiggle at the end in every one of the instances circled in red
And yet the OHC kept dropping.
Thank goodness that cooling trend stopped !!
“So why do you think that the current increase is unremarkable and well within natural variations? It clearly is not.”
More unsubstantiated BS…
Sorry seb, your imaginary BS is playing with your feeble mind again.
The very slight warming is WELL within natural solar warming, especially considering the Grand Solar Maximum of the latter half of last year.
What “unnatural” cause did you have in your warped hallucinogenic dreams?
You know you have ZERO EVIDENCE of any warming from atmospheric CO2.. so what is it.. with supporting evidence.. that has caused this tiny amount of ocean warming?
And he keeps on trolling … cute.
Do you know what this graph depicts exactly? The person that “extended” the graph at the end, do you think he/she knew what he/she was doing? 😉
I’ve drawn you a new version: https://imgur.com/a/uk3Pxtp
0.25 °C of IWT of the 500 to 900 meter range seem to correspond to around 5*10^22 Joule of OHC change in the 0-700 m range. The current Pacific OHC anomaly is around 8*10^22 Joule for the used reference period of 1965 to 1970. Meaning your (or whoever draw it) red line should go up to the around the levels that were present in 1300 to 1400. At the current rate of 30*10^22 it will only take only 40 years to reach those 0-1000 levels again.
If you feel that something is off with this new version, please describe in detail why you think it’s wrong and refrain from the usual insult ridden reply. Thank you.
Did you fail to notice that as the overall trend “kept dropping”, there were centennial-scale pulses of rising OHC that met or exceeded the changes during 1955-2010?
It’s Dr. McIntyre’s annotation for the Rosenthal temperature graph. And the Levitus et al. (2012)/NOAA temperature change is what was added on. It says that OHC rose 0.18°C in the 0-700 m layer between 1955 and 2010. That’s (0.18°C) what the red squiggle represents in this graph too:
Um, this is rather amusing. Your made-up version has temperatures rising by 1.5°C between 1955 and 2010 in the 0-700 m layer. Levitus et al. (2012) has 0-700 m temperatures rising by 0.18°C during 1955-2010. Rosenthal cited the Levitus paper for their 1955-2010 trend:
“Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010, corresponding to ~0.033°C per decade.”
Please explain why you are drawing fake hockey sticks rather than sticking to the data used by Rosenthal et al. Do you think you know what it is you’re doing?
“The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C.”
“Um, this is rather amusing.”
That graph is downright HILARIOUS. 🙂
Only in the deepest anti-maths, anti-science stupor does it represent anything that is ever possible, probable or imaginable by any sane mind, unless the SUN decides to go on protracted period of extreme solar cycles.
Whoever drew it shows a totally lack of any understanding of climate, maths, science…
.. and a total lack of any rational thought whatsoever.
It represents a total collapse of even the slightest grasp on REALITY.
spike55: “That graph is downright HILARIOUS.”
SebastianH could have saved himself the embarrassment had he just bothered to look at the NOAA graph that shows about 0.2°C of warming since 1955 rather than the 1.5°C of warming since 1955 he pulled out of…a very dark place.
Or, he could have considered what the Rosenthal data for 1955-2010 is based upon for the calculated temperature change:
“We assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). … Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010.”
SebastianH is an asset to the comment section in the sense that he makes our case for us. This is the best their side has to offer.
“SebastianH could have saved himself the embarrassment “
No, seb is incapable of feeling embarrassment.
His inbuilt ego and baseless arrogance will NEVER let him admit that he is STUPIDLY WRONG about just about everything.
He OUGHT to be embarrassed at his total inability to support the AGW mantra of CO2 warming with anything resembling actual science.. but he just keeps on chanting it like a demented monk.
He OUGHT to be embarrassed by his slithering and sliming to avoid producing any evidence, or even say how the climate has actually changed.
He certainly OUGHT to be embarrassed for producing that graph.
He will never feel embarrassment or shame.
It is not in his nature.
“do you think he/she knew what he/she was doing?”
Almost certainly knows magnitudes more about what he is doing that you do, seb
You are a mathematical incompetent. End of story.
Steve McIntyre is MANY levels above anything you will EVER be capable of.
Did you fail to notice that you argument is that because of previous changes being what they are, the current change will be exactly the same? You are completely ignoring the reason for the current climate change.
From the Rosenthal figures you can backtrack how much OHC change 1 degree of IWT change corresponds to.
No, I haven’t done what you seem to accuse me of. Look more closely!
I’ve taken the OHC values given by Rosenthal and matched them to the temperature graph. 5*10^22 Joule roughly correspond to 0.25 degrees. The OHC between the reference period (of this graph) of 1965-1970 increased by roughly 8*10^22 until today. That’s the red line. The orange and yellow parts are continuing the current trend into the future.
BTW: the Rosenthal graph doesn’t depict the temperature in the 0-700 layer. It’s 500-900 meter and the Pacific Ocean only. Why do you think it would be ok to take the world wide OHC increase and calculate an average temperature increase for the 0-700 layer and apply it to a 500-900 meter graph about the Pacific?
Weren’t you the guys who where strictly against mixing data like that?
You could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you had looked closely at the graph and the actual data and descriptions from that Rosenthal paper. I just applied what was written there. And no, the 1.5°C level is not today … at least if you don’t think that we are in the year 2150 now. I dare you to take that graph and draw a straight line downwards to the x-axis!
The best you have to offer is one misinterpretation after the other and a lot of arrogance. You are sure making skepticism very pseudo here …
No, that’s not my argument. I don’t write things like “the current change will be exactly the same”. Please stop making up positions that I never wrote. Dishonesty isn’t helping here.
In other words, you’ve made it up. The Rosenthal paper doesn’t have a “0.25 degrees” value. It refers to the 0.18 of a degree value from Levitus et al., 2012 for 1955-2010.
Because that’s exactly what Rosenthal himself/themselves did in their paper in calculating the per-decade trend for the 55-year period to the 8,000-year period between 10kya and 2kya…and they characterized their reconstruction as representing the global ocean, just as Levitus did. For the 3rd time now, I will post the quotes from Rosenthal et al below that directly address this “question”. Do you ever actually read what we write?
“We assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). … Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010, corresponding to ~0.033°C per decade.”
“We assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). Assuming the intermediate depth ocean (0-700 m) cooled between 10 and 2 Ka [8,000 years] by ~1.5°C, we calculate a cooling rate 0.002°C per decade.”
Do you find it statistically sound to compare a 55-year anomaly to an 8,000-year overall trend to get a per-decade rate ranking? Yes or no?
Where does the Rosenthal paper doesn’t use 1965-70 as a starting point? Answer: they don’t. They use 1950/55 as a starting point, and they use Levitus et al. (2012) OHC-temperature data that says the change was 0.18 C between 1955-2010. Plot that on your graph and show us how that looks rather than making up your own hockey sticks based on assumptions you have about CO2 raising OHC by ___ amount after 2010. Let’s see how that compares to your made-up graph.
You think I’m embarrassed to point out to you that Rosenthal doesn’t use 1965-70 as a starting point for the Levitus et al. (2012) trend of 1955-2010? You think I’m embarrassed to point out to you that there is no “0.25 degree” change in the Rosenthal paper for the 1955-2010 trend? You applied what was written where? The Rosenthal paper?
The irony and lack of self-awareness in this comment is breath-taking. Again, though I can’t stand it when you make up faux positions I never wrote and purposely misrepresent what I have written — even putting quotes around wording you wrote yourself so as to make it appear I wrote those exact words — I do enjoy having you here so that we can see how vacuous your side’s case really is.
NOAA data shows a trend of 0.0176ºC/decade for the Pacific 0-700m from 1955-2010
This is equivalent to 0.099ºC
LESS THAT 0.1ºC
Just like on the graph. 🙂
Seb, get a BIG RAG and wipe all the BS off your face from your manic and totally intentional slap-stick faceplant.
its 0.0172ºC/decade = 0.096ºC
WOW.. the world is overheating !!!
Figure 4 has OHC values for certain timespans and OHC change rates for certain timespans. If IWT temperatures and OHC correlates (as I’d think they do) you can match those OHC values to the 600-900 m IWT graph and you’ll get that a temperature change of 0.25°C corresponds to roughly 5*10^22 Joules.
What is so complicated here? Why do you think it’s made up?
What are you talking about? I didn’t ask about timespans, but depths and locations.
Yeah, great … and then you try to stick that to a graph depicting the temperature reconstruction at 500m (of who knows how many locations in the Pacific) in the “green” graph or the reconstruction of 600-900 in the blue graph. Great. And you justify this by “that what’s Rosenthal himself did with the 8000 year to 55 year comparison”.
I’m without words for this …
Sure … they aren’t writing “Reconstructed anomalies are calculated relative to the reference period of 1965 to 1970 CE” anywhere, especially not in the description of figure 4 which depicts the actual OHC reconstruction values. *sigh*
Zero assumptions. Just the OHC data from the Pacific. I provided all the necessary links. It’s not my problem that you can’t accept anything not coming from you own echo chamber.
No, now I think you should be embarrassed because you don’t know the difference between reference periods and starting points.
No, now I think you should be additionally embarrassed that you don’t understand what is meant by 0.25 degrees corresponding to 5*10^22 Joules in a graph.
For the third time, yes. Are we talking about the same publication here? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258215955_Pacific_Ocean_Heat_Content_During_the_Past_10000_Years
Even with this not being true … since you feel that way, you can imagine how I feel constantly on this blog. Thank you for appreciating that this is horrible, but also stop making up that I would do that to you. Come down from you high horse and actually try to understand the stuff that others write. That would be great.
Except that graph doesn’t depict the 0-700 layer. But that graph has a few other OHC graphs accompanying it in that paper. You can use that data to find out what temperature corresponds to what OHC … feel free to try it yourself and be amazed.
It’s not in the paper. +0.18 C between 1955-2010 (Levitus et al., 2012) is in the paper. Why not just use the values Rosenthal used instead of extrapolating?
Correct, and that’s why I showed you that Rosenthal directly stated that the Pacific Ocean data in his paper “represent the World Ocean” at “0-700 m” and thus he finds it justifiable to directly compare an 8,000-year overall long-term trend to a 55-year anomaly. Do you find this statistically justifiable?
“We assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). … Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010, corresponding to ~0.033°C per decade. … Assuming the intermediate depth ocean (0-700 m) cooled between 10 and 2 Ka [8,000 years] by ~1.5°C, we calculate a cooling rate 0.002°C per decade.”
What is it about the depth (0-700 m) and representational location (i.e. Pacific Ocean = World Ocean) that is unclear in the above quote?
That’s a reference period. For the __th time, this particular graph ends in 1950. Rosenthal uses Levitus et al. (2012) for the 1955-2010 trend (+0.18 C) in the 0-700 m layer. What does 0.18 C look like when it’s added to the end of that graph? It looks like this: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Medieval-Warm-Present-Rosenthal-13-Warmings.jpg Notice how this looks quite different than your made-up hockey stick.
Can you explain how a made-up rise of 1.5 C over the next few decades is OHC “data“, and not an assumption about OHC will look like in the future?
Rosenthal doesn’t use “0.25 degrees” in his graph to denote the post-1950 period.
Again, though I can’t stand it when you make up faux positions I never wrote and purposely misrepresent what I have written
SebastianH, last week you purposely misrepresented what I (or others) actually wrote 5 times in one post alone (I numbered them for you), and 3 times in this one, including an instance in which you inserted quotes around wording that I didn’t write, excluding a key compound word (“meters-scale”) to make it appear as if you had copy/pasted what I wrote and put quotes around it. And yet you have the gall to complain that that’s how you feel on this blog, and that you’re not misrepresenting what others have to say? Pathetic.
Poor WRONG little seb
No matter which part of the ocean you take, the answer is still pretty much the same
NOAA data shows an ocean warming of around 0.1C from 1955-2010. Yes it varies slightly from region to region, but its still around that value, as shown on the graph.
NOAA Global 0-2000 gives a trend of 0.0117ºC/decade = 0.06ºC in 55 years
NOAA Global 0-700 gives a trend of 0.015ºC/decade = 0.085ºC in 55 years
That is what the REAL DATA says.
Go and find it check it for yourself..
..or hang onto your mindless ranting
Do you want me to spoon-feed you a link??
Here it is for global 1-2000m
Now everyone can download the data and confirm.
Be a man, ADMIT YOUR ERROR..
.. and walk away.
Stop digging yourself deeper into your own BS. !!
So you don’t understand what I was talking about. Got it.
The constant usage of graphs that aren’t depicting 0-700 m of the Pacific.
WHERE IN THIS PAPER?!?!?
What the author does in this paper is showing the reader a graph with the actual reconstructed OHC values in Joules. Those values correspond to the IWT values found in certain depths. Even you should be able to understand this.
No, it does not. Why? Because even your link to the figures of the paper says this: “Compiled IWT anomalies based on Indonesian records spanning the ~500- to 900-m water depth”
Those degrees aren’t comparable to an actual OHC increase between 1955 and 2010 that ought to be 0.18 C at 0-700 m globally. But you can match those degrees to the reconstructed OHC values AND you can take the actual OHC record for the Pacific Ocean (here) and compare those values with the OHC values given in the Rosenthal paper. And to do that you use the same reference period (1965-1970). How is that not clear to you?
The Pacific 0-700 m OHC anomaly was around -2*10^22 Joules at that time and was at around +6*10^22 Joules in 2017 (or 6.8*10^22 if you use the 3-month values). That’s 8*10^22 Joules of change. And that kind of change corresponds to roughly 0.25 degrees time 8/5 in that blue IWT graph. Simple as that.
So you ignore any explanation regarding what a graph is showing. When you make something like this up you stick with it until the end. Got it.
Maybe actually read my replies next time. If you think “the next decades” are ending in 2150 … well, then you are correct in declaring that my version would show a that the OHC will increase to what will be at 1.5°C IWT levels in the next few decades in the Rosenthal graph.
I really don’t get why you are writing something like this. I am not saying that the post-1950 period would be 0.25 degrees. Not at all. How is this so hard to understand? This can’t just be the language barrier.
It’s kind of cute that you are collecting these instances now, where you believe so strongly that you are being misinterpreted that you completely ignore (what else) every reply regarding these “misinterpretations”. I am sure there is a word for this kind of behaviour 😉
Pathetic maybe not too far off. You are really one of a kind. Keep it going, I hope there are sane people that recognize what you do. Your fans will forever support you anyway … so have fun in that self confirming bubble of yours where ignorance is bliss.
You really are like a child chucking a tanty, seb,
PROVEN WRONG by actual data, time after time after time
GROW UP and admit you are wrong.
Don’t let your baseless arrogance and misplace ego rule all your life. !
That would be truly PATHETIC.
“Those degrees aren’t comparable to an actual OHC increase between 1955 and 2010 that ought to be 0.18 C at 0-700 m globally”
No seb, NOAA data says global oceans changed by about 0.06C between 1955 and 2010.
Simple as that.
That is what Kenneth said. I know that it actually is more like 0.068°C for the 0-2000 m depth and 0.144°C for the 0-700 m depth. After 2010 it increased by 0.034°C (0-2000m) and 0.058°C (0-700m).
The point was that this temperature is not comparable to a reconstructed IWT level taken at some arbitrary depth.
“Simple as that”.
“there is no connection as proof that increasing CO2 levels don’t cause global (and Arctic) warming.”
Your continued lack of anything to back up this erroneous suppository shows that there is highly likely that CO2 has absolutely ZERO effect on climate.
two questions seb
Q1.. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
You are promulgating a MYTH, a FAIRY-TALE
The OHC is nothing but a minor squiggle at the very base of the last 10,000 years.
The fact that you fall into the same juvenile illogical mathematic fallacy as Mann etc, says all that need to be said.
Show just how DUMB and mathematically ILLITERATE you really are, especially when many sections of Rosenthal’s graph show much longer and steep warming periods.
ANYONE stupid enough to think that the current OHC rise, which has only been actually measured since 2003-4 can be extrapolated out to the end of the century is really showing just how mathematically inept they are.
“Do you think your logic is sound”
We know YOURS isn’t, seb..
You are almost totally irrational because of your AGW cult-like zealotry.
We know you cannot even accept the fact that there is no evidence for CO2 causing warming anywhere, anytime.
What nobody here, or in the papers, is acknowledging, is the precession of the earth’s axis. Presently, the earth’s aphelion is in July, so the northern hemisphere’s summer has an insolation (top of atmosphere) of about 1325 W/m2.
11,000 years ago, the perihelion was in July, so then the northern hemisphere summer had an insolation of about 1420 W/m2. These papers describe elevated summer temperatures not far from this time.
These effects dwarf any possible effect from elevated CO2 (possibly about 2 W/m2).
Southern hemisphere was also warmer.
Basically EVERYTHING dwarfs the immeasurable, unmeasured effect of CO2.
Although we are winning scientifically, we are losing politically– because they have nearly unlimited funds to spend on gibberish like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szt7f5NmE9E
We as in skeptics?
Might I point out to Sebastian and others that a suppository is used in a medical procedure.
I will not go into it’s use here on the blog it may give rise to bawdy humour. Just look it up and remember it.
Perhaps you meant supposition?
Oh I am sure spikey means what he writes. He has no clue, but is very creative at inventing new forms of insults. I actually enjoy that part of him. I imagine him sitting at some beach trying to come up with the perfect troll posts to annoy any opposition new or old. Like that cranky grandpa who always yells at kids in the park or something like that … at first annoying as hell, but experience it every day and you’ll find him kind of cute for being the clichee …
“a suppository is used in a medical procedure.”
Which is where the AGW meme comes from.
Not human, but bovine. !
It is a very apt word to use, because it flows so freely.
[…] Full post […]
Few ever consider Solar Cycles and variations and the affect of Solar Minimums and Maximums. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.02483.pdf
[…] Link: https://notrickszone.com/2018/07/12/new-science-affirms-arctic-region-was-6c-warmer-than-now-9000-years-ago-when-co2-levels-were-safe/ […]
[…] New Science Affirms Arctic Region Was 6°C Warmer Than Now 9000 Years Ago, When CO2 Levels Were ‘S…’ Unearthed new evidence (Mangerud and Svendsen, 2018) reveals that during the Early Holocene, when CO2 concentrations hovered around 260 ppm, “warmth-demanding species” were living in locations 1,000 km farther north of where they exist today in Arctic Svalbard, indicating that summer temperatures must have been about “6°C warmer than at present”. […]