I’m surprised it took this long for a big media outlet to trot this out
Fact check: Contemporary, human-driven warming has different ramifications than past warming
The claim: The Arctic was warmer 6,000 years ago and 90% of glaciers were smaller or absent
A recent blog post shared across social media platforms referenced a paper that reported evidence summer temperatures in the Arctic were warmer some 6,000 years ago, and called the existence of past warm periods an “inconvenient fact” for “climate alarmists.”
“New Study: Arctic Was Much Warmer 6000 Years Ago… 90% Of Glaciers, Ice Caps Smaller Than Present Or Absent,” reads the blog link in an April 11 Facebook post.
The Facebook post received more than 200 interactions. Versions of the blog were also shared on Reddit and Twitter, though the Twitter account was later suspended.
Yeah, that was No Tricks Zone which got the ban hammer for daring to post the truth.
But, see, the claim was “misleading”
But, the post is misleading. Paleoclimatologists, who study the earth’s climate history, have documented periods of warming and cooling. Warm summer temperatures in the period referenced in the paper –the early Holocene period – were caused by normal variation in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, whereas today’s warming trend is driven by human behavior. Thus, there are different long-term ramifications for the two different periods of warming, according to researchers.
See? The current warm period is totally different from all the other warm periods because shut up and stop being a denier.
Despite what the blog post implies, the existence of past warm periods does not contradict modern climate science, Laura Larocca, the study’s lead author and postdoctoral fellow at Northern Arizona University, told USA TODAY.
Of course it doesn’t, because this is a cult
In fact, one of the main goals of Larocca’s study was to place contemporary human-driven Arctic glacier retreat into a long-term context, she said.
In other words, to butter her bread by making claims that this is all your fault.
Larocca emphasized that Arctic summer temperatures due to human-driven global warming are projected to be even warmer by the end of this century than they were thousands of years ago.
That’s prognostication, not science.
Our rating: Missing context
Based on our research, we rate MISSING CONTEXT the claim that the Arctic was warmer 6,000 years ago and 90% of glaciers were smaller or absent. According to researchers, warm temperatures in the early Holocene period were caused by variation in Earth’s orbit around the sun, whereas today’s warming trend is driven by human behavior. Thus, the ramifications of the two periods of warming are different.
But of course. And if you read further in the screed, you’ll see they use only climate cult sources to substantiate their claim that this warm period is totally different. But, don’t call them a cult.
Climate cult science??
Teach
Roy Spenser of UALH used to be your most common cited climate change denier. Even HE now says that almost all of the increase in Temps over the last 35 years has been from man.
Has he too joined the cult? Got anyone new?
Why are Temps going u up?? Why is the rate of increase of Temps much higher now than
100 years ago?
Johnny-don’t play dumb, you know better. Or, maybe you’re not playing dumb. “The rate of increase is much higher now..” No, it’s not, as you’ve been shown many times. And anyway, even if it was it would be the effect of the rate increase that would matter, not simply the rate increase. Your cult has a good track record of skipping key scientific stepshttps://twitter.com/bradpkeyes/status/1526981931258486784?s=21&t=s93UW2ap87Y75iWy2Zwnbg
I’d be surprised to find that Dr. Spencer actually makes any such attribution. I find it much more likely that you’re twisting something he said in loops just to force it to match your preferred narrative. Do you have any source for this claim?
from Dr. Spencer’s blog March 3rd, 2022:
Even a ‘skeptic’ like Dr. Spencer subscribes to scientific principle. When evidence becomes overwhelmingly supportive of a theory, that theory is provisionally accepted until clearly falsifying evidence is demonstrated. Dr. Spencer is admitting that at this time human-generated CO2 is the most likely explanation for the current bout of global warming.
No Jeff, he did not say anything about carbon. But you can not discount the guy one day then say he is right when you misinterpreted why his statement.
porter,
So ‘human-caused’ could mean human-faked data, or human-caused warming from too many humans at 98.6F warming the air, or human-caused warming from solar panels absorbing sun heat?
But of course the key part of the quote is “and this says nothing about whether the level of human caused warming is in any way alarming”. So, no evidence that the warming, however caused, is detrimental. Of course, your cult relies on this detrimental effect otherwise they have nothing
It may be ‘key’ to you.
The warming denier cult (wdc) have been approaching the truth asymptotically – first, your cult denied it’s warming (the commie scientists are cooking the books!) – next, “OK, OK, we’ve always known it’s warming”, your cult denied that the undeniable warming was anything but natural (CO2 is trace gas, with a miniscule increase! There were no SUVs during the MWP!) – now, your cult denies that the warming caused by human produced CO2 could have any negative consequences, in fact it’s beneficial and saving us from the next ice age!
Dr. Spencer admitted that human activities are causing the current rapid warming.
Once you, your cult and Dr. Spencer admit that there WILL be negative consequences you’ll gaslight, “No one could have known, and there’s nothing we can do anyway.”
from the paper:
Today, the direction of orbital forcing continues to favor GIC expansion; however, the rapid retreat of nearly all Arctic GICs underscores the current dominance of anthropogenic forcing on GIC mass balance. Our review finds that in the first half of the Holocene, most of the Arctic’s small GICs became significantly reduced or melted away completely in response to summer temperatures that, on average, were only moderately warmer than today. In comparison, future projections of temperature change in the Arctic far exceed estimated early Holocene values in most locations, portending the eventual loss of most of the Arctic’s small GICs.
Based on orbital forcings the Earth should be cooling! But it’s warming! Glaciers and arctic ice don’t read blogs or scientific journals or listen to podcasts or the media.
So what is Teach’s beef? As has been pointed out ad infinitum the bout of global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, not orbital variances.
Wow-thanks-they actually admitted periods in the Holocene were warmer than today in the summer. “In response to summer temperatures that were moderately warmer than today”. Then we get the “evidence by assumption” quote. “Future projections…..far exceed early Holocene values…”. “Projections” But anyway, they admit that it was warmer in the Holocene and it melted most of the ice. All with much lower CO2, of course
You assume that atmospheric greenhouse gases are the ONLY forcing.
In fact, several different factors contribute to the balance between solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and heat leaving the Earth. That balance results in the average surface temperature.
As you know, cyclical and predictable variances in the Earth’s orbit, the angle of the Earth axis to the Sun affects the amount of energy reaching the surface. Low clouds and high clouds can block sunlight and block heat leaving the Earth. Volcanic aerosols can block incoming sunlight. Changes in the reflectivity of the surface – ice vs water vs land – affects the absorption of sun energy. The distribution of absorbed energy is affected by major ocean currents and overturn (El Ninos, La Ninas). And of course greenhouse gases slow the movement of heat energy from the Earth’s surface to space.
How does one reasonably look to the future if not by scientific principles? Hope? Religious texts?
We can reasonably predict that greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to increase. We can reasonably predict the orbital changes. We can reasonably predict some positive feedback loops associated with increasing greenhouse gases, e.g., albedo and thawing permafrost. We CANNOT reasonably predict nuclear wars, volcanoes, catastrophic changes in the Sun etc.
Heh, agreed. Diwd couldn’t be more disingenuous in interpreting Dr. Spencer’s post.
One only needs to read it to understand. At least, read it with an open mind. Some things are just beyond the reach of some.
Dr. Spencer typed what he typed.
I will admit, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I still provisionally side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused…
By all means, please explain what you feel he meant.
The best “scientific” analysis money can buy.
“…whereas today’s warming trend is driven by human behavior.”
They assume their conclusion. Such morons. They are a disgrace to science.