Earth Warmer than Today, Much of Past 10,000 Years

I emailed authors for a copy of this:

High Arctic Holocene temperature record from the Agassiz ice cap and Greenland ice sheet evolution

Not yet fulfilled. But y'know I'll get it somehow and that fuzzy little Fig.1 inset will reveal in fullness.But it already suggests medieval was not the big thing in Greenland.

From this and all other similar-time-scale proxy-T studies we can hope to learn how (how fast) T changes without a new, separate addition of infrared-absorbing CO2. Such would provide insight into current +T rates as revealed by surface and satellite studies.

All T and proxy-T could be put in one box. Not at all considered there are Otzi (~5400 years ago) and all other archaeology from similar times. We are in 'new times' as far as melting and degradation (loss) of such things. T and proxy-T studies do not include archaeology. These are independent, yet concordant things to consider.

Against all that we have wrong dating of Greenland GIPS2 core top. If we must treat all this as poker metaphor, well...check your cards.

 

Theres more than one liar here@61. Yet one would be enough! Zero would be enough if we are searching for 'how things really are'. Concordance of evidence is a thing. Loud, comfy affinity websites seem to be a thing for those inclined to believe them. How each at PriusChat chooses alliances is not likely to affect human energy/food/water/climate choices for next few decades.

 

you dont know the sources Im referencing?@63. Would it be painful for you to state them? Must realize that >2 people are in this discussion. Your job (our job) is towards other readers. Dude.

 

Thus I assume you will provide them. I dare you to do so without again insulting me, because how could yet another gratuitous insult possibly further your cause?

 

Squirrel wise, it would be better to let this thread go, and post 'something new' when WUWT, GWPF, DailyCaller, or any of those others does your thinking for you. I do hope you'll not have to wait for long for that which stands in for thinking.

 

I brought up the possibility of currents changing, but My main point was that one section of ocean getting colder does not disprove Global Warming.

I don't know what you are referring too.

 

Consider:

https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788

“A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era”
PAGES2k Consortium
SCIENTIFIC DATA | 4:170088 | DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2017.88

PAGES2k Consortium is represented here by 98 authors. Their proxy-T data came (in decreasing order of number of datasets) from tree rings, corals, marine sediments, glacier ice, lake sediments, sclerosponges, speleothems, boreholes and bivalves.

Several are Figures presented, of which I only include one here. For these 2000 years, the most prominent patterns are slow decrease from about 1000 to 1800 CE, followed by more rapid increase since. We should have no doubt that larger variations occurred regionally. There is mention of later manuscripts planned by PAGES2k to address that.



It was not main goal to verify HADCRUT 4 instrumental –T analysis, but within 25-year binning, concordance is obvious. We are certainly left with impression that most recent 25 years have been warmest, but I think a more important conclusion is that rate of change is unique.

All datasets and mathematical procedures used are included in this publication.

A summary including authors' comments:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170711125604.htm

 

Concerning an earlier PAGES2k publication:

PAGES 2k Consortium 2013. Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia. Nature Geoscience 6: 339-346. DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1797

I posted about it earlier on another thread. Hope not many will be upset if I repeat the Figure here:

 

For the entire (topic) 10 k year span, we may not have looked at this link before:

File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons

Down the page you can read which studies are included.

It still seems a shame that mojo does not have enough respect for his own thread to explain the 65 (thence 11) studies that may or may not provide contradictory data or analyses.

 

This year's trip was less favorable for ice pictures, so I'll just post some pics of pseudo-midnight-sun over Greenland instead:



Taken just barely north of the Arctic Circle very close to Greenland's west coast. At the end of July, this was not far enough north for a true 'midnight sun' from the ground, five weeks after the solstice. But with the help of 39k feet elevation, we still had this beautiful blaze of fire 90 minutes after computed surface sunset. I had hoped to see if the sun would remain visible all the way through local midnight at our flight elevation, and a quick crude calculation suggested that it was on the hairy edge of doing so, but a very high solid cloud deck soon blotted it out for a couple hours. Even so, it never got dark. Nor did it ever get dark during our ten days in Iceland, where the main island is entirely south of the Arctic Circle.

 

gorgeous! our daughter is headed for iceland next week, greenland in her future plans.

 

It is a great place to visit, except for the great hordes of tourists who have recently discovered it. (We should have gone some years ago, when it was already on our wish list, before the great tourism boom.) And except for the $ticker $hock, as everything is e$pen$ive.

It is also not a great idea to catch a common cold at the very start. Mine peaked in the middle of the trip, partially curtailing activity a couple days, while the spouse's case didn't get going until near the end. But trying to miss as little as possible while there, we are both now in recovery mode at home. That might give me some catch up time here on PC, in between naps.

 

Thus year's trip was to Norway, the final week spent north of the Arctic Circle. It never got dark, but due to overcast skies or rain at 'night', I never saw true midnight sun from the ground.

But I did see it from the air over Nunavut, several hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, with the aid of 37,000 feet altitude. June 4:


This was from 62°59′ N. The actual Arctic Circle is at 66°34′ N, but with the altitude boost and serendipitous timing, the sun never set on this flight. And unlike last year, not blocked by clouds on the horizon at its lowest point. The flight path did go a bit north of the circle, but by then it was a morning sun, higher and far less colorful.

 

how was the wood?

 

Now, for this year's Greenland ice pictures. All taken crossing its east coast, between 66°40' and 66°10' N, on June 4. (For reference, Greenland Camp Summit is much farther north at 72°36' N.) This just gives a clue what things look like, no trend is implied because my few pictures sets over the years are from different locations at different times of the year.

#1-3: multiple glaciers from different mountain valleys, merging into a single flow, with a few meltwater pools on top.


#4-5: crossing Greenland's east coast, glaciers flowing out of the coastal mountains and breaking up as they flow into the sea. The sea surface here is more broken ice than exposed water.


#6: some swirling ice patterns on sea surface.


#7: the transition from mountain coast (upper left) to heavy sea ice (left-center) to open water (right).


Clouds covered this coast on the return trip, though I did get some less interesting pictures of the west coast.