The real “unprecedented” warming happened well before the industrial age

“The data show that the current warming is not unusual, but part of a natural cycle,” says this article by Jonathan DuHamel.


“Greenhouse gases, other than water vapor, are not significant drivers of climate,” says Duhamel. “Human emissions of carbon dioxide are insignificant when compared to natural emissions of greenhouse gases. Many predictions by climate modelers and hyped by the media are simply wrong.”

“There is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature,” DuHamel continues. “Carbon dioxide is vital to life on earth and current atmospheric levels are dangerously low. Political schemes to cut greenhouse gases will have no measurable effect on temperature but will greatly harm the economy by impeding energy production and use.”

“The graph (above), based on reconstruction from the geologic and historical records, shows that there have been several warm/cold cycles since the end of the last glacial epoch,” explains DuHamel.

The temperature during the Holocene Climate Optimum was 3ºF to 10ºF warmer than today in many areas. This is warmer than the extreme scenarios of the IPCC. Clearly, current temperatures are neither unprecedented nor unusually warm.”

See all of this great article, including more graphs:
Thanks to Burt Rutan for this link

Here’s a link to more charts showing temperatures warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period. It also contains charts showing the Roman Warming, the Mid-Holocene Warming, and several more warming periods during the last half-a-million years.

So much for “unprecedented” global warming.
Thanks to Burt Rutan for this link, too.


12 thoughts on “The real “unprecedented” warming happened well before the industrial age”

  1. If this were on oscilloscope trace I’d be calling the optima and minimum “ringing.” The real story is, when is the next “state transition?” Geological history suggests it will be soon.

  2. This graph is based on an ice core from Greenland taken in the 1960s; GLOBAL temperatures have risen sharply since then. And moreover, Willi Dansgaard, the author whose work the graph’s based on, and subsequent studies by other researchers, have also found that, with the exception of the oscillations between ice ages and interglacials, temperature upturns in Greenland were counterbalanced by cooling in Antarctica. These opposing temperature changes have been referred to as a “bipolar see-saw”. In other words, these were regional climate changes, not global temperature changes.

    • Monotoli, I am trying to understand your point. Are you suggesting that the only thing the graph shows is temperature changes in Greenland, and that in large, therefore, the world temperatures didn’t necessarily warm or cool? I rather thought the chart pretty much reflected all the changes tracked by mud cores, tree rings, etc. Are you, then, implying that todays temperatures ARE, therefore, unprecedented and that AGW is real? Even though it is pretty much a given that medieval Europe was warmer then it is today?

      • (Typo correction)
        No climate scientists ever argued that the
        current temperatures are unprecedented. Quite the oppostite. Temperatures, throughout the vast majority of the earth’s 4.6 billion year history have actually been much warmer than today, despite the fact that solar irradiance actually declines
        as you go back in time. The reason why that is, is because carbon dioxide levels during the
        Quaternary period have been very low with respect to the bulk of Earth’s history. But we are turning
        that around by raising greenhouse gases back
        to levels not seen in 20 million years.

        Back to the chart. No I did not mean that global temperatures did not change during the last
        10,000 years. But I did say that temperatures
        in Greenland, where the graph’s data came
        from, are much larger and noiser than the global
        average. Most climate scientists do believe
        that the medieval warm period was globally
        warm with respect to the majority of the preindustrial era, but the current global temperature, is higher than any time during the medieval warm period.

    • “In other words, these were regional climate changes, not global temperature changes.”

      It might be time to get up to speed on things. This is an old argument that has been used by AGW proponents and has been generally discredited in a number of places. HERE is but one of many:

      I’ve been studying this stuff informally for 6 years. If anything, the current “signal” found in ice core and ocean core samples points to the unfortunate conclusion that we are at the cusp of a significant shift in global climate conditions. This will happen because of natural cycles not because of AGW, and the trend will be MUCH colder, not warmer.

      My personal hopes are that the shift will not occur within my lifetime, but I’m doubtful about even that.

  3. Monotoli,

    what you are possibly forgetting is that on the scale of the chart, and also due to the lack of detail in the actual paleo records, you do not see the full maximums and minimums, you only see a running average. All the previous optimums would most likely have had short periods, such as the current 30 years, that spiked higher, and lower, than the shown temps or even the individual data points.

  4. Of course the ice core measures temperatures in Greenland – that is where the ice is! At least it is a measurement of something physical, not just another computer model – which models things the way the programmer wants it to- with the gigo factor as well. What I don’t understand about the global warming model is that it shows the ice caps melting – if you are trying to prove that model from ice cores, it seems a bit counter-productive as there ARE glaciers to core from times when it was a lot hotter than their models predict it will be when those same glaciers melt. They need to get their story straight.

  5. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the MWP, like blossoms in Sweden during winter in the 1300’s.

    You couldn’t blame SUVs back then.

  6. Thanks Burt!
    There are so many charts and much information to analyze. Just wonderful!
    I especially like the chart near the bottom where the IPCC cut off the recent cooling. This clearly shows the global warming fraud.
    Thanks again

  7. Kuhnkat mentions the smoothing of temp data.
    I find it interesting that the raw data for any given location show wide fluctuations at the daily, weekly or annual level. It is clear that this planet’s atmosphere adjusts to changes very promptly and that the oceans, where most the heat capacity resides, respond rather more slowly.
    To attach such significance to the minor forcing of a trace gas like CO2 (which is close to IR saturation) means completely ignoring the complex and interactive major factors.
    The vast majority of people I talk to have little understanding of atmospheric physics and that goes for people with science degrees too. We are no-where near understanding and quantifying those rampant temp fluctuations and as yet, a computer capable of modeling them does not exist.

Comments are closed.