“We Live In The Coldest Period Of The Last 10.000 Years"
By Paul Homewood
Jørgen Peder Steffensen is an Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and one of the world’s leading experts on ice cores. Using ice cores from sites in Greenland, he has been able to reconstruct temperatures there for the last 10000 years. So what are his conclusions?
- Temperatures in Greenland were about 1.5 C warmer 1000 years ago than now.
- It was perhaps 2.5 C warmer 4000 years ago.
- The period around 1875, at the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, marked the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.
- Other evidence from elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere confirms this picture.
His final comment is particularly telling :-
I agree totally we have had a global temperature increase in the 20thC – but an increase from what? ..Probably an increase from the lowest point in the last 10,000 years.
We started to observe meteorology at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.
Have a look at this short video of Professor Steffensen’s here.
The Professor’s findings are supported by other research such as this study.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This is deeply worrying for the human race
Deeply worrying…because the standard of education is so poor, or just plain biased.
According to Ice Core records the world has been cooling rapidly since 1000BC. It was lucky that it recovered somewhat from the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Now we have a quiet sun that could bring colder conditions for the coming 30-50 years.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Something to hammer home when anyone talks about climate change is that statement that 1850 (or so) was the coldest period since the end of the last ice age.
It is this simple fact that makes the “1.5C target” and even the “2.0C target” ridiculous. It has been at least as warm as this in the earlier part of this interglacial. This kind of warmth is no threat whatsoever – indeed we should welcome it.
Meanwhile, the climate of 1850 idealized by those promoting NetZero carries with it the threat of the return to glacial conditions that is the inevitable consequence of letting the climate system “do its own thing”. NetZero? Net crazy.
At last, somebody has pointed out that coincidentally/conveniently decent weather records began at the end of the Little Ice Ge and it is hardly surprising that things have been warming up since. That’s probably why the models are out of sync with reality.
We definitely should not be messing with the CO2. Fairly recent studies seem to point to low CO2 levels at the close of the Ice Age as a major reason for the demise of the mega fauna.
Low CO2 led to a depauperate vegetation and even plants not forming fruits/seeds. Therefore, there was much less for the large herbivores to eat and their numbers decreased. Consequently, there were fewer herbivores for the carnivores to eat and they likewise died out.
Satellite photography has shown a definite “greening” in many parts of the world with increased CO2. This is especially true on the African Continent.
Dr. Patrick Moore has taken on this hoax. A co-founder of Greenpeace, he left this group when it got off their original task. If you can find his interviews or speeches, they are worth the listen. He has a PhD in ecology and recently published: ‘Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom’ containing a few climate and environmental bombshells…..probably not too out there for us who follow this blog and actually think logically.
Read it. Recommend it.
Mike, I like to think (well, I’d rather it didn’t occur) that my grandsons son will be out on tge fyture streets demandinv sn increase in CO2 levels as tge wirkd cools.
They don’t learn: you can’t mess with Mother Nature.
It would be great if this excellent research made the slightest difference to the claims, action and intent of the neo-Marxists who drive anti-climate change campaigning, never mind the idiot politicians who have unquestioningly swallowed their lunacy.
But it won’t make any impact at all.
I use this a lot, because it’s the most direct, hands on, evidence based, expert opinion, ever.
I also use my own plot of GISP2 from Alley’s data, annotated to show the rate and range of natural cyclic change, nothing unusual in fact
As far as the ice cores being the onlt evidence, and denial of the MWP and W RWP as global ec cycles, colleague also recently made me aware of the Equatorial sediment cores from Borneo’s Makassar Strait, that show the sama natural history cycles, same frequency but at half the range, as we see elsewhere, equatorial 1 deg versus 2 deg polar range.
These natural cycles are also reported in many other papers, an interactive summary of some of them is here:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
there are literally hundreds of geological papers that show the cycles , based on observational evidence of the natural past, We have proxy measurements, so the past is not a mystery, we don’t need no Steenking thermometers. Records began a VERY long time ago, nature remembered for us to confound the UN liars, and science knows that now really is the coldest warm cycle this interglacial.
2 deg below the warmest, 1 deg above the coldest, in 1850.
Facts that the movie makes very clear..
So the evidence of traditional science proven by observation versu he guesses of computer models, is clear. The UN simply presumed to use political power and tax payer’s money, as unaccountably as the UN can, to mandate the cause and effect of observed change as being caused by human energy use, and correlated that to CO2, to impose their energy control of nation states with other ends in mind than saving a naturally changing planet’s climate..
They built these lies into their models, to attribute natural change to human energy use by statistical correlation over a limited period. THis is the energy use that determined human progress over the last 200 years, has advanced our civilisation massively to a much better protected status against natural disease, famine, and war over control of the only sources of power and wealth before energy was refined by science, carbohydrate power, animals and us, land, and the weak intermittent sources of wind and water power.
THat is now what the UN and our elites now plan to impose on the West, In the name of something they made up, that isn’t happening in fact. Imposing energy control agendas to reverse economic progress, progress that fundamentally depends upon cheap plentiful energy, based on this overt pseudo science, is wholly fraudulent on the facts. In this context, only nuclear can replace fossil use, when the time comes, not because climate change is caused by CO2, when it overtly is not, when considered within the entire global climate system it has no detectable effect. .
The observation of natural change in so many papers has exposed the UN’s lies, so why do those in power continue to impose regressive energy policies in the name of a lie, when the supposed human created anomaly has been shown not to exist in the record? There is change, it is natural, the models that say otherwise are based on false assertions regarding natural change and the natural controls of climate, so are wrong in measured fact, wrong hundreds of times, in peer reviewed science that measures reality, not believes in models they wrote. That’s called religion..
TO BE CLEAR: The change we see now is what has been measured to occur naturally every 1,000 years this Holocene, but a bit colder each time. As the video shows.
Which means, if this natural change is deducted from the change we see now, there is no detectable anomaly created by human development or CO2 produced when genrating the plentiful cheap energy that enabled that.
As frequency analysis of the record has also shown, (no Monotonic change – Ludecke and Weiss, 2017)
In reality AGW started as a deliberate deceit, presumptively funded to prove humans caused climate change by CO2 from energy use and farming, not to do science, to determine the causes of change. Si they created by a new pseudo science, climate science, when we already had climatologists who knew better, but were pushed aside by grant funding MONEY. Funded in the BIllions by the UN to promote their deceit by Maurice Strong’s team at the UN, to support the global wealth and land management objectives of UN Agenda 21 – not a conspiracy, something they wrote into Agenda 21 and have said publicly many times.
The supposed anomalous warming of AGW, in excess of what was natural, only ever existed in the predictions of the UN’s CMIP statistical, not deterministic, models. Not real science, more epidemiology, The models were and are always wrong, massively overestimating change, which remains stubbornly natural in rate , range and periodicity, but never abandoned, because “the observations are wrong”. Really?
AND,FINALLY: NATURAL CONTROL: Any human perturbation there is to real global average temperatures is both tiny in scale and, where there is such a small gross effect, it is reduced to zero net zero by the dominant control of ocean evaporation and the resulting change in Tropospheric cloud albedo hence surface insoliton. So there is net zero change to see. The dominant control of Earth’s climate, against all comers over 500 Million years, is minimised in the UN models.
Simples! It just works. And continues to work. SElf evidently. In the record of nature. Nothing to see here,
To repeat the main points: To make their false claims attributing natural change to humans, and tieing that to fossil energy a new sort of declamatory science, which announced a problem then proved it, instead of testing it. They funded computer models that denied the natural record, by assuming no change was natural. THey also denied the dominant negative feedback of the oceans as the primary control of perturbations to the climate, as if Earth was an unstable open system with no strong controls and no natural change. It isn’t. The reverse is self evidently true. Change is natural, natural controls are powerful, the models are wrong. Because the observation of nature says so.
Last word to the late Freeman Dyson, talking to Marijn Poels. A clip, but well clipped.:
Brian, you’re preaching to the choir with me but I wonder what response you got to that very informative comment when you showed it to PM Johnson, or even, idiots Deben and Miliband? I guess, not much.
I do not have no access to these gentlemen. They are too rich and privileged fo to listen to what informed but un-elite people know. Which is why Boris has no idea what he is talking about, he was never taught that that matters, just make it up. What they train to do at elite private schools. The debating fields of Eton are rarely troubled by the natural laws of physics or the reality of the masses.
I have explained to Kwasi, who is my MP and says his job is to enact party policy, ( e.g. kiss Boris’s arse and do what Carrie says, at the moment – not to understand and leislate according to natural reality)). NOt for long now, my moles say assassins are plotting all around Westminster. Boris, hence Kwasi, has to go, and her even more so, she’s wrecking the economy with her unknowing green stupidity.. I have also explained to Kwasi how energy supply works and a gas transition to nuclear is the only way to meet their claimed objectives if CO2 really mattered in natural reality, but the reality is renewables poicy is there to enrich banks and generators with quick, grandfathered, guaranteed profits for over subsidised renewables that can never solve the supposed problem claimed to justfy their use. Why the ESG “prefers” them. Forget the climate, follow the money.
The more renewables they build the longer they have to rely on 100% gas back up, and the less capital is available for nuclear build. And that the lifetime CO2 emissions of EVs are the same as modern ICEs, and hybrids beat both, so are banned. BOnkers. NO rationality in energy policy, just a fast buck for insiders at public. expense with net zero effect on global climate.
FInally that energy use has to be optimised to application, which is why pure, expensively refined energy is good for machines, rail transport, etc, BUT using primary energy directly is best for heating with gas, liquid fuel for transport, because converting the primary energy to electricity first involves massive costs, emissions, and inefficiencies. Which is why we don’t do it now, unless it’s imposed by law or special needs. Because it’s a science denying, unaffordable, hence stupid and unnecessary idea. So engineers don’t do it and people won’t buy it.
Unless forced to by corrupt law made by idiot politicians who blindly follow the unsupportable by the real science policies of the utterly corrupted UN, as the had the EU until people decided enough rule from unelected foreign elites with their own agendas to impose that we did not control through elected democracy, was enough. etc. Time to do the same with the UN?
Very informative Brian.
Thanks for that.
A few years ago I used to give the odd short presentation at a Science & Technology groups – short and pithy.
One of them had a PowerPoint slide of the ice-core graph showing temperature going back to the last glaciation. I was shouted at on more than one occasion. It really is a post modern world when people cannot accept empirical data and think for themselves.
I used to close by saying that during the last glaciation up to 12,000 years ago CO2 fell to around 180ppm and nothing at all grows below 150ppm (as Joan Gibson alludes to above). At that time it is estimated that world population was around 1 million and ALL our progress has occurred since then. It is the return of the ice that will be a climate catastrophe.
“It really is a post modern world when people cannot accept empirical data and think for themselves.”
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)
And even that is false. They are basing their recommendations on their political opinions. They are scientists, not economists or experts in any of the other fields they would need to understand to make “recommendations”. It is primarily a political project, driven by Left-wing scientists who all agree on how societies and economies should be restructured.
There’s little doubt it was2 degrees warmer when Neanderthals roamed Western France. That they thrived in a landscape full of life isn’t in doubt either. Any suggestion that two degrees of warming from the 1850 level is a “crisis” is laughable but many want to believe it and so do believe it. That virtually all science, history, geography, anthropology etc show its false just doesn’t matter.
‘Probably an increase from the lowest point in the last 10,000 years.’
Likewise for CO2. When temps go up, so does CO2 as oceans warm and absorb less of it.
Not only do they absorb less, according to Charles’ Law they actually emit it.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
I wonder how the polar bears coped with all that heat…
More accurately we live in a rebound warming phase 150 years after the ” coldest period of the last 10 000 years ” One can see from Brian’s Greenland ice core and Macassar Strait sediment core temperature reconstructions – despite irregularities in the respective chronologies – the same Holocene epoch downward temperature trendline The PP-25 proxy Arctic sea ice values chart in Judith Curry’s article ” What do we know about Arctic sea ice trends ” may interest you too Brian . For centuries during the Holocene Thermal Optimum and intermittently into the Bronze Age , the seas of the Arctic ocean were not just seasonally ice free but minimally covered with ice all year round https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/16/what-do-we-know-about-arctic-sea-ice-trends/
Professor Harald Yndestrad of ‘Climate Clock’ thinks it is more correct to say that we never left ‘The Little Ice Age;’ and the cold is returning NOW.
That is indeed what the careful observations of the past and present tell us. Natural change, coming slowly, like it always has, in the natural direct and proxy record anyone can check for themselves. So why would anyone believe anything else? That’s stupid.
” it is more correct to say we never left the Little Ice Age ” ?…..
We did emerge from the Little Ice Age ..You just admitted it yourself ‘ with this sentence : ” and the cold is returning NOW ” . If the Little Ice Age had not gradually ended and segued into the modern warm period why would the cold be returning ‘dave’ ? …. Brian’s annotated GISP2 temperature reconstruction includes the caption :
” We are here 1.2 deg above last LIA ”
Brian , although I am in general agreement with you , natural climatic change has not always arrived ‘slowly’ .. You only have to research the catastrophic events of 536 – 45 CE and 1257 CE and the Great Famine years 1315 -22
And your point is? My point is that there is no evidence that warming now is significantly different from the warmings of prior cycles in the observational record, which is the point at issue. I recognise Ka and a BP, AD and BC as geological notation, what is CE please. Never seen CE in a paper.
I think I affirmed my points quite well Brian Climate change is not always an inevitably slow gradualist phenomenon and your Greenland series is actually a blurred 30 -50 year floating average Are you aware of this ? You did not articulate any such point that ” there is no evidence warming now is significantly different from the warmings of prior cycles ” in response to Dave’s contradictory remarks Your very own annotated GISP2 graph derived from Alley confirms we emerged from the Little Ice Age Yet if we ‘never left ” the LIA how in Daves words how could the ‘cold be returning ” ? He hasnt disputed the temperature reconstructions you posted What’s stupid again ?
You know what CE and BCE stand for
Dave : ” it is more correct to say we never left the Little Ice Age and the cold is returning NOW ”
Brian your GISP2 graph shows a 65 deg pc rise from the lowest juncture of the Late Antiquity Little Ice Age to the warm peak of the MWP and a 1.2 deg warming from the date 1830 to the present . The real figure may be 0.9 – 1 deg C . It must be said other Greenland ice core temperature reconstructions such as the juxtaposed Alley / Kobashi series show different results and anomalous abrupt swings in temperature – not ‘natural change coming slowly like it always has “