Mauna Loa shows that reducing economic Activity has NO EFFECT on CO2

[Sunsettommy]

You'd have looked better making no response at all.

Yeah, I see that you support people who don't debate anything and avoids counterpoints.

You would do better if you stop ignoring hard evidence and stop lying so much.

Credibility is built on the truth and evidence which YOU and Mamooth have neither as many people here have been pointing out.

 

[Sunsettommy]

My Friends, there is an IGNORE FUNCTION for good reason. You continue to respond to these people who worship AlGore and only waste your time and give them excuses to post again and again.
Simply say your piece and ignore the Climate Change Cultists. please.

I have put many of the worst already on ignore for their drive by crap style I hang on with mainly just Mamooth and Crick now as they are so bad at it, they are brilliant in their total disregard for debate and truth thus worth tormenting them with evidence they hardly respond directly in return.

They are TERRIFIED of this Article Where is the Climate Emergency? and has proven to be the millstone they can't handle thus they are finished and not credible at all anymore.

We have warmists who are amiable such alang1216 who gets lots of good generally behaved replies then we have Crick who comes in CLANG! and rapidly generate a downward trend in civility and ignore meaningful replies of others in an increasingly hostile manner as he marches on his closed mind ideology of a doomed world.

 

[Crick]

I have put many of the worst already on ignore for their drive by crap style I hang on with mainly just Mamooth and Crick now as they are so bad at it, they are brilliant in their total disregard for debate and truth thus worth tormenting them with evidence they hardly respond directly in return.

They are TERRIFIED of this Article Where is the Climate Emergency?

Eschenbach's (the masseuse and amateur psychologist) collection of irrelevant graphics?

and has proven to be the millstone they can't handle thus they are finished and not credible at all anymore.

HAHAHAHaaaaa.... Wow.

We have warmists who are amiable such alang1216 who gets lots of good generally behaved replies then we have Crick who comes in CLANG! and rapidly generate a downward trend in civility and ignore meaningful replies of others in an increasingly hostile manner as he marches on his closed mind ideology of a doomed world.

You must mean the "CLANG!" of actual published science and facts. And I think a count of the number of times you have, in big, bold, red font, called me a "fucking liar" without ONCE having ever identified a lie, provides a clearer background for your charge that I treat you in a hostile manner.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick shoots himself in the foot with a reply that actually supports my contention that he is TERRIFIED to address the Content of the article that is well supported by many front line databases,

Eschenbach's (the masseuse and amateur psychologist) collection of irrelevant graphics?

And the fool just lied yet again as I exposed his lies factually many times,

"You must mean the "CLANG!" of actual published science and facts. And I think a count of the number of times you have, in big, bold, red font, called me a "fucking liar" without ONCE having ever identified a lie, provides a clearer background for your charge that I treat you in a hostile manner."

I corrected you numerous times about the gross misuse of the Marcott chart you keep posting even after I QUOTED Marcott stating that uptick isn't valid.

You are THE most dishonest liar in the Environment forum.

Cheers.

 

[Crick]

Crick shoots himself in the foot with a reply that actually supports my contention that he is TERRIFIED to address the Content of the article that is well supported by many front line databases,
And the fool just lied yet again as I exposed his lies factually many times,

---

Crick said: "You must mean the "CLANG!" of actual published science and facts. And I think a count of the number of times you have, in big, bold, red font, called me a "fucking liar" without ONCE having ever identified a lie, provides a clearer background for your charge that I treat you in a hostile manner."

---

I corrected you numerous times about the gross misuse of the Marcott chart you keep posting even after I QUOTED Marcott stating that uptick isn't valid.

I no time have I ever made use of the invalid portions of Marcott's charts.

You are THE most dishonest liar in the Environment forum.

There are a lot of liars on this forum and almost every single one of them is a denier. I think the champ would be EMH but Westwall comes in a close second. Despite your numerous accusations, you have yet to identify a single false statement of mine. Not ONE

Cheers.

Cheers to you as well YLSMFRBPOSAH.

 

[jc456]

I no time have I ever made use of the invalid portions of Marcott's charts

Look at that bag of English. Huh? Sometimes one doesn’t always catch it. Grammar queen

 

[Sunsettommy]

I no time have I ever made use of the invalid portions of Marcott's charts.

There are a lot of liars on this forum and almost every single one of them is a denier. I think the champ would be EMH but Westwall comes in a close second. Despite your numerous accusations, you have yet to identify a single false statement of mine. Not ONE

Cheers to you as well YLSMFRBPOSAH.

From this LINK POST 199 you apparently forgot since chronic lying is known to destroy memory function in the brain:

Crick in the head keeps ignoring what Marcott says over and over and over,

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.".

=====

Now adding this from Marcott's own THESIS paper showing that the uptick isn't here, here is what it originally looked like:

=====

A Fabricated ‘Uptick’? Marcott’s 2013 Hockey Stick Graph Debunked By Marcott’s Own 2011 Ph.D Thesis​

LINK

You have been told the truth many times even from Marcott's own mouth, yet you ignored it to continue your lies.

 

[Crick]

From this LINK POST 199 you apparently forgot since chronic lying is known to destroy memory function in the brain:

Crick in the head keeps ignoring what Marcott says over and over and over,

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.".

=====

Now adding this from Marcott's own THESIS paper showing that the uptick isn't here, here is what it originally looked like:

=====

A Fabricated ‘Uptick’? Marcott’s 2013 Hockey Stick Graph Debunked By Marcott’s Own 2011 Ph.D Thesis​

LINK

You have been told the truth many times even from Marcott's own mouth, yet you ignored it to continue your lies.

What you have failed to do was show a post in which I used the invalid portion of Marcott's plot or told a lie. I am going to keep pointing that out as long as it takes.

 

[Crick]

What you have failed to do was show a post in which I used the invalid portion of Marcott's plot or told a lie. I am going to keep pointing that out as long as it takes.

Billy Bob and jc456 gave this post a thumb's down. I assume that means they think they have a post of mine making use of the invalid portions of Marcott's plot or where I have told a lie. Let's see them then. Either one.

 

[Crick]

Let's return to the actual topic. As was pointed out several pages back, due to the centuries-long lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a massive amount already there and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. It was impossible to see the actual drop in the graphs supplied by the OP. The title of this thread is demonstrably false.

 

[abu afak]

From this LINK POST 199 you apparently forgot since chronic lying is known to destroy memory function in the brain:

Crick in the head keeps ignoring what Marcott says over and over and over,

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.".

=====

Now adding this from Marcott's own THESIS paper showing that the uptick isn't here, here is what it originally looked like:

=====

A Fabricated ‘Uptick’? Marcott’s 2013 Hockey Stick Graph Debunked By Marcott’s Own 2011 Ph.D Thesis​

LINK

You have been told the truth many times even from Marcott's own mouth, yet you ignored it to continue your lies.

SunsetTommy is just like ChemEngineer and Chem's Denialism on Climate AND EVOLUT!ON, in that they BOTH put everyone who beats them in every debate on IGNORE.
I Beat the hell out of BOTH and they have HAD to resort to Ignore to keep posting.
Chem had over 35 Posters on IGNORE at one point in ONE science section. He was Denying Evo and was getting buried.
He, Like Sunset is really a Selecta-Quote-Miner, using outdated an Misleading quotes/graphs/etc.

How about Marcott 2021 ? (not 2013, NOT pre 2009 decades)

• NATURE PODCAST
• 10 November 2021 Nature

Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate​

Reassessing 24,000 years of global temperatures, and on the ground at COP26.
[......]

Interviewee: Shaun Marcott​

"..The past record provides perspective. Papers like this basically point out, just at the very basic level, what has happened before and where we are in that context and where we’re heading towards. In a Prior paper that we had, we said statistically we don’t really know if today is any warmer than what we call the warm period of the last 10,000 years. ​

This paper has said actually, We’ve Left what was Normal.​

That’s an important perspective to have when you think about where we’re off to, considering these Temperatures that we’re Trajecting towards, as far we know, we Haven’t seen in 50 Million years or so, and the world was a lot Different then.""..""​

[......]​

Nature​

Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate ​

- - - -

​

​

Sunset Tommy cannot even debate Climate!
He Dumps an article from somewhere (like WTFUWT) and says: ""You must refute this paper or you lose.""

He himself is NOT EVEN CONVERSANT on the topic, and unlike me cannot lay out his position AND/OR why.
He put me on IGNORE after my SIX attempts to make him explain his position on warming and whether and if it was even warming at all.
He could Not!!
He prefers the motor mouth Crick who Unlike me doesn't Crush him with 100%/180° Rebuttal as I just did above AGAIN using his own source: Marcott.
(He Fallaciously/ posted COLD WEATHER DAYS in Skooker's anti-Science "Skeptics Winning" thread as if it was Not warming, but in fact cooling.)

So here Again: ANOTHER SUNSET for TOMMY.



NOTE Demented Westwall's NO CONTENT TROLL Below.
He can't post more than one line even off topic.

`​

 

[westwall]

SunsetTommy is just like ChemEngineer and Chem's Denialism on Climate AND EVOLUT!ON, in that they BOTH put everyone who beats them in every debate on IGNORE.
I Beat the hell out of BOTH and they have HAD to resort to Ignore to keep posting.
Chem had over 35 Posters on IGNORE at one point in ONE science section. He was Denying Evo and was getting buried.
He, Like Sunset is really a Selecta-Quote-Miner, using outdated an Misleading quotes/graphs/etc.

How about Marcott 2021 ? (not 2013, NOT pre 2009 decades)

• NATURE PODCAST
• 10 November 2021 Nature

Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate​

Reassessing 24,000 years of global temperatures, and on the ground at COP26.
[......]

Interviewee: Shaun Marcott​

"..The past record provides perspective. Papers like this basically point out, just at the very basic level, what has happened before and where we are in that context and where we’re heading towards. In a Prior paper that we had, we said statistically we don’t really know if today is any warmer than what we call the warm period of the last 10,000 years. ​

This paper has said actually, We’ve Left what was Normal.​

That’s an important perspective to have when you think about where we’re off to, considering these Temperatures that we’re Trajecting towards, as far we know, we Haven’t seen in 50 Million years or so, and the world was a lot Different then.""..""​

[......]​

Nature​

Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate ​

- - - -

​

​

Sunset Tommy cannot even debate Climate!
He Dumps an article from somewhere (like WTFUWT) and says: ""You must refute this paper or you lose.""

He himself is NOT EVEN CONVERSANT on the topic, and unlike me cannot lay out his position AND/OR why.
He put me on IGNORE after my SIX attempts to make him explain his position on warming and whether and if it was even warming at all.
He could Not!!
He prefers the motor mouth Crick who Unlike me doesn't Crush him with 100%/180° Rebuttal as I just did above AGAIN using his own source: Marcott.
(He Fallaciously/ posted COLD WEATHER DAYS in Skooker's anti-Science "Skeptics Winning" thread as if it was Not warming, but in fact cooling.)

So here Again: ANOTHER SUNSET for TOMMY.

`​

You have never beat anyone, at anything.

 

[Crick]

You have never beat anyone, at anything.

Just like you then.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SunsetTommy is just like ChemEngineer and Chem's Denialism on Climate AND EVOLUT!ON, in that they BOTH put everyone who beats them in every debate on IGNORE.
I Beat the hell out of BOTH and they have HAD to resort to Ignore to keep posting.
Chem had over 35 Posters on IGNORE at one point in ONE science section. He was Denying Evo and was getting buried.
He, Like Sunset is really a Selecta-Quote-Miner, using outdated an Misleading quotes/graphs/etc.

How about Marcott 2021 ? (not 2013, NOT pre 2009 decades)

• NATURE PODCAST
• 10 November 2021 Nature

Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate​

Reassessing 24,000 years of global temperatures, and on the ground at COP26.
[......]

Interviewee: Shaun Marcott​

"..The past record provides perspective. Papers like this basically point out, just at the very basic level, what has happened before and where we are in that context and where we’re heading towards. In a Prior paper that we had, we said statistically we don’t really know if today is any warmer than what we call the warm period of the last 10,000 years. ​

This paper has said actually, We’ve Left what was Normal.​

That’s an important perspective to have when you think about where we’re off to, considering these Temperatures that we’re Trajecting towards, as far we know, we Haven’t seen in 50 Million years or so, and the world was a lot Different then.""..""​

[......]​

Nature​

Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate ​

- - - -

​

​

Sunset Tommy cannot even debate Climate!
He Dumps an article from somewhere (like WTFUWT) and says: ""You must refute this paper or you lose.""

He himself is NOT EVEN CONVERSANT on the topic, and unlike me cannot lay out his position AND/OR why.
He put me on IGNORE after my SIX attempts to make him explain his position on warming and whether and if it was even warming at all.
He could Not!!
He prefers the motor mouth Crick who Unlike me doesn't Crush him with 100%/180° Rebuttal as I just did above AGAIN using his own source: Marcott.
(He Fallaciously/ posted COLD WEATHER DAYS in Skooker's anti-Science "Skeptics Winning" thread as if it was Not warming, but in fact cooling.)

So here Again: ANOTHER SUNSET for TOMMY.



NOTE Demented Westwall's NO CONTENT TROLL Below.
He can't post more than one line even off topic.

`​

Have you accepted CO2 as your Lord and Savior?

Believe!

 

[jc456]

Let's return to the actual topic. As was pointed out several pages back, due to the centuries-long lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a massive amount already there and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. It was impossible to see the actual drop in the graphs supplied by the OP. The title of this thread is demonstrably false.

You keep posting that lie! Massive how? Explain your concern. I’ve asked and asked and you ignore

 

[Sunsettommy]

How come CO2 stays quiet for most of the Interglacial while there were large temperature swings all over the place?

LINK

=====

Look here to watch the animation or chart series,

Historical video perspective: our current "unprecedented" global warming in the context of scale​

LINK

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How come CO2 stays quiet for most of the Interglacial while there were large temperature swings all over the place?

LINK

=====

Look here to watch the animation or chart series,

Historical video perspective: our current "unprecedented" global warming in the context of scale​

LINK

Your Chart is a DENIER!!!

 

[abu afak]

How come CO2 stays quiet for most of the Interglacial while there were large temperature swings all over the place?

LINK

LINK

Neither of your links contains the exact graph posted.
and of course its another (Like YOUR Marcott LOSS, Old/1997 data bases) Sunset Tommy Goofa-Graph!
TWO Destructions of SunsetTommy Misinfo on ONE page.


""A Misleading Graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.

Based on an early Greenland ice core record produced back in 1997, versions of the graph have, variously, Mislabeled the x-axis, excluded the modern observational temperature record and Conflated a Single location in Greenland with the whole world.

More recently, researchers have drilled numerous additional ice cores throughout Greenland and produced an updated estimate past Greenland temperatures.

This modern temperature reconstruction, combined with observational records over the past century, shows that current temperatures in Greenland are warmer than any period in the past 2,000 years. That said, they are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago.

However, warming is expected to continue in the future as human actions continue to emit greenhouse gases, primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels.

Climate models project that if emissions continue, by 2050, Greenland temperatures will exceed anything seen since the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago.

Ice cores as climate ‘proxies’​

Widespread thermometer measurements of temperatures only extend back to the mid-1700s. Scientists investigating how temperatures have changed prior to the invention of thermometers need to rely on a variety of climate “proxies”, which are correlated with temperature and can be used to infer, with some uncertainties, how it has changed in the past.

Climate proxies can be obtained from sources, such as tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments and corals. Ice cores are one of the best available climate proxies, providing a fairly high-resolution estimate of climate changes into the past.

Since scientists cannot directly measure temperatures from ice cores, they have to rely on measuring the oxygen isotope – 18O – which is correlated with temperature, but imperfectly so.

Odyssey of errors​

A temperature reconstruction using the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (“GISP2”) ice core was first published by Prof Kurt Cuffey and Dr Gary Clow in a 1997 paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. Prof Richard Alley of Penn State University also used the record in a 2000 paper. Neither of these papers provided a comparison of GISP2 record with current conditions, as the uncertainties in the ice core proxy reconstruction were too large and the proxy record only extended back to 1855.

The GISP2 ice core record was used in a number of papers in the late 1990s and 2000s that examined changes over the last ice age and the start of the current warm era – the Holocene – around 11,000 years ago. Around 2009, it caught the attention of Dr J Storrs Hall of the Foresight Institute, a technology-focused nonprofit group, who wrote a blog post suggesting that it disproved the idea that “human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend”.

That post was republished on a climate sceptic blog called Watts Up With That, which followed up with its own version of a GISP2 graph in late 2010 by Dr Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at the Western Washington University. Easterbrook’s graph, shown below, was shared widely across the internet by climate sceptics and is still frequently seen – with many small variations – to this day in discussions on Twitter, blogs and news article comment threads.

This graph is misleading for a number of reasons.

First, the x-axis is mislabelled. In fact, it should say “Years before 1950”, rather than “Years before present (2000 AD)”. The GISP2 ice core only extends up to 1855 – 95 years before 1950. This means that none of the modern observational temperature period overlaps with the proxy reconstruction. (Easterbrook’s graph shows the uptick in the final 100 years or so of the record – shown in red – incorrectly indicating that it is the observational temperature period.)

The figure was also featured in another post on the same blog, which conflated Greenland with global temperatures. Any individual location will have significantly more variability than the globe as a whole. A single ice core is also subject to uncertainties around elevation changes and other perturbations to the ice core over time.

As Prof Alley told then-New York Times journalist Andrew Revkin back in 2010:

“The data still contain a lot of noise over short times (snowdrifts are real, among other things). An isotopic record from one site is not purely a temperature record at that site, so care is required to interpret the signal and not the noise.”

The GISP2 reconstruction is fairly old and more recent research has questioned the assumptions made in changing the relationship between temperature and 18O during the Holocene and how to best account for elevation change of the ice sheet at the GISP2 site. The GISP2 reconstruction changes the relationship between 18O and temperatures by a factor of two during the Holocene, while more recent reconstructions keep it constant. Similarly, elevation change influences 18O records. The old GISP2 reconstruction did not take elevation changes into account.

Scientists reconstructing past Greenland temperatures now use estimates from many different ice cores, which reduces the uncertainties associated with any single one and gives a more accurate picture of changes over Greenland as a whole.

Alley made this point explicitly, telling Revkin:

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

Multi-core reconstructions​

A more modern Greenland temperature reconstruction, based on six different ice cores, was published by Prof Bo Vinther of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen and colleagues in Nature in 2009.

Speaking to Carbon Brief, Vinther suggests that this multi-core Holocene reconstruction provides a number of advantages over the old GISP2 series, using ice core 18O data corrected for past elevation change and “tuned” to fit ice core borehole temperatures at four locations.

The six ice core sites used by the reconstruction are shown in the figure below.

Location of the six ice core records used in the Vinther et al 2009 Greenland Holocene temperature reconstruction, from Figure 1a in their paper.
The temperature reconstruction produced using data from all six ice cores is shown by the blue line in the figure below, and spans the period from 9690BC to AD1970. It has a resolution of around 20 years, meaning that each data point represents the average temperature of the surrounding 20 years. So, the end of the record – 1970 – shows the average temperature between 1960 and 1980.

The ice core data cannot be extended all the way through to present because, as Alley tells Carbon Brief, the snow that falls on the ice sheet needs time to form into solid ice. He explains that “it isn’t quite enough to measure the snow as it falls…because there is a bit of post-depositional isotopic exchange and smoothing, so you’d want cores”.

Greenland Ice Sheet plain. Credit: National Geographic Image Collection / Alamy Stock Photo.
To extend this dataset up to the present day, Carbon Brief has taken observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth at the location of each of the ice cores and used a 20-year locally weighted smoothed (“LOWESS”) average of all the sites. This is a statistical approach that provides an estimate of long-term changes in the timeseries.

The black line in the figure below shows the observational record between 1880 and 2018. It is fitted to the ice core reconstruction during the period of overlap from 1880 through to 1970.

Greenland temperature reconstruction from Vinther et al. (2009) using proxy data from six ice cores. Data spans the past 12,000 years with a resolution of 20 years. Observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth is shown at the end in black, with a 20-year smooth applied to match the proxy resolution. Proxy records and observations are aligned over the 1880-1960 period.
Showing instrumental temperature observations alongside climate proxy records is often challenging in practice. As Alley tells Carbon Brief: “The question of how to join palaeoclimatic data to instrumental data is one of the oldest in this field and remains challenging.”

Prof Vinther explains that showing proxy data and observations side-by-side is appropriate as long as the data both have the same “temporal resolution”. In other words, because each point in both datasets represents an average of the 20 years of surrounding data, they can be more accurately compared. Because ice cores provide relatively high resolution temperature estimates, it is easier to compare them to observed temperatures than other proxy reconstructions that may only have one value in a century or more.

Recent temperatures in Greenland are still likely below those experienced in the early Holocene. This is similar to what is found in global Holocene temperature reconstructions, such as the one published by Prof Shaun Marcott and colleagues in Science in 2013, which suggested that “current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values, but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history”.

Recent temperatures are clearly higher than any seen in Greenland over the past two millennia. The figure below shows the ice core and observational temperature data zoomed in on the period from AD1 through to the present day.

Greenland temperature reconstruction over the past 2,000 years from Vinther et al 2009 and observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth with a 20-year smooth applied.

Looking into the future​

RCP4.5: The RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) are scenarios of future concentrations of greenhouse gases and other forcings. RCP4.5 is a “stabilisation scenario” where policies are put in place so atmospheric CO2 concentration levels… Read More
While periods during the early Holocene – 7,000-11,000 years ago – may have been warmer in Greenland than the present day, if the present rate of warming continues, the Earth should pass well beyond any temperatures experienced in Greenland during the Holocene by 2050.

To examine how future Greenland warming might compare to what has happened in the past, Carbon Brief has looked at the average of the CMIP5 climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report. Future projections from these models are taken from the locations of the six ice cores used by Vinther and colleagues.

Two future scenarios, known as “Representative Concentration Pathways”, are used: representative concentration pathway RCP4.5, a modest mitigation scenario where global temperatures warm to nearly 3C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, and RCP8.5, a very high emissions scenario where global temperatures warm nearly 5C by 2100.

RCP8.5: The RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) are scenarios of future concentrations of greenhouse gases and other forcings. RCP8.5 is a scenario of “comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions“ brought about by rapid population growth,… Read More
Climate models show faster warming in the Arctic than the rest of the world – a phenomenon known as arctic amplification – and similar to what has been observed over the past few decades. By 2100, these models have the area above the Greenland ice core locations warming by nearly 4C in RCP4.5 and more than 7C in RCP8.5.

The figure below shows a 20-year LOWESS smoothed average of the models from 2000 through to 2100 added on to the end of the observational temperature data. Temperatures clearly exceed any experienced in Greenland during the Holocene by 2050 and are much warmer by 2100.


Greenland temperature reconstruction over the past 12,000 years from Vinther et al 2009 combined with both observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth from 1880-2018 and CMIP5 multimodel mean projections from 1999-2100. A 20-year smooth is applied to annual Berkeley Earth and CMIP5 data. Proxy records and observations are aligned over the 1880-1960 period, while climate models and observations are aligned over the 1999-2018 period.
Just looking at the past 2000 years – and next 100 – shows a similar rapid rise at the end of the record. The rate of warming over the next century is projected to be far faster than anything seen since the end of the last ice age.

Greenland temperature reconstruction over the past 2,000 years from Vinther et al 2009, observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth and CMIP5 models data with a 20-year smooth applied.

Conclusion​

Greenland ice cores provide a high-quality high-resolution estimate of past changes in temperatures, allowing more precise comparisons with observed temperature records than most other climate proxies. While current temperatures are likely still below the highs in the early Holocene around 7,000 years ago, they are clearly higher than any temperatures experienced in Greenland over the past 2,000 years.

Greenland is just one location and temperature variations seen in ice core records may not be characteristic of global temperatures. However, global proxy reconstructions have tended to show similar patterns, with current temperatures lower than the early Holocene maximum.

Unless greenhouse gas emissions cease in the near future, warming will continue and, by the middle of the 21st century, Greenland – and the world as a whole – will likely experience temperatures that are unprecedented at least since the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago.""

Factcheck: What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change

A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.

www.carbonbrief.org

`

 

[jc456]

Greenland – and the world as a whole – will likely experience temperatures that are unprecedented at least since the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago

What is your claim? Are you suggesting the world has one temperature?

 

[Crick]

What is your claim? Are you suggesting the world has one temperature?

He used the word "temperatures". Plural. More than one.