You said Marcott's paper, among others, proved the current warming is unprecedented. Marcott said his paper didn't said such a thing and his data couldn't prove such a thing. I know you want to pretend you didn't monumentally screw this up but alas....

mhaze,

You keep repeating this as though it strengthens your point, but let’s clear it up - again:

I didn’t claim that Marcott’s data alone proves current warming is unprecedented in rate. I said it contributes to the picture - and I explicitly referenced Neukom et al. (2019) alongside it for exactly that reason.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398757
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398761
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398770

Marcott’s own clarification acknowledges his study’s limited resolution, which makes direct sub-century rate comparisons difficult - not impossible, and certainly not meaningless. That’s why the phrase you keep quoting says:

"…the records have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century…”

That’s a specific caveat, not a retraction of the broader conclusion that modern warming lies outside the Holocene norm.

And again: Neukom et al., which you’ve dodged every step of the way, does include the high-resolution data needed - and it does conclude that modern warming is unprecedented in both rate and spatial consistency over the last 2,000 years.

So no, there’s no “monumental screw-up” - except maybe the one where you keep pretending this has never been addressed, while offering no rebuttal to the actual evidence that was provided.

If you truly had a counterpoint to Neukom, you'd have posted it. Instead, you're stuck quoting a misreading of Marcott as if it's a gotcha - and hoping everyone else forgets the second paper was ever mentioned.

Like I said, back in your box...

"not a retraction of the broader conclusion that modern warming lies outside the Holocene norm."

That's ALSO wrong.

Marcott shows that the current average global temperature was higher for 25% of the past 12000 yrs. That is, during the c. 12000 yrs of the Holocene, temperatures were higher than the present for c.3000 yrs. Current temperatures sit right in the Holocene norm.

And there's any number of papers that reach the same conclusion

mhaze,

You're not just misrepresenting Marcott anymore, you're now contradicting the very study you pretend to quote.

//Marcott shows that the current average global temperature was higher for 25% of the past 12,000 yrs./

No. What Marcott actually said was that as of 2000–2009, temperatures hadn’t yet exceeded early Holocene peaks, but were on track to do so within decades. That’s not “right in the Holocene norm.” That’s a flashing red warning.

And crucially, you’re still dodging the actual point: rate.

Marcott et al. (2013) - and their follow-up Q&A - made one thing clear: their resolution smooths out short-term spikes, which is why they avoided commenting on sub-century rates. That’s not a retraction of unprecedented change - t’s a limitation of their dataset.

That’s exactly why I cited Neukom et al. (2019) - a higher-resolution, multi-proxy reconstruction that does resolve modern trends, concluding:

“The warmest 51-year period over the past two millennia occurred during the late 20th century.”

You’ve never addressed that. You’ve never posted these mythical “other papers” you claim exist. And now, you’re trying to turn a study’s cautious framing into a smoking gun, hoping no one clicks the link or knows the literature.

This isn’t just evasion anymore. It’s fraud by footnote.

Try again.

Trumpster,

You must be beside yourself with grief at the very public divorce of Donald and Elon, no more kissy, kissy, ha, ha. Musk wants the Epstein files about Trump opened, now that would be some juicy reading. Trump says Musk is a "nut case",because he said Trumps "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a disaster for America. What's your opinion?

"What Marcott actually said was that as of 2000–2009, temperatures hadn’t yet exceeded early Holocene peaks, but were on track to do so within decades. "

And then Marcott clarified it in the Q and A by pointing out that his projections weren't part of his analysis, weren't robust and shouldn't be relied upon.

Its very true that if the most extreme of the model projections for 2100 turn out to be true then temps in 2100 will exceed all Holocene levels. But those models can't be relied on.

But we are talking about the here and now. And here and now, world temperatures are lower than they were for 25% of the Holocene.