<p>The recent spike in Greenland temperatures is almost at Holocene maximum levels despite the declining trend over the last 7,000 years.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.  </p>
  
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/DfQOp.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/DfQOp.png" alt="enter image description here"></a>
<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change" rel="nofollow noreferrer">What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-01T02:13:33.363Z
Greenland seems to be an anomaly compared to the rest of the world. https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T20:34:05.727Z
2019-11-23T20:34:05.727Z
Keith McClary
<p>Because the arctic temperature record would probably not require any of the climategate urban heat island adjustments it would seem to definitively sustain that global temperatures are significantly rising. This would seem to form the most unequivocal and verifiable proof that rhetoric to the contrary is simply false.</p>
<p><strong>List of Arctic weather stations that are the source of the Arctic temperature record:</strong>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_stations_in_the_Arctic" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_stations_in_the_Arctic</a></p>
<p><a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arctic2017.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arctic2017.png</a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/pxu7u.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/pxu7u.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T17:09:00.423Z
No educated person doubts that there is climate change, for the simple reason there always has been for the last 4 billion years, and the trend at the moment is one of warming. How  much of it is due to man-made emissions is debatable. One wonders how many more ways you can find of serving up the same question.
Michael Walsby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T17:23:24.840Z
@MichaelWalsby I must deconstruct every subtle nuance of climate change denial one key element at a time. The key element that seems to be utterly deconstructed here is that applying any weight what-so-ever to climate-gate rhetoric is incorrect. We can know for sure that the global temperature record is accurate on the basis that the Arctic temperature record sustains it.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T17:38:02.163Z
Re *I must deconstruct every subtle nuance of climate change denial one key element at a time* -- Why? What compels you to tilt at this windmill? You will not convince the full-blown deniers; they are immune to logic and evidence.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T18:32:13.360Z
@DavidHammen With the exception of forums such as this one where enough down votes can prevent someone from participating there don't seem to be any actual skeptics on social media platforms.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T18:32:39.853Z
@DavidHammen
If we assume that this very vocal subset is not a representative sample of actual climate change skeptics then finding a very succinct way of rebutting these denier liars can turn the tide against intentional climate change disinformation teams such as these: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR0IxVlRg_eG83PjI6cRBUMqdruR4QUShUD5swm0ps3zaMdCwBQvAjfAoVE#wY7WYmkPZEcvpDPe.01
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T19:13:54.060Z
@ polcott I am totally against censorship and believe everyone should be allowed to have their say, even holocaust deniers. The rioters in Hong Kong claim to be rioting for more freedom and democracy, yet they attacked and seriously injured someone who took the central government's point of view. What is democratic about that? Freedom of speech is one of the main pillars of democracy. I am probably the only user with 2,000-plus reputation who has never downvoted anybody. The system is wide open to abuse, so I am boycotting it.
Michael Walsby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T19:22:22.477Z
@polcott - Re *there don't seem to be any actual skeptics on social media platforms.* -- You haven't looked very hard. There are fora galore where you will be voted out if you argue that climate change currently is changing, that this current climate change is caused primarily by humans pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and that this represents a serious problem.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T19:33:42.047Z
@DavidHammen By "skeptics"  I mean people that are seeking the actual truth yet are doubtful. All of the climate change deniers that I have encountered have no problem at all of denying easily verifiable facts. One of these guys said that there is no climate science what-so-ever that shows any relationship between increases in CO2 and increases in temperature and immediately followed this up with a link to all of the scientific papers that show there is such a relationship.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T21:42:25.267Z
@polcott *I must deconstruct every subtle nuance of climate change denial one key element at a time* — that's not what this website is for.  Such websites already exist, see https://skepticalscience.com/ .  We're here to enrich the internet by providing a resource that doesn't exist in this form elsewhere, not to replicate what already exists.  If you have a question, in particular a question not covered on skepticalscience.com, you can ask it here in good faith, and also contact skepticalscience.com with the suggestion they cover it on their website.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T21:57:33.893Z
@gerrit Skeptical science is very great at providing a very in depth analysis of different skeptical myths and debunking those myths. The site founder John Cook has also done a really superb job of outing the denier liars: https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/America_Misled.pdf
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T22:07:51.253Z
@gerrit The unique thing that I am attempting to do here is to utterly deconstruct any rebuttal of the one element of climate science climate sensitivity to CO2 and two key elements of empirical data (1) The huge 98 PPM spike in CO2 since 1959 that has no scientific explanation beside human emissions  and (2) The 0.8C rise in global temperatures. I want to do this so effectively and succinctly that anyone caring about the truth will be convinced of significant anthropogenic global heating AGH in sixty or less. seconds or less.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T22:14:26.653Z
@polcott There is plenty of evidence already.  Repeating it on yet another forum is unlikely to convince people who have decided they don't want to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-23T22:45:30.470Z
@gerrit I want to make the truth of global warming so succinctly compelling that any denial of it would be exactly like a guy that just had a pie smashed into his face saying that there is no pie. Unless it is made this compelling we have not done the most that can possibly be done to save the Earth.
polcott
<climate-change>
Could the recent temperature anomalies in the arctic be used as a proxy measure of global heating?
polcott
# Could the recent temperature anomalies in the arctic be used as a proxy measure of global heating?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-23)

Because the arctic temperature record would probably not require any of the climategate urban heat island adjustments it would seem to definitively sustain that global temperatures are significantly rising. This would seem to form the most unequivocal and verifiable proof that rhetoric to the contrary is simply false.

**List of Arctic weather stations that are the source of the Arctic temperature record:**
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_stations_in_the_Arctic>

<http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arctic2017.png>

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/pxu7u.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/pxu7u.png)

**Tags:** climate-change

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: No educated person doubts that there is climate change, for the simple reason there always has been for the last 4 billion years, and the trend at the moment is one of warming. How  much of it is due to man-made emissions is debatable. One wonders how many more ways you can find of serving up the same question.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I must deconstruct every subtle nuance of climate change denial one key element at a time. The key element that seems to be utterly deconstructed here is that applying any weight what-so-ever to climate-gate rhetoric is incorrect. We can know for sure that the global temperature record is accurate on the basis that the Arctic temperature record sustains it.  
> **username_2**: Re *I must deconstruct every subtle nuance of climate change denial one key element at a time* -- Why? What compels you to tilt at this windmill? You will not convince the full-blown deniers; they are immune to logic and evidence.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 With the exception of forums such as this one where enough down votes can prevent someone from participating there don't seem to be any actual skeptics on social media platforms.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 If we assume that this very vocal subset is not a representative sample of actual climate change skeptics then finding a very succinct way of rebutting these denier liars can turn the tide against intentional climate change disinformation teams such as these: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR0IxVlRg_eG83PjI6cRBUMqdruR4QUShUD5swm0ps3zaMdCwBQvAjfAoVE#wY7WYmkPZEcvpDPe.01  
> **username_1**: @ username_0 I am totally against censorship and believe everyone should be allowed to have their say, even holocaust deniers. The rioters in Hong Kong claim to be rioting for more freedom and democracy, yet they attacked and seriously injured someone who took the central government's point of view. What is democratic about that? Freedom of speech is one of the main pillars of democracy. I am probably the only user with 2,000-plus reputation who has never downvoted anybody. The system is wide open to abuse, so I am boycotting it.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 - Re *there don't seem to be any actual skeptics on social media platforms.* -- You haven't looked very hard. There are fora galore where you will be voted out if you argue that climate change currently is changing, that this current climate change is caused primarily by humans pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and that this represents a serious problem.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 By "skeptics"  I mean people that are seeking the actual truth yet are doubtful. All of the climate change deniers that I have encountered have no problem at all of denying easily verifiable facts. One of these guys said that there is no climate science what-so-ever that shows any relationship between increases in CO2 and increases in temperature and immediately followed this up with a link to all of the scientific papers that show there is such a relationship.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 *I must deconstruct every subtle nuance of climate change denial one key element at a time* — that's not what this website is for.  Such websites already exist, see https://skepticalscience.com/ .  We're here to enrich the internet by providing a resource that doesn't exist in this form elsewhere, not to replicate what already exists.  If you have a question, in particular a question not covered on skepticalscience.com, you can ask it here in good faith, and also contact skepticalscience.com with the suggestion they cover it on their website.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Skeptical science is very great at providing a very in depth analysis of different skeptical myths and debunking those myths. The site founder John Cook has also done a really superb job of outing the denier liars: https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/America_Misled.pdf  
> **username_0**: @username_3 The unique thing that I am attempting to do here is to utterly deconstruct any rebuttal of the one element of climate science climate sensitivity to CO2 and two key elements of empirical data (1) The huge 98 PPM spike in CO2 since 1959 that has no scientific explanation beside human emissions  and (2) The 0.8C rise in global temperatures. I want to do this so effectively and succinctly that anyone caring about the truth will be convinced of significant anthropogenic global heating AGH in sixty or less. seconds or less.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 There is plenty of evidence already.  Repeating it on yet another forum is unlikely to convince people who have decided they don't want to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I want to make the truth of global warming so succinctly compelling that any denial of it would be exactly like a guy that just had a pie smashed into his face saying that there is no pie. Unless it is made this compelling we have not done the most that can possibly be done to save the Earth.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-11-23. Score: 1

The recent spike in Greenland temperatures is almost at Holocene maximum levels despite the declining trend over the last 7,000 years.

> 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.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/DfQOp.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/DfQOp.png)
[What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change](https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Greenland seems to be an anomaly compared to the rest of the world. https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/  

---

