The Eemian Interglacial

10/05/2019 18:48 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
The Eemian Interglacial was a warm period that lasted from ca. 130,000 – 115,000 years ago and was followed by the most recent glacial period (Weichselian/Wisconsinan), which lasted until about 11,000 years ago when the current warm period, the Holocene, began. So, it's the last interglacial before the current one.

The interglacial is named after the River Eem in the Netherlands because it was first recognized from boreholes in the area of the city of Amersfoort, located in the Eem Vally. Studying the Eemian is very important because the continental configuration of the Earth was very similar to the current situation. This means that ocean currents were very likely to be the same as today.

During the Eemian, global average temperatures were 2 to 4 °C higher than today while the average CO2-concentration was 280 parts per million (ppm), around the same value as the CO2 concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution (1850). Sea levels were 4 to 8 meters higher than today.

Recent research by the Niels Bohr Institute reveal that the average temperature in Greenland during the Eemian was around 8 °C higher than it is today. Nonetheless, only 10% of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted.

So, what do we learn from all this?

  • The IPCC tells us that human emissions of CO2 are the Earth's main temperature regulator, but that is contradicted by the measured data from the Eemian when much higher temperatures had natural causes and were paired with lower CO2 levels
  • They tell us that the Greenland Ice Sheet will melt and that sea levels will rise 20 meters. During the Eemian none of that happened with even much more warming
  • They also tell us that even 1 more degree of warming would cause catastrophic unstoppable "runaway" warming. During the Eemian, temperatures were much higher and no such catastrophic runaway warming ever happened; the Earth's climate even fell back into the Weichselian Glacial Period
  • They tell us that coral reefs and other ecosystems will disappear. Well, they did survive the Eemian.


Looking at the past provides us with lots of real-world, measured, scientific data that completely contradicts the IPCC hypotheses, computer models and predictions. There is no cause for alarm. There is no climate crisis.

Tom van Leeuwen, September 10th, 2019.


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

An estimation of the human influence on the climate

The month of May has come to an end. Another month of economic paralysis and reduced human CO2 emissions. And again, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise to record levels in modern measurements.

It is time to remove the blindfolds and thoroughly analyze the question of the effect of human CO2 emissions on global temperature. I propose to divide the problem into four issues, open for discussion:

Sydney Sea-Level Rise

According to the IPCC CO2-hypothesis, rising CO2-levels leads to warming. That warming supposedly expands sea-water and melts glaciers and polar ice-caps, finally resulting in rising sea-levels. They warn us for catastrophic sea-level rises in the year 2100 and beyond because of this process.

Sydney is strategically located between the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans. CO2-levels went up from 300 to 400 parts per million over the past 100 years. What's the impact on Sydney's sea-level?

Democracy? Make your choice!

In recent centuries the power of governments has become stronger and stronger. The governments got involved increasingly deeper into our lives and the citizens, the individuals, have ever less to say about ever more issues.

Climate policy is an excellent example of this interference. The government relies on completely unreliable data, unproven hypotheses, and ideas while the consequences of this interference affect everyone. At present, governments worldwide are about to make cheap and reliable energy sources -that form the basis of our economic prosperity- inaccessible. The results are far-reaching.

Censored and kicked by a Facebook group!

Yesterday I decided to post my Four Interglacials to a Facebook group called "Global Warming Denialism is a Big Oil agenda".

It was an educational experience.

About consensus, "97%", and settled science

There are four misconceptions about science that are commonly used by catastrophic man-made warming advocates. Normally, when you try to start a conversation on the subject, their first reply will be one of these four "arguments".