by Rud Istvan
On March 8, 2013, mainstream media around the world carried headlines trumpeting a new study in Science, the gist typified by NBC News:
Warming fastest since dawn of civilization
Except that is not what the paper was about.
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Alan C. Mix
Abstract. Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. 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. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
The paper is published in Science, link to abstract [here].
The paper contains a comparison in Figure 1B to a version of the TAR hockey stick chart in which the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappeared, and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ was used to ‘hide the [recent proxy] decline’ by pasting in thermometer temperatures. The paper found good agreement of their reconstruction with Mann et al.’s previous reconstructions: “indistiguishable within uncertainty”.
It is evident from the paper’s abstract that temperatures are not yet back to the estimated Holocene peak, let alone above it as Figure 1B depicts. This suggests a significant overall temperature calibration issue.
The MWP has progressively ‘disappeared’ over the course of the IPCC reports. FAR and SAR showed it to have been much warmer than the present—and nothing to do with CO2. By TAR the MWP was gone, leading to the hockey stick controversy and climategate.
While the MWP did not completely disappear in this new paper, it turned into a <0.1°C blip colder than 1961- 1990. This is quite curious. The MWP was not a blip for the entire northern hemisphere, as illustrated by this figure adapted from a 2010 paper by Ljungvist.
A reference list compiled by CO2Science shows that there are at least 96 proxy studies of Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Aus/NZ with quantitative estimates of MWP temperatures, plus 109 more with qualitative estimates, and an additional 116 providing evidence that it was a significant, centuries long event that came and went fairly suddenly.
How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120. The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. [“Gain” was defined as the ratio of output variance to input white noise in simulations ‘stressing’ combined proxy statistical reliability. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”
Evaluate a 300-year MWP using methods lacking 300 year resolution and voila! The MWP turns into a blip diminished by the colder periods on each side.
As do any other ‘sudden’ temperature changes occurring over mere century intervals, of which there were plenty on the order of ±1°C in the actual proxies. The 20 proxies with the strongest Holocene peak signal plotted raw from the SI data file show this quite nicely.
The misinformation highway took the paper’s figure S3 (below) as a spaghetti chart hockey stick of the proxy temperatures. It is not. It shows 1000 Monte Carlo simulations of the 73 data sets, perturbed by inserting random temperature and age calibration errors to establish the blue statistical band in Figure 1B. S3 doesn’t say the last century’s temperature has risen above the Holocene peak. It only says uncertainty about the combined recent paleotemperature has risen. Which must be true if the median resolution is 120 years.
There were certainly ‘sudden’ temperature rises in the MWP charts above as ‘rapid’ as the 20th century (since there has been no rise yet at all in the 21st). Yet MSM headlines focused on the ‘fastest ever’ change. As the most telling example, Marcott’s NPR interview headline was Past Century’s Global Temperature Change is Fastest on Record :
But Marcott says the record shows just how unusual our current warming is. “It’s really the rates of change here that’s amazing and atypical,” he says. Essentially, it’s warming up superfast.
Marcott neglected to tell NPR his methodology did not recognize ‘fast’ century changes at all–until recent thermometer records were spliced onto the 73 paleosites.
And so the next CAGW hockey stick game begins. Possibly with a pass of the puck to Canadian Steve McIntyre.
JC comment: This post was emailed to me, unsolicited. I did some editing and checking (I have read the main article but not the supplementary material). I have not personally spent much time on this paper, but I think it is a paper that should be discussed, given the hypberbolic press coverage.
Andy Revkin has a post on the paper, with extensive quotes from Mann, Rohde, and Alley, worth reading.
Hank at suyts has a post on the paper, where he downloaded the data made available by the authors and analyzed it. This post is worth reading also.
There doesn’t seem to be anything really new here in terms of our understanding of the Holocene. Mike’s Nature trick seems to be now a standard practice in paleo reconstructions. I personally don’t see how this analysis says anything convincing about climate variability on the time scale of a century.
Saying it like it is, in a September 15, 2003 speech before the Commerce Club about environmentalism as a religion, the real challenge we face today, according to Michael Crichton, “is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda… We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems.”
Ya know, he could be so elegant about climate, and then botch it so badly in the screenplay.
=============
NBC News’ cognitive dissonance glibbest since the dawn of existentialism.
Seriously? Serious revisionist history at any rate. Linkage, as always:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/tidescurrents/effects/climatechange_currents_lesson.html
ibid above
my emphasis
and in regard to river runoff
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15242.abstract
Connect the two dots. Fresh water slows down MOC, MOC slowdown causes rapid warming, land use change in past 100 years causes increased river runoff into the ocean while CO2 increase has the opposite effect. Maybe what we really need is less anthropogenic impervious land cover. Hear that, you concrete jungle progressives? Your preferred unnatural habitat is causing global warming.
Hah, Judy; you saw ‘looking at it’, didn’t you.
My comment early on, prawly off Rud was ‘shaft smoothed, blade attached’. Aren’t there any new Trix in Climate Science?
==========
Kim, I posted this to Dr. Curry. She was in Wasington when the snowstorm did not hit but still cancelled her appearance before Congress, something more important than the rest of us all together in the new citizen science world.
Not a criticism. Just a small fact correction.
How could I criticize her for having the bravery to post this, not knowing whether it came from a nutcase? Let’s just say her edits were invaluable. She justifiable reserved judgement, since said had not had the time to study the details of the paper. No active scientist does.
That is how I discovered a major anomaly in energy storage materials, leading to fundamental patents which now (I hope) allow the pleasure of contributing more to this debate, using the same methods. And have allowed the time to publish two books. You might enjoy them.
Regards
Congress cancelled on her, that and the flights in and out
“reconstructions” “suggest” “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100″…
It’s all in a magazine called (gulp) Science. That august title reminds me of the old Twilight Zone episode, where the benevolent aliens had a book called “To Serve Mankind”. Turns out it was a cookbook.
Have the Pied Piper read ‘Childhood’s End’ aloud on the commons.
================
–> “To Serve Mankind”
–e.g., stuff with ham and stew like a chicken — sprinkle with rum, light on fire and serve hot.
“To Serve Man” I think you’ll find.
I also found it worthwhile to watch Revkin’s interview with the author. Seemed like a reasonable guy. Doesn’t look particularly tribal in nature. I guess, somehow, he must have slipped past the warmist cabal orthodoxy police?
Of course, then again, he might be some kind of a plant or Manchurian candidate. You can’t be too careful with these “warmists.” (Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you.)
He may have looked reasonable to you, but he had a pretty big smirk, the sort that a post-doc gets thinking that this exposure is gonna look great in the next application packet. Still smugness like that will help him fit in fine at Harvard.
Speaking of which:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/12/corn-in-a-changing-climate/
Dagnabbit Willard, a 6% less corny globe is a serious prediction.
Hey Willard, did they analyze what happens to corn yield in higher latitudes where it wasn’t grown which become warm enough to grow it?
Going from zero corn yield to some corn yield is like an infinite percentage increase, right?
Give me something harder to shoot down. This was like shooting corn-fed koi in a keg.
Speaking of shooting:
> I introduce you to Caspar Ammann, the Texas Sharpshooter. Go get ‘em, cowboy.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/6938566409
Oh, I missed that. You see, my “skeptical” skills aren’t up to that level. I don’t have those magical abilities to interpret a “smirk.” Or to be able to find the correct attribution (smugness) and motivation (advantage of exposure) and tribal loyalties (to those folks at the Harvard branch of the cabal).
You “skeptics” really quite sumptin.’
Seems Joshua is quite able to asses someone as being reasonable, but not as being unreasonable. This personal flaw is probably why he just swallows the IPCC kool aid.
BB –
It seems that you have some knowledge about how I do or don’t assess the veracity of the IPCC’s reports. Would you mind elaborating – because I think you don’t have evidence on which to support your conclusions.
If that were true, you would be a “skeptic,” and not a skeptic. I’d hate to think that of you. Please clarify.
Joshua,
Sophistry as usual I see. We all know you are utterly incapable of understanding and interpreting AR4 or anything else vaguely technical.
So what do you base it on? Tarot cards? Gut instinct? Allegiances?
Whatever – the world is not warming for decades hence at least. You lose.
Have a good day
Springer –
So your point is that the higher latitude areas that will be more compatible to raising corn with climate change is equal in size to the area that will be negatively affected? How quickly do you theorize those higher latitude areas will be able to adapt (clear and level land, build soil, move equipment, install irrigation systems, build need infrastructure like roads, etc.) and where is your evidence that the related areas are equal in size?
‘Cause, you know, not having that information might skew your aim.
No. My point was that the article Willard linked was only about changes in existing regions where corn is cultivated. Presumably as cultivation declines marginally because of increasing temperature in lower latitudes it will increase in higher latitudes where it is currently too cold for it. In other words the corn belt will expand.
Will the expansion negate the contraction in existing fields? Beats the hell out of me but at least I’m aware it’s a factor that has be taken into consideration before reaching any tentative conclusions about net yield in a warming world. If it does indeed warm which it hasn’t done in 15 years.
I might also point out that in the USA corn yield per acre went up every year since 1940 excluding La Nina years in which it goes down. It went down a bunch since 2010 and not surprisingly so did global average temperature.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/16/a-brief-history-of-u-s-corn-in-one-chart/
Any further corrections I can make in this particular subset of your reliably mistaken views?
Big Dave was merely showing off the power of arguing from ignorance, Joshua.
… It went down a bunch since 2010 and not surprisingly so did global average temperature.
So U.S. corn production went down because of global temperatures?
Interesting.
Probably more to do with rainfall. ENSO+PDO redistributes rainall globally – one cause of the recent US drought and one likely to continue for some decades.
The more interesting question is what us the physical mechanism for influencing rainfall? And temperature?
DS drives nails with a sledgehammer while willard taps with his shoe.
C’mon willard! Sophistry is a poor substitute for sophiology
Arrhythmic, and the humming is flat. Here I sit.
=======
Well, Joshua has a point. The northern boundary of prehistoric maize gardens went south by nearly 400 hundred miles following the end of the MWP and during the advance of cooler climate.
Isn’t this the “dumb farmer” argument, you know, the farmers continue to plant the failing crops and don’t turn to different crops more suitable to the climate they have? And, of course, it is also I call a static analysis, it assumes that the only two variables are temperature and crop growth. The father of static analysis was Malthus, yet despite the fact that we can currently feed around 6billion of our 7 billion humans and growing, there are still people out there who will use static analysis to promote their views and claim to be able to foretell the future.
Joshua
Since 1970 yields globally averaged temperature has increased by around 0.5C, with a major part of the increase taking place at higher latitudes and during winter months.
Over the same time period, CO2 has increased by ~20%.
And the world-wide yields of major crops has increased by 2.4 times, while population increased 1.7 times.
Global starvation rates have decreased and average life expectancy has increased.
Not much “negative effect” visible there, is there?
Why should there be a “negative effect” from a bit more CO2 and warming?
Max
willard (@nevaudit) | March 11, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
Insubstantive argument is par for Willard’s course.
Joshua | March 11, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
No, it went down because of back-to-back La Ninas which causes precipitous decrease in precipitation in the US corn belt. You can’t figure ANYTHING out for yourself? Those La Ninas also happened to crater global average temperature. Whether GAT declines and La Ninas have gone hand in hand throughout the Holocene is anybody’s guess they’ve travelled together reliably since we began to monitor both.
Your lame straw man isn’t at all interesting, btw. La Nina effect on GAT and USA grain belt droughts is encyclopedic information which you would know if you were even marginally informed on these subjects.
Generalissimo Skippy | March 11, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
Even Chief Kangaroo Ellison knew the correct answer.
The more interesting question is what us the physical mechanism for influencing rainfall? And temperature?
Rainfall over the US grainbelt is lower during La Nina because the lower SST in the Pacific causes the jet stream to move northward towards Canada causing a persistent blocking high pressure region to the south of it.
GAT is reduced simply because global SST is reduced and because the ocean warms the atmosphere GAT is reduced commensurately.
I suspect you meant to ask about the physical mechanism behind La Nina. It happens because of increased trade winds which raise evaporation rate which cools the ocean surface. As far as know no one quite knows what causes the change in behavior of the trades. I figure you’d just want to write it off to chaos like you do everything else and I suppose butterfly wing flapping is as good a hypothesis as any other at this point but I tend to doubt that’s the real cause.
blueice2hotsea | March 11, 2013 at 9:51 pm |
Yeah, no finesse. I was well known in the corporate world for not mincing words when stupid ideas were presented for discussion in meetings. Stupidity doesn’t deserve any respect. Ostensibly the people holding the stupid ideas still deserve respect but that’s a political game and I’m an engineer… homey don’t play that game.
You give him too much credit. Sophistry is deliberately invalid arguments. I don’t think the lad can help it. He can’t discriminate between valid and invalid. Obfuscation as a cover for lack of critical thinking skills appears to be deliberate though. Maybe he can’t help that either. Dunno. I’m not a shrink.
> Presumably as cultivation declines marginally because of increasing temperature in lower latitudes it will increase in higher latitudes where it is currently too cold for it.
Presumably reading the article would have settled such presumption.
But how fun it is to brag about one’s bragging skillz.
The corporate world sure enjoys Big Dave’s online presence.
David Springer says: “I suspect you meant to ask about the physical mechanism behind La Nina. It happens because of increased trade winds which raise evaporation rate which cools the ocean surface.”
There’s also an increase in upwelling in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific during a La Niña. Lots of cool subsurface waters being drawn to the surface.
Regards.
manacker –
Seems to me there are a couple of problems with your argument. The first is that you are projecting into the future based on a linear increase i temperatures in line with the past. That may or may not be valid – but it would depend on whether you think that ACO2 warms the climate. If you think that ACO2 warms the climate (as I’m told “skeptics” believe), then your linear projection would be problematic.
The second is that your argument seems to assume that improvements in crop yield will continue forever, at the same rate of increase that has occurred in the past. That may be true, or then again it may not.
The third is that it seems you are discounting what might, in effect, be “opportunity cost.” Sure – crop yield might increase in the future even with warmer temperatures that require a geographical shift in production. But what is important is whether or not that increase would have been larger absent the increase in temps.
Springer –
After this:
You say this:
And this:
So I am responsible because you argued a causal link between drops in U.S. crop yield and global temps – instead discussing drought and the associated cause of drought as the causal link? Is this another example of that famous insistence on “personal responsibility” of “conservatives” I’ve heard so much about?
Let me ask you – have there ever been short term (on the period of two-year) drops in global temps that have not been associated with drought in the U.S. grain belt? Because, you know, if there have been, then your post-hoc rationalization would look just a tad like a post-hoc rationalization for a bad argument.
.
Twas just an example of Huybers talking about adaptation, really.
A minute reading can be saved by hours of chest beating.
Josh,
It appears your knowledge base with regard to farming is rather limited.
Level land? Build soil? Install irrigation systems? I’m no farm boy but even I know enough to see this is nonsense.
I think all of you arguing about global warming and agriculture are wasting your time. First, as geronimo points out, farmers are not dumb. I’m willing to bet a significant number of them could school the majority of commentors here when it came to weather and climate.
Second, if you knew anything about world food production, you would know that about 50% of crops are lost to spoilage and waste. Add to this that world food production is increasing at the same time the amount of land under cultivation is decreasing. (Do you know what percentage of arable land is under cultivation? I believe it is less than 40%.)
You have to basically be retarded to use last year’s US corn production numbers in any argument for the impacts of global warming. We can ignore that the drop in production was a pittance when compared to historical production records. You only need to understand that it was also a pittance when compared to the 40% of production which was routed into ethanol production.
If you are truly concerned about agriculture, you would argue for your tax dollars going to soil conservation measures far ahead of any efforts to “stop” global warming.
> I think all of you arguing about global warming and agriculture are wasting your time.
More so that the sole connection was the word “Harvard”, where Peter Huybers teaches.
Speaking of whom:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/09/16/369/
Our emphasis.
Put your name on our response, pretty please with some sugar on it.
Oh, and timg56, please read that article before throwing an hissy fit on it [1], as auditors would say.
[1] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/13730351446
tim56g,
Sorry about that. Thought the expression taken from the auditing sciences was respectful enough.
Please go read Huybers’ article. It’s free and it’s supposed to bring good news.
Hi Tim –
Josh,
Different beasts – urban farming and standard farming.
Leveling land – in most instances we are already talking about land which is fairly level. Farmers generally follow the topography, not try to change it. Draining land for agriculture is (or was) a common practice, but I believe the trend is away from this.
Building soil – in your case you are starting from zero. If you are referring to new areas opening up due to warmer temps, the soil is already there. The issue is one of maintaining soils rather than having to build them up.
Installing irrigation – I’d have to look it up, but a significant percentage of farming is “dry” farming. And in irrigated farming it isn’t a case of digging in irrigation piping. It’s above ground – think lawn sprinkler verses in ground irrigation system.
And I never said I thought the US was susceptible to a war of insurgency. I was responding to your comments about possible scenarios for how armed conflict might arise. Entirely speculative and not necessarily something I personally think is going to happen. But then you were the one with the pop corn crack.
As for studies in successful insurgencies, I am not aware of studies looking at possible insurgencies inside the US. They may exist, but I’d wonder that if so, would they be publically available. I don’t think we have many examples of civil war in a modern nation. There is Syria. Perhaps the Yugoslav Republic. Both would indicate that an armed populous can successfully prevail against a central government.
tim –
Both seem like assumptions without evidence The soil “was already there” in the case of our urban farm (we utilized land that in an arboretum)… but we needed to augment the soil to make it appropriate for the crops we were raising. Why do you assume that wouldn’t be the case for land that may not have been used for any agricultural purposes previously, let alone for growing a specific crop?
Look – I don’t disagree that conclusions about losses of productivity need to account for currently unused areas that might become appropriate with climate change. But if someone’s going to make that argument, they shouldn’t brew weak tea like Springer’s.
There’s another shocking gem in this subthread, Bob Tisdale in amongst Joshua and willard.
===============
yes, andy is a reasonable guy. And he is not trusted by either tribe. A good sign. other guy, you missed the big red flag. watch again
I’ve long defended Andy Revkin’s curiosity and intellectual integrity. I trust he’ll get it someday. Now, do I really have to go watch to see the red flag? My tummy ain’t just right today.
============
OK, urp, he’s gettin’ it. Notice his aside to himself about two decade old Anthropocenic speculation. Other guy, the flag flashed while he was wrasslin’ alligators. Nick sick so, too.
==============
What is this, twenty questions?
Save me some time and describe to me the red flag of unreasonableness that you see.
Seemed to me that he dealt non-tribally with Rohde’s criticism. Not to say that I found his response entirely convincing.
The alarmists are frightened out of their skins. They are flayed alive by their fears. They need consoling, and much pain relief.
=============
Joshua,
Perhaps the part where he says something like “when you tack on the temperature increase for the 20th century it really increases and then when you tack on the 21st century it is outside of the elevator”. So he goes from a 400 year based proxy reconstruction and tacks on the insrumental and then the ~3 C scenario to derive his hokey stick blade breaking three rules:
1. Combining proxy reconstructions with temperature records as per Mann.
2. Combining proxy reconstructions with temperature forecasts (scenarios whatever)
3. Truncating the part of the temperature record that demonstrates the forecasts are broken as per Mann.
The interview reveals a youthful naivety that Andy diplomaticly steps around.
You obviously do not have a red flag sensor.
Oh, that’s really funny. I thought he said ‘outside the alligator’. So much for that string of metaphors. By the way, I agree with you about Andy and about ‘the other’.
========
It’s also the part where he says that high frequency blips would go missing in the data, but this time we know that we’re in a long, sustained rise. He let’s the cat out of the bag when he connects that to “long-lived” CO2. So, it’s perfectly valid to paste on the recent thermometer record of a few decades to his muck analysis because this time it’s different.
There was also mention of “where this is going” when he was describing the end of his elevator ride with the president. Not only does his study tell us about the distant past, it also tells us about the present and the future. “Miracle mud,” I’d call it. I suppose he has some good policy ideas for us all, too. Maybe that was after I hit the “Stop, for God’s sake” button.
This is a man going after a top spot on the varsity team, and Michael should be really scared for his jersey.
I’ve got a slight grief reaction to the loss of ‘Outside the Alligator’.
Yep, J. DeF; I don’t think Andy was fooled one tiny bit by all the handwaving in his face.
==============
Notice Andy put the Elevator Shakun video on at the end of today’s DotEarth column. Andy’s a little bit upset.
==========================
Have some hockey cobs, eh?
As the American corn belt moves north, it will, and I know the existence of Canadian agriculture will shock some, but it will displace Canadian crops. Probably wheat in the bug yellow area.
existing arable land/boreal forest
Generally, the soil under boreal forests is mostly, well, who knows? Maybe we’ll get blog adaptation lucky!
See also http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1836.html
“The observed diminishment of ST and SV is equivalent to 4° and 7° (5° and 6°) latitudinal shift equatorward during the past 30 years in the Arctic (boreal) region”
I have done a statistical analysis of ice-out dates of Minnesota lakes and that has been creeping southward over the last 150 years as well.
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2012/09/lake-ice-out-dates-earlier-and-earlier.html
Latvian researchers noticed the same in the Baltic region.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/gh17r4720443q8w3.pdf
Ice-out dates are an interesting proxy for temperature as it is less prone to the systemic errors that beset thermometer measurements.
Acid,,, lime lime lime lime !!! but that’s just dirt and some passes.
Can anyone tell me why this paper refers to Mann’s 2008 hockey stick as:
Is Mann’s hockey stick really CRU’s composite temperature record? Did I miss them adopting it as their own? If not, why in the world would the authors describe it this way?
The A-Team on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog is now posting incredible satellite animations of this week’s accelerating 2013 arctic ice-melt.
Folks, when Mother Nature sets about to show us humans the real face of AGW … she has no need for Istvan-style/Watts-style spinning or quibbling, eh?
Conclusion Nature is announcing loud-and-clear: The scientific worldview of James Hansen and Michael Mann is correct.
LOL, 2013s accelerating ice melt? Uhmm, it hasn’t happened, yet. Has a maximum even been declared, yet?
Your link shows what appears to be normal ice flow for the arctic winter, including massive leads opening and closing. Ice extent for this date is considerably greater than the same date last year, also 2006. Nature is indeed saying something, but I believe it is about the foolishness of AGW belief instead.
Antarctic set a record yesterday for most ice ever.
2 million sq km above the lowest extent on this day.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/antarctic-sea-ice-day-69-2013-is-4th-record-for-the-day-this-year/
Fan, better hold your jubilation. I sense a Big Mac Attack coming very soon.
Fan, please post the graphic showing the decline in ice extent since Jan 1, 2013. I can’t seem to find it on line. All I can find are charts showing that ice extent is still growing this year.
Fan
Hansen’s 1988 warming forecast was off by more than 2:1.
This is most likely because the 2xCO2 ECS which his models used to make the forecast was also off by 2:1.
Recent observation-based estimates of 2xCO2 are around half of those used by Hansen (and IPCC in AR4).
So I wouldn’t say that “The scientific worldview of James Hansen is correct”
As for Michael Mann, his hockey-stick was discredited statistically, even before the “hide the decline” trick was exposed.
Over 80 independent studies from all over the world using different paleo-climate methodologies have shown that the MWP was global and slightly warmer than today, in direct contradiction of his findings.
So I also wouldn’t say that “The scientific worldview of Michael Mann is correct”
Sorry ’bout that.
Max
You made that up.
Again
Cites for the 80 please
Far more than 80 listed here:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
I’m not vouching for all of them but I spot checked about 20 taking samples from each region of the world listed. All the ones I checked were legit.
I think you vastly misunderestimate how many foraminifera studies around the world have been done with sediment cores going back a few thousand years. Every non-descript university in the frickin’ world has done at least one. It’s a guaranteed-to-get-published paper for any previously undocumented region.
Dave.
the claim was that
The studies you link to are for individual sites. Not a single one of them is a global reconstruction. Which is what you need to demonstrate a global MWP.
So let’s have those 80 global reconstructions.
Also, there is a very good reason your link quotes a “description” for each study rather than the abstract. Can you guess what the reason is?
verytallguy | March 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
my emphasis
No, what I linked is exactly what was claimed. Far more than 80 independent studies. You demand 80 global reconstructions which was never claimed.
Hundreds of independent studies (which I linked) from all over the world show warming during the MWP and the vast majority of them say it was the greatest warming in the record. That is compelling evidence that the MWP was global to any objective person.
I encourage everyone to just go check it out for themselves and reach their own conclusion.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Dave,
Again.
The claim was of 80 independent studies have “shown that the MWP was global”
Not a single one of the studies you have linked which I’ve looked at makes any claim whatsoever as to how global or otherwise the MWP was. They merely report individual site data.
*If* the site data were as compelling as you claim, then constructing to a global record clearly showing a MWP would be trivial. A true skeptic would ask why such a reconstruction does not exist.
I have no conceptual problem with a global MWP existing. I’m somewhat surprised you advocate it as it would suggest high climate sensitivity which is rather alarmist. In order to demonstrate it to some sceptical – like me – you need to show:
– unbiased selection of sites
– global coverage
– uncertainty estimates
The certainty of reporting a global phenomenon without scepticism on this blog is deeply ironic.
> I have no conceptual problem with a global MWP existing. I’m somewhat surprised you advocate it as it would suggest high climate sensitivity which is rather alarmist.
Why would a global MWP suggest a high CS, verytall?
Please be pedagogical: kim usually eavedrops.
“Why would a global MWP suggest a high CS, verytall?”
Low forcings. High temperature response. Therefore high sensitivity. Note “suggest” not “prove”. Remember the uncertainty monster is under the bed.
Thanks, very tall one.
Scratching my own itch, I found:
> If for some reason, temperatures over the Medieval Warm Period turn out to be warmer than previously thought, this means climate sensitivity is actually greater than 3°C. The climate response to CO2 forcing will be even greater than expected. So to argue for a warmer Medieval Warm Period is to argue for greater climate sensitivity and greater future warming due to human CO2 emissions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Do-critics-of-the-hockey-stick-realise-what-theyre-arguing-for.html
But I’m afraid this might be clear enough for the eavesdroppers.
@verytallguy
There are sites from ALL OVER THE WORLD, predominantly foraminifera, but there are other methods as well. Practically all of them show higher temperatures than today during the Medieval Warm Period. Find some that don’t show this. Find some reason to believe the studies are biased. I give you solid evidence you give me speculation that something is wrong with it. Your answer reeks of dogma. You ought to start looking around to see if you can find where you lost your objectivity.
Climate sensitivity is usually defined as temperature response to a CO2 doubling. Was CO2 high in the MWP? I believe any number of ice cores will put that fantasy to rest. Nothing unusual about CO2 in the MWP. So we don’t know what caused it do we? There is absolutely no reason to say sensitivity must be greater than we thought just because the MWP was the warmest period in the last couple thousand years. That’s idea that it must be is simply more dogma talking. You boys are ridiculous.
> Climate sensitivity is usually defined as temperature response to a CO2 doubling. Was CO2 high in the MWP? I believe any number of ice cores will put that fantasy to rest. Nothing unusual about CO2 in the MWP.
More precisely:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
So much the worse for Big Dave’s daily appeal to ignorance.
Dave
No Dave, you gave me nothing more than a hypothesis. I’d summarise that as “The individual studies collated by CO2Science prove the existence of a global MWP”
To test that hypothesis, you need to do a global reconstruction based on those studies.
Other people have done this, based on a selection of proxies, although the results are not very conclusive to my mind at least as the datasets are sparse and unreliable.
They don’t show a global MWP. See Mann (2009) for example.
In summary:
– Global reconstructions so far do NOT show a global MWP.
– You hypothesise that individual site data does show this.
– You have no evidence for your hypothesis.
Happily for you, this does support your idea than climate sensitivity is low*
*Willard correctly defines sensitivity. I apologise for assuming you knew that already
Very Tall Guy
All temperature is local or regional (as well as seasonal, diurnal, etc.)
80+ independent studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methodologies, ALL concluded that the MWP in all these locations all over the world was slightly warmer than today.
“All over the world” = “global”
Got it?
Max
PS In addition, there were two studies that compiled data from several locations:
Loehle (2007) – MWP slightly warmer than present
Moberg et al. (2005) – MWP same as present
Meh, you don’t know the cause of the millenial scale changes, you can’t yap like this about sensitivity. We’ve been through this before.
===================
Max,
repeating deceptions does not make them true.
You have not provided a cite for your 80+studies. Please do.
Reconstructions using global proxies do NOT show a global MWP. See Mann 2009.
*If* your 80+ studies are real and show what you claim, then reconstructing a global temperature history which showed a MWP would be trivial.
It’s not been done. If it is, I’ll gladly accept the result.
Repeating deceptions does not make them true.
Repeating deceptions does not make them true.
Got it yet?
Short vtg: We’ve got to disappear the disappearance of the disappearance of the MWP.
===========
Mann’s hockey stick is deceptive. Marcott’s hockey stick is deceptive. Is that enough repetition for you, vtg?
=====================
Kim,
we don’t need to know the exact forcings to say that the larger and more widespread any MWP was, the greater climate sensitivity is.
If feedback was strongly negative then global temperature would be very strongly constrained and a global MWP would be impossible.
A large and global MWP is an alarmist position to take
VTG, logic is not your stong side, is it?
VTG
The “cite” for the 80+ studies is quoted in the lead post (they actually quote around 100), but here are the ones, which I have read:
Craig Loehle (2007)
http://d1467362.i110.quadrahosting.com.au/pdf/2000%20yr%20non-treering%20temps.pdf
In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being slightly warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
Data: http://www.ncasi.org/programs/areas/climate/LoehleE&E2007.csv
Greenland
D. Dahl-Jensen et al
Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet
Science 9 October 1998: Vol. 282 no. 5387 pp. 268-271
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5387/268.abstract
MWP 0.8C warmer than latest average
The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes –23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, –1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively.
The HadCRUT Greenland temperature record shows an average annual temperature:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/swgreenlandave.dat
1926-1935 = -0.29C
1996-2005 = -0.61C (most recent data reported)
So 1930 was around 0.3C warmer than the latest average
MWP period high was around 0.5C + 0.3C = 0.8C higher than current highs.
Greenland Summit
Johnsen, S.J et al. 2001.
Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations
temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1100) were about 1°C warmer than those of the Current Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_gripsummit.php
China
De’Er Zhang 1994
Henan Province
0.9-1.0°C warmer than present
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
Eastern China
Ge, Q., Zheng, J., Fang, X., Man, Z., Zhang, X., Zhang, P. and Wang, W.-C. 2003
0.4°C higher than today’s peak warmth
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_easternchina.php
Pearl River Delta, S. China
Honghan, Z. and Baolin, H. 1995
1-2°C higher than that at present time
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pearlriver.php
Japan
Adhikari, D.P. and Kumon, F. 2001
warmer than any other period during the last 1300 years
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N13/C3.php
Yakushima Island, S. Japan
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E. 1995
about 1°C above that of the Current Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_yakushima.php
Sargasso Sea
Keigwin, L. 1996
~1°C warmer than today
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503
Tropical Ocean (Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Caribbean)
Alicia Newton, Robert Thunell, and Lowell Stott 2006
0.4°C warmer than today
http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/stott%20papers/Newton%20et%20al.,%202006.pdf
New Zealand
Cook, E. R., J. G. Palmer, and R. D. D’Arrigo 2002
(MWP confirmed but no temperature difference cited)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GL014580.shtml
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf
New Zealand
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P 1979
0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_nzcave.php
Barrow Strait, Canada
Vare, L.L., Masse, G., Gregory, T.R., Smart, C.W. and Belt, S.T
(MWP confirmed but no temperature difference cited)
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_barrowstrait.php
Northern Gulf of Mexico (Pigmy Basin)
Richey, J.N., Poore, R.Z., Flower, B.P. and Quinn, T.M 2007
about 1.5°C warmer than present-day temperatures.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pigmybasin.php
Coastal Peru
Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C 2005
Medieval Warm Period for this region was about 1.2°C above that of the Current Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_perushelf.php
Venezuela coast
Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R. 2004
approximately 0.35°C warmer than peak Current Warm Period temperatures, and fully 0.95°C warmer than the mean temperature of the last few years of the 20th century
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacobasin.php
Lake Erie, Ohio, USA
Patterson, W.P 1998
both summer maximum and mean annual temperatures in the Great Lakes region were found to be higher than those of the 20th century; mean annual temperatures were 0.2°C higher
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_lakeerie.php
Chesapeake Bay, USA
Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S., Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A. 2003
mean 20th-century temperatures were 0.15°C cooler than mean temperatures during the first stage of the Medieval Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_chesapeake.php
Sweden (Central Scandinavian Mountains)
Linderholm, H.W. and Gunnarson, B.E. 2005
Between AD 900 and 1000, summer temperature anomalies were as much as 1.5°C warmer than the 1961-1990 base period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_jamtland.php
Finnish Lapland
Weckstrom, J., Korhola, A., Erasto, P. and Holmstrom, L. 2006
0.15°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_tsuolbmajavri.php
Ural Mountains, Russia
Mazepa, V.S. 2005
Medieval Warm Period lasted from approximately AD 700 to 1300 and that significant portions of it were as much as 0.56°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_polarurals.php
Altai Mountains, S. Siberia, Russia 2007
Kalugin, I., Daryin, A., Smolyaninova, L., Andreev, A., Diekmann, B. and Khlystov, O.
mean peak temperature of the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period was about 0.5°C higher than the mean peak temperature of the Current Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_altaimountains.php
Swiss Alps
Schlüchter et al. 2004
http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/de/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06_12.pdf
MWP and other earlier periods warmer than today, but no temperature estimate given
Austrian Alps
Patzelt 2009
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Patzelt_01.pdf
MWP ~900AD slightly warmer than today, earlier periods warmer
NW Spain
Martinez-Cortizas, A., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C. and Shotyk, W. 1999
mean annual temperature during this time was as much as 3.4°C warmer than that of the 1968-98 period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_nwspain.php
Antarctica (Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica)
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.
The MWP at ca. 750 14C yr BP was likely warmer than at any time during the CWP.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/31/2/127.abstract
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_ameryshelf.php
Bahamas
Lund and Curry 2006
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/paleoclimate-scientists-find-proof-of-medieval-warming-in-waters-off-the-bahamas-climategate-scienti.html
MWP (1200 years BP) roughly 0.2C warmer than today
Northern Hemisphere (MWP = Present), Moberg
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_mobergnh.php
Link to database listing several studies world-wide
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Silvaplana, Switzerland
Larocque-Tobler, I. et al.
http://cmslive1.unibe.ch/lenya/giub/live/research/see/People/CK-Home/CK-Publications/Larocque-Tobler_et_al_2010.pdf
inferred mean July air temperatures were 1°C warmer than the climate reference period (1961-1990).
Lake 4, Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada
Rolland, N., Larocque, I., Francus, P., Pienitz, R. and Laperriere, L. 2009. Evidence for a warmer period during the 12th and 13th centuries AD from chironomid assemblages in Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada. Quaternary Research72: 27-37.
http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/francusP/Rolland_et_al_QR_2009.pdf
Higher temperatures were recorded from cal yr AD 1160 to AD 1360, which may
correspond to the Medieval Warm Period. Between cal yr AD 1360 and AD 1700, lower temperatures were probably related to a Little Ice Age event; the most recent August temperature (which occurs at the end of the record at about AD 2008) is approximately 0.9°C less than the maximum August temperature of the Medieval Warm Period.
Eastern Sierra Nevada Range, California, USA
Millar, C.I., King, J.C., Westfall, R.D., Alden, H.A. and Delany, D.L. 2006. Late Holocene forest dynamics, volcanism, and climate change at Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA. Quaternary Research 66: 273-287.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/millar/psw_2006_millar027.pdf
we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry [AD 1350] to be significantly warmer (+3.2°C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (−24 mm annual precipitation) than present
Spannagel Cave, Central Alps, Austria
Mangini, A., Verdes, P., Spotl, C., Scholz, D., Vollweiler, N. and Kromer, B. 2007. Persistent influence of the North Atlantic hydrography on central European winter temperature during the last 9000 years. Geophysical Research Letters34: 10.1029/2006GL028600.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070809/20070809_08.html
the peak temperature of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 800-1300) was approximately 1.5°C higher than the peak temperature of the Current Warm Period.
Tagus River Estuary, off Lisbon, Portugal
Abrantes, F., Lebreiro, S., Rodrigues, T., Gil, I., Bartels-Jónsdóttir, H., Oliveira, P., Kissel, C. and Grimalt, J.O. 2005. Shallow-marine sediment cores record climate variability and earthquake activity off Lisbon (Portugal) for the last 2000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 2477-2494.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_tagusriver.php
The MWP was identified as occurring between AD 550 and 1300, during which time interval mean sea surface temperatures were between 1.5 and 2°C higher than the mean value of the past century, while peak MWP warmth was about 0.9°C greater than late 20th-century peak warmth
Whew!
Max
Unconvincing. We know little of the forcings for the millenial scale changes, and less of the feedbacks.
=======================
Max,
Thank you for the cites. We’ll have a look at their provenance a little later
None of these are global reconstructions.
You have, of course, failed to cite other studies which show the opposite of your claim.
Which is a deception.
This leaves us with a couple of possibilities:
1. No-one has done a global reconstruction.
2. A global reconstruction does not confirm your view that these are representative
Alas, a global reconstruction has been done (Mann, 2009), and contradicts your view.
As your studies cited are so conclusive, it’s astonishing no-one has bothered to report a global reconstruction, is it not?
Repeating deceptions does not make them true.
Got it yet?
VTG – apparently you have not “got it” yet either. None of the proxies – NONE – are global reconstructions. Period. They are regional indices that have been extrapolated out to encompass the globe. Nothing more. The MWP citations can more easily and accurately be compiled into a global reconstruction (and have been on 2 separate occasions – you sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling lalalalala will not make them go away) because they contain both more divergent data points, and of greater quality.
Thimk.
VTG > Alas, a global reconstruction has been done (Mann, 2009), and contradicts your view.
Which as everyone knows was a blatant fraud, based as it was on fiddling the data with diy stats techniques. A deliberate deception.
Why do you keep repeating this deception VTG? Do you imagine this will make it be true?
Let’s move on to provenance.
Your first cite is to a paper in E&E. I’ll say no more.
21 of the rest are in an archive put together in CO2science, run by the Idsos and financed by the Heartland Institute. We could go through those and see to what extent CO2science’s “description” of the papers matches the actual content, but I don’t think that would be pretty, would it?
This is nothing more than an attempt to deceive. You’ve quite deliberately put together an argument based on information you’ve chosen because it supports your case, and quite deliberately excluded other information which you know is significant and does not support your case.
I don’t care at all whether the MWP was global or not. Why you’re choosing to be deceptive about it I don’t know. But you are.
John Nielson-Gammon has a very relevant post on this on Scientific Meta-Literacy, where he notes “We scientists rely upon a hierarchy of reliability”. You’d do well to learn from him
So.
Again.
Repeating deceptions does not make them true.
Repeating deceptions does not make them true.
Got it yet?
Phil
“The MWP citations can more easily and accurately be compiled into a global reconstruction (and have been on 2 separate occasions – you sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling lalalalala will not make them go away”
Genuinely – I’m all ears, and more than happy to be persuaded of the global nature of the MWP. Please provide a link to these studies (not to the Heartland Institute mind…)
Tomcat – you’re doing exactly what Phil accuses me of. Do try to think.
But what more do you imagine there is to think about Very Tall Story Guy?
You are knowingly repeating Mann’s knowing deception. The End.
David Springer | March 14, 2013 at 9:01 am | Reply
@willard & verytallguy
willard (@nevaudit) | March 13, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
“http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm”
Blog science. Spare me.
VeryTallGuy | March 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
“Happily for you, this does support your idea than climate sensitivity is low* *Willard correctly defines sensitivity. I apologise for assuming you knew that already”
Blog science. Spare me.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html
The definition I gave is almost verbatim that of the IPCC.
People like you two are tedious and impossible to have a reasonable discussion with.
I can spoon feed this stuff to you two if you’d just stop making faces and spitting it out.
Due diligence has been paid to Big Dave’s chest beating below:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/11/lets-play-hockey-again/#comment-302563
Title of Johnsen & al 2001:
Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP
The abstract of Johnsen & al 2001, with our emphasis:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.622/full
Why not backtrack to the Boreal?
Lots of theories.
Let’s brace yourself – we’ve got mail.
A fan of *MORE* discourse: The A-Team on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog is now posting incredible satellite animations of this week’s accelerating 2013 arctic ice-melt.
Is there a typo? other sources (e.g. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png) show 2013 Arctic ice extent still increasing.
A fan of *MORE* discourse | March 11, 2013 at 12:10 pm:
“Conclusion Nature is announcing loud-and-clear: The scientific worldview of James Hansen and Michael Mann is correct.”
Both are my unfavorite pseudo-scientists. Mann got away with publishing the hockey stick fantasy that is well described in Montford’s book. Hansen is spreading fairy stories about a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus and telling us to stop burning fossil fuels or else it will happen to us too. He should know better because prior to joining GISS he was an astronomer on the Pioneer Venus project. Unlike the earth, Venus has no plate tectonics but he is ignorant of this and all that that entails. Radioactive heat on earth is continuously vented by plate boundary volcanism. Absent plate tectonics, it builds up under the crust on Venus and leads to in-plate volcanism. This eventually so weakens the crust that it breaks up into large slabs that sink into the interior and a new crust is formed. Judging by impact crater counts such a repaving cycle may take from 300 to 600 million years to complete. If it is the same age as our planet there may have been as many as ten such cycles in its history. Its atmosphere is entirely a product of these giant eructations and has nothing whatsoever to do with any runaway greenhouse effect.
Arno,
fan’s affinity for those two gentlemen is probably based on his own pseudo-science reasoning. He likes to call people names – indirectly of course – and based on his last response to me, apparently believes he stands on the moral high ground.
In other words, it is pretty much an exercise in futility trying to engage him in a reasonable, adult conversation. But then that probably should have been obvious by his addiction to emoticons.
I’ve always believed the most important thing you can do when making or examining a combination of series is to look at the individual series. Before resorting to any statistical methods, just look and see what you can see.
To help people do this, I’ve plotted the 73 series used in this paper. I kept the x-axis constant so they could be visually lined up, but the y-axis varies by series.
I personally have trouble seeing much match between the data and the results, but I highly recommend people look for themselves.
One thing that immediately jumped out at me is there is very little data from the last 500 years. I did a count, and there are a total of 374 data points for the period starting at 1500 AD.
Clearly, temporal resolution is a big issue.
What is the latest point BP that the data cease?
A couple series end at -50 BP (corresponding to 2000 AD).
Brandon Shollenberger: A couple series end at -50 BP (corresponding to 2000 AD).
Please forgive me if I am being dense again, but don’t they put the “present” at 1950 AD, so – 50 BP is 1900 AD?
Ah, now I get it: that’s “minus 50” BP.
Brandon Shollenberger, many thanks. I think we should also thank the authors of the paper for putting the entire data file that they used for analysis on line. The sparsity of the most recent data escaped me on first readings of the paper (a paper that I like, overall), and I think it is a severe problem undercutting their hockey stick “blade”.
Glad to. The more I look at this paper, the more confusing I find its results. The data file includes a number of different “stacks,” and they are weird. The prime example is the Northern Hemisphere stack. It shows a massive increase in temperature between 1920 and 1940, but the underlying data doesn’t. There is only one NH series that increases in that period, and it increases by a smaller amount than the NH stack.
Results like that suggest a serious problem with their methodology.
“JC comment: This post was emailed to me, unsolicited”
This post is garbage, like almost everything that appears here now.
If this post is garbage, you should find it easy to point out problems in it. Why don’t you?
I trust you aren’t exempting your comment from your assessment of what appears here now?
This comment could also be interpreted to be garbage as well Mark. Any assertion without any analysis to back it up carries no weight at all.
Surely, Rud hit the nail on the head with his comment “How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5?” The warmists are getting desperate. The AR5 is in serious trouble on many, many fronts. Yes, the warmists need another peer reviewed paper they can refer to to try and support the unsupportable.
Yes, Rud hit the nail squarely on the head. It’s a vast conspiracy, growing larger by the day.
Mark
You may think it is a “vast conspiracy”.
I really don’t think so.
Simply a collusion of interests of various different groups, all hoping to benefit in some way from the CAGW hysteria.
Max
PS Maybe a “half-vast” conspiracy?
Max
A vast. Ye scurvy dogs.
manacker | March 11, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
“Simply a collusion of interests of various different groups, all hoping to benefit in some way from the CAGW hysteria.”
If by that you mean a perfect storm of perfidious political and pecuniary interests perversely proliferating within the practice of planetary science then I agree. :-)
Here Mark, maybe you can understand the thought in this manner….
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-dagger-in-the-heart-maybe-a-remedial-explanation-of-marcotts-hs-blade-mikey-whats-that-about-a-dagger/
Good work Suyts and well worth the visit to your website. Mark certainly would find it interesting reading and if he finds anything remiss with your paper he would no doubt offer constructive comments showing how and why he disagrees.
It’s a long, long train a windin’
Some days it’s worth the trip;
Two decades of a voyagin’,
Today, hooray, pip, pip!
============
@Mark
Yes, Rud hit the nail squarely on the head. It’s a vast conspiracy, growing larger by the day
Oh dear oh dear, the wacked-out old “conspiracy” strawman pressed into service yet again.
Government
(1) stands to vastly expand on the back of CAGW alarmism
(2) is the funder of that CAGW alarmism; all those climatologists on government paychecks (outspending everyone else put together, by a factor of many thousands).
See the vested interest connection? Note too that an organisation working in its own interest is not evidence of a “conspiracy”; it’s just business as usual – ie they’re doing exactly what you’d expect.
Now, if government scientists were saying there *isn’t* CAGW – well, *that* would be surprising, and possibly evidence of some secret group going against the government grain, a “conspiracy” maybe ( essentially, conspiring to be honest and objective, ie the polar opposite of what government climatologists today stand for (as per climategate etc etc)).
Meanwhile, schizophrenic, power-mad bureaucrats look to anorexic runway divas as models of heath and demonize everything from Big Macs to Cheetos as if on a mission to save humanity from an early death and push their own silly superstitions onto the children that are held captive in classrooms of fear. By any objective standard, humanity has never had it so good. Humans died of the same maladies three thousand years ago as today — even narrowed, blocked and calcified arteries:
…vascular calcification was present in 92% of the men and 72% of the women, and present in 2 or more vascular beds in 80% of the men and 62% of the women. By the time men reached 60 years of age and the women reached 70 years of age, all had calcification in 1 or more vascular beds… Arterial calcification was also seen in the aortas and carotid arteries of these mummies. Many studies have shown an association between aortic and coronary atherosclerosis and with aortic aneurysm, renal failure, and stroke, all of which share common risk factors… The estimated mean age at the time of death of the mummies we studied was 38.1 ± 12.0 years, a relatively old age 3 millennia ago. Several mummies had such diffuse generalized atherosclerosis that clinical symptoms would seem to have been likely… Our findings of frequent arterial calcification suggest that atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was present and commonplace in ancient Egypt, raising intriguing questions regarding the nature and extent of human predisposition to the development of atherosclerosis.
(Adel H. Allam, AH, etc. Atherosclerosis in ancient Egyptian mummies. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2011;4(4):315-327)
”
And so the next CAGW hockey stick game begins. Possibly with a pass of the puck to Canadian Steve McIntyre.
”
McIntyre tries for a break-away, but runs into the boards.
Seitz gets the puck and passes to Ball.
Ball to Michaels.
Michaels to Lindzen.
Lindzen to Watts.
Watts takes possession, and tries for a goal – but is wide, and the puck sails into the seats.
Which are mostly empty.
> Lindzen to Watts.
Speaking of which:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/02/round-and-round-we-go-with-lindzen-motl-and-jones/
Why did Dick made his incident remark, again?
Talk to lewandowski about your thought patterns.
Speech patterns suffice:
> Data, because for social scientists, public statements and publically-expressed ideas constitute data for further research. Cognitive scientists sometimes apply something called “narrative analysis” to understand how people, groups, or societies are organized and how they think.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html
An ad hominem to cover for a Bandwagon appeal.
A lukewarm gambit.
Lewandowsky doesn’t have thought patterns; he has achieved that rarefied mental condition that all senior AGW spruikers have and which is best summed up by one of Australia’s leading ALP political representitives, Graham Richardson as “Whatever it Takes”.
I like Dr Loo’s paper. It would have been better if he got the quotes right and if he didnt make mistakes about the origination of some of the meme’s. It was a good plan, poor execution. The taxonomy he uses will be a great tool.
Was the execution accidental or inevitable?
========
The “get your fact straight” is an important technique in the auditing sciences.
For instance, here’s what Lew wrote, with Jeff Id’s emphasis:
> Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) […]
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/lewandowsky-strike-two/
I believe this does not represent Id’s position, which is:
> Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming mostly because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009).
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/lewandowsky-strike-two/#comment-92085
This alone made Jeff Id dismiss the whole analysis and write yet another colourful op-ed.
Hey, I’m listening for moshe’s viola.
Is the merit in the method neutralized by the necessity for unachievable objectivity in the executioner? Or, in other ways, is this failing Lewandowsky’s(and al’s. Never forget al.) or is the method unwieldy, if not impossible?
=============
Willard.
I’m not discussing Jeff Id’s issue. There Dr. Loo wasnt getting a quote wrong. There he was pressing an interpretation.
Let’s pose a hypothetical
“what happens if claims in the paper are directly refuted by comments made on his blog, comments that were recorded by screen shot and subsequently deleted by moderators. That would be an interesting thing to contemplate.”
Hypothetically, what would a man such as yourself, one with integrity say about such a thing?” in the abstract of course.
kim.
I think people would do well to read Dr. Loo’s paper and suspend their judgement about the people involved and the subject matter. I like it because it presents a nice taxonomy of styles of thinking/writing/ etc
and because it attempts to follow a conversation.
here is a game my friends used to play with me at college. At the end of a marathon bull session ( say 4 hours easily ) a conversation that started with Springsteen and ended with Godel, Moshpit would go last and recite every turn/tangent in the conversation.. all the steps that lead from the beginning to the end. who said what in what order. either forwards or backwards. weird.. and of course Lawrence stern and don quixote are favorites… but nobody tops Pynchon.
> I’m not discussing Jeff Id’s issue.
I’m not either. I’m discussing the “get your fact straight” technique, which some might argue is essential to the auditing sciences.
I could use other examples. A random one, by searching for “fact straight”:
> I don’t claim to have a full understanding of the ins and outs of Public Appointments, but I’m not sure you’ve quite got things straight here.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/15/acton-and-natural-person-powers/#comment-395103
Of course, there are some facts that are more important than others.
Thanks, moshe; I’m reminded of those who stuff up their ears so they won’t hear the crystalline logical conversations in their heads.
============
Mosher,
I hope you are being facious when you say you like Lewandowski’s paper, unless you are referring to it’s entertainment value – as in a joke so bad it is actually funny.
tmg56
The Loo paper is entertaining in a relative way. I once went camping in the Mojave and forget to pack the Loo paper. If you’ve been in the high desert on a freezing cold morning, hiked away from camp a ways to answer Nature’s call, then discover near the end of the process that you have to come up with something ad hoc to replace the Loo paper you’ll find the situation not the least bit entertaining.
willard,
“Of course, there are some facts that are more important than others.”
I’m not so sure about that. The point is rather simple. If your approach is to look at the narrative, then getting the text right and getting the attribution right is about as important as you get.
For example if you claim : X said Y on this date, and you use that data to drive to your conclusion, and X did not write Y on this date or any other date, then if you want to argue that this fact is not important, then its your sense of importance that is as wrong as the data. Further, if you argue that X was the first to suggest Y, and x was not in fact the first to suggest it, then again, that’s important and if you want to argue that its not, then its your sense of importance that is as wrong as the data.
And if, you yourself have edited the data you analyze and not revealed this, then that fact too is important and again, argue if you like that it is not important. That just indicts your sense of importance.
Speaking of scholastic:
> The question that I’m wondering about: do we know that mid-Holocene warmth was only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere, and, if so, how do we know it?
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/01/holocene-optimum/
Kantian scholars are asking the same question as we speak.
Time for more geological perspectives.
Non nova, sed nove.
> I’m not so sure about that. The point is rather simple. If your approach is to look at the narrative, then getting the text right and getting the attribution right is about as important as you get.
You’re not sure that some facts are more than others.
Really?
***
There are worse things than bad paraphrases. Paraphrasing instead of quoting does not sound like best practice. But as auditors say, boo boo:
> Oh boo hoo; ever the victim. Well, that act wore thin the first time you appeared on CA, and it hasn’t gotten any better with time. Go home. Find a man. Do some suffering and work out those personal issues. Ban me for this, I care not. Chances are anyway I WON’T be back. Moshpit did a fine enough job ‘dressing you down’ as it is.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/317325553
You recall that exchange, perhaps?
So yeah. OTOH, I’ve read enough exchanges with honest brokers to see when “I’ve been misquoted” is used as a trick.
“There are worse things than bad paraphrases. Paraphrasing instead of quoting does not sound like best practice. But as auditors say, boo boo:”
Not talking about a bad paraphrase. Why do you persist in thinking that I’m talking about interpretation or paraphrase. I’m talking about a bad quote.
As for previous episodes of bad quoting, I’m not interested in off topic mommy mommyism.
Given your responses I’m becoming less sure that some facts are more important than others. Either than or you concept of importance is upside down.
> I’m talking about a bad quote.
Quote it.
> I’m not interested in off topic mommy mommyism.
The topic, to remind Moshpit of it, was Lindzen’s email to Watts.
Yes, Willard that is the topic and as you have illustrated elsewhere commenting on the thought pattern is on topic.
No, Moshpit. My thought patterns were not on topic. Please remove your black marketing hat, once in a while.
Speaking of which, shouldn’t you be parsing emails, right now?
Agreed.
• Before this paper scientists were confident that the “Hockey Stick” was real.
• Before this paper scientists are more confident that the “Hockey Stick” is real.
And similarly
• Before this paper denialists were confident that the “Hockey Stick Cabal” was real.
• Before this paper denialists are more confident that the “Hockey Stick Cabal” is real.
In particular, contrarian pundits like Rud Istvan are likely to become more-and-more convinced that the climate-related denialist assertions of books like Istvan’s The Arts of Truth — whose sales are presently languishing at rank #588,883 on Amazon — are being unjustly ignored by a cabal of mainstream scientists!
——————
Prediction As scientific evidence becomes steadily stronger that Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is real, the “bubble” of denialist conspiracy-believers will become ever-more-concentrated and ever-more-vehement, within a smaller-and-smaller compass.
And in the end, <a href=:Nature will have the final say, eh?
Actually, our local star will have the final say, as it always has.
The Fat Lady of the local firmament, cheshire shushing her grinspots away.
========
Fanny
“Nature will have the final say”.
Indeed!
And right now she’s telling us it isn’t warming, despite unabated GHG emissions.
Right, Fanny?
Max
Wrong Manacker!
Yah gotta tune to Nature’s less-noisy channels: mass, melt, paleo, and radiation, eh Manacker?
Why focus on Nature’s noisiest climate-change channels … when the Nature’s many quiet climate-change channels are conveying a loud-and-clear message to us all … that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating?
That’s pure common sense, eh Manacker?
Your post is wrong-on-the-facts, Steady Eddie.
All citizens with a pair of binoculars can see with their own eyes that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating.
And there are tens of millions of these Nature-loving ordinary citizens.
That is why — in the long-run — the efforts of ideologues and astro-turfers to deny the reality of AGW are utterly futile, eh?
For the common-sense reason climate-change denialists and astro-turfers can no longer credibly deny what more-and-more ordinary citizens plainly see with their own eyes, eh?
To my -> “There will be massive political action on AGW regardless of what Nature has to say”,
Fan responds merely with –> “Your post is wrong-on-the-facts”,
but offers ZERO such counter-facts of support for his view, hastily diverting the discussion into his usual credulous and blinkered CAGW truebeliever catechism chants.
The truth remains that, as uncertainty about cagw rises, even among climate “scientists” employed by governments, governments are steadily enacting more and more law and taxes despite the support for it being on the wane.
The point is governments only care about the climate, to the extent they can use it to justify extra taxes and powers.
Hence : There will be massive political action on AGW regardless of what Nature has to say.
@Fan
And in the end, Nature will have the final say, eh?
I well understand your fear, but think it irrational.
The sheer size, power and self-interest of government will in the end ensure victory for politics – there will be massive political action on AGW regardless of what Nature has to say.
And that is how all on the Left, and many on the Right too, want it to go down.
How would you know about scientists, when you do not even understand the principals of science?
Reality Check: IPCC GCM mean model ocean heat content (temperature) trend is 7X higher than actual ocean heat content trend since 2003.
See: Tisdale Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?
Figure: Argo-era Ocean Heat Content v. NODC Levitus observations
+/- 30% I would believe, but off by +700%!!!
Climate alarms are based on an argument from ignorance!
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/New%20Evidence%20that%20Man-Made%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming.htm
Nice graph from Greenland ice cores, puts what we’re arguing about in perspective..
..and a good summary of sudden climate changes: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
What’s forcing these?
The only thing that will settle this debate is another 20 years of a trend line matching the last 15 years of nearly no significant warming. Even then there will be some holdouts.
You are correct Dennis Adams! Provided that you mean the trend lines of:
• accelerating ice-mass loss, and
• ever-rising sea levels.
Of course, these striking observational trend-lines — which are in good accord with well-verified physical understanding and with the paleo data record — have long since convinced the scientific community!
So perhaps rational debate is nowadays … mostly settled, eh Dennis Adams?
Lol. Yes and the trend line for NY Battery Park which shows for the last 150 years the rise has been and continues to be at a rate of 11 inches per century. And the trend lines at a multitude of sites across the globe that are nearly flat and in fact are going down. I am waiting for the IPCC report so I can dwell on the horizontal line of observed temperature data diverging from the failed models. I know horizontal lines when I see one having learned about them in elementary school.
Fan,
Learn to read a graph.
Hell, learn to read the printed material on the graph. Are you so math challenged you can’t figure out total sea level rise by 2100 using the data you linked to? (Hint – it’s less than a foot.)
Thank you for that excellent suggestion, timg56!
Working out the cumulative effects of ice-melt acceleration is an outstandingly good idea too!
Thank you, timg56, for helping Climate Etc readers to recognize the willful scientific ignorance and ideology-driven cherry-picking that is pathognomonic of denialist cognition!
Fan,
I refer to your sea rise link and you respond about ice melt. Nice.
That’s so Climate Etc readers can appreciate the three cognitive elements of triple-strength climate-change denialism.
Thank you, timg56, for illustrating these elements so plainly!
Fan,
Care to be explicit in what it is I’m denying?
Since we both know you won’t, I will be explicit. I am saying that per the graph you linked to, sea level rise for the rest of this century does not appear to be anywhere close to being catastrophic. It also is nowhere close to the estimates ranging from 6 ft to 10 meters we’ve seen from some scientists. So where is the denial? Am I denying the possibility of 6 ft to 10 meters? Not explicitly. I am pointing out that the data does not support such a prediction. And until you can provide such data, it is reasonable to assume such rises in sea level are unlikely.
fan,
In addition to a propensity to post links which are not relevant or more typically, which you can’t correctly interpert, you are very good at throwing around unjustified and unsupported attacks on people. According to you I exhibit willful scientific ignorance and ideology-driven cherry-picking that is pathognomonic of denialist cognition. I have to be honest – I find this insulting. Not to mention completely untrue. First off, I don’t post links to graphs and data, so it is impossible to claim I “cherry pick” anything. (You meanwhile post this kind of stuff all the time.) Secondly, I take science literacy seriously enough to have spent the last 17 years volunteering my time to work with students performing real science. If your typical posting is evidence of your level of scientific proficiency, I can attest that the average 3rd and 4th grader I mentor can put you to shame. (I’ll be out at the Hopkins Demonstration Forest south of Oregon City this Monday with 5th graders, if you care to see science in action.)
In reading your comments here I am reminded of a couple of phrases I picked up from my dad that apply to your typical postings:
1) You couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel.
2) You couldn’t find your butt with both hamds tied behind your back.
timg56, your conclusion rests upon two key assumptions:
Assumption 1 the sea-level rise-rate will not accelerate, and
Assumption 2 the future does not matter past the year 2100.
And yet, ordinary human common-sense tells us that Assumption 1 is unscientific and Assumption 2 is amoral, eh timg46?
Conclusion Key elements of denialist cognition are unscientific and amoral.
Thank you for this useful lesson, timg56!
morediscourse@tradermail.info
A fan of *MORE* discourse
> I refer to your sea rise link […]
Perhaps when tim said:
> Learn to read a graph.
Or perhaps when he said this:
> Hell, learn to read the printed material on the graph.
Or perhaps this:
> Are you so math challenged you can’t figure out total sea level rise by 2100 using the data you linked to?
Or perhaps this:
> (Hint – it’s less than a foot.)
How meaningful is “less than a foot”?
There’s an implicit argument right there.
***
Compare and contrast the implicit argument with “CO2 is just a trace gas anyway”:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
fan,
How is an assumption that sea level rise will accelerate any different than one that assumes it’s rate will remain steady?
And if your point is that it will accelerate, why can’t you
a) clearly state that
and
b) provide evidence to support your case? Your link doesn’t do that.
As for the future mattering past 2100 – ignoring that this is another example of how you respond tangentally – the follow-on is “Matters to whom?” It certaintly will not matter to you or I. We’ll be dead. It’s unlikely to matter to our children for the same reason. If one is to worry about the future, there are a lot of things which are far more immediate to be concerned with.
Rather than trying to scare the children with your stories of diasterous increases in sea level, how about doing something for the couple of billion people alive today who do not have reliable access to inexpensive energy (and as a result, access to clean water, sanitary living conditions, reliable food supply, basic education opportunities and a host of other things we have).
willard,
as torpedomen have a reputation for having strong backs and weak minds, I hope you will understand when I say I’m confused by your comment.
Not being critical, just wanting to understand the point and if it is directed at me.
Perhaps we can accomplish a three-step trifecta, timg56!
S1 Begin by telling your 5th graders “We denialists don’t care about the world your grandchildren will live in … and you shouldn’t care either.” Don’t accept any back-chat, timg56! Insist upon libertarian-style short-term market efficiency as the criteria for caring about the future! If any rebellious child dares to argue with you, first mock them, then abuse them, then expel them (this will prepare the children to participate in forums like WUWT).
S2 Have your fifth graders read Hansen’s “Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature.” Hansen’s vocabulary is well-within their comprehension! Then explain to the children why Hansen’s moral case are wrong.
S3 When the children ask ask “Why do many scientists foresee that sea-level rise will accelerate?, summarize for them the physical science and paleo-climatology that are surveyed in Hansen’s “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications.” Then explain to the children why Hansen’s scientific arguments are wrong.
If you do these three things, timg56, then your 5th graders will arrive a solid understanding of (1) how climate-change science works *AND* (2) how climate-change denialism works!
It’s fortunate that 5th graders have plenty of common sense, eh timg56? It’s certain that the will learn a *LOT*!
timg56,
Perhaps I can clarify what I mean.
First, I don’t think you’re in any position to take offense for fan’s analysis of your interaction with him. In your first comment to him on this subthread, you attacked his intelligence three times. Out of four sentences.
Second, the only other sentence relies on the implicit assumption that less than one feet is not that much. If you have no idea what about a feet of sea level rise will be, you just can’t presume that: you have to argue about it by other means than attacking the intelligence of those who might argue otherwise.
Third, this implicit argument looks a lot like “yes, but CO2 is a trace gas”. Now, this does not mean that you’re wrong. It just means that something does not look good in your argument.
Fourth, while I’m not a fan of the d-word, Fan provided a list of conditions which satisfies it. Based on your reaction about Lew’s latest paper, I have the feeling you don’t like that word, nor that kind of analysis. You need to focus on the criterias themselves. Take a look at it.
1. Have you chosen a restricted measure? Some may argue that you did. 2. Have you chose a restricted time-frame? Sounds like it. 3. Have you restricted the discussion to these chosen elements. I think you did.
I’m not sure about the first item, though. I think it’s legitimate to pick one element presented by your interlocutor and criticism its legitimacy. OTOH, this criticism should not be projected on the overall discussion, or worse on your interlocutor’s mental capacities.
To recap. Keep the chin up. Keep your eye on the puck. Keep your stick on the ice.
Hope this helps,
w
Fan.
I think you need to take more care in your criteria for denialism
• cherry-pick a restricted measure: (KSD: ice extent)
• cherry pick a restricted time-frame: (KSD: the past two months)
• insist upon restricting public discourse to the cherry-picked elements: (KSD: restricts his literature search to ice-extent graphics)
#####################################################
Restricted measures: Any evaluation of a system will rely on selecting restricted measures. For example, when this very criticism is leveled at the IPCC ( they only look at a few measures for GCMs and only those measures that make them look good), the argument is made that one has to pick and choose measures. Of course in best practices we specify the measure BEFORE the experiment. Climate science does not practice best practices. The best example of this is the absolutely pitiful performance that climate models have on absolute temperature. They are all over the map and wildly improbable. But when you average them all and take an anomaly they look like they match history. getting the absolute temperature wrong, and I mean wrong, is a disaster if you predicting sea level rise and ice melting.
Another good example of restrictive measures is climategate. There deniers try to say nothing is wrong by saying no crimes were committed.
Restricted tIme frames: This is a necessity unless you want to go back to the big bang.
restriction public discourse; yes but RC moderation.
in short I dont think you’ve captured the essence of denialism in such as way that distinguishes it.
Speaking of ice:
> Fred Michel, an Arctic specialist from Carleton University, in an interview, discusses Arctic ice shelf break-up.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/10/interview-with-fred-michel-on-arctic-ice-shelves/
In the comment thread, the Auditor posted an op-ed by Michel in the National Post.
A short bio:
http://heartland.org/fred-michel
Yup.
willard,
Thanks for the follow-on. It helps a lot. I asked because, unlike fan, you are someone I think it is worthwhile having a conversation with. In other words, I have reason to respect your opinion, whether or not I agree with them. I can’t say the same for fan’s.
In regard to my attacking fan’s intelligence – I do not see that as an attack. One can either read a graph or not. Fan link’s to a graph to support a claim that the graph does not support is not the sign of someone who understands the subject. When challanged on that point, he a) switches the subject to ice melt and then b) tries to hide behind the “assumption” defense. Personally I see a big difference between pointing out someone’s weak argument and calling someone willfully ignorant and pathologic. If anyone is axcting willfully ignorant it is fan by refusing to acknowledge what his linked graph actually says.
On the implicit assumption point – I do not get your point. We’ve experienced ~ 8 inches of rise the last 100+ years. Using that as a baseline, onther 10 – 11 inches does not appear to be a number than presents any great concern. It should be well within our capability to deal with. It should be on fan to present arguments on what it is about 1 foot of rise is so worrisome. Of course fan seems to believe that it will be far more than that. He doesn’t provide us with any evidence on why it will be much greater. Just stands on his moral high ground and tells us it will be so. Again, it is not an attack on his intelligence to point out fan is pouring unsupportted hot air. I almost think the reason you think his intelligence is under attack is that what he’s doing is pretty idiotic. I’m not hanging that sign around his neck. If anyone is, it is fan, with you pointing it out.
On the “yes, but CO2 is a trace gas”point. You lost me. I’m not making any argument about CO2. I am saying do not use a graph to support claims the graph does not support. If you want to discuss sea level rise, discuss it on the basis of what the data shows. I happen to be of the opinion that 10 inches over the next 90 years is not particularly frightening. It likely will have greater impact on some than others, and we can discuss that. But you cannot have such a discussion with someone who refuses to agree on a reasonable basis for a discussion.
On the d-word – I couldn’t care less. Believe it or not, my parents a long time ago taught my brothers and I the lesson on name calling. Fan’s providing a list of conditions satisfing it is meaningless. He takes a list of conditions and pastes them onto someone without ever proving they are applicable. My reaction to Lewandowski’s paper is based on the ability to recognize poor quality work. I will admit to some bias. I’m not all that impressed with a Psycology degree. While I didn’t say so to him, my son found out how much weight one carries in the real world, which is why he’s back in school working on a CS masters. But even without that bias, it is almost impossible to evaluate Lewandowski’s paper (or it’s followup) as anything but a poorly designed and implemented exercise in self indulgence. 1. Have you chosen a restricted measure? Some may argue that you did. 2. Have you chose a restricted time-frame? Sounds like it. 3. Have you restricted the discussion to these chosen elements. I think you did.
On your recap. I’m more a baseball fan and the analogy at work is I’m on the mound and fan is behind home plate, dressed in a funny costume, jumping up and down to be distracting. The only qustion is – can I waste a pitch to bean the silly ass.
PS – did you bother with his ltest response? As if I’d serously follow any of his suggestions. If that is fan’s idea on how to get students interested in science, he should be kept away from them.
timg56,
Just read this comment. It’s a bit late now to reply, but can’t leave you without nothing that this:
> I’m on the mound and fan is behind home plate, dressed in a funny costume, jumping up and down to be distracting. The only qustion is – can I waste a pitch to bean the silly ass.
wins the Internet. You can make sure I’ll post it on my tumblog. Ze American sport par excellence and its unwritten rulebook made think of the nickname Baseball Jim. Hope you’ll like it.
***
I agree that you’ve wasted many pitches to bean Fan. From now on, I’ll say something like this instead of “attack”. At least when speaking to you.
My point about the trace gas and the implicit assumption can also be seen here:
> We’ve experienced ~ 8 inches of rise the last 100+ years. Using that as a baseline, onther 10 – 11 inches does not appear to be a number than presents any great concern. It should be well within our capability to deal with. It should be on fan to present arguments on what it is about 1 foot of rise is so worrisome.
Well, from Fan’s links, I stumbled upon this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN8M8Onnngk&feature=youtu.be
Please note around 2:30, where the Pentagon takes sea-level rise seriously. And that’s notwithstanding the weirding that can initiate this added water in the climate cycles, which is covered a bit earlier in the montage. These concerns should not be dismissed by engineering data hard ball games.
I do agree with you that Fan needs either to cut a bit on his sociological analyses, or tidy them up, that is to return to your analogy, to beef up a bit if he’s willing to sit on the plate. You should not expect to have a conversation with him anyway. He’s not here for that.
Bye for now,
w
Fan is right. Even if the lack of warming continues for another 10, 100, 1000 years, the Establishment and ‘progressives’ will as now still chant the CAGW mantra he does.
Judith Curry
Looks like this analysis will get the tongues wagging again, and some (including IPCC) may even see it as a resuscitation of the Mann “hockey stick” of TAR prominence, conveniently forgetting that it was discredited and about the “hidden decline”, but I think your last sentence summarizes it for me:
The 96 quantitative studies you cite from all over the world using different paleo-climate methodologies, which conclude that the MWP was a bit warmer than today, seem to me to carry a lot more weight than this one analysis.
But IPCC may see this differently.
Max
The “this” in “this analysis” is refering to the Marcott 2013 analysis, as opposed to the Istvan analysis of the Marcott paper. Correct?
While the article has so many problems that it’s hard to know where to start, it doesn’t actually used “Mike’s Nature trick” (as properly defined at Climate Audit,) Mike’s Nature trick (as UC dissected) was the splicing of temperature data with proxy data for smoothing, with the smooth chopped back to the end of the proxy data. It’s tricky, so to speak.
The Marcott study conspicuously doesn’t show temperature data, spliced or unspliced. One reason may be a rather severe divergence problem. Their SH extratropics reconstruction maxes out at 1.22 deg C in AD1900, declining to the reference period 0 in 1961-90 (not shown in the article.) This dramatic decrease in SHX temperatures in the 20th century will doubtless come as a surprise to many.
Similarly their NHX temperature increases all comes between 1920 and 1940. If Marcott is right, the ability of early 20th century Northern Hemisphere societies to cope with the 1.9 deg C increase between 1920 and 1940 bodes well in my opinion for the prospects of adapting to the lesser temperature increases projected in the next 60 days in most climate models. Of course, it is also possible that the 20th century portion of the Marcott reconstruction is completely worthless.
There you go again using actual data to confuse people’s preconceived notions. I suppose next that you will write that it is a poor practice to average the results of multiple computer simulations of unknown quality to make long term government policy.
that should be “next 60 years” in comment above. Hopefully, there will also be a 1.9 deg C increase in NH extratropics in the next 60 days as well. I’m tired of winter.
Okay, but you haven’t been here for the past 100 days or so like some of us.
Pingback: The Dagger In The Heart? Maybe….. A Remedial Explanation Of Marcott’s HS Blade ……. Mikey? What’s That About A Dagger? | suyts space
“Evaluate a 300-year MWP using methods lacking 300 year resolution and voila! The MWP turns into a blip diminished by the colder periods on each side.”
I wonder why the method reduces the apparent warming in the 300 year MWP, but has no impact on the more recent reported warming over approximately 50 years?
Is it because the drop in temperature after the MWP reduced the running average further than is possible with today’s temps??
And what would it look like if you truncated the data to the peak temperature of the MWP? In other words, ran the data as if you were doing so on the date of the MWP temperature peak. Would that show a hockey stick as well, because there were no later cooler temps to lower the average?
Were these rhetorical questions?
No.
Mine was.
And here I thought it was a pewling expression of ignorance.
Indeed, as the Auditor would say:
> Lots of theories.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/1640585432
Oops. I shoulda checked WUWT before asking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/a-simple-test-of-marcott-et-al-2013/
“This paper appears to be a text book example of creating a Hockey Stick by using a low resolution time series for the handle and a high resolution time series for the blade…”
There’s also Robert Rhode:
> In essence, their reconstruction appears to tell us about past changes in climate with a resolution of about 400 years. That is more than adequate for gathering insights about millennial scale changes during the last 10,000 years, but it will completely obscure any rapid fluctuations having durations less than a few hundred years.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/
This has been acknowledged by one the authors.
On the other hand, he also said we have no reason to believe we’re witnessing just a blip.
Yes, this is why Andy’s was so amused at the end of the interview. It’s all in how long this human puffing can hold off the icy bricks.
================
Andy is/was? Well, that’s Andy.
=========
The infamous MBH Hockey Stick stole the show when it was used by the IPCC. Until good folks had a chance to look behind the curtain, translate the mumbo-jumbo and force the IPCC to disappear it.
This new study and the timing so close to Mambo-Report #5 looks like someone new is trying out for the next IPCC centerfold spot.
Watch out where they put the staples, might hide some declines or be a new Mikey Nature Trick.
Please send this kind of comment directly to Stephan Lewandowsky:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html
I’d recommend sending him a list of therapists in his area. He certainly seems to have issues.
Perhaps he thinks there is a conspiracy to get him.
For anyone who is unconcerned that there has been little or no warming in the last few/several years, keep in mind that most of the heat emitted has gone to melting glaciers. Like ice cubes in a glass of water, the temperature of the water stays at ~32*F until the ice cubes are gone. We should be experiencing a temperature rise of ~0.17*F per year (if not for glacial cooling). We lose about one trillion tons a year of glaciers. When the glaciers are gone, then what?
@philohaddad
Heat of fusion in ice melt is something equivalent to the proverbial drop in the bucket with regard to global energy budget. Run the numbers. No wait, let me run them for you.
HoF in H20 = ~300,000 btu/ton (3*10^5) times 10^12 ton melt per year is 3*10^17 btu/year going into heat of fusion
entire planet gets 6 * 10^8 terrawatt hours per year absorbed solar energy
or 6 * 10^19 watt/hours
1 watt hour = 3 btu so solar energy absorbed by surface is 1.8 * 10^20 btu.
So heat of fusion in 1 trillion tons of net ice melt per year represents about 0.1% of the earth’s energy budget.
This isn’t significant in either the first or second approximations.
Morever, that’s converting ice at 32F to water at 32F which doesn’t change global average temperature one iota. What it does is sort of like what the stock market does when there’s a large volume of trading at the same price point – it establishes a point of resistance to price movement or in this case to temperature movement.
Plus there are 3 * 10^7 cubic kilometers of ice on the planet each massing 10^9 tons so there are 3 * 10^16 tons of ice to melt or 10000 trilllion tons. At one trillion tons per year it would take 10,000 years before it’s all gone.
I might say for a back of the napkin calculation done in a few minutes including typing it up it aligns nicely with more the most rigorous estimates such as
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/europe/climate-ice-sheets
Thank you, thank you. Come back again soon. I’ll be playing here all week.
Power play, he shoots, he SCORES!
Nice beatch slapping of the gnat.
@philohaddad | March 11, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Reply
For anyone who is unconcerned that there has been little or no warming in the last few/several years, keep in mind that most of the heat emitted has gone to melting glaciers
How do you know this?
How is it possible, given that the air with which they are in contact, which would need to warm to start melting them, has now not been warming for nigh on 20 years ?
I let the claim of one trillion tons of glacial ice loss each year slide for the sake of argument because even at that rate it’s still trivial in human time frames. The Holocene might last another few thousand years but odds are against that it’s already 1,500 years older than the average interglacial period.
I don’t believe for a New York minute that a trillion tons/year is being lost. This is based on really flaky gravitational anomalies recorded by a satellite. The signal is so buried in noise mathematical choices in how to dig it out determine its magnitude and even polarity. Complicating that even further is earth’s crust still readjusting from glacial/interglacial transition 11.5kya making it impossible to separate crust rise/fall from ice rise/fall through minute changes in surface gravity. Even further complication is shifting magma in the mantle which also causes gravitational anomalies.
Your point about air temperature must rise to melt glaciers isn’t correct for glaciers that flow into the ocean. They get squeezed like a tube of toothpaste into the ocean and the water melts the ice not the air. What factors might control the flow rate is a mystery. Lubrication by melt-water at the bottom is thought to help it along. The air above a glacier that’s a mile thick doesn’t seem a very likely candidate for influencing the melt rate at the bottom of it especially when the air temperature change is very small and hasn’t persisted for very long.
I did another back of envelope calculation some time back correlating 1998 El Nino with an approximate 10% step-change reduction in Arctic sea ice. As it turns out if you estimate the btu’s in the El Nino by change temperature vs. volume of water, then use the northerly transport time from tropical Pacific to Arctic via oceanic conveyor belt, and then when the pulse of warm water arrives give it a few years to translate into heat of fusion for an ice mass about 10% of the cap the numbers match the observations. The excess energy in the 1998 El Nino appears to have largely gone into heat of fusion in Arctic sea ice reducing sea ice cover substantially but not changing the temperature of the water because the heat of fusion is absorbed without a change in temperature.
The loss of Arctic ice predictably led to a cessation of global warming according to my automotive cooling system analogy. You see Arctic sea ice acts like the thermostat in an automotive cooling system. When the engine temperature rises (tropical ocean) it cause the thermostat to open wider (ice cover) allowing more water to reach the radiator (open water) which is then cooled by air flow (radiated to frigid outer space). Sea ice acts as an insulator for the Arctic ocean. It blocks both radiative and evarporative cooling of the water underneath. Take some sea ice away the water cools faster. So the 1998 El Nino, after about 18 months of transport time on the conveyor belt flowed up underneath the Arctic ice cap causing acclerated melting which over the next several years reduced its extent about 10% in the summer which in turn allowed more tropical heat to escape the water into outer space and brought a halt to global warming.
I could be wrong of course but in my experience as an engineer when hypothesis and observation line up so well with simple mechanical and thermodynamic explanations behind it then you’ve probably got your system correctly characterized.
I expect global non-warming to continue until Arctic sea ice extent has recovered, a process which empirically appears to take a few decades and can be readily seen in the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMDO) which has a cycle time of about 60 years.
Steve M, both figure 1a and 1b ( in the post) must have inserted thermometer data from Mann 2008 in some fashion. As Hanks at Suyts posted (see Dr. Curry’s link above), there is simple no support in the proxy data set for the post 1950 temperature increases shown. Moreover, there is none for 1900 on, because of the temporal resolution. The abstract says temperatures are not yet back to Holocene max found in the paper. Both figures show otherwise. So temp data was added, and points to the probable proxy calibration problem noted.
My main points were about the inevitable disappearance of the MWP given the methods, and that the claims for recent fastest rise cannot come from within the paper itself, but only from extrinsic beliefs based on extrinsic thermometer observations. The paper’s methods expressly prevent the making of any statements about century long changes at all–up or down, fast or slow.
So the press headlines are propaganda having nothing to do with the papers findings, whether they be good or bad science and statistical methods. The NPR direct quote proves the point in an unfortunately vivid and irrefutably damning way.
Highest regards
> Steve M, both figure 1a and 1b ( in the post) must have inserted thermometer data from Mann 2008 in some fashion.
Very interesting. Please continue.
Well, blow me beamward, the Ottoway Carnival is comin’ to town.
=============
Willard:
If you do not see that you need _______!
Why the ellipsis, miked1947?
We’re among adults.
***
Fascinating how much words one can see just by reading:
> But I’m less concerned now that I have read the paper over more carefully, because I think that Figure 1a and 1b give a pretty good sense of what features of higher resolution reconstructions (specifically, our ’08 global reconstruction which is shown) are potentially captured.
http://planet3.org/2013/03/07/a-new-longer-hockey-stick/
“In some fashion” sounds quite objective and factual.
Mann ’08 Aboard!
========
“Steve M, both figure 1a and 1b ( in the post) must have inserted thermometer data from Mann 2008 in some fashion.”
Yes, they did. They said:
“To compare our Standard5×5 reconstruction with modern climatology, we aligned the stack’s mean for the interval 510 to 1450 yr B.P. (where yr B.P. is years before 1950 CE) with the same interval’s mean of the global Climate Research Unit error-in-variables (CRU-EIV) composite temperature record (2), which is, in turn, referenced to the 1961–1990 CE instrumental mean (Fig. 1A).”
It’s not clearly said, but I think they are actually plotting the CRU-EIV composite. This is from Mann’s 2008 paper (the EIV option); CRU is the instrumental series, presumably HADCRUT3. Centred 100-year moving average is used, so the blade appears at about 1950.
I see two parts of the hockey stick blade. A shallow part that starts around 1900, and then a steeper part that the blade evolves into starting around 1950.
http://imageshack.us/a/img811/4829/bestco2model.gif
This is all from assuming the logarithmic sensitivity to CO2 with 3C per doubling, mapping to the fast transients of the BEST land-based observations.
That dang hockey stick blade just won’t go away. Interesting science.
Nick, my reading of that bit is that it’s just adding a constant, to make their their zero line match the standard anomaly.
Paul,
As I said, it isn’t clear and yours was my first interpretation. But they do say “To compare…”, and just aligning the means wouldn’t compare. I think they mean this plot does the comparison. I must admit that the only thing really favoring my interpretation is the result – I don’t see what else the spike could be.
Paul,
I think in view of Marcott’s email to Steve, your interpretation is probably right.
That pesky MWP’s gone missin’ …again?
Makes me think of the Hokey Pokey somehow …
Yer put yer new data in,
Yer take yer old data out,
Yer put yer new data in
And yer shake it all about,
And yer do Mann’s hokey pokey
And yer spin around,
…That’s what it’s all about!
Did ya look down the back of the couch?
To have lost the MWP twice smacks of carelessness.
‘In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials.’
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
I have recalibrated the wiggle room – and we can expect definitive answers any day now.
This matches my experience, anecdotally, anyway. In my undergraduate advanced lab class, one of the experiments we performed involved running a laser through a beam-splitter, running the two resulting beams through very different path lengths, and then bouncing them off of a rotating mirror. Measure the distance betrwen the dots on a wall, multiply by the ratio of path lengths, divide by the angular velocity of the mirror, and you get the speed of light. The experiment called for a result with .02% experimental error, but we slaved away in that lab 40 hours a week until we got an answer that agreed with what we knew the speed of light to be. When we turned in our report, the prof took one look at our results, and said, “The mirror is silvered on both sides. You’re off by a factor of two.”
Bethlinda, from Greenland to China, the creator left evidence of a MWP that never actually occurred (or not much). He was just testing the faith of his Brethren of the Hockey Stick.
You can do stuff like that when you are a creator.
+1
manacker wrote
quote
Maybe a “half-vast” conspiracy?
unquote
Applause!
JF
Perhaps a half-arsed conspiracy?
Today’s climate science
Is tomorrow’s fish and chip paper
I am sure temporal resolution of recent temperature history is unprecedented in the past 1500 years. It suggests what?
“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”
I don’t see any reason to dispute the above statement. However the wording ‘not yet exceeded’ is an attempt to forecast the future and is out of place. The paper does show the importance of temporal tesolution. One does see plenty of spikey records together with an invitation to the reader to estimate a climate trend. For years I have advocated the 11 year central moving average for presenting climate. Longer sampling intervals can of course supress entire eras.
Girma – your March 11 post “The above results show the similarity of the three climate response variables to the same solar input.”
Again they do not show the temperature peak at 1940. Do you really know what shaping was applied at the website in their “audio” graph?
If your three graphs showed the same shape for the same periods they would obviously be at least misleading because the ocean depth graph should lag at least 30 years behind atmospheric temperature due to the huge transport delay in transferring N.Hemisphere heat to the depths of the Pacific.
Alexander
The 1940 warming is due to the peak due to the PDO as shown in the following correlation between PDO and the Transient GMST:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:732/mean:60/from:1920/normalise:1920/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:60/from:1920/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.000001/from:1920
Here is the climate pattern of the 20th century:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:-0.08/detrend:0.04/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/offset:-0.03/detrend:0.02/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.000001/offset:2/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.003/offset:-1.03/detrend:-0.22/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/offset:0.015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/offset:0.015/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.003/offset:-1.03/detrend:-0.22/from:1982
Girma – your 13 March post.
In general, correlation proves nothing.
Those of us who live on the shores of ths Pacific know there are two major cyciic events that affect our climate in order of importance: the SOI (Nino) and the sun spot cycle. The SOI is not fully understood and is not really a repeating cycle because it is irregulat, but at lest we know when we are in it. Most of us have never heard of the PDO, it is a theoretical possibility – no more, so why give it a major role in our climate when other well known events can describe it ? See my website underlinrd above.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.3.11.2013.gif
The cool mode of the ‘theoretical’ PDO can be seen in the north east Pacific.
Pingback: A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years? – Stoat
Here is the correlation between the hockey stick for the GMST and the hockey stick for sunspot count.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:1056/compress:12/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/from:1895/to:1965/normalise
A correlation of 0.9!
iGirma – interesting except there is something wrong with your data. All temperature records I have seen from 1850 on, show a peak at 1940 followed by a sharp fall in temperature which does not start to rise again until 1970. Your graph shows no such dip so that requires explanation’
Alexander Biggs
The Secular GMST of the 20th century is the GMST for moving average period of 61 years as shown below:
Secular GMST =>http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:732
The difference between the Observed GMST and and the Secular GMST above is the Transient GMST, and it must be excluded from analysis of the climate.
Transient GMST =>http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/isolate:732/compress:12
Residual GMST of the 20th century =>
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:252/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.000001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.000001/offset:-0.2
In my opinion a 61 year averaging period is far too much. It has actually removed the real peak at 1940. Is that what you want? The purpose of smooyjing is to isolate signal from noise, making it easier for humans to understand the graphics.
Also the word ‘secular’ is usually used in religious debate. Is this the creationist contribution to the climate debate?
Alexander
To explain the secular (non-periodic variation) sea level rise shown here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html
there must be a corresponding secular variation in the global mean surface temperature as shown here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732
The CO2 concentration from Mauna Loa has also the same shape as shown here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12
The above results show the similarity of the three climate response variables to the same solar input.
Girma | March 11, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
You appear not to understand what the normalise function does, otherwise you would not attempt to correlate two normalised curves and think the outcome in any way meaningful.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:101/mean:103/plot/gistemp/normalise/mean:101/mean:103
For anyone interested in seeing all the data, I didn’t just plot the highest series.
One set of five series shows a peak around 9k years ago, a dip from 7k-3k and a rise to the present day.
http://oi49.tinypic.com/lbogh.jpg
Another set of around thirty five series shows pretty much of nothing. It looks like random noise.
http://oi49.tinypic.com/t68r4x.png
And the third set of around twenty series shows the holocene optimum we know, with a peak around 2 C warmer than today.
http://oi47.tinypic.com/2uylqh3.png
Combining the 2 C Holocene warming with a bunch of flat ‘random noise’ series attenuates it to below a degree. Does anyone know how one area can very over 2 C for thousands of years and other parts of the world see nothing at all? Do all the proxies work? Or was the Holocene Optimum a local phenomenon?
The spike at the end does not appear in any of the proxy series.
http://oi48.tinypic.com/f1bji8.jpg
And if you look at those Marcott plots with Mann 08 overlaid, you can see a distinct change in the high freuency variance (the line starts to wiggle) right at the point where the overlaid data starts. Coincidence?
As a follow-up to my earlier comment, this temperature reconstruction ends at 1960. There are a total of nine series that extend to 1960. None of them show a dramatic rise like the final results do.
To demonstrate this more clearly, here are the same nine series from 0 AD on. Again, there is nothing resembling a sharp rise.
I don’t know just how the authors infilled their data to get a 20 year resolution, but I think it’s safe to say their dramatically high values for 1960 are questionable, at best.
The mystery’s of the data deepen. Keep digging. I think they will have to employ DeepClimate to save this one.
As far as I can see, the authors don’t explain how they get twenty year samples from their data. Getting samples at a finer resolution than the data series have requires some sort of infilling, but I can’t find any discussion of such in the paper/SI. It’s a key issue, and it seems to be completely overlooked.
Maybe I’m just missing something?
It turns out I misread 10 BP as -10 BP, and the reconstruction actually ends at 1940. That increases the number of series that extend to the end by a bit. Only one of them (Agassiz-Renland) shows an increase at the end.
As for infilling data, I’m going to assume they just used linear interpolation. It’s the simplest approach, and I think there are bigger issues. I still am bugged they don’t discuss it though. All of their cross-spectral analysis is affected by their choice of interpolation so I can’t see how they’d justify ignoring the issue.
Something odd about the data, also note the parts chopped off in early early years
Even the doubters here believe the temperature will rise at least 2 C and stay there (more likely 5 C, I would say), but just imagine what 2C looks like on that first graph. There’s your hockey stick. Not there yet, but getting there for sure, no denying.
“Even the doubters here believe the temperature will rise at least 2 C ”
Nooooooooooooooooooo. You can believe in any fairy tales you like but it is not nicey to putey words in other people’s mouths.
Best to keep yer pagan beliefs to yourself.
low-end sensitivity 1.6 C + low-end CO2 650 ppm = 2 C
mid-level sensitivity 3 C + eventual CO2e 1000 ppm = 5.5 C
Not even close. We have nothing in the way of believable science that suggests that making estimates of temperature 100 years hence is anything more than a climate narrative.
We have a lack of warming at least from large scale ocean and atmosphere patterns for decades more and an unpredictble shift in the patterns seems more likely to follow than not. I think this is where the smart money is.
GS, you are being left behind. manacker and kim now seem to be in the 2 C camp, and possibly Willis and a few others here too. A perceptible shift has occurred.
Jim D:
You are the one missing the plot! Reread the story line!
mike, I saw something about 2100 in the abstract. What warming do you think is projected in 2100? Compare that with the scale on the graph. Bingo. Hockey stick.
Jim D, your perceptions may have shifted, but I’m just as ignorant as ever.
And just what the Hell is a ‘2 C camp’? 2 C sensitivity(which one)? 2 C at 2100? 2 C total? Please, you confuse my ignorance.
=============
2 C by 2100. Isn’t that your position, or do you just support manacker when he says that? Even 2 C would be a big deal in the Holocene, wouldn’t it?
Jim D, you’re dreaming. We won’t have to wait for 2100. By ~2020 there will be no warming for 30 years.
My position is that the globe is cooling, but for how long even kim doesn’t know. Another position held is that CO2 probably warms the earth, but it doesn’t seem to be by much. I’m more inclined to the ‘2 C total’ club, and no, that’s not very much when the end(is nigh) of the Holocene might mean an 8 C drop.
===============
Even the doubters here believe the temperature will rise at least 2 C and stay there (more likely 5 C, I would say), but just imagine what 2C looks like on that first graph. There’s your hockey stick. Not there yet, but getting there for sure, no denying.
Rubbish, you don’t speak for any doubters. How can it be “getting there” when the trend from the Holocene Maximum continues downwards?
Do you know about the this period? Here:
Hint, it’s called the Holocene Thermal Maximum because it was global..
Even these faux climate scientists Marcott et al begin with the real facts before they mangle them..
“Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 years ago)”
Ever since then it’s been a downward slide back into our Ice Age.
Here, on this page is a graph of the last two thousand years, with a helpful line showing the decline:
What don’t you understand about Vostok? http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png
There is no rational reason to predict a 2°C rise from present, let alone 5°C – and maybe not for another 100,000 years…
Now, since carbon dioxide always lags hundreds of years behind global temperature change in and out of our Ice Age, conclusive proof that it is never the driver of climate change, we need to concentrate on what does do the driving:
We’ve been in a slide downwards since the Holocene Max, the only way is down because it has nothing to do with us.
It is fundamentally all to do with our orbit around our billions of degrees hot Star, The Sun.
By the way, Arrhenius the chemist had no sense of scale either besides understanding zilch about the atmosphere, he would rather believe his minute percentage of carbonic acid (water and carbon dioxide, as in clouds, rain which he tried to pass of as dehumidified carbon dioxide) would drive us out of our Ice Age than try to understand what was being said when Croll first put forward the idea of orbital changes.
No real climate scientist gives the AGW carbon dioxide scam any credibility – instead, they continue to improve our understanding of the cycles in orbital changes and wobbles and how these affect global climate change through heat transport and weather systems and so on.
Jim D
Better check your arithmetic
~1,000 ppmv CO2 is the absolute asymptotic maximum we could even reach from burning all the optimistically inferred recoverable fossil fuel resources on our planet (WEC 2010).
3C is the old IPCC AR4 mean model-simulated prediction for 2xCO2 ECS; more recent observation-based studies show that this is too high by a factor of 2:1.
But back to your arithmetic:
Today’s CO2 level is 393 ppmv
So at 1,000 ppmv and a 2xCO2 ECS estimate of 3C we would have
3.0 * ln(1000/393) / ln(2) = 4.0C warming (when all fossil fuels gone at the exaggerated ECS estimate)
And at 650 ppmv and 1.6C ECS we would have
1.6 * ln(650/393) / ln(2) = 1.1C warming (by ~2100 when CO2 reaches 650 ppmv)
Just to set the records straight, Jim
Max
Oh no – I am way ahead. ‘One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s [Graham, 1994]. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern. The shift was accompanied by
sea-surface temperature (SST) cooling in the central Pacific and warming off the coast of western North America [Miller et al., 1994]. The shift brought sweeping long-range changes in the climate of northern hemisphere. Incidentally, after ‘‘the dust settled,’’ a new long era of frequent El Nin˜os
superimposed on a sharp global temperature increase begun. While several possible triggers for the shift have been suggested and investigated [Graham, 1994; Miller et al., 1994; Graham et al., 1994], the actual physical mechanism obstacle to this understanding is the extreme complexity of the climate system, which makes it difficult to disentangle causal connections leading to the observed climate behavior. Here we present a novel approach, which reveals an important new mechanism in climate dynamics and explains several aspects of the observed climate variability in the late 20th century.’ Tsonis et al 2007 – ‘A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
There were major climate shifts around 1910, the mid 1940’s, 1976/77 and 1998/2001.
The smart money is on deterministic chaos in a dynamically and very complex system. These climate etc are not abstracts but shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns. Sensitivity is not at all constant either in space or time – too many other things happening to depend on a single number. It is absurd – and more absurd that you can’t see it and rely on confabulation instead.
Is this deliberate? Are you trying to trick people?
Have you seen Girma’s attempts to smooth the heck out of the temperature record (61-year running mean). It just goes up faster with time despite his best efforts. Something it in, I suspect.
I cite an important new mechanism and you give me Girma? Please.
It is to show that your mechanism isn’t what matters. When you remove the wiggles you are left with accelerating warming, so that would be the first thing to explain. Vaughan Pratt had a good explanation of that, I seem to remember.
I think Sergeant Hopalong would be a natural next step for the Captain.
P_ss off webby – I am sick of ignorant, redneck Minnesotans making inane and off topic comments for no other reason than to pursue a personal grouch or 2. You have proved again and again that you really do not have a scientific clue, have little to no style, imagination, humour or charm. Go on – say something stupid again.
Jim – you give me Girma for an answer to a peer reviewed study on a new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts – and say that it is to show that ‘my mechanism’ doesn’t matter? Hmmm.
Perhaps we should just call you Corporal Punishment – of the cult of space cadets.
Chief Procto says:
I had no idea that those were properties of the earth’s climate.
Like I said, the Chief thinks that the style points gained by pranking and generating foo are more important than pursuing real science. And he can’t take it when someone calls him on it.
Jim D > Even the doubters here believe the temperature will rise at least 2 C and stay there (more likely 5 C, I would say)
Someone earlier asked about where you get your excellent weed. Just tell us man!
Jim
Have you seen Girma’s attempts to smooth the heck out of the temperature record (61-year running mean).
It explains the climate pattern of the 20th century as shown:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:-0.08/detrend:0.04/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/offset:-0.03/detrend:0.02/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.000001/offset:2/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.003/offset:-1.03/detrend:-0.22/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/offset:0.015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/offset:0.015/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.003/offset:-1.03/detrend:-0.22/from:1982
> Just how warm the world will be in 2100 depends more on how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere, and what might be done about it, than on what the precise climate sensitivity ends up being. A world with a relatively low climate sensitivity — say in the range of 2 C — but with high emissions and with atmospheric concentrations three to four times those of pre-industrial levels is still probably a far different planet than the one we humans have become accustomed to. And it’s likely not one we would find nearly so hospitable.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/03/making-sense-of-sensitivity-and-keeping-it-in-perspective/
Willard
Do you believe that the weather in 2100 would be markedly different if CO2 levels were at 450 ppm instead of 480 ppm in 2100?
Do you see any creditable path for CO2 levels not to continue to increase for decades at least?
Rob,
1. I have no idea what kind of thought experiment you’re engineering with 450 ppm and 480 ppm, but some say that:
> Goals of limiting human made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-450-ppm-is-not-safe.html
As far as I’m concerned, dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there won’t be tomorrow might not be wise.
2. I have no idea what a creditable path is, nor what you mean by that, but some say that:
> Nobody knows what to do.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/29648765499
As far as I’m concerned, playing number games and then whining about uncertainties might not be wise either.
***
Thank you for your loaded questions,
w
The spam filter inhales loudly.
Hal coff, hal coff coff.
======
Nullius in Verba (see my second book) and Brandon, thank you both. I was too lazy to plot all the raw data before writing the first draft of this post for Dr. Curry.I wanted to focus on the misleading MSM headlines about this study, more than the additional flaws within it.
You have deepened and enrichened the posted critique beyond my feeble starting attempt. As have others (Hank at Suyts).
I am concerned that we now have a completely flawed, obesequiant attempt to rehabilitate the Mann hockey stick for AR5. Which would be wrong.
Regards
> I wanted to focus on the misleading MSM headlines […]
Here’s the only one Rud quoted, with his own emphasis:
(1) Warming fastest since dawn of civilization
Here’s the two last sentences of the abstract:
> 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. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
We know that the Holocene lasted 10 000 years. Calculation reveals that the projections for 2100 will apply in less than 90 years. Searching for the relevant press releases should make readers realize why we might have such headlines as (1).
I’m not sure what warrants the claim that the study ain’t about (1). Nor has it been shown what’s misleading in (1).
All the MWP stuff is a red herring. Too bad this covers most of what is being discussed in this op-ed.
Willard:
No we do not know yet the extent of the Holocene Optimum! We have a fair idea when it started but we do not yet have an end date. There are suppositions, but not enough accurate data as yet.
The study does not provide scientific evidence to back up the claim of fastest warming since dawn of civilization. Model outputs have nothing to do with this study unless they spliced those on as well as the Mann Et al Hockey Stick!
All lines after 1950 should be discarded and possibly even 1900.
This study proves the saying GIGO!
Willard
The fact is that there is no evidence that the current warming was faster or that it led to higher temperatures than previous warm period, such as the MWP.
In fact, there is ample evidence of a slightly warmer global MWP (the dozens of independent studies from all over the world using different paleo-climate methodologies).
But there is no evidence regarding the rate of warming, as Mosh wrote.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But is certainly is not evidence of presence, either.
Max
When MiniMax sees a car getting faster and faster running toward his house, MiniMax would need to calculate the exact rate of its speed to claim that he has any evidence at all.
In fact, some would say that he would not be warranted to say that he never saw the car going faster. After all, the past occurrences are only in his memory.
But MiniMax certainly can sloganeer to his heart’s content while his neighbours tell him about his car rushing toward his house.
Well, that means that the earth’s climate is very sensitive to external perturbations doesn’t it? And we have a significant perturbation stimulus in the form of elevated GHG CO2 concentrations don’t we?
How tight does that trick-box that you found yourself in feel, Max? Not much room in there for you to move around, eh?
willard sees a ghost hockey stick and thinks his house is about to be hit. willard, your house is haunted by unfounded fears of catastrophe.
========
Yes, kim, we don’t not everything, so we know nothing.
Well, we do know that warmer is better than the inevitable coming cooling. The birds in the forest know, the beasties in the ocean know, Gaia knows.
=========
I always tell my lobsters that warmer is better.
You are boiled red by the bubbles of fear rising around you.
==========================
Here’s Richard Alley, anticipating WebHub’s argument:
> Furthermore, because the feedbacks in the climate system often respond similarly to warming with different causes (warmer air will tend to melt more snow and ice, and to pick up more greenhouse-gas water vapor from the vast ocean, whether the warmth came from rising CO2 or increasing solar output or alien ray guns or a giant hair dryer), data showing larger climate changes in the past in response to some estimated forcing actually increase the concerns about future warming. If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated. Any increase in our estimate of the natural climate responses to past forcings points to a more variable future path with larger average changes.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/
Creating blog posts around Richard Alley’s words might be tougher.
Not that it would be impossible.
But wonder why we’re seeing this piling on on Mike?
That depends on if forcing controls heat transport. If it did you would expect to have seen an increase lately yet the study by Josh Willis indicates there has been no recent change. Reconstructions inicate heat transfer at least into the Atlantic started at a point similar to the current rate during the MWP, declined to the LIA and started increasing again around 1750 and ended recently if the recent studies are accurate. Models indicate that the same forcing can cause either a snowball planet or an ice free planet depending upon the amount of heat transport. Now I don’t have any more confidence in models than you do but the one thing I think they are useful for is helping in forming new hypotheses. Richard Alley is jumping to conclusions. He could be jumping to the right conclusion but that is far from certain at least until we understand heat transport more comprehensively.
Well, he jumped willingly in the water, and he keeps turning up the heat. Have pity.
======
manacker –
I have been told that “skeptics” don’t doubt the basic physics of the GHE, and that they don’t doubt that the earth is warming to some extent due to ACO2.
Assuming that you are a “skeptic” and thus, believe as I just described – how do you know that ACO2 is warming the climate – given that there is no evidence of anomalous warming?
Indeed, we should have an engineer-level derivation of heat transfer.
This ought to cost only 20 millions anyway.
Note Trenberth’s ingenious null, and moshe’s amusement at it.
==============
Willard and Webby
Some basic rules you should know:
– Correlation is not evidence of causation, but lack of correlation is pretty good indication of lack of causation
– Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Now here’s the one that applies to your recent posts:
– Hollow claims, no matter how beautifully worded, are no evidence at all.
Max
“Nor has it been shown what’s misleading in (1)”
What is misleading about the headline is the word “fastest”
“fastest” implies a RATE of change. A rate of change requires a time scale.
the problem is this: In the current day estimates they have high resolution data. so we can see say 1C in 100 years. Thats a rate: 1C per century.
In the past, their resolution is worse. they cant even see data at 100 years so they cannot measure rates at 100 years and cannot make the comparison that the title implies. Their charts give the perception of a fast rate of increase because the resolution is different in the present than in the past
It’s not really defensible.
A better move than Rud’s.
There might be no need to measure rates with such a statistical significance as to exclude about any mathematical uncertainty:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127133&org=NSF&from=news
The Earth might not move that fast and handwaving unknown abrupt forcings might be suboptimal here.
***
In any case, we can see by this press release that the headline is faithful to what the authors say.
Then the paper should have been rejected as being worthless! The entire paper is non defensible!
‘fastest’ appears to be a word added by the MSM. The word unprecedented in the abstract refers to the state after projected IPCC warming and is valid in that context. It might also be fastest, but that would be hard to prove, so they didn’t say it.
That’s why the Flying Trolls are out in fierce. The paper is critically important, the paper is fatally flawed. It’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard rain.
=========
kim, funny, I viewed Rud’s post as a typical damage control thing, as was also done over at WUWT, to keep the “skeptics” from being too upset by this new evidence.
Yes, “new evidence” of the MWP being airbrushed out again.
Jim D
Huh?
The “projected IPCC warming” is “unprecedented”?
I’ll go along with that statement.
(But it hasn’t happened yet.)
And in order to be more accurate in AR5, IPCC should add those words to its AR4 claim that ” the warmth of the last half century plus projected future IPCC warming is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years”
Max
Shooting down this kind of study seems important:
> No plausible sensitivity-related argument is policy relevant.
http://planet3.org/2013/03/08/why-equilibrium-sensitivity-is-not-policy-relevant/
Mosher once again proves that even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn. So Steven, did you figure out the difference yet between AIRS and AMSU instruments onboard Aqua? I can explain it to you again if you’re still confused.
willard,
The headline is not faithful to the math of the paper. Whether it is faithful to some interpretation of what they hinted at in the paper is scholastic debate.
> The headline is not faithful to the math of the paper.
The authors disagree.
But then they used Mann 08.
So it’s a dog’s breakfast.
We have more time for auditing
Now that we can hope that humanity will adapt
And that auditors are tired of winter.
Willard,
The authors admit that the modern period reconstruction is not robust.
see paragraph 4 of the paper.
They also state that no variability under 300 years is preserved. see the SI.
Now, you can read the paper, or I can provide a direct quote from the authors saying that their results after 1890 are “probably not robust”
Their words kitty kat, not mine.
Unlike some, I’ll get the quote right.
If the results after 1890 are not robust, then claims about it being the fastest are well, not robust and it seems weird to lede with a claim that the authors themselves say is not robust.
Your claim, your quote, lazy black hat marketer.
Gentlemen
Good to see you playing nice.
The report could be a stepping stone to confirming whether or not the fastest temperature rise since the start of the Holocene is currently ongoing.
We know the authors believe this to likely be the fastest temperature rise based.
We’ve heard the authors’ argument outside the report explaining that the projected future warming in the next century will confirm this rate. This is not an invalid practice in conventional trendology, although I’ve formed the opinion such a complex infographic must be handled more carefully than a conventional time series. For that reason as a conservative trendologist, I’d prefer not to go there, and to avoid drawing such a conclusion absent significant further work, even though it is likely the correct conclusion based on the same current understanding of Physics that calls for significant and likely unavoidable further warming this century.
And the report is useful as a stepping stone, a forum, a framework to address some questions that a decade ago would have been considered impossible to answer.
As of this report, and recent developments in GCMs, scientists in future could generate enough Holocene-spanning daily weather pattern models and from them derive matching statistics to compare to the Holocene proxy infographic to produce a set of probabilities and likelihoods to allow us to judge the odds that the current rise is ‘fastest’ or ‘normal’ based on actual evidence. The proxy-infographic and patterns of agreement over a Holocene-length duration would validate absolutely and verify reliably GCMs. This was not even contemplated a decade ago.
Where do I err?
Curse my typing.
We know the authors believe this to likely be the fastest temperature rise based.
Should read:
We know the authors believe this to likely be the fastest temperature rise based. on a probable 2C-6C warming in the next century.
“So Steven, did you figure out the difference yet between AIRS and AMSU instruments onboard Aqua? I can explain it to you again if you’re still confused.”
who ever suggested they were the same? before you work with AIRS data it is important to read all the documents ( some will require you to contact the teams involved ) That should give you a clue as to the physics involved in moving from a signal from a sensor to a data product called a temperature
Also, You need to look at the reasons for the spurious cooling in version 5, which hopefully will be corrected in version 6. The error is believed to arise from having wrong values for C02 concentrations in the models used to create temperature.
start here: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1196043
then here
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006272/abstract
Or
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/RT%20Models/strow-hannon.pdf
Willard
Yeah. But McIntyre & McKitrick, supported by the Wegman committee and confirmed by the NAS panel under oath, showed that the “breakfast” had already been run through the “dog”.
Phew!
Max
Audit dog’s return,
Tilj and split bark bristlecone.
Clews in the chunder.
=============
Steven Mosher | March 13, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
“So Steven, did you figure out the difference yet between AIRS and AMSU instruments onboard Aqua? I can explain it to you again if you’re still confused.”
>who ever suggested they were the same?
You did when you explained to Jim Cripwell in another thread that satellites tracking GAT look at pixel brightness to determine temperature. In actuality that’s the AIRS instrument aboard a single satellite that looks at pixel brightness. The satellites that track GAT use microwave sounders which don’t have CCDs because they’re not optical devices but RF. I was actually formally schooled in microwave hardware used in atmospheric sensing applications. You weren’t. And it shows.
here willard.
“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.”
You claim he’s bright. When do you think he’ll get it?
===========
Rud Istvan seems to take exception to the phrase “Warming fastest since dawn of civilization” used by the NBC. The abstract in the paper, doesn’t say that, but does say the “recent warming is unprecedented in that time (1500 years)”
So what’s the objection here?
“fastest warming” isn’t the same as “unprecedented warming”?
or “1500 years” isn’t the same as the “dawn of civilisation”?
> So what’s the objection here?
Yes, but Mike.
tempterrain
The “objection”, quite simply, is that there are 80+ independent studies from all over the world, which show that the MWP was slightly warmer than today.
And this occurred less than “1500 years ago”.
A more realistic statement would be “the “recent warming is unprecedented in the past 600 years”.
OK?
Max
Per many previous comments above, the “80+ independent studies from all over the world, which show that the MWP was slightly warmer than today.” is at best misleading, at worst mendacious.
*If* they all did show this, it would be trivial to reconstruct a *global* temperature history which showed a global MWP. This does not exist. For good reason.
If it did exist, it would be evidence of high climate sensitivity, which you vehemently deny all evidence of.
Your attempts to mislead are arguing against your own case.
VTG
The subject here is the MWP.
The 80+ studies showed that it was global and slightly warmer than today, as actual physical evidence plus historical records from all over the civilized world at the time have concluded.
No big deal.
Switching the discussion to “evidence of high climate sensitivity” is simply a red herring intended to distract.
Max
So, its the scientific evidence you are objecting to, not the media coverage? Its good you at least agree that the NBC comment was fair enough given what was in the paper’s abstract.
Maybe Rud Istran just doesn’t like the NBC?
tt,
What is objectionable is that it is deceptive reporting. But deception is apparently an integral part of AGW radicalism.
The objection is that the authors have now walked away from the claim, and just after willard manfully defended it.
My mode in this thread was not defensive: I could not care less about iconography.
Having a good argument against *it* in the first place might have saved time. The Auditor did well.
A quote about the authors “walking away” would be nice.
Willard,
you defended. have some honor.
The quote is in their mail.
Their result ( recent warming) is not robust.
Translation; it looks good in the shower, but won’t stand up.
Let’s not go a bridge too far: the authors restated that the contemporary bit was not “robust”.
More pushing would be needed to have them walk away from their speedy claim, since non-robustness seemed to have been assumed before the Auditor sent his gentle missive.
Snorri Sturleson and the Icelandic authors knew, the excavators of Brattahlid knew, scholars of the Hundred Years War and the transition from Song to Ming knew…everybody knew till very recently. The MWP is one huge fact.
An end to all this noisist ideation! (See? I can talk like that too. You just kind of pause your brain and the grotesque buzz words come tumbling out the mouth.)
Weren’t you on your way to Minnesota?
Not in Latin mosomoso, yer not targetin’ the intellect-chools in
cloud towers, yer targetin’ the serfs. Tee shirts might work, with
a picture , say two IPCC shamen and balloon captions. Oh, and
labelled wall , ‘Corridors of Power –>’
The Aussie tribe is out in full force, Apparently, each tribal member knows the whereabouts of the others. It wouldn’t surprise me if they had an internal mailing list.
Another conspiracy WEB?
No Tim, just watching the clown show of fake ocher accents and larrikin antics. Pulling pranks is only a conspiracy when it comes time to not being in on the joke.
This is a down under version of The Great White North.
WEB,
I’ve seen that clowns are found on both sides. You’ll note that I don’t argue physics or propose theories. I’ll maybe follow the conversation for awhile and think that some of it is interesting – your ice out stuff being among that.
I also do not slam our host and try not to attack commentors. If clowns bother you, turn your attention to one of the other rings under the tent. Throwing rocks at them just gets you in a rock fight.
Minnesota is the joke and webby is the butt. Webby is a blowhard with nil scientific chops and a line in repetitive and quite xenophobic insults. It is all quite bizarre. He – along with a few others – imagines he has created a new method of climate statistics. These new theories are inevitably bogus – and I incur the wrath of webby by, inter alia, pointing out that a two compartment carbon function is simplistic beyond any reason. Unfortunately – he seems incapable of understanding even what a multi-compartment model is.
The joke? Mosomoso ‘won’ a one way trip to UNtopia – Minnesota. Does he imagine that anyone goes to Minnesota willingly? It’s full of redneck dickwads with no humour, wit, charm or culture. Climate doesn’t have these things either but they are essential properies of a complete human intellect without which little is possible.
Webby has a very narrow uderstanding – resulting in confabulist and obsessive creation out of nothing at all reasonable of quite preposterous curves. He is a typical interweb wack job of whom we have a few. For the most part he simply drops by with unwelcome comment on the characterisitics of Australians and threatening to put us all on his list of climate clowns. Boring.
Skippy said:
These “others” you refer to, do they include the father of statistical mechanics known by the name of Boltzmann and his teacher Stefan?
So it looks like applying statistics to the climate is nothing new.
I was really thinking of more contemporaneous wack jobs – Doug Cotton perhaps or numbnut. I have yet to see either Stefan or Boltzmann comment here.
What we have with S-B is a black body formula. First of all – have you come up to speed with the difference between a grey and black body yet? Just so we are on the same page – as much as that is possible.
S-B was at least based originally on data from John Tyndall. But the caculation is out by some 9 degrees K – without even considering that the earth is a grey body rather than black.
I don’t know why you think that constantly repeating basic phyics and not all that relevant claims of the significance of S-B means much. ‘No fundamentally reliable reduction of the size of the AOS dynamical system (i.e., a statistical mechanics analogous to the transition between molecular kinetics and fluid dynamics) is yet envisioned.’ (McWilliams 2007) The fact is that climate has dimensions that go far beyond what can be counted as physics at the present time.
I suggest that your curve confabulations are fundamentally unreliable and no amount of appeal to S-B is going to save the situation.
‘TOC essentially draws a line in the sand and a virtual stake in the ground. Everything I have written about and all the original analyses I have worked out on the blog has not fundamentally changed as I aggregated the information. As far as I can tell, no one else has picked up on the direction that I have taken, and nothing has come out of the research literature that comes close to unifying the set of topics as well as this does.’ webby
You are condemned out of your own mouth. A lone and misunderstood researcher struggling along brand new paths. These are most often the sentiments of an eccentric and misguided wack job. I think you fit the bill admirably.
It is a shame you don’t go away and let the rest of us to disccuss more complex and nuanced issues. On the other hand – does anyone believe you? Am I simply wasting my time correcting your missaprehensions and gross oversimplifications? Should I just ignore you? Certainly a tempting prospect. But you don’t ignore me. You simply drop in with rants and insults whenever my name appears. Worthless complaints about Australians usually. It fits with the wack job characterisation perfectly. Noise and bluster with absolutely no substance.
Chief Hydrologist is no different than Doug Cotton. Both are pulling pranks on the readership.
And it is so amateurish as well. Chief is just a copy&paste hack, as in the way he pulls the marketing blurb that I wrote for my book editor and tries to read something into it. Yeah, sure I will be meek and claim non-originality when I am trying to sell my research and written work. Not in my experience.
BTW, where is the Chief’s written work? Doesn’t exist because pranksmanship doesn’t demand accountability. It’s all a joke to the Chief, comprised of lazy drive-by nonsense..
Missed the spot again – very much time to call it quits.
Usually the ‘reseach’ achieves some sort of peer review and exposure in more or less respected journals. With webby there is no publishing except on a loser blog – and it is getting quite sad. The constant claims of a profound insight on his part is certainly tingling the spidey senses of people here.
My own published work is of a science communications nature – probaby quite fitting to my background and talents. I spend a lot of my time reading scence, modellin and putting it all on paper. I quite often groan and think that I could do much better than most of the cr@p that passes for science journalism. I have published in a few well known venues on ENSO and global warming and seamless modelling and in rather more specialised forums on environmental law and policy.
Webby for some reason objects to my quoting science and inevitably someone objects when I don’t. With these people the objective is not about communication and knowledge but in denying air to ideas they object to. All very Marcusian. They are desperately flailing and wailing and it is only going to get worse in the short term.
Skippy,
It is quite the accomplishment when you turn WEB into the reasonable, polite one in the debate. Your Minnesota bashing is no more acceptable than his Aussie bashing.
Hard to keep track of these threads.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/11/lets-play-hockey-again/#comment-302500
And it’s down the memory hole u need ter go: ‘Hi Keith and Tim,
…I get the feeling that I’m not the only one who would like to deal
a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm periods and myths
in the literature.”
H/t Jonathon Overport.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/
Equally awkward is that Arctic Ice. It’s never gone to script, luring the Royal Society into melty waters after the Napoleonic Wars. When the British expedition of 1875-6 encountered iced-in Greenlanders, those Inuit romanced about the years when their grandparents could scoot about like…like there’d been some big melt earlier in the century!
After WW1 it got all melty again, till it got all threatening and Ice-Agey again by the 1970s…and then really melty…unlike the other end, which is record-icy…but we’ve found a melty bit down there too! We just need to deal a few mortal blows here and there…
“Hi, Keith and Tim, Mr. De Mille was wondering if you could tighten up that Arctic script. He loves your MWP rewrite, by the way. Now, could we make that little slice of West Antarctica a kind of microcosm for the rest of the continent? Ta. Jonathan.”
“The movie of the novel best seller!” A – re – do – of – the – MWP –
re -write! Say, I believe Sam Goldwyn is interested in making an
offer. He has a flair fer converting the novel into the technicolour
blockbuster…Not too worried about fidelity ter the book but heck,
it’ll have the customers on the edge of their seats.
In our movie, the hero and heroine escape the sweltering warmth of Europe for the chilly Pacific. (Of course, China and Japan are on the Pacific, and they got all warmed up too…but we can chill them down for the script.)
Anybody argues, we’ll just quote Sam: “When I want you opinion I’ll ask me”. Hey, should I put that into Latin as a motto for the IPCC?
Another way to play down this pesky MWP is to refer haughtily to skeptics’ fetishistic attachment to their “beloved” MWP. “Oh, you’re not still on about your cathedrals in the sun, are you? That’s so totally last century. We’ve moved on, haven’t you?”
Micahel Mann has apparently rented an apartment on Sunset Boulevard. “All right, Mr. Pachauri. I’m ready for a close up of my hockey stick.”
“After MBH 98, we’ll make another hockey stick, and another hockey stick….”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMTT0LW0M_Y
We’re offered a deal: we stop talking about “our” Medieval Warming, and in return they continue to dismiss it. It’s a win-win. First they win…and then they win.
Dang, I missed the late night showing. OK, redo Barbarella with Mann puttin’ on the Ritz.
==============
Confucius say: Man(n) who lose hockey stick bettah not bend ovah..
“No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)”
CRAP!
The joke? Mosomoso ‘won’ a one way trip to UNtopia – Minnesota. Does he imagine that anyone goes to Minnesota willingly? It’s full of redneck dickwads with no humour, wit, charm or culture. Climate doen’t have these things either but they are essential properies of a complete human intellect without which little is possible.
Webby has a very narrow uderstanding – resulting in confabulist and obsessive creation out of nothing at all reasonable of quite preposterous curves. He is a typical interweb wack job of whom we have a few. For the most part he simply drops by with umwelcome comment on the characterisitics of Australians and threatening to put us all on his list of climate clowns. Boring.
Usually the ‘reseach’ achieves some sort of peer review and exposure in more or less respected journals. With webby there is no publishing except on a loser blog – and it is getting quite sad. The constant claims of a profound insight on his part is certainly tingling the spidey senses of people here.
My own published work is of a science communications nature – probaby quite fitting to my background and talents. I quite often groan and think that I could do much better than most of the cr@p that passes for science journalism. I have published in a few well known venues on ENSO and global warming and seamless modelling and in rather more specialised forums on environmental law and policy.
Webby for some reason objects to my quoting science and inevitably someone objects when I don’t. With these people the objective is not about communication and knowledge but in denying air to ideas they object to. All very Marcusian. They are desperately flailing and wailing and it is only going to get worse in the short term
web is never polite or reasonable. With all of the ongoing nonsense about Australia from Bart, web, springer – I suggest you sit on it and spin. I am being conciliatory by not including the rest of the US – although I can always lampoon Wyoming and California if you like. I wouldn’t be the first. Fish in a barrel.
Willard, you might be right if people read beyond headlines. But if they did concerning the NPR headline (as in the provided example) you must agree they would have been wrong.
In the post I only cited two of about 200 headlines to the same effect.
On the objective facts, I suggest that you will lose the headline arguement concerning this post/comment. If you disagree, please bring quantitative facts to the discussion. Else fade into the background like most of your compatriots already have. Brave but foolhardy to stand for a losing cause.
Mike, Joe, Al Gore, anybody else left out there to continue your losing debates?
If so, let’s at least make some interesting side wagers on outcomes.
Regards
> On the objective facts, I suggest […]
You do like to suggest, Rud.
Providing reasoned arguments would have been better.
You just could not resist mentioning Mike’s name, couldn’t you?
If you’re to summon the Auditor, please listen to what the he says.
Also, please beware that if you’re criticizing headlines.
In this case, “objective facts” is just a slogan.
But an important one in the auditing sciences.
This one is cute. An auditing note from willard, followed, in this threading, by a note from Steve McIntyre.
=============
INTEGRITY ™ — Problems that “matter”.
He’s funnier, too.
====
Speaking of bet:
> Just a quick point here. I state in the interview that we can’t be sure there aren’t any abrupt global warming blips during the Holocene similar to the current one due to chronological uncertainties and the relatively low time resolution of our global temperature reconstruction. It is worth considering though that we do have several high resolution proxy climate records from various regions around the world (think ice cores), and if abrupt global warming events happened in the past, then we might expect these local records to show them…..but my sense is they don’t. So, this isn’t hard and fast proof that there weren’t any abrupt global events like today during the rest of the Holocene….but if I had to lay down a bet, it might make me place my wager on that side of the argument .
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/?comments#permid=24
Perhaps Rud should propose a bet to Shakun himself.
It is time.
beware of Slender Man
Omigod, moshe; why didn’t I go visit the Palace first? Here I am prattling away like a simpleton.
==========
Mosher says: “In the current day estimates they have high resolution data”.
Not in their dataset. They use the same low resolution data in the modern period, only less of it. It’s really hard to figure out why their reconstruction goes up so much, since, as others have observed, one does not observe a blade in the series themselves.
Some of their modern series are clearly dated wrong though the effect is hard to say until their method is replicated. For example, Marcot re-assigned the coretop of MD95-2011 a very well dated North Atlantic core (tephra dated) from the 570 BP of specialists to 0 BP, Another coretop is changed from before AD1000 to 0 BP. This is for multiple cores.
This sort of thing ought to “matter”. And if it doesn’t “matter”, then one will need to have them explain what exactly does “matter”. It looks like a real dog’s breakfast. I’ve been working on a long post at CA, but keep encountering new problems and am finding it hard to finish a post. Or even begin one.
Steven:
For many reasons it is a good example of GIGO! Nothing more! Their resolution does not allow them to make any claims about recent temperatures or even Mann et al Whatever. It was a major step backward for science respectability. Just another in the long list that have been happening since the start of this CAGW fiasco!
Making a new study as impenetrable as possible may be a natural next step now that data availability is somehow increasing..
“It’s really hard to figure out why their reconstruction goes up so much, “
Not really. They say, though not as clearly as they should. I gave the quote and reasoning here.
Nick Stokes,
It seems to me that putting this data into a 400 year bin would greatly reduce the ~0.8°C spike into a ~0.05°C bump.
However, if you were to include a 3°C increase forecast as well (as suggested in the Revkin interview) this bin comes out much closer to 0.8°C.
It all depends on the binning process.
Steve:
Have you been in contact with Marcott et al to ask for more details on their analysis? Given some of the points raised by you and others, it might be helpful to at least show that you gave them an opportunity to clarify their analytic choices and decisions. It sounds like there is a list of questions that you could pose.
Steve McIntyre sed:
” I’ve been working on a long post at CA, but keep encountering new problems and am finding it hard to finish a post. Or even begin one.”
In honour of Steve’s identification of this particular aspect of the Marcott et al paper, I suggest we now refer to it as Hydra13.
Warning: laymans question.
Paleo reconstructions show variability of temperature, but how is the absolute level of temperatures determined?
Absolute temperatures aren’t used for reconstructions like these so your question is something of a non-issue. It’s akin to the modern surface temperature record where desert temperatures are combined with arctic temperatures. The baseline for each series doesn’t matter, just the variance from it.
@BS
The implication in what you wrote is that absolute GAT isn’t known well even today. If it were then relative deviations from present absolute temperature can be used to calculate past absolute temperature. One cannot simultaneously say GAT today is 15C, GAT in MWP was 0.2C cooler without also being able to say MWP GAT was 14.8C.
Consciously or not you illustrate the fact that GAT right frickin’ now with the best instrumentation network ever we don’t know absolute GAT with a degree of accuracy that justifies bandying about numbers with tenth degee C accuracy dating back into the dark ages or more.
If we can’t determine absolute GAT today to within a couple tenths of a degree C with all our satellites and buoys and Stevensen Screens and whatnot how can anyone possibly claim, with a straight face, we can know if the MWP GAT was a couple tenths of a degree warmer or colder than today? It’s a travesty that we don’t have a reliable absolute GAT even today.
This is why I eschew GAT numbers going back before we had satellites with microwave sounders obtaining average column temperature variation for atmospheric layers a few kilometers deep over most of the face of the globe every day of every year with the precision necessary. And unfortunately that doesn’t measure enthalpy which is more important than temperature. We’re just starting to get decent enthalpy information and it’s telling a story that doesn’t agree with GCM physics assumptions and parameterization. Absolute humidity rises as expected but RH unexpectedly falls instead of remaining constant. Lapse rate feedback is much larger than expected. Cloud heights are changing unexpectedly. Actually not unexpectedly for my hypothesis which predicts exactly those things i.e. increased DWLIR drives evaporation higher without raising surface temperature much at all which results in lowered environmental lapse rate and higher altitude where clouds condense from adiabatic cooling. The higher level of the clouds which condense at the same temperature puts those warm clouds closer to outer space where there is less restriction to radiative cooling because there’s less mass in greenhouse gases in the way at the higher altitude. Adequate instrumentation to measure these hydrologic details is only now being deployed and the first results are confirming what I’ve been saying. So if you want to know where CO2 reaches its potential for 1.1C surface heating that is confirmed by applications of it like the laws of orbital mechanics were confirmed by putting a man on the moon you need to follow the water. Where there’s lots of liquid water on the surface there’s not much of CO2 warming instead there are higher clouds at the same temperature as the prior clouds with more total water in the ground to cloud column but lower relative humidity and very little change in surface temperature. Make it frozen water on the surface and then CO2 gets to do its thing because it doesn’t evaporate in response to DWLIR.
But hey, in my business we go to war with the data we got. Airplanes crash and bridges collapse if we used numbers we’d wish to have. In climate science it appears its all too common to go to war with data tortured into what you wish you had. That’s fine for academic wool gathering and internecine competitive paper publishing but it isn’t good enough for decision making where blood and treasure is at stake and certainly not good enough for planning a century in advance. The output of science goes into engineering and they inform those wishing to invest in some new or improved widget what can be done, how much it will cost, and how long it will take. Engineers decide which bits of science meet the standards needed to make reasonably confident predictions of practical application thereof. It seems modern climatologists want to skip straight from the hypothetical to the money supply without first getting the project approved by engineering.
Add to this the political impossibility of slowing CO2 emission enough to make any practical difference in the eventual outcome. The United States is back at 1990 level of emission and CO2 growth in the atmosphere didn’t miss a beat. All we ended up doing was driving our fossil fuel consumption overseas. We used to burn it to make various goods for ourselves now China burns it to make the same goods which we now buy from them. Manufacturing is global and will continue wherever it’s the cheapest and consumption will continue wherever there’s demand.
Springer has another lucid moment
I get your point if it is a proxy only reconstruction, but when the instrumental record is to be spliced on – you would surely need to know the absolute level of both proxy temperatures and the instrumental to get their relative level right?
I don’t see how it can be a non-issue.
Harris,
I’ve not read the paper so I can’t comment on how they did it. However, in principle, as long as there is a period of overlap between proxy and instrumental data that can provide a common baseline.
Anomaly data rather than absolute instrumental data can then be used.
Re “beware” – ironically, merely being aware of being a layman renders you expert compared to most who post here, both above and below the line.
The basic problem with tacking on the instrumental record to proxy records is it’s adding apples to oranges. The temporal resolution of the proxies in this case is hundreds of years. The temporal resolution of the instrumental record is hundreds of minutes. The instrumental record can show an anomalously warm day, year, or decade. The proxy record can’t show a warmer period as short as even a century because it only shows averages of 300-year periods or longer thus any shorter term anomalously warm periods are lost – smudged out by the colder periods surrounding them.
So that’s what’s wrong with tacking on the instrumental record in this particular case and it’s egregious. Marcott knows this full well. His doctoral thesis was based on exactly the same proxy record and includes the same graphs with the exception that his doctoral thesis didn’t append the instrumental record. One might wonder why the mass market addition contained the gratuitous bad-math addition of the hocky blade. Only Marcott or one of the other authors can explain. If I were to hazard a guess I’d say it was either one of the other authors or a reviewer who has a bit more of the caped climate crusader in him that is behind the addition.
I find Rud Istvan’s observations, if not completely kind or tactful, quite valuable. I found that when the authors made some similar observations with less clarity and emphasis, they were valuable too, sometimes to a lesser degree. Signs of a MWP less than 120 years would be imperceptible, and even one of about four centuries may resolve as little more than that turtle-like hump from the Dark Ages to the Late Renaissance we see in the simulated ensemble average. Or that turtle could aptly reflect something more like what really happened, though that’s far less likely.
The graph cannot be treated with traditional trendology, as it’s not a traditional time series. It’s more of an imaginatively constructed infographic.
I’m disappointed with the treatment of the endpoint problem in this infographic, personally. While the Revkin interview (http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/11/lets-play-hockey-again/#comment-301731 and thanks to nvw for providing the link to the video) allowed the principle author to enunciate his justification for the endpoint treatment based on the forecast of 2C-6C further warming this century, it sure ain’t the way a conservative trendologist would’ve done it, infographic-style or no. My own treatment would be to end the timeline 120 years earlier. Because just like you can’t use 5-year running means to reliably predict climate trends of 32 years duration, we have not seen a reliable proof developed showing that on this dataset a line 120 years long can forecast a 300+ year-long climate trend line (simulated ensemble or not). So even if the last 120 years is reliably known in the thermometer record, I’m not convinced it belongs in a study of the proxy record.
Nonetheless, the infographic approach, while it has several significant flaws as a truth-in-advertising problem (especially given the headlines touting it, and very especially given the headlines demonizing it) could be extremely applicable to future GCM validation.
Training models over 11,300 years and then ‘de-resolving’ their outputs through six dozen synthetic proxy filters (it’s much easier to predict what mud would look like given a climate, than integrating back to the climate from mud samples) to see if they reproduce the same infographic would be quite persuasive. Where the models substantially differed from the infographic by this test, valuable conclusions might be drawn about the nature of climate on the centennial to millennial scale.
And don’t we all like a nice, colorful infographic?
In lesser words, here’s Jonathan Baez:
> I agree that a graph like this is a good idea. But if the people spreading them around can’t point to a clear and precise explanation of what data and assumptions they come from, it’ll be easy to argue they’re just propaganda. It doesn’t take that much more work to do things right.
http://planet3.org/2013/03/08/why-equilibrium-sensitivity-is-not-policy-relevant/#comment-18835
A colorful infographic seems always to be a good first move in a ClimateBall game.
Seeing Rud offer a bet to Jonathan while beating his chest would be a theorical novelty here.
There seems to be a feeling that warmist conspirators have stolen away the skeptics’ beloved global MWP.
Is this really justified? Was there ever a consensus that it existed globally rather than regionally?
I’d refer anyone who thinks the former to the words of Hubert Lamb, written in 1982 long before AGW was quite so politically controversial an issue. This can be taken as a neutral opinion:
There are hints that this [MWP] was a cold time generally in and around the wide expanse of the North Pacific Ocean. If so, part of the explanation for the medieval warmth in Europe and North America, extending into the Arctic in the Atlantic sector and in at least a good deal of the continental sectors on either side, must be that there was a persistent tilt of the circumpolar vortex (and the climatic zones which it defines) away from the Atlantic and towards the Pacific sector, which was rather frequently affected by outbreaks of polar air
In other words, he was saying the North Atlantic was warmer because the North Pacific was cooler. On a global scale, the two would have cancelled out each other and so there wasn’t any global MWP but there was a regional MWP..
Evidence of the MWPhas been found throughout the world: Australia, NZ, Japan, China, Southern Chile, South africa.
The balance of evidence shows that it was in fact a global event.
The same balance of evidence suggests it was cooler than today
lolwot
Your response:
References? (Or is this just more hot air?)
Max
See the Ljungqvist 2010 graph in the post
lolwot
As evidence that the current period is warmer than the MWP you cite the Ljungqvist study cited in the lead post.
Duh!
This study concludes:
The graph you cite shows the same.
Max
According to HadCRUT the NH is now about 0.6C warmer than the “1961–1990” period.
According to the graph that makes us far warmer now than the MWP average.
Weasel word alert! “far warmer now than the MWP average.”
The MWP was generally agreed to have lasted 250-350 years. A long time for an average. Yet your time period is less than 20. Try using the same averaging for both periods.
You are guilty of the same crime of Marcott.
“The balance of evidence ” also throws up lots of hockey stick like graphs.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=31
philjourdan, note that manacker cited a 30 year period (the 1961–1990 mean temperature level).
So try again.
@Lolwot – note the comment was in reference to a comparison of the AVERAGE for the MWP (which we can put at roughly 300 years) and a time period AFTER 1990 (up to 2008 as that was the latest data quoted).
Ergo, 300 versus less than 20.
And my response was in response to TempTerrain, not Manacker. Learn to read.
Ha it was in response to me not tempterrain. You learn to read.
Also try to read what I was responding to. In which the MWP was compared to a 30 year period. An *old* 30 year period 1960-1990.
That was apparently OK, but I note the Earth has warmed since the 1960-1990 period taking us above the MWP.
Not when you use a 300 year average (that was used in the MWP). You made the same mistake that Marcott did. You cannot average 2 averages (or even compare them) that do not have the same base. Math 101.
And I guess I did miss YOUR comment as I do blank out at stupidity having to read it twice.
Try again. What is the AVERAGE for the last 300 years compared to the MWP? Or if you like, we can take the peak 18 years in the MWP and compare it to your assertion. But you cannot compare an 18 year average to a 300 year average and expect to get any intelligence out of it.
Why that’s the whole point. You have a period called the MWP that supposedly was 300 years warmer than present. I show that the present is higher than that average. Therefore that myth is busted.
If you want to talk about specific 30 year periods 1000 years ago. That isn’t the MWP. The MWP is a ~300 year period. Are we currently above that 300 year period? Yes I think the data shows we are.
lolwot,
“You have a period called the MWP that supposedly was 300 years warmer than present. I show that the present is higher than that average. Therefore that myth is busted.”
You are the Don Quixote of Climate Etc., ruthlessly slaying straw men with reckless abandon.
Who precisely was it that claimed the entirety of the MWP was higher than today’s temps?
lolwot
philjourdan has pointed out where your arithmetic (and logic) are again failing you.
The MWP average temperature is a 250-year average.
This is being compared to a 30-year average 1961-1990.
The conclusion of this comparison is that the MWP average was a bit warmer than the 30-year average 1961-1990.
You are wanting to compare it to some even shorter-term later average, which is 0.6C warmer than the 1961-1990 period..
But these are both just “blips” in the record.
Let’s compare the 250-year MWP average with the 162-year HadCRUT4 average to get a realistic comparison between the two periods.
The average anomaly over this period was -0.16C.
The average anomaly over the period 1961-1990 was +0.25C
So the longer period was 0.41C colder than the short-term “blip”
And the comparison with the MWP would show an even warmer (250-year) MWP compared to the (162-year) current warm period.
Get it?
Max
“The MWP average temperature is a 250-year average.
This is being compared to a 30-year average 1961-1990.”
What I want to do is compare the MWP average with the temperature of the last 10 years.
The last 10 years are warmer than the MWP average according to the data. It is perfectly factual for me to point this out, that the MWP is on average cooler than the last 10 years. This in fact means the MWP was cooler. Note it doesn’t mean the whole MWP was cooler (although it doesn’t rule that out), just that the MWP on average was cooler than today.
Yes Max, we get it.
You don’t want to compare today’s temperature to the MWP because that would involve admitting that today’s temperatures are warmer.
However your deceit is painfully transparent.
Repeating a deception does not make it true.
Do you get it yet?
tempterrain
Hubert Lamb wrote of the Medieval Warm Period (in fact, he arguably coined the term).a period during which temperature was generally a bit warmer than today.
Historical records from all over the civilized world at the time show us that it was a slightly warmer period.
And, of course, we have the physical evidence from old Viking farms buried in the Greenland permafrost or carbon dated remains of old trees found under receding alpine glaciers high above the present tree line.
Most of this evidence already existed during Hubert Lamb’s day, but more recently there have been almost 80 studies from all over the world using different modern paleo-climate methodologies, which show that the MWP was a bit warmer than today (these are cited in the lead post here).
So we have new information since Hubert Lamb’s time, which confirm that the MWP was global and slightly warmer than today.
Max
Max,
I’d say it’s time ter call in Tony Brown’s voluminous historical
record of climate variability, wouldn’t you?
Beth
Beth,
There’s no need. I think we know the answer. The early IPCC reports, based partly on the work of Hubert Lamb did show a more pronounced “MWP”. The question is was it global or regional?
As Max points out more information has become available since the early 80’s. If it shows the MWP to have been regional, as in this and other studies, then its obviously wrong and part of the conspiracy.
Hubert Lamb is generally regarded as being right by skeptics when he was talking about a pronounced MWP, but wrong when he wasn’t, when he was talking about the warmth being offset by cooler periods elsewhere. That’s because more is known now that it was then.
tempterrain
“No need for data, Beth. We know the answer”
Pretty much tells it all, tempterrain.
Ignore the 80+ independent studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methods, all concluding that the MWP was slightly warmer than today.
Ignore the historical records from all over the civilized world at the time that show the same.
Ignore the actual physical evidence that confirms a warmer MWP.
Sounds like the ostrich approach to me, tempterrain.
Max
Marcott uses a mean of globally distributed proxies – so really the old warmist meme of a regional MWP has no relevance at all. The result shows a smoothed MWP temperature not all that different to todays unsmoothed.
You guys are so weird.
Max,
I think I’ve pointed this out to you before, so ignorance on your part can’t be used as excuse. The idea of quotes is … well to quote. That means you quote what what actually said or written.
You can’t just insert words, like “data” as you feel like it. Especially when they completely change the meaning of the actual sentence.
It is my understanding that it is generally accepted that the MWP was generally confined to the North Atlantic and Western Europe region of the world. However, over the last twenty years or so, the definition of this region has been slightly expanded to include the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Alaska, Oregon, the Yucatan, South Africa, the Antarctic Peninsula, Siberia, China, New Zealand, etc.
The Chinese would beg to differ with you. They have shown that there was also a very warm time in China that correlates to the North Atlantic MWP – and I do not think they can expand the North Atlantic area that far.
There are many clues that the Chinese have figured out that a warmer world is better for the Chinese.
====================
philjourdan,
“That’s a joke, son. A flag waver. You’re built too low. The fast ones go over your head. Ya got a hole in your glove. I keep pitchin’ ’em and you keep missin’ ’em. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye. Ball. I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is.” [/foghornleghorn]
‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg
And yet we know that Pacific sea surface temperatures were as high in the MWP as in the last hundred years.
+1
Peter Davies is off somewhere so I’m standin’ in fer him.
BC
Thanks Beth. I have been working outside and getting heaps of vit B12! Which many of the CE regulars could do with more of methinks ;)
All the Aussies are covering for each other, I see. Nice tribal tendencies you are displaying there.
Paging Dr Lewandowski. We have a patient for you. Dress warm, as he is in Minnesota.
PS – please do not form an opinion of Minnesotans from your patient. He’s an anomoly. They really are among the nicest folks you’ll ever have the pleasure of knowing. (Assuming you can recognize nice, Dr Lew.)
Ting, you don’t seem to get the joke of these Aussies with their fake ocker accents and weird narratives leading you all on an extended prank.
You would figure that with the Kate Middleton episode most people would catch on to their schtick. Some people are just kind of slow I guess.
Web
Your prejudicial behavior is showing again.
Ringo said
The schtick is about as juvenile as the dudes who insert themselves into some serious conversation and end it by saying “baba booey” . Google it, if you don’t know what I am talking about.
At least that one gets telegraphed when its over. This other stuff with Hydrologist, Girma, Doug Cotton, Myrrrrh, StefTheD’nier, Beth and the other Aussie pranksters just goes on and on and on.
WHT you missed the joke I’m afraid. There’s an ad going on air for an insurance company in Aust where someone vanishes and is replaced by someone else in the middle of a sequence.
In my recent peregrinations – I sought an answer to the question of why Australia is such a tremendously successful multi-ethnic society. Not multi-cultural – that seems more a sanitised version of reality for use in government press releases. But a truly human, grounded, earthy and usually vulgar adaptation of the Australian idiom in food, language and humour especially.
The consensus opinion is that we are a nation of wogs – and that we all have wog land rights. We all have dual allegiances to some nation somewhere and to a home in Australia. The saddest wog of all is the indigenous wog – who is a wog in their own country. But we all have a right to sun, sand, earth and sky. We have a right to fish and to a bit of consensual making of the 2 backed beast. We have a right to nude up at rock festivals and throw ourselves in the mud. We have a right to be happy in our own way.
This is a nation and a way of life that is worth defending and dying for if necessary. As we have again and again. One of the funniest things I have heard recently is that Australians had the worst desertion rates of any soldiers in World War 1. Australians were not shot for desertion and so disappeared into the nearest bar or bordello – only to reappear for duty slightly the worse for wear. This is a celebrated expression of the larrikin myth that is at the core of our national ideals – and which feed into the multi-ethnic dynamic. Send us your poor, tired, huddled masses and we will soon turn them into swaggering and insouciant larrikins. It is the Australian way.
Please be upstanding for the national anthem.
Well now, generalissimo from Oz, yer started off so impressively
with yer ‘peregrinations’ and ‘ we all have a right ter sun, sand,
earth and sky’ but then …ahemm… generalissimo skippy, hafta
say ter the denizens here, we who come from down under do not
‘all’ throw ourselves down in the mud at rock festivals : ) Tho’ we
do tend ter respond ter anthems in a somewhat irreverent fashion
I guess. We tend not ter do ‘respect’ all that well, unless we think
it’s been earned.
Beth the CG
Grr pesky lines!
And the pranks continue..
So what happened to that nice Jolly Swagman ?
It’s hard to tell Australians about climate change. We already have this idea of what it actually is, so it’s very hard for our Green Betters to “educate” and “empower” us on the subject. Just for example, the whole of eastern Oz got drenched in the 1890s (when it wasn’t getting singed). Then, after the Federation Drought, which even Kidman couldn’t handle, we were thirsty for five decades – barring the odd catastrophic flood, just ’cause it’s Oz. That’s a five, okay? Fifty plus years.
Then, in 1950, down came the rain, in startling excess, and kept coming. Then, in this previously thirsty land, we had what was called the Maitland Flood – though poor old Maitland was not to blame. This was in 1955. Now, picture England and Wales. Now picture some country to the west of Sydney. Got it in your minds? An inland sea formed west of Sydney which was the size of England and Wales. Shall I repeat? England and Wales. The size of. How’s that for a cherry-pick? Pretty cherry picky, eh?
But when you’ve copped the world’s greatest known inferno (Victoria 1851) and a storm surge that left porpoises 15 metres up a cliff (Cyclone Mahina 1899) you kind of get used to it, in a grim way. Even recently we’ve had fire and storm and flood that could stand with some of the crackers of past years.
Sorry, I’m rambling and pranking in that annoying Aussie way. You were going to tell us about climate change. Do go on. Fascinate us. Tell us about how the climate changes.
I well remember perhaps a little over a year ago, me friends,
when I first discovered Judith the Brave’s open society and her measured approach to uncertainty in climate science… a
comment by Kim resonated with me … something to do with
eschewing guilt and sacrifice of virgins, something about
laughter as the antidote to fear. That’s what the clowning’s
about, WHT. Free men and women, in Oz, in the YEW Ess,
the Yew Kay, Switzerland, refuse ter hunker down and fear
the fewcher. To truly ‘live’ is to question, adapt, laugh, love
accept our fallibility but also our appreciate our creativity.
Amen.
Beth the homespun philosopher ( tho’ she likes ter wear silk.)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain.html
fear, and
That’s Sidney Kidman who couldn’t handle the drought – not Nicole. Nicole can handle anything.
You can’t lump all Australians together in this way. Some of us know the score!
http://www.csiro.au/Climate-Change-Book
“That’s Sidney Kidman who couldn’t handle the drought”
Well, his firm is still going strong.
‘As biographer Jill Bowen shows, Kidman was much more than a grazier. In addition to his many successful business ventures and his contributions to the war effort, he was driven by a grand plan for the remote, arid areas of Australia. This kept him locked in a battle with the land – and against drought.
As a barely literate youth of thirteen, Sidney Kidman ran away from home and worked as an add-job boy in a grog shanty in outback Australia. He went on to become the greatest pastoral landholder in modern history, acquiring a legendary reputation both at home and abroad as the Cattle King.
Wealth, power, fame and honours did not change Sidney Kidman. He remained the homespun, gregarious bushman for whom men worked with an almost savage loyalty. Greatly admired, he also had many enemies and in his later years was dogged by controversies and untruths. This book explores the fascinating Kidman facts and fictions, and gives a balanced, thoroughly entertaining account of this larger-than-life Australian and his exceptional achievements.’ http://www.exploroz.com/Shop/AngusRobertson+Kidman_The_Forgotten_King.aspx
Kidman has a mythical status in Australia – and so all sorts of speculations arise. But there are some battles with drought in arid Australia that can’t be won. Best to go with the flow sometimes.
Mosomoso is quite correct in his discussion. Australian rainfall has increased somewhat over the last century – http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0
Alhough if you look closely you will find that there are decadal paterns related to ENSO+PDO.
1916 to 1945 – http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/decadal-rainfall/index.jsp?maptype=6&period=1645&product=totals
1946 to 1975 – http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/decadal-rainfall/index.jsp?maptype=6&period=4675&product=totals
1976 to 1995 – http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/decadal-rainfall/index.jsp?maptype=3&period=7695&product=totals
This has been known to Australian hydrologists since the mid 1980’s.
Rainfall catastrophists in Australia are wrong and it is the result of ignoring hydrological science. e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JHM1215.1
We are in for very much increased average rainfall over the next few decades as the cool Pacific mode intensifies.
Max,
“We have new information since Hubert Lamb’s time, which confirm that the MWP was” not “global and slightly warmer than today”.
And this new study is one of them.
tempterrain
“And this new study is one of them”
And the various independent studies from all over the world using different paleo-climate methods are 80+ more of them.
Pretty hard to ignore 80+ studies in favor of 1, unless you have your head in the sand, tt
Max
The mainstream scientific position is that the global temperature record, when plotted in graphical form over the millenium , is indeed like a hockey stick in shape. Some handles are flatter than others.
So the MWP may exist, but it isn’t as significant as skeptics like to claim. Claims of Vikings cultivating vines in Greenland during the MWP are almost certainly exaggerated:-)
“And the various independent studies from all over the world using different paleo-climate methods are 80+ more of them.”
No. Those studies are not global. They are regional and many of them don’t even synchronize.
This has been hidden from you by a bit of co2science fiddling.
It’s encouraging to see you tying your pony to this wagon, tempterrain!
tempterrain
Again you are reverting to talking in riddles, like the Sphinx.
On one side we have:
– 80+ independent studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methodologies, which all show that the MWP was slightly warmer than today.
– A historical record from all over the civilized world at the time, which also shows a slightly warmer MWP
– Actual physical evidence, such as Viking farms buried in the Greenland permafrost or carbon-dated remains of old trees found under receding alpine glaciers, far above today’s tree line.
And on the other side we have
– One broken hockey shtick
– the Marcott et al. study featured here
Duh!
Pretty easy to see where the bulk of the evidence lies, right?
Max
PS The Vikings did not “cultivate grapes” in Nova Scotia. They found them growing wild there.
One broken record…
– 80+ independent studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methodologies, which all show that the MWP was slightly warmer than today. …
Of course, this does not mean the MWP was slightly warmer than the current period.
And were it, I do not think the consequence would be exactly what skeptics think it would be. There are no free rides out of the CO2 problem.
JCH
I’d agree that paleo-climate reconstructions should be taken with a grain of salt.
But when one sees 80+ independent studies from all over the world, using different paleo methodologies plus some studies based on actual physical evidence, which all conclude that the MWP was a bit warmer than today versus a broken hockey stick and this latest Marcott & Shakun study, it is easy for me to see where the weight of evidence lies.
It’s not that important, because the MWP was only one of several past periods of warmer temperatures than today.
Max
Max ,
This 80+ claim is pretty vague. You’re essentially using the same tactics as the Intelligent Design crowd who claim a similar number of independent “peer reviewed” scientific papers to support their position. But, you know as well as I do that they are well out of the mainstream.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Note they also talk about a “scientific debate” about ID in the same way as you do about whether AGW is real.
Do they really think there is such a debate? Or are are they just claiming there is one to try to give themselves some credibility?
The relevant question here is :
are the mainstream (ie evolutionist) people who oppose the idea of Intelligent Design, anywhere near as obviously corrupt, biased, politicised, and entirely in the pocket of a massive funder, as the alarnmist climate mainstream is ?
I suggest not. It’s actually the climate mainstream and the ID people that go together.
Yes of course they are much worse. Climate ‘alarmists’, as you call them, only want to protect the environment. Evolutionists are evil atheistic types who deny the divine word of God :-)
It amuses me the manner in which the alarmists push a construct of the mind of man, and ignore nature.
=======================
Yes, simple minds are easily amused.
Why, Peter, you’ve Ockhamed right cleaverly to the source of my glee!
==================
Medieval Warm Period deniers. LOL
History won’t remember these people kindly. When they call others deniers they are simply projecting their own mindset onto others. Mother Nature can’t be denied forever and after 15 years of no global warming while anthropogenic CO2 continues to be produced at the same rapid pace has become like unto a wooden stake through the heart of the bloodsucking night stalkers.
“There doesn’t seem to be anything really new here in terms of our understanding of the Holocene. Mike’s Nature trick seems to be now a standard practice in paleo reconstructions. I personally don’t see how this analysis says anything convincing about climate variability on the time scale of a century.”
The only thing it suggests is we are entering a glacial period. Which I don’t think is true, but that what their long term graph suggests- if one properly ignores the obviously false splicing of modern record.
On use and misuse of data, there were recently posts on CE about Australia’s “Angry Summer” (TM Tim Flannery). Des Moore reports that physicist Tom Quirk recently checked the data, shown at http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/our-angry-summer-was-no-worse-than-miffed
Dr Quirk notes that the graphs show that it remains unequivocal that there has been no substantive change in annual global average temperatures between 2002 and 2012. And while there has also been no change worth noting in the 16 years from 1998, account needs to be taken of the fact that this pause includes the “high” El Nino affected year in 1998.
Yet according to the head of the government’s Climate Commission, Professor Tim Flannery, “if you look at the whole Earth system, you can see that strong warming trend. And indeed, if you look at the atmospheric record for a long enough period, you see exactly the same trend”. In response to the interviewer’s observation that “figures released last year… showed that there’d been a plateau for about the last 15 years or so”, Flannery replied “in a sense what you’re saying is correct …but there has been no plateau!” (below).
The five key “facts” identified by the Commission in its 12-page report of March 4, The Angry Summer, included “record-breaking heat … climate change that is already adversely affecting Australians … highly likely that extreme hot weather will become more frequent and severe in Australia and around the globe over the coming decades etc etc etc.” The Commission “discovered” no less than 123 records were broken in the December to February period. The lead author of the report, Professor Will Steffen, who has served as science adviser to the Department of Climate Change, observed “there is a 1-in-500 chance that we are talking about natural variation causing all these new records.”
By contrast, former Deputy Head of the Bureau of Meteorology, Bill Kininmonth, has noted that “the high temperatures were neither Australia-wide nor global, as might be expected from carbon dioxide forcing… (and) the past summer was only 0.2 degrees warmer than the previous warmest summer of 1982-83”. Separately, Kininmonth has observed that the trend in the Australia-wide maximum since 1980, including this recent “hottest summer”, has been 0.1 degrees per century, not significantly different from zero. He compares our hot summer with that experienced in Europe in 2003 — a manifestation of a sustained blocking weather pattern.
Here we have a classic example of the acceptance without serious checking of analyses by “official” scientists who are prepared to use data for their own purposes. It further reduces the credibility of the Gillard government’s policy on climate change. It is also a disgrace that the ABC did not have an alternative view when Flannery was given an extensive interview on 7.30. As Andrew Bolt suggested in his Sunday TV program (below), Flannery and the Commission should cease to have an official role.
+1
BC
That’s +1 for Des Moore rather than me. OT, but I’ve just been to the river and walked normally for the first time since July. Yea! Progress!
‘Tirra lirra by the river,’ good news Faustino…Birds calling,
river purling, riffling and silver swirls.Say, a lovely opening
to Melville’s Moby Dick describing human fascination with
water. Kinda like skeptics attraction ter the Medieval Warming
Period Tempterrain might say.
BC
http://www.americanliterature.com/author/herman-melville/book/moby-dick-or-the-whale/chapter-1-loomings
‘Call me Ishmael.’ A grand book indeed.
CAGW memes that refuse to die (in no particular order):
Mann’s hockey stick
Hansen’s ’88 predictions
There is no C in CAGW
The precautionary principle requires decarbonization because
of the potential for catastrophe.
All skeptics are funded by big oil
All skeptics are stupid, or evil, or insane, or all three
Climate models don’t need to be verified or validated to justify
massive carbon taxes
Climate models prove we need to decarbonize
Climate models are irrelevant to the need to decarbonize, because
paleo-reconstructions show the current warming is unprecedented.
Paleo-reconstructions are irrelvant to the need to decarbonize
because it’s all about the physics.
Even if we don’t know all of the physics, the climate models are the
best we have and they prove the need to decarbonize.
We know the global average temperature of the entire climate system
of the Earth, to within tenths of a degree for any day, year, decade,
century, millenium….
We know the average global temperature of the Earth to within tenths
of a degree for long past decades, centuries, millenia and eons.
Climate models can accurately predict what the global average temp
will be 10, 30, 50 and 100 years from now
We know enough about the complex, chaotic climate of the Earth to
model it with a reasonable degree of accuracy
Skeptics are stoopid
They’re like Freddy Kruger, no matter how you kill them, somebody always will bring them back to life because there’s a buck to be made.
Careful, Gary, warmistas might use that list for a scary pamphlet.
Gary M
We are dealing with the “hydra phenomenon” here.
http://mythology.wikia.com/wiki/Hydra
You have named 16 of the CAGW hydra’s heads.
But new ones keep sprouting, just like the demise of Mann’s original hockey stick “head” gave birth to several spaghetti copy hockey stick” heads”.
The end of observed global warming “head” gave birth to the Chinese aerosol and Ocean heat content “heads”.
Of course, the “immortal head” is the “it’s worse than we thought head”.
Max
PS Has Josh made a cartoon of this beast yet?
Gary M
Here’s your CAGW Hydra.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8509/8552980332_4a6b761f76_b.jpg
Beastly.
(But purely fictional, of course.)
Max
Heh, attribution it’s a brute.
H/t Kim.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8509/8552980332_4a6b761f76_b.jpg
Max,
The only question left is – Who is the skeptic Hercules?
Could it be Agatha Christie’s incisive detective Hercules Poirot? (Not to be confused with poireau = leek).
Beth
Phlannery needs to check out all those thermometers (even the ones next to AC exhausts).
Max
Max,
Channelling Phlannery
I intuit … he has no
problem with thermometres
next to AC exhausts or
at airports but prefers
fewer thermometers
at those alpine
freeezing cold ski resorts.
( I could be wrong of course.)
Beth the serf.
Having now read the paper and the SI and also having studied the actual data, here are my 2 cents, with a particular focus on the most recent part of the reconstruction.
1) results show that the reconstruction with a time step of 20 years shows a large upswing at 10 BP (1940, 0.6 +/- 0.56 K, the latter being 2-sigma).
2) results show that the reconstruction with a time step of 100 and 200 year do not show such an upswing
3) the number of proxies decreases strongly moving towards present times (acknowledged by Marcott in the paper; see also SI)
4) Marcott et al. [2013] say absolutely nothing about the upswing of their own reconstruction in their own paper
5) only a limited number of proxies provide recent data (about 10)
6) only two of those have a time resolution of 20 years (DOME C and Agassiz-Renland)
7) but exactly thos two (DOME C and Agassiz-Renland) are the ones with a strong increase in temperatures after 1900
This suggests that the reconstruction by Marcott for the last century or so should be interpreted with great care. For what I can see now it is not really
representative of anything.
Given that Marcott does not state anything about the upswing in their own reconstruction, the fuss is about in combining the low resolution Marcott
reconstruction with the high resolution Mann reconstruction for the year 1500 onwards. Whether or not that is justified is another debate – and Marcott argues that
you can based on the fact that his reconstruction and that of Mann for the overlapping period are statistically indistinguishable.
Whether or not you then can make confident statements about how unusual the recent warming is is another debate. It is clear that the Marcott reconstruction does not
provide much information about the ‘fast’ warming after 1900 (it simply does not have sufficient time resolution nor coverage in terms of number of proxies). It is
also clear that the Marcott reconstruction lacks temporal resolution to be able to make a confident statement about whether such fast warmings as the one after 1900
have occured previously during the Holocene.
In addition,there are many reconstructions that show the opposite behavior of the final reconstruction (see some previous comments by ‘Nillius in Verba’). How that
can lead to such narrow confidence intervals is a bit of a mystery to me, but that would require a real reproduction of the Marcott et al. [2013] study.
Nevertheless, the study suggests that the Holecene was for longer periods of time as warm as today or warmer, something which has often been suggested by individual
studies but it is nice to see it back when combining many data sources. It also confirms that – as I have seen suggested before – the Little Ice Age is the ‘odd one
out’, not the recent warming.
Whether or not this proves or disproves that we were on our way to a next ice age and that that has been avoided I think is way beyond what is justifiable based on
this study. Also because the warming is dated before 1950, and I don’t know how you can attribute that warming to greenhouse gas warming.
The rest of it is a lot of spin by the authors and the media.
Jos
+1
Jos, your views seem to be about the same as mine. The reason I’ve focused on the peculiar uptick at the modern end is just that it is an outlier. Outliers are often the best spot to start when trying to figure out what methodology was used.
If you can figure out how oddities in results are generated, odds are you can figure out everything.
Here’s Richard Alley:
> Our high assessed confidence that the recent warming is mostly human-driven, and that the costs will become large if the warming becomes large, do not primarily rest on how much warmer or colder today is than some particular time in the past, or even on how fast the recent changes are relative to those in the past.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/
You are being played, folks.
Willard
Agree.
Alley (oops!) is trying to play us.
Max
K Scott Denison (KSD), thank you for illustrating for Climate Etc readers three cognitive elements of triple-strength climate-change denialism!
• cherry-pick a restricted measure: (KSD: ice extent)
• cherry pick a restricted time-frame: (KSD: the past two months)
• insist upon restricting public discourse to the cherry-picked elements: (KSD: restricts his literature search to ice-extent graphics)
Essentially all of the skeptical comments on this thread (as on denialist forums in gneral) employ some combination of these three cognitive elements to make the Hockey Stick just go away.
But yah know what?
The Hockey Stick ain’t going away.
For one simple reason: AGW is real, eh?
But it is going to be turned sideways and….
A fan of *MORE* discourse | March 11, 2013 at 12:10 pm | Reply
Rud Istvan posts “[business-as-usual spinning and quibbling regarding his precious MWP]“
The A-Team on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog is now posting incredible satellite animations of this week’s accelerating 2013 arctic ice-melt.
—–
You posted about the “accelerating 2013 arctic ice melt” and I’m changing the game? The link you sent doesn’t address 2013. I’d like some of what you’re smoking.
Fan says : The Hockey Stick ain’t going away.
Yes, political expansionism has far too much invested in it to admit it has failed.
Same old deck of cards by the same “climatologee” jokers who will add any deceptive trick to make a mockery of actual science, buys fraudulent/illegitimate time by way of gullible people who peddle the guff until someone sue’s the pants off them.
There’s a large class, some obvious tort feasors, and damages are demonstrable and huge. Give it time.
========================
I am extremely encouraged by this paper by Marcott. Ghandi famously remarked; First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win. The warmists first ignored us skeptics, then they laughed at us. It seems to me that this paper by Marcott is one of the first where the warmists are starting to fight us skeptics.
Victory for the skeptics would appear to be in sight.
Alternatively, he was not fought, nor skeptics with this crook’t and ghostly stick.
===========
Join the bandwagon!
Willard
Yeah. And help pull it out of the ditch.
Max
Jim –
I’m afraid you’re a little late to the party. Final nails in the coffin and stakes through the heart have been driven many times. The public distrusts what climate scientists say – have for years now. They were expecting snow to disappear and now that it hasn’t, there is a public “crises” in trust of climate science (just ask Judith – she has a presentation on that “crisis”).
I wonder if the satisfaction of declaring (sight of) victory diminishes by virtue of repetition?
“I wonder if the satisfaction of declaring (sight of) victory diminishes by virtue of repetition?”
Nope. Actually increases. Each time better than the previous because we’re that much closer. Victory, like revenge, is a meal best served cold. Which in this case I mean literally. Brr.
Joshua | March 12, 2013 at 10:06 am | Reply
“I wonder if the satisfaction of declaring (sight of) victory diminishes by virtue of repetition?”
No. At least not as long as there are still alarmists to be annoyed by it. Victory is sweet in this case as the castrophe isn’t happening. If the warmist ilk had been right it would have been a Pyrhhic victory because there is no politically practical means of slowing fossil fuel consumption, eh?
Joshua
No. Because it is not only a victory over ignorance, but also over a horrible imaginary hobgoblin, which had been conjured up to frighten us into opening our pocketbooks to the political ruling class, greedy for more taxpayer money to shuffle around and distribute.
Max
”
The warmists first ignored us skeptics, then they laughed at us. It seems to me that this paper by Marcott is one of the first where the warmists are starting to fight us skeptics.
”
Who has time to fight “skeptics”?
It’s like playing chess with a pigeon.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pigeon%20chess
Still laughing – but will return to ignoring as soon as you stop being so unintentionally hilarious.
please ignore
heinrich | March 12, 2013 at 10:34 am | Reply
“Who has time to fight “skeptics”?”
Evidently you do.
”
Evidently you do.
”
This isn’t a “fight”. It’s pigeon chess.
You guys take your fascinating blog-commentary so darned seriously that you’ve somehow convinced yourselves that others do too.
heinrich
Confucius say: Man who play chess undah tree with pigeon likely to get checked by fowled King-piece.
Maybe if you stepped up your pigeon chess game you could get something done in Copenhage or wherever the next meeting of climate proctologists and sycophants is takng place. [snicker]
As Judith noted, this is simply Mike’s Nature trick rehashed and published in Science.
The whole process of putting incompatible datasets on the same graph is a gratuitous science fraud. It is designed to be misleading. It is a clear case of apples and oranges
It would have been better had they listed the authors in a different order. This paper would be best refered to as Shaken, Mix et al (2013).
Oops, small typo, this is of course the Shakun-Mix method.
This isn’t about truth for them. It’s certainly not about good science. It’s about pumping a little stale air into the flat tire now known as global warming. Just in time, the IPCC has a new scary image to put on its cover. The great deception continues.
Sorry…flat tire known as global warming.
Stirred, not Shaken, please.
When you mix apples and oranges, the outcome is bent – bananas.
Another complete puckup.
Rud Istvan, thanks for the post.
Regards
Bob, thanks. I have enjoyed both your books, and gave a shoutout to you in a footnote in the climate chapter of Arts of Truth. That book uses climate change as just one of hundreds of examples of how MSM and the ‘misinformation highway’ provide anything but truth.
Your blog is another oasis of truth in the misinformation desert.
Highest regards
And they say there is no God…
Ocean and lake sediment data from places such as California, Venezuela, and Antarctica have confirmed that these sudden climate changes affected not just Greenland, but the entire world. During the past 110,000 years, there have been at least 20 such abrupt climate changes. Only one period of stable climate has existed during the past 110,000 years–the 11,000 years of modern climate (the “Holocene” era). “Normal” climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps–like a light switch flicking on and off.
See—i.e., your link above:
David Springer | March 11, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
The hilarious part of the link talking about the frequency of huge temperature changes in just a few years (at least a regional change where the core was taken in Greenland) is earth science for 9th-12th graders. Evidently that’s a bit too advanced for most progressives so climatoligists with better than high school science education can say anything they want knowing so much of their audience is not equipped to dispute them.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/tidescurrents/effects/climatechange_currents_lesson.html
@Wagathon
from the NOAA education link
“Normal” climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps–like a light switch flicking on and off.”
That’s an awful analogy. It’s like thermostat with stops so the temperature is bounded within a range of about 10C from coldest to warmest and the setting can change from coldest to warmest in as little as a few years.
The worst part of it is that while conceding on the one hand that if not for 11000 years of warming — but for which we would not be here — that humanity is not is the slightest bit responsible for… on the other hand they say–e.g., we’re poking a stick at nature with our CO2 which could bring back Earth’s “normal” on allourasses. That’s simple-minded superstition that taxpayers are paying school teachers to preach in the classrooms and paying sin taxes to keep the ponzi scheme going.
… serve as a throwing stick that transformationally shapes public opinion in service of foresighted scientific and moral ends.
Conclusion That ain’t no climate-change HOCKEY STICK … it’s a high-velocity climate-change ATLATL for attacking climate-change denialism!
Michael Hart, please advise us if your Delphic prediction has been interpreted in any other than its most logical, scientific, foresighted, and moral sense!
Es schneit…!
There was a sudden dump of oddly late snowfall in Germany yesterday due to global warming and indicating a possible shut down of the the Meridional Overturning Circulation that could well lead to multi-year droughts that may affect critical agricultural and water resources world-wide that likely would greatly strain food and water supplies and also may lead to an abrupt change in the climate that could occur so quickly that human and natural systems would likely have great difficulty adapting and that could possibly lead to tens of millions of deaths and all of these exceedingly events may well be unavoidable unless more power over the economy and our all of our lives is immediately ceded to the UN and the secular, socialist liberal fascist establishment of Western academia.
When the EU burps up another Hitler and wants our help I hope Bush will come out of retirement long enough to let them know they can kiss our collective asses.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/13/climategate-30.html
!!!
“Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”
How can anybody disagree with this?
Agree Edim. 13/03/13 an historic day in climate science.
Oh … and it looks like the Medieval Warming Period has
reappeared. There’s an email :)
Napoleon lost 90% of his army to the cold after invading Russia; Hitler too. And now, the Earth is in a cooling trend, again. We may lose 90% of the government-education bureaucracy, oh no!
Yet another blizzard is bearing down on Russia. This is surely overwhelming proof of anthropogenic global warming, yet expect the skeptics to carp and evade, as they always do. Their cherry picking strategy will be to emphasise the cold, the snow and the ice – typical!
Climate expert Dmitri Wankov has declared that the recent blizzards are not at all like the traditional blizzards of his youth. They are much more rad and funky. He was about to say more when his teeth got to chattering.
As long as they are only rad and funky. Once they hit gnarly, then you need to worry.
Guess he’s jest a member of the chattering classes.
Re opinions, liked yr short story about the shop that
sells opinions on things climate sciency, political and
also ‘the arts”, mosomoso. In my opinion it’s kinda
rad and funky too.) BC
BC, another climate expert, Grigori Tossov, has stated that the smashing of the Northern Hemisphere’s cold record – last month in Oymyakon, by more than 3 degrees Celsius – is such compelling proof of warming that, under a proper Russian regime, skeptics would be confined for re-education.
But where do you go for a good strong leader these days? Oh, Conroy tries, I know…
Conroy, lol? Oz politics, taxes, more taxes and restrictive
media laws … Oh well, they’re tryin’.
Assuming there actually had been some measurable amount of global warming over the last decade, to the extent it was due to human CO2 would have to be the fault of all of the new coal-fired power plants that were built in China.
I would like to put this at the bottom if I can.
‘There doesn’t seem to be anything really new here in terms of our understanding of the Holocene. Mike’s Nature trick seems to be now a standard practice in paleo reconstructions. I personally don’t see how this analysis says anything convincing about climate variability on the time scale of a century.’
So we have recent temperatures that were fairly similar to todays. Nothing new in that.
‘With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, -2.1, and 1.4 W/m2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record…’ http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
So if we had 0.6 W/m2 greenhouse gas forcing – net cloud radiative forcing was -2 W/m2 and anthropogenic warming was 30% of the total.
So if we are not warming for decades hence because of cool patterns of ocean and amosphere circulation – and resultant cloud changes – and most warming was quite natural then a millennial downturn in the Bond Event Zero may be sufficient to offsett warming for quite a while.
But there is no real expectation that climate will behave in any but unexpected ways with the potential for surprise at extreme ends of the spectrum of warming or cooling. Any other expectation is an argument form ignorance. Climate is far too complex for simple methods and climate narratives to succeed convincingly – and complex models bring their own baggage of deterministic chaos.
Whoops lol – so we have MWP temperatures that were similar to today’s…
‘Climate is far too complex fer simple methods and climate narratives ter succeed convincingly?’ Say, even I coulda’ told yer that )
mosomoso
Vat? Denies global varming?
Send him to Gulag in Dudinka – he vill vant varming.
Beth,,
It’s great to see someone can write dates correctly :)
The loony left will disagree. You can bet they will be doing all they can to find the identity of Mr. FOIA, and if they do they will have an army of lawyers attacking him in a variety of ways. They will break him, mentally and financially.. He’ll probably end up committing suicide if he ever gets caught. That’s the sort of hatred the Left dishes out.
Don’t know why so many denizens on WUWT were trying
to guess FOIA’s nationality, Peter. You’d think they’d want
to protect his identity.
Beth,
I agree. I expect they haven’t considered the consequences for the guy if he is caught.
Given he isn’t a UK citizen what do you expect the consequences would be? He or she is a whistleblower against the biggest con game in recent history and he isn’t even a citizen of the country that might possibly be able to prosecute him even if they dared. The people he vexed and confounded are academic creampuffs and environmental activists not the mafia so it’s not like they would hunt him down and make him go swimming with cement overshoes. They’d write papers about the situation that no one else would read. The consequences would likely be wealth and fame from a grateful world but probably not a Nobel prize.
http://bit.ly/92YKOp
There is some hope in the scientific community for a return of integrity. Good for him
Ignore the social pathology of engaging in baseless fear mongering about global warming and just consider for a moment the endless scandals, such as…
►CRUGate — Playing tricks with data to reach preconceived conclusions and refusing to hand over the raw data before simply losing it altogether and continuing to claim that the foi2009.pdf disclosures were illegally obtained when in reality it obviously was the principled act of a whistleblowing deepthroat who became disgusted with the corruption of the government-funded climate change charlatans…
All of the Gates can be summarized by NobelGate — A Nobel was awarded to the IPCC, Al Gore and Barack Obama for their aiding and abetting of a moribund Europe, an immoral UN and a corrupt Leftist-liberal establishment in the United States to undermine George Bush and overthrow free enterprise Americanism.
Thanks Girma. Hal Lewis is a great American hero as far as I’m concerned. It was good of you to remember him. RIP Professor Lewis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis
Thx Girma for the letter by Emeritus Professor of Physics,
Harold Lewis on the corruption of climate science by the
American Physical Society, semingly because of money
and politics
DS, You are so naive about the world.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/climategate-3-0/#comment-111312
And you are so afraid of it.
You have no idea.
Let’s prepare ourselves:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/45381960089
Nationality wouldn’t usually give much clue to a person’s identity Beth. My bet is that he is an expat American living in northern Europe, possibly Sweden or Finland. He would probably have had access to the email database as an insider at either UEA’s CRU or certain individuals at Penn State U.
Yer back, Peter Davies:) Re nationality of FOIA … likely insiders
with access ter the data base narrows down the list of suspects
and then excluding some nationalities narrows the list further.
I understand this sort of thing, Peter, from watching detective
movies like Hercule Poirot and Miss Fisher.
Beth
Meanwhile, back at the Rocking A(udit) Ranch, sleuths sniff out Marcott’s doctoral thesis, and are starting to howl.
===================
Yep, that infilling into small grid cells will get you into trouble.
Excellent. The Climate Gravy Train meanwhile continues meandering merrily along. Something has to be done to totally derail it, since the Hole in the Wall Gang long ago took it over and left the Engineer and Conductor tied up in the weeds. The Posse’s following at a distance, but their galloping steeds are no match for the Iron Horse. Where’s the Lone Ranger when we need him?
Well we’ve had one or to two lonish rangers like McIntyre and Mr FOIA exposing endemic deception, but it seems cagw-inspired taxes etc will go ahead regardless, no matter how flawed the climate “science” supporting it. Government and the Left simply cannot let slip such a massive new gravy train.
Vassily
that is all.
@ very tall guy ….
… that is all.
You left off “utter drivel” at the end.
Vassily,
I think what VTG is struggling with, is that unless you are a blinkered state-worshipper like himself, and naively imagine that government-funded climate “science” attempts to be objective rather be biased towards promoting the state’s interests (with climate scare tactics calculated to justify a more totalitarian society), then you are very likely to see government climate “science” for the tainted product it actually is (hiding inconvenient data, and all the other climategate shananigans).
Especially galling to him, is that state climate science is exactly like tobacco company science that exonerated smoking was – a crock specially designed to advance the interests of its funder, regardless of the truth. Only government climate science is obviously thousands of times more corrupt and dangerous to the public.
Tomcat, thank you for a considered and thoughtful post. I suggest you mail it direct to Prof Lew.
> [U]nless you are a blinkered state-worshipper like himself, and naively imagine that government-funded climate “science” attempts to be objective rather be biased towards promoting the state’s interests (with climate scare tactics calculated to justify a more totalitarian society), then you are very likely to see government climate “science” for the tainted product it actually is (hiding inconvenient data, and all the other climategate shananigans).
Indeed, we should turn scientific endeavours to free-market engines like HSBC:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211
All science is molded by its funder. But government science is potentially much more corrupt and self-interested, because (a) government is vastly bigger and richer than everyone else put together, and (b) its funds are coerced out of taxpayers rather than enticed from willing investors.
Also, there need be no single “free market” science, like there is one single government science, and the public can evaluate between competing ones.
Lew, Lew, skip to my Lew…
Who is ‘your Lew’ ? Some dreamer who thinks anyone with “scientist” in their title is objective and must be believed. And that the funder’s decisions on which science and scientists get funding, has no bearing on the outcome, which is is never skewed to the funder’s interests ?
> Who is ‘your Lew’?
Start here:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html
Nice demonstration of the “extreme man” straw man fallacy. First you make an unsupportable assertion colored by your own ideological bias:
“All science is molded by its funder.”
Then suddenly you are demanding that others prove a negative, to wit:
“And that the funder’s decisions on which science and scientists get funding, has no bearing on the outcome, which is is never skewed to the funder’s interests ?”
If it’s not “never,” then the answer is clearly “always”! Funny.
I saw this comment of realclimate.org:
The converse of this is the way science is done. It moves forward via substantiating evidence. If the evidence starts to move the analysis in a different direction, that is the way it will go, regardless of the funding source. If nothing else, someone other than the original investigator will pick up on it.
The statement “All science is molded by its funder.” is shown false every time a scientist finds something interesting that was not in his original problem scope,
Heh, Marcott may have found that by re-dating his negative hockey stick series that he could produce a hockey stick. This is something he has found since his original working of the data. Wonderful, wonderful molding.
Mouldering.
=====
Onward climate molders, marching onto war…
damn the threading
‘Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views. “You can question some of the details of John’s calculations, but it’s hard to argue that the essential ideas aren’t absolutely correct,” says Doug Altman, an Oxford University researcher who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
Realism as opposed to romantic notions of how science works.
“Realism as opposed to romantic notions of how science works.”
The romantic reality is that despite many individual works of science and scientists being in error, science has nevertheless succeeded in moving forward and becoming progressively less wrong.
The intractable reality of the physical world, which our science communicates, is precisely what offends the right-wing fanatics who embrace science denial.
If not for what psychologist Clive Hazell calls “the narcissism of small differences… to achieve a superficial sense of one’s own uniqueness, an ersatz sense of otherness which is only a mask for an underlying uniformity and sameness,” a Climatist would simply be a weatherman.
They of course made their play for starker differences but nature refused to cooperate. And, they could never make their case with real data. We now know that a Climatist is just a dishonest weatherman with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a flair for histrionics.
> The romantic reality is that despite many individual works of science and scientists being in error, science has nevertheless succeeded in moving forward and becoming progressively less wrong.
In other words:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3487519357
Willard
Agree.
But that is bad news for IPCC.
Max
Brace yourselves. Science moves forward.
http://memegenerator.net/instance/36246956
There seems to be a lot of deliberate misidentifying here of skeptics – ie those with an open mind – as deniers. Done by those precommitted to alarmism, who want to create the false impression that their only opponents are those whose beliefs are as firm, unfounded and emotional as their own.
Fan of more BS being a good example.
Petra, it’s backfiring. They will recruit many new skeptics, just like climategate, cooling and bad AGW ‘science’.
I just wish you were right Edim. But government climate ‘science’ is not going to be deflected from its main responsibility of advancing government’s interests – that’s what it’s paid to do after all. If the current incumbents stop doing this, they will be just replaced with others more compliant and in agreement with CAGW.
Mere physical facts have no chance against the might of political correctness.
And of course the skepticism that both alarmists (IPCC) and deniers (various) reject, is at the very heart of science. The climate skeptics are the only ones with any claims of science.
Yes, there is the entrenched Consensus (funded to the tune of hundreds of $billions), the entrenched Deniers ($tens of millions?), and the skeptics, the only ones who hold with science uppermost.
Petra,
Thanks for the good sense comment. It is possible to acknowledge some warming but be concerned with the unknown variables caused by cloud changes from the warming and various negative feed backs that may balence small temp increases. That CAGW vs AGW is the crux of the arguments. Seventeen years of stable temperatures from an increase from in 1998 may mean more efforts on models are needed to be able to identify impacts. Models that don’t reflect reality may be useful but need to be improved. Also needed are lots of science data from the deep oceans.
Scott
@Scott
Also needed are lots of science data from the deep oceans.
—
Yes. And how about the balance of radiation at toa ? I was flabbergasted to learn that this is not known to any useful accuracy. If it was, we could straightaway plot it against CO2 concentration and dis/prove (C)AGW in a trice.
Why p*** billions of dollars annually away on flaky models when these empirical basics haven’t been done yet ?
Petra
I may be wrong, Petra, but I believe the answer to your question is very simple.
(Flaky) climate models can be manipulated to arrive at the desired answer (GIGO).
Empirical data cannot.
For this reason, CAGW proponents have shied away from empirical data like the plague – the fear is that these data may not give them the answers they want and need to keep the fear factor alive.
A shining example is the latest brouhaha about 2xCO2 ECS.
For decades we have been stuck with the same old estimate based on model predictions, with the only real discussion centering around “how fat the tail” is. The consensus on the mean value was essentially cast in concrete.
Now we suddenly have several estimates that are at least partially observation-based, rather than simply based on model predictions. These suggest a 2xCO2 ECS, which is half as high as the old estimate.
Yet it is highly unlikely IMO that IPCC will revised its old model-based estimates with these new observation-based results.
Empirical evidence is an anathema to the consensus crowd because they lose control of the narrative.
So “billions of dollars” will continue to be “p***ed away annually on flaky models” instead.
Max
Robert is back with his usual loon-Left rants
Robert, try and learn this:
The self’claimed “Progressives’ are retarding progress. They are the Ret..ds
Odd that I quote science reflecting on science merely to be called a right ring science denialist. I am sure climate science progresses – but mostly it just goes around in circles. Hockey stick – again? There has been one breakthrough idea in 150 years and it has difficulty gaining traction – especially with the loony left.
In the olden days I knew ALOT of people who were into naturopathy, homeopathy and such. ALL were left-wing, progressive “science deniers”. Pretty much why i am now in the middle.
Pretty much why i am now in the middle.
That makes sense if being lied to by government scientists is relatively unimportant, one way or the other… but, how could that ever be the case? It isn’t like your parents pretending that Santa Claus might bring you a bike if you’re good. Or, is it?
Wagathon –
Whose lies are to be preferred – Right, Left or Middle? I say Middle. Easier that way to stay within earshot of polarized truth.
[within earshot of polarized truth]–e.g., relatively unimportant no matter whose right. Sometimes I am sure that must be true–i.e., close is good enough in horeshoes and hand grenades.
H&HG&Bellybuttons.
============
My comment was meant for:
Robert | March 15, 2013 at 7:26 pm
With the Stick of Michael, going on before…
It really does not get much better than this — the socialists are selling capitalism short and investing heaviiy in a bureaucracy dedicated to destroying the private energy industry… in the middle of a shale gas boom.
Web
Evidence 1.
The sun is the cause of global warming:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/to:1965/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:1052/normalise
Evidence 2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/to:1983/normalise
The NATURAL global warming increases the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere because solubility of CO2 in the oceans decrease with increase in global mean temperature.
In the perversion of logic, those who believe global warming is caused by the SUN are called deniers.
The truth will finally prevail.
ABSTRACT
According to our reconstruction, high temperatures-similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990-occurred around ad 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around ad 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/16010218/highly-variable-northern-hemisphere-temperatures-reconstructed-from-low-high-resolution-proxy-data
Like…OMG! It’s much worse than we ever could have immmaaaginnned.
Book me on the next flight to Bali so we can figure it all out. There I shall wear my trousers rolled all the way up to my arse.
Oh ‘Lew’, is just the fatuous fraud Lewandowsky.
vdg, very desperate guy.
======
Tomcat, thank you for posting a crystal-clear example of denialist motivism, bad science, anti-intellectualism, and a tendency toward conspiracy theories.
But heck … doesn’t independent citizen-science verification of the reality of AGW pretty much demolish the climate-change denialist worldview?
The plain fact is … hundreds of millions of of nature-loving ordinary citizens — around the world! — now are seeing with their own eyes that climate-change is real.
The world wonders … for how much longer can climate-change denialism even continue to exist, Tomcat?
Thank you for more empty-headed alarmist truebeliever mysticism Fan. A welcome counterbalance to the growing realization by millions that the bulk of climate “science” is badly flawed, to put it politely. Keep taking the kool-aid and pooping silly smileys, we may or may not talk for some time.
HSBC – too corrupt to fail?
‘..there will be time
And time yet for a hundred indecisions
And for a hundred visions and revisions
Before the taking of a toast and tea.’
with reference ter Marcott’s thesis and
apologies ter Prufrock.
Agreed, Beth. And yet Michael Mann and co. not only dare to eat peaches, they don’t mind getting the juices dripping down their faces and onto their clothes.
As for M. M, “They will say, ‘How his hair is growing thin.”
Climate Change Tomfoolery…
…an Ersatz Science that Trivializes Academia:
A politician saw a Climatist about global warming and asked with great seriousness, “How much has the climate changed over the last 15 years?”
Not wanting to appear mediocre in his craft the Climatist’s answered with the utmost precision: “We have been taking temperature readings everyday at a great many places around the globe — twice a day in fact — and I can tell you that over the last 15 years the globe warmed exactly 0.07 °C.”
The cornerstone of deceptive science – that would lead Allied democratic nations into slavery – was quietly laid in 1946:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2204
From a link you posted here: http://forum.keshefoundation.org/showthread.php?30-Theory-on-how-the-sun-works/page1
I can’t see it. It looks to me like a heavy liquid, moving slowly under gravity much like our ocean with convection currents (which can take hundreds of years to move any distance), but made of more ‘sticky’ fluid, which could be something like molten iron if it is iron. Could it be condensed plasma?
Like Rapunzels’, pokerguy ? )
More like like M.M. in drag dear beth.
“How his arms and (stockinged) legs are thin”
“And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin, When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out the butt-end of my hockey stick?”
So lolwot uses Mann – possibly the most egregious science fraudster that has ever lived – as a reference for the mwp being cooler than now (it was of course his ‘clever’ statistical methods that answered the alarmist clarion call of “We need to get rid of the MWP”).
So how come Mann’s reconstruction lines up well with other reconstructions, including the 2010 paper by Ljungvist mentioned in this blog post?
You need to drop your obsession with Mann. When several people find the same result you can’t claim the other two are right but Mann is wrong.
lolwot,
Mann’s reconstruction is pretty much deconstructed by the Steve McIntre and then Lindzen testimony. The new report by Dr David Whitehouse re the global warming standstill show the divergence between models and reality. Mann used complex statistics to go back a long time that must be more uncertain than he stated in his data. Then he splices completely different temperature derived profiles and complex statistics to overwhelm MWP and Roman Warm periods. Lots of controversy on these temps but there has to be room for the traditional back and forth of science. The consensus is what has been wrong. Mann provide interesting results but checking is vital.
Scott
Did Scott really just say “Mann used complex statistics”? As if. Mann’s statistical skills are far too poor for anything like that. The only complexities there have ever been in Mann’s methods stem from strange, if not outright illogical or wrong decisions. The statistics themselves are quite mundane.
@lolwot
So how come Mann’s reconstruction lines up well with other reconstructions, including the 2010 paper by Ljungvist mentioned in this blog post?
As explained above, Ljungvist cleverly got rid of the MWP by using a pass frequency too long to see the MWP. Mann used a different deception, best explained by McIntyre, and even the IPCC dropped his HSt from its former place of prominence. That two obviously flawed methods yield the same result, proves nothing.
You need to stop your obsessive defense of Mann, who everyone knows is just a crook. It’s precisely the dogged refusal to distance yourselves from the Climategaters and other blatant fraudsters, that disinclines rational observers from taking the consensus position at face value, since it then seems that the consensus is too rooted in fraud, to let frauds within it be be eliminated or even identified.
Oh so nice a paraphrase of Eliot, dear pokergug lol’
Oops,’pokerguy’ Apologies …it’s late and i hafta’ sleep!
That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.
Sounds like foi2009 is saying George Bush is not responsible for the break-in…
Mr.FOIA obviously cares about ‘the less fortunate’.
He says USA politics is alien to him–hell: Phil Jones probably will be UK’s PM before its all over…
he says a lot. perhaps too much for his own good.
He’s left-wing too (cares about the less fortunate).
Yes, yes I can almost see Hippasus waving goodbye to his PythAGWagorean comrades with the one finger salute…
“There is no √2.” (Quote from The M&Matrix)
The Password: HARRY_READ_ME
Well-understood and courageously accepted, wagathon and mosomoso!
Wagathon and mosomoso, it’s good to see that your skeptical conclusions here on Climate Etc are finally aligning with scientific conclusions:
The public is weary of willful ignorance and abusive denialist demagoguery … wagathon and mosomoso, your new-found scientific and intellectual maturity is very welcome here on Climate Etc!
Does someone afraid to even use their own name in a blog somehow think they represent the public?
How does Fan think the 3 billion people in the world currently without electricity are going to get their electricity generated over the next 20+ years? Do you BELIEVE that the independent countries are going to implement more expensive forms of electricity generation?
My father grew up poor on a 90-acre farm with no electricity, no plumbing, and nothun’ but mules and the human backbone to get the work done. He ended up in a Victorian mansion with a 23-acre forest around it and all the modern conveniences.
He referred to his farm days as the happiest days of his life.
JCH- What is your point? You seem to be arguing that the 3 billion currently without electricity should be told that they will be happier if they never get it. Somehow, I doubt that message would be well received in the nations in question
Wagathon
Es schneit!
Es ist saukalt!
(Mus’ be dat global warmin’, man…)
Max
dat global varmin’ es quatsch!
Ja, es schneit here auch. Brrr…
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-the-return-of-winter-fotostrecke-94245.html
It’s not up to me to pay for their electricity; it’s up to them. Meanwhile, their circumstance is not necessarily unhappy, though that is also up to them. The answer is socialism. Lucky for me, there are a whole bunch of morons who are against it.
The greatest generation produced a generation of hypocritical and self-defeating nattering nabobs.
Rud Istvan: Marcott neglected to tell NPR his methodology did not recognize ‘fast’ century changes at all–until recent thermometer records were spliced onto the 73 paleosites.
How do you know that?
The principle problem with the recent rise is that it is based on a small sample of the proxy time series.
“The decline has accelerated since satellites began detailed observations.”
Stop the sats! And now they’re icing up the other pole! I knew this would happen when we let the Commies send up that Sputnik thing.
Thank you, mosomoso, for yet another post that plainly shows Climate Etc readers a crucial ingredient in denialist demagoguery: willful ignorance of science sustained by ideology-guided cherry-picking.
Your recent Climate Etc posts — and Wagathon’s too! — have been exemplary of denialist cognition. Thank you, mosomoso!
You’re most welcome. Thank you for the coloured graphics and bonus asterisks. They do cheer up the place, amid all that drab cognition and ideation and d-d-d-denialist demagoguery.
I’m learning that the great climatic events and trends of the past are all “cherry-picked”. Is that a reference to Japan’s age old spring flowering records?
It’s a while since I checked out the Tammie who isn’t Debbie Reynolds or Sandra Dee for an update on the “death spiral”. No-one does bedwetting and Kardashian science like old Tam.
And so how’s that dishonestly attaching idiotic high resolution temps to a paleo study for ideology’s sake working out for what’s guiding the alarmists working out?
Suyts, Fan is a true troll. He does not respond to the questions asked, and will not defend his links or statements. He just continues posting petty ad hominems.
Was that a rhetorical question?
That’s an odd contrast … NASA’s climate-change scientists are deeply desirous of obtaining the greatest possible quantity, and the greatest feasible quality, of the broadest coverage feasible, of climate-change data.
And then climate scientists love to plot all that data together.
The aggregate scientific result sure look like a “Hockey Stick”, eh suyts?
Conclusion Nature is speaks plainly: AGW is real, serious, and accelerating
It’s mighty good that scientists are listening, eh suyts?
LOL! If those pinheads knew anything about math, or if you knew anything about math, then you’d know what they’re doing is improper. They are plotting two very different things and putting them together. In 5th grade we learned about like sets.
You, uhmm, graduate from NYC by any chance?
Based on the EU’s current CO2 emissions rates —i.e., the estimated market cost of damage due to global warming —is about $5 per ton of CO2. Please make a note of it.
Wagathon
The average CO2 emission is ~1,000 tons CO2 per GWh generated.
So the cost of 1 GWh = $5,000
And the cost per kWh to consumers of a “teeny” $5 per ton carbon tax would be:
5000 / 1,000,000 = $0.005 per kWh
Sounds like no big deal.
But IPCC estimates the “cost of carbon” at a mean value of $43 per ton of carbon – or $159 per ton of CO2, with a stated ranged of $10 to $350 per ton of carbon = $37 to $1,280 per ton of CO2
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch20s20-es.html
At $159 per ton of CO2 the cost to the consumer would be:
159,000 / 1,000,000 = $0.159 per kWh
But once the government has its hands in your pocket, you are in trouble.
And, folks, once the “teeny” tax is imposed, it will be ratcheted up. At it’s highest estimated level, it would be:
1,280.000 / 1,000,000 = $1.28 per kWh.
According to USEIA data, the “average American” uses 11,040 kWh of electrical power per year
http://www.everblue.edu/blog/average-americans-annual-energy-consumption
So the cost of the “teeny” EU starter tax would only amount to around $55 per year – no big deal.
But, using the IPCC estimates, the tax would cost the average American:
$1,755 (average) to $14,130 (maximum) per year.
And that does not include:
1. The direct cost of gasoline
2. The direct cost of natural gas
3. Indirect costs for everything that has an energy component (what doesn’t?)
1. Again, according to EIA, the average American uses 4,759 cubic feet of natural gas; this generates 117 lbs CO2 (50 kg) per 1000 cu. Ft. or ~240 kg CO2 annually
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm
2. Plus 441 gallons of gasoline, which generates another 19/6 lbs CO2 (8.9 kg) per gallon or another 3,925 kg CO2 annually
So these two would add another $660 to $5,330 per year at the average or top IPCC tax rate, bringing the subtotal to $2,415 to $19,460 per year
3. Adding in another (low-ball) “guess-timate” of 30% for the energy component of all purchased goods and services puts the annual carbon tax cost for every man, woman and child to $3,140 to $25,300 per year
Ouch!
Moral of the story: Don’t let these guys get their hands in your pocketbook!
Max
Did you miss the news? Mayor Bloomberg announced people in New York City could no longer have electricity delivered to their home in kilowatts. They can only purchase it by the hectowatt now. ;-)
Note that the report also misses other “sudden” warmings and coolings — the annual cycle and the diurnal. Probably others not seen in the records, from volcanoes, asteroids etc.
I still feel compelled to say …
For the period 1960-2012, CO2 goes from 316-385 ppm and HADCRUT3 global from ~287.7-288.4K.
So while CO2 increases 21%, temperature increases 0.24%. What part of the 0.24% is due to man-converted CO2?
jim2, you write “What part of the 0.24% is due to man-converted CO2?”
No-one has the slightest idea.
I have – ZERO. Or maybe less.
Jim Cripwell
My estimate: not a whole helluva lot.
(You can quote me.)
Max
Max and Edim, I dont disagree with either of you. My guess, based on the limited empirical data we have, is that it is around 0%. But if I was pressed, I could not justify that guess.
Willard, Willard, You are determined to make this about me, aren’t you? If you look at the Annan thread you will see that when pressed he says 2.5C. your 3.0 is an older statement.
Lower sensitivity is meaningful in that it means the average warming won’t be as large. However, what really matters is regional changes and Armour says those won’t be nearly as bad as a uniform warming. Is that clear now?
Webby, Where to begin with your trite and superficial post? Why don’t you comment on the substance rather than doing your usual obtuse failure to see the point? You are so intent on showing poeple to be “clowns” that you have lost sight of the substance. I would advise you to grow up, go outside every once in a while, and stop obsessing about the purity of your prescious bodily fluids.
David Young,
Here’s the full quote:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.ca/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html
I’ve even included the timestamp, now.
Please tell me what you mean by “older statement”.
Please tell me what you understand by the last sentence, emphasized.
***
Saying that:
> Lower sensitivity is meaningful in that it means the average warming won’t be as large.
does not tell why this number is not important when so much time is spent on it. My own hypothesis is that it’s a proxy for debates.
Higher sensitivity would also be meaningful, by the way.
FOO Young said:
What post? These are comments, they aren’t posts.
OK, if you are talking about posts, why haven’t you responded to my actual post? I worked it out here:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html
This is the kind of math that is revealing in its simplicity. If we think a pair of stable temperature points exist, why not try to see if we can pin it down using a few of the first-order effects that climate scientists use?
From the research, it appears that about 2.2C of the sensitivity is solid, and the ~0.8 C added to reach 3C holds all the other unknowns such as positive feedback albedo and the other GHGs. They don’t always track the CO2 rise, but GHG’s such as CH4 and N2O do rise with industrial output so they need to be included somehow. That gives you the uncertainty.
I am not here proposing any kind of crank theory, just to place the peer-reviewed understanding under a different perspective. Perhaps someone could expand on it and take it in a different direction.
Something close to 100%
lolwot
Even the IPCC doomsayers only say that “most” of the 0.7C warming over this period was “very likely” caused by “ALL human GHG emissions”.
So the part attributable to CO2 is slightly less.
IPCC’s AR4 SPM p.4 estimate for the CO2 share of all GHG forcing in the past is around 55% (1.66 W/m^2 out of 3.01 W/m^2), but let’s say it was as high as 75% since 1960. So if IPCC’s “most” means 90% that’s 0.9*75% = 68% and if “most” means two-thirds that’s 0.67*75% = 50%, so that might translate to somewhere between 50% and 68% due to CO2 – but NOT 100%, as you stated.
But what would this tell us about 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity?
At 50% attributed to CO2 the 2xCO2 transient climate response
= ln(2) * 0.5 * 0.7 / ln(392/316) = 1.1C
And at 68% it is 1.5C
IPCC AR4 SPM p.13 tells us that there are 0.6C still “in the pipeline” that will come out of hiding even if we stop all CO2 emissions. But that was based on the old model-predicted 2xCO2 ECS estimate of 3.2C, and it is apparent from the above figures that this is too high by a factor of around 2:1.
So let’s add 0.3C “in the pipeline” to the above figures to go from 2xCO2 TCR to 2xCO2 ECS.
We then arrive at a 2xCO2ECS of 1.4C to 1.8C – or the same as the latest model-based estimates (see other thread).
Looks like it’s all falling into place, lolwot. Right?
Max
no I am sticking with 100%. The mainstream are underestimating the contribution by man. Remember we can’t believe the IPCC can we?
A sensitive matter:
> Yeah, I should probably have had a tl;dr version, which is that sensitivity is still about 3C.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.ca/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html
Willard
Your “A sensitive matter” blog by James acknowledges that a high 2xCO2 ECS over 4C is “increasingly difficult to reconcile” (bye-bye, fat tail) but apparently does consider the latest estimates on ECS so “sensitive” that they do not even mention them (except Lewis and the Norwegian study).
The “sensitivity kerfuffle” (as James puts is) is still wide open (i.e. the “science is NOT settled”), but several recent estimates in addition to the two cited put the 2xCO2 ECS at around half of the model-predicted mean estimate of 3.2C cited by IPCC in AR4.
There is “sensitivity about sensitivity” and a question whether or not IPCC will acknowledge these new data in its forthcoming AR5 report.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/#more-11057
But, as our hostess wrote: “they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/#more-10669
Interesting times – but it looks like your mean estimate of around 3C with the big fat tail is a thing of the past.
Max
No, willard, you need to read the post more carefully. Annan’s latest paper on LGM actually has sensitivity of 1.7C which is a finite difference over the difference between two very different climate states and so should include a lot of nonlinear feedback effects. Annan says sensitivity to CO2 will be greater because of nonlinear effects but did not say what they were. I believe Annan resisted giving a specific number and then said 2.5. But its clear he regards it as uncertain. Nic Lewis also showed up and Annan did not contradict his reworked estimate.
Generally, I got the feeling Annan was playing it close to the vest because he knows there is a lot of uncertainty. Certainly, his LGM paper is a lot lower than other LGM estimates especially Hansen’s.
The generally accepted view of 3° C per CO2 doubling is that it is caused by equal parts CO2, water vapor, and other GHGs and albedo changes.
To review:
~ 1° C for straight CO2 doubling
~ 1° C for positive feedback increase of H20 vapor
~ 1° C for CH4, N20, O4 and any likely positive feedback increase due to albedo changes
Add these up and we get ~ 3° C for a feedback-induced doubling of CO2.
So the interpretation is wide open if someone wants to quote a 1° C doubling for CO2 alone.
But to keep it simple for the laypeople, the H20 and other GHGs are pulled along by the CO2 since it acts as the control knob to changes (to use Lacis’s short-hand term).
The 33° C heating in our present environment is due largely to CO2 and H20, since the albedo is already accounted for in the Earth’s average emissivity. I worked this out recently, using cited literature and testing out a simple H2O feedback model here:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html
David Young,
Not only have I read the post, but I also read your most insightful contribution in the comment thread:
[David Young] James, I noticed in your discussion paper at Climate of the Past, you estimate sensitivity for the LGM as 1.7C with a range of 1.2-2.4C.
[Thingsbreak] That’s not an apples-to-apples comparison with 2xCO2 ECS estimates. See: http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/a-new-lgm-reconstruction-with-implications-for-climate-sensitivity/
[David Young] Perhaps this is coincidence, but Nic Lewis’ estimate based on modern observations is very close to James’ estimate based on the LGM.
A chorus of crickets, then:
[David Young] I agree with Nic Lewis about GCM’s.
[Chorus] …
[David Young] James, Is it possible to reconstruct with any accuracy LGM global temperatures without the use of models? Is the proxy data geographically distributed over the whole planet?
[Chorus] …
[David Young] Karsten (or whoever you are), Many peer reviewed publications have turned out to be completely wrong. You may disagree with Nic, but don’t expect the argument from the perfection of the literature to work for me. Statistics is not a strong suit of climate scientists so far as I can see [&c]
[Karsten] No worries, I am fully aware of what the papers are saying. If you prefer to listen to stats experts rather than climate experts, you are welcomed to do so. There are however some statisticians, who would object to Nics analysis as well. Not sure you would trust them then …
[David Young] Karsten, I still find it hard to take you seriously. I can read the literature too and I find that generally the data is noisy and the models questionable. I have 32 years experience in solving the Navier-Stokes equations and I also respect Gerry Browning who actually rigorously proves his assertions. What is interesting about auditors such as Nic, Browning, and McIntyre is that they show a willingness to discuss and defend in detail their conclusions and an honesty that is refreshing. And they are willing to use their real names. What’s the deal with people who expect to be taken seriously and hide behind the cloak of anonymity. Doesn’t inspire confidence.
[SteveF] It’s a minor issue, since I’m all in favour of internet anonymity if people want that. However, Karsten isn’t anonymous. Just click on his profile. You can then look him up: http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/staff/khaustein.html
The conversation follows on, then:
[David Young] Yea, Karsten, what this says to me is that the SH temp trends are likely to be more reflective of the true GHG sensitivity.
The conversation follows on, then:
[David Young] Eli, the distintion between “physics” and observation is so false. […] Another point. If you ever fly, you should thank the FAA that observation is still the gold standard for certification
[Carrick] I think Eli’s point is that you don’t just have observations in the absence of a credible physical model, and it’s one I agree with.
The conversation follows on, then:
[David Young] Just a slight quibble. […]
[Eli] Cripes, agreeing with James and Carrick, that’s one for the books. However, David Young is simply wrong on wind tunnels. The large subsonic ones have pretty much vanished and been replaced by modeling. Last time Eli looked some of the hypersonic ones were on shaky legs. Simply too expensive.
[David Young] Bull!! I have first hand experience and know.
[James] According to Boeing, the 787 design used 800,000h of supercomputer modelling and 15,000h of wind tunnel tests.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html
I think that makes David Young 2% correct :-)
[David Young] …
[Eli] No snark zone: Eli agrees that David is absolutely correct that the wind tunnels were vital in developing the computation models.
The conversation follows on, then:
[David Young] James, I have a question about your paleo discussion paper. You way that the linear sensitivity is 1.7K based on delta T / delta forcing. My question is why you then say nonlinearity means that the response to CO2 must be greater. The difference between LGM and today is very large and so it should encompass the nonlinearities associated with albedo feedbacks and significant CO2 feedback. Is the response of albedo today going to be significantly different?
[James] David, the main issue is that the negative forcings for the LGM include a large albedo effect from the ice sheets, and this does not add linearly with the effect of lower CO2. However, models disagree as to how much non-linearity there is here. So the direct energy balance argument can’t give a precise estimate for 2xCO2, even if we knew the exact forcing and temperature change at the LGM.
The conversation follows on a bit, please notice the pink unicorn and the cure for cancer, then:
[James] Well blogger has now decided that this conversation should be drawing to a close. I don’t disagree with their judgement :-)
[Blogger] That is all, folks!
Webster, You figure the climate sensitivity for a doubling of H2O is 10.5C.
With a current average surface temperature of 289.4K (~398 Wm-2) and a current estimated latent flux of 88 Wm-2, surface cooling due to latent would be ~17.5C.which would make the Effective Radiant Surface for H2O approximately 310 Wm-2 or 272K degrees. The 33C discrepancy was a very good title BTW.
If you have a moist air ERS of 310 Wm-2 and non-condensible WMGHG ERS of ~190Wm-2 (240K) you have a bit of a gap in the ideal isothermal shells needed for radiative symmetry, since that moist air “shell” would only cover about 77% of the actual surface and have rather large annual fluctuations.
Willard, I really appreciate you reposting my comments ( carefully selected by you to make it seem as if they were contradicted by Annan and others). But, you are leaving out the most important parts.
1. It is true that testing in still required for certification of aircraft because modeling is still rather unreliable. Eli’s point about wind tunnels is just wrong. NASA is shutting down theirs because they cost too much and they are losing out to cheaper facilities in Europe and elsewhere. We are publishing a paper on this that will appear later this year. You left out my responses on the thread making this clear to Eli and James. They did not argue with these responses. Models are unreliable and testing is the basis of the models in the first place.
2. On aerosols, I think the conversation was inconclusive with KarSteN, really a post doc in England, and Nic Lewis disagreeing on interpretations. KarSteN’s attempts to claim that aerosols were a big forcing were clearly strained and contradicted by the data he referenced. My one suggestion about using Southern Hemisphere responses in sensitivity studies was seconded by Annan.
3. You didn’t quote anything about sensitivity. Clearly Annan thinks the IPCC is way off base and that lower estimates are gaining credibility even though he thinks Nic Lewis’ is probably too low.
4. Annan did not contradict my interpretation of his latest LGM paper and its finite difference sensitivity of 1.7K, he merely said that nonlinearities might make that too low, but that models disagreed about what the size of the nonlinear effect. That is not a reason in my view to reject it.
5. My points about models and their large uncertainties were not disagreed with in substance despite some sniping.
6. Carrick’s comment about nonlinear systems was also interesting and is very important in my view.
As I say, you should try to understand the substance of the issues discussed there and not focus on minor points that are irrelevant in the big scheme of things. Quoting out of context is a specialty I notice of a lot of the more shallow posters here at Climate Etc, especially the infamous Webby and Blah Blah Duh. It does nothing to enlighten and merely serves to make you look foolish.
As for Webby, he is still using outdated numbers, that clearly Annan feels are too high. The whole point of Annan’s post is that the IPCC is clearly wrong for a number of reasons on sensitivity and that they are too high. Uniform priors are just one of them that even you Webby should be able to undersrtand. There is a definitive discussion of this at Real Climate by Nic Lewis and Jewson that was not contradicted because its pretty obvious to experts in statistics. How about that, Webby?
I am actually beginning to see a lot of evidence for 1-2C for sensitivity. Its still very uncertain mind you, but the IPCC is hopelessly out to lunch.
Apparently, Webby also didn’t take to heart the Armour paper that is the subject of a recent post here. Their point is that a single number for sensitivity is rather meaningless. The distribution of the temperature change is critical. Armour indicates that its relatively small for the tropical oceans and larger in high latitude northern land masses. This is not nearly as much of a problem as a uniform change across the globe and will actually improve productivity of most land areas.
David Young,
Thank you for your kind words.
1. Your rant against models was silly. Get over it. The Earth is a bit bigger than an airplane anyway.
2. Your ad hominem against KarSteN was duly noted, and to me more relevant than James’ approval, but hey, anything that lift you up in the morning.
3. I did not quote anything on sensitivity because you’re not Paul S.
4. You are free to your own interpretations, which are serendipitously in line with Nic Lewis’.
5. Your points about models are the usual talking points.
6. I acknowledge your opinion of Carrick’s comment.
7. Asserting without proof the usual “I am being misquoted” does not to amount much. Go ahead, make my day.
8. Your generalization of 7 is very interesting. Please continue.
9. If you were here to enlighten, you would not acted the way you did at James’, and now here.
The point of the Armour paper was that sensitivities estimated from too short records are likely underestimated, and they show why (as stated clearly at the end of the Abstract). That was the take-away message.
> Their point is that a single number for sensitivity is rather meaningless.
Indeed, but that does not prevent David Young to push his peanut, for instance:
> Clearly Annan thinks the IPCC is way off base and that lower estimates are gaining credibility even though he thinks Nic Lewis’ is probably too low.
As if this mattered in the grand scheme of things.
Willard,
The earth is a lot bigger than an airplane and that is why the earth system models are much more problematic than even computational fluid dynamics. Gerry Browning is rigorous and actually proves things, a habit you will find instructive.
I appreciate your point by point non rebuttal. Substance would help you in making your case. Aside from attacking me, I’m not sure what that point is. This is not about me and I don’t care if you find me an object of derision. Its about science and so I would ask for your science justification for the IPCC sensitivity estimates which Annan claims are grossly inflated and I saw noone on the thread you quoted who claimed otherwise.
I’ve not seen any convincing rebuttals of Nic Lewis and Jewson either, even at Real Climate. I am suspicious that their silence is an indication that they realize that Annan and Lewis and Jewson have a valid point.
JimD, That is the take away message and I don’ disagree with it. I do think their paper might be circular for reasons explained earlier on that thread. Regional feedbacks are critical. Another message of their paper is that regional distributions are quite important and we all know climate models have little skill in that area. A temperature change that is bigger for Northern lattitude land and a lot lower in the tropics is not nearly the problem for humanity or ecosystems as a uniform increase of say 3C.
Even Armour state that the nonlinearity in the feedbacks is a lot different in different models. Beware of results that rely on these models for their conclusions
David Yojng,
You challenged me to show that I read the post. I obliged, even if that’s irrelevant to James’ own summary of his position.
Now you’re stuck arguing that James should have said 2,5 instead of 3 and at the same time to maintain that this number is irrelevant anyway. Good luck with that.
Meeting your challenge, I took the liberty to show your best moments in the comment thread. Readers will judge for themselves if your speech patterns over there justify your present arm flexing. As far as I am concerned, your “I only want good science” is contradicted by your overall posturing.
I believe that I met your challenge. If you want more, you’ll have to wait for a day. I just heard the Dalai Lama saying that the best meditation was.
Which one is it?
Sleep.
Willard, Did you even read the Annan thread? He does not say its 3C. That was from a post several years ago. The main point of the thread was that the IPCC was hopelessly wrong about it and was too high.
So, basically you have nothing of substance. Good luck with that.
A single number is largely irrelevant. It’s a complex system and the response is best characterized by regional changes. What is your point, Willard?
David Young, certainly the polar region is changing fast with implications for sea level, while land regions warming fast has implications for aridity setting in over larger areas. These are the kinds of thing that should raise concerns in some regions. It is a long-term planning issue, and I expect people to wait for more floods or droughts before they see that a trend has developed and start to at least think about doing something.
From reading what FOO Young has said, it appears that he doesn’t even know what a flat prior is.
Then there is this:
What does a “problem for humanity” have to do with the technical analysis of climate sensitivity? If that is the case, we probably shouldn’t even be including the ocean in the global temperature averaging, since no one actually lives directly on the ocean. Then we might as well be using the BEST data for evaluating climate sensitivity. And that is at 3C climate sensitivity right now, not 1.5 C.
http://imageshack.us/a/img96/6980/climatesensitivity.gif
Yeah, I should probably have had a tl;dr version, which is that sensitivity is still about 3C.
The discerning reader will already have noted that my previous posts on the matter actually point to a value more likely on the low side of this rather than higher, and were I pressed for a more precise value, 2.5 might have been a better choice even then. But I’d rather be a little conservative than risk being too Pollyanna-ish about it. – Annan – from Annan’s recent sensitivity thread
I do not know what he meant by “a tl;dr version “. Any help there?
nm;ifi:
“Too long; didn’t read”
WebHubTelescope | March 12, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
The 33° C heating in our present environment is due largely to CO2 and H20,
Scam, scam, scam, scam – the 33°C is due largely to the huge heavy volume of practically 100% fluid gas ocean of nitrogen and oxygen above us, weighing down on us a stone per square inch. That’s heavy. That’s heavy because real gases have weight under gravity.
Without this huge massive heavy voluminous real gas ocean of nitrogen and oxygen the Earth would be -18°C, with this oxygen and nitrogen ocean without the ‘greeniehouse gases of mainly water and carbon dioxide’ – the Earth would be 67°C.
Get that through your heads. That’s the real thermal blanket/greenhouse around the Earth, the thick heavy weight blanket of nitrogen and oxygen.
Add water, and the temps come down to 15°C.
How can so many intelligent people not realise that the Water Cycle has been taken out of the science fraud AGW Greenhouse Effect’s energy budget?
Without the greeniehouse gases the temp would be 67°C. not -18°C.
This lie that -18°C is the Earth without greeniehouse gases of water and carbon dioxide is science fraud trickery, sleight of hand con and impressed by repetitive brainwashing through the education system where it was introduced to fool the general public for the big money grab and social control agendas.
Yes, deliberately introduced science fraud. There is no AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect – it’s an ILLUSION.
David Young,
First, please acknowledge that your claim:
> He [James] does not say its 3C.
disregards by my first quote in this sub-thread, where we seen James saying “about 3”, and JCH’s quote of James’ rationale behing that “about 3”.
Second, please do appreciate that if we assume that:
> A single number is largely irrelevant.
the relevance of this first point is quite academic
Third, please recognize that your insistence on a point that is at best academic can be the sign a rhetorical device.
Something like a symbol, an icon:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/YesButAnIcon
Fourth, please consider that the use of rhetorical devices goes against the very idea of presenting oneself as a guy who comes here for science’s sake only.
In sum, please acknowledge that you are wrong about an irrelevant point used as a rhetorical device, which goes against your “I am a scientist” plea.
I hope you can see that my work under my name is my honor.
Better luck next time,
w
Webby
You write:
In case you missed it, the exchange here has been on the 2xCO2 ECS including all feedbacks.
In AR4 the IPCC models had predicted a mean value of 3,2C.
More recent observation-based studies show that this is likely to be exaggerated by around 2:1, and that the 2xCO2 ECS including all feedbacks is very likely to be around 1.6C.
Max
So the guesses are between and included 0 to 100%. Do any of you have a rationale for your guess?
This paper shows relative and in some cases specific humidity decreasing over time. The water vapor feedback may not be present. This would limit warming to the effect of CO2, greenhouse-gas-wise.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
jim2
The WUWT guest post by Ken Gregory, which you cited, points out that tropospheric water vapor content (specific humidity) has decreased since 1948.
I plotted the NOAA data for the troposphere (up to 300 mb) against the HadCRUT3 global temperature record and it is easy to see that, over the long term, as temperature increased, tropospheric water vapor content decreased.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3606945645_3450dc4e6f_b.jpg
What is also interesting to see from the data is that over short-term periods there are spikes where WV increases with increased temperature, even though the long-term record shows the opposite trend.
This short-term correlation was also confirmed by an independent study by Minschwaner & Dessler (2004), which showed increased WV content with warming over the tropics, but at a rate less than half of the rate required to maintain constant relative humidity, as assumed by all the IPCC climate models in determining WV feedback.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3610454667_9ac0b7773f_b.jpg
Paltridge et al. 2009 have examined the NOAA record since 1973 and also found that RH decreases with warming at various altitudes.
All in all, one can conclude from the physical record that the IPCC model prediction of a strongly positive water vapor feedback based on maintaining essentially constant RH with warming, leading to a mean IPCC estimate of 3.2C for 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity, is not supported by the empirical data.
Max
Looking at the chart on Jo Nova’s site showing the multi-decadal oscillation (MDO) superimposed on the linear rising trend, it appears most of the warming since 1960 has been due to the MDO. There are also some interesting charts that show cooling since 2005. Interesting article by Jo.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/has-the-world-started-cooling-hints-from-4-of-5-global-temperature-sets-say-it-might-have/#more-27430
‘I suspect you meant to ask about the physical mechanism behind La Nina. It happens because of increased trade winds which raise evaporation rate which cools the ocean surface. As far as know no one quite knows what causes the change in behavior of the trades. I figure you’d just want to write it off to chaos like you do everything else and I suppose butterfly wing flapping is as good a hypothesis as any other at this point but I tend to doubt that’s the real cause.’ Spr..ger
The simplistic messages from Spr…ger on every subject under the sun suggest a certain superficiality of character and intellect – oh well.
I did have in mind the multidecadal variability of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation – bringing decadal drought to the US.
But the trade winds are perhaps the best understood aspect of ENSO. The changes in Walker Circulation emerge from changes in surface pressure across the Pacific – commonly measured as the Southern Oscillation Index being an index of the difference in sea level pressure between Tahiti and Darwin. The proximate cause is cold water upwelling in the eastern Pacific with feedbacks in waves, winds, clouds and currents. ENSO is widely recognised as a deterministically chaotic system. Although this has nothing to do with butterflies – chaos is not a theory of causes but a metatheory of behaviour. These diverse complex and dynamic systems exhibit consistent behaviours. They are systems with control variables and multiple feedbacks that cause abrupt change to an extent that exceeds the original impetus. Chaos is the key to understanding why climate behaves as it does – the new climate pardigm. But thre will alwayss be dinosaurs like spr..ger who wail and flail against ideas they don’t understand.
For instance – http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/16/453/2009/npg-16-453-2009.html
I think upwelling in the area of the Humboldt Current – and thus the origin of ENSO – is the result of cool currents pushing up to South America on storms spinning off the Souhern Annular Mode – displacing some warm surface water. But then there are other systems that come into play – planetary spin, pressure differentials, surges sloshing back and forth across the Pacific. Thus it is a complex system with a couple of strange attractors and infinitely variable orbits.
The reason for changes in the Peruvian Current might involve sea level pressure responding to changes in UV and ozone warming in the middle atmosphere. This is hugely speculative – but see Lockwood (2010) or Lean (2008) for instance.
Lockwood, M., Harrison, R., Woollings, T. Solanki, S., (2010) Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity? Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 024001 (7pp)
Lean, J., (2008) How Variable Is the Sun, and What Are the Links Between This Variability and Climate?, Search and Discovery Article #110055
Here are some very good ENSO animations that give a much better idea of what ENSO really is.
http://people.duke.edu/~ts24/ENSO/
http://people.duke.edu/~ts24/ENSO/
“I think upwelling in the area of the Humboldt Current – and thus the origin of ENSO – is the result of cool currents pushing up to South America on storms spinning off the Souhern Annular Mode – displacing some warm surface water. But then there are other systems that come into play – planetary spin, pressure differentials, surges sloshing back and forth across the Pacific. Thus it is a complex system with a couple of strange attractors and infinitely variable orbits”
Yes, I’ve been attempting to understand the physical causes of Nino/Nina oscillations for some considerable time. Your quote is near enough to where I’m currently at. The only other poster here that has seriously tried to examine this is Ellison (Chief Hydrologist). Others have just waved their arms in the air (very tedious)
But what causes the upwelling of frigid Antarctic water along the Peruvian coast ? I don’t doubt that this happens – I’ve physically seen the mist zone where the frigid/warmer waters collide in the southern area of Drakes Passage. What puzzles me is WHY much colder and denser water should upwell
BTW, the people.duke.edu links you give are only on the Nino aspect. I’ve yet to find a complete Nino/Nina exposition similar to these animations
Hi Ian,
Skippy is a climate warrior who appears when the blog descends into irrationality and chaos – as it seems to. When all there is is dogmatic, opinionated, simplistic narratives superficially in the objectvie idiom of science – what is a poor boy to do but take up arms in the climate war.
The animations start with upwelling in the eastern Pacific – the origins of La Nina. The deep ocean currents are swirling around the basins all the time. I think there is an interplay of the warm surface layer suppressing upwelling on the one hand and then being replaced by a cooler layer that allows upwelling of these surging currents. This happens in a very few places in the world – but has profound effects.
Cheers
ianl8888 said:
Yes, we know, your fellow Aussies can do no wrong. We get the joke already.
Ellison the Chief Hydrologist said:
No one on this side of the international date line takes any of this pretentious goop seriously.
No one takes the cimate war seriously? I can assure you that we are out there to win.
A generation of wasted time and treasure later – we have progressed nowhere. A generation of no warming in decades to come will ensure that no progress will be made in the near future. It is quite certain that we are in a cool decadal mode.
A future where millennial variability starts to be felt – might delay warming idefinitely. We may see sudden shifts in THC and snow and ice feedbacks that change the situation dramatically – abrupt change within as little as a decade.
And all the webby can do is babble on about Australian conspiracies – irrationality and chaos personified.
Don’t confuse wars with goops, Chief.
Peace.
‘Although it has failed to produce its intended impact nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol has performed an important role. That role has been allegorical. Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values. Nor is that to be seen as a defect. Of course choices between competing values are not made by relying upon scientific knowledge alone. What is wrong is to pretend that they are.’ The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy – Gwyn Prins & Steve Rayner
Those who deny that there is a broad cultural and ethical battle at hand have a vested interested in hiding their true motivations. One wonders why that would be the case little willie.
Have a nice day.
Have you ever been to a war zone, Chief?
Please don’t get carried away by your metaphors.
As Circus Bob Ellison and his sockpuppets get more angry they begin to sound even more pompous.
The term is well and truly is the public domain – besides a culture fracas doesn’t have the same ring to it. So spare me your weird moralising about trivialising war.
This is not a battle over trivial matters. It is about the future for humanity – rich and free or poor and actually shooting it up. Be sure to be on the side of freedom.
As for the phlegmatic and choleretic webster – we would like to encourage wit and originality but he seems incapable of anything but childish and repetitive invective.
”
This is not a battle over trivial matters. It is about the future for humanity – rich and free or poor and actually shooting it up. Be sure to be on the side of freedom.
”
Battle stations!
Battle stations!
Skippy wants YOU for the great blog-war for freedom!
In case you missed it:
This is Very Serious Science Stuff Right Here.
Critically Important.
Crucial.
Maybe it’s time to take the dog for walkies?
heinrich,
I find “battle” better already, although I prefer “ClimateBall”:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/ClimateBall
The reason is somewhat semantical:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/14356602184
heinrich
Agree. High time for you to take your dog for walkies and poopies.
(Just keep ‘im off my grass!)
Max
Willard:
‘This explains lukewarmism: the possibility to attack about every data and model topic while accepting the overall theory.”
This is most uncharitable. Untrue to the history of lukewarmism and untrue to its very modest claims.
Let me recite them for you.
1. GHGs warm the planet they do not cool it.
2. Given an over under bet at 3C for sensitivity we take the under bet.
3. Sensitivity is very unlikely to be below ~1C per doubling.
Now, I direct you to the IPCC reports. I direct you to the PDF for ECS.
take that PDF and turn it into a CDF.
Draw a line at 51% and see what value you get for doubling.
slap your forehead and have a good chuckle.
Finally every data and every model can and should be attacked as a methodological guard against confirmation bias. In the end, if asked what we rely on, of course we rely on the best. That should never preclude attacking, criticizing, nit picking, parsing, auditing, you name it. In fact, we use all available tools to guard against confirmation bias.
Shall I try to explain to him why I’m a ‘lukewarming cooler’?
===========
They deny that they are a threat to the future. One would expect nothing less but there is no reason that we should take them at their own estimation.
‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’
It is not a new war but one that has exacted a staggering toll in human lives in the last century. We have learne from history and really wish to avoid repeating it. Especiaily as this century the tragedy might encompass billions.
> This [my explanation of the possibility for playing the lukewarmism playbook] is most uncharitable. Untrue to the history of lukewarmism and untrue to its very modest claims. [Then follows the mainstream credo.]
This is false, if only because lukewarmism was being characterized by a strategy: the possibility to attack about every data and model topic while accepting the overall theory. This does not imply any specific claims, nor does it imply any contradiction with the claims from the scientific establishment.
The strategy is one that can be described as showing concerns. We surely can thank our black hat marketer for his concerns.
Talk about having quotes right.
***
For some, but not me, lukewarmism is just another variety of concern trolling:
> Concern trolls pretend to belong to a group, pay attention to what is being discussed, critically and carefully to consider the conclusions of the group, and then try to create doubt or to push their own agenda, including polishing their reputation as a critical observers and gaining a reputation as an independent commentator. As a side benefit this is also useful for selling books (if you will really want to find other motives).
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2010/02/betroffenheitstroll.html
Mosher.
1. GHGs warm the planet they do not cool it.
Water vapor is the largest ghg is both a particle and a ghg.As particle it reflects incoming radiation ie it increases the albedo a first order effect .
3. Sensitivity is very unlikely to be below ~1C per doubling.
Climate Sensitivity a quasi random process ie it is driven by fluctuations and bounded by low frequency attractors eg pullback attractors, it has no constraint in moving into negative regimes whatever the forcing .The distance from the tipping point ie bifurcation is very close eg Zaliapin and Ghil.
I love it when yer quote Hakek, GS.
Here are a few thoughts fer today and tomorrow and
the next day.
Beth the serf.
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/670307.Friedrich_A_von_Hayek
‘“We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage…. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.”
― Friedrich A. von Hayek
See you on the barricades dear Beth.
Steven Mosher | March 13, 2013 at 6:47 pm |
Willard:
‘This explains lukewarmism: the possibility to attack about every data and model topic while accepting the overall theory.”
This is most uncharitable. Untrue to the history of lukewarmism and untrue to its very modest claims.
————————————————————————-
So basically what separates our positions is ocean warming from GHGs which I believe is minimal due to the physics of mid-infrared illuminating a liquid water surface in an environment where it is free to evaporate in response. Over dry land, especially in winter when the surface is below freezing, CO2 should cause surface temperature to rise 1.1C/doubling. Averaged over the whole globe it’s going to be a lot less.
Oh, and the other thing that’s different. I know the difference between an IR radiometer and a microwave radiometer. Possibly you do too after I had to explain it to you, Mr. I Write Specs for That Stuff. ROFL
“Oh, and the other thing that’s different. I know the difference between an IR radiometer and a microwave radiometer. Possibly you do too after I had to explain it to you, Mr. I Write Specs for That Stuff. ROFL”
Huh,
You explained no such thing. The point remains. to infer temperature from any sensor reading requires a radiative transfer equation. read the theoretical documents behind the device. or just think Dave.
The signal originates at an altitude below the sensor. It travels through the atmoshere, how do you calculate what it was at the source, and why did version 6 happen? Go read all the notes, or write the PI.. oh ya, he probably won’t answer your mails. Or wait come to Lawrence Livermore,
i can arrange a meeting for you with some nobel prize winners. Oh wait, they wont have time for you either.
#Si
Willard,
your comment remains uncharitable and you don’t have the honor or integrity to admit it.
Let me ask you, did you listen to the audio I posted for you?
The audio of Hansen talking about his tax plan before congress?
Just curious.
Steven Mosher, you have forgotten the fourth tenet of lukewarmism:
4. Never look beyond the year 2100.
This fourth tenet — the limited-horizon tenet — naturally unites lukewarmist cognition with denialism, eh Steven Mosher?
Because science assures us that the effects of AGW accumulate far beyond the lukewarmist’s emotionally comforting (but scientifically and morally wrong) cognitive horizon.
Summary A key difference between lukewarmists and scientists like James Hansen is that Hansen’s worldview is scientifically more foresighted, and morally better-grounded!
Isn’t that correct, Steven Mosher?
Dear Moshpit,
To repeat, the point of my comment was to characterize a possibility condition for any kind of endeavours that uses the strategy that helped describe my game.
This has nothing with lukewarm claims. This has something with any kind of strategy that relies on fault finding, red teaming, and opposition research. This is the most charitable description you will find, if we except all the lips services.
Now, I feel you have used me a narcissistic outlet long enough. There is no reason for me to tolerate such basic lack of human decency, and perhaps never has been. I sincerely wish your principles are making your life worth living, and help you nurture friendship that rests on something else than Nash’s equilibrium.
Nothing is worth sacrificing honour.
If you can’t help yourself, boo hoo.
One of the fundamental tenets of alarmism, as again employed by Fan, is that with no actual, direct measurements to back up alarmism, and its models steadily coming apart at the seams, as a ruse you switch to fantasizing about the 22nd C, presenting this as fact, citing master deception artists like Hansen as ‘authorities’. (Was it Hansen or Gore that said New York would be 20 foot under water by now, I don’t remember now?).
Yes, by claiming to think ahead to 2100 and thereafter, one automatically becomes foresighted and takes the higher ground (coal trains of death, suffocating grandchildren blah blah blah).
As a direct consequence of this, one’s comments on science automatically become correct. Well, politically anyway – but hey, politics is all that really matters, right? Skeptics of the political Consensus (Copernicus as much as CAGW ones) must quite rightly be put in their places.
Vassily and Memphis, thank you for illustrating two pathognomonic elements of denialist cognition, demagoguery, and astro-turfing: (1) delusion/confabulation and (2) motivism/scapegoating
These examples enhance the ability of Climate Etc readers to recognize the anti-scientific foundations of denialist cognition, propaganda, and astro-turfing. Thank you, Vassily and Memphis!
In his absurd ongoing denial that government-funded climate alarmism is neither corrupt nor even has any motive to be corrupt, Fan clarifies for CE readers the essence of a true politics-uber-alles Consensus truebeliever.
Thank you Fan!
[Webmaster : please add loads of moronic Fanesque icons]
The two key questions, Memphis, is whether James Hansen’s scientific worldview is factually correct and whether it is morally sound.
In the long run, neither of these two questions can be settled by the willful ignorance that is denialism, or by insisting upon ideological purity, or by resorting to ad hominem abuse and/or astro-turfing and/or conspiracy theories … isn’t that correct, Memphis?
Because Nature has the final say, eh Memphis?
Fan,ange
The morality of lukewarmism is superior to that of hansen.
Let’s start with some simple facts.
1. Hansen argues there is warming in the pipeline.
2. That warming is predestined, it will come out. All the science agrees
3. That warming will cause damage over the next 30 years.
4. No amount of money spent on mitigation will change that.
5. There is a limited amount of money and resource.
Comes the question: Given the limited amount of money to spend,
how does one decide the amount to spend on adaptation now, versus mitigation? That is both a practical and moral question.
This means we must weigh and cannot avoid weighing the cost and harm done to those living versus the responsibilities we have toward the unborn, those who will be alive after 2100.
I didn’t realize that you and Hansen argued that our rights toward the unborn were more important than the rights of the living. From my perspective our responsibilities toward the not yet living are minimal. They are not rational agents. I think anyone who values the rights of the unborn over the rights of the living is sick and needs help. That does not imply that we have zero responsibility toward them, however, whatever responsibilty we have is vastly outweighed by our responsibility to the living. However, if you think the unborn have rights, then I would expect to see you on the picket line outside an abortion clinic. You won’t find me there, because I have a consistent ethical system and dont manufacture moral outrage to support my factual understanding of the world.
Willard, your comment made no such distinction. It was a one of your typical dogwhistle comments about lukewarmers.
LOL … Steven Mosher, please let me suggest a movie that you will *ADORE*!
And let me recommend too a book too.
The movie is pure fiction … a fantasy that has been rejected utterly by the free market, eh Steven Mosher?
Whereas the book describes the real life and real work of a real woman … which is mighty sharp contrast, eh Steven Mosher?
You are a rational agent, Steven Mosher! Perhaps you will gain wisdom in reflecting upon the difference between ideological fantasy and practical reality!
> [Y]our comment made no such distinction.
The whole comment shows the topic was epistemological holism:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/14356602184
The parenthesis:
> But models do not equal theories, they are more like hypothesis. This explains lukewarmism: the possibility to attack about every data and model topic while accepting the overall theory.
is descriptive enough.
Interested readers might be interested in this other comment:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/384966743
Those like Moshpit who constantly push the limits of justified disingenuousness are not worth your time, folks.
Hmmm. moshe or willard? Hard choice.
===============
willard – Those like Moshpit who constantly push the limits of justified disingenuousness are not worth your time, folks.
Yet, willard claims Postel’s Law admits to no exceptions. tsk.
kim – Hmmm. moshe or willard? Hard choice.
for me, but it’s an easy choice. willard directed me to Searle and so earns my gratitude (whether or not it was a diversion). but that’s about it. otoh, mosher’s lifetime accumulated credit alone wins my vote. his continuing work is a plus.
@Fan
Fan sensibly offers no opposition here, seemingly differing with these deniers, so both recognizing and understanding the widespread corruption that characterizes government climate “science”.
sfsg.
But we see here, that for Fan, facts are not enough. They must first and foremost support political correctness (which is his ruinously impoverished notion of being “morality sound”).
And seems too, though, he’s a Hansen groupie, as he regularly tries to settle his two question by urging all to do as he does, and
– embrace the willful ignorance which is the creed of of the CAGW truebeilever
– insist on ideological purity / political correctness
– deny or ignore the the obvious bias and political advocacy of Hansen and others
Isn’t that correct Fan?
Hence the rush to get alarmism legislated for asap, as Nature too increasingly seems to be showing herself to be a skeptic. Everyone knows that once taxes and bureaucracies are enacted, and governments and their totalitarian-leaning Fans become addicted to them, it is nigh impossible to get rid of them, no matter how bogus their underlying rationale.
Blue,
Postel law invokes relational concepts, so your “tsk” is as unjustified as kim’s choice is irrelevant. There always are limits to justified disingeniousness. Perhaps this is why Postel’s principle has been expanded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
Thanks for the kind words,
w
“disingeniousness”
Is there a better descriptor for the CAGW movement?
We have traded hiding the decline for manufacturing the incline.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Steve McIntyre’s discussion on Climate Audit about “Mike’s AGU Trick” shows Michael Mann reached the limits and has been hung by the bladeof his own hockey stick.. “Everything has its limit – iron ore cannot be educated into gold.” (Mark Twain)
Unfortunately, as soon as such a dubious study gets spun into politics and policy the result is nonsense like this…. A sad attempt to exaggerate, distort, and politicize a murky study low-resolution study which DOES NOT SAY what the Congressman claims it does:
Hyperlink Code
[emphasis added]
Sorry for typos above, I should slow down. Here is that link again:
Marcott et al. (2013) embraced in US Congress, inaccurately
The problem is that absent any overriding motive concerning the safeguarding of the nation and Western civilization, and absent the goal of accomplishing some practical ends within rational constraints of commercial necessity, the education industrial complex has become ever more vertically integrated and entrenched and dedicated to looking for solutions for non-problems and guided more by preconceptions, political pressure and secular-socialist dogma than by a rational scientific method of research and analysis.
Wagathon,
Look, so Marcott and Al’s temperature stack doesn’t fully
resolve variability at periods shorter than 2,000 years? …
Fergit the countries, jest concentrate on the continents…
what’s wrong with that? And if Marcott and Al find good
agreement with Mann and some other Al, by a kind of
tricky splicing some high, even very high, short period
data on the end, well, what’s wrong with that? Michael
Mann’s his hero, fer gods’ sake!
Beth t S
Further to yr comment on preconceptions, Wagathon, this from
Hayek, ‘The Road to Serfdom.’ Chapter 8
.
‘..socialists everywhere were the first to recognise that the
task they had set themselves required the general acceptance
of a common Weltanschauung, of a definite set of values. It
was in these efforts to produce a mass movement supported
by such a single world view, that the socialists first created
most of the instruments of indoctrination of which Nazis and
Fascists have made such effective use.’
Well, if you send morons to Washington to represent you, that’s what you get.
Check out all of the global warming in Massachusetts this year:
Blue Hill Greatest Snowstorms, inches, (1885-2013):
1) 38.7 on Feb 24-28, 1969
2) 30.3 on Mar 3-5, 1960
3) 30.1 on Feb 6-7, 1978
4) 30.0 on Mar 31 – Apr 1, 1997
5) 29.8 on Mar 6-8, 2013
6) 26.6 on Feb 8-9, 2013
7) 24.7 on Feb 17-18, 2003
Greatest March Snowstorms, inches (1885-2013)
1) 30.3 on 3-5 Mar, 1960
2) 30.0 on 31 Mar-1 Apr, 1997
3) 29.8 on 6-8 Mar, 2013
4) 23.0 on 5-7 Mar, 2001
5) 19.5 on 19-20 Mar, 1956
——————————————–
(From Joseph D’Aleo ‘s Mar. 12, 2013 article about New England’s snows)
Well my thoughts are given what is known it IS highly likely that the recent warming, let alone the warming to come is unprecedented over the holocene. We can do the denial dance and pretend that no there’s some really fast warming hidden somewhere in the past, but I am not buying it.
Some other points,
Rud Istvan writes:
“A reference list compiled by CO2Science shows that there are at least 96 proxy studies of Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Aus/NZ with quantitative estimates of MWP temperatures, plus 109 more with qualitative estimates, and an additional 116 providing evidence that it was a significant, centuries long event that came and went fairly suddenly.”
It’s strange that skeptics with all their blog posts and focus on hockey sticks and MWPs still haven’t noticed the myriad of fatal flaws in CO2Science.org’s presentation of the data…..
Istvan writes:
The MWP was not a blip for the entire northern hemisphere, as illustrated by this figure adapted from a 2010 paper by Ljungvist.
But who claimed the MWP was a blip for the Northern Hemisphere?
Must be those dang warmists trying to get rid of the MWP!
Except Mann 08 shows just as much of a MWP as Ljungvist. But I guess saying that Mann 08 shows the MWP does not fit the “they are hiding the MWP” narrative. Better to pick a reconstruction like Ljungvist instead so we can pretend someone outside the team has shown a different result.
I notice that according to the Ljungvist 2010 graph we have now surpassed the average temperature of the MWP. Given that we’ve had more than 1C warming in the Northern Hemisphere since the LIA and Ljungvist’s graph shows the MWP to be only about 0.6C warmer than the LIA.
Problem is if you cite Ljunqvist as evidence the MWP was not just a blip then you are attaching an accuracy to it’s temperature scale, an accuracy which allows it to be compared to the instrumental temperature record. Of course if it ISNT accurate then I don’t see how you can use it as evidence, eg that the MWP was more than a blip.
Even if the UN-IPCC continues to ignore the Sun’s impact on climate change (TSI, solar wind, magnetism) that does not mean American taxpayers should continue to fund a public school system that is just as stupid. Yes we can get the federal government out of our classrooms and that will be a tremendous change for the better that no one can deny. Nothing can be worse than continuing to go down the road we’re on now with a government that is too big to fail that is stealing the future of the nation’s unborn children.
Wagathon for the win!
Too bad Rud’s too busy betting to answer this one.
Generalissimo Skippy | March 12, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Reply
“The joke? Mosomoso ‘won’ a one way trip to UNtopia – Minnesota. Does he imagine that anyone goes to Minnesota willingly? It’s full of redneck dickwads with no humour, wit, charm or culture.”
You’re projecting.
Warning to the humor impaired: funny stuff at link below by those crazy kids in Minnesota who brought us the “Hide the Decline” video and many others.
Minnesotans for Global Warming
The cognitive dissonance of the Left speaks so loudly that we cannot hear what they’re saying.
Many European scientists are said to be baffled, bewildered and confused by the cold not forecast by their super computer models and some are beginning to believe they don’t understand the climate they way they thought they did. We have had 4 of the top 5 snowiest winters for the hemisphere for the last decade. Remember the forecasts that snow would become a rare commodity.
~Joseph D’Aleo, “Impressive negative NAO and AO producing hemispheric cold…links to solar,” Mar 03, 2013: “Wait until the AMO follows the PDO negative with the quiet sun for broad North American cold…”
Spr..ger,
Why is it when I spell your name in full that the comment dissapears into moderation?
No I think you’re projecting that I am projecting. Lift you’re game both scientifically and culturally and you might avoid UNtopia Minnesota. A least eschew the tedium of pop psychology cliches. Otherwise you are advised to pack warmly.
On the other hand living on a dry lake bed in a US state whose name I don’t recall but on which I have declared war – may be punishment enough. We have a regiment of paratrooper drop bears on the way as I speak. Just remind me of which lake so they know where to go.
On the other hand – perhaps I should leave you in your lake to stew as every day that passes brings you closer to the next mega storm – despite your odd and typically dogmatic and bombastic interpretation of the gamblers fallacy as it applies to rainfall. The odds of each coin toss is 50/50 but I guarantee that it will rain again – and the odds of another day without rain diminish with each passing day. Write that down.
Generalisimo Skippy | March 12, 2013 at 7:31 pm | Reply
“Spr..ger,”
“Why is it when I spell your name in full that the comment dissapears into moderation?”
I asked God that whenever anyone with a double digit IQ utters my name in vain his or her words will be struck down. Evidently my prayers were answered but it’s only you that’s having a problem. Connect the dots.
“No I think you’re projecting that I am projecting. Lift you’re game both scientifically and culturally and you might avoid UNtopia Minnesota. A least eschew the tedium of pop psychology cliches. Otherwise you are advised to pack warmly.”
That should be your not you’re. Minnesota is a beautiful state. Land of 10,000 lakes. Winters are starkly beautiful. Inspiring like a Thomas Kincaid Christmas scene. I grew up in the region surrounding the Great Lakes. The climate is not for the feint of heart I suppose so you, Shibboleth, and brass monkeys everywhere would be well advised to avoid it if you want to keep those tiny jewels intact.
“On the other hand living on a dry lake bed in a US state whose name I don’t recall but on which I have declared war – may be punishment enough. We have a regiment of paratrooper drop bears on the way as I speak. Just remind me of which lake so they know where to go.”
I’m not sure what lake you’re talking about. The water over the inundated portion of my land is still 50 feet deep. When the lake is full it’s 100 feet.
“On the other hand – perhaps I should leave you in your lake to stew as every day that passes brings you closer to the next mega storm – despite your odd and typically dogmatic and bombastic interpretation of the gamblers fallacy as it applies to rainfall. The odds of each coin toss is 50/50 but I guarantee that it will rain again – and the odds of another day without rain diminish with each passing day. Write that down.”
We have a rainfall deficit not an absence of rainfall. Write THAT down. T
I believe it requires a triple digit IQ to understand the gambler’s fallacy. That you still don’t get it is no surprise. Applied to this situation it merely states that lack of rain on any given day doesn’t increase the chance of rain on the next day. There is one date that marks the beginning of a drought and one date that marks the end with a great many dates marking the day in between. So, statistically speaking, it is far more likely that each day of an ongoing drought will NOT be the end date because there are far more days that are not the last day.
With one toss of a coin the odds of a head is 50%. The odds of two heads in a row is 25%. The odds of 3 heads in a row is 12.5%. etc Stochasticity is commonly assumed in hydrology – although I have doubts that that is strictly true. So the situation is analogous to the coin toss – simply harder to work out the odds. The odds of 200 days of no rain is much less than the odds of 10 days of no rain. One is extreme drought and one is common.
But don’t worry – your ‘deficit’ is multi-decadal in scope. Still have some water in your lake? We will see.
And really – don’t you think the spiel about God and IQ is a trifle juvenile?
Not really up to a standard of wit and wisdom that might reasonably be expected.
All in all you are not pulling your weight springer and ought to post less and read and think more. Just some friendly advice.
“No I think you’re projecting that I am projecting.”
You say it should be your and not you’re?
No I think that you are projecting your own puacity of grammer.
For God’s sake get something right sometime or other.
Generalissimo Skippy | March 13, 2013 at 9:53 pm |
You’re projecting yet again. Here’s what you wrote:
Generalisimo Skippy | March 12, 2013 at 7:31 pm | Reply
“No I think you’re projecting that I am projecting. Lift you’re game both scientifically and culturally and you might avoid UNtopia Minnesota.”
Ask an English teacher to help you out. I’m gonna get put back in moderation if I keep cluttering up the blog correcting you.
oh different your – you’re an idiot for making anything of a simple typo. Why don’t you lift your game instead.
This “idiot” made you make an ass of yourself when you wrote:
Generalissimo Skippy | March 13, 2013 at 9:53 pm |
And it was SO easy. Just a casual correction “that should be your not you’re”. ROFLMAO
You’re so predictable. I can play you like a fiddle.
Hey, you two, check out the re-dating of the alkenones.
========
But then again on any serious subject springer goes off half cocked and produces a hopelessly simple minded narrative after 10 minutes on the internet. Eventually – his only recourse is making a mountian of a typo in some gloating and maniacal fantasy about manipulating people.
Is there any point to this except the ad homs and insults? Very unlikely.
I made a casual note of it “That should be your not you’re”. You then made the big fuss about it and really stuck your foot in your mouth in the process. You should have just ignored it. Or if you didn’t ignore it you should have looked past the first instance of ‘you’re’ and seen that you did indeed use it incorrectly and then shrugged it off as a typo. But NOOOO… you didn’t see the improper use and then accused me of not knowing when to use your and you’re. So you made a mountain out of a molehill and an ass of yourself in the process. Good work. It’s exactly what I’ve come to expect from you.
Don’t know if anyone has posted this debunking pf Marcott et al. by David Middleton:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/a-simple-test-of-marcott-et-al-2013/
That is not a debunking, more of a questioning.
Then there is this study by Don Easterbrook, which shows that over 85% of the past 10,000 years, temperatures were warmer than today:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/20029/Geologist-calls-new-warmist-study-wrong-Temps-during-virtually-all-of-period-from-10000-to-1500-years-ago-were-warmer-thanpresent—85-of-past-10000-years-were-warmer-than-present
Ouch!
From the same source:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/20051/Warmist-author-of-new-Hockey-Stick-study-Shaun-Marcott–National-Journal-refer-to-skeptics-as-a-fullymobilized-troll-armymarcottsscienceoregonstateed
Willard
Yeah. A conspiracy.
Max
Not unlike a Conspiracy of dunces, MiniMax.
Oh, Gawd, how quaint can you get. Big Chief objects.
========
willard –
Was “full-mobilized troll army” a quote of Marcott?
I looked at Climate Depot, and I looked at the National Journal – but nary a quotation mark around the term.
Can you help out? I mean, cause that kind of faux “quotation,” might just get a few of my much beloved “skeptics” to hyperventilating.
That’s all there is:
> Marcott admitted he was apprehensive about charging into the fully-mobilized troll army, but said he was grateful scientists like Mann had “gone through hell” before him to build a support network for harassed climate scientists.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/climate-change-even-worse-than-we-feared-20130311
Perhaps the quote comes from a conversation:
Q. Are you apprehensive about charging into a fully-mobilized troll army?
A. A bit, because of kim, but in any case I can count on a support network.
willard –
I guess that would make the headline misleading.
Careful, don’t point that out to our much beloved “skeptics.”
If they found out, they might collapse to their fainting couches clutching their pearls!
The discussion of what counts as an admission would sure be interesting.
Naw, I got the easy one, Shakun.
===========
ouch because it isn’t a study by easterbrook, plus easterbrook is wrong
lolwot
“It isn’t by Easterbook plus Easterbrook is wrong”
Huh?
Let’s do a logic check on that statement.
Max
lolwot
Let’s expand the statement you made:
“It isn’t a study by Easterbrook plus Skeptical Science says Easterbrook was wrong.”
The logic is even goofier, lolwot.
Max
Easterbrook can be wrong about a study which is not his, MiniMax. From the author himself, Richard Alley:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/
Is this the Alley you said was trying to play us?
Willard
With all due respect, Richard Alley is not well qualified to talk about ideal global temperature for human survival, so I would not place much confidence in his opinions on this subject.
We are back to the “Goldilocks” discussion, and there is absolutely no reason at all to believe that today’s temperature (or that of pre-industrial 1750) was better for humanity than a future temperature, that might be two or three degrees warmer than today.
Max
Willard
The very same. Author of:
“Biggest Control Knob – Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
(Given at a recent San Francisco AGU meeting.)
It’s essentially a sales pitch for CO2 being the principal driver of climate (based on paleo-climate studies) and for the premise that a doubling of CO2 would result in 3°C temperature increase (or more).
Go through it and see if you can find the inconsistencies and weak spots.
And see if you can detect how Alley is trying to “play” his audience.
Max
Manacker yet again you’ve failed to provide evidence the MWP was warmer than present.
Again I will repeat the balance of evidence suggests the MWP was generally a lot cooler than present temperatures.
Easterbrook and Lgungvist do not include a lot of the recent warming. That’s why you are being misled by them into thinking the MWP was warmer. L2010 only show the MWP period was warmer than the 1960-1990 average (duh we are now in 2013 not 1960-1990).
Easterbrook doesn’t even rise to that level as he shows greenland temperatures and confuses this as global. At least he realizes the greenland ice core temperature data ends 150 years ago, but makes the silly mistake of fixing that by splicing on the global instrumental record (WOW splicing! outrage!). The mistake being that he should splice on GREENLAND temperatures of the last 150 years, not global ones. If he did that he’d find the medieval warm period has been exceeded. Not that one region – greenland – is a good proxy for the globe anyway.
And of course all the pap about grapes and vikings falls apart when your own source (GISP2 ice core) suggests central greenland is now warmer than during the MWP.
Meanwhile the 80+ studies you keep citing are regional not global. They haven’t even risen to L2010 levels of putting the proxies together into a single reconstruction of the globe or even the NH. If the DID do that they would inevitably find the result L2010 and Mann2008 found. Ie the MWP was likely cooler than present.
lolwot
A wake-up call for you.
ALL climate is regional. Put them all together and you’ve got a global picture.
As far as Greenland is concerned, how do you explain the Medieval Viking farms found buried in the Greenland permafrost?
Or this study?
Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J.
2001. Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_gripsummit.php
Or how ’bout this one?
D. Dahl-Jensen et al
Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet
Science 9 October 1998: Vol. 282 no. 5387 pp. 268-271
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5387/268.abstract
MWP 0.8C warmer than latest average
The HadCRUT Greenland temperature record shows an average annual temperature:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/swgreenlandave.dat
1926-1935 = -0.29°C
1996-2005 = -0.61°C (most recent data reported)
So 1930 was around 0.3°C warmer than the latest average
MWP period high was around 0.5C°C + 0.3°C = 0.8°C higher than current highs
And, more recently, there is this study (Chylek 2006), which shows that Greenland was as warm in the 1920s/1930s as today:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml
Max
I think they were growing grapes in England not Greenland.
All warming in the satellite records is due to albedo changes. It seems really to b the case that large scale ocean an atmospheric patterns change global energy budgets causing natural warming and cooling. This was something largely neglected in the AR4. The closest they came was the following.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ AR4 s 3.4.4.1
If low frequency variability is real? So if most warming was natural and we are at the threshold of Bond Event Zero – all bets are off.
Chief
The other reference to grapes was from Viking records, where they found wild grapes growing in Newfoundland (a place they called “Vinland” because of the wild grapes there).
Archeologists have found remains of an old Viking settlement in Newfoundland, confirming the written records.
Max
Chief
More on the grapes in Newfoundland here:
http://www.vinlandvoyager.com/7a%20GrapesYes.html
Max
> More on the grapes in Newfoundland here:
The Grapes of Lolwot’s Wrath …
It’s not even certain vinland was a reference to wine or grapes
And you don’t get drunk eating wild berries, you get sick.
Actually, to be fair to Max it’s not really controversial that Greenland was particularly warm during the MWP. The below paper (Fig. 2) shows particularly anomalous warmth (relative to 1961-1990) in the North Atlantic, which covers the southern part of Greenland and Newfoundland.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
Of course that doesn’t mean it was particularly warm globally.
“ALL climate is regional. Put them all together and you’ve got a global picture.”
A global picture that has a cooler MWP than CWP.
“As far as Greenland is concerned, how do you explain the Medieval Viking farms found buried in the Greenland permafrost?”
Given permafrost takes time to thaw it can’t tell you whether current temperatures are above or below temperatures back then.
“temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1100) were about 1°C warmer than those of the Current Warm Period.”
That’s CO2Science’s description of the paper. Their words and they can’t be trusted. Again it’s ice cores so what’s likely happened is CO2Science have failed to take into account the core graph ends in something like 1900 and so are assigning the “current warm period” as 100 years out of date.
> With all due respect, Richard Alley is not well qualified to talk about ideal global temperature for human survival, so I would not place much confidence in his opinions on this subject.
With all due respect, MiniMax should take the time to admit that his logic check on lolwol’s claim has no merit.
When this has been done, we could see, with all due respect, how MiniMax now distorted Alley’s comment while expressing an opinion that MiniMax’ own criteria disqualifies as trustworthy.
lolwot
We’ve gone through that bit of illogic on your part up-thread.
Lungqvist concludes that the average MWP temperature was slightly warmer than the recent 1961-1990 average.
You wrote that the current temperature is even higher than the 1961-1990 average, so the MWP was not warmer.
As philjourdan pointed out, you are comparing apples (a 250-year MWP average) with oranges (a 30-year, or even shorter, “blip” in the modern record).
The average over the entire 162-year modern record is 0.4C COLDER than the 1961-1990 average, so comparing apples (the 161-year modern record) with apples (the 250-year MWP) shows that the MWP was even warmer than the current period.
Hope you can understand it this time. (It’s not really that complicated if you open your mind).
Max
manacker I am interested in whether the current period (eg the last 10 years) is warmer than the MWP.
Not whether 1960-1990 was, or 1900-2012 was.
Why go for 10 years? Why not just compare one year to a millennium? You can average the millennium, and compare the one year to it.
Or how about 1 day? Take the hottest day of 2012, and compare it to the MWP. That will prove the MWP never existed right?
You are not interested in the comparison. You are trying to justify an invalid mathematical comparison.
When people talk about the MWP being warmer or cooler than today, they are implicitly comparing a period roughly 1000 years ago with temperatures today. And by today they don’t mean temperatures in 1920, they mean today.
The average of the last 10 years captures “today” sufficiently well and the fact “today” we are warmer than 100 years back.
When skeptics claim the MWP is warmer than present, if they just mean the MWP is warmer than some average including the cold early 20th century, then I don’t believe they have defined the “present” which is much warmer than the early 20th century correctly and therefore their claim is definitively junk.
That is not a debunking, more of a but, but, butting.
Wag, your idealized view of a George W. Bush is hard to fathom. He slept through the several warnings he had re a possible terrorist attack, then in a stunningly foolish over-reaction lead the nation into what is now widely seen as the one of the most misguided wars we’ve ever fought by this country, second only to Vietnam. INstead of raising taxes to pay for this foolishness, he cut them, wiping out the clinton surplus and then some. When he left office, this country was in he worse shape its been in since The Great Depression. I could go on and on, but it’s late and I don’t want to get myself too worked up…
“worst” shape.
George Bush’s economy inherited a recession from Clinton when he took office in 2001. If you remember, back then the Democrat party maligned every employer of every new worker by labeling every rise of employment under Bush as more “hamburger flipper jobs.”
When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession. Then our economy was hit by terrorists. Then our economy was hit by corporate scandals. ~George Bush
“W” inherited all of Clinton’s corporate scandals; all of the chickens came home to roost in 2002–e.g., Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing… and then, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 simply shot in the head all of the horses in the country that were pulling the load. And, we’re not supposed to remember that the Democrat party blasted Bush for telling Americans to go shopping when Bush was actually pleading with Americans fight against the fear tactics of Osama bin Laden and to carry on life as usual and not let the terrorists win in the aftermath of 9/11.
I guess it is not politically correct to remember that Clinton was actually impeached during his last term in office. The Clintons have a problem: they cannot tell the truth. Bill Clinton’s AR bar license was revoked because he lied under oath. And of course there was the Whitewater Scandal. Whitewater was Hillary’s only client in AR where she drew a salary as a figurehead partner of the largest law firm in AR. Hillary’s salary was the way connected insiders paid off Governor Bill Clinton for political favors–which was the only way to get anything done in the state.
It was machinations like those practiced at Whitewater that helped usher in all of the 2002 corporate scandals and the big “dot.com” boom which became a big “dot.com” bust of 2001, which in turn resulted in the loss of billions of dollars, a stock market crash, unemployment and abandoned Porsches in parking lots across the Silicon Valley.
And, even with all of the heightened public scrutiny, Illinois Democrat operatives still very nearly stole the election in Florida for C02-fighter, Al Gore, by seeing “hanging chads” on voter cards for Bush, finding confusing ballots as the only plausible explanation for why old Jewish women voted for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan, and by bringing the dispute they created out of whole cloth before a liberal Florida Supreme court. Given the long record of Illinois politics and its role in the election of JFK we may all be just one hanging chad away from the country’s next president and George Bush may in the end be the last honest man to hold the office.
The Democrat party is essentially going for broke in the coming election with the unborn as bargaining chips and $10 a gallon gas as the jackpot. How will you vote? We can predict a lot based on the answers to a few simple questions, as follows:
Q: Does the government owe me a job?
Q: Is being self-employed anti-American?
Q: Who pays for a government job?
Q: Are politicians smater than you about how to spend money?
Q: Did I pay for your transportation?
Q: What did you do to earn an education?
Q: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Q: Earnings taken by politicians is like getting humped by Royals, right?
Q: Does free enterprise and American capitalism melt glaciers and raise seas?
Who do you prefer George Washington or Mao Tse-Tung?
Answer: Sartre Would Piss on the Legs of Today’s Secular Socialists
WHT – you better sharpen that pencil! I’ve mentioned methane hydrates as a potential source of natural gas. This is now being pursued. It remains to be seen how it pans out, but given time, technology tends to prevail.
“Initial estimates suggest carbon deposits in hydrates are double the size of all known oil, gas and coal reserves, the U.S. Geological Survey said in a January 2013 report. The world’s proven reserves of natural gas alone was 208.4 trillion cubic meters at the end of 2011, according to BP Plc. (BP/)
Carbon molecules locked in ice have also been found in the North American permafrost and the Gulf of Mexico.
India is drilling for frozen gas it has preliminarily estimated to be as large as 1,894 trillion cubic meters, according to the website of the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, the oil and gas exploration and production regulator. Japan’s deposits of frozen gas may be large enough to supply its needs for about 100 years, according to Japan Oil, Gas & Minerals, a government-affiliate known as Jogmec.
“Methane hydrate could give Japan its own energy source and more independence,” said Tomoo Suzuki, professor emeritus at Tokyo Institute of Technology, who leads a study on methane hydrate deposits off the coast of Kochi prefecture. “The question is whether extracting gas from methane hydrate can be economically viable.” ”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/asians-hunt-gas-treasure-locked-in-ice-beneath-seabeds-energy.html
Now jim2 believes conventional oil and natural gas depletion is real. Why else would he mention methane hydrates if this was not the case? It appears that difficult times call for difficult measures.
No one ever claimed oil and gas were not limited – just that economic substitution would occur as a basic economic principle. – http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/substitute.htm –
That is energy requirements will be met from some source at some price point. It is happening now in the increases of supplies of liquid fuels (over decades in projections) from other sources.
The leftist corollary of peak oil is that markets have failed and governments must intervene. It is not an agenda that makes any sense on any level.
Beth
I saw this sign in a bar and thought of Webby:
Max
Max,
Telescopes, all light and no warmth I guess
Beth.
“The leftist corollary of peak oil is that markets have failed and governments must intervene.”
Markets haven’t failed, they are just incapable of magic. They can’t appear resources that don’t exist out of thin air.
Fossil fuels are peaking and cannot be replaced by equally cheap fuels for none exist. Price increases follow.
Lolwot
If (eg fossil) resources are indeed nearly depleted, then not only can social consent (markets) not rectify that, but nor can coercion (government).
Furthermore, thanks to the valuable contributions of futures markets and speculators, prices can be expected to rise well ahead of depletion, guiding industry and consumers to the best remaining options.
And the notion that fossil fuel is actually near depleted is fast vanishing it seems. Various reports suggest that with a little more technology, there is enough for many thousands of years.
Oil is being supplemented by gas sourced liquids (primarily) at the moment. This process of economic substitution will continue with many alternatives available at some price point.
You are arguing that prices will go up – therefore we should tax hydrocarbons or nationalise the industry? It may be the case that prices go up – as they have 5 fold in a decade. What ya gunna do?
WHT and lolwot are caught on the horns of a dilemma between the mutually exclusive doomsday scenarios of “peak oil” and “CAGW”.
Either we are about to run out of fossil fuels (and the lights will all go out unless we tax the hell out of the remaining reserves to save them for our grandchildren)
OR
We still have enough fossil fuels to generate enough CO2 to fry us all (unless we tax the hell out of fossil fuels and thereby save our grandchildren and the planet).
Yet they both appear unable to see that you can’t have them both.
The GOOD news is that we very likely do not have EITHER of the above doomsday problems and certainly don’t need (or won’t profit from) the carbon tax.
There are enough fossil fuel resources to last us 200-300 years and, even when they have all been 100% used up, they will not have theoretically warmed our planet by more than a couple of degrees.
Sorry, guys, the doomsday performance has been cancelled for now.
Come back in 200 years.
Max
Max is stuck in a trick-box of his own making.
The facts are that:
1. Crude oil depletion is real
2. Lower-grade non-conventional bitumen and kerogen take significant amounts of CO2 by-products to process
3. Exotic hydrocarbons such as methane clathrates are bleeding edge
4. The science is foremost about predicting the most-likely AGW
5. The uncertainty of AGW involves methane-sources such as clathrates and peat, those hydrocarbon sources with a high activation energy and thus rapid outgassing to increasing temperature changes
6. Global economic productivity requires continuous growth in energy use
By the way Max, I have never discussed as likely outcomes either CAGW, carbon tax, cap-and-trade, or doomsday scenarios in any of my internet writings. Knock yourself out trying to find something along those lines (my blog goes back to 2004). I do discuss promising technologies such as solar, wind, and have written extensively about fun tech such as carbon-fiber-based bikes and skis. I also like to write about the cranks and cornucopians out there to get a sense of the delusional tendencies of people. You see, it’s more about highlighting the reality and the promise, and contrasting that to the narcissism and negativity that you neos bring to the table. We are the true optimists, and you ought to get a mirror..
Web
Let’s look at your points-
1. Crude oil depletion is real? No one has argued otherwise. The question is how long and not if. Crude oil is important but not critical as it is the total available fossil fuel that is the critical issue.
2. Lower-grade non-conventional bitumen and kerogen take significant amounts of CO2 by-products to process- Significant amounts of CO2 to process? Is there some scale where you define what you believe is significant and who should be allowed to release CO2 for what purpose?
3. Exotic hydrocarbons such as methane clathrates are bleeding edge- This has no meaning.
4. The science is foremost about predicting the most-likely AGW- That point is subject to great debate. Different individuals are using science to promote different goals in different locations around the planet.
5. The uncertainty of AGW involves methane-sources such as clathrates and peat, those hydrocarbon sources with a high activation energy and thus rapid outgassing to increasing temperature changes- Do you really believe that those are the only points of uncertainty? I do not believe anyone who has studied the topic believes that these are the only or even the most important points of uncertainty regarding AGW.
6. Global economic productivity requires continuous growth in energy use. No doubt about that and the key issue here is the 3 billion people worldwide who do not currently have electricity or personal transportation. The independent nations in which there people reside will undoubtedly work to get these people access to these items as cost effectively as reasonably possible.
“WHT and lolwot are caught on the horns of a dilemma between the mutually exclusive doomsday scenarios of “peak oil” and “CAGW”.”
No the world is caught on this dilemma.
“There are enough fossil fuel resources to last us 200-300 years and, even when they have all been 100% used up, they will not have theoretically warmed our planet by more than a couple of degrees.”
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. if there’s enough fossil fuels to supply the growing energy demand over the next 200-300 years then this implies CO2 levels in the atmosphere hitting 1500ppm at least.
Even under ridiculously low climate sensitivities that will produce more than a couple of degrees warming. In terms of ocean acidification: devastating.
lolwot, atmospheric CO2 is driven by climatic factors and the CO2 sensitivity is zero or maybe slightly negative, but likely insignificant. Ocean acidification is BS. So no problems. Aren’t you happy about it?
Edim you are simply wrong. Disastrously wrong. Evil even.
Well lolwot, IMO you’re wrong and mislead.
Pigeon Chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.
Origin:
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” — Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
Edim: knocks the pieces over…
atmospheric CO2 is driven by climatic factors and the CO2 sensitivity is zero or maybe slightly negative, but likely insignificant.
…craps on the board…
Ocean acidification is BS.
…and flies back to its flock to claim victory…
So no problems.
misled. VTG, you’re misled too. It’s not about victories but about what is observed. Nature rules.
“evil even”, asserts lolwot. For daring to differ from the catastrophic claptrap of the age.
“Evil” not “wrong”. No chance of sincerity or good faith. “Evil”.Over something that is believed will happen in hundreds of years.
Another nice example of how deep seated belief in AGW reduces the believer’s hold on reality and reason.
If someone claimed a negative number of people died in the holocaust I would have a similar reaction. Why assume good faith when someone jumps the shark so horrifically badly like that.
lolwot, it’s warmists who jumped the shark.
Do you agree with this?
“Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”
lolwot
Regarding the mutually exclusive dilemma of “peak oil” and “CAGW” you write:
Now, I know that arithmetic is not your strong suit, but try for a moment to use your head, because I have “thought it through”.
Since industrialization, we have burned enough fossil fuels to get from an estimated 280 ppmv CO2 to a currently measured 393 ppmv.
And you believe that there are still enough remaining fossil fuels on our planet to get us from 392 to 1500 ppmv CO2?
That would mean that we have only “burned up” to date:
(393-280) / (1500-280) = 9% of the fossil fuels that were ever on our planet, leaving 91% of all the fossil fuels that were ever on our planet still in place as recoverable reserves
Even the most optimistic estimates of inferred possible remaining recoverable fossil fuel resources are not that optimistic. Maximum I’ve seen is around 15% used to date, with 85% still remaining in 2008, and this gets us to a maximum possible CO2 concentration of 980 ppmv when they are all used up.
So your 1,500 ppmv is physically impossible to start with.
But let’s look at how long it would theoretically take to get there. Over the past 10 years CO2 has increased by an average of 1.8 ppmv per year. So at that rate it would take (1500-392) / 1.8 = 616 years to get to 1,500 ppmv
But wait! The CO2 increase is growing exponentially, most recently at a rate of 0.47% per year, so if this exponential rate of increase continues despite the anticipated sharp reduction in human population growth rate, it would take us:
(1500/393) = (1.047)^286 , it would take us 286 years to reach 1,500 ppmv
No real imminent problem there, lolwot.
Even if we look at a more reasonable estimate of remaining fossil fuels (WEC 2010) we have a maximum ever possible CO2 concentration of 980 ppmv.
This would take us (980-392) / 1.8 = 327 years to get to 980 ppmv
And at the exponential growth rate:
(980/393) = (1.047)^196, it would take us 196 years to reach 980 ppmv (i.e. to the year 2209!
And, at the latest estimates of 2xCO2 ECS of around 1.5C, this would result in a maximum ever possible warming from human fossil fuel combustion of:
ln(980/393) * 1.5 / ln(2) = 2C
Rejoice, lolwot.
– There is no “peak oil” crisis.
– There is no “CAGW” crisis.
Our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren are saved!
Max
Manacker you said yourself: ““There are enough fossil fuel resources to last us 200-300 years”
And now you say: “(1500/393) = (1.047)^286 , it would take us 286 years to reach 1,500 ppmv”
Isn’t that my point? Ie what I said:
if there’s enough fossil fuels to supply the growing energy demand over the next 200-300 years then this implies CO2 levels in the atmosphere hitting 1500ppm at least.
I can see that Manacker’s contention about your math skills are correct. He showed 2 examples, one linear, and the other exponential. You then tried to mix the 2. Sorry, that may work in shoddy science, but not math.
The rate of fossil fuel consumption at a STATED rate gives you the linear number. However, if the rate of consumption increases exponentially, thus leading to an exponential increase in CO2, it will not last the linear time.
lolwot
You write:
As I wrote, arithmetic is NOT your strong point. It appears that logic is also an area of weakness. And then, on top of all that, you appear to have poor reading skills.
Once more.
– There are not enough fossil fuels to even theoretically reach 1,500 ppm CO2 in our atmosphere when they are all used up.
– There are (optimistically estimated by WEC 2010) just enough to get us to 980 ppmv.
– At present usage rates, it would take us over 300 years to reach 980 ppmv.
– At exponentially growing CO2 concentration, it would take us around 200 years to reach 980 ppmv.
– At latest 2xCO2 estimates, this would result in warming of 2C, as an absolute maximum ever possible level from human fossil fuel combustion when they have been all 100% used up.
lolwot, if you want to fret about that, be my guest.
Just don’t expect anyone else to get too excited.
Max
lolwot,
You might be interested in that previous exchange on the subject, which ended when MiniMax declared:
> I think we’ve beaten this dog to death and should move on.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/#comment-283851
Seems that MiniMax had to hit the dog again.
jim2, say, pencils are bein’ sharpened fer the war of words.
Sounds of cannon fire and threats of black swan events …
OMG!
jim2
As the Japanese study states:
USEIA tells us that the well-head natural gas price in the USA is around $3.35 per thousand cubic feet. At this price, and with all the conventional plus shale gas reserves in the USA, extracting methane hydrates would obviously not be economically viable there.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm
But the pipeline price in the USA is $3.88 and LNG price is $5.22.
Plus Japan is not the USA.
Japan is the largest importer of LNG, representing around one-third of all global LNG imports.
I do not know the landed price needed to make hydrate extraction economically sound in Japan, but since the nation has essentially no fossil fuel resources (and a lot of very innovative and technically trained people), it could well be one of the first nations to exploit this resource.
Max
Max,
+1 fer arithmetic.
Peter Davies can’t award it as he’s on an out-doors’ work
assignment at present, so I’m standin’ in fer him again
Beth
Actual physical evidence from the Swiss and Austrian Alps tell us that the alpine glacier extent was lower than today (and the temperatures higher) over most of the past 10,000 years. This is based on carbon-dated remains of ancient trees found under receding glaciers, high above today’s tree line (Patzelt 2001, Schlüchter 2006, Abermann 2008)
These studies show that the glaciers reached their maximum extent in 10,000 years around 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age, and have essentially been receding ever since.
Another study by Nicolussi et al. (2006) shows that the alpine timberline has moved upward over the past 150 years after reaching a low point in the mid-19th century. However, dendrochronological studies of tree remains have shown that today’s average temperatures have not yet reached the average maxima over the past 11,000 years
These studies, based on actual physical data, appear to contradict the findings of Marcott and Shakun.
Max
http://www.waldwissen.net/wald/baeume_waldpflanzen/oekologie/wsl_waldgrenze/index_EN
“Fossil woods above the timberline
In his hikes near the polar circle the 72-year-old Professor Stepan Shijatov stumbled across exceptional witnesses of past climatic conditions. Above the highest standing trees he found remains of fossil forests, the remnants of several meter high larch trees. The age of the extinct forests was determined with the help of the growth rings: the wood was around 1000 years old.
This shows that one millennium ago the climate in the polar Ural region was similar to that of today. Due to climatic cooling during the little ice age of the 13th and 14th centuries the trees died. The fossil larches however remained intact due to their high resin content and to specific climatic conditions – short, dry summers and icy winters. Today young trees and larch seedlings can once again be found growing amongst the fossil remains of the wood. Due to the climate warming the forest is re-conquering lost terrain.”
Today young trees and larch seedlings can once again be found growing amongst the fossil remains of the wood.
There were mature trees that died. The young trees and seedlings have not reached that point yet. We are early in this yet again warm period that will end with cooling and killing the trees again.
Growth accelerates when the young larches respond vertically to the improved climate. Y’a(m)all mighta seen that some errs before.
=============
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/#comment-1247129
Fred Hubler says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:57 am
Much of the Siberian Larch tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula were provided to Keith Briffa by Russian dendrochronologists Stephan Shiyatov and Rashit Hantemirov. In a climategate email from October 1998 Hantemirov writes that there is no evidence of movement of polar timberline in the last century.
However, in 2005 the Canadian Journal of Forest Research published an article based on Shiyatov’s work which stated that a large number of well preserved tree remains can be found 60 to 80 meters above the current tree line, and that the earliest distinct maximum in stand density occurred in the 11th to 13th centuries coincident with the MWP.
See http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x05-111
=================
Note the spelling difference in the quote I gave, Shijatov. Looked to see what else I could find, some links:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/a-hands-on-view-of-tree-growth-and-tree-rings-one-explanation-for-briffas-yad061-lone-tree-core/#comment-197244
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/a-hands-on-view-of-tree-growth-and-tree-rings-one-explanation-for-briffas-yad061-lone-tree-core/#comment-197247
Why deal with physical evidence or even ver batim quotes from hypesters when one has such nice modles and powerful narratives to follow instead?
Max,
You cite Nicolussi et al. (2006). From such meagre crumbs I have only been able to trace this article in German:
http://www.uibk.ac.at/geographie/forschung/dendro/publikationen—pdf-files/2006-nic_patz-bfw-praxisinfo10.pdf
Is this what you refer to as Nicolussi et al. (2006)?
I had no luck with Patzelt, 2001. Could you please be more specific with your citation? Thanks. Same goes for Schlüchter, 2006. I found lots of Schlüchter’s work on glaciers, but I could not find an article for which Schlüchter was first author in 2006 on this subject. And the same goes for Abermann, 2008. Please don’t take this as a criticism, I understand it is difficult to provide a full citation in blog comments, but I am interested in reading these articles. Therefore, please could you provide more thorough details of these three references and confirm that the article I linked is the article I linked to?
Thanks
Paul
CNN carried the story.
Chicken Little is alive and still telling scare stories.
This story is another repeat of the infamous fraudulent Hockey Stick story and known to be false.
Global warming is epic, long-term study says
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
The reason is the sun as shown:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/to:1965/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:1052/normalise
I especially love this line: “A century is a very short period of time for such a spike.” Is that when the light-bulb went on over his head? Nope, that was just the beginning of his ramble about how we’re all doomed.
Wow, CNN exposes the narrative dilemma in the first coupla hundred words: ‘If not for man-made influences, the Earth would be in a very cold phase right now and getting even colder’.
Now, I’m still worrying about how the blade got so clumsily attached, so I can’t bother with seeing whether the paper supports this journalist’s opinion. Nonetheless, the point is there.
=====================
If they can’t get the temperature right for the past seventeen years, why should we believe they know what should have happened. If not for man, we would not have thermometers and earth temperature would do what it is doing, follow natural cycles.
Nowhere in the maths of the paper can we see an engineer-level derivation of the word “epic”.
Climate gate 3 approacheth, Mr FOIA has released the password and it works!!
It’s amazing how Western academics just shine on science by ignoring what everyone knows and are allowed to get away with it (which is why we all know AGW theory is all about politics and nothing about science)!
–e.g.,
There’s only one kind of science that isn’t open to contradicting itself: the bad kind. Science needs to be open to accepting and considering contradictory evidence and redefining “facts” by definition. Heck, if new theories weren’t allowed to be formed and conclusions debunked with further experimentation, we’d still believe in crazy things like spontaneous generation, static universes… ~J. Kenji López-Alt (“The Food Lab’s Complete Guide to Dry-Aging Beef at Home”)
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Hank at suyts was a good read. I especially like the ending.
The true story of catastrophic global warming.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-hockey-stick-resurrected-by-marcott-et-al-2012/
CLIMATEGATE 3.0 has arrived in terminal 4.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/#comment-1247017
Hmmm…it seems we are about to play hockey again in the firm of CG3.
Regards
Mailman
Thank you, Matthew R Marler, for joining with many Climate Etc regular posters in sustaining narrow-bandwidth denialist cognition by the practice of ideology-driven cherry-picking.
Whereas the broad-bandwidth scientific intellects who post on Neven’s Sea Ice weblog appreciate the sobering scientific reality that is conveyed by comprehensive data-sets, which clearly show the accelerating AGW-driven “death-spiral” of Arctic sea ice volume.
Conclusion The coming 2013 Arctic ice-melt presents many good opportunities to broaden your science-receiving bandwidth for appreciating the sobering scientific reality of Earth’s ongoing climatological “hockey-stick warming” and “ice-melt death spiral,” Matthew R Marler … educational opportunities that are shared with dozens of Climate Etc’s resident cherry-pickers and/or ideology-pushers and/or astro-turfers!
May you all learn much in 2013 … and be grateful for it!
Fyi– Arctic sea ice extent since September 2012 has grown at such a record pace such that it was just 3% short of its average at the end of last month.
Wagathon, your whole-hearted commitment to willful ignorance sustained by irrational data-cherry-picking has provided everyone here on Climate Etc with numerous paradigmatic examples of denialist cognition!
Thank you for these many lessons-learned, Wagathon!
Your ad hom attack is typical of global warming alarmists but delivered with the veil of obsequious bonhomie is psychotic.
Wagathon, perhaps you should read more widely!
Wagathon, your posts are paradigmatic of the distilled essence of denialist cognition … which makes them valuable as teaching cases!
For which examples, on behalf of climate change science, please accept this sincere appreciation and thanks, Wagathon!
See–e.g., How Western Global Warming Pseudo-Science Is More Like Numerology and the Ancient Science of Astrology…
Pingback: Monokultur » Vinkeljernet
The password to the encrypted file has been released.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/#more-82057
Gary M and Beth
Found Hercules! Goes by last name of Pappastefandopulos.
Relocated to Düsseldorf with wife and four children and is now on the Hartz IV Program there.
Saving up to open a Greek restaurant with his brother-in-law, so not interested in Hydra work.
Sorry for discouraging news.
Max
I completely sympathise with FOIA, or whoever wrote what is supposed to be the email from him, which at this stage seems authentic. I too and am definitely and most assuredly a “lefty” but now skeptical, and I share FOIA’s concern about the social consequences of the affect on policy of such uncertain and unconvincing science.
I dislike that US right-wing politics has overtaken so much of the otherwise rationally skeptical voices in the debate on the science. I am not necessarily in favour in of large government or taxes for the sake of it, but I do think the scare-mongering about government and its role in society by some voices on the right of politics is equally as bad as the scare-mongering about global warming/climate change at times. I think and fettered and unregulated capitalism can be just as wasteful and inefficient as government, and government can be just as effective and efficient as private enterprise.
All that is beside the real point, that the science as it stands doesn’t justify the efforts to mitigate anthropogenic influences on the global climate – at least as far as CO2 is concerned. Land use changes and its regional effects – for sure. But the people who will most suffer from the unnecessary increases in the cost of energy are those who are the most vulnerable.
CG3 password is now released to selected individuals
Hockeyschtick from Tallbloke’s website (he too has the password):
“>I do
>find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event
>to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain’s
>commment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated.
-Ed Cook-
Lol. Suck it up Mikey
Analyses like these by people who don’t know the field are useless.
A good example is Naomi Oreskes work.
-Tom Wigley-
Multilolz. Chew on that you loathsome hag”
Wot can one say :) :)
Climategate 3.0 has occurred – the password has been released
Guess watt the password might be.
“MannLovesGore”
It’s amazing that global warming alarmism got as far as it did but it is no longer surprising that it did so with the help of a willing academia. What do Charles Dickens and George Washington both have in common? They both lived during the Little Ice Age that occurred from about the mid thirteenth century to the 1860s–Dickens wrote about a “White Christmas” and our vision of Washington is crossing the Delaware afloat with chunks of ice.
Steve McIntyre has begun his demolition of Marcott Et Al. Should be entertaining, enjoyable, and educational.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/marcott-mystery-1/
Generalissimo Skippy | March 13, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
“But don’t worry – your ‘deficit’ is multi-decadal in scope. Still have some water in your lake? We will see.”
Schadenfreude much? Nice, Ellison. Real nice.
Maybe it’s past time for you to ride off into the sunset before you get so bitter at being mocked & ignored you self destruct.
It is what it is springer – http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html
You seem incapable of a few things. One is ‘mocking’ at higher than a pre-school standard. Another is ignoring me. A third is imagining that I give a rat’s arse. A fourth is in making a point that is other than imbecilic, facile and inconsequential. A fifth is being able to enter a discourse sans bombast, dogmatism and a dire and unfortunate tendency to the pedestrian and simplistic. A seventh … well I could be here all day.
My feeling – though I could be wrong – is that you are less well regarded than webby and for very similar reasons. Inanity coupled with an overweening egotism. Perhaps it is time you reflected on few things – life is too short for bad coffee and being the smartest person in the room.
‘One of the problems with being the smartest person in the room is that you learn to expect that no one else in the room has anything of value to add, and that >sigh< you have to expend soooo much energy getting those people who keep speaking up to just listen to you and understand that your way is the right way.' http://blog.sagemarketingblog.com/2012/06/13/on-encountering-another-smartest-person-in-the-room.aspx
Sound familiar? It should.
'But one of the other problems with being the smartest person in the room is your automatic response to other people’s ideas and thoughts tends to be to treat them as inferior competitors to your own—to be ignored, or shouted down, or rebutted—instead of contributions that just might add some value.'
My problem is that I don't think you or webby are anywhere near the smartest people in the room. More Asperger than Einstein. There are many others who are and a distinguishing factor is an ability to enter a true Socratic discourse. They learn and evolve – they interact and grow. They don't simply talk at other people.
Wrong. I spent most of my adult life around the brightest people that Intel and Microsoft could attract. Those are my intellectual peers. You’re dysfunctional at that level. Now I really must say buh-bye to you because rising to the chum you throw in the water gets me in deep bandini with Curry and I’d rather not be.
Pingback: El “calentamiento global sin precedentes” producido por la ciencia y la prensa basura. Marcott et al, los nuevos héroes. | PlazaMoyua.com
Pingback: El “calentamiento global sin precedentes” producido por la ciencia y la prensa basura. Marcott et al, los nuevos héroes. | Desde el exilio
Historical records suggest climategate is the long-term consequence of a crisis of conscience involving two British authors of science fiction, George Orwell and Fred Hoyle in 1945-46:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2204
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/climategate-a-crisis-of-conscience/
‘There doesn’t seem to be anything really new here in terms of our understanding of the Holocene. Mike’s Nature trick seems to be now a standard practice in paleo reconstructions. I personally don’t see how this analysis says anything convincing about climate variability on the time scale of a century.’
So we have recent temperatures that were fairly similar to todays. Nothing new in that.
‘With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, -2.1, and 1.4 W/m2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record…’ http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
So if we had 0.6 W/m2 greenhouse gas forcing – net cloud radiative forcing was -2 W/m2 and anthropogenic warming was 30% of the total.
So if we are not warming for decades hence because of cool patterns of ocean and amosphere circulation – and resultant cloud changes – and most warming was quite natural then a millennial downturn in the Bond Event Zero may be sufficient to offsett warming for quite a while.
But there is no real expectation that climate will behave in any but unexpected ways with the potential for surprise at extreme ends of the spectrum of warming or cooling. Any other expectation is an argument form ignorance. Climate is far too complex for simple methods and climate narratives to succeed convincingly – and complex models bring their own baggage of deterministic chaos.
So in a nutshell, what we have is then, is
– a hockey stick, again,
– that depends crucially on statistical chicanery, again.
Well, as long as it’s proppa scientists doing the chicanery, that’s ok I guess …..
No more “missing in internet”!!
I found a very interesting site… BRAWDING.com
It looks like a simple board but is working like facebook, youtube and goole….
Internet marketing, making money, making friends, video, picture, chatting, camchat, broadcasting… everything is in there.
Members can write or upload whatever they want(even the commercial PR) and in several seconds it could be recognized by all the other visitors without waiting untill your site become famous.
So you would not be left as a “missing in internet” any more.
Try go and look around.
So let me see if I get this now…
There’s no actual integrated global study, it’s just that the various regional studies all show a warming maximum round about the same time ?
Yes, warmists love their meat grinders. If the meat is not ground, tjhey don’t like it.
I would put it like this. There is no global integrated study because regional studies of the period show warming at different times, which means there is not enough evidence to conclude the MWP was global.
Which is why there is no consensus that it was global.
But it very well could have been as warm as 1980 to 1998. Which would be bad news, not good.
JCH |
regional studies of the period show warming at different times, which means there is not enough evidence to conclude the MWP was global.
Still within the period, but at different times within the period? Coincidence?
But it very well could have been as warm as 1980 to 1998. Which would be bad news, not good.
Bad because …. ?
They think it means high climate sensitivity. Mind-boggling.
High climate sensitivity maybe – but to something other than CO2 increases then. Is that bad (other than for committed CO2 control-knob heads) ?
CO2 is the knob in their mind.
both
Eh? Both what? It’s bad for real, as well as just bad for committed alarmists?
JSH, What does that graph look like then the snipped Pause period is put back ?
The thick line would be relatively flattish, the dashed line would be above it, and the thin line would have about about the same curve and be above he thick line.
Also, the paper was on the 20th Century, so nothing was “removed”.
The graph was made by the guys who predicted the “pause” and deep ocean warming.
And a global MWP is not bad for the alarmists.
JCH
The MWP period, you say, indicates high climate sensitivity. But back then, that would not be sensitivity to CO2, obviously. So … what was your point exactly? What exactly is bad ?
—
Why do you show a 20C graph is a discussion about the MWP??
And if the alarmists predicted the Pause (ref?), why do they now spend so much energy trying to deny it ?
@willard & verytallguy
willard (@nevaudit) | March 13, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
“http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm”
Blog science. Spare me.
VeryTallGuy | March 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
“Happily for you, this does support your idea than climate sensitivity is low*
*Willard correctly defines sensitivity. I apologise for assuming you knew that already”
Blog science. Spare me.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html
The definition I gave is almost verbatim that of the IPCC.
People like you two are tedious and impossible to have a reasonable discussion with.
manacker | March 14, 2013 at 2:40 am |
Very Tall Guy
All temperature is local or regional (as well as seasonal, diurnal, etc.)
80+ independent studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methodologies, ALL concluded that the MWP in all these locations all over the world was slightly warmer than today.
“All over the world” = “global”
Got it?
Max
PS In addition, there were two studies that compiled data from several locations:
Loehle (2007) – MWP slightly warmer than present
Moberg et al. (2005) – MWP same as present
ABSTRACT:
A number of reconstructions of millennial-scale climate variability have been carried out in order to understand patterns of natural climate variability, on decade to century timescales, and the role of anthropogenic forcing. These reconstructions have mainly used tree-ring data and other data sets of annual to decadal resolution. Lake and ocean sediments have a lower time resolution, but provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data. Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data, using a wavelet transform technique to achieve timescale-dependent processing of the data. Our reconstruction shows larger multicentennial variability than most previous multi-proxy reconstructions, but agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model. According to our reconstruction, high temperatures – similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990- occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.
The bold is what vtg means by an equally warm MWP being bad, not good.
JCH
How does it show that warmer is bad?
Very Tall,
I’m quite sure you do realize that the problem is not Big Dave’s definition, but how he interprets it when he says:
> Climate sensitivity is usually defined as temperature response to a CO2 doubling. Was CO2 high in the MWP? I believe any number of ice cores will put that fantasy to rest. Nothing unusual about CO2 in the MWP. So we don’t know what caused it do we?
With his last sentence, Big Dave is arguing from ignorance, is dismissing that we do have a fairly good idea why something like the MWP would have happened, and presuming that only CO2 matters to establish CS. This is why we must add the precision that CS depends not only on CO2 change, but on all the forcings we can find. One reason is that these forcings are interacting with one another:
> [T]he climate’s sensitivity to external forcing will depend on the mean climate state and the nature of the forcing, both of which affect feedback mechanisms (Chapter 8).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6.html
This quote refers to 8.6, which refers to 10.5, et cetera. The reasoning behind CS is not that hard to find. Even I can dig this.
Perhaps it takes Big Dave’s genius to miss it. Perhaps he does know about it and plays dumb to waste our time.
Lots of theories.
Feel free to link to something conclusive about the cause(s) of the MWP.
You’ll find there’s nothing but speculation. We don’t know. Write that
down.
Dave,
you are arguing (I know not why) for a global MWP.
Here’s a clue from the paper you have used as evidence
from the Moberg abstract Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures
(my emphasis)
From Merriam Webster online:
Global: “of, relating to, or involving the entire world: worldwide”
Hemisphere: “half of a spherical or roughly spherical body (as a planet)”
See the difference?
Be sceptical. Ask yourself why all these studies referenced across the world supposedly clearly showing a MWP have never been synthesised into a global reconstruction which shows a MWP.
I’m not arguing for an MWP. I gave you evidence of it in hundreds of studies using of various types of proxies from all over the world. The evidence speaks for itself.
Maybe you could provide some similar evidence that it didn’t occur. Or maybe you cannot. Go ahead, buddy. Lay out your evidence if you have any.
VTG > Be sceptical. Ask yourself why all these studies referenced across the world supposedly clearly showing a MWP have never been synthesised into a global reconstruction which shows a MWP.
The first and obvious reason, is that ithat is the very last thing the bulk of the alarmist-motivated consensus/establishment wants anyone to say. And these are the people with their hands on 99.99% of the money in climate studies.
What you might better ask, is why have the people who want to disprove the MWP, and who have virtually all the money, not done such a synthesis? They probably have, and have buried the results because they don’t like them.
Yes, no global, integrated MWP study; just warming in numerous parts of the globe during that period.
Airbrushed out by both Mann and Marcott.
Moberg says the MWP was about as warm as 1990. I think Mann 2008 is not much different. This is how I would rate their airbrushing abilities.
Bated,
if Mann is so obviously wrong, why doesn’t anyone just publish a study showing it?
Have you considered which parts of the globe were cooling?
Why not?
VTG – Several papers have already been published that show Mann is completely wrong. You just chose to ignore them like the rest of the team.
Phil,
In which case it will be easy for you to cite them, no?
Sure. Yes.
Mann’s hockeysticks, both the original and updated versions, are clearly wrong. Even RealClimate has been seen admitting a central claim of the newer one’s paper is false. Do we really need more published papers to show what everyone should already know?
As for the rest, people find it difficult to publish results like, “Data shows we don’t know if temperatures are warmer now than ~700 years ago,” and that’s the reality of our situation. Anyone claiming to know which period was warmer is just engaging in wishful thinking. The data we have doesn’t say one way or the other.
The big issue in Mann’s HS “science”, was his deliberately fraudulent DIY statistical techniques.
Schwollenburger obviously didn’t spend a few minutes checking out some of the studies here:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
There are hundreds of regional studies from every region of the world including Antarctica using various proxies each explicitely stating the Medieval Warm Period can be seen in the record and the majority of them (at least the majority of the 20 I randomly sampled) explicitely state the MWP was the warmest period in the study.
While it’s true we don’t know it was there’s certainly a compelling collection of evidence saying it was global and it was the warmest of the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Modern Warm Period.
I encourage everyone to go look for themselves. Don’t take my word for it. I provide links whenever possible and practical so no one has to take my word for things.
Really? You don’t like what I say so I “obviously” haven’t looked at evidence?
You might as well shout to the rooftops, “I won’t listen to anything you say!”
Calm down. It’s just an expression.
I notice you didn’t correct me and say you had looked at it. Was I right that you hadn’t? ;-)
And now you’re apparently attempting to use mind-reading. Calming down would require I first be in some agitated state. Given nothing I said indicates such, the only way you could hope to know I am is via ESP.
As for whether or not you were right, I can assure you, of one thing: As long as you act like you have thus far, anything you get right will be by chance alone.
I’ll take your dodging of the question as a “you were right, I didn’t check out the http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php compendium of published temperature proxies extending back through the MWP”.
It’s not mind reading when you wear your ignorance on your sleeve.
So have you perused the CO2 science literature references yet or is your willful ignorance now a principled stand because it was pointed out to you by someone you intensely dislike?
Here’s another link
With regularity, you might hear skeptics mentioning a website called CO2 Science and its Medieval Project….Few of the graphs in Figure 2 contain temperature data past the mid-20th Century, and thus do not reflect current temperatures; in addition the MWP is rather ill-defined. Usually the MWP is the period between 950-1250, but when you look at the graphs you see some inconsistency. In it you see a warm period during 800 AD, 1100 AD or even 1400 AD
Really, desperation now? Using SkS? Why not use romper room. They have the same level of credibility in this discussion.
David Springer, if you want to continue down a path of delusionality, I won’t try to stop you. I’ll just wish you well and wonder how you can inhabit a world with so little bearing on the real one.
I will say this though: I don’t think you got a single thing right in your last comment. Getting all you conclusions wrong is one thing, but the predicates too? I don’t think you got a single point of reasoning right either. I don’t think I could match that feat even if I tried.
Whatever, Brenda. LOL
lolwot
I looked at the SS article you linked and I disagree. I never bothered with the interactive map. I examined a random sample of about 20 papers here
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
including some from each region of the world listed. I found a link to the original paper and quoted material from each explicitely stating that warming was notable in the MWP time frame and most (but not all) saying it was the warmest period in the sample.
I suggest you have a look for yourself and form your own opinion rather than having your opinion given to you by a notoriously biased web site. Look at the original papers. I only use CO2science.org for a list to the published papers and don’t rely on them for any conclusions. Indeed I didn’t even read their conclusions I only did a quick survey of the literature they had listed and am reporting on what I found in that survey.
I also looked at a random sample of papers. In total they didn’t back up the claim the MWP was globally warmer than present.
JCH
I’m sure that Moberg was not so stupid to compare a past period lasting several hundred years with the single year 1990, as you suggest.
Only an idiot would do something so stupid.
His study essentially concluded that there was no real difference between the warmth of the MWP and that of today.
This is obviously in direct contradiction with the IPCC AR4 claim that “the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years”. [No difference is NOT unusual.]
Loehle’s conclusion is actually not that much different from Moberg’s. Comparing periods of similar length (30 years) he showed that the peak period during the MWP was around 0.3C warmer than the current peak period. He later made a few minor corrections and the difference was reduced to 0.16C, as compared to the latest 30-year period 1983-2012.
But still, both studies essentially falsify the IPCC claim of “unusual” second half 20thC warmth for 1,300 years, as do the many studies from all over the world, which have been cited.
Max
I commented at RC:
–
“They’re simply denying AGW, for whatever reasons they may have. These might range from commercial sponsorship (either direct or indirect) to sheer bloody-mindedness, as in the case of a person (I am outside the US) I know personally who refuses to accept the objectivity of the scientists because he himself spent decades in a government job in an area where everybody brought a political agenda to EVERY issue.”
I ‘deny’ AGW for the same reason (among many) like Mr FOIA.
“Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”
How can anyone disagree with this?
–
First it was posted as it is and Rasmus asked, “who’s Mr. FOIA?” Then later they moved it to the bore hole and edited out “Mr. FOIA”. Denial.
An excerpt I saw from the new e-mails had some other warmist calling Mann’s stuff “crap”. It probably doesn’t play well to the “skeptic” conspiracy theory that there was even a debate in the emails about Mann’s work, so we didn’t see this debate in the earlier selected releases which were designed to manipulate opinion in the conspiracy direction, and succeeded in that. The HS was modified by the time AR4 came out as a result of the scientific debate. Mann’s HS was never central to AGW, and non-paleo AGW scientists may find tree-rings a bit dubious, but it doesn’t alter their own belief in AGW which is well founded on other things.
Jim D
Yes. Climategate did reveal that there was debate within the “inner circle” on the validity of Mann’s hockeystick. In addition, while “Mike’s Nature trick” was generally hailed, there were apparently one or two mildly dissenting voices.
Mann’s HS was important to IPCC – in fact, so important that it received “centerfold” prominence in the TAR summary report.
After its demise, IPCC moved it back into a hidden spot in the scientific report in AR4, surrounded by several “spaghetti copy hockey sticks”, but it maintained the HS conclusion of “unusual warmth in 1,300 years”.
[What the hell, that was the only important part, anyway.]
Max
Jim D | March 14, 2013 at 11:35 pm | Reply
An excerpt I saw from the new e-mails had some other warmist calling Mann’s stuff “crap”. It probably doesn’t play well to the “skeptic” conspiracy theory that there was even a debate in the emails about Mann’s work,
Jim D is very obviously new to the substance of Climategate. Anyone even faintly familiar with it knows only too well that various parties thought Mann’s “work” was crap, and furthermore that great care was taken to conceal disagreement from the public, so as to support political correctness and its bogus notion of the science being “settled”.
Once Mann’s deliberate frauds became too much trouble to defend, the establishment focus was slyly moved elsewhere, it being said the issue no longer mattered. But now that this Marcott new great white HS fraud has emerged, suddenly the establishment pronounce the issue does again matter. But, already its head has thwacked against the canvas a few times, and it seems unlikely he will last long enough to finish Round 1. We can thus expect the ‘consensus’ to again revert to saying that the issue isn’t really relevant.
Nicely said.
Falks
It is global warming that is causing the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as the following perfect correlation between the two demonstrates.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/to:1983/normalise
It is a fool’s errand to try to control the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Most importantly, global warming is caused by the increased solar activity as the following result shows:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/to:1965/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:1052/normalise
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ybd01
Texas State Historical Association
DROUGHTS
This is for the person who baselessly supposed Texas droughts are mult-decadal.
I predicted the current drought as a cyclic recurrence of the drought that happened 60 years ago which happens to be the length of the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation. Curry agreed with my forecast.
It began right on time in 2009 and we are now four years into it and Lake Travis elevation is still 15 feet above the record low set in August of 1951. This is called “The Drought of Record” and the years thereabouts are used for management plans to conserve water for interruptable customers downstream. Due to the far higher water demand on the lake now than 60 years ago I expect the drought of record may be broken this coming August but probably not by much. I also expect rainfall deficits to continue but not be as severe going forward the same as they were 60 years ago.
As for my personal situation the navigable portion of Lake Travis is 65 miles long. There are over 300 miles of shoreline. It’s still navigable for 65 miles and it’s still navigable at my location and would have drop far below the drought of record to become unnavigable. The drought of record is 615′ MSL and it’s currently 630′ MSL. I’ll still be able to float my boat dock down to 580′ MSL and even after that I could still launch by trailer following the old farm road through the center of the now inundated valley to wherever the lake shore retreats.
Thanks for your interest. Now you know. It would be nice if, in the future, you’d do just the least bit of due diligence before putting pen to paper, Mr. Science Communicator.
‘Although long considered implausible, there is growing promise for probabilistic climatic forecasts one or two decades into the future based on quasiperiodic variations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs), salinities, and dynamic ocean topographies. Such long-term forecasts could help water managers plan for persistent drought across the conterminous United States (1). The urgency for such planning became evident when much of the U.S. was gripped by drought in 1996 and again in 1999–2003, evoking images of the dry 1930s and 1950s. Analyses and forecasting of U.S. precipitation have focused primarily on the Pacific Ocean, and more specifically on oceanic indices such as those used to track the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Much of the long-term predictability in North American climate, however, may actually reside in both observed and modeled multidecadal (50–80 years) variations in North Atlantic SSTs.’
http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/julio_pdf/McCabe_ea.pdf
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=USdrought_zps2629bb8c.jpg
All this because I suggested that you lived in a dry lake bed? But you don’t really expect that I meant it didn’t rain at all for 20 or 30 years? I expect some common sense from most people. What is considered is the drought frequency leading to qualitative – and perhaps some day probabilistic – forecasts decades into the future.
You can assume that I have spent 30 years on this and not 10 minutes – which seems to be your attention span. Your ENSO explanation yesterday is typical. The trade winds increase and this cools the ocean surface – no one knows why. A 10 year old could do better.
30 years huh?
Where have you been published?
Got link?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. All hat, no cattle.
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft!!!!!!!!!!!
I have described my ‘publishing record’ which you have obviously read. I do not intend to go over it any time again.
My professional work involves decades of reading in hydology and decades of hydrologial modelling.
My interest in hydrological regimes was inspired by this book published in 1988 – and especially in a paper on alternating flood and drought dominated regimes on NSW rivers by Wayne Erskine and Robin Warner.
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Fluvial_geomorphology_of_Australia.html?id=At-EAAAAIAAJ
But why don’t you look at the information provided instead of constantly responding with silly ad homs and juvenile expressions. You are truly the silliest person in the room – congrats.
San Diego and Athens are on about the same latitude and have about the same weather due to similar circumstances–e.g., essentially a low desert with oceanfront–and, both have their halcyon days and are great places to grow olive trees. Greece gave birth to Socrates whereas San Diego was a place where the natives lived off the land and died in their twenties of gum disease. The weather does not a great society make but fear of it can unmake it.
According to current data, global temperatures of the past 10 years are far warmer than the MWP average, possibly warmer than the whole MWP.
I think the MWP is done and dusted, concentration should now be put towards whether we have also exceeded the Roman Warm Period and Holoecene Maximum, or how much more warming it would take (can’t be much) to do so.
Best creative downplay of “our” MWP since that guy who asked me what day of the week it started. Even better than the guy who said the whole “vines in Greenland” thing was exaggerated. (Was it what!)
That other bloke with the asterisks and coloured icons who keeps thanking everybody? He can eat his heart out. The real hockey action is right here.
You cannot even tell if it was warmer than the average. There were no thermometers back then. And the level of accuracy that you and others are trying to use defy every mathematical rule in existence.
But it does not matter. Like I said, just pick the hottest day of 2012 and compare it to the average to get your wish. Hell, why even use a global average. Just pick a day in Death Valley and compare it to the average. That is as good as you are doing.
You certainly can conclude a particular hot day is warmer than the MWP average, or warmer than the average of the last 1000 years. But that isn’t particularly interesting for us because this is climate etc, not weather etc.
With climate we are concerned with a more longterm state, including the gradual warming we have experienced over recent decades, which has brought us, according to eg HadCRUT4, to a world about 0.4C warmer than the 1961-1990 average.
How can we compare this with the MWP? That’s the question. You insist we can’t compare the current warm period with the MWP. But that astonishes me because all around us there are climate skeptics professing to be doing just that.
Everytime someone claims the MWP was warmer than present they are acknowledging such a comparison can be made.
Of course skeptics usually balls up the comparison by comparing the wrong period. Eg they will compare the MWP with temperature levels around 1950, or even 1900, which obviously isn’t actually the present which is warmer (eg as above, 0.4C warmer than the 1961-1990 average).
I can’t stop skeptics making mistakes, but I can correct them and do a proper comparison – by their own method – of whether we are warmer or cooler than the MWP.
The result is that the data suggests the present day world, which I have described as +0.4C warmer than it was in 1961-1990, is warmer than the average of the MWP. Quite a bit warmer.
There is no just basis to the claim the MWP was warmer than present.
The MWP just was. It was an uneven affair (being to do with climate, duh), there are indicators from China, like citrus and crop range studies, to say it may have been warmer than now. There are other Chinese indicators…but all these things are only indicators, as for Europe.
There are also some reasons to think now may be a touch warmer, but “now” is a pretty vague notion, like “then”, when you’re talking about something so vast. The main point is that the hockeystick is one gigantic lie. Tinkering out the MWP to make that part of the handle straighter so one can go on triumphally to do some fancy blacksmithing on the Roman, Minoan and Maximal Warmings really is getting a bit desperate and Lysenkoist, don’t you think?
I’m one who doesn’t pretend to knowledge of future climate, and who thinks that past climate is available to us only in outline. If this seems defeatist, I also think that present climate is only available in outline, because of Publish-or-Perish, and the anti-scientific cult of Scientism, which automatically treats available data as adequate data, a supreme intellectual failing.
We know the MWP by its absence, of course, in the 14th century. But the ridiculous in all this is that there is a likely climate change that will have very severe consequences for most things: a Laki or Tambora scale eruption. A slow, dirty, basaltic spout like Laki is the last thing anyone needs, but why should it not happen in the medium term? Let’s hope there’s no cooling when such a relatively common event (historically) does occur. We’re going to feel mighty silly with our feeble whirlygigs and grimy solar panels for a couple of years. Coal and nukes – please! Potency – please!
We shouldn’t start bedwetting, but we should be using our resources to prepare for nature’s worst, instead of trying to arrest, Canute-like, a two century old upward trend in sea levels which, clearly, nobody understands.
One outstanding governor.
lolwot
Wrong conclusion, lolwot, for the following reasons (which have been pointed out).
You are comparing “apples” (reconstructed averages over longer-term periods) with “orange”s (observed globally and seasonally averaged land and sea surface temperatures over the 30-year period 1961-1990, as the study cites, or the even shorter “blip” of the past 20 years, as you recommend).
The MWP “apple” shows a tad more warming than the current “orange” (the first one cited).
But if you extend the current “orange” back from today to 1850, you will see that the MWP is significantly warmer than the past 150 years.
But, lolwot, even then it’s an “apples and oranges” comparison (i.e. next to worthless).
So to rephrase your statement:
Max
Lolwot – according to Phil Jones, James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, your interval is also weather since climate is based upon 30 year intervals, not 20 or 18. Congratulations, you are starting to get partially why your statement is nonsensical.
Max,
You don’t want to compare today’s temperature to the MWP because that would involve admitting that today’s temperatures are warmer.
Your attempt to muddy this by trying to define today as the last 150 years is truly pathetic.
Repeating a deception does not make it true.
Do you get it yet?
Very tall guy
You are *still* attempting to muddy the waters here by trying to compare the last decade or so to the whole MWP. Truly pathetic.
Repeating a deception does not make it true.
Do you get it yet?
Heh, wait’ll he reads Marcott’s doctoral thesis. Several others here ought to, too.
=======
Holy Gratuitous Hockey Blades, Batman!
Check this out:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/
Oh Lucy, someone has some ‘splainin to do!
Read StevieMac’s latest comments about the re-dating of series. What is the urge to be so reckless?
=================
I get it I really do.
Climate deniers want to compare the MWP to the 19th century and pretend the 19th century is TODAY so that they can falsely claim the MWP was warmer than today (the 21st century)
Is that what you are doing? Since the only “deniers” are you. The rest appear to be skeptics and alarmists. The former using proven scientific methods to try to find answers to questions. The deniers, such as yourself, deny proven scientific methods.
lolwot
Sounds promising, lolwot. Let’s see if it’s really true.
Oops! Looks like you didn’t really get it after all.
Let me ‘splain, so you’ll maybe really “get it”.
The MWP proxy temperatures cover a long time interval of several hundred years. Within this long time interval, there have been warmer and cooler short-term “blips” in the record, as the Loehle global reconstruction (using different paleo methods but NOT tree rings) showed.
The same is true for the “modern” warming period.
Marcott used the 30-year period 1961-1990 to represent the current warm period. As phil jourdan pointed out, this gives an flawed comparison with a multi-century MWP, because of the different time scales. The warmest shorter period will ALWAYS be warmer than the average over a longer time period.
The average temperature of the 150-year record to today is 0.4C colder than the average from 1962 to 1990.
You would like to use an even shorter modern period, the past decade, which is even warmer than the 1962-1990 average by 0.2C or so.
But this comparison would be even more silly than the one made by Marcott, since it would be comparing a multicentury average in the MWP with a 10-year “blip” today.
Do you “get it” now?
Max
So you are saying we can’t compare current temperatures to the MWP because we don’t have enough data.
Yet ClimateDepot claims the MWP was warmer than today.
Hmmm
RIF – try comparing the current period (why are you cherry picking the current period BTW? Has the “modern” era not been in existence except for your cherry picking? Why is 1940 not “Modern”?) to an equal period of the MWP. That is valid, and that is how we can say that the MWP is warmer than today. But comparing your decade to centuries is not a valid comparison. Try comparing your decade to the warmest decades of the MWP. The MWP did not “spring up” over night. It warmed over years, STAYED warm for years, and then started cooling over (guess what?) years.
Everyone gets it.
Motivated as they are, climate alarmists want to compare a decade now, to the average of 350 years of the the MWP, to give a false impression needed to support alarmism.
Repeating a deception does not make it true. Are you finally getting that, verytallguy, lolwot ,& friends ?
lolwot
NO.
I am NOT saying what you wrote:
Max
You are saying that manacker you just don’t realize it.
When you claim we can’t compare current, global temperatures, which are +0.4C relative to 1960-1990, to the MWP you are saying we can’t compare today to the MWP.
Sorry but a 1850-1950 average IS NOT today. Pretending it is so you can claim the MWP was warmer than today is just deceptive. When you claim that people think you are saying the MWP was warmer than how high global temperatures have reached after ~0.8C 20th century warming. You should admit to them that you are only comparing an old period and that you are unable to compare current temperatures with the MWP.
lolwot
I’m trying as hard as I can to straighten you out, but I’m coming to the conclusion that you are either too dense to understand (or simply being obstinate).
You are putting words into my mouth that I never wrote and dancing around the issue.
You cannot compare long-term records with short-term “blips”.
30 years is about the shortest climate period that has any statistical significance, which is why the current “pause” in warming is still not considered “statistically significant”.
50 years or 100 years might even be better for comparing long-term trends.
But the main thing (last time I am going to repeat this to you, lolwot): you cannot compare long-term records with short-term “blips”.
If you are unable to understand this simple fact, too bad for you.
Max
“You cannot compare long-term records with short-term “blips”.”
Then stop claiming the MWP was warmer than today. You haven’t even shown it was warmer than the 1982-2012 average.
And you have not shown the opposite either. But we can easily show that the MWP is warmer than the modern era (both over 100 years). We can show that the max decades of the MWP was warmer than any decade of today. You cannot. You cannot show that the max decade in the modern era is warmer than the max decade of the MWP – and that is where you are failing. But you create a conclusion that is not supported by any data – how? By comparing a decade to multiple centuries.
The only way you can prove your point is to compare your decade to every “contiguous” (just so you have less weasel room) decade of the MWP. Please present your findings for review.
Max > “You cannot compare long-term records with short-term “blips” ”
lolwot > Continuing his marathon attempt to sidestep this, “Then stop claiming the MWP was warmer than today”
Eh? If the long term average comparable in length to the MWP, and including the present, is less warm than the MWP, even though the current blip is warmer, what is lolwot’s problem?
Is lolwot being deliberately evasive, or is he just an idiot?
Petra, an example:
Lets say you’ve concluded that 1100-1200AD was 0.4C warmer than 1850-1950AD.
Does that mean you can go around claiming the MWP was warmer than today?
I argue not, because when you say today people expect you to be talking about modern levels of temperature. Not the distant average of 1850-1950AD. Describing such a period as “today” to convince people we haven’t yet reached MWP temperature levels is deceptive.
lolwot
You duck the point so I repeat it : if a period similar in length to the MWP, and up to the present, is less warm than the MWP, then we can fairly say the MWP was warmer than today, even if the blip is higher.
It is deceptive for you to suggest otherwise, relying on a literal meaning of the 24-hours encompassed by “today”. And mis-describing straight thinking as “deceptive”, is (doubly-)deceptive.
“if a period similar in length to the MWP, and up to the present, is less warm than the MWP, then we can fairly say the MWP was warmer than today, even if the blip is higher.”
No we can’t. Simple example:
Define the MWP as 200 years long from 1000AD to 1200AD.
So you are saying we should compare that with the period 1812-2012AD
And if the latter is colder the MWP was warmer than “today”?
Seriously?
That doesn’t even address whether the 0.8C of 20th century warming has broken through the MWP temperature level. You aren’t even asking the right question.
lolwot
With the exception of the one New Zealand study, which you cherry-picked, all the studies I cited generally agree with the revised study of Chris Loehle on the timing of the MWP. They are all recent enough to include the latest warming cycle for comparison. Loehle’s study, based on 18 independent studies from all over the world shows that the MWP occurred over several centuries around 1000 years ago, but the warmest century of the MWP occurred around 830-929 AD and the warmest tri-decade was 870-899 AD, around 0.16°C warmer than the most recent warmest tri-decade.
A recent study, which I forgot to mention is: Lu et al. 2013, Antarctic Peninsula; this study confirms the MWP with a peak around that same time, but no temperature estimates are given.
I suggest that if you are really interested in getting more detail on these studies, you simply look them up (as I did).
The overall conclusion of all these studies is a) that the MWP is real, b) that it occurred over a period of several centuries starting around 1,200 years ago, c) that is was global in scope and d) that it was slightly warmer than the current period (comparing statistically significant periods of equal time length).
As far as I can tell, Marcott is correct in stating that the IPCC model predictions of future warming would exceed the warmth of the MWP and earlier warm periods, if they come true, but that the warming seen so far does not exceed these past periods of warming.
Hope this helps.
Max
lolwot
As far as I can tell, we have pretty much discussed this point ad nauseam, but let me address your last statement:
We discussed the significance of short term “blips” in the record (whether we are talking about the current “pause” in warming or the end-20th century high point in current warmth).
A 30-year period is generally seen as the shortest statistically significant climatic time period (although I think it’s far too short in the overall scheme of things). But let’s stick with 30-years.
Loehle compared “warmest tri-decades” of the MWP with the current period, arriving at a MWP estimate that was 0.3°C warmer than the current warmest period. His later revised his study slightly and, if we move the “warmest current tri-decade” to 1983-2012, we see that the MWP was only 0.16°C warmer than the current warmest period.
The “peak” warmth of 1998 and one or two other recent years does, indeed, exceed any of the peak values cited by Loehle, but his record is based on 30-year running mean values, so this smooths out the year-by-year peaks.
Max
lolwot
You are not even asking the right question. Your interest in whether 20C warming has “broken through” MWP levels, shows you are still stuck in “blip” thinking, yet again ducking the real issue now illustrated to you by numerous people on numerous occasions (one last time – it’s about the averages for comparable time-periods).
lolwot | March 14, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Reply
According to current data, global temperatures of the past 10 years are far warmer than the MWP average, possibly warmer than the whole MWP.
I think the MWP is done and dusted, concentration should now be put towards whether we have also exceeded the Roman Warm Period and Holoecene Maximum, or how much more warming it would take (can’t be much) to do so.
You’re done and dusted Lolwot – the Medieval Warm Period was global – that’s why the scam conmen posing as climate scientists fiddled, and continue to fiddle, with temperature records and why the Hockey Stick was created, to hide this in order to promote the global warming AGW fraud.
http://climatedepot.com/a/20008/More-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-Medieval-Warm-Period-was-real-global–warmer-than-the-present
“Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts UN IPCC: ‘More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist ‘scientific consensus’ was announced’ — ‘A new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the N. hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica…In other words, global warming has already occurred in historical, pre-industrial times, and then gone away again. Lu et al’s work is published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters'”
And so was the Roman Warm global in extent, but thanks for mentioning it..
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N30/C3.php
“What it means
Many climate alarmists refuse to acknowledge that recurring alternating intervals of relative warmth and cold, such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, were ever global in extent, while others refuse to even acknowledge their existence. Now, however, the striking correspondence of this Southern Hemispheric millennial-scale climatic oscillation with the similar climatic oscillation revealed by MeDermott et al.’s Northern Hemispheric study provides convincing evidence for both the reality and global extent of the many several-century-long warm and cold periods that reverberate throughout the Holocene.
“This observation is of great significance, because it demonstrates that the global warming of the past century, which led to the demise of the Little Ice Age, is but the most recent phase of a natural climatic oscillation that is totally unrelated to the increase in the air’s CO2 content that just happened to coincide with its occurrence.”
The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect is an illusion created by sleights of hand manipulating terms, properties and processes from science; instigated by the same tricksters who create money out of nothing. They are well practiced in utilising the energies of useful idiots to promote their scams.
Your links are bogus. They falsely claim the MWP was warmer than today. This just isn’t true. The data suggest the MWP was cooler than today.
Again, for the slow learners, the data does not suggest any such thing. Until you learn how to compare averages, you will never know what the data says or suggests.
Myrrh quotes:
“Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts UN IPCC: ‘More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist ‘scientific consensus’ was announced’ — ‘A new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the N. hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica…In other words, global warming has already occurred in historical, pre-industrial times, and then gone away again. Lu et al’s work is published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters”.
But author Zunli Lu says:
“It is unfortunate that my research…has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.
Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
And so it goes.
And just to complete the picture – the LIA was global in extent too:
“New Scripps Institution Antarctica Research Confirms IPCC Wrong Regarding Little Ice Age
The IPCC’s “consensus agenda” has produced a lot of non-scientific climate garbage over its history – new Antarctica study debunks the claim that the Little Ice Age was non-global and restricted only to the Northern Hemisphere – another IPCC ‘factlesstoid’ has became official ‘toast’ for the anti-science ash bin file” http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/02/new-scripps-institution-antarctica-research-confirms-ipcc-wrong-regarding-little-ice-age.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-history/
PIOMASS reports that sea ice volume in the Arctic has shown a large recovery last month back to the same levels for the time of year it was in 2012 and 2011, so that’s some good news in terms of holding off the summer decline.
It’s neither good news or bad. It’s just the Arctic doing its thing, as it did in the early 19th and 20th centuries, with low summer ice levels overall and different degrees of catch-up after the minima. The difference is we now have satellites. (Mind you, we also had sats to view some substantial ice gains just before the era of official sat records. Sssh, not too loud about all that Arctic colding in the sixties. That stuff is way off-script!)
Skeptics have failed spectacularly at predicting Arctic ice-melt in each of the past several years.
Now in 2013, the experts at Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog are agog at the tremendous scale and pace of this year’s early Arctic ice-cracking.
Is another record or near-record ice-melt in the cards for 2013?
Skeptics say “most likely not”. `Cuz the mean’s gotta revert, eh?
Scientists say “plausibly yes”. `Cuz AGW is real, yah know!
Nature will show all of us who’s right, eh?
‘Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.’ http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
Temperature?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=chylek09.gif
Sea ice?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=arcticice.gif
Year to year variability is a bit difficult to pick – but science certainly shows that there are multi-decadal variabilities.
Ain’t nature grand aye FOMBS.
‘Skeptics say “most likely not”.’
Why would anybody, calling himself a skeptic, expect a neat reversion after a low summer minimum? I had no idea what the ice would do after 2007’s big melt. As it happened, it did a bit of reverting. I didn’t know it would happen then, and I haven’t got a clue what this year’s ice will do. Really, if the ice does an even bigger melt (or dispersion) this year, then I’ll simply take note. If it increases substantially, I’ll take note. I do not need the North Pole to stick to a script of either global warming or cooling. It’s been an enormously temperamental actor over the last couple of centuries. Here’s the present extent, not that it means much:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Some cracking? How can the ice not crack seasonally? A more mobile ice-pack? Sure. Why not? Arctic Ice at minimum has been very low lately. It also got very high after the late 1950s, till it started to concern global cooling bedwetters by the late 1970s.
Here’s that other anomaly, the one we don’t talk about till we’ve steeled ourselves by consulting SkS and the Tammy who isn’t Debbie Reynolds or Sandra Dee:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Not that it means much, but we’d sure be copping some extra coloured icons and asterisks if the anomaly was the other way.
… and so when ice-shelves are observed to melt that have been in-place for thousands of years …
• scientists conclude that AGW is real;
• skeptics don’t know *what* to think;
• denialists & astro-turfers spin harder!
Please FOMBS – I am in my casual man of the ordinary punter mode – as opposed to the more formal Generalissimo Skippy. But please to get the spelling right – it is Skippy as in the bush kangaroo.
‘It appears that past cultures in peripheral Arctic regions were able to adapt to abrupt temperature increases of 2–4°C and a 4-month extension of the open water season and to colder summer events of 3°C lower than present, with a 2 month extension of annual SIC. Both the warming and cooling events began and ended within about 50 to 100 years and re-occurred at intervals of ~1000 years, possibly reflecting the 1100–1500-year Bond Cycle. There is a long-term overall cooling of about 3°C in summer that corresponds to the movement of Early Palaeoeskimos from the fertile plains of Truelove Lowlands to the Late Palaeoeskimo occupation of the Cape Sparbo Headlands projecting into Jones Sound. This shift is in accord with Helmer’s (1992) interpretation of an increased dependence on hunting of marine mammals from the sea ice and is further supported by the increase of SIC by 1–2 months per year found in the marine cores.’ http://paleoforge.com/papers/EnvironArchaeo.pdf
Science suggests not only decadal variability in temperature and ice extent – but millennial cooling as we pass the threshold of Bond Event Zero. With the long term precessional insolation nearing a minimum – could this mean an abrupt plunge into the next glacial in as little as a decade as runaway cloud, ice and snow feedbacks cool the earth?
The value of science you will find is in it’s open ended intellectual adventure. This is diminished where scientists have a bee in their bonnets about something or other – such as where there is a cabal of groupthink climate warriors. The following applies to medical science but applies equally well to any field. ‘Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.’ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
Climate is so complex that simple ideas are almost certain to be wrong – especially it seems where anthropogenic greenhouse gases are involved. Indeed – climate is such a dynmically complex system that this is a whole new intellectual endevour. See for instance a study wee willie reminded me of in this post. ‘In the Earth’s history, periods of relatively stable climate have often been interrupted by sharp transitions to a contrasting state. One explanation for such events of abrupt change is that they happened when the earth system reached a critical tipping point. However, this remains hard to prove for events in the remote past, and it is even more difficult to predict if and when we might reach a tipping point for abrupt climate change in the future. Here, we analyze eight ancient abrupt climate shifts and show that they were all preceded by a characteristic slowing down of the fluctuations starting well before the actual shift. Such slowing down, measured as increased autocorrelation, can be mathematically shown to be a hallmark of tipping points.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308
So however uncertain, provisional or tentative science is we shall always keep an open mind and look at all the evidence – not simply that which confirms our views. Isn’t that what it means to be a scientific sceptic – aye FOMBS?
Impersonation of the chief:
Tell me about the rabbits, George.
I hate that mouse.
I’m an excellent driver.
—
He’s pranking everyone.
You know Webby, Chief has pointed me to several papers that have proven very valuable in my professional life, i.e., they are rigorous science with broad implications. You on the other hand, have pointed me to a pile of manure, which makes you a larval stage of a fly.
Hi David,
I have been meaning to say hello. I have been amused by your dealings with webby and blah blah.
To what I knew would be my regret I looked at webby’s latest effort – http://theoilconundrum.com/
We start with the well known relatinship.
T=To+αlog(C/Co) – OK – a bit limited as we have to derive α empirically.
But apparently C/Co is mostly water vapour (not carbon doxide) which is caused by evaporation with an activation energy of –
H=0.42eV=4873Kelvins
OK – it is usualy expressed as Joules/mol or kg. eV has units of Joules and is supposedly the enthalpy of vaporisation of a single molecule – I haven’t checked the number but I am clueless as to why it is equal to Kelvins but let’s move on.
Then without explanation we get to –
C/C0=βe^−H/T
At this stage I get vertigo and fall over. But I did notice that you and I starred in the extracuricular ruminations of blah blah and webnutcolonoscope. How sweet – it is so nice to be cared about.
I am in fact going back to help out help out webbies traffic – it is a bit sad when there is only blah blah and webby on their own – and leave a message. I implore you all to likewise leave messages of hope and cheer.
I think there are quite a few denizens with actual intellect – and you are one of them.
Cheers
A fan of *MORE* discourse | March 14, 2013 at 10:18 pm | kippy reminds us “Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting …
… and so when ice-shelves are observed to melt that have been in-place for thousands of years …
• scientists conclude that AGW is real;
• skeptics don’t know *what* to think;
• denialists & astro-turfers spin harder!
=====
Still trying to play the Ellesmere Island card, fan of no discourse?
Where ancient camels bones have been found?
http://o.canada.com/2013/03/05/ancient-camel-unearthed-on-ellesmere-island/
“The evidence suggests the animals were originally “northern forest specialists,” she says. And their iconic humps, which store fat, would have been very useful for surviving long, cold Arctic winters.”
Your link goes to http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/you-do-it-to-your-shelf-.html
Where we have the real spin from global warming alarmists who don’t know *how* to think:
““This is our coastline changing,” says Mueller, a researcher in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies. “These unique and massive geographical features that we consider to be part of the map of Canada are disappearing and they won’t come back.””
But they did come back…
LOL … thank you for this wonderful example of denialist cognition, Myrhh!
The modern-day Bactrian camels of the high Mongolian plains survive long fiercely cold winters quite nicely, don’t they? Thanks to their thick fur and massive fat-loaded humps? As for the multi-million year-old Ellesmere Island camels … hmmmm … wasn’t Florida underwater at the time? Today’s Florida was an underwater breeding-ground for Megalodon sharks at the time, in fact!
Denialist cognition does have comedic aspects, Myrhh! But don’t worry … you’ll soon get the hang of modern scientific thinking!
* politically-funded “scientists” “conclude” that AGW is real as required of them
• skeptics keep an open mind
• credulous cretin truebelievers like Fan spin harder!
LOL … thank you for posting a fine example of denialist demogoguery, vassily, which illustrates the denialist traits of motivism, internal contradictions, and a tendency toward conspiracy theories.
But don’t worry vassily, … you’ll soon learn to appreciate modern scientific thinking in regard to climate change!
Fan responds with a fine example of credulous truebeliever demogoguery, doing his damnest to try and obscure the obvious and huge vested interest that drives politically-funded climate science, calling realists – ie those who can’t/won’t blidn themselves to this – “conspiracy” theorists.
One day, maybe, he’ll work out that you don’t need to posit a conspiracy to explain why a person or organization acts in its own interests. That is just BAU. Indeed, you would need posit a conspiracy (of honesty, integrity, etc) within government climate science, if it ever became suspected that government climate science was attempting to be objective rather than advance the cause of government.
And since Fan would have us think exactly that, it is he who is the conspiracy theorist nut job.
FAN …. But don’t worry vassily, … you’ll soon learn to appreciate modern scientific thinking in regard to climate change!
A clear reference to Prof Jones’s
Refreshing eh?
Vassily, thank you for posting further crystal-clear examples of denialist motivism, bad science, anti-intellectualism, and a tendency toward conspiracy theories.
But heck … doesn’t rapid growth in independent citizen-science verification of the reality of AGW pretty much demolish the climate-change denialist worldview?
The plain fact is … tens of millions of ordinary citizens now are seeing, with their own eyes, that climate-change is real.
The world wonders … why does climate-change denialism even continue to exist, vassily?
Fan, thank you for posting further crystal-clear examples of credulous smokescreening waffle, hidden naive assumptions of good intent, bad science, anti-intellectualism, and a tendency toward inventing conspiracy theories strawmen, a clear sign of your desperation.
The plain fact is … tens of millions of ordinary citizens now see the deep corruption in the climate establishment, and precious little AGW.
But I’m sure you aren’t troubled by any of this, as it’s a good bet political action on CO2 global warming will happen regardless of whether there is any or not. Government greed will ensure that.
Vassily, isn’t it good that democracy is the ultimate free market?
That’s why it’s good that hundreds of millions of of nature-loving ordinary citizens — around the world! — now are seeing with their own eyes that climate-change is real, eh vassily?
So that independent citizen-science verification of the reality of AGW pretty much demolishes the climate-change denialist worldview?
And now everyone sees-through denialist demagoguery’s motivism, bad science, anti-intellectualism, and a tendency toward conspiracy theories.
Which is good, eh vassily?
Conclusion The steady strengthening of citizen-science ensures that climate-change denialism won’t exist much longer!
Chief can’t understand the Boltzmann activation energy underlying the Clausius-Clapeyron formulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation#Meteorology_and_climatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_thermodynamics#Water_vapor_and_global_climate_change
The Chief’s confusion is understandable because only recently has he understood how to do dimensional analysis.
Fan asks – The world wonders … why does climate-change denialism even continue to exist, vassily?
Very good question, Fan, your best so far. So, you are stuck for insights on why you keep denying climate change?
Perhaps the concept of cycles is too much science for you? After all, you’ve excluded the Water Cycle from your Anthropogenic Global Warming Greenhouse Effect energy budget, so the concept of natural cycles of natural climate change would of course be difficult for you to grasp.
As you can’t show that Global Warming as per the AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect scam exists, couldn’t you at least try thinking in terms of natural climate change of recurring cycles?
You might then get a light bulb moment and stop denying climate change, and, coming back into the real world from that moment, one would hope, you might see in a flash what possessed you to deny it in the first place.
Thanks, Chief. I have seen Webby’s oily web site. He makes some quite unfair comments about Judith and about you, as well as smearing Climate Etc. in quite an unfair way. Webby is rather challenged at research and so got my qualifications totally wrong. The quality of the other slanderous statements there is no better.
Fanny
Nature will show us all who is right”
She’s already doing it, Fanny, in the global temperature that refuses to increase over the past 10-15 years despite unabated human GHG emissions and GHG concentrations reaching record levels.
She’s sending you a message, Fanny.
The message is quite clear, “I’m in charge here, not you”</em
Are you listening? (Or have you got your eyes closed and ears covered?)
Max
Aw, c’mon, folks – take it easy on Webby.
He’s just a fearful and angry old man with a basic knowledge of physics and a doomsday obsession – who resorts to personal attacks on those who disagree with him.
Underneath it all, he’s really a nice guy.
Max
Chief Hydrologist –
Knowing the latent heat of vaporization allows one to calculate the binding energies (eV) for a pair of water molecules. Although 0.42 eV seems a little high, perhaps WHT is allowing for expansion or such?
Further, “eV” represents the kinetic energy imparted to a particle/molecule of 1C when accelerated through a potential of 1V. And since molecular kinetic energy is convertible to temperature via the Boltzmann constant, WHT’s stuff to this point seems reasonable, at least to me.
Finally, whenever I double-check WHT, my experience has been that I am either convinced he is correct, or I am not convinced he is incorrect. And I wish I was that good.
So, my reading is that WHT gets much more pleasure in sharing a clever truth than in sharing a clever lie. Not saying he can’t be nasty.
your friend,
blueice
Blueice2hotsea,
Web picked an arbitrary point and assumed the equation fit the entire range.
The Goff – Gratch equation considers the 273.15 to 373.15 range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goff%E2%80%93Gratch_equation
Since Web was using the 33C discrepancy range, -18C to 15 C, more than half his estimate would be over ice.
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Thanks for this criticism.
My comment only addressed CH’s objection to: H=0.42eV=4873K.
So, I hope WBT responds to your point. If he does not, maybe go to his website and make sure he is aware of it.
Cappy Dick doesn’t have much of a point. The math is there to show how one can calculate the weak positive feedback effects in the warming direction and how the endpoint is reached.
The Arrhenius factor (or Boltzmann factor, depending on what you want to call it) is a positive feedback but is not a strong positive feedback, so with a weak CO2 sensitivity, this gives us a way to estimate how far a warming swing we will see from a non-condensing forcing function.
What is so disturbing about the skeptics is that they seem frightened by what would amount to a homework problem in an applied mathematics course. I could easily see this problem stated in the back of some chapter in a climate science course.
Web, “Cappy Dick doesn’t have much of a point. The math is there to show how one can calculate the weak positive feedback effects in the warming direction and how the endpoint is reached.”
Being able to calculate weak feedbacks effects in the warming direction has been done to death. If you have a perfect storm of all the weak feedbacks working together, it will get warmer.
The issue is ONLY considering the weak positive feedbacks. The Arrhenius equation is perfectly functional in its range, but it has limits, that is why there are numerous modifications to the Arrhenius equation.
The C-C and the Goff-Gratch equations estimate saturation vapor pressure of H2O and H2O rarely stays at saturation. Since there are diurnal and seasonal cycles, more water vapor would change the timing and intensity of condensation, things like deep convection and SSW events would happen more or less often and likely at different locations and times. For your full impact to be felt, things would have to remain static with just one variable, temperature changing.
CO2 with a static atmosphere would produce a uniform 1.5 C of warming per doubling, but without a uniform or isothermal atmosphere it would produce less. Since surface temperature is not uniform and water vapor not evenly distributed, the impact will be less. As a result, the overall impact of CO2 will be about 50% or less than the ideal perfect storm of weak feedbacks in an isothermal world. That is what non-linear, non-equilibrium thermodynamics is all about, determining real limits.
Cappy Dick wants to run sophisticated climate models so badly, but his limited numerical computing skills prevent him from doing so. Therefore he creates these complicated scenarios that exist only in his mind.
Nothing complicated about it Webster, if you build a greenhouse and forget one wall, you will lose more heat out that wall. The water vapor wall only covers 75% of the greenhouse and CO2 only covers about 20% of the radiant spectrum. Half of the IPCC estimated impact is pretty much a given. Manabe and the guys at GFDL knew that to begin with.
I notice that you tend to avoid the realistic limits.
We have seen T=To+αlog(C/Co) before. It uses changes in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere to determine temperature – after estimating α.
But webby states that he uses water vapour instead. He cites the activation enthalpy of vapourisation of a single molecule and then presumably divides it by the Boltzmann constant to obtain Kelvins. The activation of a single molecule means nothing in terms of atmospheric concentrations.
H=0.42eV=4873Kelvins
But electronvolts do not have units of Kelvins just for a start. So he should check his own dimensional analysis. The maths seems entirely fictional from that point on. Unless there is some rational exposition with physically meaningful terms it is just numbers for the sake of numbers tailored to a pre-determined conclusion.
No amount of links to wikipedia will change this.
March 15, 2013 at 7:53 pm
+1, blue
blue ice – you are again reviewing the obvious and wee willie is just a clueless fool.
If you check units of the Boltzmann constant by which an order of magnitude estimate of temperature in plasma physics is made – you will find that degrees Kelvin do not equal Joules. That is really just the simplest exposition error perhaps.
I think the whole thing is nonsense in a dozen senses.
We then move to a situation where C/Co is equal to some undefined function of this botched number. Equation 1 normally uses changing cncentrations of carbon dioxide. Webby uses water vapour he claims.
So we have:
T = To + αlog(C/Co)
where it is said
C/C0=βe^−H/T
Water vapour condenses out at some temperature – so you get a zero point and this function falls over.
This really doesn’t work at all. It merely devises a function with no physical meaning to derive that which has been predetermined. Black box math. Not much good for anything in this context.
If you really have any maths and physics – try following it in detail and by all mean report back to us. Otherwise you should keep your simplistic musings to yourself because it is very embarassing for you.
Chief RainMan, you really are disfunctional when it comes to any facility with math or physics.
Kelvins is an accepted unit for energy, where it essentially absorbs the Boltzmann constant:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/energy.html
Many scientists use this form so they don’t have to drag the Boltzmann constant around:
http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/quantropy-part-2/
The units of eV are Joules – the Boltzmann constant translates the internal energy into an order of magnitude macroscopic temperature.
But Joules do not equal Kelvins .
The internal energy – and therefore the temperature – of molecules in the atmoshere is by no means the enthalpy of vaporisation.
But there is much else that is unexplained and incredible.
You have as Tomas said the ability of a mollusc.
Here we go again.
Chief can’t handle dimensional analysis.
‘H=0.42eV=4873Kelvins’
What is really true is that :
042eV/kB = 4873 K
Where kB has units of J/T.
But I can accept this as a minor error of transcription – if you weren’t so stupidly obnoxious – and pass on to the much more eggregious ommissons and fallacies. As you are so impossibly stupid – I can’t possibly be bothered.
Have a nice sleepless night in Minnesota.
0.42eV/kB = 4873 K
Chief Skippy claims the National Institute of Standards and Technology is wrong in defining equivalence between units .
Amazing how he can screw up dimensional analysis every time.
Perhaps that is why he keeps changing his sockpuppet handles
He wants to hide from his previous mistakes.
skippy –
I don’t want to fight with you, because there is much more we probably agree on. It’s just that I would like to see more a substantive criticism than this:
1in. ≠ 2.54cm
In other words. We should not get hung up on units unless they imply a change in dimension. And in this case since eV and K both represent kinetic energy… See?
eV to equivalent Kelvins
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=0.42&From=ev&To=k&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor
Someone came up with the idea of calling the equivalent unit of energy Kelvins to distinguish it from the unit of temperature degrees Kelvin.
Again, mathematical physicists use these units so that they don’t have to drag the Boltzmann constant around. They are lazy smart in that way.
How about – 0.42eV ≠ 4873K
From webby’s reference – (1 eV)/k = x K
Where k is the Boltzmann constant and K is temperature – usually used in high temperature plasma physics. But I did say that I was willing to acept this as a minor transcription error.
But the internal energy is not equal to the enthalpy of vaporisation – we have what is utterly unphysical in the usual webby way. Please by all means provde a decent derivation – what there is is nonsense.
Skippy –
??
4873 K * 8.617×10-5 eV/K = 0.42 eV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
How about – 0.42eV ≠ 4873K
You need to use the Boltzmann constant as you eventually did to make an equivalence. But don’t pretend that it was always there.
1 electronvolt = 1.602 176 565(35)×10−19 J. eV is an energy term and K is a temperature term related throught the Boltzann constant.
I sometimes wonder how old you are – but figure you must have some background. I despair that these very simple things go around in circles and I would appreciate that if you wish to discuss these sorts of things with me in future that you do it proper paragraphs with a honest attempt to explicate.
Here is an example of using Kelvins instead of conventional units of energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law#Temperature_dependence_of_the_Henry_constant
Chief Procto will now complain about Wikipedia. Go ahead and change the wiki-page to use your favorite units.
Skippy –
Since you mention plasma physics…
From MIT’s introduction to plasma physics:
Finally, multiplying the equality by 0.42
0.42 eV = 4872 K = 6.72 x10-20 J
This is about where we started.
This is where we started
0.42eV/kB = 4873 K
kB = R/NA
It has the same dimension (energy divided by temperature) as entropy.
I hink you a serious and committed idiot. Go get a clue before bothering me again with simplistic nonsense.
Sloppy,
Your ignorance of physics is showing again.
I understand (perhaps misunderstand) the ClimateGate emails were first released to the BBC (and Real Climate?). The BBC did nothing to investigate. They hid the information from the public.
This reveals the extent to which the institutions democracy depends on to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth have been taken over by Left wing ideology. Democracy depends on institutions like the BBC and mainstream media to do thorough, diligent, investigative journalism and to expose the truth about matters of public concern like the climate alarmism and the real costs of the policies proposed to control the climate.
The BBC (and Australia’s ABC) are now dominated by left wing ideology from top to bottom. It is their culture and it influences everything they decide and report and decide to suppress.
The Australia Government’s Bills (now before parliament) to control the media is a major step in the wrong direction. It is intended to increase the Left’s dominance over decisions about what is reported and what is suppressed in the mainstream media.
Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change
Vasilis Dakos, Marten Scheffer, Egbert H. van Nes, Victor Brovkin, Vladimir Petoukhov and Hermann Held
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.full?sid=bb22e14b-9b53-4008-8976-92eadfc4092e
One of my favourite studis. Although it should be noted that catastrophe is used in the sense of René Thom – ‘known for his development of catastrophe theory, a mathematical treatment of continuous action producing a discontinuous result’. This is fact predated what became known as chaos theory but the 2 ideas are very similar.
Slowing down is technically an increase in autcorrelation as flucuations in complex systems are damped down over time before erupting in wild flucuation at bifurcation points. The latter is sometimes called noisy bifurcation – but dragon-kings appeals much more to the lover of language in me.
Not sure what this has to do with Australian media laws – but someone suggested that – if the legislation gets up (still very unlikely) that the Liberals appoint Andrew Bolt to head the overview body when the Liberals are elected in September. This would p_ss off pissant progressives no end and be a hugely amusing revenge. I endorse this plan entirely.
Captain Skippy, you hit the nail on the head with catastrophe theory. Arctic sea ice is a great example. Easy to see how once you get on the slide from melting ice to thinning ice, broken ice, more ocean, lower albedo, warmer ocean, more ice melt, etc., this slide doesn’t reverse, even if the other forcing stays the same, and is a tipping point of the kind described in catastrophe theory, because the albedo change becomes its own forcing, kind of like the ice ages.
Most of the warming was entirely natural as we climbed to a 1000 year high – so I am not overly impressed by warm records in the instrumental record of a hundred years or so. A corner of the edifice called science suggests no warming for decades hence – although the records will continue because it is a statistical certainty in such a short record.
If you want to be formal Jim it is Generalissimo Skippy – commander of the sixth division of climate sceptics, hero of the climate war, commandant of UNtopia Minnesota and defender of libertarian freedoms. Skippy will do.
I would also keep an eye on thermohaline circulation – expected to decrease substantially over the century in all models but abrupt change seems more likely simply because that is how the system operates.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/causes.shtml
Skippy, if you are going to use multiple names, I am going to call you Chief Kangaroo, or any combination I choose. This helps those that might be confused to tie them together somehow.
Sorry – I can neither confirm or deny my true identity – it is a secret of the climate war known only to a cowgirl with a lasso.
The only tieing together it needs is:
1. for God’s sake take yourself less seriously;
2. have some fun – it’s not illegal;
3. imagine this is a Socratic discourse in an eSalon and be inventive and creative;
4. find yourself a cowgirl with a lasso.
Dang “climate orthodoxy police!!1!!!1!!!!!”
How far can their tentacles reach?
Can anyone even fathom?!!?!!!!?!?!!!!!!?
Congratulations – you have won the Marcusian Award for Excellence in Closing Down Discussion by Right Wing Retards. The prize is an all expenses, one way trip to UNtopia Minnesota – you are advised to pack warm.
You definitely misunderstand. There was no early release to anyone.
You shouldn’t fail to do even the most basic of fact checking while claiming to find problems with people’s journalism. It makes you at least as bad as you claim they are.
Brandon Shollenberger,
I admit I am working from memory on this one and may have it wrong. I haven’t checked and not really sure where to check. I am talking about the ClimateGate #1 release. Was it released to BBC and they sat on it for nearly a month and then it was put on a web site somewhere for download. As I say, I haven’t followed this closely. I may be confusing this with something else.
P.S. I don’t claim to be an expert on everything.
Certainly the BBC sat on the Climategate story. Hardly surprising, they religiously push CAGW all the time.
Brandon Shollenberger,
Is this wrong?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6684281/BBC-weatherman-was-sent-climate-change-emails.html
By the way, what d you mean by this “while claiming to find problems with people’s journalism.”?
I wasn’t talking about anyone’s journalism. I was talking about institutionalised ideological bias in the BBC and ABC and the Australian Labor Party’s Bills to control the media which are now being debated in the Australian Parliament.
It is easy enough to read what the guy said. From that link:
He was a recipient of an e-mail chain that was included in the first release of mails. That’s all. The only reason it was ever made out to be more is lazy reading and bias. The fact you believe it, this long after the fact, says something about you.
And yes, you did complain about journalism. Saying news agencies failed to publish news in an unbiased manner is criticizing them on journalistic (and other) grounds. That covers both the organizations and people within them. How in the world do you think you are accusing journalists of being involved in biased reporting without criticizing them on journalistic grounds?
Brandon Shollenberger
Well, Brandon, this subject may be your life’s interest and you know all these sorts of irrelevant details but I don’t and I am not interested in this level of irrelevant detail. (I said I was working from memory but you ignored this and then started imputing motives or whatever.)
Given your responses in this case and with others, I now think you are a twit who spends his life concerned about ‘down in the weeds’ issues, with no idea of what is important.
Just to admit to my mistakes on this before you and the usual suspects start the usual diatribe:
Yes – I did think the BBC had received the CG1 emails a month before they were released more widely (and apparently I was wrong on that).
No – I had not followed the details of any of the climate gate releases or th history of events
Yes – I did use this as an example of BBC bias (apparently the example is not)
Yes – I do still believe there are very many other examples of BBC and ABC bias promoting CAGW alarmism and Left wing propaganda in general.
No – I am not going to prepare a list of other examples
Peter Lang, your response is about as pathetic as they come:
You made a damning criticism based upon a single point. You now claim that point is an “irrelevant detail.” If it were an irrelevant detail, there is no legitimate reason for you to have offered it as your only support for a damning criticism.
You made a fool of yourself by claiming the BBC “hid the information from the public,” a damning criticism of a journalistic institution based solely upon an idea you had no justifiable reason to believe was true. Don’t blame me for your own failings.
Insult me all you want. It won’t change the fact you jumped to an incredibly stupid conclusion.
I can’t say I’m bothered by you claiming I have “no idea of what is important” when you made an entire cased based on what you now say is an irrelevant detail. You don’t have a shred of credibility on this issue.
And that’s ignoring how petty you are being.
Laws being considered in the death throes of the Labor government include the media laws mentioned by Peter. The thrust for this is to place a government employee in charge of the press, the internet and other media outlets with power to enforce compliance with reporting standards. Reporting standards covers a variety of sins emerging from a departure from truth on global warming amongst things. A journalist would no longer be able to question global warming – or any of the other shibboleths of the left. This is a real threat to freedom that will not be tolerated.
I don’t know why they bother – it is such a 2 edged sword. Let’s put Andrew Bolt in charge to howls of outrage.
Time ter git out on the hustings I’d say. fer freedom
of the press … Say yr an Australian, tempt, what do
yew say??
temps an urban hipster – he is in favour.
Skippy and Beth
Don’t know how things work in your country, but such a state censorship of the free press to only allow the “PC party line” would not fly here in Switzerland.
In the USA it would even be outlawed by the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press.
Do you not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press in Australia?
Max
Max,
Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights like the US so we’re
dealing with implied rights and judicial interpretations. There’s
always the worry that’s being raised now in Australia about inroads
on freedom of the press. More reading by us serfs required. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#Freedom_of_political_communication
Beth one of the serfs
The newspapers will certainly challenge in the courts if it gets that far – still very unlikely to get that far in my view. Although one theory has it that the government might pursue it out of sheer bloody mindedness before going down in a screaming heap in an election in which everything is going against them.
Skippy,
I hope you are right, but I don’t have your confidence. They need four of the independents and the Green to support the government to get int passed in the House of Representatives, and some deal with the Greens in the Senate will get it passed. The Greens want it strengthened
Peter,
I’m worried too. Democracy as a means of safeguarding
individual freedom is by no means infallible. We’ve seen
freedoms whittled away in the past. Now we’re seeing a
concerted effort by the Oz Labor government to limit
freedom of the press by doing a deal with the extreme
left idealogues of the Green Party and with a number of
independents who also support them for their own self
interest. Seems like we need safeguard legislation to
ensure that government may not encroach on constitutional
core liberties of free speech.
Beth
So what exactly is the Oz government threatening to do?
Effectively ban all expressions of non-alarmist heresy?
Vassily, here’s an overview of thr issue. A govt enquiry has
issued a verdict on newspaper regulation headed by Judge
Finklestein, recommending that govt supra regulators
enforce standards through a News Media Council. The
council ‘s members would be decided by a committee of 3
academics nominated by our universities. BC
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/03/the-future-of-the-press
As I see discussion about LIA and MWP, it is nice to see it is contained in Marcotts data, if it is not smothen over 300 years.
Hank has done some more fishing in the data for hockey sticks and found MWP and LIA which fits pretty nicely to the Ljungqvist-2010 from above:
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/more-fishing-for-hockey-sticks-in-marcott-et-al-2013/
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ljungqvist-2010.jpg
Damn you broken threading.
Peter Lang | March 14, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Reply
Maybe, but at least I don’t cower from it like you appear to be doing. Did a lawyer frighten your mommy when she was carrying you?
The role of land use change in the recent warming of daily extreme temperatures
Nikolaos Christidis, Peter A. Stott, Gabriele C. Hegerl, and Richard A. Betts
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50159/abstract
“changes in land use” have led to the capacity to support 8 bn people.
Willard, now you have that smoking gun :) Coke promotes reforestations, so they must be causing global warming..
The paper is paywalled, but generally there is initial cooling when trees are removed and it takes a while for soil to deplete which would then cause warming. If the authors didn’t consider that lag of about a decade or so, they might have spurious results.
Yes, Faustino, and quicksilver helps us measure temperatures, but I’d rather stick to a sustainable dosage.
No need to promote any corporation’s greenwashing, Blue, let them pay for it.
Please let us not go a bridge too far. It leads to nowhere.
Cap’n. Not Blue. Sorry about that.
And you’re right: they might have spurious results.
Lots of theories.
Pingback: Marcotts artikel i Science visar att svensk klimatskepticism tar udden av klimatskrämseln | The Climate Scam
We’ve had a few days and lots of comments to Rud Istvan’s review of the Marcott et al. paper on reconstructed global temperatures for the past 11,300 years, as well as to the Marcott et al. study, itself.
The comments by Istvan are pretty factual and objective, despite a bit of nit-picking by a few commenters here.
The Marcott et al. pape, however, is flawed.
First of all, it has the same “splicing” problem that got Mann et al. into their “hide the decline” fiasco. This makes a comparison of past reconstructions with today’s observed meaningless to start off with.
But most importantly, it’s conclusion on comparison of current warming with past warming is confusing.
In the first sentence of the abstract:
This is not shown in the chart. “Recent warming” as seen on the chart is a bit less than “temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years”. And there is the question: are we comparing reconstructed 200+ year past averages with observed 30-year current average “blips”, which would make the comparison even more meaningless)?
But then the abstract concludes:
Huh? “IPCC model projections?”
This simply shows that the “IPCC model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios”, NOT that the observed current temperatures are higher than the reconstructed past temperatures.
The actually observed temperatures do not show this at all, as the first sentence states.
Of course, the media can make a looming catastrophe out of it (warmest in over 10,000 years!), but that’s simply a result of misunderstanding and the usual media hype.
Max
We would be in real trouble if we were already warmer than the whole Holocene with only 20% of the potential CO2 added, but as it is, just add 2 C to it and there we are, warmer than the whole Holocene. Whether we take 50 years or 100 to add that 2C, it is coming, bar some miraculous global mitigation effort.
Yes, but models, evidence, MWP.
Alarmism, Michael Mann.
Freedom.
Jim D
Or simply a continuation of the past 15 years (or the past 150 years, for that matter).
Max
Willard
You speak in riddles, with single words tossed out like partial bits of incomplete information
Let me see if I can complete your train of thought so it is understandable for the reader here
Yes, IPCC cites model simulations, but models provide no scientific evidence of any unusual recent anthropogenic global warming, as their outputs are only as good as their inputs (GIGO).
The MWP was a well-documented past period of time (among others) that had slightly higher global temperatures than today, without any anthropogenic warming.
This presented a problem for those (like IPCC) who wished to create alarmism about AGW.
The alarmism was given a temporary boost by the hockey-stick study of Mann, until it was discovered that this was a scientific fraud.
Although IPCC had the freedom to acknowledge that the hockey-stick was fraudulent and, therefore, to remove it and its conclusion of unprecedented modern warmth from its AR4 report, it decided to play the hard line in order to support its agenda of alarmism.
Max.
Jim D
Let’s analyze that.
1. “20% of the potential CO2” got us from 280 ppmv to 393 ppmv in the atmosphere, so we have:
0.8* (393 – 280) / 0.2 = 452 ppmv as the maximum possible ever added in the future
putting us at an absolute asymptotic maximum concentration of 845 ppmv
2. Recent observation-based estimates show us that 2xCO2 ECS is very likely to be around 1.6C (or half the previous IPCC model-predicted mean value).
3. This means the maximum ever possible warming from human CO2 emissions when all fossil fuels are gone is:
1.5 * ln(845/393) / ln(2) = 1.8C
This is nothing to get all worried about, Jim, as it will certainly not happen anytime soon (if at all).
Max
Max,
There are a lot of assertions in your reply to Willard which aren’t backed up by actual evidence. Just to take one particular issue, the extent of the MWP has been argued extensively already in this thread but let’s accept for the sake of argument that before the publication of MBH99 it was widely accepted that the MWP existed and that there was at least the possibility that it was warmer than the current day. You say that this “presented a problem for those (like IPCC) who wished to create alarmism about AGW”. Leaving aside the obvious question begging regarding the IPCC, it’s worth pointing out that even before the publication of MBH99 it was widely accepted that AGW posed a real and serious problem – in fact the Kyoto protocol was signed two years before MBH99 was published. Therefore the notion that the MWP posed some kind of problem and alarmists somehow “needed” the HS is just so much baloney.
The idea that “MWP posed some kind of problem and alarmists somehow “needed” the HS is just so much baloney”, is itself baloney.
It was needed to push forward political advocacy – hence its prominence in official IPCC dogma. They only decided they didn’t need it once it was exposed as a fraud.
Alarmists are just so polite, concessional and easy-going on the subject of the Medieval Warming. They’ll occasionally allow us “our” MWP. Sometimes they’ll localise it, sometimes they’ll cool it…but in the right mood they’ll concede us “our” MWP. If we must.
One of history’s giant facts has to go. Out the back door. Out the side door. Out the window or up the chimney. These Lysenkoists want it gone.
The script, Mr. De Mille, always the script!
It was needed to push forward political advocacy – hence its prominence in official IPCC dogma.
This is just yet another assertion not backed up by any actual evidence. The fact is that a number of countries committed themselves to action on climate change before the HS was even published. There has actually been less progress on achieving further international commitments sincde then.
They only decided they didn’t need it once it was exposed as a fraud.
There are legitimate scientific questions which can be asked about the HS but it has not been “exposed as a fraud”.
Andrew Adams,
It might be wise to distinguish the icon from the referent. Something like the finger is not the moon. We shan’t expect MiniMax to play fair on that distinction. We shan’t expect MiniMax to play fair neither.
Marcott mocks.
======
Andrew Adams –
The first country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (Fiji) did so in Sept 1998. MBH98 was published April ’98.
Perhaps alarmists needed the hockey stick after all.
Lots of theories.
> It was needed to push forward political advocacy – hence its prominence in official IPCC dogma.
>> This is just yet another assertion not backed up by any actual evidence.
This is just yet denial of the obvious. From Climategate and elsewhere we know the IPCC is a political organization propped up by political money, interested only in advancing politics. Without the HS, the argument for political interference would have seemed much less convincing.
> They only decided they didn’t need it once it was exposed as a fraud.
>> There are legitimate scientific questions which can be asked about the HS but it has not been “exposed as a fraud”.
Right … that Mann’s hocus-pocus stats techniques supported his desired conclusion – “we need to get rod of the MWP” – was pure coincidence. Of course it was.
andrew adams
You write:
Sorry, Andrew, but you are wrong on that one.
Otherwise, why would there be a concerted effort by the CAGW faithful to expunge it from the record?
Why did IPCC quickly embrace the hockey-stick without first doing due diligence on its validity and give it “centerfold” prominence in its TAR summary report?
Why would IPCC (even after the hockey-stick had been discredited by McIntyre & McKitrick and the Wegmnan committee, which was validated by the NAS panel under oath) make the questionable claim that “the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years” when there is clear evidence that this is not true?
It is simply because the MWP is an embarrassment to IPCC, because it shows that is has been warmer than today with no problems to humanity and without any greenhouse gas forcing.
That’s why one scientist remarked that we have to get rid of the MWP.
And that’s exactly why young Michael Mann set out to do just that.
Don’t kid yourself, Andrew. It’s called “denial”
Max
The existence of a MWP would force us to revise the components of the radiative forcing.
Let’s grant MiniMax his wish and see if that make him stick to science.
I predict more YesButClimategate.
> The comments by Istvan are pretty factual and objective […]
My favourite one is this:
> ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ was used to ‘hide the [recent proxy] decline’ by pasting in thermometer temperatures.
Factual but unsubstantiated, and perhaps spurious. Lots of theories.
Objective? As honest brokers say, you be the judge.
Speaking of objective facts, let us note:
> The MWP was not a blip for the entire northern hemisphere, as illustrated by this figure adapted from a 2010 paper by Ljungvist.
Our emphasis.
That “MWP” is over the 1000 AD line is an interesting -editorial- factual choice.
I mean, –editorial–.
No,
editorial.Believers in MWP, whatever you do, don’t look for the Lake Tanganyika paleo evidence with a Google image search. You may be sorely disappointed by what you find with a little research of your own.
On the subject of believers…
I’m told that alarmists now have a rational and incontestable explanation for the Medieval Warming. An all-powerful Creator just deposited the historical and physical evidence for it all over the globe, and even in documents. (Maybe he skipped a lake or two in Africa, to confound someone or other, as Creators do.)
There was, of course, no MWP, or not much of one. The Creator was merely testing the faith of his Worshipful Brethren of the Hockey Stick. They really came through for him! Next he’s going to see how they handle his Roman and Minoan evidence-plants.
Indeed, it occurred different places at different times, but seek and ye shall find.
As Adenoid Hinkle played with the globe, so alarmists play with
the Medieval Warming Period.
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=11628
Beth, the MWP was way over the salary cap and taking horse drugs to beef up its performance. Of course it had to be abolished, with all its records expunged. And, just quietly, there’s now a cloud over the other Warmings – present one excepted!
Jim D
Yeah. “It [MWP] occurred at different places”. A whole lot of different places located all over our planet.
“and at different times”.
Not really, Jim – all within the period normally referred to as the MWP.
The data confirm a) that there was a MWP, b) that it was slightly warmer than today, c) that it occurred at many different locations across the planet (i.e. it was “global”)
But, Jim, I don’t know what all the hullabaloo is all about.
Every schoolchild knows that there was a MWP, based on historical records from all over the civilized world at the time.
Everyone has read the reports of medieval farms buried in the Greenland permafrost, carbon-dated remains of trees recovered from receding glaciers high above the present tree line, etc.
The MWP is what is known as “common knowledge”.
And these dozens of studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methodologies, all concluding that the MWP was slightly warmer than today, simply confirm what we have all known all along.
What’s the big deal?
Max
Yet again max
“The data confirm a) that there was a MWP, b) that it was slightly warmer than today, c) that it occurred at many different locations across the planet (i.e. it was “global”)”
It may or may not have been global, but the *data* do not seem to show it.
As you know
Repeating a deception does not make it true.
Repeating a deception does not make it true.
Got it yet Maxi?
VTG
You appear to be in denial.
Dozens of reports indicate one thing.
You simply choose to deny their conclusions because they apparently conflict with a deep-seated belief or dogma, which you have,
And you appear to get all emotional about it.
I can’t help you.
Max
“The data confirm a) that there was a MWP, b) that it was slightly warmer than today, c) that it occurred at many different locations across the planet (i.e. it was “global”)”
Wait what? Less than an hour ago you claimed we can’t compare the MWP with today.
Now you are claiming the MWP was warmer than today.
Sheesh that’s not very consistent.
Only if you cannot comprehend the written word. See previous post for an explanation.
Max,
please do try to think.
“Dozens of reports indicate one thing.”
Well, maybe, if you accept the Heartland Institute’s interpretation of them at face value. Let’s do that anyway as a thought experiment.
The thing is, other reports contradict them. And when taken in totality, analysis seems to show the MWP was not, in so far as average global temperatures are concerned, to be a global phenomenon. (Mann, 2009)
Pointing to any number of individual studies dos not prove your case, or even give a best estimate of a MWP.
Only a synthesis of the known data can do that.
It is the difference between cherrypicking the result you want, and trying to understand the total situation with a proper meta-analysis.
Here’s a link to help you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis
Do you get it yet Max?
Is it really so difficult?
Few doubted these familiar historic shifts in climate till the re-emergence of a climate priesthood, frustrated by the threat of historical awareness and persisting Enlightenment values to Publish-or-Perish and ritual data-torture.
“Cherry pick” is the favourite debating expression of the climate bedwetters (along with “straw man”). How fitting that Japan has retained evidence of the MWP through its cherry flowering records!
VeryTallGuy ,
please do try to think.
Synthesized or not, the numerous reports from around the globe all indicate warming at around the same time. Warmings painstakingly airbrushed out by Mann and now the volte-face Marcott.
Do you get it yet VerytallGuy?
Is it really so difficult?
Tomcat
“Synthesized or not, the numerous reports from around the globe all indicate warming at around the same time…”
Please pause, think, engage brain.
If there are reports from individual sites, some of which show a MWP and some do not, how do you judge the overall effect?
Is it:
a) Pick the ones that do show a MWP and claim it is certain or…
b) Look at all the data, and see whether or not in totality they show it.
(a) gives the answer you want; (b) so far, does not. That might change as new analyses are done. Or you could point me to one which has been done. Until then, you’re just cherrypicking.
VTG
I tried posting links to all the studies from all around the world, which showed a MWP slightly warmer than today, but it goy stuck, probably because of all the links.
So I’ll just send you the list of the papers I have read.
Author, Date, Location, Temperature Difference from Today
Loehle 2007 rev., Global, 0.15°C warmer than today
Moberg 2005, Global, same as today
Dahl-Jensen 1998, Greenland, 0.8°C warmer than today
Johnsen 2001, Greenland summit, 1°C warmer than today
Zhang 1994, China, Henan, 0.9° to 1.0°C warmer than today
Zheng 2003, Eastern China, 0.4°C warmer than today
Honghan 1995, S. China, 1° to 2°C warmer than today
Adnikari 2001, Japan, MWP warmest in 1300 years
Kitigawa 1995, Japan, Yakushima Island, 1°C warmer than today
Cook 2002, New Zealand, no temperature difference given
Wilson 1979, New Zealand, 0.75°C warmer than today
Newton 2006, Tropical Ocean. 0.4°C warmer than today
Keigwin 1996, Sargasso Sea, 1°C warmer than today
Lund 2006, Bahamas, 0.2°C warmer than today
Richey 2007, Gulf of Mexico, 1.5°C warmer than today
Lückge 2005, Coastal Peru, 1.2°C warmer than today
Goni 2004, Venezuela, 0.35°C warmer than today
Miller 2006, USA, Sierra Nevada, 3.2°C warmer than today
Patterson 1998, USA, Lake Erie, Ohio, 0.2°C warmer than today
Cronin 2003, USA, Chesapeake Bay, 0.15°C warmer than today
Vare 2000, Canada, Barrow Strait, no temperature difference given
Rolland 2009, Canada, Southampton Island, 0.9°C warmer than today
Linderholm 2005, Sweden, 1.5°C warmer than today
Weckstrom 2006, Finnish Lapland, 0.15°C warmer than today
Mazepa 2005, Russia, Ural Mountains, 0.56°C warmer than today
Kalugin 2007, Russia, Altai Mountains, 0.5°C warmer than today
Schlüchter 2005, Swiss Alps, warmer – no temperature given
Laroque-Tobler 2010, Switzerland, 1°C warmer than today
Mangini 2007, Austria, Spannagel Cave 1.5°C warmer than today
Patzelt 2009, Austrian Alps, warmer – no temperature given
Martinez 1999, NW Spain, 3.4°C warmer than today
Abrantes 2005, Portugal, Tagus River, 0.9°C warmer than today
Herner 2003, East Antarctica, warmer but no temperature given
Pretty “global”, right?
CO2 Science has a more complete list of studies (some of which are included above, as well).
Max
Excellent compilation of the studies of the MWP! Thanks for doing the hard part.
“Loehle 2007 rev., Global, 0.15°C warmer than today”
Define “today”. What is the period of “today”? 1900? 1950? do tell.
Most people would consider today to be in the 21st century. Which as you know is warmer than either of those other two dates.
lolwot
You appear to be moving from confused to delusional.
Get your facts straight.
Max
lolwot
Read the papers.
Most studies compare 30-year to 50-year climate periods, rather than simply decadal, annual or seasonal “blips” in the record.
Loehle, for example, compared 30-year periods, using 30-year running mean temperatures.
Others used even longer periods, such as the mean value over 200 years.
The problem arises when you compare long-term series with short-term “blips”. This doesn’t work.
The 21st century record is too short to constitute a statistical climate series. Maybe in another 15 years or so.
Max
Manacker writes:
“Johnsen 2001, Greenland summit, 1°C warmer than today”
“Wilson 1979, New Zealand, 0.75°C warmer than today”
You’ve taken this misinformation from CO2Science. I bet all your 80+ references are taken from that similarly flawed site.
The misinformation is in the suggestion that Greenland summit was 1C warmer than today and at the same time New Zealand was 0.75C warmer than today.
It isn’t true. Even a cursory glance at CO2Science’s data shows this not to be the case. The warm period cited in either case were about 300 years apart!. 1300-1400AD in Wilson 1979 and 1000AD in Johnsen 2001
Max,
It is my considered opinion that, given his out-doors
activities, Peter Davies is unable ter monitor the ENTIRE
Climate Etc commentary 24/7, in his plus one franchise.
Sooo, reluctantly, I undertake to enlist as back up support,
though strictly in a subordinate capacity of course…
Herewith: “Plus One’ ter yew Max fer the long list of papers
yer’ve read on the historic MWP… OMG. With four word
summaries comparing then ter now. tres, tres elegant.
PLUS ONE.
Beth the serf.
PS When I went through me conversion from accepting
the :unprecedented” climate warming “narrative,” following
the evidence trail of the global MWP was one of the
considerations that made me wary of concensus science.
Beth -who – is -jest- a- cowgirl- but- so-what?
Consider me errors in the above edited.
OT I have just driven through driving rain from a memorial
service for a dear friend, escapee from communist Hungary,
finalist in New Inventors a few years ago, so beautiful and
daring and charismatic and committed to the magic of science
… and only 62 years of age. Judith I post this here because
your blog is an e-salon and because, like you Gabi Kabay was
a denizen of the open society. My family loved her and what
she represented. I sent this poem to her after Christmas:
You come dressed in electric blue,
Ankle strap shoes, right out of the forties,
On your Lauren Bacall legs.
Electric blue, slash of colour in
A stormy sky, like you,
A force of Nature.
But blue is not truly
Your colour, it’s yellow,
Colour of sun’s rays at noon,
Bringing energy, enlightenment,
As you do, inventor of lamps
To lighten the darkness.
Yellow you say,
Is the primary colour extraordinnaire,
One zilch of the spectrum, But
Without which, the others,
Blue, red, could not combine
To make the rainbow.
Yellow, fitting for you.
BC
Thanks Beth. You’re welcome to use +1s at any time! My outdoor activities are the consequence of owning and living on 50 acres of land just 40kms north of Perth, at a place called Bullsbrook and yes, we did have some pretty bad bushfires, but thanks to the firefighters, volunteers and professionals, its all under control now.
VeryTallGuy:
You say, while citing a paper that fails its own sensitivity test and can only be held up as evidence if one accepts cherry-picking.
This is a fascinating claim given no paper has looked “at all the data” and concluded modern temperatures are warmer than cooler ones. Every paper claiming that has relied on cherry-picking.
At least manacker does his own cherry-picking. You just launder other people’s.
Verytallguy
The greater majority of reports show MWP warming So start thinking, and stop cherry-imagining data just to fit your desired answer.
Tomcat
“The greater majority of reports show MWP warming”
[sighs]
cite please?
Brandon,
I’m very happy to admit I’m not qualified to personally judge Mann’s papers that you so disapprove of.
However, they do seem to be the best available in the scientific literature.
If as Max, Tomcat and all the others here claim, the MWP is so evident in all these other papers, it’s *very* surprising that’s never been synthesised.
If it is, and reported in a reputable journal, I’d happily accept it.
Perhaps you could have a go?
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do object to the intentional deception.
“If as Max, Tomcat and all the others here claim, the MWP is so evident in all these other papers, it’s *very* surprising that’s never been synthesised.”
+1
The MWP was an anomaly in the North Atlantic region that could easily have come from ocean circulation changes. Other areas were simultaneously colder making for a not-so-special global average. Other regions may have been warmer at different times too due to ocean circulations. You need to see why the “skeptics” see the MWP as so important. Their logic is, it was warm then, therefore it can’t be CO2 now. There are some obvious things wrong with this logical chain, but I won’t delve into it. Currently despite cold ocean anomalies (PDO lack of big El Ninos), and low solar output, we are still having the warmest decades on record, and not by a little.
Jim D, what ‘changes in ocean circulation’ are you thinking of?
And, local effects or not, you cannot compare short-term changes like the PDO with something which affected temperatures for many centuries.
> There are some obvious things wrong with this logical chain, but I won’t delve into it.
Please free them from their logical chains, Jim D.
phatboy, I thought the “skeptics” knew all about ocean circulations (AMO ring any bells?). This is their main source of variability used to explain the last millennium, but it could be solar too as the Be10 solar proxy shows a high value around 1200 AD that matches the recent high in the late 20th century. As I say, neither apply now, so the MWP is a red herring for current climate change.
Jim D, please stop trying to put your (imagined) version of ‘sceptic logic’ into my mouth.
VeryTallGuy:
Not qualified? The main points have all been admitted by all parties. Mann and his co-authors have even published the failure of their reconstruction of their own sensitivity test (albeit, in the SI of a different paper).
It might take some small measure of qualification to judge the paper on its many other flaws. For example, you might not feel qualified to determine whether they modified inputs by adding modern temperature values to “proxies” then using them to reconstruct a “proxy record.” However, you should have no problem acknowleding what the RealClimate has already acknowledged.
I can’t think of a more damning criticism of paleoclimatic reconstructions.
I’ve actually described the methodology I would use to write such a paper, in some detail. I’ve also explained why I am confident that methodology would find no meaningful results. If I thought it would, I’d pursue it. However I am far too well acquainted with the data available to think we can draw the sort of results people want to draw.
The difference here is you’re drawing conclusiosn based on trash work known to be trash because it is the “best” work we have. I’m saying trash work doesn’t tell us anything and thus not picking a side.
Personally, I think your approach is just as deceptive as manacker’s, and I think neither is intentional.
MWP history.
Before the immense political possibilities of using AGW were realised, the MWP was the consensus view. As recorded in the emails, Mann or some other activist then realised “we need to get rid of the MWP”. Using crooked stats methods, that’s exactly what Mann then did.
lolwot
You are wrong again!
Some of the studies were cited by CO2 Science, others were from other sources.
You “cherry-pick” two, which you say cover different time periods.
Read them all, lolwot, and give me a report on the time periods cited (you’ll see that most are for the same time period around 900 AD, normally referred to as the MWP).
Max
You’ve been caught cherrypicking. You cherrypicked 1300-1400AD in one study and 1000AD in another yet implied they represented a simultaneous period of warmth.
I have no interest in fixing your own mess. Go away and come back with a date for the MWP and how warm it was in that period for each study.
I am going to stick with global reconstructions like Mann 08 which have already done this by tying in all the regions and show the MWP to be probably cooler than today.
Things you need to do to elevate your citations from junk-status to actual evidence:
1) Specify clearly how “today” is defined for each study.
2) Define the MWP periods for each study. If you are claiming the MWP was a global period of warmth you need to show the warming in each region happened at the same time.
3) Update your sources. Citing a paper for New Zealand tempreatures that was published in 1979 is not going to provide “todays” temperatures.
lolwot
So you are “going to stick with” Mann’s hockey shtick?
Great.
There are still a few gullible diehards that failed to get the word on this piece of junk science.
Looks like you are one of them.
I’ll stick with the dozens of independent studies that were cited in the lead post, some of which I also cited here.
Max
Look I’ll help you. Instead of saying:
“Martinez 1999, NW Spain, 3.4°C warmer than today”
Corrected version:
“Martinez 1999, NW Spain, 3.4C warmer in 800AD than 1968-98″*
“Zheng 2003, Eastern China, 0.4°C warmer than today”
Corrected version:
“Zheng 2003, Eastern China, 0.4C warmer in 1250AD than 1951- 80”
Ie these two figures are apples and oranges. They can’t be used to assess whether the MWP was global or warmer than today.
*I notice on the first link CO2Science claims “The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 1000 and 1200”. Both the dates, 1250AD and 800AD fall outside the MWP according to CO2Science’s own definition of the period!
From one of lowlot’s links: “The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 1000 and 1200 and the mean annual temperature during this time was as much as 3.4°C warmer than that of the 1968-98 period.”
Are you really trying to imply that today’s mean annual temperature is more than 3.4°C warmer than that of the 1968-98 period?
phatboy are you trying to tell me you can’t read?
I am saying that quote you’ve picked from the link is wrong.
lowlot, that quote was from your “corrected version”
You’re the one who can’t read, or doesn’t want to.
You can tell it wasn’t from my corrected version because the corrected version says:
“warmer in 800AD than 1968-98″
whereas you say:
“between AD 1000 and 1200 and the mean annual temperature during this time was as much as 3.4°C warmer than that of the 1968-98 period”
You are quoting the incorrect CO2Science version. Your desperation to race to find something wrong in what I am saying is preventing you from actually reading and comprehending what has been written. Slow down.
lowlot, did you or did you not write: “Corrected version:
“Martinez 1999, NW Spain, 3.4C warmer in 800AD than 1968-98″*”????
Now follow the link which you posted and tell us what it says.
Don’t try to imply that’s something which I said, when in fact it comes from the very link you posted.
“Now follow the link which you posted and tell us what it says.”
It’s wrong. Like I’ve explained. 1200 before present is 800AD, not 1200AD as CO2Science claim.
Sorry my mistake: I hadn’t explained that before. Basically CO2Science in that link have misread the graph and assumed 1000-1200 before present is 1000-1200AD.
So they’ve stuck a label at 800AD claiming that’s the MWP. This “MWP” ends long before 1000AD.
lowlot, so now you claim you were only pointing out an apparent mistake in the dates?
If that’s what you were trying to do then why didn’t you say as much?
And how does that detract from the point I was trying to make – that you were implying that today’s mean annual temperature is more than 3.4°C warmer than that of the 1968-98 period?
Just because someone quoted the MWP dates incorrectly does not mean there wasn’t a substantial period around that time which was at least as warm as today – as you would see if you took your blinkers off before looking at the data.
Phatboy, a short warm peak in one region at 1250AD and a short warm peak in another region at 800AD don’t a global-MWP-warmer-than-today make.
Those arguing for a globally warmer MWP than today need to show a period where all/many regions are warmer than today. CO2Science’s work fails to do this.
Your “short warm peak” looks to me like it spans something in the order of a century.
What I also see is a period of more than 2000 years warmer than 1968-98 period, and several multi-century periods more than two degrees warmer.
How do you explain such a large and long-sustained ‘local’ warming?
Or the large and long-sustained cooling in other regions which would have been necessary to balance out these warming episodes in order to keep the global average down?
And, if that were true, it kind of makes the argument about today’s ‘increasing extremes’ of temperature look a little thin.
I am not convinced the graph is degrees C. Notice the y-axis reads “temperature index”. It wouldn’t surprise me if CO2Science had wrongly assumed it to be degrees C, just as they got the x-axis wrong.
lolwot,
Here’s a link to Johnsen & al 2001:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.622/full
Would you say that the figure 6 has a peak at 1000 BP too?
Please note the caption:
> Monte Carlo inverted temperatures for the late Holocene based independently on the GRIP and Dye-3 temperature profiles. The close correspondence between them suggests that Central and South Greenland have experienced a similar temperature history for the past 4000 yr, except that the temperature variations for South Greenland have been almost twice as strong as for Central Greenland.
Twice as strong, now that’s similarity enough.
Perhaps, perhaps not. You’ll have to look at the actual paper to find out – I’m not going to shell out just in order to settle an argument.
“Would you say that the figure 6 has a peak at 1000 BP too?”
sure
lolwot
Looks to me like ~1100 BP (or around 900 AD, similar to other locations).
Max.
> Looks to me like ~1100 BP
Y U NOT PLAY FAIR?
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/45553402286
Folks, the existence of a MWP that was global and slightly warmer than today has been validated by the many independent studies from all over the world, which were mentioned in the lead post and for several of which I have cited the authors, dates, locations and cited temperature difference compared to today.
The global summaries of Loehle and Moberg also confirm the MWP; Loehle (revised) shows that it was ~0.15C warmer than the most recent temperature; Moberg has the two as the same.
If anyone can cite several dozens of independent papers from all over the world that show a warmer current period than the peak period of the MWP, let them bring the data. A single “global” reconstruction, such as Marcott et al. doesn’t tell us all that much, and even this paper states that present warming has not yet reached the level of past warm periods, but that model projections for the future will likely exceed them.
The danger is in making sweeping statements based on one study alone, or in comparing long-term trends with short-term “blips”.
Max
There seems to be widespread criticism that scientists have actually used thermometers to measure temperature. The word “spliced” seems to crop up a lot.
I don’t know about anyone else, but if I want to know the temperature then a thermometer would be the instrument of choice.
Unfortunately, for anyone wanting to reconstruct a long term temperature record, the thermometer measured record only goes back about 150 years. Before that proxy records in the form of tree ring widths have to be used. So if anything is “spliced” it would have to be these proxies which don’t have the same degree of precision as a more direct instrumental measurement. And no-one is saying they do.
Temp is just trying to distract attention from the deliberate HideTheDecline deception here – the proxies and thermometers parting company, thus casting doubt on the earlier proxies.
Wow. It’s hard to imagine how a comment could be more wrong.
Indeed, one has to wonder if it makes any sense at all.
It’s sound science when astronomers splice ancient eclipse observations onto modern telescope observations …
… and its sound science when climatologists do the same, eh?
LOL … claiming otherwise is yet another example of desperate denialist demagoguery’s motivism, bad science, anti-intellectualism, and a tendency toward conspiracy theories.
Conclusion How much longer can climate-change denialism continue to exist? The world wonders!
It’s sound science when astronomers splice ancient eclipse observations onto modern telescope observations …
… and its sound science when climatologists do the same, eh?
Except that the modern proxies and the observations parted company, and the splicing is done to disguise this.
LOL … claiming otherwise is yet another example of desperate credulous alarmist demagoguery’s motivism, bad science, anti-intellectualism.
(There is too a tendency toward conspiracy theory strawmen).
Conclusion How much longer can CAGW credulousness continue to exist? The world wonders!
Mother Nature is casting Her vote with consensus science …
… which guarantees that (in the long run) the present scientific consensus will become the moral and political consensus too!
That is why science needs only be patient, vassily!
Patient science is attended to by the likes of Dr. Marcott. Or is it Mr. Hide?
==============
“Mother Nature is casting Her vote with consensus science …
… which guarantees that (in the long run) the present scientific consensus will become the moral and political consensus too!”
In the sense that ? … the politically funded consensus is that temperatures should rise, but Mother Nature has irritatingly kept them level for nearly 20 years.
What we need is not a motivated consensus as now – ie a consensus preset to a given conclusion favorable to the benefactor of the consensus, regardless of the facts – but an honest attempt to understand the situation.
tempterrain
Yeah. Thermometers are a whole lot better than proxy stuff.
But when the proxy record shows a cooling trend (“decline”) and the thermometer record shows sharp warming, this is a clear indication that the proxy method is flawed and cannot be taken too seriously for past temperature trends.
And when the (declining) proxy record is expunged from the record(“hidden”) and replaced with the thermometer data, what do you call this “trick”?
“Hiding the decline”.
Oops! That’s a scientific “NO-NO”.
Max
Here’s what Dr. Marcot himself says about the reconstruction:
“…the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame.”
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/marcott-mystery-1/
Marcott’s candid statement on the non-robustness of aspects of his own study, is trumped by the political importance of saying that it IS robust – or the cases for carbon taxes might be weakened.
The science article:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/si-figure3-simulation-blowup.png
The thesis:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/thesis-simulation-blowup.png
No comment.
Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 2245
Recovering from the sharp splinter in his saddle which led him to yell “Hai! Oh! Sliver!!”
My reply to chinook @ 6.14 was moved upstream. Perhaps this will follow.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/hockey-stick-found-in-marcott-data/
“Marcotts data actually confirms the LIA and MWP.”
If u go thro’ the climategate emails you will find references
to getting rid of the MWP, AA. Otherwise wait fer the movie.)
Beth
“Wait fer the movie?”
Who’s gonna play “tricky Mickey”?
Max
The “Adapted from Ljungquist” chart is a sham and has been shown to be so many times.
I am shocked at its appearance on a page supposedly owned by a respected scientists, Dr Judith Curry.
If that’s the best on offer here, besides character assassination and political comment, I’m off.
“Mike’s Nature trick seems to be now a standard practice in paleo reconstructions.”
Yep, that’s what happens in science to good ideas . . . they spread. Kind of like lies and misinformation spread in your world, as long as they serve the prevailing ideology.
vtg illustrates the last refuge of a very desperate guy.
==========
Yes, I like it: ‘Dr. Marcott and Mr. Hide’.
============================
Breaking Scientific News …
What is humanity’s “Plan B” in the event that mainstream climate-change science is correct?
Denialism’s willful ignorance blinds us to answers … which leads human civilization where?
Fan, you’re terribly misled. Wake up. Even in the event that mainstream science is correct (very unlikely), “disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far”.
With the stick of hockey going on before
mould/mold?
‘The American spelling is the older of the two.[164] In Canada, both words have wide currency.[165] When speaking of the noun describing a form for casting a shape, the US will also use the “mould” spelling, but defaults to “mold” when referring to the fruiting bodies of tiny fungi.’ wikepedia
Either sense works.
‘Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views. “You can question some of the details of John’s calculations, but it’s hard to argue that the essential ideas aren’t absolutely correct,” says Doug Altman, an Oxford University researcher who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
Realism as opposed to romantic notions of how science works.
Max
It is global warming that is causing the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as the following perfect correlation between the two demonstrates.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/to:1983/normalise
It is a fool’s errand to try to control the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Most importantly, global warming is caused by the increased solar activity as the following result shows:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/to:1965/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:1052/normalise
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
George Washington.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/to:1965/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:1052/normalise
Steve McIntyre is saying, “Marcottian
uptricksupticks arise because of proxy inconsistency.” There was a time you’d have been bounced off his site for putting something so salaciously as to suggest a reputable scientist must be playing nature tricks with the data.O/T
A good history of the temperature standstill, and what various people said about it as time went on.
http://www.thegwpf.org/report-global-temperature-standstill-real/
Who knew there was so much fame and funding to be made torturing data into hockey sticks?
And it doesn’t even has to be robust – the good ol’ confirmation bias.
the greenhouse effect wants to force the temperature up, which in the absence of a cooling influence is what would have happened, the fact that the temperature has remained constant indicates that whatever has been cooling the planet has had to increase in strength at precisely the same rate as the CO2 warming, in order to keep the temperature constant. This means that for about 15 years, the combined effect of all the Earth’s climate variability factors have increased in such a way as to exactly compensate for the rise in temperature that the increased CO2 would have given us. It is not a question of the Earth’s decadal climate cycles summing up to produce a constant cooling effect, they must produce a cooling effect that increases in strength at exactly the same rate as
the greenhouse effect, so as to keep the Earth’s temperature constant.
192. Can it really be the case that, over the past 15 years, the sum total of all the Earth’s natural climatic variables, such as changes in solar irradiance, volcanoes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation, all of which can change from cooling to warming over decadal timescales, have behaved in such a
way as to produce a cooling effect that is the mirror image of the warming postulated by the anthropogenic climate forcings from CO2
and other greenhouse gases, from the changing water vapour, from tropospheric ozone, and from a clearing aerosol burden?
Am I alone in thinking, that in the dynamically changing global climate, this looks like a contrived, indeed scientifically suspicious, situation?
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf
Wow that GWPF report is really something. An exercise in denial, it’s almost self-parodying. Take this part:
“110. Of the 39,000 or so weather stations BEST used, covering 29% of the planet, all on land, about a third showed no warming over the 60-year period under consideration; indeed they showed cooling. Another way to look at the data would be that only a third of weather stations (the difference between the warmers and the coolers) contribute to the final conclusion. To my mind, that is a very different stance from saying that two-thirds of temperature stations show warming.”
WTF!!
This doesn’t appear to have been posted yet:
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115
Abstract
[my bold below – ds]
Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
—————————————————————————————-
MWP in the Antarctic Penninsula. That’s southern hemisphere, innit? Kind of argues against it being regional in the northern hemisphere? LOL
From the first citation of MiniMax best of list of MWP studies:
>ye 3 record is nearly identical with the GRIP record back to 7 ka, but the amplitudes are 50% higher. Thus, the resolved climate changes have taken place on a regional scale; many are seen throughout the Northern Hemisphere (27, 28, 32). GRIP is located 865 km north of Dye 3 and is 730 m higher in elevation. Surface temperatures at the summit are influenced by maritime air coming in from the North Atlantic and air masses arriving from over northeastern Canada (associated with the Baffin trough) (28, 32, 33). Temperatures at Dye 3 will be influenced to a greater degree by the North Atlantic maritime air masses. Dye 3 is located closer to the center of the highest atmospheric variability, which is associated with large interseasonal, interannual, and decadal temperature changes (32, 34). It is therefore believed that the observed difference in amplitudes between the two sites is a result of their different geographic location in relation to variability of atmospheric circulation, even on the time scale of a millennium.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5387/268.full
Our emphasis.
***
There’s also this interesting quote:
> The LGM is not well resolved in the Dye 3 record, and consequently the geothermal heat flow density is not uniquely determined.
This begs to be mansplained.
But let’s brace yourself – we’ve got mail.
No worries. Gug is just fine. As in what a gug :-) . In fact, I think i like like it better.
Sweetest dreams to you Beth as you go down under, down under.
No worries. Gug is just fine. As in what a gug :-) . In fact, I think i like like it better.
Sweetest dreams to you dear Beth as you go down under, down under
Bah, nesting. Will try again.Reply above Beth No worries.
Pingback: Global Warming is BS - Points and Figures | Points and Figures
The Marcott paper supports previous work by Kinnard (2011, Nature) that the Arctic summer sea-ice extent also showed no MWP effect in their reconstruction of 1450 years.
@ Petra,
Lots of room for models and deep ocean empirical data collection. The deep ocean conveyor and changes in deep temperature changes have so much impact of air temperatures. I don’t think we spend billions of dollars on models but we do need more spending on data collection. Hard to justify in this funding environment with all the competing demands. Have to worry about carbon releases from permafrost melting and methane hydrates from ocean sediments. And no actual measurements in the ocean.
Scott
This was posted Nov 2011:
“New EU Research Confirms Roman Warming Period In Arctic Regions Warmer Than Modern
Empirical evidence from Arctic-region waters near Greenland establish robust warming of the Roman Period”
No hot baths for poly bears yet.
And of course, highly unlikely in the forseeable future because all, genuine, research points out the ongoing decline of temps since the Holocene Maximum/Optimum, which is why it was called that..
There’s an email exchange someone posted on climateaudit I think, sorry lost the page, which shows how disingenuous they are in not wanting to use the standard description of the MWP and Holocene Maximum or Holocene Optimum :
There’s also, page 203, the
REVIEW OF OSBORN AND BRIFFA (2006)
Stephen McIntyre
Should have split the post, sorry for missing close italics after Stephen McIntyre quote.
Anyway, the second half is from a link posted here by David Holland: http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/more-news-from-rcfoia/#comment-404524
“On the morning of CG3 I was preparing a guest post to report on the release on 4 March by the UEA of some of Briffa’s emails, which I first asked for nearly five years ago. The full release is here (http://tinyurl.com/cl2gk2u), and I’ve extracted the ones that I thought worth mentioning here(http://tinyurl.com/d9oy789). Personal information has been redacted by the UEA.”
Pingback: The New Hockey Stick | New Zealand Climate Change
Wagathon –
What?
The “Middle” I was hinting at is scientific skepticism combined with Libertarian republicanism.
McIntyre nails Marcott et al to the cross: http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/ and http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/17/hiding-the-decline-the-md01-2421-splice/
Here is some Hokey Schtick hilarity
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/real-climate-responds-to-mcintyres-marcott-stick-busting/
Silence of some lambs.
============
Thanks to computers, Marcott’s paper contains a superabundance of statistics. I happen to think that Ernest Rutherford was right to advise his colleagues that “If your paper needs statistics you should have done a different experiment.” What Marcott has produced for us is a climatic history of most of the Holocene, based upon tree-ring proxies. It is nice to know but one suspects that more than scientific curiosity is involved. And when you see that he is using Michael Mann’s proxy data alongside his own (Fig. S-4) it becomes clear that he wants to exonerate Mann’s hockey stick scheme. But be that as it may be, to understand today’s climate we need to know what happened to temperature within the last century, not what happened ten or more millennia ago. On the scale that both Marcott and Mann chose to use the history of our current temperature looks like an uptick at the end of the temperature curve. That tick was suspect to me from the start. And now Steve McIntyre [1] has determined that it is an artifact, created by Marcott’s redating of relevant core samples. McIntyre discovered this by comparing the Science version of the paper with Marcott’s thesis. The purpose of this extensive redating is the same as Mann’s substitution of thermometer values was – to manufacture an unnatural temperature rise that the data did not justify. Let’s take a look at the temperature reality. The most accurate temperature records today are satellite temperature measurements, available since 1979. In addition, ground-based records less accurate are also available from NASA, the UK Met Office, and NOAA. Right off the bat there is disagreement between ground-based and satellite curves. For the years 1979 to 1997 ground based curves have been showing a steady rise in temperature, the so-called “late twentieth century warming.” Not so with satellites. They show ENSO oscillations in the same slot, with El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, against a background of a constant global mean temperature. I demonstrated this fact in my book “What Warming?” in 2010 but was ignored. But suddenly last fall, without any warning, all three ground-based curves decided to come in from the cold and show the eighties and nineties just like the satellites see them – ENSO oscillations on a background of constant global mean temperature. With that all three – GISTEMP, HadCRUT3 and NCDC – have abandoned that late twentieth century warming in the eighties and nineties that I have always objected to. Did somene get cold feet showing phony warming and told his friends about it too? Nicely coordinated, but I am still waiting for it to show up in their long-term temperature curves. And their twenty-first century records are still in a muddle and need adjustment. There has been no warming in the twenty-first century and Pachauri of the IPCC has admitted that this “pause,” as he likes to call it, has lasted for 17 years. When pressed about when to expect warming again he opined that might take thirty or forty years more. That would put it past the mid-century mark and he would be retired by then. If you were a scientist now, experimenting with carbon dioxide warming, you would have to add carbon dioxide to air and measure its temperature every day. If I were that scientist I would have concluded by now that my experiment is a failure. If after 17 years nothing happens you can be fairly certain that there is nothing there. And that is exactly what Ferenc Miskolczi [2] says to expect. He used NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 to study the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. He found that absorption was constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time increased by 21.6 percent. This addition of carbon dioxide had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This makes the present lack of warming understandable and brings up the question of past greenhouse warmings. To my knowledge, IPCC has never specified which particular warming period is or is not a greenhouse warming. To start a greenhouse warming, laws of physics require that there must be a simultaneous addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. We do know the amount of carbon dioxide in the air quite well and none of the candidate warmings since the nineteenth century meet this requirement. The satellite era in particular does not qualify. The only warming during the entire satellite era was a step warming initiated by the super El Nino of 1998. It had brought a large amount of warm water across the ocean and in four years this caused the global temperature to rise by a third of a degree Celsius. Then it stopped, and here has been no warming since then. And there was no warming before it either, back to 1979. And if Miskolczi is right, as I think he is, there has been no greenhouse warming at all in our entire temperature history.
[1] Steve McIntyre, “The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service” Climate Audit March 17th 2013 http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
[2] Ferenc Miskolczi Energy & Environment Volume 21 Issue 4, pp. 243-262 (2010)
Pingback: Playing hockey – blowing the whistle | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Playing Hockey – Blowing The Whistle | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Pingback: L’affirmation concernant le XXe siècle dans une étude portant sur 11000 ans, est sans fondement. :: RESILIENCETV
My spouse and I stumbled over here by a different website and thought I might as well check things out.
I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to
checking out your web page repeatedly.
Pingback: Ice sheet collapse? | Climate Etc.
Toenail infection or onychomycosis is just a fungal illness that’ll result to darkened and disfigured toenails.
Therefore, convinced that the physician knows best, I
tried the full span of proposed solutions.
But besides cost benefits, you have to find an LPG supplier that offers exemplary service.
Therefore, early diagnosis and treatment is essential for a healthy house.
To start with, clear and identify any infected places.
You will have to have a plumber install a plumbing manifold.
You ought to ask the plumber before hjring on ykur plumbing work whether he’s licensed or not.
Pingback: Another “hockey stick” graph spurs more climate hype | wryheat
Present the enlightenment in your designs with the use
of decorative candles and candle holders. Assuming youare not a complete property
plumbing greenhorn, you often will fix a leaky faucet yourself.
Insect inspection only inspections for termites, it’ll not check
the heating and air units. Twice today, I have discovered a bat in our home.
As careful, firsttime buyers-we ensured to dot all of our i’s and
cross all our t’s.
What’s written is more important than any of claims they say you will get from your broker or the
seller. Several parents, like me, usually find success by switching on an educational plan or an educational DVD.