Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The quote above is from Lord of the Rings, an exchange between Gollum and Smeagol, and it encapsulates my latest results from looking into the Shakun 2012 paper, “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation” (paywalled, at Nature hereinafter Shakun2012). I discussed the paper in my post “Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy“. Please see that post for the underlying concepts and citations.

When I left off in that post of mine, I had investigated each of the 80 proxies used in Shakun2012. I plotted them all, and I compared them to the CO2 record used in their paper. I showed there was no way that the proxies could support the title of the paper. Figure 1 recaps that result, showing the difficulty of establishing whether CO2 leads or lags the warming.

Figure 1. All proxies (green dots) from Shakun2012 (Excel spreadsheet). CO2 values digitized from Shakun 2012 Figure 1a. There is pretty good agreement between the warming and the changes in CO2.

Note that the proxies say the earth generally warmed from the last ice age, starting somewhere about 15,000 BC, and the warming lasted until about 9,000 BC. Since then, the proxies have the greatest agreement (darkest green). They say that the globe generally cooled over the length of the Holocene, the current interglacial period since the last ice age.

Today I was thinking about that single record that they used for the CO2 changes. I got to wondering what other ice core CO2 records might show about the change in CO2. So I went and downloaded every ice core CO2 record that I could find that covered the time period 26,000 BC to modern times. I found a number of ice core records that cover the period.

Then I collated all of them in Excel, saved them as a CSV file, opened the file in R, and plotted every ice core CO2 record that covered the record from 26,000 BC up to the present. I standardized them over the same period covered by the Shakun2012 CO2 data. There was excellent agreement between the Shakun2012 data and the ice core records I had downloaded … but there was also a surprise.

Figure 2 shows the surprise …

Figure 2. As in Figure 1. Black circles show Shakun2012 CO2. Additional colored dots show the ice core CO2 records which have data from 26,000 BC to the present.

Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.

I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …

I leave the readers to consider the fact that for most of the Holocene, eight centuries millennia or so, half a dozen different ice core records say that CO2 levels were rising pretty fast by geological standards … and despite that, the temperatures have been dropping over the last eight millennia …

And I leave everyone to ponder how far climate “science” has fallen, that a tricksy study of this nature can be published in Nature, and can get touted around the world as being strong support for the AGW hypothesis. The only thing this study supports is the need for better peer review, and at a more basic level, better science education.

My best to all, stay skeptical,

w.

Source data:

ICE CORE CO2 DATA: All ice core CO2 data are from the NOAA Paleoclimatology site, the “Ice Core Gateway” page, in the section “Gases”.

[UPDATE] A hat tip to Jostein, in the comments he points out that the original Shakun Nature paper is here (pdf).

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

338 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 7, 2012 11:03 pm

Hide The Increase!

April 7, 2012 11:05 pm

I am reminded of the line… ” You can’t handle the Truth… “

Theo Goodwin
April 7, 2012 11:06 pm

Hide The Incline!

Lance Wallace
April 7, 2012 11:10 pm

eight “centuries”? or millennia (occurs twice)

StuartMcL
April 7, 2012 11:12 pm

Eight centuries or eight millenia?

April 7, 2012 11:14 pm

Note how the Younger Dryas shows up clearly in the temperature proxies but merely causes CO2 levels to flatten. Thats persuasive that rising temperatures cause rising CO2 levels. When temperatures fell during the YD, CO2 just stopped rising.
Otherwise, climate science is riddled with these kinds of deceptions. If you followed the Larsen iceshelf thread yesterday. I tracked down the source of the ‘2.5C warming over the Antarctic Peninsula’ claim and showed it would have almost no effect on temperatures over 0C and therefore almost no effect on iceshelf melt from atmospheric temperatures. Contrary to the repeated claim it is the cause.

phlogiston
April 7, 2012 11:17 pm

“Jeremy’s Nature trick?” What can one say? Brilliant, thanks Willis.
Also its interesting to see the x-axis time variability in the CO2 rise as well as in the temperature rise(s). The CO2 proxy variability was also excluded from Shakun et al.’s “analysis”.

April 7, 2012 11:19 pm

did you mean to write 80 centuries, or am I reading that graph wrong?

phlogiston
April 7, 2012 11:21 pm

At last! A hockey stick! But hang on – its the wrong way round. No problem – we have some Finnish friends who can help out here…

Keith
April 7, 2012 11:28 pm

Willis, brilliant as ever. Do you think Nature will accept a comment paper? (no sarc intended). If not there, this should be published somewhere.

April 7, 2012 11:28 pm

Now the question is whether there’s Clark-group OSU ftp server with a CO2 data folder called, ‘up to 2000 CENSORED.’

phlogiston
April 7, 2012 11:30 pm

Philip Bradley says:
April 7, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Note how the Younger Dryas shows up clearly in the temperature proxies but merely causes CO2 levels to flatten. Thats persuasive that rising temperatures cause rising CO2 levels. When temperatures fell during the YD, CO2 just stopped rising.
This is the point I made in the last thread – the presence of the Younger Dryas makes the initiation of the present interglacial fair game for this kind of AGW trickery, since – as you point out, temperatures rose twice, while CO2 rose only once. The resultant smearing in the time direction of temperature proxies (assisted by the huge variability and error in such proxies) allows Skakun et al. to get away with this conjuring trick. Its enough to allow the MSM e.g. BBC to crow that this powerful skeptical argument – temp rise predating CO2 rise – has been falsified, when it clearly has not.
It is curious how CO2 flatlined during the Younger Dryas.

John
April 7, 2012 11:38 pm

Is Nature aware of this?

Phillip Bratby
April 7, 2012 11:41 pm

See “Dishonest, Delusional and Dangerous” – Piers Corbyn dismembers the latest Nature magazine claim propagated by BBC that CO2 drives climate.
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No20.pdf

markx
April 7, 2012 11:45 pm

This NEEDS to be published in the scientific literature.

Andrew
April 7, 2012 11:53 pm

Up, Up and Away…!!!!!!!!!

April 7, 2012 11:56 pm

I leave the readers to consider the fact that for most of the Holocene, eight centuries millennia or so, half a dozen different ice core records say that CO2 levels were rising pretty fast by geological standards … and despite that, the temperatures have been dropping over the last eight centuries …
That discovery deserves to be published. As well, the Sakun paper deserves to be thoroughly and publicly trashed. But I somehow doubt either will occur.

Tenuk
April 8, 2012 12:02 am

Thanks Willis for de-constructing another example of how not to do science.
This means that Shakun et al have shot themselves in each foot and now haven’t a leg to stand on! Will be interesting to see how Nature deal with the retraction.

April 8, 2012 12:06 am

Can someone do a graph of Northern hemisphere temperature AND NORTHERN hemisphere CO2?
Thanks
JK

April 8, 2012 12:06 am

Their title is
“Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation”
Seems clear to me. And that’s what they plotted.

major9985
April 8, 2012 12:08 am

Willis would you please make these proxy CO2 data avaliable for us?

Brian H
April 8, 2012 12:09 am

I also notice that of the available CO2 records, the one they use shows the earliest rise. That counts as a half-tricksy, at least!

NikFromNYC
April 8, 2012 12:22 am

CO2 Gate

Dogstar060763
April 8, 2012 12:23 am

If Nature publish a retraction I wonder if the BBC will have the good manners to do the same – they were very quick (predictably) to trumpet the original story as it suited their pro-CAGW narrative very nicely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404

1 2 3 14