Crowdsourcing the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page – Continued

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

Image Credit: Photobucket.com – GISP2 – Moberg – Keigwin – HadCRUT3

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

During the first crowdsourcing thread for the under construction WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page, we had a number solid recommendations and WUWT moderator D.B. Stealey dropped a virtual mountain of links into comments here and here. The result is that the original WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page has more than doubled in size and continues to grow as more comments from the prior crowdsourcing thread are added. Given the large number of additions and the fact that we now have a number of near-duplicate graphs, it seemed prudent to continue this crowdsourcing exercise to gain further input on the validity and value of each and all of the graphs.

There will likely be at least one more crowdsourcing thread for the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page, in order to assess a number of the currently disputed, questionable and falsified graphs, including Briffa et al., 1998, Jones et al., 1998, Mann et al., 1998, Pollack et al., 1998, Jones et al., 1998, Mann et al., 1999, Mann et al., 2000, Briffa et al., 2001, Esper et al., 2002 and Jones and Mann 2004, AR4 section 6.6.1.1 2007 and Marcott et al. 2013. Note that two (1, 2) of the graphs currently on the Paleoclimate page have a Disputed label, as per this comment and Alley’s own graph, the x axis label should read Years Before Present (1950 AD) not (2000 AD)

However, disputes aside, a gigantic thank you to D.B. Stealey, and all of those who have contributed to the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page. The following are some of the new additions to the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page:

472 Years – CET Extended Graph – Tony BrownGraph Background

Tony Brown – Climate Etc. – Click the pic to view at source

1,205 Years 800 – 2005

BioCab.org – Click the pic to view at source

2,000 Years

PLUSAF.com – Click the pic to view at source

2,100 Years – Law Dome O18

Climate Audit – Law Dome – Click the pic to view at source

2,500 Years

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

3,000 Years

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

4,000 Years

GreenWorldTrust.org.uk – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years GISP2 Ice Core

BP.Blogspot.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years Vostok Ice Core

BP.Blogspot.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years

WUWT – Easterbrook Figure 5 – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years Vostok Ice Core

McLean.ch – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years GISP Hadley

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years GISP Hadley

Photobucket.com – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years GISP Hadley

WUWT – GISP – Hadley – Click the pic to view at source

10,000 Years GISP

J. Esper et al. – Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) – Click the pic to view at source

12,000 Years – Vostok Anatarctica

JoNova.com – Click the pic to view at source

20,000 Years

NOAA NCDC – Click the pic to view at source

110,000 Years GISP2

Imageshack.com – RockyHigh66.Org – Mike McMillan – Click the pic to view at source

110,000 Years GISP2

University of New Hampshire – Click the pic to view at source

120,000 Years

JoNova.com – RockyHigh66.Org – Mike McMillan – Click the pic to view at source

140,000 Years Antarctic/Vostok

BP.Blogspot.com – Click the pic to view at source

140,000 Years

C3Headlines.Typepad.com – Click the pic to view at source

140,000 Years

Wikipedia – Click the pic to view at source

400,000 Years Antarctica/Vostok

APPINSYS.com – Click the pic to view at source

420,000 Years

Arizona University – Click the pic to view at source

423,000 Years Antarctic/Vostok

BP.Blogspot.com – Click the pic to view at source

450,000 Years

EssayWeb.net – Click the pic to view at source

450,000 Years

GlobalWarmingArt.com – Click the pic to view at source

740,000 Years

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) – Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) – Click the pic to view at source

800,000 Years (Click the Pic and zoom in)

Robert Bateman – Click the pic to view at source

65,000,000 Years

ImageShack.us – Click the pic to view at source

108,000,000 Years – Cramer et al., 2011

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH – Cramer et al., 2011 – Click the pic to view at source

545,000,000 Years

http://c3headlines.typepad.com – Click the pic to view at source

570,000,000 Years

ImageShack.us – Click the pic to view at source

750,000,000 Years

Bill Illis – S4.Posting.org – Click the pic to view at source

4,500,000,000 Years

Biology Cabinet – BioCab.com – Click the pic to view at source

(Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.)

Please post your thoughts, recommendations, graphs, links, research, suggested graph titles, etc., for the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page in comments. Thanks JTF

About these ads
This entry was posted in Paleoclimatology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Crowdsourcing the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page – Continued

  1. Good summary but for completeness you should have also shown the graphs and data for CO2 here http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm . There has to be real doubt that proxy data from ice-cores which show less than 280pmm are correct. This doubt was raised in the following report “Z. Jaworowski, et al., 1991. Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming: A
    Critical Review (Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt, Rapportserie No. 59), pp. 1-
    75″ There is evidence from several sources that the CO2 in the atmosphere around 1941 was only a little below present levels and this was due to high global temperatures in the 1930′s (possibly due to reduced clouds) and this in turn increased SST as shown in the second graph.at http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm.

  2. Wyguy says:

    Will your latest additions be at the top or bottom of page?

  3. Nick Stokes says:

    I see that after all the argument over Lappi’s GISP2 plot marked Years before present (2000), finally corrected, you have Easterbrook’s same data with the same marking.

    You have as the 2000 yr plot Dr Loehle’s 2007 paper data. He subsequently issued a correction, which made substantial changes.

  4. dmacleo says:

    wish I knew enough about this stuff to help.
    just an average joe though so I would probably mess stuff up :(

  5. cementafriend says: March 30, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    for completeness you should have also shown the graphs and data for CO2 here http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm .

    These graphs are both interesting:

    Biomind.de. – Click the pic to view at source

    Biomind.de. – Click the pic to view at source

    However, the Paleoclimate reference page is already large, and certain to grow, thus I am hesitant to add in stand alone CO2 graphs and shorter term climate records, i.e. currently the shortest record is 472 Years. We might need to add a WUWT CO2 reference page at some point, and more recent temperature records can be found on the WUWT Global Climate page;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-climate/

    and Global Temperature page:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/

  6. Wyguy says: March 30, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Will your latest additions be at the top or bottom of page?

    The page is in chronological order, thus new graphs are added in their appropriate locations. Latest additions are also noted in comments, and, once the page stops growing so quickly, new additions will be tagged as such: NEW:

  7. David L. Hagen says:

    When recent temperature data is shown with paleo proxies, a very important issue is to use the same averaging for both. Otherwise the recent temperature data will appear to change faster and higher – compared to if averaged by the same resolution as the paleo proxy. e.g. see:
    Simple Test of Marcott et al., 2013 Posted on March 11, 2013 by David Middleton
    Note the strong differences in appearances by the difference in averaging.
    Recommend showing both the published version and one where the recent temperature is averaged with the same resolution as the paleo proxy. e.g. See the 140 year average figure.

  8. Nick Stokes says: March 30, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    I see that after all the argument over Lappi’s GISP2 plot marked Years before present (2000), finally corrected, you have Easterbrook’s same data with the same marking.

    They haven’t been corrected, I’ve simply placed a “Disputed” label on them. The authors of the graphs should either provide convincing evidence that 2000 years before present is in fact accurate, or they should issue corrections to their graphs.

    You have as the 2000 yr plot Dr Loehle’s 2007 paper data. He subsequently issued a correction, which made substantial changes.
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/

    Authors
    Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

    Abstract

    A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals are added. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the bimillennial average during most of the period 820 – 1040 AD. The Little Ice Age was significantly cooler than the average during most of 1440 – 1740 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.

    I haven’t read the paper, as I refuse to pay 18 Pounds to read someones correction;
    https://multiscience.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=caxasoc5s4ybdjupub4ns1ov&sh=multi-science.metapress.com

    but the graph certainly seems deserving of a Disputed label, unless someone disagrees?

  9. berniel says:

    From this overview it appears as I suspected that, if valid, marcott’s thesis would have been a valuable contribution to the attempts to map Holocene temp GLOBALLY. All the more pity he went for glory with modifications for the Science paper.
    I wonder if others agree…

    Also, Dunno if you want to add a link to history of such attempts at GMT.
    Here is a collection beginning late 19 cent:
    http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/global-temperature-graphs/

  10. dmacleo says: March 30, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    wish I knew enough about this stuff to help.
    just an average joe though so I would probably mess stuff up :(

    Anyone can help. Pick the graph you find most interesting. Conduct several internet searches to find the papers and data sets that the graph is based upon. Paste links to what you’ve found, along with a brief descriptions, into a comment. The result is that you will have helped name your own graph and linked it to it’s source data.

  11. The graph after the deuterium graph is badly blurred for me using Chrome. Also the graph after the Phanerozoic graph is also blurred and unreadable.

  12. dbstealey says:

    JTFWUWT,

    Excellent resource, thank you for putting this together.

    I noticed several charts and graphs that I’ve posted here over the past several years, and also a few that are new to me. I am a big believer in visual aids; readers can get a feel for the situation by viewing a chart, which they don’t get from reading a .pdf file. In fact, many readers’ eyes glaze over and their heads begin to nod, whenever they start reading some esoteric pal reviewed paper. Visual aids like this show what’s happening [and what's not happening] at a glance.

    Kudos for a fine job of collating these charts and graphs in one location for easy reference. I’ll be looking over my large collection of chart folders for something new to add.

  13. Alec Rawls says:

    A couple of my WUWT favorites on paleo-temperature proxy records.

    1. J. Storrs Hall offers progressively longer looks at GISP2 (central Greenland) temp proxy:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    2. From Anthony, 2000 years of Law Dome O18 (still unpublished):

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-most-inconvenient-paleoclimate-data-that-hasnt-been-published/

  14. markx says:

    Fascinating there is a large disputed CO2 peak around 1942 …. bearing in mind the SST anomaly (temperature spike) of the 1940s which is still unexplained …. undersea volcanic activity?

  15. Philip Bradley says: March 30, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    The graph after the deuterium graph is badly blurred for me using Chrome.

    This is actually an image of a zoomable temperature record from Robert Bateman:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/Vostok.JPG

    Unfortunately it doesn’t translate well compressed as a wordpress pic. I’ve added a note to (Click the Pic and zoom in), but I think I’ll remove the image and leave it only as a link.

    Also the graph after the Phanerozoic graph is also blurred and unreadable

    This is an issue of the source image, but I am hesitant to remove it, as it is one of only a few available for this time period. If anyone can find a better resolution image of this graph, it would be most appreciated.

  16. James Bull says:

    I find it interesting that the Disputed, Questionable and Falsified graphs seem to have many of the regular crowed as their source, or am I seeing something that isn’t there?
    James Bull

  17. Mike McMillan says:

    I’ve reduced the 110,000 yr “gisp2temperature.png” source image to 8-bit color, so it should be easier to display and download. Annotated as “after: http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4488/gisp2temperature.png
    Who made that image?

    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/gisp2temperature.png

  18. Jon says:

    South Nowegian glaciers
    http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/19/6/610.abstract
    “Lithostratigraphic and paleobotanical studies suggest that the Jostedalsbreen ice cap probably disappeared during the early Holocene Hypsithermal interval (ca. 8000-6000 B.P.) and re-formed about 5300 B.P. The equilibrium-line altitude was lower than the modern mean equilibrium-line altitude between 2595 ±85 and 2360 ±80 B.P., between 2250 ±65 and 2150 ±80 B.P., between 1740 ±75 and 1730 ±75 B.P., between 1430 ±45 and 1270 ±60 B.P., and subsequent to 890 ±60 B.P. The outlet valley glaciers reached their maximum Neoglacial extent during the Little Ice Age in the middle of the eighteenth century.”

    And Sahara have a match?

    http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html
    “A timeline of Sahara occupation [See Map]:

    22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.
    10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.
    9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.
    7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.”

    The Jostedal glacier was melted down 8000 BP and was reestablished 5300 BP. During the ice age Norway is covered with up to 2 km ice. And it probably took a lot of energy and time to melt this down. So Norway lagged 2000 years during Holocene Optimum beginning, but no lag during the end?
    Sahara was greener 10500 BP to 5500 BP. Norway was mostly glacier free 8000-5300 BP.

    That means for Norway that the previous ice age ended 8000 Years ago and the next ice age started 5300 years ago?

  19. Mike McMillan says:

    My first one should be the100,000 yr, not 110,000 yr GISP2.
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/gisp2temperature.png

    Also reduced the 118,000 yr GISP2 to 8-bit color, and annotated the source image.
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/gisp2temperaturexaxispr.png

  20. Ben Wouters says:

    A recent paper on DEEP ocean temperatures going back 108 myears:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JC007255.shtml
    The graph: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JC007255/asset/supinfo/jgrc12191-sup-0010-fs09.pdf?v=1&s=79e93e124ca1fd8a33753fc667ff17deaa20b3e6
    Notice that DEEP ocean temperatures were ~17K higher around 83mybp then today !

    Here’s a Nature article trying to explain the PETM with CO2 thawing permafrost. Bad luck there wasn’t any permafrost around in that period ;-)
    Here’s the real explanation: http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/124-real-global-warming.html

  21. Mike McMillan says:

    Here’s the 570 million yr chart color reduced and annotated.
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/tempco2570mlefttoright.png

  22. tonyb says:

    Just the Facts

    A great effort in bringing together this data.

    You kindly referenced my CET extended graph to 1538. The article it is derived from is here;

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

    The references and research from which the figures are compiled is here;

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf

    I am currently working on extending the CET record to the 11th Century and to this end am currently seeking the transition between the MWP and LIA around 1250-1350 as this will help fill in a large part of the gap. To this end I spend a lot of time at the Met Office library. One very noticeable feature in looking at data from before the 20th century is how benign the current climatic age is compared to the past. You don’t know the meaning of ‘Extreme’ weather before you start to look at the past.

    tonyb (Tony Brown)

  23. Ben Wouters says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    March 30, 2013 at 11:54 pm

    missing link to Nature article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html

  24. oldseadog says:

    How about putting in the Mann Hockey Stick for comparison?
    Or would that be too cruel?

  25. Jimbo says:

    Just The Facts
    The last link after your post does not work – leads to “page not found”

  26. Nick Stokes says:

    justthefactswuwt says: March 30, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    “They haven’t been corrected, I’ve simply placed a “Disputed” label on them. The authors of the graphs should either provide convincing evidence that 2000 years before present is in fact accurate, or they should issue corrections to their graphs.”

    The GISP2 data sure is popular here, so it would be worth getting the data at least consistent. 2500 years marks it correctly. 3000 yrs isn’t explicit, but seems right. 4000 yrs doesn’t number the x-axis at all, or identify the data, but it seems to be GISP2. 10000 yrs gets it wrong, in marking the last 100 years; however adding the recent warming counters the effect. Then Easterbrook at 10000 yrs has it explicitly wrong, but 2 plots down there’s another 10000 yrs that gets it right, and the one below also seems right. Then the animated gets it wrong, but below that Esper getting it right, with 1855 explicitly marked. I saw five more GISPS at longer times, but then it hardly matters.

    Incidentally, do you really want to fill your page with umpteen people graphing Alley’s data?

  27. tonyb says:

    Nick

    Not snark, but which of the graphics showing data from 3000 years ago or more do you believe to be correct? its not easy to follow the ones you mean. Could you actually link to them? Thanks
    tonyb

  28. Bill Illis says:

    Mike McMillan says:
    March 30, 2013 at 10:56 pm
    I’ve reduced the 110,000 yr “gisp2temperature.png” source image to 8-bit color, so it should be easier to display and download. Annotated as “after:
    Who made that image?
    ————–

    I did.

    It is based on how the dO18 isotopes actually vary with temperature at the Greenland Summit. There is an actual measured formula which is consistent with how these isotopes typically change with temperature, altitude, proximity to the poles and proximity to the oceans in all other locations around the world and with the internationally recognized VSMOW-world standard.

    The other GISP2 temperature charts have recalibrated the exact same dO18 isotope data but this time based on borehole thermometry models. It is theoritical and faulty in my opinion.

    Or one could look at it another way. The Antarctica isotopes vary by almost exactly the same amount as Greenland in the ice ages. But the Antarctic temperature changes are only -10.0C at the last glacial maximum (as in polar amplification) while the Greenland borehole calibrated temperature change is -25.0C (as in polar amplification gone wild). The north Atlantic temperature estimates are about -4.0C at the last glacial maximum while 500 kms away at the summit, it is -25.0C?

    In addition, now that the ice cores have been extended back to the beginning of the Eemian interglacial, (NEEM just published) we see that Greenland got to +8.0C in the Eemian at 128,000 years ago based on the borehole methodology and much more of the glacial ice should have melted at these temps. Its just not accurate.

    The Antarctic ice core scientists (and there alot more of them) have not fallen for the borehole models and use the real dO18 isotope temperature conversion formula. The Greenland ice core scientists lead by Cuffey, Clow, Dahl-Jensen and Alley have distorted the actual temperature changes.

    You can remove the two charts labelled “GISP2 temperatures from dO18 isotopes” if you want to stick with the typically used GISP2 borehole-calibrated temperatures. But maybe one might want to see another probably more accurate view.

  29. Bill Illis says:

    I have an updated chart of the one labelled “Temperature versus CO2 over the last 570 million years” – I did this one as well. The current chart goes back a little farther, includes more CO2 estimates and probably has improved resolution.

    http://s4.postimg.org/5nwu2ppdp/Temp_CO2_750_Mya.png

  30. The third graph from BioCab seems to be wrong for its CO2 scale at the right: starting at 210 ppmv, which is too low for the Holocene (270-280 ppmv at minimum).

    cementafriend says:
    March 30, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    and
    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 30, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    While I do admire the tremendous amount of work that the late Ernst Beck has done, his compilation has little to do with the real “background” CO2 levels of that time. Think about that: a peak around 1942 of 80 ppmv in a decade or so up and in a decade down. That is equivalent to burning down and regrowth of 30% of all land vegetation on earth… Even if the oceans may release such an amount in short time (be it not from temperature changes, but from external acidification), there is no sink on earth that can capture that amount in only a decade…

    Moreover, not any other direct measurements in ice cores or proxies like coralline sponges or the – by some – much beloved stomata index data show such a huge change around 1942. Here the stomata data calibration against ice cores / firn / direct measurements over the past century:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/stomata.jpg
    The 1942 CO2 data officially were around 320 ppmv (ice cores). If the real data were at 380 ppmv, then the stomata index datapoints should be near the bottom of the chart.

    Further the Kaplan chart shows a change of 0.2°C. According to Henry’s Law, that is good for a maximum increase in seawater CO2 pressure of 3 microatm. That is fully compensated by an increase of ~3 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere.
    See further:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

    There has to be real doubt that proxy data from ice-cores which show less than 280pmm are correct.

    Let the late Jaworowski rest in peace, together with his opinions about ice cores. What he wrote after many of the initial drillings in ice cores might have been true in part, but most of his objections were already refuted by the work of Etheridge e.a. in 1996. That was by drilling 3 ice cores at Law Dome with a high accumulation rate with three different drilling techniques (wet and dry), measuring CO2 levels top down in firn and ice, etc… See:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD03410/abstract
    unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall.

    If any values below 280 ppmv are unreliable, can anybody show me how CO2 measurements of the ice core air (after over 99% sublimation and cryogenic separation) can be as low as 180 ppmv, while the outside air in the atmosphere is near 400 ppmv and beyond (in the lab…)? See further:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

  31. dmacleo says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 30, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    I may try that, have a condition (fibromyalgia with its memory/attn issues) that makes it hard but I may just give it a try.
    just afraid I would make more work for others by messing up.

  32. Leonard Weinstein says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    March 30, 2013 at 11:54 pm
    Ben, I read the http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/124-real-global-warming.html article, and agree that a major subsea eruption event as described may be the PETM cause. However, the article then goes on to explain how the insulation effect of a blanket of atmosphere removes the need for a greenhouse gas to explain the present 33 C excess temperature. This is wrong. An insulation effect needs to radiate from to space at some altitude to cause a temperature rise at the surface. Without optically absorbing atmospheric components (called greenhouse gases and clouds), the radiation would be directly from the surface, and thus the atmosphere would not be effectively insulating. It does not matter if the air is a thermal insulator to conduction or convection, it is the boundary location of radiation to space that results in the greenhouse effect.

  33. Bill Illis says:
    March 31, 2013 at 6:12 am

    The difference between borehole temperature reconstructions and ice core d18O is that the first represents only the local temperature at the top of the ice core over time, while the second represents the temperature mostly at the origin of the water vapour and partly where the vapour condensates to snow. That area is much larger than the point source of the borehole. In the case of the Greenland borehole, the top of the inland ice may show far larger temperature variations that the North Atlantic, where most of the water vapour of the ice originates.

    The same is true for the Antarctic ice cores: the low level, high accumulation coastal ice cores capture snow originating from the nearby Southern Ocean and shows opposite trends between the Peninsula and East-Antarctic coastal ice cores (Law Dome, Siple Dome), directly related to ENSO and the SAM (southern annual mode). The high level, low accumulation inland ice cores (Vostok, Dome C) capture snow originating from most of the SH oceans and show similar variations as the Greenland ice core…

    Thus the borehole temperatures are pure local, the ice core dO18 temperatures are from a wider area, depending of where the water vapour originated.

  34. Mike McMillan says: March 30, 2013 at 10:56 pm
    Mike McMillan says: March 30, 2013 at 11:38 pm
    Mike McMillan says: March 31, 2013 at 12:10 am

    I’ve reduced the 110,000 yr “gisp2temperature.png” source image to 8-bit color, so it should be easier to display and download. Annotated as “after: http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4488/gisp2temperature.png”
    Who made that image?

    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/gisp2temperature.png

    My first one should be the100,000 yr, not 110,000 yr GISP2.
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/gisp2temperature.png

    Thank you, not sure who made the image, but now that I can see it clearly, I think 110,000 Years is actually right. I’ve added your version into this article and onto the Paleoclimate page, i.e.:

    110,000 Years GISP2

    Imageshack.com – RockyHigh66.Org – Mike McMillan – Click the pic to view at source

    Also reduced the 118,000 yr GISP2 to 8-bit color, and annotated the source image.
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/gisp2temperaturexaxispr.png

    Added your version into this article and onto the Paleoclimate page, and now that I can see it clearly, it actually looks like 120,000 years, i.e.:

    120,000 Years

    JoNova.com – RockyHigh66.Org – Mike McMillan – Click the pic to view at source

    Here’s the 570 million yr chart color reduced and annotated.
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/tempco2570mlefttoright.png

    Added your version into this article and onto the Paleoclimate page, i.e.:
    570,000,000 Years

    ImageShack.us – Click the pic to view at source

    Thank you very much for your contributions.

  35. Bill Illis says: March 31, 2013 at 6:20 am

    I have an updated chart of the one labelled “Temperature versus CO2 over the last 570 million years” – I did this one as well. The current chart goes back a little farther, includes more CO2 estimates and probably has improved resolution.

    http://s4.postimg.org/5nwu2ppdp/Temp_CO2_750_Mya.png

    Added into this article and onto the Paleoclimate page:

    750,000,000 Years

    S4.Posting.org – Click the pic to view at source

    Thank you

  36. oldfossil says:

    A true skeptic will always ask, “What if I’m wrong and they’re right?”

    Obviously this question would never occur to a warmist.

    Not enough skeptics ask themselves this question. People, we’re skeptics because we’re saying, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Prove it then I’ll believe it.”

    We’re not skeptics because we have an alternative belief, which is equally subject to being falsified.

    Only if you’re truly brilliant and a Richard Feynman or Albert Einstein will you ask, “What if I’m wrong and everybody else is also wrong?”

  37. Alec Rawls says: March 30, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    1. J. Storrs Hall offers progressively longer looks at GISP2 (central Greenland) temp proxy:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    Those are valuable graphs, but not labeled well for inclusion on the reference page.

    2. From Anthony, 2000 years of Law Dome O18 (still unpublished):

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-most-inconvenient-paleoclimate-data-that-hasnt-been-published/

    Added the Law Dome graph into this article and onto the Paleoclimate page:

    2,100 Years – Law Dome O18

    Climate Audit – Law Dome – Click the pic to view at source

    However, I am inclined to give this chart a Disputed label, .e.g. Disputed Graph – This time series and graph are unpublished and thus have not been peer reviewed.

    Please let me know if anyone disagrees with this label.

    Thank you

  38. Ben Wouters says: March 30, 2013 at 11:54 pm

    A recent paper on DEEP ocean temperatures going back 108 myears:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JC007255.shtml
    The graph: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JC007255/asset/supinfo/jgrc12191-sup-0010-fs09.pdf?v=1&s=79e93e124ca1fd8a33753fc667ff17deaa20b3e6
    Notice that DEEP ocean temperatures were ~17K higher around 83mybp then today !

    Here’s a Nature article trying to explain the PETM with CO2 thawing permafrost. Bad luck there wasn’t any permafrost around in that period ;-)
    Here’s the real explanation: http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/124-real-global-warming.html

    Yes, added the Cramer et al. graph into this article and onto the Paleoclimate page:

    108,000,000 Years – Cramer et al., 2011

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH – Cramer et al., 2011 – Click the pic to view at source

    Thank you

  39. tonyb says: March 31, 2013 at 1:38 am

    You kindly referenced my CET extended graph to 1538. The article it is derived from is here;

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

    The references and research from which the figures are compiled is here;

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf

    I updated the graph title updated accordingly:

    472 Years – CET Extended Graph – Tony BrownGraph Background

    Tony Brown – Climate Etc. – Click the pic to view at source

    Please let me know if there are any additional modifications you’d recommend. Thanks

  40. oldseadog says: March 31, 2013 at 2:11 am

    How about putting in the Mann Hockey Stick for comparison?

    It will definitely end up on the page, the questions are only what will it’s label say and will it be relegated to a section at the bottom for Questionable/Falsified graphs. We will have a separate crowdsourcing thread on the Disputed/Questionable/Falsified graphs to assure that each one is given a fair evaluation before we determine how to label and handle it.

    Or would that be too cruel?

    There is no cruelty in exposing the facts, the cruelty occurs when an erroneous graph is created and when someone is mislead by it.

  41. Jimbo says: March 31, 2013 at 3:03 am

    The last link after your post does not work – leads to “page not found”

    Corrected, thanks.

  42. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 30, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    Nick Stokes says: March 30, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    I see that after all the argument over Lappi’s GISP2 plot marked Years before present (2000), finally corrected, you have Easterbrook’s same data with the same marking.

    They haven’t been corrected, I’ve simply placed a “Disputed” label on them. The authors of the graphs should either provide convincing evidence that 2000 years before present is in fact accurate, or they should issue corrections to their graphs.

    You have as the 2000 yr plot Dr Loehle’s 2007 paper data. He subsequently issued a correction, which made substantial changes.
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/

    Authors
    Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

    Abstract

    A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals are added. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the bimillennial average during most of the period 820 – 1040 AD. The Little Ice Age was significantly cooler than the average during most of 1440 – 1740 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.

    I haven’t read the paper, as I refuse to pay 18 Pounds to read someones correction;
    https://multiscience.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=caxasoc5s4ybdjupub4ns1ov&sh=multi-science.metapress.com

    but the graph certainly seems deserving of a Disputed label, unless someone disagrees?

    As one of those who pitched in on CA to fix the errors in the original version, if Nick hadn’t posted that I would have. The original graph is not disputed it’s acknowledged to be in error by the author (it’s not ‘someone’ who corrected it it’s the original author). To save you the money you can access the paper here: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
    The data in the corrected graph extend to 1935 due to misdating in the original paper.

  43. Nick Stokes says:

    tonyb says: March 31, 2013 at 4:55 am
    ” which of the graphics showing data from 3000 years ago or more do you believe to be correct? its not easy to follow the ones you mean. Could you actually link to them?”

    Tony, here are the links. Numbering would help, though.

    2500 years marks it correctly. 3000 yrs isn’t explicit, but seems right. 4000 yrs doesn’t number the x-axis at all, or identify the data, but it seems to be GISP2. 10000 yrs gets it wrong, in marking the last 100 years; however adding the recent warming counters the effect. Then Easterbrook at 10000 yrs has it explicitly wrong, but 2 plots down there’s another 10000 yrs that gets it right, and the one below also seems right. Then the animated gets it wrong, but below that Esper getting it right, with 1855 explicitly marked.

  44. Tonyb says:

    Justthe facts

    That is great, thank you

    Tonyb

  45. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 30, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    Nick Stokes says: March 30, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    I see that after all the argument over Lappi’s GISP2 plot marked Years before present (2000), finally corrected, you have Easterbrook’s same data with the same marking.

    They haven’t been corrected, I’ve simply placed a “Disputed” label on them. The authors of the graphs should either provide convincing evidence that 2000 years before present is in fact accurate, or they should issue corrections to their graphs.

    They’re not disputed, they’re wrong. Any graph that claims to use Alley’s GISP2 data must either finish at 95 years Before Present (BP=1950) or AD1855 because that is the final date in his database which is on-line and freely available to us all. Lappi’s graph mistakes Present for 2000 as does Easterbrook, they should have a note added pointing out their error or be excluded.

  46. Bill Illis says:

    I don’t think one can reliably use sea level to calibrate ice volume (especially over the last 100 million years). (maybe the last 5 million years but not over the last 100 million years).

    The problem is that sea level has been falling for (almost) that entire period as the Atlantic Ocean has formed and has deepened and widened.

    It started out as a simple Rift Valley (with lots of volcanoes) about 200 million years ago as North America split from Pangea, with Europe in tow. One day, the ocean invades the rift and we have a Persian Gulf or a Red Sea rift sea. If the rift continues widening, then the depth slowly increases as the ocean sinks in the mantle (it really does). But it can take 50 million years to 100 million years for one of these new oceans to reach a mature ocean depth of 5000 metres.

    As the Atlantic really opened up, with South America splitting off and then Europe from North America (60 million years ago), the average depth of all the oceans on the planet was lower. The ocean had nowhere to go except onto the land.

    A shallow ocean covered North America from Texas to Inuvik to Hudson Bay. Europe and the Middle East were nearly completely flooded. Sea level was probably 265 metres higher 94 million years ago.

    It would be impossible to infer ice volume and glacial ice from sea level in that situation. In fact, there probably was no ice because all that warm shallow ocean covered so much of the planet. One could even imagine a nice warm current flowing up from the then Gulf of Mexico through Texas to the Arctic ocean. Indeed, crocodiles have been found in Alaska dating from this sea level high stand.

    The estimates in the Cramer paper are probably just another attempt to jack up the CO2 sensitivity estimates from the paleoclimate by playing around with sea level/ice volume correlations.

  47. Robert Clemenzi says:

    You are showing a number of GISP2 plots that go back over 100, 000 years. The Alley data only goes back about 49,000 years.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html

    The only graph going back 110,000 years I could find is Bender, et al., Nature, 1994 . However, that dating appears to be very old since a feature shown as 80,000 bp is now shown as about 45,000 bp in alley 2000.

    The official dating for GISP2 goes back to 110,000 bp. However, I am not able to find an analysis that far back – Alley only goes back 49,000 years.

    Therefore, unless there is a link to the more complete record, I think the graphs of older data need to be marked as suspicious.

  48. Bill Illis says:

    GISP2 actually has some ice in it that has been dated at 250,000 years ago. There is just so much distortion at the bottom of this particular core at bedrock that people don’t feel confident in using the oldest data. Its not easy to find all the data which has been used.

    The NGRIP ice core has less distortion at the bottom (and matches GISP2 very closely over the whole period) so it has generally been used the most recently. It has been carefully extended back to 122,750 years ago. On this page.

    http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/data/

    The new NEEM ice core extends the confirmed Greenland data back to 128,000 years ago, into the Eemian interglacial. Data here.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html#supplementary-information

    So here is a chart showing NGRIP-extended, NEEM, Epica DomeC Antarctica and the estimated Global temperature going back 135,000 years ago.

    Could probably add this chart to the Reference page.

    http://s12.postimg.org/9ctilkusd/NGRIP_NEEM_EDC_Global_135kya.png

  49. Steve Keohane says:

    How about the IPCC graph from AR1. It showed the typical depiction of temperature reconstructions of at least the 40 years prior to its being published.
    http://i39.tinypic.com/bgemm9.jpg

  50. I’d like to submit this graph from GISS:
    http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
    I think it tells the whole story.

  51. Phil. says: March 31, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    You have as the 2000 yr plot Dr Loehle’s 2007 paper data. He subsequently issued a correction, which made substantial changes.
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/

    Authors
    Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

    Abstract

    A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals are added. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the bimillennial average during most of the period 820 – 1040 AD. The Little Ice Age was significantly cooler than the average during most of 1440 – 1740 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.

    I haven’t read the paper, as I refuse to pay 18 Pounds to read someones correction;
    https://multiscience.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=caxasoc5s4ybdjupub4ns1ov&sh=multi-science.metapress.com

    but the graph certainly seems deserving of a Disputed label, unless someone disagrees?

    As one of those who pitched in on CA to fix the errors in the original version, if Nick hadn’t posted that I would have. The original graph is not disputed it’s acknowledged to be in error by the author (it’s not ‘someone’ who corrected it it’s the original author). To save you the money you can access the paper here: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
    The data in the corrected graph extend to 1935 due to misdating in the original paper.

    I’ve added the Loehle graph to a new section at the bottom of the Paleoclimate page titled,
    Incorrect/Falsified Graphs
    and cited your comment among other background.

    2,000 Years – Incorrect Graph The data in this graph should only extend to 1935, not 1980. Per “Correction to: A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
    RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREE RING PROXIES
    ” by Craig Loehle, Ph.D. and J. Huston McCulloch, “With the corrected dating, the number of series for which data is available drops from 11 to 8 in 1935, so that subsequent values of the reconstruction would be based on less than half the total number of series, and hence would have greatly decreased accuracy. Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935 AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007). paper The paper is listed here and a comment addressing the issue can be found here.

    Craig Loehle, Ph.D. and J. Huston McCulloch – PLUSAF.com – Click the pic to view at source

    Thank you for your input.

  52. Nick Stokes says: March 31, 2013 at 3:07 am

    2500 years marks it correctly. 3000 yrs isn’t explicit, but seems right. 4000 yrs doesn’t number the x-axis at all, or identify the data, but it seems to be GISP2. 10000 yrs gets it wrong, in marking the last 100 years; however adding the recent warming counters the effect. Then Easterbrook at 10000 yrs has it explicitly wrong, but 2 plots down there’s another 10000 yrs that gets it right, and the one below also seems right. Then the animated gets it wrong, but below that Esper getting it right, with 1855 explicitly marked.

    Phil. says: March 31, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    They’re not disputed, they’re wrong. Any graph that claims to use Alley’s GISP2 data must either finish at 95 years Before Present (BP=1950) or AD1855 because that is the final date in his database which is on-line and freely available to us all. Lappi’s graph mistakes Present for 2000 as does Easterbrook, they should have a note added pointing out their error or be excluded.

    Nick Stokes says: March 31, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Incidentally, do you really want to fill your page with umpteen people graphing Alley’s data?

    We are definitely going to want to thin out the Alley graphs and the ones with incorrect axis labels seem like good candidates, but the best way to address this is probably an Alley dating specific thread to hopefully address any disputes if they exist. Ideally I’d like the authors of the graphs to either present evidence supporting the accuracy of the axis labels or issue corrections if the axis labels are inaccurate.

  53. Bill Illis says: April 1, 2013 at 6:02 am

    So here is a chart showing NGRIP-extended, NEEM, Epica DomeC Antarctica and the estimated Global temperature going back 135,000 years ago.

    Could probably add this chart to the Reference page.

    http://s12.postimg.org/9ctilkusd/NGRIP_NEEM_EDC_Global_135kya.png

    Yes, good one, added to the Paleoclimate page:

    135,000 Year – NGRIP-extended, NEEM, Epica DomeC Antarctica and the estimated Global temperature

    Bill Illis – S12.postimg.org – Click the pic to view at source

    Thank you.

  54. Mike McMillan says:

    For your Incorrect/Falsified Graphs section, if you think appropriate. Here are the hoary old USHCN version 1 vs version 2 raw data charts for all stations in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Revised raw data.
    Avoid caffeine before clicking.

    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_iowa.htm
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm

  55. Steve Keohane says: April 1, 2013 at 8:49 am

    How about the IPCC graph from AR1. It showed the typical depiction of temperature reconstructions of at least the 40 years prior to its being published.
    http://i39.tinypic.com/bgemm9.jpg

    Yes, IPCC Assessment Report 1 (AR1) Figure 7.1 on page 202;
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

    highlighted by Jo Nova here;
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-4-past-temperatures/

    and just added to the WUWT Paleoclimate page:

    1,100 Years – IPCC Assessment Report 1

    JoNova – IPCC AR1 – Click the pic to view at source

    Thank you for your input. If you, or anyone else, knows what data set and paper the AR1 graph is based on, please post them in comments, as they are not readily apparent from reading AR1.

  56. Olavi says:

    Hi you should look this:
    http://lustiag.pp.fi/gt_trace2008h.pdf
    Treeringdata from Finnish Lapland partly source for Esper& al 2013

  57. J. Philip Peterson says: April 3, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    I’d like to submit this graph from GISS:
    http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
    I think it tells the whole story.

    That’s an amusing graph;

    suyts space – http://suyts.wordpress.com/ – Click the pic to view at source

    but it doesn’t extend back far enough for our Paleoclimate page.

  58. dbstealey says:

    JTFWUWT,

    That is an excellent graph from suyts. which I have delighted in posting all over the internet. It puts the whole “carbon” scare into perspective. Similar to this one.

  59. dbstealey says: April 11, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    JTFWUWT,

    That is an excellent graph from suyts. which I have delighted in posting all over the internet. It puts the whole “carbon” scare into perspective. Similar to this one.

    Yes, that’s another good one:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/ – Click the pic to view at source

    They both might earn themselves a place on the WUWT Global Temperature reference page;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/

    right after the Met Office graphs.

  60. dbstealey

    Also, from the pile of links you dropped in the prior crowdsourcing thread I added this graph;

    Atmospheric Specific Humidity

    climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

    to the Atmosphere;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/atmosphere/

    and Global Climate reference pages:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/

    and I am considering including these:

    Global Relative Humidity

    bp1.blogger.com – Click the pic to view at source

    Water Vapor Levels

    s19.postimage.org – Click the pic to view at source

    ;

  61. Mike McMillan says: April 7, 2013 at 4:09 am

    For your Incorrect/Falsified Graphs section, if you think appropriate. Here are the hoary old USHCN version 1 vs version 2 raw data charts for all stations in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Revised raw data.
    Avoid caffeine before clicking.

    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_iowa.htm
    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm

    Those are interesting graphs, but don’t extend back far enough for our Paleoclimate page.

Comments are closed.