Inverse Underwater Hockey Sticks?

From the University of Toronto,  Underwater ‘tree rings’

Calcite crusts of arctic algae record 650 years of sea ice change

Caption: This alga can be found in coastal regions of the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Arctic Ocean, where it can live for hundreds of years. Credit: Nick Caloyianus

Almost 650 years of annual change in sea-ice cover can been seen in the calcite crust growth layers of seafloor algae, says a new study from the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM).

“This is the first time coralline algae have been used to track changes in Arctic sea ice,” says Jochen Halfar, an associate professor in UTM’s Department of Chemical and Physical Sciences. “We found the algal record shows a dramatic decrease in ice cover over the last 150 years.”

With colleagues from the Smithsonian Institution, Germany and Newfoundland, Halfar collected and analyzed samples of the alga Clathromorphum compactum. This long-lived plant species forms thick rock-like calcite crusts on the seafloor in shallow waters 15 to 17 metres deep. It is widely distributed in the Arctic and sub-Arctic Oceans.

Divers retrieved the specimens from near-freezing seawater during several research cruises led by Walter Adey from the Smithsonian.

The algae’s growth rates depend on the temperature of the water and the light they receive. As snow-covered sea ice accumulates on the water over the algae, it turns the sea floor dark and cold, stopping the plants’ growth. When the sea ice melts in the warm months, the algae resume growing their calcified crusts.

This continuous cycle of dormancy and growth results in visible layers that can be used to determine the length of time the algae were able to grow each year during the ice-free season.

“It’s the same principle as using rings to determine a tree’s age and the levels of precipitation,” says Halfar. “In addition to ring counting, we used radiocarbon dating to confirm the age of the algal layers.”

After cutting and polishing the algae, Halfar used a specialized microscope to take thousands of images of each sample. The images were combined to give a complete overview of the fist-sized specimens.

IMAGE: This is a diver dislodging coralline red algal crust from rock surface using hammer and chisel while enduring the near-freezing water temperatures of the Labrador Sea.

Click here for more information.

Halfar corroborated the length of the algal growth periods through the magnesium levels preserved in each growth layer. The amount of magnesium is dependent on both the light reaching the algae and the temperature of the sea water. Longer periods of open and warm water result in a higher amount of algal magnesium.

During the Little Ice Age, a period of global cooling that lasted from the mid-1500s to the mid-1800s, the algae’s annual growth increments were as narrow as 30 microns due to the extensive sea-ice cover, Halfar says. However, since 1850, the thickness of the algae’s growth increments have more than doubled, bearing witness to an unprecedented decline in sea ice coverage that has accelerated in recent decades.

Halfar says the coralline algae represent not only a new method for climate reconstruction, but are vital to extending knowledge of the climate record back in time to permit more accurate modeling of future climate change.

Currently, observational information about annual changes in the Earth’s temperature and climate go back 150 years. Reliable information about sea-ice coverage comes from satellites and dates back only to the late 1970s.

“In the north, there is nothing in the shallow oceans that tells us about climate, water temperature or sea ice coverage on an annual basis,” says Halfar. “These algae, which live over a thousand years, can now provide us with that information.”

###

The research, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Ecological Systems Technology.

###

here is the paper:

Arctic sea-ice decline archived by multicentury annual-resolution record from crustose coralline algal proxy, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1313775110

They claim:

Significance

The most concerning example of ongoing climate change is the rapid Arctic sea-ice retreat. While just a few years ago ice-free Arctic summers were expected by the end of this century, current models predict this to happen by 2030. This shows that our understanding of rapid changes in the cryosphere is limited, which is largely due to a lack of long-term observations. Newly discovered long-lived algae growing on the Arctic seafloor and forming tree-ring–like growth bands in a hard, calcified crust have recorded centuries of sea-ice history. The algae show that, while fast short-term changes have occurred in the past, the 20th century exhibited the lowest sea-ice cover in the past 646 years.

About these ads

125 thoughts on “Inverse Underwater Hockey Sticks?

  1. Great to have some actual climate science practiced & published now & then.

    As expected, the Little Ice Age had already begun by the 1360s, & Arctic ice cover has decreased during the past 150 years, as climate recovered from the LIA, which ended around 1860, after double bottoming during the sunspot Minima of Maunder c. 1645-1715 & Dalton c. 1790-1830.

    Just the normal fluctuations of the Holocene, although with a disturbing longer-term (millennial scale) downtrend.

  2. The findings are in agreement with the world emerging from the LIA in the mid 19th century, leaving the 20th century as the only one during that time to be free of the effects of the LIA.

  3. Once again, someone tell Michael Mann that the Little Ice Age really existed.

    Too bad the mainstream media, when the pick up on a study like this, refuse to examine how it relates to the iconic hockey stick.

  4. As usual all this is behind paywall. Thus the conclusions cannot be verified, in particular the arctic is vast and where in the Arctic is paramount to drwaing conclusions on atmopshere, sea ice and climate.

  5. A bona fide question from a non-scientist:

    Re: “Longer periods of open and warm water result in a higher amount of algal magnesium.” (emphasis mine)

    How do they know that the controlling variable is not the temperature of the water? How do they know that sea ice extent (i.e., amount of light) is a significant causation?

    Isn’t a parallel (and erroneous) assumption commonly made about the controlling cause of tree ring width?

    In other words….

    How does this study prove ANYTHING?

  6. “While just a few years ago ice-free Arctic summers were expected by the end of this century, current models predict this to happen by 2030.”

    :-)

  7. pokerguy says:
    November 18, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    The authors probably know this is garbage, but made the obligatory obeisance to the One True Gas in order to get published under our Neo-Lysenkoist anti-science regime.

  8. Well, I guess I asked such a stupid question it wasn’t worth addressing. Sigh. What would a better question be? …… Is there a teacher in the house??

    @ Poker Guy — heh. “… models predict ” tells me, at least, to be highly skeptical of this paper. It reeks of the Cult of Climatology’s spew. The faux science du jour, no doubt.

  9. Janice Moore says:
    November 18, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    To answer a question with a question:

    You are aware are you not that most algae are photosynthetic, ie they use sunlight to make their own food?

  10. “2012 exhibited the lowest Arctic summer sea-ice cover in historic times.”

    If they are referring to the satellite record I’m not impressed.

  11. Q: How do they know the decreased ice cover is the result of climate warming instead of soot?

    A: They don’t.

  12. Steve from Rockwood says:
    November 18, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    In consensus climate science, “unprecedented in history” means since 1979. Since anything less than 30 years at absolute minimum is weather, not climate, that gives us a record of observations on 1.13 climate units out of 150,000,000 such climate units. More than enough for post-modern climate science to make policy recommendations affecting the lives of seven going on eight billion people. Of course if the consensus, settled climate scientivists have their way seven going on one billion would be better, as long as they’re among the one out of seven saved by neo-Calvinist grace of superior election.

  13. pokerguy says:
    November 18, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    “While just a few years ago ice-free Arctic summers were expected by the end of this century, current models predict this to happen by 2030.”

    :-)
    —————————————-
    I saw that too, they forgot their /sarc tag
    cn

  14. Dear Milodon Harlani,

    Thank you for your reply. Telling the student to take the basic premises and reason it out for herself is good didactics. Good for you to encourage scholarship. I’ll try to figure out the warmth vs. light problem and how the paper’s assertions prove ANYTHING about causes of global climate myself. Until then, I’ll just have to take it on your (and others’) authority alone that this paper is a good one. I was wrong to ask for free tutoring, here.

    I hope that you have many lovely hours of enjoyment playing in the woodwind section (clarinet? oboe? bassoon?).

    Take care.

    Disappointed but grateful,

    Janice

  15. Janice Moore says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    Don’t know why you’re disappointed.

    I’d have thought the relevance of light to the growth of algae was obvious, but you’re none the less welcome.

    I hope the information will encourage you to study biology, in which case you’ll realize that the anti-scientific paid lying pseudo-philosophers from the Discovery Institute whose mendacious videos you keep linking in lieu of actual learning & thought on your part are not only not biologists but blasphemous imps of Satan who have led you astray on the path to eternal damnation, since their image of God is of a cruel, sadistic, incompetent, deceptive liar.

  16. Dear Milodon Harlani,

    Have you ever watched the videos I linked? Every time I ask that, you do not answer. Did you think I did not notice? I think that, if you look into it, you will find that Dr. Stephen Meyer’s and Dr. David Berlinski’s credentials provide an excellent basis for their scholarship.

    You accuse me of not learning, but you refuse to watch the lectures I posted (I only re-posted them because from your remarks, it was pretty clear that you had not watched them). How do you know that they are not well-reasoned and persuasive without listening to them?

    I take great hope from your snarling response! Why? Because only one who senses that he is in danger lashes out like that. Watch out, Mr. Harlani — you are being prayed for and I believe God is going to reveal the truth to you!

    And I still love (agape) you. #(:))

    Yours,

    Janice

    P.S. How’s the clarinet (or oboe or bassoon) playing going? I hope it gives you much joy.

  17. Janice Moore says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    I don’t need to look into it, Janice Moore, because I’m thoroughly familiar with their total lack of credentials. They have practically no knowledge of biology, except just enough to know that they are lying shamelessly, but they don’t care, because they’re paid to hoodwink suckers. I’ve listened to their pack of lies for over a decade. To call their mendacity “scholarship” is the deepest possible insult to every scholar who has ever lived.

    I don’t refuse to listen to your pathetic videos. I’ve heard them & talked to them in person. They’re paid liars, plain & simple.

    I’m not the least bit in danger. It is you whose soul is in mortal danger. Your heroes are liars against the God of creation, Janice Moore. I pray you learn that before it’s too late.

    God has revealed Himself to me through His creation. His Works in creating the universe(s) take precedence over your satanic, bibliolatrous, blasphemous interpretation of His Word. Wake up! You’ve been sold a bill of dangerous goods. Learn actual science instead of false religion. Worship the Creator & not a book written by men (& maybe one woman) trying to grasp the Infinite.

    BTW, please don’t try to tell me what an English neologism from corrupted Koine Greek roots “means”. Greek “agape”, as dragooned into biblical English in the 17th to 19th centuries is cognate with English “agape”, as in slack-jawed. I’ll let you figure out how that could be. The hint is that it has to do with an early Christian ceremony.

    Like most creationists, you have almost as much to learn about science as about the Bible, about which you need to unlearn almost everything, your satanic tutors having intentionally misled you.

  18. Another study matching well with either the sun or black carbon and not so well with CO2 as the main drivers in the Arctic.

  19. Almost 650 years of annual change in sea-ice cover can been seen in the calcite crust growth layers of seafloor algae, says a new study from the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM).
    [...]
    During the Little Ice Age, a period of global cooling that lasted from the mid-1500s to the mid-1800s, the algae’s annual growth increments were as narrow as 30 microns due to the extensive sea-ice cover, Halfar says. However, since 1850, the thickness of the algae’s growth increments have more than doubled, bearing witness to an unprecedented decline in sea ice coverage that has accelerated in recent decades.

    Their proxy covers less than 650 years and they have the gall to use “unprecedented”?! What idiots.

  20. “It’s the same principle as using rings to determine a tree’s age and the levels of precipitation,” says Halfar.

    Wow, how’d that get past the censors? Tree rings respond to precipitation? Mann must be scurrying around in circles screaming “off with his head!”

  21. Katherine says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Unprecedented is another obligatory buzzword. Please cut researchers some slack who try to fit real science into the cracks of the CACA paradigm. If unprecedented means since 1360, they might be right. If since AD 1060 or 60 BC or 1060 BC or 2060 BC or 3060 BC or earlier, then OK, precedented. CACA corrupted quackademia is a bitch right now.

    But maybe you’re a scientist with the integrity not to play that game & still survive. If so, & you can still get published so as not to perish, then more power to you! You go, girl!

  22. Recently, sea ice area increases in Antarctica seem to balance out most of the sea ice decreases in Uncle arctica. I would like to see algal growth rates from both poles compared.

  23. Okay good start. Now about going back further, you know to that medieval warm period. I wonder why they chose the starting date that they did? Hmmm?

    ” lowercasefred says:November 18, 2013 at 6:45 pm
    Q: How do they know the decreased ice cover is the result of climate warming instead of soot?
    A: They don’t.”

    Good point. The industrial revolution has put a lot of soot up there especially lately. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between their data and soot.

  24. Mushroom George says:
    November 18, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Excellent point.

    Of course the Antarctic & Arctic are very different environments, but your allusion to ice algae in the Antarctic reminds me of one of my favorite species, ie Antarctic krill, one of the animals whose biomass challenges the human. Besides phytoplankton, one of their main food sources is, wait for it, you guessed it…ice algae. Here’s a tight shot of the tiny krill in action, grazing on the ice algae:

    Needless to say, the tiny krill feed the biggest animals & organisms ever to have evolved, baleen whales. By D. H. Lawrence, edited for biological correctness:

    “Whales Weep Not!

    They say the sea is cold, but the sea contains
    the hottest blood of all, and the wildest, the most urgent.

    All the whales in the wider deeps, hot are they, as they urge
    on and on, and dive beneath the icebergs.
    The right whales, the sperm-whales, … the killers
    there they blow, there they blow, hot wild white breath out of
    the sea!…”

  25. Is there any data supporting the hypothesis that growth rings are directly proportional to temperature, sunlight penetration or maybe perhaps dissolved CO2. Unless you can prove that growth rings are proportional in width to some factor, it is hard to say anything about these data. It seems to me that people take for granted proportionality when they don’t have proof of concept.

  26. Dr. Bob says:
    November 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    As with tree rings, many factors go into annual growth rates in algae, making them in both cases problematic as paleoclimatic indicators. However, for under ice algae, sunlight is critical, so I’m OK with this proxy, subject to caveats.

  27. How many more coincidental events beginning with the end of the LIA do we need to bury the CAGW hoax? That was the end of the most recent glacial expansion and so glaciers have been receding, ice all over the planet had passed the zenith and there is melt to the pre-LIA level. The end of LIA’s are going to do things like this. Warming? Of course there will be warming – that was going on even before the LIA because the BIA (big ice age) had ended. What we’re seeing today is not climate change – it is the response to the most recent climate change which happened quite a long time ago when the LIA began and before that the beginning of the interglacial period.

  28. Weasel-words again.

    the 20th century exhibited the lowest sea-ice cover in the past 646 years.

    Yup, that would be the peak and plateau of the post-LIA Warming, all right. Period.

  29. As little as 3 years ago the same researcher was singing a different tune:

    Large positive changes in algal growth anomalies were also present in the 1920s and 1930s, indicating that the impact of a concurrent large-scale regime shift throughout the North Atlantic was more strongly felt in the subarctic Northwestern Atlantic than previously thought, and may have even exceeded the 1990s event with respect to the magnitude of the warming.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821000218X

  30. davidmhoffer says:
    November 18, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    The two perspectives might not be mutually exclusive. In the new paper, the author(s) look at centennial scale changes. The fact that there was less ice in the 1930s than 1990s doesn’t negate the finding of less ice in the 20th century than 19th.

  31. [Snip. Read the site Policy. Labeling others as 'denialists' is not allowed here. It is a mindless pejorative that takes the place of thinking. —mod.]

    The unbridled skepticism here–based on cherry-picking the incredible reports of a few so-called scientists with credentials practically written on toilet paper (and far more easily shredded)–reminds me of a preteen bullying and boasting session in a schoolyard. 

    If you want to pick apart scientific work, bring ACTUAL SCIENCE to the game and leave out the name-calling BS that gives NOTHING for real scientists to do but guffaw at. The childish games most you offer in lieu of facts remind me of nothing so much as adolescent boys’ boasting/gloating/bullying sessions about nonexistent sluts and orgies they wish they really experienced. 

    The cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is alive and well in Skeptic Land.

    “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” and i feel terrible having wasted mine watching the waste pile up on this wasteland of a website. Don’t you all feel just sooooo useless believing in tattered shreds of hope made of such UTTER feces??? I mean, REALLY, people!

    The scientists you blindly believe in are hoaxers whose work is so lame it can’t be published in peer-reviewed journals, and– certainly in the case of Patrick Michaels, a researcher whose bias is completely transparent in the Big-Oil-tilted funding he enriches himself on–TAINTED and SUSPECT. Their work seems made up wholesale out of hodge-podge bits of dire fear, wishful thinking and rag-tag nonsequitur-like pools of unrelated facts. It almost comprises its own sub-genre of fiction.

    PLEASE just GIVE UP the insane religion and START TRUSTING MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. Unless you like to be seen (figuratively, of course) riding dinosaurs in the oxymoronically named Creation Science Museum.

    [Note: Use one screen name only, please, per site rules. Pick between 'Tshane3000' and 'the watcher'. Thanx, ~mod.]

  32. As a non scientist, who nonetheless has a vague understanding of statistics, how does the science community manage to ensure that using proxies does not inadvertently miss other variables that might render the correlations spurious – especially ones in the past that cannot be observed or accounted for? I can see how proxies are useful, but can they be selected as a method to test and devise hypotheses? It is just difficult for me to get hold of.

  33. Congrats Watcher.
    One sentence complaining about ad hominem attacks accompanied by 7 paragraphs of ad hominem attacks.

  34. davidmhoffer says:
    November 18, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    LOL!

    I know, it’s one of those “Where to begin” problems.

  35. The Watcher:
    “If you want to pick apart scientific work, bring ACTUAL SCIENCE to the game and leave out the NAME CALLING BS that gives NOTHING for real scientists to do but guffaw at.”

    As in your post, sir?

    The Watcher:
    “PLEASE just GIVE UP the insane religion and START TRUSTING MAINSTREAM SCIENCE.”

    I distrust alarmist science, largely because of persons who post material such as you have. While not a scientist myself( there are a great MANY who comment here, who are), I’ve taken enough math and science in school, read enough, and thought for myself enough to recognize the pseudo – religious nonsense that is propaganda masquerading – as science. It’s obvious that you would love there to be a technocracy, with you or your scientific papal wannabes handing out the truth to be accepted without question.

    If you are spoofing(and one has to be suspicious), good job. You got me! If not, are you one of Al Gore’s internet bots?

  36. milodonharlani says:
    November 18, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    November 18, 2013 at 8:44 pm
    The two perspectives might not be mutually exclusive.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Fair enough, but I was focused on this statement from the current round:

    However, since 1850, the thickness of the algae’s growth increments have more than doubled, bearing witness to an unprecedented decline in sea ice coverage that has accelerated in recent decades.

    I interpret “recent decades” to be the last two or three, not the last 10.

  37. @milodon: “Like most creationists, you have almost as much to learn about science as about …”

    Any theory is the same as any other theory. I’ve as much problem with any of them as I do with non-Euclidean geometry. The only relevant showstopper is when you attempt to apply it to the physical world, and the physical world disagrees with you.

    “As with tree rings, many factors go into annual growth rates in algae,…”

    This is the critical issue as, like treemometers, it is warm and open and magnesium levels. I assume for the most part that we can treat mag as constant and ignore it. If so then it passes an impromptu smell test as you don’t get ice unless it’s cold, and if you have ice you lack light. Not terribly impressed with it however. It repeats what’s commonly accepted and avoids the MWP as such series commonly do. If they’d looked at the latter at all, I’d be inclined to spend time with the paper.

  38. To The Watcher

    I am guessing that you would consider Michael Mann’s hockey stick to be mainstream science.

    But for the record, tell me — what is your opinion of Michael Mann and his hockey stick? State clearly the opinion you hold about him and his hockey stick.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  39. “While just a few years ago ice-free Arctic summers were expected by the end of this century, current models predict this to happen by 2030. This shows that our understanding of rapid changes in the cryosphere is limited, which is largely due to a lack of long-term observations.”

    Well, its an interesting and novel study and requires further verification. Skeptics and many climate scientists acknowledge warming from the Little Ice Age. So what? Doesn’t prove warming by CO2 does it ?

    What I find disingenuous is the statement that “While just a few years ago ice-free Arctic summers were expected by the end of this century current models predict this to happen by 2030” Really? Its not that long ago Anthony Watts was running a count on the claim that it would be ice-free in this year’s Arctic summer. Moving the goal posts seems to be the strategy all too often in these research papers beyond the author’s tenure time period. And peeeleese, the models are junk leave them out of it.

  40. Jquip says:
    November 18, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    My brother, not all “theories” are created equal, as I’m sure you’d agree.

    I too am not terribly impressed, but it is IMO a more or less honest attempt to conduct actual science, so should be welcomed, however skeptical you or I may be. Either the study stands up to skeptical analysis or it doesn’t. But at least it puts an thesis out there for you, me & various & sundry to attack, as science would have it.

  41. “…. in particular the arctic is vast and where in the Arctic is paramount to drwaing conclusions on atmopshere, sea ice and climate.”

    Vast? Everything is relative, but to claim that Arctic is vast is a bit far? 80N-90N is about 0.76%, less than 1%, of the World.
    70N-80N is about 2.2% of the world

    In comparison EQUATOR to 20N is about 17.1% of the World.
    70N-NORTPOLE(90N) is about 3% of the World. If 3% is vast, what is 17.1%?

  42. The Watcher (aka I Have a Really Deep and Mysterious Name and, Thereby, Am to Be Taken Seriously!!!) says:

    I won’t bother quoting any of his ‘post’. Amongst the misspellings, complete absence of the evidence he wails for, ad hominem, projection AND BIG BOLD LETTERS, there’s a frightened little Prius driver who is upset that more people didn’t die in this disaster or that.

    Worry not, oh Bearer of the ‘Coexist’ and ‘Wage Peace’ Stickers. Someday, you will stumble upon the readily available information on this site, actual hard data, provided by the very agencies and sources you uphold as mainstream and unassailable, the ones we can’t question and quell the need for any discussion.

    Hmmm…actually, blindly screaming and pointing to an authority, demanding adherence… Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like… Nah! ;-) You’re too smart to fall for religion, aren’t you, THE WATCHER!?!!?!1!!! (That’s supposed to be said with dubstep screaming in the background, by the way.)

  43. @ Watcher:

    May I suggest that you read some of the commentary on this website by Dr.R. G. Brown, a physicist at Duke University –none so far on this article but he posts on WUWT occasionally.

    Who knows, you might even learn something, but then that is up to you.

  44. As with all proxy studies, surely the major potential stumbling block is that of multiple variables that can affect the main metric and how, or indeed whether, you can legitimately address, reduce or remove them.

    In the case of tree ring widths (the metric) it’s sunlight, precipitation, disease, population-density, temperature (the variables) when you’re attempting to find a link twixt only width and temperature (you obviously can’t IMHO).

    For this latest study there’s another host of potential variables that spring to mind: sunlight, disease, water temperature, salinity, alkalinity and predation (that’s little fishies eating the stuff). How can you possibly remove, reduce or account for all of these other variables when trying to show a definitive link between sunlight and growth?

    Cheers

    Mark

  45. Doesn’t increased algae correlate to a greater abundance of other sea life ultimately leading up the food chain to polar bear food, (seals)? Food supply is usually found to be the strongest determinant of species survival – not climate by itself.

  46. Mr. Watcher – I looked for science in your post and came up empty. Might you have a link to actual and effective rebuttal material to the notion that the leftist think pro alarmist catastrophist meme propaganda has other than clay for a foundation? Tickled to learn more. Show us what you have – don’t just dine and dash on us, yours always,…

  47. milodon: ” But at least it puts an thesis out there for you, me & various & sundry to attack, as science would have it.”

    Bingo. If it fails, it still makes good for fiction. If it fails to fails it brings different considerations to the table. Which is, at the least, useful for highlighting our unstated prior assumptions.

  48. Mark Fawcett: …surely the major potential stumbling block is that of multiple variables that can affect the main metric…

    Nice list, that can readily be extended. Comes to mind that CO2 itself is one that should be considered. If I understand correctly Graybill and Idso were originally investigating the CO2 / ring width correlation 20 years ago.

  49. I’d like a peek behind the paywall here. It sounds like this paper confirms the LIA and that the warm period started already 150 years ago. Probably there’s little in the paper that would surprise an AGW skeptic, but I’m sure the #MannMachine will still market this in the predictable ways…

  50. If You actually look at the data they only seem to have three samples, not all that similar to each other and only one going back before 1800, but it is true that all three seem to indicate warmer conditions post c. 1850. However in all three samples the 1930s-1940s come out as warmer than the last few decades, there most definitely is no trace of any “hockey stick”.

    The data is here (the tnree left-hand graphs at the bottom of p. 2):

    http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/11/14/1313775110.DCSupplemental/pnas.201313775SI.pdf

    Note that the authors aren’t actually lying, there is evidence of less sea ice in “recent decades” (if recent is understood as post-1850), it is unprecedented (if unprecedented means post 1800, possibly post 1360) and for the rest they are just referring to other peoples models.

    In all this is interesting research, unfortunately marred by a transparent effort to toe the party line.

  51. What does The Watcher watch? Where can be found the Mainstream Science that he urges us to trust? Methinks he watches his telescreen. Big Brother also watches.

  52. Dutch and Irish scientists have discovered that in a computer simulation of the climate a spontaneous mini-ice age has broken out.

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/22068601/__Spontane_ijstijd_in_computermodel__.html

    According to the researchers of the KNMI and the UK’s National Oceanography Centre, this computer version of the ice age is a sign that there are “unexpected elements in the climate system.”
    In the computer model that simulates the climate it became suddenly one to two degrees colder.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1304912110.abstract

  53. So at last we’re getting some facts to support (or not) the Chicken Little panicking about Arctic sea ice and we find that while it has been on a decline (we knew that) this decline has been going since the second half of the 19th century and not just since 1979.
    How are they going to spin that one, I wonder?

  54. This is a very interesting paper and that collection and analysis seems to be thorough and meticulously conducted.

    However, I see one logical error that could notably affect the interpretations of the data.

    Figure S1 in the SI (linked above) shows the temperature dependency that they find from looking at recent data from different regions with different average temperatures.

    This has a distinctive downward curvature as temperature drops. The authors draw a straight line between the first two regions , which are below 52N and apparently _assume_ this reflects the temperature dependency of growth rate in largely ice free conditions.

    Any deviation from this line is then attributed to a reduction in the length of time light gets to sea floor, hence is a proxy for ice coverage.

    When I see just two points determining the straight line, I tick.

    Most chemical reactions have a logarithmic relationship to temperature, roughly doubling with every 10K rise. It would seem that this should be taken into account rather than assuming a linear relationship as it appears that the authors do.

    The linear fit is somewhat steeper than 10K per doubling between the two points and should curve in the opposite direction as the change from 200 to 100 would also span 10K

    Since the past centuries were generally colder this will affect their long term modelling.

    It look like a valuable dataset from which useful information can be derived.

  55. milodonharlani says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:54 pm
    “…”
    Well, that’s a forceful and intriguing response! Can you give a hint where one can learn more of your views?

  56. These are some of the worst set of comments I have ever seen on WUWT, even without the Watcher’s alarmist rant.

    The LIA is generally seen as lasting from 1350 to 1850, so these ice algae indicate it was cooler and/or darker during this period – that is exactly what you would expect.

    After 1850, the Earth warms up a little bit – about 0.7 degrees C to the present day – so today you would expect these algae to reflect warmer and/or brighter conditions than during the LIA.

    All these algae are doing is demonstrating the reality of natural climate cycles, the great heresy of the alarmist cult.

    Even the most extreme of alarmists do not believe man had much of an impact on climate prior to 1970, so even by their twisted standards of interpretation most of the warming (120 years) occurred before there was any impact from CO2.

    In addition, if you look at the charts provided by tty, you will see the Arctic is indicated to have cooled and/or become darker since 1970.

    Sigh……so much ado about nothing.

  57. Thank you Mr. Miller, for answering, no doubt, unintentionally, and indirectly, my poorly phrased question about the usefulness and accuracy of proxies. Sometimes you don’t really know what to ask until you see the answer. Your brief analysis, is to me, an example of what proxies such as tree rings etc. are, it seems intuitively obvious to me, good for – describing and confirming cycles and trends, not coming up with comparisons in absolute measurements on a scale of precision when you look at the overal range of temperatures on the planet, that seems highly questionable.
    Someone can most certainly correct me if I’m wrong.

    Apologies for my response to The Watcher’s troll like exposition or ‘ rant’ as you put it.. It did nothing to raise the level of discourse, even if it made me feel better at the time. We should be mindful that Anthony opened up the comments section, knowing there was a risk,. and not abuse something he can take away if he chooses.

  58. Colonies of creatures living on the seabed for hundreds of years have been removed with a hammer and chisel to add weight to a discredited theory? Ecological vandalism and they say they are trying to protect the environment??

  59. We had evidence that the Arctic had warmed over the last 150 years or so …

    … but science is all about checking things in different ways, so this study confirming it is a positive.
    As the above climate4you.com graph shows, the recent warming could reasonably have been expected to occur as part of an inexact ~1000yr cycle, and it obviously isn’t driven by CO2. But then the latter is obvious from this study too, because the warming was found to have been in progress for over 150 years.

    So why can’t these people just state the obvious, instead of making fatuous statements like “the 20th century exhibited the lowest sea-ice cover in the past 646 years”. Note : (a) The 20thC includes the 1930s. (b) The last 646 years do not cover the MWP. (c) Their data is only from within the Arctic and the Antarctic has recently set satellite-era sea-ice highs.

  60. I thought the ice cores already explained everything. Now we admit we don’t know? However algae will supply the answers?

    Sorry, but I have trouble trusting algae. Didn’t algae produce a movie called “The Inconvenient Truth?” (Al G……get it? Hyuk hyuk hyuk.)

    All joking aside, I think it is rather brave of the fellow to go swimming in water that cold, and good to gather any sort of real data in the real world, rather than playing video games with virtual data at computers.

    Now we will have to see how the conclusions stand up to real scrutiny.

    It would be good if they could find some of this algae old enough to tell us how warm the waters were when the Viking were growing barley in Greenland, a thousand years ago.

  61. One of the 3 samples has the lowest ring width around 1860 (signalling the highest sea ice coverage).

    While another has the highest ring width data around 1860 (signalling the lowest sea ice coverage).

    I think Halfar needs a lot more samples to prove anything with this proxy. He has been using the methodology in many places around the world but you need many samples in any one location and they should have a consistent signal as well, not opposite signals.

  62. The study is interesting. It is clear that Mann is wrong from this study. But no one in academia is willing to point this out.
    The study’s genuflection to AGW is disturbing. No study these days seems able to stand on its own without a bowing down to the CO2 obsession.
    Notice how the ‘ice free’ prophecy is now back to 2030. It had of course infamously and falsely got too close- now. Then it was moved way out, to 2075 or so. Now it is creeping back down to 2030. This is so similar to the rapture myth, that peaked out recently at 1975, with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Hal Lindsey both naming the mid-1970’s as the time for the great tribulation, then admitting by the early 1980’s it might not be so, and now pulling back in the time for the great tribulation as memories fade.

  63. Greg Goodman says:
    November 19, 2013 at 3:11 am
    It says that data is deposited with NOAA National Climatic Data Center but does not give a precise source.
    Anyone know exactly where?
    —————————-

    It doesn’t appear to be up yet.

    There are 3 other studies from other years in which Halfar is the lead author and 3 others where he is a co-author. Go to Halfar in this index to see the ones where he is the lead author.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/

  64. ‘The Watcher’ says:

    “PLEASE just GIVE UP the insane religion and START TRUSTING MAINSTREAM SCIENCE.”

    In essence that is what 100 mainstream scientists wrote to Albert Einstein.

    Who ended up being right? Einstein? Or the ‘mainstream’?

  65. Watcher:

    Peer reviewed literature. As shown by your comment, anyone is allowed to comment on this site. Thus, anyone is entitled to review the pieces written as long as they do it in an open and transparent way. As near as I can tell, any “mainstream climate scientist” can review any post here. Frequently, many scientists review a post on this site. The reviewing process on this site is a bit rough and tumble, but open debate is the enduring characteristic. Anyone is allowed to see the reviews and make judgements about the pieces and the reviews themselves.

    The closed journals with limited and unknown reviewers where “mainstream scientists” publish are antiquated artifacts of pre-internet ways of doing things. Think Encyclopedia Britanica as compared to Wikipedia. E.B. Is gone. And people make judgements about what to believe in Wikipedia.

    Peer reviewed literature as a concept is out of date. In many fields and for many papers, it suffers from group think and slipshod or unknown reviews. In the case of climate science, it appears if the level of understanding of statistics by the group of reviewers at the “peer reviewed journals” is quite low and they miss statistical errors with great frequency. This is a significant problem with the process and leads to bad science.

    Appeals to peer reviewed literature don’t cut it with me any more.

    Silence about the rest of your comment does not imply [that] I agree with any of it.

  66. milodonharlani says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    Janice Moore says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    Don’t know why you’re disappointed.

    I’d have thought the relevance of light to the growth of algae was obvious, but you’re none the less welcome.

    I hope the information will encourage you to study biology, in which case you’ll realize that the anti-scientific paid lying pseudo-philosophers from the Discovery Institute whose mendacious videos you keep linking in lieu of actual learning & thought on your part are not only not biologists but blasphemous imps of Satan who have led you astray on the path to eternal damnation, since their image of God is of a cruel, sadistic, incompetent, deceptive liar.

    I would not want to get into this heated argument, but as I have spent a long time looking at research papers that gloss over base assumptions, I asked the same question as Janice Moore on which was it that was the controlling variable for growth of coralline algae – warmth or light.

    So a quick look at various papers on the internet showed that there are multiple species of coralline algae (hardly a surprise) that compete in their natural habitats. Some of these species grow under rocks to avoid light that is ‘too strong’. In consequence this study may be showing the levels of growth of different competing algae of the one family: once reduced to calcite it will be impossible to tell which species of coralline algae formed the layer, I would also expect that there are effects from warmth that may also be counter intuitive to an underwater climatologist and other effects from nutrients and salinity changes..
    Until this study can normalize for species variance then it really cannot show anything apart from apparent increase in algal growth that appears to have a correlation to the increase in bottom water temperatures after little ice age – not necessarily a causal link. Claiming to know what the ice cover was is a step too far based on unproven assumptions.

  67. To put things in perspective :
    I don’t see anything in this article that isn’t already common knowledge.
    “Unprecedented loss of ice” hasn’t resulted in any unprecedented rise in sea levels
    Soot and CO2 levels have risen in parallel since 1850. Rises in soot seem to explain
    why the Arctic is losing ice whilst the much larger (and more important) Antarctic is not,
    a phenomenon that CO2 increases cannot explain. Any change in the Arctic but not the Antarctic
    is a regional, not global, affair.
    A touching article of faith that these folks use current AGW climate models to foresee the future, especially when they have failed so abysmally in the past, especially concerning sea ice.

  68. Why can’t they just publish a paper saying this a tool, here are its capabilities and limits. Lets correlate the tool with modern satellite measurements for several decades and then decide if a wider study of arctic waters would result in a longer baseline and/or more confident results.

    Then let some University PR weenie write the Global Warming BS for a magazine or a website.

  69. Algae grows better w/more light & less ice-cover. Who knew? I’ll extrapolate & say phytoplankton in general grows better too. Prb’ly the entire food-chain benefits, as Jim Steele has posted about previously.

    It’s much better than we thought.

  70. This is yet again more philosophy posing as science. One variable – calcite crust growth layers of seafloor algae – and now suddenly the quackitists know all about 1000 years of Arctic climate?….This is ridiculous. Perhaps a million ? variables play a role in climate and in the Arctic there are powerful events including wind, undersea volcanic activity, cosmic interferences, ocean currents etc. that would have more to do with ‘climate’ than looking at crust layers of algae and using ‘models’ driving out whatever your pre-conceptions tell you ‘must’ be the right answer. Whither all the rest of the variables ? This is not science but of course more ‘grant $’ will be necessary to investigate further….quacks.

  71. “…to an unprecedented decline in sea ice coverage..”

    Why is it that these folks can never be happy we came out of the LIA.

  72. milodonharlani,
    The point missing here is the cause of ice being thinner or thicker in the Arctic. It is generally not just the air temperature, but also dependent on the water temperature under the ice, and amount of snow year to year. The colder it is, generally the less snow at very high latitudes (lower absolute humidity). However, the speed and temperature of water flowing under sea ice is the main cause of melting or growth. The water flow is directly caused by the large scale ocean currents, not the air. Since a larger temperature difference low to high latitudes drives larger current driving wind, this drives more lower latitude warmed water further to higher latitudes. Thus it is possible that thinner sea ice may be due to colder high latitudes in some (but likely not all) cases. This issue is a classic case of not understanding all the facts and jumping to a conclusion.

  73. Replies to “The Watcher” in this thread reminded me of this: (or words similar)

    There are three groups of people in the world;

    those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

    But, really, there is a fourth group;

    those that don’t even realize that anything happened.

    Just an observation.

  74. …The algae show that, while fast short-term changes have occurred in the past, the 20th century exhibited the lowest sea-ice cover in the past 646 years….

    What would be really useful would be to know whether the lowest sea-ice cover was only in the last 20 years of the 20th century, or whether it occurred at other times nearer the beginning…?

  75. This research is a wonderful addition to the body of facts. It needs to be repeated in multiple areas around the arctic if only to see if there is any location bias over (long-cycle) time for the ice pack.

  76. I like the real data aspect of this study. If the authors had just reported results it would stand as a promising area for further research. Extrapolation to the “meaning” of the results vis-a-vis climate models, and the use of “unprecedented” really stretches the small bit of information available. Years ago results based on such a small sample (both in numbers and locations) would have warranted a small note in a journal. My major criticism (and perhaps it is addressed in the article) is why the data are not extended back in time. If they can span the last few thousand years there might be something interesting in the results. I can’t find anything interesting in such a small sample.

  77. “While just a few years ago ice-free Arctic summers were expected by the end of this century, current models predict this to happen by 2030.”

    And in 2030 “current models predict this to happen by 2050″.

    And in 2050 “current models predict this to happen by 2070″.

    And in 2070 “current models predict that THE ICE WALLS ARE COMING WE ARE DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED!!!! UNLESS YOU GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY!!!”

    The lyrics may change from time to time, but the Song Remains the Same.

  78. “The Watcher” of the 16th century, addressing Galileo:

    The Watcher:
    “PLEASE just GIVE UP your insane beliefs and START TRUSTING HIS HOLINESS THE POPE!!!.”

  79. From the University of Toronto:
    “However, since 1850, the thickness of the algae’s growth increments have more than doubled, bearing witness to an unprecedented decline in sea ice coverage that has accelerated in recent decades.”

    In reality, all samples in the study show no change or an increase in sea ice since 1940. Why always bring the idea of an acceleration in recent years when the data contradicts this claim?

  80. 650 years takes us back to the early part of the LIA. If not cherry-picking it is at least a very convenient timeframe from the Clysenkoist perspective.

  81. Col Mosby says:
    November 19, 2013 at 5:19 am
    “To put things in perspective : … Rises in soot seem to explain
    why the Arctic is losing ice whilst the much larger (and more important) Antarctic is not”

    I live in the Arctic … can’t see any visible soot on the snow! Are you implying that soot has caused the rise in air temperatures since the mid 90’s?

  82. So starting in 1850, during a time when humans were emitting essentially zero greenhouse gases, the water began warming and the ice started becoming less extensive. This suggests that it’s natural factors behind modern warming. I wonder how they did not come to this obvious conclusion, hmm.

  83. Jean Parisot says:
    November 19, 2013 at 5:33 am
    “Why can’t they just publish a paper saying this a tool, here are its capabilities and limits. Lets correlate the tool with modern satellite measurements for several decades and then decide if a wider study of arctic waters would result in a longer baseline and/or more confident results.

    Then let some University PR weenie write the Global Warming BS for a magazine or a website.”

    Why? It’s obvious they are fully indoctrinated into the Church of CAGW. It’s much the same way that ancient Romans contributed every natural phenomena to mythology, these Warmists contribute all climate variability to anthropogenic forces, even if the data suggests otherwise.

  84. Dear Ian W.,

    Thank you, SO MUCH, for affirming the worth of my question about controlling variables and about the significance of this paper’s assertions. Your thoughtful response and education (along with MANY other true teachers above, as Ken L. pointed out re: Miller, who indirectly answered my Q’s — thank you!) are much appreciated and helped me immensely to better understand.

    I went to bed last night (in PST land), kind of depressed. No, lol, not about MH’s snarling (I truly take hope from that, as I said — someday…. someday……..(smile)). I was just bummed that NO ONE thought my question worth his or her time to address (except dismissively).

    What a refreshing sight met my eyes upon reviewing this thread this morning!

    Gratefully,

    Janice

  85. tty says:
    November 19, 2013 at 12:33 am

    One thing evident in the linked information in the SI is that an inspection of the example cross-section shows that the growth is not uniform orthogonal to to accumulation rings. Relocating a sample site could readily result in a very different pattern of growth rates. The same rings vary considerably in thickness across the specimen and show considerably less uniformity than tree rings do.

  86. milodonharlani says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/18/inverse-underwater-hockey-sticks/#comment-1478837

    Janice Moore says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/18/inverse-underwater-hockey-sticks/#comment-1478844

    milodonharlani says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/18/inverse-underwater-hockey-sticks/#comment-1478854

    ======================================================================
    Milodonharlani, do you write speeches for Ahmadinejad?
    Janice, John 15:18 and Romans 1:28. (I’d suggest the Amplified Bible for the later.)

  87. Gunga Din says:
    November 19, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    Creationists who equate their cult with Christianity give CACA skeptics a bad name. Linking to the Discovery Institute’s hired liars on the leading skeptical blog just makes it worse.

  88. Dear Gunga Din,

    Thank you, so much, for those encouraging (and admonishing to some) texts (and, btw, I have Romans 1:19, 20 memorized). Thanks for speaking up — much appreciated. MH, besides mistakenly conflating Intelligent Design theorists (Berlinski doesn’t even believe in God) with “creationists,” clearly has either been misinformed or is uninformed. Or….. his pride and or fear and or anger are clouding his obviously otherwise fine intellectual abilities.

    Bottom line: let’s pray!

    Gratefully yours,

    Janice
    *****************************

    Dear Mr. Harlani,

    How about chatting a bit about your woodwind playing? What composers do you most enjoy playing? Listening to? Let’s be friends, okay? I have several friends who, while not as fervent, believe the same way you do and yet still like me (amazing huh?). (They see my beliefs not as anti-science but as NON-science — i.e., my beliefs do not bring shame to the glorious cause of truth-in-science.) How about it?

    Hopefully,

    Janice

  89. milodonharlani says:
    November 19, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Ian W says:
    November 19, 2013 at 4:45 am

    Clathromorphum compactum grows on top of rocks. Researchers have to chip it off rock surfaces:

    http://walteradey.com/climates.php

    Light being too strong isn’t a problem for this frigid sea species.

    1. You may be correct about the current algae, however you may not know what species was on the rocks decades ago let alone centuries ago it is an unproven assumption that it is the same species and that it is unchanged from today’s.
    2. A study of Clathromorphum circumscriptum a species in the same family showed that its size varied with salinity (http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/b80-162#.Uov4eD_8CKI) a significant variable in polar waters and not linked necessarily to temperature or sunlight perhaps more to variable ocean currents. This would need to be normalized out in some way for the thickness of the calcite layers to be useful as they are only microns thick. It is not clear how you would normalize for salinity but I am sure you will find a suitable proxy.

  90. At first the paper sounded reasonable; i.e. until I read the caption under the photo:

    “…This is a diver dislodging coralline red algal crust from rock surface using hammer and chisel …”

    Wait a minute! Exactly what depth was that coralline algae concretion harvested at?

    “…Specimens of C. compactum used in this study were collected between 15- and 17-m water depth…”

    You mean they don’t actually know? It’s guessed. When? When the diver ascends, descends, checks his depth gauge (certified? doubtful), is writing up the paper?

    Of course, a true aficionado of science match coralline algae concretions of a specific defined depth against other coralline algae concretions at the exact same depth? Sure isn’t stated so in the freebie part of the paper.

    ” …(2). If sea-ice cover persists for more than 2 mo, growth ceases, likely due to lack of sufficient stored photosynthate…”

    Therein lies a major part of their quandary. First make assumptions, then make more assumptions.

    This coralline algae that is so sensitive to light conditions that they will be able to determine sea ice cover.

    No reference is made to effects of water clarity or lack thereof.
    No reference is made to determining differences of light penetration (wavelength and strength) by mm, inch, or even foot.

    “…A common trend toward increasing growth and higher Mg/Ca ratios (= less sea-ice) is apparent from the mid-19th century onwards. Using the individual records shown here, a combined algal growth increment width and Mg/Ca ratio time series was calculated by averaging equally weighted normalized time series (Fig. 3). Combining multiple proxy records from various locations reduces local and sample-specific variability as has been demonstrated before for coralline algae (1). …”

    Ah, the mish mashed method of teasing out hidden trends. Averaging and combining what I assume are coralline samples from different places and depths.

    “…Fig. S4. Spectral analysis of annually averaged algal time series for (A) 1365–1530, (B) 1530–1860, and (C) 1860–2010 time intervals…”

    Fortunately, this series of charts are near the end of the addendum_dum and I wouldn’t have to read further.

    What is baffling about the charts is when one reads one chart ends at years 1530 and the chart below it begins at 1530; one normally expects that where the graph ended at 1530 is where it would begin in the new chart at 1530.

    None of the charts pick up where the previous one ended. They’re all off; averaged and combined beyond reckoning no doubt.

    So there is a new paper that proposes to determine sea ice cover from coralline algae growth concretions, extremely dependent on water clarity using concretions harvested at different ‘average’ depths. To simplify findings, all changes in coralline growth are automatically assumed to be sea ice.

    What’s that one says? Correlation is not causation and non correlation is climate research success!?

    Must be the season. Bah! Humbugs!

  91. The Wa-c-er says:
    November 18, 2013 at 8:56 pm

    It is you Clysenkoists who are the creationists. AGW theory only works post 1850. The entire proxy climate record on all timescales longer than this make it transparently clear that CO2 cannot drive global temperatures although it might sometimes follow them.

    Where was your coral dissolving in acid ocean infantile scare when corals evolved in the Cambrian-Ordovician with CO2 20x higher than today? This is actually quite a simple and scientific question.

    Where was your runaway warming and CO2 positive feedback during the Cryogenian under conditions of snowball earth and several thousand ppm CO2? This is also a simple logical question.

    You are the one making a fool out of yourself, your language betrays your desperation.

    The mainstream acceptance of CAGW is a monstrous and unprecedented fiasco and you will be among many who will be lucky to avoid a rope round your neck when all this finally settles.

  92. Re: Arctic Warming in the 20th century (to the extent that warming may be a controlling causation of variations in the subject algae proxies), this post by Jimbo! at 1:37pm on 11/19/13 on the “11/19/13 New Paper: Arctic Temperature…” thread is interesting:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/new-paper-arctic-temperatures-peaked-before-1950-declining-since/#comment-1479428

    A typical excerpt from Jimbo’s post to characterize it for you:

    During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location. Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish……

    (bolding partially edited by me)

  93. And one more post re: warming in Arctic, this time by Leif Svalgaard on the same thread as Jimbo’s (linked above) at 3:12pm today:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/new-paper-arctic-temperatures-peaked-before-1950-declining-since/#comment-1479516

    Later in that same thread, Jim Steele and others also post some good info..

    Yes, I realize that warming is NOT proven by the above posts to be the controlling cause of algae variation. I just posted the info. on this thread to provide some context and background information.

  94. Ian W says:
    November 19, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    You’re joking, right?

    The researchers removed Clathromorphum compactum from the rocks, not some other species. They know the age of the samples of the species they selected from their annual growth rings, backed up by other dating methods.

    I’ve already gotten angrier than is suitable in a science blog, but you’re really testing my limits here.

  95. Phlogiston (re: delete request) — why? Long live freedom of speech! The gist of your post is GREAT. And that last sentence is (obviously metaphorically; don’t worry about any dopes who take it literally, they’ll be working on how to get their TV remote to open their garage door so long that they’ll forget what you wrote, (heh, they’ll forget why they even have their car keys in their hand) before they’ll manage to drive over to your house and do a burn-out on your front lawn) dead on accurate.

    Your fan,

    Janice

  96. Janice Moore says:
    November 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    Regardless of what your friends may think, creationism is anti-science. It has to be. It rejects not only biology but astronomy, physics, geology & probably chemistry as well.

    I’d be happy to be your friend, but your adherence to an anti-scientific cult injurious to the fight against CACA might prove a barrier.

    I don’t know why you think I’m a musician. I’m not. While not quite a musical moron, my MQ is probably barely 100. As a pianist I’m at best mechanical, although from a musical family.

  97. Hi, Milodon Harlani,

    My faulty memory is the reason I thought you were a musician. I mistakenly “recalled” that on the thread where W. Eschenbach described a breathing technique that you said that you as a woodwind player had to be (v. a v. your lungs) “human bagpipes.” Someone else.

    Well, anyway…. . So? What music do you enjoy listening to? #(:))

    (I will just not “go there” with the intelligent design theory topic — that way, we CAN be friends!)

    Well, if my opinions make you frown, at least you can smile for your driver’s license photo (we can too, up here in WA).

    Take care,

    Janice

  98. Janice Moore says:
    November 19, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Your memory wasn’t faulty. I did indeed comment on bagpipe breathing techniques, but more as an observer than practitioner, although I have tried it with humorous results. I’m of Highland descent & my community puts on Highland games, started by my Scottish immigrant, sheep-herding great grandfather. Even a lot of the cattlemen around here are descended from sheepmen, although they’d rather no one knew. Annie Proulx’ original Brokeback Mountain was actually kind of an in-crowd joke.

    I’d like to apologize & ask your forgiveness however for my uncharitable (anagape!) outburst occasioned by decades of experience with the shenanigans of your fellow creationists. I’m happy for your co-religionists to adhere to your beliefs as long as you don’t try to foist them on innocent children of parents whose faith differs from yours as “science”. If public schools want to teach creationism in world religion classes, fine. Just not in biology.

    Rather than watch videos of paid liars, I’d recommend your reading the transcripts of the Dover, PA trial, in which ID advocates were publicly humiliated, as they so richly deserved to be. Their star witness, Dr. Behe (of “irreducible complexity” infamy), was forced to admit that there is no evidence whatsoever for ID & that it’s comparable to astrology. That was in addition to the discovery that ID advocates simply substituted ID for creationist verbiage, but ineptly so, leaving parts of the words altered in their texts.

    As I’ve commented before, you & your co-religionists do CACA skepticism no favors by lumping the scientific fact of evolution in with the corruption of science that is consensus “climate science”. In my experience, the first question that CACA proponents ask of “d*n**rs” is, “Do you believe in evolution?”

    Evolution is scientific fact. CACA is fantastic fiction.

  99. Dear Milodon Harlani,

    I forgive you — with all my heart.

    What a fine heritage you have. To successfully create a sheep herd in a new land was a feat of which to be proud. Did he use Border Collies or another breed to help herd them? My favorite breed of dog (not the best for sheep, I know, lol) is the German Shepherd Dog. I love them. My Riley is my “little” buddy (all 95 lbs. of him, heh — he’s just a big baby).

    Thank you for letting me know that my memory was not as bad as I thought. Bagpipes! They are so difficult to master that I would not even begin to try to play them. Good for you to make a valiant attempt. I’ll stick to the piano and singing. There is no more stirring sound in the world than bagpipes, though. Have you heard the recording of The Royal Grays playing “Amazing Grace” upon their permanent retirement around 1976? Magnificent.

    Well, I suppose I ought not chat TOO long, here. Say, if you would be so kind, would you please do me the favor (since I told you that I am going to do my best to not “go there” with intelligent design) of not making assertions about that topic, either? It is so hard to just ignore what you say…. and it isn’t really fair, is it?

    Your friend,

    Janice

  100. Watcher, I pity you.
    Mainsteam Science like Mainstream Media have the outcome pre-determined then these entities try to connect to that pre-determination. They both vehemently reject their being questioned. They both avoid debate.
    No Watcher, you tool, you useful idiot. I won’t be trusting “Mainstream Science” .
    My decision is “Settled”

  101. @Rob Roy
    @Ken L.
    @davidmhoffer

    I suppose I resort to some ad hominem attacks because I’m so frustrated with the lack of intelligence and science on the website here. Just like I resorted to yelling with my ex wife when she kept accusing me with false accusations, bombarding me with BS and wouldn’t let go even though the facts *always* proved her wrong. An intelligent person can only take so much, seeing continual lack of intelligence from people who seem to be, and likely are, intelligent in other areas.

    It is always interesting to see the tactics used by those practicing an apparent religion (AGW skepticism–which is grounded in so few facts that it truly isn’t science-based) to battle the overwhelming evidence of tested, verified and validated climate science.  

    One such tactic, used by several of you, is “projection.” You’re not the first to employ this failed technique. It involves accusing one’s opponent–falsely–of the very same flaws (or underhanded techniques, or whatever) that plague and invalidate one’s OWN position. (see

    http://stfuconservatives.tumblr.com/post/25447473928)

    Ken L.’s “the pseudo – religious nonsense that is propaganda masquerading – as science”–hypocrisy and hyperbole both–as well.

    These flaws are NOT true of established science as they are of the research of the roundly discredited Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels and others. That’s because science has its own internal mechanism for ensuring the best science keeps coming up, replacing inferior and poorly done science. That mechanism, apparently not known by conservatives who disbelieve anthropogenic global warming, is known as the scientific method.

    Just as it’s senseless to try to convince a Christian there’s no evidence Jesus manufactured fish or miracles or flew or rose from the dead or did any other inhuman, superpowered feats, it is apparently just as useless to convince those who believe in skepticism instead of Science.

     Such use of disinformation propaganda techniques as projection cannot change the horrific fact that we are plunging toward a warming, far more dangerous and environmentally impoverished world due to negative human impacts of ALL KINDS of pollution, not just global warming, worldwide. 

    In a highly related note, if conservatives are so interested in helping the world recover from all the pollution, why aren’t they leading the charge in Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and other nonprofits???

    The fact is, they are generally way too selfish to care about others or the world.  They are too busy working FOR industry to promote pollution (a.k.a. the  LIE called the “free market”) and water down environmental laws. If that were NOT true, where are the green conservative organizations to prove me wrong???

    Thanks again, to liberals ONLY, for ensuring that progress against pollution,  slavery, drug abuse, AIDS and other world problems still happens. No thanks to much of the GOP and Tea Party for filling up their dead brains with conservative lies on Faux Snooz and holding us back in the stone ages where only the rich get richer, Potterville reigns supreme as Republicans try to take money AND food from poor people with no money and no homes– who are in fact impoverished because of Republican policies! (E.g., offshoring jobs, the low low minimum wage, outsourcing automobile parts rampantly to other countries, and way too much else to mention here.)

    ——–
    Ken L. says:
    November 18, 2013 at 9:23 pm
    “…the pseudo – religious nonsense that is propaganda masquerading – as science. It’s obvious that you would love there to be a technocracy, with you or your scientific papal wannabes handing out the truth to be accepted without question.”

    Rob Roy:
    “Watcher, I pity you.
    Mainsteam Science like Mainstream Media have the outcome pre-determined then these entities try to connect to that pre-determination. They both vehemently reject their being questioned. They both avoid debate.”

  102. davidmhoffer says:
    November 18, 2013 at 8:00 pm
    “It’s the same principle as using rings to determine a tree’s age and the levels of precipitation,” says Halfar.

    Wow, how’d that get past the censors? Tree rings respond to precipitation? Mann must be scurrying around in circles screaming “off with his head!”

    FACT CHECK:

    Actually tree rings DO respond to precipitation levels, being smaller or thinner with less water. It is THE VERY REASON tree rings reveal the age of the tree: typically in winter there’s very little precipitation that gets absorbed by the dormant tree! In summer the rings are much thicker because the precipitation is absorbed, so the tree grows thicker. The cycle of thin to thick rings represents one year’s growth. This is 7th grade science.

    And apparently those posting (most of whom clearly support the dearth of scientific validity your views generally represent) were too embarrassed by your apparent lack of knowledge to correct you. This reveals the herd mentality of conservatives, gathering around a losing argument for the sake of the Gathering rather than the truth–or in this case, lack of it.

    BAM! Wouldn’t it be better to get your facts straight before you gloat so much about a nonexistent error in something you know NOTHING about? This in a nutshell, reveals the ENTIRE skeptical global warming science’s community’s flaw–lack of knowledge and subsequently making TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS!!

    Ergo, the science of global warming skepticism is equivalent to 7th grade science. Basically, the scientists you trust have not progressed their abilities beyond the 7th grade level, compared with real and qualified climate scientists. Including Michael Mann, whose credentials are impeccable–and suspect only in the eyes of those living in an alternate universe in which real science simply does not exist.

  103. @moderator:
    [Snip. Read the site Policy. Labeling others as 'denialists' is not allowed here. It is a mindless pejorative that takes the place of thinking. —mod.]

    Check your own site. I see the word “alarmist”–which is, using YOUR WORDS, a “mindless pejorative that takes the place of thinking”– mentioned 5 times without any comments or snips from you.

    This is an example how “oversight” can be construed both ways. Is it an oversight to ignore such glaring hypocrisy with a lack of oversight? Or is it bias?

    If this is a science based website, supposedly devoted to scientific discussions about scientific issues, why are biased, non-scientific, politically slanted words like alarmist and alarmism allowed unfettered on the site?

    Methinks I just revealed a key to why WUWT is a laughing stock of a website in the eyes of science.
    If the goose is good for the gander, ban ALL politically slanted words such as alarmist and denialist.

    But then, conservatives aren’t really known for fighting fair. So why would I expect anything better from a conservative oriented, nonscientific opinion outlet?

    [Note: the term alarmist isn't associated with "holocaust denier" or other similar derogatory terms, so isn't considered a hateful word. It is in the dictionary.

    a·larm·ist
    əˈlärmist/
    noun
    noun: alarmist; plural noun: alarmists

    1.
    someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.

    - ignore site policy at your peril or don't comment, but that is the house rule -mod]

  104. Ken L. says:
    November 18, 2013 at 9:23 pm

    ” It’s obvious that you would love there to be a technocracy, with you or your scientific papal wannabes handing out the truth to be accepted without question.”

    You want others to accept this statement without question–ironically without asking me ANY questions?? My god, what hypocrisy!

    The only thing obvious is that you did not ask me any questions about the scientific method, truth or my beliefs. You simply made your own assumptions, then attached them to me, McCarthy style. This is a favorite technique of the Glenn Becks of the world, Nazis, Spanish Inquisitors–people who have no interest in truth or facts, but simply want to smear others and promote to their own opinions, regardless of the factual validity of those opinions.

    Unfortunately, this technique is a hallmark of the ignorant and, not coincidentally, those who are skeptics about global warming.

    The inconvenient truth IS the truth, the preponderance of real scientific evidence supports it, and the fact that you don’t like it does not matter at all–EXCEPT that you can use your lack of knowledge to hinder progress that would help people and the planet. THAT is evil. If it is not intentionally evil, the result certainly remains evil.

    Your comment says much more about your ability to jump to conclusions than to understand anything real. Such leaps reveal a lack of ability to reason. True scientists, like lawyers and legal and forensic investigators, will ask all questions necessary to understand an issue or situation. Someone who merely wants to target or demean someone else will only ask those questions necessary to make his point, whether it is valid or not. Are you seeing an unpleasant resemblance here??

    In a previous post, I make it clear that I understand and support the scientific method. I hope you understand that it can be used to falsify any results or conclusion so long as sufficient evidence is found to support the new conclusion. Questions– but NOT the skeptics’ leaps to conclusions (largely unsupported by facts)–are the HEART of the scientific method.

    I suggest going to the Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica page, or the American Academy of scientists or the Union of Concerned Scientists, and read the definition of scientific method. If you compare the scientific method with what the skeptical community does regarding global warming, you will get a giant wake up call. The skeptic community is NOT SCIENTIFIC in its research, its analyses, nor its conclusions.

    NONE of the research I mentioned earlier by Willie Soon or Patrick Michaels or others that skeptics revere has upended the preponderance of evidence that demonstrates that AGW IS a fact.

    (By the way, not one person who commented re me focused on the poor research by Patrick Michaels! Do you suppose there’s a reason for that? Yes there is: his research is flawed and not worthy of supporting. It has been picked apart and torn apart by real scientists, who have shredded the science and methodology and conclusions.)

    Please get your facts straight, get them from ALL RELEVANT sources, and then make your assumptions and draw your conclusions. At least then you will have attempted or made a fair attempt at the scientific method. Anything else is hogwash.

  105. The ultimate in psychological projection is someone like the Watcher projecting his faults onto others.

    He does plenty of name-calling, with zero testable science.

    I wonder how the Watcher reconciles his True Belief in runaway global warming and climate catastrophe with Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick chart being so thoroughly debunked?

    Mann’s MBH97 chart was so completely falsified that the UN/IPCC can no longer publish it! Ever since AR-4, it is nowhere to be seen. And the IPCC LOVED that chart! It was a triumph of alarmist propaganda, causing wild-eyed spinning in circles by lemmings like the Watcher, who thought they had it all figured out. But now the IPCC must make do with much more confusing spaghetti graphs, which do not have nearly the impact of Mann’s scary chart.

    It is too late for the Watcher, though. He is now a True Believer in climate catastrophe, and neither Occam’s Razor, nor the Scientific Method, nor the Null Hypothesis can save him. He Believes.

    As George Cantor wrote: “A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged, and the less it is understood the more tenaciously it is held.”

    Even more appropriate to the Watcher is Leo Tolstoy’s comment: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

    That is the Watcher’s psyche to a tee. He has carefully explained to everyone over the years exactly why we must stop emitting “carbon”. But now that CO2 ["carbon" to the scientifically illiterate] has been shown to be harmless, beneficial, and not a measurable cause of global warming, the “Watcher” is watching his failed belief system crash and burn.

    Rather rthan being so certain he was right, the Watcher should have been a scientific skeptic. Then he would accept whatever the planet told him. Instead, he has ended up with egg on his face. Now all he can do is call names. Pathetic, really.

    Finally, “alarmist” is not a pejorative, it is a statement of fact. If the populace is not alarmed, the gravy train will derail. Thus, climate alarmism must be kept on the front burner at all costs. That’s just the way it is.

  106. [SNIP ok Tim, that's it, we don't need to have you labeling us as 'reptiles' and other derogatory terms. - beat it - Anthony]

  107. Watcher:

    “Preponderance of the evidence” does not apply to the Scientific Method, any more than “consensus”. To paraphrase Einstein, all it takes is one fact to destroy a hypothesis. And catastrophic AGW has been repeatedly annihilated — and cAGW was merely a scientific conjecture.

    If regular AGW is a “fact”, then I challenge you to post testable, verifiable, measurable scientific evidence showing that global ∆T is caused by the rise in human-emitted CO2.

    Make sure we can verify the portion of temperature change due specifically to anthropogenic emissions. Show us verifiable measurements.

    While you’re at it, explain why global temperatures have been flat to declining, while CO2 levels continue to rise. Note that this is not a temporary condition, but that it has been going on for a statistically significant seventeen years now.

    Making baseless assertions does not cut the mustard here at the internet’s “Best Science” site. So you need to show conclusively how much T rise is caused by the rise in CO2. If you can do that, you will be the first — and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.

    Making assertions is one thing. But supporting the CO2=cAGW conjecture with solid, verifiable, testable scientific evidence is necessary to be taken seriously here.

    Finally, your lame attempts to denigrate this “Best Science & Technology” site are laughable. No alarmist blog comes close to the traffic generated here: WUWT has more than three quarters of a million reader comments, in only a few years.

    There are far more scientific skeptics than climate alarmists. You can tell by just running back to your thinly-trafficked alarmist blog, where you enjoy reading only alarmist comments, because skeptics’ comments were censored. You probably believe that just because your like-minded clique agrees with each other, that there are a lot of you. But there aren’t.

  108. @davidmhoffer
    “they seem to have only six samples, of which only two go back further than 1800. The other two have a glaring discontinuity about 1850. Will be interesting to see if SteveM decides to pick this one apart”

    Fig S1 shows they have twenty samples.

Comments are closed.