Holocene, historic and recent global temperatures from temperature proxies.
Guest post by: Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology
NOTE: Link to PDF of this article is HERE
In the climate debate, the temperatures of the past are used to determine if the present temperatures are unique and alarming. Any viewpoint can be supported by choosing specific science papers as reference
This paper is one of many attempts to give a realistic overview of the actual messages we get from the temperature proxies.
(“Temperature proxy”: Past temperatures reconstructed from samples using a row of techniques.
The “Spaghetti graphs” in the following gives an impression of the huge variability among the datasets. The essence of each graphic is the major trends. To enable display of multiple data series it was often necessary to interpolate temperature values to the specific years used in graphics.
To avoid most calibration problems, I have set specific years to zero for the different graphs I chose a year where practically all graphs has data, and no further calibration needed. In few cases I have calibrated from 1980-1990-2000 using UAH trend of approx. +0,1K/decade.)
Recent temperature proxies – 120 years
Fig 1: 10 multi proxies shown for the 20´th century. In addition 14 temperature proxy datasets. The black curve shows average of the 14 datasets as 1 multi proxy. This multi proxy + the 10 of the most used bigger multi-proxy series is the basis for the WHITE graph: “Average of 11 multi proxies”.
The temperature proxies does not show strong net warming since around 1940. In fact, proxy data does not show any warming since 1940. This is no news, it has been recognised for example here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publications/divergence2007.pdf
The authors call the missing global warming in proxies for “The Divergence problem”. And they try to give reasons for this problem using characteristics of trees. But since other proxies than using tree ring proxies also indicates no global warming after around 1940, the problem seems not related with tree rings measurements.
“The divergence problem”:
Fig 2: The “divergence problem”.
The “All China” multi proxy: A reliable work where 8 regions of China where studied and then yield the final China multi proxy temperature line. The “All USA”, NOAA raw, is the official measured USA temperatures minus the official correction, that is, the raw USA temperature dataset. I find it stunning how close All-China and All-USA matches each other, see fig 2! (- a dataset of measured temperature compared to a dataset of proxies). And unlike GISS 2009, the Northern Hemisphere temperature set of 1976 supports the raw trends of US and China. Several of the multi proxy series have been smoothed with a “50 year weighted Gaussian filter” etc. and therefore any bigger dive around 1970 could not be seen in the multi proxy graph.
We see a divergence after 1950 between:
- GISS 2009 vs. Average of the multi proxies, that is, the temperature evidence in the ground and trees.
- GISS 2009 vs. USA, CHINA and NH temperatures
- GISS 2009 vs. Solar activity.
So, at least when comparing with mostly raw datasets, the GISS 2009 dataset could seem to be the source of “the divergence problem” – “the outlier”. Problems for the GISS data set might be incorrect adjustments, problems with UHI and poor measuring sites, see www.surfacestations.org!!
The “divergence problem” also seems to vanish when using satellite data (UAH/RSS) in stead of GISS data:
Fig 3: A: Briffa´s 2001 illustration of tree ring proxies combined with the GISS dataset as “Observations” (as the adjusted GISS temperatures are called). B: Same, however this time “Observations” are raw satellite data UAH from 1980 – 2000 with a slope of 0,1K/decade.
There is no divergence problem when using satellite temperature data as “Observations”. We now have total compliance between proxy data and modern temperature measurements stating: No net warming since around 1940-50.
Historic temperature proxies – 1200 years
For this analysis 33 data sets was used. The first that strikes you when working with historic temperature proxies is the apparent chaos of data. However, after keying in 6-8 data sets the well known features “Middle age warm period” and “The little Ice Age” becomes clear. Keying in the rest of datasets doesn’t change much.
First, take a good look at the period 1900 to 2000..
Notice how these 33 datasets confirms the trends from fig 1, the recent temperature proxies. We can conclude that we have a good ability to reproduce the result quite accurate with quite different datasets, and thus, neither of the graphs ( fig 1 and fig 4) are likely to reflect “random” results. All data evidence used in fig 1. + fig 4. actually suggests that today’s temperatures resemble the temperatures of 1940-50. Yes, a divergence problem for the temperature data from GISS and Hadcrut.
Fig 4: Historic temperature proxy data. Practically all methods and regions of the globe are represented.
6 of the data sets originate from tree ring data.
We see the Medieval Warm Period apparently ongoing already in year 800 and goes on for 5-600 years. First around year 1400 the Little Ice Age really takes over. It was around year 1400 the Vikings left the freezing Greenland.
From year 800 to year 1300 temperatures appears around 0,3 K higher than today. And from around year 1400 to 1900 temperatures appears to be are around 0,4 K lower than today. A difference from MWP to LIA of 0,7 K in average globally. (Max difference approx 1,1 K),
We will return to these historic data later, but lets first take a look even further back in time.
Holocene temperature proxies – 12000 years
For this analysis 29 long datasets where used. All graphs are calibrated to zero for year 1000.
First focus on years 800 to 2000…
Once again we see a reproduced trend between 2 different data sets. And again, the accuracy is nice. The MWP here appears almost 0,8 K degrees celcius warmer than the LIA, very close to what we saw it on fig 4, the historic data 0,7K. This once again confirms the impressing usefulness of data despite the chaotic and random appearance. There is however a tiny difference between the 2 graphs, around 0,1K. But it should be noted, that for the Holocene temperatures, no tree ring data was used. According to Loehle 2007, tree ring data tends to suppress the MWP somewhat. This we will return to.
Fig 5: Holocene temperature data.
The data point for year 2000 are based on too few datasets to be really trustworthy. Therefore I have inserted the red star where I use the value of todays temperature taken from fig 4, historic temperatures. By doing so, temperature for year 2000 got 0,2 K warmer than from Holocene data.
Fig 5 also shows that the whole debate about MWP is irrelevant. Imagine there was no MWP. Practically ALL of the Holocene period the eath appears to be between 0,5 and 1,5 K warmer than today. The little ice age does resemble a mini ice age or at least it appears to be the coldest period in over 10.000 years.
Finally, the overall picture from the graph is an almost perfect mathematical curve that tops around 5-6000 years ago. These Data tells the story quite clear: We are on a down trend in temperatures globally, we should not fear warmth by now. How much lower can the temperatures on earth go before we reach a tipping point to much colder temperatures at earth?
Medieval warm period
Arguments against the MWP often focus on the “fact” that the warmer temperatures from that period are a phenomenon exclusively to have appeared on the northern hemisphere.
Fortunately, the results from fig 4 and fig 5 shows an excellent match for the period year 800 to year 2000. It thus makes very good sense to combine the datasets and then obtain a better data foundation to analyse the MWP.
Datasets from fig 4 and fig 5 combined, a northern/southern hemisphere display of the Medieval Warm Period:
Fig 6: Historic temperatures, North and south hemispheres separated. Let’s first see what the graph actually says, very roughly:
NH MWP, 42 datasets:
Ongoing in year 800, temperatures mostly 0,3-0,4 K higher than today.
The temperature creeps below today’s level and ends around year 1300.
SH MWP, 13 datasets:
Ongoing in year 800, temperatures mostly 0,2-0,3 K higher than today.
The temperature creeps below today’s level and ends around year 1350.
Northern hemisphere is still much better represented than the southern hemisphere, so what can we conclude on this ground? Can we conclude anything?
On this ground I find it safe to accept the NH MWP approximately as described above.
To accept that globally there where no MWP, we will have to accept the following:
The 2 hemispheres have the ability to maintain a quite different temperature development for at least 500 years and did so from year 800 to year 1300.
What can we demand to accept this idea? We can demand solid evidence.
Anyone claiming the above must present solid evidence for a MEDIEVAL COLD PERIOD on the southern hemisphere.
IF data showed that the southern hemisphere had a MCP where temperatures for 500 years was 0,3-0,4 degrees colder than today, would this “kill” the MWP? Certainly not. Because, then we would have had 500 years with global temperatures just like today globally… – In that case, certainly no reason to be alarmed about the temperatures today.
No, if today’s temperatures should be alarmingly warm, the S. hemisphere temperature should show a very strong MCP at least 0,4 degrees colder than today in the 500 year period.
Is there ANY indication of a 500-year strong MCP in the southern hemisphere indicated in the data above? No, certainly not. There are not that many SH data, but still, there is not the slightest indication of a strong MCP on the S. Hemisphere.
Until the strong 500 year long MCP on SH has been proven, there is nothing that shakes the acceptance of a global MWP with temperatures resembling or higher than today’s temperatures.
I believe a massive use of tree ring graphs exclusively might show a strong southern MCP. In this case, the idea that there is no MWP globally is dependent on only on one specific method of making temperature proxies, tree rings. Tree rings are 1 of at least 20 different methods to measure temperatures of the past. As such, they should never dominate the measurements.
The South pole and MWP:
While examining temperature proxies, I found some odd results:
Fig 7: -A stunning mismatch between 2 Antarctic data series.
Not only are they both from Antarctica, but they are both from near the south pole. The well known “MWP-signature” has found its way not only to the Southern hemisphere, but to the south pole. But in the near by Vostok location, for many centuries, there has been absolutely no sign of the MWP? Obviously this is absurd, so at least one of the two results is not accurate.
The black graph (from “Remote Plateau”) has a resolution of 1 – 3 years per sample, excellent. The blue graph (vostok) has approx 23 years between data points. Both series should be considered fine quality then.
How likely is it, that the “MWP/LIA-signature” has come up in “Remote plateau” (black graph) data by a coincidence? When it has also been spotted many other places on the SH? See fig 6: The Vostok data has a dotted red line. How well does vostok data then fit the rest of the Southern hemisphere data?
The use of vostok data also moves the SH temperature profile away from the NH average.
Tree rings
If the MWP only disappears using one a specific measuring method, the idea as well as the method is invalid.
Proxy temperature data from tree rings are easy to get, but the quality?
Craig Loehle: “There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not capture long-term climate changes”.
Indeed. A good warm year will obviously help a tree growing, but decades of increasing temperatures could affect the whole area so for example more trees might be able to survive, the root nets would only be able to grow to some extend for other trees etc.
Example: Imagine that a warming after decades is accompanied by 10% more trees surviving in an area and eventually demands their “place in the sun”. By measuring tree rings for an individual tree you are not measuring the overall tree growth of the area. And measuring 10.000 trees does not change anything as all trees would have the same problem. Measuring tree pollen or isotopes etc in sediment cores avoids these problems and it makes me wonder how come so much energy has been used for tree ring analyses.
Selective adjustments?
Many kinds of adjustments are used in connection with climate results. But one adjustment I haven’t heard of is the down-adjustment of recent temperatures from temperature proxy data due to CO2-induced extra growth. If the CO2 level is indeed extraordinary high, then it is a fact that plants grow markedly more. And they grow at higher altitude etc.
Here is an impressing overview of plant response to extra CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_p.php
I have chosen the letter P for the link since several tree ring analysis are made for pine trees. Check the responses for pine trees when adding extra CO2.
Therefore any temperature proxy based on plant growth should be adjusted down in times of high CO2. Otherwise you will measure CO2 and not heat. But this obvious kind of adjustment seems not to happen? Or? Can it really be, that the crew of alarmists so happy for adjusting for all kinds of tiny issues, simply don’t adjust when there is a really good reason to do so?
Fig 8: Historic temperature proxy data with focus on tree ring-method. In the analyses I have used, it turned out that 7 of 55 datasets where from tree rings. On this figure, these 7 datasets actually does seem to differ in trend from all the rest. The 7 tree ring datasets suggests no MWP, in fact, they suggest that the MWP was 0,3-0,4 K COLDER than today’s temperatures. Quite the opposite result than the majority of datasets concerning MWP.
On might say that these 7 datasets are too little a basis for any conclusion, and therefore I have included a bigger tree ring multi proxi, “Esper et al 2002” and the trend from the 7 tree ring datasets are confirmed:
Unlike all other methods, tree rings shows no warm MWP.
Example, the European Alps:
Fig 9: Here from fig 4, we have 2 different temperatures in the same area, the European Alps.
Quite like Antarctica, we have 2 datasets, one showing the well known “MWP/LIA-signature” and one not showing this. Both cannot be correct, so we know that at least one of the datasets is faulty.
In addition, these measurements where taken in the middle of Europe where we have an overwhelming amount of non-tree temperature proxy datasets confirming a very warm MWP.
Therefore, if the tree ring method was useful, we definitely should see a warm MWP from tree ring data in Europe. But we don’t. And unless all the other temperature proxy methods just shows a very warm MWP in Europe by coincidence, the tree ring method does appear to be the faulty method.
The tree graph appears flat compared to the other methods (- a “yummy” to use if you want to produce a hockey stick), but we are not here to produce a hockey stick, we seek the temperatures of the past.
Now it becomes relevant to examine jus non-tree temperature proxies (As Loehle concluded) for better accuracy:
Fig 10: The Historic temperature proxy trend based on 27 non tree ring proxies show a slightly warmer MWP than when including tree rings, fig 4. The average temperature for year 800-1400 is approx 0,4 K warmer than today, and the years 1400-1900 is around 0,4 K colder than today. So the non tree historic temperatures now gives a MWP/LIA difference of 0,8 K like the (non tree) Holocene temperatures, fig 5.
We even see “peaks” in the MWP up to 0,6K warmer than today, and now 1950 actually appears slightly warmer than today.
Fig 11: Briffa’s 2001 all tree ring proxy data, compared with non tree ring data.
First of all, I have every respect for the huge work done using tree rings. There are indeed many sources to errors (like the idea about different SH/NH temperature development etc.) – but despite all, this graph speaks a very clear language.
Here we see the 27 datasets of non-tree rings, together with the well known tree ring graphs.
It becomes clear, that the non tree rings world wide – THICK BLUE CURVE – matches extremely well in the 20’th century and all the way back to year 1450. Then exactly as the MWP starts, the tree rings and the non
tree rings simply “looses contact”.
What ever the reason for the differences between tree ring or non tree ring temperature proxies,
it becomes evident, that choosing tree rings or not is the same as choosing a MWP or not.
.
One partly explanation for this huge mismatch could be CO2. If indeed the CO2 concentration today is a lot higher in the atmosphere than it was in the MWP, then trees simply grows faster than in the MWP, apparently even though temperatures are not higher.
S
Conclusion:
– Its way too early to consider the MWP gone. There is a lot of scientific work to be done before any such conclusion has any weight. MWP disappears when using tree ring data.
– In this writing we see that 48 non tree ring temperature proxies combined shows a MWP around 0,4 K warmer than today, lasting at least 500 years.
– Besides the MWP discussion: 80-90% of the Holocene period (last 10-12.000 years) has been warmer than today. The last 6000 years, the general temperature trend has been steady cooling. The temperature levels in the Little Ice Age were the lowest in the Holocene period.
I find it relevant to study the consequences of further cooling.
– Except for strongly adjusted temperature data, there is compliance between recent temperatures measured from satellites, evidence from tree-proxies, evidence from non-tree-proxies and more showing that: It does not appear warmer today than around 1940-50.
This is in compliance with solar activity in the 20’th century.
This does not suggest a warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
ome of the non-tree-ring measurement methods includes Be, O and C isotopes etc, that in some cases are more independent of changing tree growth or the like. These methods would be preferable if we wanted to clear CO2-induced errors on temperature measurements.
| 1) Alley, R.B., 2000 | The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland GISP2 |
| 2) Andersen et al., 2004 | A high unstable Holocene climate in the subpolar North Atlantic: evidence from diatoms |
| 3) Barron et al., 2003 | High-resolution climatic evolution of coastal northern California during the past 16,000 years. |
| 4) Biondi et al., 1999 | July temperatures during the second millenium reconstructed from Idaho tree rings. |
| 5) Büntgen et al., 2005 | PYR – MXD Pyrenees reconstruction |
| 6) Büntgen et al., 2006 | Summer Temperature Variations in the European Alps, A.D. 755-2004 |
| 7) Büntgen et al., 2007 | Growth responses to climate in a multi-species tree-ring network in the Western Carpathian Tatra Mountains, Poland and Slovakia |
| 8) Cook, E.R., et al. 1998 | Tasmania Temperature Reconstruction |
| 9) D. Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998 | Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet |
| 10) D’Arrigo et al., 2006 | Alpine Spruce Composite tree-ring record – living and historical material |
| 11) DeMenocal and Ortiz 2000 | Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period |
| 12) Fang Jin-qix 1990 | Climate changes during the holocene and their impact on hydrological systems |
| 13) Filippi, M.L. et al., 1999 | Climatic and anthropogenic influence on the stable isotope record from bulk carbonates and ostracodes in Lake Neuchatel, Switzerland, during the last two millennia |
| 14) Ge, Q., et al 2003 | Winter half-year temperature reconstruction for the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River and Yangtze River, China, during the past 2000 years |
| 15) Glen MacDonald 1996 (PALE) | Paleoenvironmental Time Series from Postglacial Lake Basins on Kola Peninsula, Russia |
| 16) Goni., 2004 | Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K’ sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela). Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2003GB002132. |
| 17) Grudd, H. 2005 | Tornestrask updated reconstruction. Tornetrask tree-ring width and density AD 500-2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. |
| 18) Hammerlund et al., 2004 | Diatom inferred SST (August) variations in core MD95-2011, Voering plateau |
| 19) Hendy and Kennett, 2000 | SST estimates from planktonic foraminiferalassembl ages |
| 20) Holmgren., et al. 2001. | A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa |
| 21) Hui Jiang et al., 2005 | Evidence for solar forcing of sea-surface temperature on the North Icelandic Shelf during the late Holocene |
| 22) Isaksson., et al., 2006 | Austfonna ice core – Svalbard |
| 23) J. R. Petit et al., 2000 | Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core |
| 24) K. Antonsson,. et al. 2008 | Anticyclonic atmospheric circulation as an analogue for the warm and dry mid-Holocene summer climate in central Scandinavia |
| 25) Kaiser, J., et al 2005 | A 70-kyr sea surface temperature record off southern Chile |
| 26) KERR et al., 2008 | Ghiacciai e cambiamenti climatici durante l’ultimo secolo nella regione Aoraki/Mt Cook, Nuova Zelanda |
| 27) Kim et al., 2002 | Alkenone-base sea surface temperature record (8C) for core from the Benguela Current |
| 28) Koutavas et al., 2005 | Tropical Pacific SST gradients since the LGM in relation to the ITCZ |
| 29) Linderholm et al., 2005 | Summer temperature variability in central Scandinavia during the last 3600 years. |
| 30) Liu, Z., 2006 | Alkenone-based reconstruction of late-Holocene surface temperature and salinity changes in Lake Qinghai, China |
| 31) Lloyd D. Keigwin | The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea |
| 32) M.R. Besonen., 2008 | A record of climate over the last millennium based on varved lake sediments from the Canadian High Arctic |
| 33) Mangini, A.et al., 2005 | Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record. |
| 34) Mc Greggor et al., 2007 | Rapid 20th-century increase in coastal upwelling off northwest Africa revealed by high-resolution marine sediment cores |
| 35) Meixun Zhao et al., 2006 | A millennial-scale U37 K sea-surface temperature record from the South China Sea (8°N) over the last 150 kyr: Monsoon and sea-level influence |
| 36) Moore, J.J., et al., 2003 | Baffin Island 1250 Year Summer Temperature Reconstruction, |
| 37) Mosley-Thomson 1996 | Holocene climate changes recorded in an east Antarctica ice core |
| 38) Nesjea et al., 2004 | Holocene millennial-scale summer temperature variability inferred from sediment parameters in a non-glacial mountain lake: Danntjørn,Jotunheimen, central southern Norway |
| 39) Newton et al., 2006 | Climate and hydrographic variability in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool during the last millennium. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL027234 |
| 40) Nyberg, J., et al., 2002, | Northeastern Caribbean Late Holocene Sea Surface Temperature Reconstruction |
| 41) Powers, L.A., et al 2005 | Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction |
| 42) Sachs et al., 2007 | Cooling of Northwest Atlantic slope waters during the Holocene |
| 43) Sallinger et al., 1988 | The nature of New Zealand’s atmosphere and climate |
| 44) Salzer, M.W. and K.F. Kipfmueller. 2005 | Southern Colorado Plateau Temperature and Precipitation Reconstructions |
| 45) Selvaraj et al., 2007 | Holocene East Asian monsoon variability: Links to solar and tropical Pacific forcing |
| 46) Seppa et al., 2003 | Holocene annual mean temperature changes in Estonia and their relationship to solar insolation and atmospheric circulation patterns |
| 47) Seppa et al., 2005 | Diatom inferred SST (August) variations in core MD95-2011, Voering plateau |
| 48) Societa Geologica Italiana 2007 | Variabilità naturale del clima nell’Olocene ed in tempi storici:un approccio geologico |
| 49) Stott et al., 2004 | Climate/Ocean History of the Western Tropical Pacific |
| 49) Stott et al., 2004 MD2176 | Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch |
| 49) Stott et al., 2004 MD2181 | Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch |
| 49) Stott, et al., 2004 MD2170 | Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch |
| 50) Tan, M., et al., 2003 | 2650-Year Beijing Stalagmite Layer Thickness and Temperature Reconstruction |
| 51) Tarasov., et al 2009 | Late Glacial and Holocene changes in vegetation cover and climate in southern Siberia derived from a 15 kyr long pollen record from Lake Kotokel |
| 52) Tyson., et al 2000 | The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. |
| 53) V. RULL., 1996 | PALAEOCLIMATOLOGY AND SEA-LEVEL HISTORY IN VENEZUELA. |
| 54) Wang et al., 2000 | Twentieth-century warming in the context of the holocene |
| 55) Wilson, A.T., et al. 1979 | Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium |
| 56) Zabenskie, S. and Gajewski, K | Post-glacial climatic change on Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada. Quaternary Research 68: 261-270. |
| 57) Zinke et al., 2001 | Evidence for the climate during the Late Maunder minimum… |
| 58) Devi, et al ., 2008 | Expanding forests and changing growth forms of Siberian larch at the Polar Urals treeline during the 20th century |
| 59) Kim et al., 2006 | Age and alkenone-derived Holocene sea-surface temperature records of sediment core SSDP-102 |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An Inquirer (09:41:08) : Given the methodology and quality issues with GISS, I am not surprised that GISS would end up as an outlier on land temperatures. Yet, GISS uses satellite data for oceans, and therefore I am not surprised when I see studies that GISS and UAH & RSS have similar global trends. Therefore, I am puzzled in my first reading of this post — that GISS diverges but UAH does not.
I was sent off on the wild goose chase of ‘satellite data’ in GIStemp. The result is a posting where I show that this is, like most of the AGW claims, a bunch of hot air and deception wrapped around a tiny bit of almost truth and stretched out of all contact with reality. A small quote from my write up is below… In the original, I got a bit frustrated and included clickable links to Marvin the Martin saying various things… 😉
From: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/illudium/
Begin Quote:
Here a bit more detail on the illudium space modulator “satellite” component of the GISS stew. First, notice that this all talks about SST for Sea Surface Temperature. It’s not about satellite data coverage for land. The land data comes from land thermometers. From:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
Analysis Description and Recent Reanalysis
The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SSTs plus SSTs simulated by sea ice cover.
So here are your first clues. It’s an “analysis” not a reporting of satellite data. It uses “in situ”, that is surface reports from ships, buoys, etc.; along with satellite Sea Surface Temperatures and, my favorite, SSTs simulated by sea ice cover. Given the recent “issues” with sea ice reporting it kinda make you wonder…
So, ok, a stew of ships, buoys, whatever, a dash of satellite data, and some simulations (based on a broken ice cover satellite?) are used to create this analysis product (that some folks want to call “satellite data”…)
Before the analysis is computed, the satellite data is adjusted for biases using the method of Reynolds (1988) and Reynolds and Marsico (1993). A description of the OI analysis can be found in Reynolds and Smith (1994). The bias correction improves the large scale accuracy of the OI.
Oh, and the satellite data are adjusted based on an optimal interpolation method. We’re getting even further away from “data” and into the land of processed data food product…
OT but as of 6:20 pm EDT there is a big yellow streak on the sun just below the equator and slightly toward the left side. Watts up with that?
Allan M R MacRae (11:23:35) :
I have been accused of the usual cherry-picking, etc. by the warmists.
However, the warmists are the cherry-pickers – they choose the warming HALF-cycle of the PDO, extrapolate that modest warming to infinity, and then claim dangerous global warming.
They cherry pick more than that, and very precisely:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/picking-cherries-in-sweden/
And the reason they must fabricate data? There simply isn’t enough real data for most of the planet for long enough to make any real conclusions:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/so_many_thermometers_so_little_time/
Frank Lansner, I agree with Deadwood and Jeff Id (I have not had time to read further in the comments) and the others above who are quite impressed. Make it a bit more readable — you are working us hard, you know; publish it, posthaste. Great material; great synthesis. You have a gift for putting studies and charts together and giving us a new way to see a problem. Also add E.M. Smith’s note to it for all the world to see:
“That you found agreement between the proxies and satellites but GIStemp was a big outlier does not surprise me in the least. It is exactly what I would expect from what I’ve seen in the code.
IMHO, GIStemp is useless and any work that is based on assuming GIStemp is valid is itself worthless.”
SOd
you write::
“i think it is an extremely simplistic method, to simply stick all proxies together in a single year (1950). all those proxies with a big amplitude will show completely different results, depending on the year chosen. not a good start for a paper.”
Think again. Never mind what year you chose, the whole graph can only be moved up or down. If a graph comes in “high” its both todays temperature ans past temperatures that comes in high. It doenst change the temperatures compared to todays temperatures. Hope you get it…
K.R. Frank
First read – wow! I’ve got to make more time for this one.
INGSOC (08:49:52) : I sympathise. By the time you feel able to comment intelligently, I might be ready to appreciate your comments and perhaps add my own 😉
Smokey (13:56:31) : If the alarmists want to get picky, maybe the range of zebra habitat might have moved 80 – 100 miles north, given enough time. […] And I’m willing to bet that zebras won’t be moving north into Europe any time soon.
OK, just remember it wasn’t me who brought up zebra…
Zebra’s would do just fine in southern Europe. California has a Mediterranean climate and we have wild zebra… proving that they could live just fine in Spain or France or Italy, if they could just cross the Sahara and swim the Mediterranean Sea..
First stop, google: ” escaped zebra california Hearst” and you will find a lot of stuff like:
http://www.viamagazine.com/top_stories/articles/hearst_castle03.asp
but the less dangerous exotics, among them kangaroos and yaks, freely roamed the hills. (Remnants of the zebra herd can still be seen today, mingling with local Herefords.)
and
So you see, Zebra are quite at home in a Mediterranean climate and would do fine. No climate change needed. (Somewhere I have the California list of exotics that have escaped into the wild here that lists zebra as naturalized in California now, but I couldn’t find it quick, so you get the less scientific youtube video as authority 😉
I always thought California was a zoo…
😎
This is a great piece, but perhaps it would be better to break up articles like this into smaller pieces, published in installments over a week or ten days. Just a thought for future consideration. This article is like a two-foot long submarine sandwich. You start it, and get into it a bit, but only the hardiest souls will be able to finish it in one sitting. 🙂
I find the graphs very frustrating, for a couple of reasons. Too many lines, obviously. I understand it is very difficult to make the point without showing all the data from all the data sets, but still it’s murky. Maybe the labeling is not sufficient? For example, on figure 4, a lot of skinny little squiggles, but there seems to be a bold white line, a bold green line, and a bold tan-colored line. What are these bold lines? I cannot tell from the text. Maybe I’m going blind from squinting.
Second, this is a general frustration related to most historical temperature graphs. Why not have the y-axis labeled with actual temp in degrees Centigrade? Why always a zero level related to some specific year or average of years? Since zero in one study is not the same as zero in another study, graphs cannot be compared easily. The clearest way to represent temperatures would be with the absolute temperature in degrees C on the y-axis, and then if you want to make reference to a particular year or an average from 1960-1990 (or whatever range) use a dashed horizontal line to denote that reference point.
If I might make a plea, we (skeptics) need to make the complex as understandable as possible, so we don’t scare away ordinary folk who need to see these kinds of analyses. We don’t want to oversimplify, but if there are a few little modifications that can help make things a little cleaner and clearer, that would be a big plus.
Steve Keohane (14:10:19) :
As regards tree rings. bear in mind this gem from Nature, June 11th, 2008:
From Canada to the Caribbean: Tree leaves control their own temperature
That would be:
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08061131
Frank:
Thank you for this timely report.
Sod,
You have obviously not been looking at the 5 principle temperature data sets maintained by different organizations over the past 40 years. The GISS is an outlier to the other four, which track each other pretty cloy in comparison. And the deviation is growing.
Look at the data before you speak nonsense.
I do not employ ad hominem attacks. But If I were to criticize Astronomer Hansen as he does to others, he has committed a “crime against humanity” by corrupting the GISS dataset so as to make it unusable and unreliable for humanity. He is destroying a dataset, emplaced in his care, that is useful to all humanity.
His training is not in Climatology or Information Technology or Library Science. In his position, he should employ such professionals to assure the data placed in his care. His undocumented adjustments seem to remove any hope of evaluating the raw reported GISS data.
Frank,
Why are you using outdated satellite numbers when Roy Spencer and John Christy have provided corrected data?
REPLY: Tom I think you are being unrealistically nitpicky on this. The UAH data used is through 2008, and I see many graphs that go to 2008 on the black line of UAH data. A few of the proxy datasets don’t even make it to 2000. The three months of 2009 UAH data would make no difference in many of these comparisons, since much of the proxy data doesn’t extend to that date. If you’ll note the references, many of the paper cited are from the mid 90’s to 2006. Doing a comparison of all data sets with such wide variance in endpoints, and then focusing on one dataset that he used up to 2008 without the 2009 data seems to me to be irrelevant. Remember, this is a person doing this work on their own time at home, and may not have access to update data from all these authors as you might being connected with NASA. Cut him some slack. – Anthony
But what actually happens is that the planet’s temperature naturally varies, as it oscillates around a trend line.
That’s what I see in the tree ring data for my area (2000 yrs worth).
For every action (dry or wet) there is an equal and opposite reaction (wet or dry). It just takes a differing amount of time & amplitude to get it done.
As for the last 100 yrs of it, the amplitudes are far higher & lower, but it still all evens out.
The science of AGW can be summed up in the following bit of sophism from the book A Random Walk Through Science regarding Napoleon’s horse having an infinite number of legs. It goes something like this:
– The horse had forelegs in front.
– The horse had two rear legs.
– Four legs in front added to two rear legs equals six legs, an even number of legs.
– Six legs is an odd number of legs for a horse to have.
– The only number that can be both odd and even is infinity. Ergo, Napoleon’s horse had an infinite number of legs!
The science of AGW is built on too many unproven assertions. I don’t need to list them for this website.
On the time lapse, it appears in the last frame … let’s see if it presists or disappears on the next frame.
I find the focus on tree rings disturbing, because while they will show the annual variation in temperature they will tend to minimize the centuries-long variations, which is what everyone is interested in.
Regarding the divergence problem, could there have been an anthropomorphic effect that affects tree-rings over the last fifty years, the “global-dimming”, so that the tree-rings don’t grow properly due to a lack of light? Would this justify splicing on the temperature record for this period instead? If so, why wouldn’t this dimming affect uptake of CO2?
More questions than answers. The whole subject looks like a scientific debacle.
Those spaguettis, at this hour, need some sauce on it. The one of JH jumped out of the plate!
EM Smith
Thanks, but problem with graph at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/picking-cherries-in-sweden/
Can you fix please?
“In the end, all tree rings tell you is how happy or unhappy that particular tree was at that particular time. They do not tell you why.”
So THATs what tree hugging is about, trying to make the rings wider.
Anthony,
All of the satellite data presented here end in 2000 and is not corrected. Other scientists have updated their analyses to include more recent data, so if you wish to dispute their conclusions it really is necessary to do the same. Otherwise the spaghetti can get rather rubbery!
REPLY: How can you say “All of the satellite data presented here end in 2000” when we clearly have UAH plot lines extending to 2008 on several graphs? And, what correction are you referring to? – Anthony
Enjoyed the article. The graphs are pretty well done especially when enlarged but could be improved. I would remove the shaded backgrounds and the grid lines for a start. Obviously figures like No 1 are pretty tough to do no matter how you go about it but for the simpler ones you may want to use both different colors for lines and different dash patterns, makes it easier for the color blind readers. For a great tutorial on how to present technical information try any of Edward Tufte’s books.
I had not heard of the divergence problem from proxy data but it obviously in any comparison of GISS to UAH.
I find the focus on tree rings disturbing, because while they will show the annual variation in temperature they will tend to minimize the centuries-long variations,
This got me thinking: Could it be that three ring growth as climate proxies , are NOT scale invariant (micro vs global climates ?
Could it be that biological proxies, because of their life processes, are acting as localized high-pass filters with respect to their immediate surroundings?
Could it be that the relationship between localized climates and the global climate is more complex and chaotic than currently understood ?
Many kudos to Frank Lansner. This is the kind of analysis Climate Science should have been doing all along if it was in fact attempting to do real science to begin with, that is, trying to disprove or at least see what might be wrong with its own hypotheses. Indeed, why even want to pursue any hypothesis which you can do so much damage to completely on your own simply by operating scientifically?
Concerning only the MWP issure, trying to erase/disprove or make merely local the MWP has always struck me as telltale insofar as these attempts seem to intentionally ingore warm period previous to the MWP, as though the AGW “scientists” think that because they have this myopic focus, everyone else would/should, too. Then they totally fail in destroying even their own “strawman”!
Another comment relative to ice ages … could it be that ice ages occur when CO2 gets too low? (along with other factors). The climate drops below a threshold and then cools to a stable ice age value. Eventually, somethings kicks off a warming mode which is then followed by increased CO2 (800 year time lag). Over time the CO2 naturally falls back down, the earth cools until another ice age is kicked off.
Still working on my “CO2 saves humanity” hypthesis … 😉
Hmm, Isaiah 44:25 is appropriate.