From Jo Nova a look at how the MWP looks when other data is used, not just a few trees in Yamal.
These maps and graphs make it clear just how brazen the fraud of the Hockey Stick is.
Click to enlarge
It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide.
What follows is a sordid tale of a graph that overthrew decades of work, conveniently fitted the climate models, and was lauded triumphantly in glossy publication after publication. But then it was crushed when an unpaid analyst stripped it bare. It had been published in the highest most prestigious journal, Nature, but no one had checked it before or after it was spread far and wide. Not Nature, not the IPCC, not any other climate researcher.
In 1995 everyone agreed the world was warmer in medieval times, but CO2 was low then and that didn’t fit with climate models. In 1998, suddenly Michael Mann ignored the other studies and produced a graph that scared the world — tree rings show the “1990’s was the hottest decade for a thousand years”. Now temperatures exactly “fit” the rise in carbon! The IPCC used the graph all over their 2001 report. Government departments copied it. The media told everyone.
But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.
Astonishingly, Nature refused to publish the correction. It was published elsewhere, and backed up by the Wegman Report, an independent committee of statistical experts.
In 2009 McIntyre did it again with Briffa’s Hockey Stick. After asking and waiting three years for the data, it took just three days to expose it too as baseless. For nine years Briffa had concealed that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree virtually transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no Hockey Stick.
The sharp upward swing of the graph was due to one single tree in Yamal.
Skeptical scientists have literally hundreds of samples. Unskeptical scientists have one tree in Yamal, and a few flawed bristlecones…
…
Climate models don’t know why it was warmer 800 years ago.
The models are wrong.
The so-called “expert review” is meaningless. The IPCC say 2,500 experts review their reports, but those same “experts” made the baseless Hockey Stick graph their logo in 2001.
Craig Loehle used 18 other proxies. Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago, & cooler 300 years ago. We started warming long before cars and powerstations were invented. There’s little correlation with CO2 levels.
Sources: Loehle 2007, Haung and Pollack 1997, See co2science.org for all the other peer reviewed studies to go with every orange dot on the map. McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 and 2005, and update, Mann et al 1998, Briffa 2006, read McIntyre at climateaudit.com, see “ClimateGate”, and Monckton “What Hockey Stick” (Science and Public Policy Institute paper)
This is Page 8 & 9 The Skeptics Handbook II. 20 page PDF
I know a similar graph went up a couple of days ago around the web. The skeptics Handbook II was published on Friday Nov 20.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Thanks to Craig Idso of CO2science.org for his fabulous collation of research and his Medieval Warming Project which is an excellent resource, try the animated map! A big thank you to John N for his work in helping to create the map.
Sponsored IT training links:
Get real 642-374 question for real success. No need to go through dozen of books. Just download 70-291 study pack and pass your RH202 in single attempt.
It’s not only dead, Jim, it’s annihilated, gone, it has ceased to be.
Here lies the Hockey Stick. Rest in pieces.
3×2 (05:09:29) :
At some point in the future, hopefully, we may all sit around and laugh about the dead moose (or some other slow release fertilizer) that almost changed the world.
Yes that is funny. However, centralized power is not. Let us be glad for every hindrance to the power of would-be tyrants.
Not suggesting he is right or wrong (or even in/out the ball park) but he certainly has something to say on the subject. I would suggest that his “credentials” should not be taken lightly.
Regarding the hockey stick, here’s Monckton’s long paper describing the shenanigans behind protecting it from criticism and “verifying” it, followed (pages 16-29) by summaries of 21 published papers that provide evidence of warming during the MWP. (Ten papers deal with Europe and the North Atlantic, eleven scientific papers address the period elsewhere on the planet.) Each summary occupies about half a page and contains a graph that illustrates key data points.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf
But none of this will even be revealed at Copenhagen. The fraud will be perpetuated because too much money now rides on continuing the fraud!
Jean Meeus (04:26:21) :
The key is that it applies over the entire year(s).
Here are a few examples:
If you integrate that 0.5°C over the course of a heating season, it turns into a measurable amount of fuel use.
Imagine a mountain with a glacier and an environment with very little variability in the weather. Now decrease the temperature throughout the year by 0.5°C. The glacier terminus will move downhill some amount. A first order estimate might be to reach a point where the annual average is the same as it was before. The adiabatic lapse rate is, umm 1°F per 200 feet, so call it 1°C per 100 meters, so the terminus will be 50 m lower than before. If the pitch isn’t very steep, this could be a few hundred meters.
If you look at the length of the growing season (defined as the date of last frost to the date of first frost), then take the average temperature curve over the season and shift it down by 0.5°C you’ll see that the length of the growing season has gotten a few days shorter. Not only that, but the number of “growing degree days” has gone down. (GDD is a function of species and other stuff, but the sum will go down.) This caught some corn growers in the American midwest – they bought seed expecting that global warming would give them a long enough season. Didn’t work out.
ONE international is sending emails all over the web. once you click the link in the invitation, you sign their petition. you can sign as many times as you want by just clicking, which i find to be in bad taste.
for more info visit http://one.org/international/actnow/copenhagen/index.html?rc=copenhagenconfemail
and pls write about this ongoing unfair effort. thanks
Michael Mann attacks AGW goalie Phil Jones for letting the deniers hockey puck cross goal line
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/732877–florida-player-slashes-his-own-goalie-in-the-head
All of this makes my blood absolutely boil! I know so many people who are totally ignorant of all this and Climategate, because they get their information from the mainstream “news”. And many of those same people are blind supporters of AGW. It’s time for me to take some action.
“Jo Nova finds the MWP.”
I didn’t know it was missing !!
Chuckle!!!
While I agree with the sentiment I have to say that while we argue the “toss” over 0.x°C warming or “climategate” Copenhagen will take place and agreement will be reached. Copenhagen is nothing to do with “Global Warming” it is about thieves agreeing how divide up the proceeds from “Carbon Trading”. It is without doubt the largest robbery in human history and everyone wants their cut.
Post Copenhagen there will be a new world reality. Everything you do, post Copenhagen, will be taxed. It will be a universal tax set at a level “decided” by “the market”.
As you can see the “market” consists of the same rent seekers that caused the last bubble and bale out. They just can’t stop themselves.
What makes me laugh most about all this is that the wind up toys that have been used so effectively are about to see reality. Watch them squirm. Hansen is right,
if the real object were ever a reduction in consumption your Government would have simply levied a 15% tax on your utility bills. The real object is a tithe on your labour that goes straight to the bottom line of monoliths such as Goldman Sachs. They are on the Copenhagen runway waiting to re-fuel the next bubble. Follow the money (and your extra hours at work).
This is all so far beyond robbery that new words will be required to describe it. Even if temperatures dropped back to 1970’s levels tomorrow morning this train will not be stopped. All the conspiracy theories (on both sides) are just that. You really don’t need a formal conspiracy when I offer you a reasonable share of a Trillion dollar pot of money from fresh air. Your answer is .. sign me up.
Jo Nova
With reference to the Loehle 2007 paper, this was supplemented and superseded by Loehle and J.H. McCulloch 2008 ( http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf. )
These papers collate 18 other studies which do NOT contain tree ring data to obtain a graph of global temperatures for the last two thousand years.
Let’s take Loehle and McCulloch’s 2008 as it is and see what it tells us.
Their results of the 2008 paper do NOT show what you claim, ie, that ‘Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago’, nor do they make that claim. The reason is that their graph that you reproduce does not end ‘today’ as you have labelled it.
Their proxy results END with the 29 year average temperature for 1935 (ie the average from 1921 to 1949 inclusive, of which 1935 is the mid-point). Loehle states, “Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935
AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007).” What you have labelled as ‘Today’ in the Loehle graph corresponds to 1935.
Since the proxy data ends in 1935 Loehle then, quite reasonably, looks at the latest (for him) 29 year average which is centred on 1992 (ie from 1978-2006) and finds (correctly) that that period was +0.341C above the 1935 average (using GISS Land+ocean) and 0.07C BELOW the highest peak of the Medieval Warm Period.
So, according to Loehle 2008, the 29 year average global temperature centred on 1992 was marginally (indeed insignificantly) below the MWP peak by 0.07C.
However, 1992 is not ‘Today’ either. If we wish to see how ‘Today’s’ temperatures compare with the peak of the MWP, (according to Loehle and his use of non-tree-ring proxies), then we can get an indication by taking five year averages to smooth values to see how temperatures have changed since 1992. We find that 2006 (the latest year for which a five year average can be taken) is 0.29C above 1992 (five year GISS anomaly 1992=+0.24C, 2006=+0.53C). Therefore, ‘Today’ (or as close to today as we can reasonably get) is 0.22C ABOVE the highest peak of the MWP, based on the data in Loehle 2008. [Of course, in order to make that point conclusively, we would need the 29 year global average centred on 2006, but we won’t get that until after 2200.]
Thus, present temperatures are +0.22C ABOVE the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, based on information from the author you chose, Loehle, who used non-tree-ring proxies for his source..
Why did you not report this, rather than show your readers a graph that leaves them with the impression that ‘Today’s’ global average temperatures are about 0.3C below that of the MWP peak?
That widget jump is due to El Nino building-in November the .5 for the MWP is the average,BTW we are heading for Near zero F lows here in NE Oregon with snow on the
way….
Another excellent post, very didactic, simple and comprehensible by everyone. This will work also for the msm.
Back2Bat (05:35:50)
“Yes that is funny. However, centralized power is not. Let us be glad for every hindrance to the power of would-be tyrants”
However the CLIMATEGATE leakage proves that there is an internal division (or call it ambition) among those who allucinate themselves as future world tyrants.
Once people realise that this is a new universal tax with no escape route I’m sure this country (UK) will react (turn volume down) in much the same way it always has. Especially once people realise where the “tax” is actually going.
Slioch wrote:
Thus, present temperatures are +0.22C ABOVE the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, based on information from the author you chose, Loehle, who used non-tree-ring proxies for his source..
Why does Loehle decide to use corrected smoothed data? Steve Mcintyre has shown that if you start to smooth data then you miss out important anomalies, like smoothing out the way a drunken person walks, which hides the fact that they are drunk.
But the “true believers” will not give up. Johann Hari actually writes that hundreds of thousands of scientists have independently reached the conclusion that burning fossil fuels will have terrible consequences. You will not believe what else he writes…
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-i-wish-that-the-global-warming-deniers-were-right-1833728.html
On page 3 of Jasper Kirkby’s report explaining the justification for CERN conducting experiments to test Henrik Svensmark’s theories linking solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds and climate, are graphs of various proxies showing the MWP and the LIA.
http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Oops. I forgot to mention that the CERN graph of temperature proxies also shows Mann’s hockey stick for comparison; Kirkby mocks the hockey stick, in the understated academic way.
Wait a minute…
Craig Loehle’s reconstruction shows the MWP centered around AD 950 and down to 0C by AD 1250. McIntyre’s reconstruction shows the MWP as warm as +0.5C around 1400. There must be some uncertainty in those reconstructions. Oh, there it is in the error bars of the Mann et al reconstruction.
If I remember right, Loehle also used 30 year averages with data ending around 1950. The warming since the mid-century is basically excluded from Loehle’s reconstruction. If you are comparing the MWP to the early part of the century (before significant AGW), then why are you calling it “today”?
The boreholes seem to match McIntyre’s reconstruction but not Loehle’s. I believe they also have a very coarse resolution in time and can’t resolve changes over less than about 50 years. That means they also exclude the warming of the last few decades.
Houston this morning broke a record with the earliest snowfall ever recorded in the city’s history.
this is reported by the MSM.
December on track to be coldest December evah. Poor Houston.
Don B (07:12:03) :
Nice catch. Like I said “wind up toys”.
Falling Arctic ice shelves, of countries being swallowed by the sea, of vicious wars for the water and land that remains.
Is he planning a new Sci-fi series? Does the Arctic have ice shelves (being an Ocean)?
It is a good thing in the end that these people exist and get exposure. How else will “regular folk” come to see them for the eco-loons they really are.
Check out the chart of the temperature cycle here:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/a-total-bluff.html
It supports the cyclical temperature graph shown above.
Guys…lets not ‘Do A Phil’ here…….Sliochs comment, if true, blows this whole thread out of the water.
Look…my own view is that AGW is more political sham than real, but, I’m not going to stick fingers in my ears when one on ‘our side’ presents a graph that is pulled down so easily by the ‘other side’.
Crowing about Jo Nova graph – if it is indeed dodgy – makes us look silly, and would be the cause of sarcastic emails at CRU yes?
Soooooooooo…..can someone come back on Sliochs points, or is that poster correct….Craig, are you lurking?