One of the favorite buzzwords of alarmists is “unprecedented” when talking about present day warming. Yah, the Earth’s never, ever, been hotter, the “hockey stick” proves it, it’s unprecedented, and its all your fault!
Well, we’ve known it’s unsubstantiated spin for quite a long time. NOAA apparently has too, because the data presented in this video is in fact from NOAA and is from the year 2000 on their website. But you don’t see it publicized much. Why? Well, because it totally destroys claims of “unprecedented warming” in our present day.
The source of inspiration is from my post Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data. And the source of inspiration for that is from J. Storrs Hall, writing here.
WUWT reader “docattheautopsy” produced a YouTube video for us for distribution for which I’m grateful and you can see below. I’ve also produced an animated GIF which is done somewhat like a video, since not all blogs and websites can support video. Here is the low-res version at 480 pixels wide. As you go back in time, our “unprecendented” temperatures of the present day don’t seem quite so large, when put in perspective of geologic time.
Here are the permalinks to both the low-res and hi-def versions:
Low-res: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif
Hi-Definition: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
And here is a YouTube video showing the same process:
Just a couple of caveats to mention:
1) The ice core data from Greenland doesn’t go past the year 1900
2) The reason for this is that ice is formed by the compaction of snow, that takes time. Young snow, and snow in transition to becoming ice through compaction is not a reliable indicator yet.
3) From the observed temperature change in the last century, one could add about a .5C to 0.7C line to the end of the ice core data. It does not change the conclusion. UPDATE: Upon further thought, In version 3 of the animation, I decided to do this to be a better comparison to the Mann/IPCC chart shown, since that is what they did also. The instrumental record for the last century (~ 0.7C) is shown in red, approximately fit to each scale.
4) My first animated GIF had a labeling error due to using a template. I forgot to label the Vostok Ice Core presentation separately. Fixed now and links updated. If you grabbed links in the first 30 minutes, please note they have changed.
UPDATE: I’ve added the source images for those that may want to include them in a slide show or display independently. Click each image below for full sized version suitable for saving on your local disk.
The narrations states, “We can see that the MWP was much warmer than what we’re experiencing now.” But just previously it had said that the chart only went up to 1900, because ice core samples can’t show the most recent 100 years.
So either the chart should be extended higher by hand using thermometer temperatures (“Mike’s Nature trick”) or the narration should be modified to make sure it doesn’t convey a false impression.
Thank you so much, Antony and docattheautopsy, for your diligence and hard work in placing this data into a format that possibly even a brainwashed Leftist might understand. I have placed this on Facebook and changed the security setting so that it can be seen by everyone.
Of course, The Won, Reid, Pelosi, the media, and all others of those political and mental persuasions will continue to ignore the truth and attempt to complete the takeover of the world’s economy – one nation at a time. Thank goodness that Russia is showing the world the truth and China is showing everyone what damage it will do to Capitalism.
Oh, the irony.
”Hell, if the temperature rises 2 degrees in the next 40 years the consequences are going to be serious.”
Heck, if the temperature declines 2 degrees C worldwide in the next 40 years your children and grandchildren will most likely starve from the lack of crops. I’d call that serious.
I would also change the narration to say, “Going back 10,000 years, we see a sharp RISE in temperature TO MODERN LEVELS, corresponding to the END OF the PRECEDING ice age.” It’ssilly to imply the temperature dropped coming out of an ice age.
And, please, add captions to the charts in this format: “Past 600 Years,” “Past 1200 Years,” etc.
@Gazzer:
“The Medieval Warm Period – a global phenomenon, unprecedented warming, or unprecedented data manipulation?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
@Smokey:
There you go
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5957/1256
sciencemag.org is an extremely liberal website and does not offer an argument to the actual REAL data but merely bolsters the ”consensus science” which is bogus on the face of the phrase itself. ”Peer-reviewed” doesn’t cut it – data does. Almost every Leftist site and blog poster uses this POS website as an actual bit of ”proof” to back-up their argument(s).
And a link to a ”report” that has Michael Mann as one of the authors??? Puh-Lease!
”Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.”
This particular POS has been discredited so many times (within this particular thread as well) that I’m surprised that anyone would ever use it as proof of anything except the lack of knowledge by the poster of the link.
You have got to do much better than that. Look at the actual ”proxy data” (ice core and ocean floor core samples) used to make the charts above. The only LIE in the data in the charts is where your Michael Mann mixed proxy data with real data to misrepresent the ”upturn” in temperatures on the ”hockey stick” which is, politely put, bogus.
MSNBC covers exactly the same dataset as you guys have presented here… You should ask them to provide a correction of some sort…
Cold, hard facts on climate change found in ice
Nov. 19: Green Ice Core: An international team of scientists are drilling deep into the past to learn what our future may hold. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34050658#34050658
@The Doktor
“And a link to a ”report” that has Michael Mann as one of the authors??? Puh-Lease!”
Ah, the ad hominem argument. Rather than dealing with the science because you can’t you start attacking the messenger – not once but twice.
Ad Hominem is defacto ‘you lose’.
Nice circular argument too: ‘how can we know that the data is not true? Because it’s posted by Michael Mann. How do we know that Michael Mann is not to be trusted? Just look at his data!’
What’s the reality? Michael Mann is highly respected within the field of his expertise: climate change. You see this is the technique of people who don’t understand how science works. They attempt to discredit the messenger without actually linking to peer-reviewed refutations.
“This particular POS has been discredited so many times…except the lack of knowledge by the poster of the link”.
By whom exactly. Show me your peer-reviewed climate journals that ‘discredit him’. No, it shows the opposite. It shows *you* don’t know how science works. Articles are published in journals. They pass a certain level of competence. Other scientists try to find holes in the published work or weakness. If they do so, rebuttals are posted. Often this means overturning the established wisdom, at other times it means updating it. Scientists want to be right and prove others wrong, thus there is incentive to find problems. If the data establishes a pattern scientists then attempt to fine tune it to get a higher accuracy.
“This thread?” Don’t make me laugh. This thread talks about ‘scientists talking about “unprecedented” warming’. That’s strawman. They do nothing of the sort – they are fully aware that it has been warmer at earlier times in history.
“The only LIE in the data in the charts is where your Michael Mann mixed proxy data with real data to misrepresent the ”upturn” in temperatures on the ”hockey stick” which is, politely put, bogus.”
No, this is just another denier red-herring. Michael Mann’s data is broadly accepted by the people who know what they are talking about because they have analyzed the statistics and it passes muster. You can obfuscate as much as you want with broad strokes, but real scientists need to see peer-reviewed published data, and if your data is not good enough it won’t get published.
But let’s see with other data by other scientists actually do say:
http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2
Huang: Boreholes 2000
Hegerl 2006
Jones: Instrumental 2001
Oerlemans: Glacier Lengths 2005
Moberg: Multiproxy 2005
Esper: Tree Rings 2002
Who all statistically get the same result. So your so-called discredited Michael Mann is far from being discredited, but rather has his results confirmed by multiple different scientists using multiple different methodologies.
You see when you look at the scientists they all come to the same conclusions and they have the evidence and data to back it up which you don’t.
Like creationists, when you don’t have the science to back it up, you resort to scientific fallacy of straw man and ad hominem and vague zombie arguments:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/12/bad-science-goldacre-climate-change
It is unfortunate that many bloggers have little ability and may even lack the interest to do their own research on the planet’s climate. As a result they have no technological basis to challenge highly politicized (and sometimes paycheck driven) claims by some of looming catastrophe.
Peer review is intended to keep nonsense from getting published. However, all peer reviewers are limited to their individual understanding which may be incomplete or even incorrect. Papers that agree with the peer reviewers pre-conceived perceptions are far more likely to get published than papers that disagree. So-called peer review can become worthless and even an advocacy tool. Biased peer review is de facto censoring. Unfortunately, many papers regarding global warming or climate change have appeared after ineffective peer review.
[invalid email address, violation of site policy, and you’re not very nice either. come back when you stop the name calling and have a real email] ~ ctm
J. Stores Hall’s work with the NOAA ice core graphs is the most effective tool I have seen to illustrate the folly of the hockey stick even if one assumes it to be fact (which, as Anthony’s past work and Climategate shows, is not)
The animated and narrated version of this info is a clincher. It needs wide distribution.
Any vice presidents out there willing to take that on?
To “docattheautopsy”.
Would the video not be enhanced by showing the CO2 atmospheric content in the animation?
The errors are even worse than indicated, because they’ve been scamming the instrumental record in several ways, some ways intentional and diabolical, and some ways initially accidental, but then covered up. For example, many measuring devices have had concrete and even asphault roads and parking lots built near them (and even a freaking barbeque grill) – which substantially increases the temperatures of instrumental readings. Furthermore, even the natural growth of trees near temperature stations tends to raise recorded temperatures. When these problems are compensated for, the instrumental warming is much less.
this is all about control of Population growth plan and simple ……….
Population control called key to deal ,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
Anthony,
Shouldn’t the Vostok graph be labeled TEMPERATURE ANOMALY rather than TEMPERATURE or am I misinterpreting what I see? I notice the first graph uses ANOMALY – shouldn’t that just be TEMPERATURE.
Have followed WUWT for several years – you have such interesting discussions it’s hard not to read them all.
Bob
Anthony,
Shouldn’t Graph #1 be labled just TEMPERATURE, not TEMPERATURE ANOMALY whilst the Vostok graph have the word ANOMALY added? Or is there something I don’t understand?
Thanks for your fantastic work on Surface Stations and all the very interesting material you present.
Bob
Ah yes. When unable to refute the argument let’s resort to censorship (which is ironic in this context).
Name calling: “Michael Mann … particular POS” (that one’s OK is it?)
Let’s see where this is already refuted:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
and here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-sticks-unprecedented-warming-and-past-climate-change.html
Or the short story: your graph only is the temperature in Greenland. Scientists already know that Greenland was locally warmer in recent history.
In the past, the temperature did change rapidly, once again scientists don’t deny this. Thats the whole point. The planet has been shown to be very sensitive to “changes in the world’s energy balance”. In other words your graph is actually supporting the opposite to what you think it does. Temperature can change rapidly and has done so in the past. i.e. there is a precedent for rapid change.
I’ve taken a look for ‘name-calling’ and ‘not being very nice’, but I couldn’t find anything, so here’s the post restored. Feel free to remove the ‘not-nice’ and ‘name-calling’ bits:
Well, let’s see what the peer review scientific process has given us so far:
computers, modern medicine, the web, space travel, atomic energy, etc.
This is the other canard. When science has already demonstrated a consensus
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html
let’s attack the scientific process itself, and the peer review process. But you know what, the scientific process has consistently shown that it works. Yes, occasionally scientists go down the wrong path for a short period of time but that’s the nature of the scientific process. It’s self correcting and it assumes it doesn’t know the total truth.
“Biased peer review is de facto censoring. Unfortunately, many papers regarding ***global warming or climate change*** have appeared after ineffective peer review.”
Why not change the above to evolution or cosmology or computer science or medicine? What evidence do you have that the above applies specifically to climate change? If it is a problem why doesn’t it manifest itself across science.
“It is unfortunate that many bloggers have little ability and may even lack the interest to do their own research on the planet’s climate.”
Why on earth would I do my own research on climate change anymore than I’d try to do my own research into anti-viral medicine. There are already experts out there who are doing it for me. I’m a statistician: their data is shown to be consistent with each other. No, it’s isn’t a big conspiracy, no the whole climate community is not on the payroll of some nefarious person trying to control the world. The reality is much more mundane and boring: climate change is real and scientists who know what they are talking about have the data and knowledge. But will it change by 2 degree or 6 degrees? Yes, that’s a good question.
But you know how it’s so obvious. Because when you read the blogs of the [snip], it’s all suppositions about ‘censorship’, ‘conspiracy’, ‘obfuscation’. Anything to avoid the real science. It’s disturbingly like creationism. And when they do attempt to address the science it’s all so mind-bogglingly wrong and misleading. How many times have I heard the 1930’s as the warmest decade despite it only being local to the U.S. This is the sad thing. The [snip] go on and on and on about having an open mind but they are not even barely acquainted with the facts. Just take a look at the points made when the Telegraph, long in the [snip] camp, reversed their position:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6730421/Copenhagen-climate-summit-A-time-for-ingenuity-and-political-leadership.html
The above YouTube video for example, or people like James Delingpole (and Sarah Palin) whose arguments are so absurd, I sometimes imagine he’s a stooge who going to reveal the joke. [Is this name calling? I’d call it being facetious:-)]
REPLY: Welcome James.
“Why on earth would I do my own research on climate change anymore than I’d try to do my own research into anti-viral medicine. There are already experts out there who are doing it for me.”
Wow. Just… wow.
Shamelessly linked, with several of the YouTubes embedded at mine from here. My readership is nowhere near yours, but perhaps I’ll hit some that don’t come here. Hopefully.
“Wow. Just… wow.”
So you do your own research, do you? Rather than interpreting the research already out there. How do you go about that? The data gleaned from the LPDAAC or NSIDC records which is freely available from NASA can be downloaded for free. I’d stick to the AMSR-E records if I were you. Makes it a bit more manageable.
But if you want to do the whole research yourself please let me know your conclusions. It’s beyond massive at many many terabytes of data. First you’ll need a dedicated supercomputer just to make the data readable in any real form. I’m really looking forward to you posting your analysis.
This is why we defer to the experts in cases like this. Because the data is so mindblowingly complex that simplistic YouTube movies like the one above are not new ‘research’ but misinterpretations of the conclusions that are already out there, and have been subjected to as much scrutiny as you or I could do in several lifetimes.
Why should we trust the experts? It’s a good question. It’s because that’s the way the scientific process works. Different climatologists using different analyses have come to the same conclusions. Do we challenge that the HIV virus causes AIDs despite the fact that a number of people deny it? Do we expect bloggers to do their own research into? No. We trust the massive scientific consensus.
Yes, challenging the accepted scientific consensus is worthy. Scientists do it all the time. Trying to explain the science with graphs and movies is helpful too. Unfortunately, when making such movies to advance the opposite point it is both misleading and unhelpful to present things that are ‘straw man’ or have been addressed by the science already.
Finally Climategat breaks in Norwegian MSM too;
http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article3424652.ece
Of course you dont understand the text, but you get the picture. In no other country has the indoctrination level in schools and MSM been higher than in Norway.
This newspaper mostly deals with economy stuff, but nevertheless, its being read by a lot of people. Im sure Mr. Støre will read it, too.
The temperature reconstruction using tree growth rings is considered credible because they conform to other reconstructions, and the others are credible because they conform to the tree ring data.
But lets look at the tree ring data.
Keith Briffa did not calibrate the raw data for any CO2 fertisation effect because, in his words,
“We did always intend to have a brief section about the assumption of uniformitarianism in proxy interpretation, including mention of the possible direct carbon dioxide fertilization effect on tree growth (equally controversial), but it is likely to conclude that here as well , there is no strong evidence of any major real-world effect. This and the divergence problem are not well defined, sufficiently studied, or quantified to be worthy of too much concern at this point.”
For Briffa to state that indicates that he is totally ignorant on the subject of CO2 fertilisation.
Not only has there been, and is ongoing, research into how enriched, and depleted CO2 atmospheres impact on plant growth, but it is a widespread and common practice to increase growth of plants grown in controlled environments such as hot houses and fodder factories on farms.
Can someone supposedly so qualified claim to be ignorant, or did he choose not to educate himself knowing it was not only work against any outcome he might have been seeking, but totally destroy any case he was trying to make.
For those who are not aware of the role CO2 plays in plant growth, there is plenty of information available on the subject, but what should be of most interest is whether plant growth is more responsive to temperature of CO2. It appears that CO2 levels have the greater impact.
Makes one wonder why Briffa and others chose to ignore it.
jmontgomery (14:21:41):
It raises an interesting question… is tree ring growth a proxy for temperature or CO2 concentration? To quote the Wegman Report:
“It is a circular argument to say increased CO2 concentrations are causing temperature increases when temperature increases are estimated by using proxies that are directly affected by increased CO2 concentrations.”
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
Apparently the experts think this isn’t a problem, but I’m not really sure how they can work around it… or rainfall and the amount of sunlight vs. cloud cover for that matter