compare to this:
I had mentioned this new dendro paper to Steve McIntyre, who wrote a short note about it while pointing out that:
A news release on a new tree ring study here (h/t Anthony Watts) reported a reconstruction maxing out in the mid-20th century, with the characteristic late 20th century divergence problem. Their results contrast with CRU’s notorious Yamal chronology:
Following the summer temperature reconstruction on the Kola Peninsula, the researchers compared their results with similar tree-ring studies from Swedish Lapland and from the Yamal and Taimyr Peninsulas in Russian Siberia, which had been published in Holocene in 2002. The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees. Only the data series from the Yamal Peninsula differed, reaching its peak later, around 1990. What stands out in the data from the Kola Peninsula is that the highest temperatures were found in the period around 1935 and 1955, and that by 1990 the curve had fallen to the 1870 level, which corresponds to the start of the Industrial Age. Since 1990, however, temperatures have increased again evidently.
Although the reconstruction declined since mid-20th century, the sub-headline reads: “New data indicate rapid temperature rise in the coldest region of mainland Europe”.
I had hoped Steve would do a more in depth look at it, but Pierre Gosselin has already taken a crack at it with this essay, which is worth repeating here.
From Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone:
Kola Temperature Reconstruction Shows Solar Correlation – Refutes The Hockey Stick
Last week I wrote about a Russian-German temperature reconstruction from 1600 to 2000 derived from tree rings from the Kola Peninsula in northwest Russia . The paper appeared in the journal Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 460–468, by Kononov, Friedrich and Boettger.
In response, German media outlets all hollered “RAPIDLY RISING ARCTIC TEMPERATURES!”, focussing solely on one statement that temperatures have been rising since 1990.
It’s a classic example of how a scientific study comes up with Result A, but the public ends up understanding Result Z, all thanks to sloppy and incompetent communication that exists between the two.
The press release here provides the following Kola temperature reconstruction graph for summertime temperatures:
Kola Peninsula tree-ring temperature reconstruction. Source: Stephan Boehme/UFZ
Here it’s plain to see that the temperature reconstruction shows that Arctic temperatures in the Kola Peninsula have been rising since about 1670. This corresponds exceptionally well with Loehle’s 2007 reconstruction using 18 non-tree-ring proxies for the last 2000 years shown as follows:
Both graphics show the Little Ice Age from 1650 to 1750, at which point a warming event ensues. Then it was generally flat from 1750 to about 1920, and then followed by another rise that took place until 1950. Then Kola tree-ring proxies show a cooling up to 1990. Since 1990 warming has occurred again, but it’s a warming that is completely within the natural range of variation.
The Kola reconstruction (1) agreed with an earlier reconstruction (2) done in the area, see map below. What’s more, the Kola reconstruction (1) was compared with tree-ring reconstructions from other Arctic regions: Swedish Lapland (3), Yamal (4), and Taimyr (5).
Proxy locations used for Kola comparison. Source: Journal Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 460–468
The result of the comparison:
The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees.
Only the Yamal reconstruction differed completely, resembling the shape of a hockey stick with the blade beginning at 1900. The hockey stick is becoming an artefact of activism.
Except for the Yamal reconstruction, all tree-ring and non-tree ring reconstructions appear to agree, and so indicate no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration.
So what could be driving temperatures then? The authors compared the tree-ring based reconstructions with historical records of sunspots (Lean et al, 1995; Lean, 2000), and say:
We found that over the whole investigated period fluctuations of summer air temperature reconstructed for the Khibiny Mountains in the central part of the Kola Peninsula have a good consistency (r >0.50) with changes of solar radiation (Fig. 10), especially for the low-frequency signal.
In the paper’s conclusion we read:
The broad similarity between this temperature construction and solar radiation indicates that solar activity is an important driver of centennial to multi-decadal trends in summer temperatures of the Kola Peninsula.
So why did all media reports holler “RAPID TEMPERATURE INCREASE IN THE ARCTIC”. Call it complete communication incompetence by the media players between science and the public.
The Kola reconstructions show no link to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It all started with a solid scientific paper, and but then was distorted (purposely?) by a vague press release that culminated in alarmist media headlines.
Let’s call that press release incompetence-gate.
If I say the average of ten numbers is 8, and you say that can’t be true since one of the numbers is a 5, then all we know is that you don’t know what an average is.
Yes, there is a great example. The warming started in 1700 as the sun came back to life, activity-wise that is.
Honestly, this looks more evidence that the UHI effect is actually making surface temp records (the supposed non-proxy) the *least* accurate measure of GW, especially when satellite measurements are factored into the analysis.
Well, I see nothing in the paper to indicate teleconnections, so this one is just measuring weather, not climate…. Duh! Everyone can just move along now.
Yeah 50s and 60s must have been hotter that’s why the piece from Greenland broke of then, and there were not satellites then so the piece must have been even bigger for them to notice.
Warming is good, we should be celebrating!
“The Kola reconstructions show no link to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It all started with a solid scientific paper, and but then was distorted (purposely?) by a vague press release that culminated in alarmist media headlines.”
Well, half the scientists wouldn’t want to be caught reading it, if it doesn’t contain any PC Kool-Aid.
In other news, I’ve just read that the BBC has apologised to the CRU for some of the things it said during the ClimateGate scandal. When I read the article I thought it was April 1st.
I thought the “Global” has been cooling since the 90’s. ??
It´s refreshing to see real data. No Hansen´s comrades over there…..
Michael Mann’s bogus chart has to be the most repeatedly debunked piece of pseudo-science since Scientology was invented by another science fiction writer.
For those who wonder about Mann’s devious shenanigans, I heartily recommend A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. It’s a real page-turner that exposes the anti-science behind a small clique of scientists conspiring with the crooked IPCC to keep their climate gravy train from being derailed by McIntyre & McKittrick’s thorough debunking of Mann’s fake Hokey Stick chart.
[Montford is “Bishop Hill.” For a taste of what his book is like, read his blog post Caspar and the Jesus Paper.]
Two comments.
First, Loehle updated his 2007 data. Pretty much the same story, but apparently there were flaws that were corrected.
Second, it’s too bad the Kola Peninsula data is not available before 1600 so we can see what what it indicated for the Medieval Warm Period. (Offhand, I’d put the LIA start date at the Spoerer minimum rather than the Mauder.)
“Arctic temperatures in the Kola Peninsula have been rising since about 1670”
If you start at the beginning of the graph -1600- there has been no warming at all.
Maybe this explains it.
—————
This is a recipe for (anthropogenic climate) disaster.
I too have read, and re-read (several times – but then again, I’m a fast reader) the Hockey-Stick Illusion … And cannot recommend it strongly enough.
—…—…—
From above “Both graphics show the Little Ice Age from 1650 to 1750, at which point a warming event ensues. Then it was generally flat from 1750 to about 1920, and then followed by another rise that took place until 1950. Then Kola tree-ring proxies show a cooling up to 1990. Since 1990 warming has occurred again, but it’s a warming that is completely within the natural range of variation.”
—…—…—…—…
So, including this latest 2000 year graph, what is the “consensus” of accepted values for the long-term climate cycle?
Period of the last three cycles?
Max/min values of the “average” temperature for earth the 2000+ years?
Change (and rate of change) of the maximum and points points (are we sliding towards the next ice age?)
Date of the current/upcoming/just past (?) “peak” of the Modern Warming Period?
Name of this Modern Warming Period?
Affect of the 60/66/68/71 year short-term cycle on the 800 year/900 year/950 year plots – when they properly added together?
Accepted value (period and amplitude) of the short term climate cycle?
I do believe that Mann’s chart represents an ANNUAL anomaly.
The referenced study ( like many) reconstruct a Seasonal temp first.
So you might be comparing apples and oranges.
Second. We complain about the reconstructions because of the sparseness of the data. The study doesnt show that Mann’s chart is wrong, what it shows is the the variability is greater than he portrays.
Third: Nobody should go off trumpting a paper that hasnt recieved a complete BEATING first. That means going through the data collection protocal, methods, code. etc.
This has nothing to do with C02. C02 warms the atmosphere. The science of tree ring ology is so new and uncertain that not much can depend upon its findings.
Steve, in paleodendro, tree ring width can only be added during the growing season of the tree. In the Kola paper they cite 60-80 days of growing season. Yamal is similar. So how would Briffa, Mann, or anyone for that matter, get an annual temperature anomaly from a 60-80 day period? There’s just not enough data for an entire year.
Never mind overlaying the annual instrumental data in MBH.
I suppose you could argue that tree ring data is “annual”, since it represents one year’s growth, but it only represents the annual growth season, not the annual mean of min/max temperatures.
Or are you saying MBH ice cores, corals etc made up the rest?
In the Kola graph there appears to be a 100 year upward blip from 1660 through to the 1960s, which suggests an oscillation of some sort.
I expect a massive amount of trading to hit the CCE on monday as Maurice & Al clear out. BO will declare a State of Climate Emergency & shut down the Internet. CU’s later.
regards
poor AL. First of all he misses out on the Presidency, then his wife abandons ship now he is on a slow train, coal fired, ride to the Hague. AAW shucks…..
Tree ring proxies, temp vs CO2 correlation.
I have the simple question to any Climatologist. Explain to me why El Nino forms and predict it perfectly. Then I’ll believe their IPCC report.
The longer term graph should be shown too, not just the last 1000 years, as just before that coming out of the ice age was a massively steep incline which has zero relation to CO2
Re: BBC has apologized to the CRU for some of the things it said during the ClimateGate scandal!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301256/BBC-says-sorry-Climategate-unit-grilling-John-Humphrys.html
Robinson says:
August 7, 2010 at 6:03 pm
In other news, I’ve just read that the BBC has apologised to the CRU for some of the things it said during the ClimateGate scandal. When I read the article I thought it was April 1st.
Neither the BBC nor John Humphrys owes CRU any apologies. Its the CRU crowd and the white wash panels are the ones that should and WILL apologize one day to the staff of the BBC for causing them to lose billions of pounds from the misguided green BBC pension funds and the British public for the billions of pounds spent by governments on green fantasy projects that are suspect and bound for the rust heaps. Cheer up its the same story around the world in Canada it’s the CBC in Australia its ABC etc.. People need to stop funding these dooms day pushers that run public broadcasting and end the financing of the climate change mongers. Climategate is real and well proven and the majority of the world’s population now see through the CRU and its sister organizations, fellow data cruchers and manipulators.
I would recommend anybody search for the truth about climate start with Watts Up With That? http://wp.me/p7y4l-611. Facts first and then we will know the real problem is not CO2.
I’ve never seen a worse case of apples to oranges. The first graph is actual temperature, and the second is anomaly data. In fact, at a glance, it appears to exactly confirm the 19th century hockey stick graph!
What, never?
It makes no material difference whether it is anomaly vs. actual temperatures or not. The graph will be exactly the same size and shape and scale either way. It would only matter if one were going to overlay the graphs.
In fact, at a glance, it appears to exactly confirm the 19th century hockey stick graph!
I recommend you take a second glance.
Great article. Thanks.
O/T, but the scale of the scorching heat wave at least in the region of Moscow is pretty remarkable.
Can anyone point me to a good meteorological analysis as to what caused this?
Have been searching online for a good analysis, but could not find one.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The 1930’s were definitely the warmest decade in North America …. as GISTEMP used to show before all the adjustments. Of course I think dendrochronology is related to phrenology.
“……..The hockey stick is becoming an artefact of activism…….”
Artefact yes, but the word implies to me some accidental error of sampling etc.
There’s no doubt in my mind as a layman (thanks to McIntyre & McKittrick and sites like this), that it was also sheer artifice, being a cunning device, an artful contrivance, designed to trick the unwary.
The astonishing thing to me is that so many trained scientists could have been taken in by it.
Glove save!
savethesharks says:
August 7, 2010 at 8:19 pm Heat in the Moscow region
Wind spirals out from “High pressure” and spirals in to “Low pressure.” In the Northern Hemisphere when a High is northeast of a Low the resulting wind will come from the south or southeast. The pattern over Western Russia was this way and brought warm air to the area. You can see some of the info summarized by Rebekah LaBar here:
http://www.greenskychaser.com/blog/page/2/
You will have to work back through the posts. There are 3 for the Moscow area including a map of the pressures for Tue 27/07/10. Rebekah is a grad student studying storms in Oklahoma and not an expert on Russia and its weather – these post are just a sideline for her. Still she reports enough that you can get an idea of the pattern that was set up.
Bring up a map on Google Earth with Moscow at the center and set the zoom to match the map of pressures. There is a black line (1013 mb) and the winds would be flowing northward in this region of the map toward Moscow. Scroll the Google Earth map so you can see the region south of the Moscow region and you will see the “source region” for the air flowing northward. This would be a “cT” region (continental tropical) and in July will be very hot and dry.
I don’t claim this is a “good meteorological analysis” but maybe it will help.
“If I say the average of ten numbers is 8, and you say that can’t be true since one of the numbers is a 5, then all we know is that you don’t know what an average is.”
+++++++++
The purport is to say that it is unfair to object to the inclusion of ‘5’ in average of the sum of the numbers from 1 to 10 (each number representing one of ’10’ studies). The imputation is that we are objecting to the validity of 5 (CRU) because it is too far from 8, the result of all other inputs to the average.
Such comments I have learned are from people shooting from the lip hoping to leave a Post-It Note with a muddy fingerprint on the page to show the children read it.
It is quite true that when calculating an average value of the numbers from 1 to 10, 5 is included. It is also true that this complaint has nothing to do with the tree ring proxy data in the region, a question of importance to adults.
It would be unreasonable to include in every future assessment of tree ring temperature proxies ALL published series available just because they are there. Some, like the infamous Yamal one are so suspect, the conclusions cannot be considered a valid indication of temperature. A careful reading of the paper shows plots but not relevance.
A better mathematical analogy would be an examination of repeats of the study or studies of nearby areas to look for earlier errors or confirm competence.
If 5 studies find 7.8, 7.9, 8.0, 8.2, 8.4 then the average is 8.06.
If study 6 finds ‘5’, reducing the overall average to 7.55 (raising SD and COV suspicions), perhaps there is something wrong with its methodology or sampling, well known to be the case with the Yamal series. Thus provenance matters.
If every time the CRU publishes a tree ring series quite far from the average of everyone else’s, an investigation into the competence of their methods is germane.
If every time a relevant study of tree ring proxy data is published we should look at it closely. If it bears the hallmarks of work by the Climate Reshaping Unit, exercise caution when using its conclusions.
++++++
Reshaping: shape anew or differently
Kola chart, plotted as anomaly and scaled overlain on HS chart.
(baseline was arbitrary)
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1331/kolaanom.jpg
my apologies- it is overlain on Loehle chart.
savethesharks says:
August 7, 2010 at 8:19 pm
the scale of the scorching heat wave at least in the region of Moscow is pretty remarkable.Can anyone point me to a good meteorological analysis as to what caused this?
Blocking highs,there is an analysis in this weeks Russian academy of science on line journal.These are well described in the literature eg Eady 1949, we observed the same phenomena in 2009 in the SH in Southern Australia/NZ.and the same wailing of shrills such as Connolly,the usual behavior of these spikes is the appearance of the Canard phenomena (and the ability of the pullback attractor to explore deeper valleys) eg chatham islands data vs SH mean statistics.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/chathamhadcrugiss2009.png
An interesting point is the spikes in the Kola t series for a single species around the time of the Laki eruption, eg Raspopov
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/raspopov2004.png
EG Thordarson and Self have shown that the process of sedimentation involved about 175 Mt of the H2SO4 aerosol. This caused a strong pollution (including the formation of “dry fog”) in Europe and in other regions in 1783.. The remaining 25 Mt of aerosol resided at the tropopause level for more than a year. The 1783 summer was characterized by unusual and extreme weather conditions, including the abnormally hot July in West Europe, apparently, due to persistent southern winds. The subsequent winter was one of the most severe winters observed in Europe and North America for the whole period of observations.
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2003/2001JD002042.shtml
“Russian Kola data refutes the Mann hockey stick” Anthony
No, it doesn’t.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-07/haog-sor072910.php
Some background information on Dendrochronology
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=45
savethesharks says:
August 7, 2010 at 8:19 pm
The reason for the Moscow heat wave is the same reason why there’s Low Pressure over the West Coast of the US, when there should be the Summer High: It ain’t moving.
Whatever the season, it’s for whom the pressure cells toll.
This has been going on for a few years now.
Time to dig into the whys.
The higher Arctic temperatures for the 1920-50’s is well documented.
From the article “Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000” Polyakov et al, 2002 Jounal of Climate
In analyzing hemispheric and global temperatures, Jones et al. (1999) documented two distinct warming periods from 1920 to 1945, and from 1975 to the present. The same periods stand out for the 558–858N zonal band (Serreze et al. 2000) and for the circum-Arctic region northward of 628N (this study, Fig. 2). In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature rise, the high-latitude temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in recent decades. The magnitude of these maxima was almost indistinguishable within the 558–858N zonal band (Serreze et
al. 2000) whereas northward of 628N the 1938 maximum of annual Arctic SAT (surface air temperature) anomaly reached 1.698C compared with the 2000 maximum of 1.498C. This difference appears to be governed by a much steeper high latitude SAT rise in the 1920s–30s.
Hmmmm, let me check my Mann’s Big Book O’Tricks for some guidance… Ah yes, add a pinch of inverted Tiljander sediments into the mix and that should fix it nicely!
@el gordo says:
August 7, 2010 at 7:16 pm
“In the Kola graph there appears to be a 100 year upward blip from 1660 through to the 1960s, which suggests an oscillation of some sort.”
Spotted, works that way with rainfall too.
I think the divergence problem with most of the tree ring studies is due to the mis-application of “average temperature”. The minimum temperature is driving most of the average rise and trees do not photosynthesize in the dark when the minimum is recorded. Many sites show a decrease in maximum temperatures since the 30’s-50’s, even though the average is rising. There are also a few studies of tree rings that show no divergence problem when the maximum temperatures are used. All this suggests that when it matters most biologically there is no recent warming.
Given that there’s been no attempt to correct for the well known divergence problem, that the two graphs are not on the same scale, which produces misleading visual artefacts, I’d say that there’s absolutely nothing of substance in this post.
But I don’t really expect the readership of this blog to pay any attention to such inconvenient facts 😉
Mosher: “I do believe that Mann’s chart represents an ANNUAL anomaly”
Are you sure Mann isn’t doing an a cumulative sum of the anomalies? That would explain a lot.
Proof of AGW seems to be just as hard to find as the Higgs particle. But it might still be there, somewhere. Who knows?
The first graph is actual temperature, and the second is anomaly data.
If the first graph is right then what is the issue? It would suggest strongly that temperatures are rising, but it is not correlated to CO2. If you need to manipulate data to get the right “look”, then something is wrong. (BTW, even in theory anomalies are not required if the data is all from the same place. Anomalies are required only to set a constant baseline across different zones.)
We are promised that temperatures are spiraling out of control. This shows otherwise. Attack it only on its own merits, not some ludicrous need for anomalisation.
To be fair, I don’t trust treemometers one little bit, to be honest. But then we have to discard all Mann’s usages too, if we get rid of these ones. It cuts both ways.
An interesting newspaper article re: Russian heat wave,
“Germans Deepen Stalingrad Wedge….
….A searing heat wave beat down upon this front and Soviet dispatches said the only relief found by soldiers fighting across the sun-parched steppes was in the partial shade provided by smoke from the battlefields….” The New London Day Sept 1 1942.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gesiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-3MFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1717,4229475&dq=history+of+battle+of+stalingrad+heat+wave&hl=en
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6131/kolaloehlehs.jpg
Kola, as anomaly, on top of Loehle and HS. Graphically scaled.
I think that this study does not confirm or deny that temperature reconstructions are correct. It does show that there is a lot more variability and noise in the combination of the various sets of data.
It tells us more of what we do not know, than what we do.
It shows more and more that when measuring a variable item with various different measuring techniques and at different scales and times, that we will get lots of different results and end up non the wiser at the end of it!
Anyone who asserts that this study is as bad as MBH98 AKA “Hockey Stick” should ask himself why the nickname of Keith Briffa is “One Tree”.
I think the original conclusion that trees are not good temperature proxies was correct.
The above sample may closely match what we agw skeptics believe, that the MWP was warmer than present, but the more trees sampled, the more meaningless data we get.
Given all the various demands on Steve’s time – I think we’re lucky that Pierre jumped right in and did some analysis. Thanks to you all for your continued vigilance on these topics.
KDKD. Why “correct” for the divergence problem? It is only a problem because it diverges from the Mann construction of the hockey stick graph. Documented changes in the North Atlantic marine ecosystem supports the Kola temperature data. Hmmm the fish, the trees don’t fit the hockey stick, but you want to correct it? The 20-50’s temperature anomalies indicated by Kola were more extreme than the rest of the northern hemisphere, but that is equally the case for the recent decades.
In: The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic. Drinkwater *2006 Progress in Oceanography
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060406/20060406_03.pdf
During the 1920s, and especially after 1925, average air temperatures began to rise rapidly and continued to do so through the 1930s (Fig. 2a–f). Mean annual air temperatures increased by approximately 0.5–1 _C and the cumulative sums of anomalies varied from 1.5 to 6 _C between 1920 and 1940 with the higher values occurring in West Greenland and Iceland.
The high temperatures recorded during the warm period from 1930–1960 match, and in some cases exceed, the present day warming (Johannessen et al., 2004) The most well-documented biological change that occurred during the warm event was the increased abundance of Atlantic cod off West Greenland. From the late 1910s to the early 1930s they not only increased in numbers but also spread gradually northward from near the southern tip of Greenland to Upernavik, a distance
of over 1200 km (Fig. 7; Jensen, 1939). While cod had always been present in the fjords of West Greenland, the large population increase in the early 20th century was due to their becoming established on the offshore banks. The increased abundance led to the development of a cod fishery, which quickly replaced sealing as the main industry in West Greenland. That the increased landings of cod were simply due to increasing fishing effort can be ruled out, since several expeditions, including ones as late as 1906 and 1908, found no commercial concentrations and indeed few cod at all (see discussion by Buch et al., 1994). However, an expedition in 1909 found enough cod for commercial cod fishing to begin (Jensen, 1949).
The cod fishery yielded moderate landings through the 1930s (<105 mt) but this declined during the war years (Fig. 8). Catches rose dramatically through the 1950s reaching a peak at close to 5 · 105 t in the early 1960s before declining rapidly later that decade. This decline came during a period of decreasing air and ocean temperatures. Cod catches have remained relatively low since the 1970s. The abundance of cod larvae has also been relatively low, at least for the 1970s to the mid-1980s when data were available (Pedersen and Rice, 2002). Coinciding with the decrease in cod was an increase in northern shrimp (Pandulus borealis) and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides). Indeed, the shrimp fishery replaced cod as the dominant industry in West Greenland and remains so today."
“Let’s call that press release incompetence-gate.”
____________________________
Let’s call it what it is. “Incompetence” it is not. This was then, and is now, a deliberate, premeditated lie. Why? They have their reasons; and it has more to do with money than ‘saving the planet for future generations’ journalism. It was not “incompetence”. It is greed! It is power! It is politics! It is war!
the press is neither sloppy nor incompetent.
They are directed, focused and very successful at getting their message across.
That the message is one with an agenda rather than impartial reporting of facts, is the issue.
NOTE Ref. Last: Speaking of the ‘press’ not the press release; I think it was more about ‘intention’ than ‘incompetence’. I hold that they are smarter than I am;-)
On a related note – just the other day I hiked the Schulman grove in the White Mountains in eastern California. This grove is where Mann drew his bristlecone pine samples so essential to the hockey stick. The Methuselah tree (~4700 years old and the oldest non-clonal living organism known to exist) sits between trail markers 15 and 16 (closer to 16). On that slope (which is part of a north-east facing draw) you have some dead trees/trunks that lie on the surface that have been dated to be even older offering a tree ring record going back thousands of years more. The soil is basically rock – very little “dirt” or decaying leaf matter that one would associate with “soil”. Around Methuselah are other 4000+ year old trees – something found nowhere else in such a concentration.
If you go over the ridge to the east of that draw (the eastern “finger” of the draw) you still have bristlecone pines but you also have other plants that you’d expect to find in the typical desert/alpine interface on many southern California eastern slopes. From that side of the ridge you have views to Death Valley and the other arid desert valleys of the Great Basin.
While standing there and looking at those trees in that draw something becomes obvious – the very microclimate that allows those dead trees to decay much more slowly than they would on the other side of that ridge is the same microclimate that allows those well adapted trees to survive to an age of over 4000 years. Were that not the case, then equally old trees would be scattered throughout bristlecone groves that ring the great basin. Yet they aren’t – a unique combination of environmental factors coupled with the adaptations of these trees have combined to produce an “outlier” – a small place with exceptionally long surviving trees and logs.
Add to this that the entire White Mountain range is in the rain shadow of the Sierras – something to consider when discussing drought years. What certainty is there that reduced precipitation on the western side of the Sierras yields a proportionate reduction on the eastern side? A north-east facing steep draw will retain moisture better than a south facing one – how again is precipitation being factored into tree ring density in this microclimatic region that is no larger than 300 x 300 meters? In a draw that has colder air draining down it well before dusk due to its north-eastern orientation?
How can one then take the product of a microclimate and infer that it represents anything more than the ongoing outlier that it is? Simply because it yields a long history? Wouldn’t that exceptionally long history suggest more climactic stability than other areas where no such trees exist? Isn’t that something that should signal a researcher that s/he is dealing with a sample that is unrepresentative of the whole s/he is studying?
Lucy Skywalker noticed a potential correlation with the Hale Cycle in this reconstruction. We discussed it here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/the-sun-talks-to-the-trees-too/
Did the German media write “horror, the temperature is rising”? That’s crazy. We must be different, even as a nation.
Two Czech outlets wrote about it. See
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/08/study-arctic-cooler-in-1989-than-in.html
The Czech public TV, ct24.cz, wrote a short story under the title: “German-Russian study: global warming is not a people’s fault” while the leading left-wing novinky.cz server (meaning news.cz) chose the headline “Warming is not related to the industrial activity of the mankind, a study shows”. Click above to get to both articles (Google Translate).
I can’t really understand how someone could interpret the study differently than that.
What’s disputable is not what the study implies if true but whether the tree rings can ever be reliable temperature proxies, whether they talk in one way or another.
RE: the heat wave in Russia, I certainly understand the basics about blocking highs etc.
As Rbateman alluded to, we seem to be going into a pattern where these blocks (the one in western Russia is an omega block, no?) occur more often.
Less progressive pattern and more blocks.
I remember Stephen Wilde and Pamela Gray using the term “loopiness” of the jet stream.
I think we have been used to a more temperate pattern in our recent lifetimes, and it appears we are moving to a pattern of more extremes…like the 30s 40s and 50s.
Bastardi puts us back in the 50s with the cold PDO and warm mature AMO…and he might be right.
Similar solar minimum in 1954 too, to the present.
And contrary to one of the myths of the CAGW pseudoscience, extremes are more pronounced in climate cooling events, not warm.
No Mann Hockey Stick on the Kola Peninsula right now, just business as usual, as these graphs show….as well as the current conditions in Murmansk show:
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=Murmansk,%20Russia&wuSelect=WEATHER#History
Oh….I forgot….the Kola Peninsula is weather not climate, but, of course, Moscow is climate, not weather.
Got it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Steven mosher says:
August 7, 2010 at 7:00 pm
I do believe that Mann’s chart represents an ANNUAL anomaly.
The referenced study ( like many) reconstruct a Seasonal temp first.
So you might be comparing apples and oranges.”
Embarrassing, but at least you didn’t claim at first glance it validated the fraudster.
Our president (yours too) said some weeks ago we should all, as good Americans, find viewpoints different than our own, to challenge ourselves and listen to each other. Well, all of this site looks like politically motivated pseudoscience, but there is a lot of it. I am interested in challenging my viewpoints, so please, I would like to hear what are generally thought to be the best evidences, arguments and studies against the general consensus that mankind is warming the Earth by the emission of greenhouse gases. Top three, maybe? I am not interested in paranoias about Al Gore getting rich, I don’t care about why global warming might be good. I’d like to hear the best, most unassailable arguments that warming is not occurring or that we are not the cause.
maksimovich says: August 7, 2010 at 10:21 pm…
Thanks for your ref to the 2003 paper that says
Eruptions of Laki magnitude have occurred in the recent past in Iceland and will occur again. If such an eruption were to occur today, one of the most likely immediate consequences would be disruption to air traffic over large portions of the Northern Hemisphere.
Marge says: August 7, 2010 at 10:33 pm
“Russian Kola data refutes the Mann hockey stick” Anthony
No, it doesn’t.
Sure, contradicts would perhaps have been a more accurate description
Thanes says:
“I would like to hear what are generally thought to be the best evidences, arguments and studies against the general consensus that mankind is warming the Earth by the emission of greenhouse gases.”
You need to get up to speed. I suggest reading the WUWT archives from the beginning, It’s a valuable education for someone who doesn’t even understand the rudiments of the Scientific Method.
To help you get started on the right track, you should learn that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The climate alarmists have a [repeatedly falsified] hypothesis saying that an increase in human emitted CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe [CO2=CAGW].
Those proposing a new hypothesis have the burden of showing convincingly that it is valid. It is the job of skeptics to shoot holes in any new hypothesis. Whatever facts that are still standing, after all attempts at falsification, are on their way to being accepted science.
Believers in CO2=CAGW have blamed literally hundreds of events and observations on CO2. One by one, they have all been shot down. The only ones left now are the arguments about Himalayan glaciers and Arctic ice.
You can read all about glaciers here, and along the way you will learn that there was a Little Ice Age. You will also learn that the Arctic is a region. Check out the Antarctic, and the extent of global ice cover. Because the issue is global warming and cooling, not regional climates.
There’s your assignment. It’s not nearly as easy as saying “Well, all of this site looks like politically motivated pseudoscience,” but you will learn something of value. And FWIW, please leave our new king out of science discussions – because the king just talks, he doesn’t listen. ‘K thx bye.
Smokey, I appreciate your admonition regarding the rudiments of scientific theory. I think it is helpful to keep in mind that a scientific hypothesis gets tested on the basis of making predictions. In 1988 Dr. James Hansen testified before Congress and has made a series of predictions, which have been born out by subsequent events. Please get up to speed yourself.
The Little Ice Age, which appears to have been a regional event associated with the global phenomenon of the Maunder minimum doesn’t really bear on current discussions, except to note that the markedly decreased solar activity thought to be a causative factor is similar to the DECREASED solar activity of the last decade, which nonetheless (and apparently because of rising carbon dioxide) was the hottest decade ever recorded.
Please spare me the jabs, and give me something I can follow down to the temperature stations. I advise you don’t make assumptions about my scientific education.
Thanes,
Hansen was WRONG. On all three of his three famous predictions.
And you are mistaken about the LIA being regional; 18 proxies show it was a global event. You can follow the discussions in the archives.
Enneagram says: August 7, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Now I have a full correlation from 100-2000AD between Loehle’s reconstruction and the GMF at the Denmark Strait passage.
All details at :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1a.htm
Have a look at my work on the thermometers Circling the Arctic and Circling Yamal. At least the Kola treering records jive with the temperature records in this whole area of the Arctic.
Click my name for starters.
First problem is, you have to work on the science issues yourself, to see the subtle patterns of rise and fall of temperature, eg warming has occurred but it’s not really happening at present; the problems with the temperature record, the poor correlation with CO2 despite it being a greenhouse gas, and more.
Second problem is, you have to face the mystery of why, if climate skeptics are right, the official consensus of scientists still say we are warming the planet. This mystery floors the best of us at times.
My article tries to help you with all this, even if you are not a scientist. Times Higher Education readers liked it. And even if you don’t agree with all I say you should at least see that there is no good argument for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming – and that therefore, money thrown at the “problem” is totally wasted.
Anthony you’ve missed an important detail from Pierre’s earlier post
on the Kola paper
IOW, the graph has virtually no final uptick at all, it seems.
The decline is worse than expected.
Thanes says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:33 am
“Please spare me the jabs, and give me something I can follow down to the temperature stations. I advise you don’t make assumptions about my scientific education.”
Based on the way you made your appearance on this website, one doesn’t need to make assumptions. Your response to Smokey shows that you aren’t interested in understanding the scientific nature of the negative responses to CAGW.
It doesn’t matter where you were educated, nor does it matter what you studied, it does matter how you learned to check your premises. IMO you’ve done very little of the latter.
Thanes says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:49 am
I note your comment includes this phrase: “by the emission of greenhouse gases”
A number of other things have been suggested that might cause warming. These issues have been discussed here at WUWT and elsewhere. I think the latest such issue was “black soot.” A comment a day or so ago suggested someone make a list of the things that have been shown to raise the temperature by 0.xy degrees. Cumulatively these issues must have raised the temperature 4 to 6 degrees in the past 50 years. I’m sorry to be so vague with this but I haven’t kept a running total. As Smokey says it is all in the archives. The main point of mentioning this is to suggest that your reference to a “general consensus” as to what is warming Earth, namely GHGs, is in need of reconsideration.
Also, this past week someone posted one of Richard Feynman’s small gems of wisdom as a video. Namely, if your theory makes a prediction and an experiment shows that to be wrong, then your theory is wrong. So when CO2 goes up then the temperature ought to go up. In the 1950s to mid-1970s, as CO2 was going up, we were told to expect and ice age. Oops! Time to start over. But no, those now looking for warming keep changing the predictions. Statements keep being added such as the heat is in the pipeline, or it is hidden in the ocean, or it will appear high in the atmosphere over the tropics, or masked by natural cycles until, someday, it pops out and slaps us in the face. Enough. Make a prediction and show us that it is correct.
As I read the physics of CO2 and Earth radiation I learned that there is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere that additional amounts are not very relevant. There is a logarithmic effect at work that earlier believers seemed not to be aware of. When this was pointed out there began a search for a positive multiplier effect. What is this and how does it work? So far, I am on the side that says there are negative effects. Read a few of Roy Spencer’s papers for background on this.
Your statement that we have had the “hottest decade ever recorded” may or may not be true. How does anyone know? We have not been doing this very long and certainly not well. However, Earth did come out of the last glacial episode. By definition that means it warmed. Why? If you can answer correctly then perhaps you can explain why the last decade should not be the warmest over the past 15,000 years (+ or -).
Your statement “The Little Ice Age, which appears to have been a regional event…” also appears to be wrong.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/summaries/chilelia.php
I will, despite anticipating your disapproval, suggest you read Jo Nova’s small booklets:
The Skeptics Handbook: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
——————–
The world has serious problems. CO2 is not the cause and its reduction is not the solution.
Frankly,
I’d rather find other data bases to address Mann’s hockey stick, than tree rings.
Tree rings are subjective, not objective. They are unreliable for anything other showing the life of the tree. Consider water and light. The availability of these alone would cause a tree great stress or reward.
Briffa’s incompetence created a wave of irrelevance. Mann surfed it for a ride. And the IPPC rewarded them with an acknowlegment of great accomplishment.
So we have an irrelevant and incompetent UN entity rewarding accomplishment on two individuals who demonstrated great incompetence and irrelevancy. Wow, maybe we should consider an Academy award. No let’s give them a Nobel prize! Thanks Norway.
Its that simple.
Okay, so far I seem to be getting two general arguments, contradictory in nature.
1) We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, that’s why it’s warmer.
2) It’s not warmer.
Supplements include- to 2) is the remark ” how do we know?” regarding RECORDED TEMPERATURE HISTORIES. I think we would know.
Another apparently denying Milankovitch cycles.
Then there seem to be logical flaws. Global warming describes the ascendance of a dominant climate forcing over and above previously dominant or co-dominant climate forcings. So saying ” when Co2 goes up temperature ought to go up” is a somewhat valid statement, with a lot of qualifiers which were not included. Say, if it went up enough, if you have enough time to detect the signal, and if other drivers are not more dominant.
wsbriggs, I’m here to check my premises. I just want to see what might already be stipulated so I can concentrate on what would be most rewarding. This site seems to be a conglomeration of often contradictory viewpoints, as I offered above. 1) It’s not warming, it’s cooling. 2) It is warming but it’s not us. 3) It’s great that it’s warming.
Is there anything you all can stipulate as accepted? Or is every point contested, even when internally incoherent positions are thus taken?
I guess the first thing to do is see why you all seem to think Hansen’s predictions were wrong. Trust me, I’ll be right back.
It is really important, and I think it really hasn’t even sunk in here yet:
EVERY individual proxy will show this same kind of differentiation between it and homogenized, “averaged” global records.
It is the nature of averaging to flatten out curves.
No two places on the planet will have the same peaks and valleys (warm and cold spikes). And no two records – even from the same kind of proxy – will show the exact same peaks and valleys.
Blending, homogenizing, averaging, combining – all these are well intended exercises. But when more than one record are consolidated, peaks and valleys will not align in time perfectly. And the more records are included, the more misalignments of peaks and valleys will occur.
What happens when misalignments occur?
Anecdotal stuff sucks when talking science, but this is one we all know about from junior high science, about interference patterns. When looking at two interfering light waves, if at one location they are out of phase, they cancel out, giving relative dark areas. If they are in phase, we see brighter areas.
Similarly with proxy records and global temperature records. Even though everyone thinks doing anomaly graphs eliminates weirdnesses, that is not true. It gives us a false sense of seeing an accurate global record.
With spot proxies, this is especially true. Yamal, Kola, Lapland, Taimyr – it doesn’t matter. The local conditions time-shift the records. Perhaps it is only a few years in some recent time ranges, but especially in older periods, the C14 +/- is treated as if it is 0 years. BUT IT IS NOT ZERO.
That peak in the Kola data at 1760 – is it really THERE? Or is it in 1743? Or 1787? What was the C14 +/-?
If we overlay Yamal or Taimyr, is that peak on them at 1760? For Yamal is it at 1750? or at 1790? And what does that do to our “interference” pattern? Peaks shifted in time – when consolidated – will flatten. When consolidated with more records, the falttening increases. UNLESS they are intentiaonlly aligned, they FLATTEN.
In reading Climatologist Rodney Chilton’s “Sudden Cold” (about the Younger-Dryas interstadial), he says (pp 13-14):
“One way that a more detailed picture of the climate can be seen in Antarctica involves aligning the cores with those where much higher snowfall leads to greater resolution…
Thus this has proven to allow a much better differentiation of past climates not only in Greenland, but also in lower snowfall regions such as Antarctica.” http://bcclimate.com/
Intentionally AND INDIVIDUALLY, they in this case take low-res and align with higher-res. WHY? In order to align peaks with peaks, valleys with valleys. This is good.
What would happen if they didn’t? Interference patterns between the curves would start to flatten out peaks and valleys, TO CLIP OFF EXTREMES.
And if extremes are clipped in older consolidated records, what does that do when we look at modern temperature records, which SHOW the extremes?
Why the modern record LOOKS MORE EXTREME.
Comparing periods wherein extremes are clipped against when they are NOT clipped off, which will seem to be the most extreme?
QED
thanes says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Okay, so far I seem to be getting two general arguments, contradictory in nature.
1) We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, that’s why it’s warmer.
2) It’s not warmer.
==============================
No you are completely missing the point. It is BOTH.
Recovery from the LIA means “warmer” but in the overall scheme of things…its not warmer.
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/globaltemp2pu7.jpg
The Earth is doing what it has done for billions of years: climate business as usual.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
thanes says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:24 pm
So saying ” when Co2 goes up temperature ought to go up” is a somewhat valid statement…
==============================
No.
It is completely the other way around, with a lag time of 800 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
thanes says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:24 pm
While there are a number of opinions on an open blog such as this, most will accept the following:
1. The world has been warming for the last 150yrs or so. The nature and amount is in question.
2. CO2 has been rising and is mostly or completely due to the use of fossel fuels.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and consequently causes some warming.
4. Pretty much everything else is questionable.
In response to your questions, I would begin by offering four issues worth considering:
A. The models show that there should be much more CO2 than can be accounted for. Two possibilities present:
The models are wrong or there are missing sinks that can’t be found. Climate scientists routinely assume the second possibility and refuse to examine the first. They still can’t find the sinks.
B. The models show that there should be more warming over the last 15 or so years than has actually occurred:
Either the models are wrong or the extra heat has disappeared and can’t be found. Climate scientists assume the latter.
C. GH theory, and consequently most of the models predict about twice as much warming in the tropical troposphere as opposed to surface warming. No such warming can be found with either satellite or radiosondes. Climate scientists claim that the data must be wrong.
D. Paper by Ferenc Miskolczi published in 2007 shows that CO2 cannot cause net warming. Three years have passed without any apparent peer reviewed response.
Thanes,
why would expect that everyone who posts here to agree on what it is about the current AGW hype that makes them skeptical. Furthermore your “contradictory points” are really people’s responses to varied and contradicting arguments by CO2 alarmists. So I will state my reasons for being a skeptic.
For example I don’t think anyone here would disagree that it has warmed since the 1700’s and the Little Ice Age. I think everyone would agree that warmer is better than an ice age. The alarmist often publish stories about how this warming is devastating to plant and animal life when growing seasons have increased since the ice ages. But that increase has benefited all life. The Journal Nature has published articles by Pounds claiming the AGW was killing the frogs. However it is proven that a Chytrid fungus has caused the amphibian extinctions and the fungus becomes more active in cooler temperatures. Likewise Nature published articles by Parmesan claiming butterflies like the Edith Checkerspot were going extinct more rapidly in the southern ranges, when in fact 40 years of studies by scientists like Ehrlich showed the those butterflies need to heat themselves up 10-15 degrees higher than ambient temperatures. The extinctions are tied to land use issues and cooler weather. Nature has abandoned objective science and has become CO2 advocates publishing articles with many, many false claims, many just so stories.
The alarmist ignore the effects of various ocean oscillations. So they hype the decline of ice-loving penguins around the Antarctic peninsula and ignore the 3 fold increase of the same penguins in the Ross Sea where the ice is increasing. The Antarctic circumpolar Current (ACC) separates the warm waters to the north from the cold Antarctic waters, and the temperature difference between the two sides is often 5-7 degrees . The current is forced near the Antarctic peninsula and nearby islands by the constriction of the Drakes passage. When natural oscillations push the ACC a little south, islands like the Orcadas and the peninsula experience rapid rising temperatures, that get all the publicity.
I also suspect that most skeptics would agree that the increased solar activity as indexed by sunspots and magnetic field has caused the bulk of the warming since the 1700’s. Most climate scientists accept the sun’s warming role pre- 1960, but it is the last 50 years that they disagree on how much the sun has contributed to the warming. Partly this is due to the fact that sun spots maxed in the 60’s. Still solar activity has been greater these past 50 years than any other time in the 400 years. And despite the sun’s decline the oceans hold the memory of past warmth for several years. Many climate scientists will grant as much as 30% of the current warming to the sun. But because average temperature continues to rise while solar wanes, they attribute the recent rapid warming to CO2. This is one key point in the debate regards how much warming has really happened in the past 50 years.
Go to the USHCN website and look at temperatures like Yosemite where very little Urban Heat Island (UHI) would be in play, and you see the temperatures there have
been cooling since the around 1940’s.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=049855&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2009.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMEAN&minyear=1895&maxyear=2009
Then look at the nearby Yosemite Airport’s mean temperature with a whopping 3-4 degree rise.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=043257&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2009.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMEAN&minyear=1895&maxyear=2009
But then look at the Yosemite airport’s maximum temperature. It too shows a cooling trend. The rising mean is driven by the rising minimum temperature. The maximum trend is in line with the trend in solar input. In contrast the minimum is due to increased heat capacity around the local airport. That could in part due to increased CO2, but also could be due to increased the UHI effect that seems obvious when you compare the park to the airport blacktop.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=043257&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2009.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMAX&minyear=1895&maxyear=2009
So regards the degree of recent warming how much is due to CO2 vs UHI vs the various oceanic oscillations. There was recent hype about how cherry blossoms in Japan have been blooming earlier and earlier, and indeed they are. What didn’t get hyped was the published research that compared bloom time in the cities vs the parks. The Cherry trees in the cities were blooming weeks earlier than the parks. Half of the movement towards earlier bloom dates was directly attributable to UHI.
And if you go to the South pole with no UHI, one of the driest place’s on earth so changes in water can be ruled out, and far from the ocean’s influence, we again find the temperatures are decreasing.
The alarmist also ignore the effect of the various ocean oscillations, or blame variation in the oceanic oscillations on CO2 warming, despite lack of proof. The Arctic started warming in the late 70’s after a well documented shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to the positive phase, in which winds and currents shifted so that warmer waters and air moved into the Arctic. There is evidence tha this shift also happened in the 30-50’s (See Kola temperatures) The effects of the oscillating PDO has been detected in numerous tree ring, fish scale and sediment studies. The change in the PDO also changes wind directions that can counteract the strength of westward blowing equatorial winds that pile up the warm waters of the Pacific Warm Pool allowing for more frequent El Nino’s. The cooling trend in the 70’s coincides with the cool phase of the PDO while the warmer global temperatures of recent decades a as well as the 30-50’s coincide with a PDO warm phase.
Likewise it is well noted that there was a similar oscillation or regime shift in the North Atlantic during the 20’s-50’s pushing warm waters northward, retreating n the 70’s and then becoming warmer recently, but not to the same degree as in the 50’s.
Researchers in glaciers in the Alps also document the greatest ice retreat was in the 30-‘50’s. Most glacier melting has happened despite local temperatures remaining below freezing. The loss of ice mass in most glaciers is due to ablation from incoming short wave radiation. Not from melting due to longwave radiation. Not only was the greatest glacial melting in the 3-50’w but likewise most tree ring studies show a cooling since the 50’s. For people trying to convince us that the hockey-stick graph is reality, the tree ring data is somehow wrong, but just for this recent period, and is called a divergence problem. And tricks are used to hide that decline. Yet from a boatload of biological and instrumental data Arctic temperatures did not continue to shoot upwards, but have oscillated as shown in the Kola reconstruction.
So any apparent contradictions noted here are mostly due to responses addressing the multitude of evidence that contradicts AGW theory. I can’t speak for the others, but that is this biologist’s skeptical concern.
Thanes says:
“This site seems to be a conglomeration of often contradictory viewpoints…”
Did it ever occur to you that WUWT, unlike alarmist blogs like RealClimate, climateprogress, tamino, SkepticalScience, etc., allows and encourages all points of view?
You can post your opinion here. But we can not post at those sites and ever get out of moderation limbo. Believe me, I’ve personally tried many, many times. So have many others. How do you explain that?
Censoring blogs — which include every alarmist blog — do not allow opinions different from their Party line. What do you think they are afraid of? Different points of view?
Looks to me like the ACRIM data isn’t robust and could even be read to show decreased TSI. PMOD clearly shows decrease, and sunspot counts correlate with PMOD. If your going to just throw out the statement “solar activity has been greater in the last 50 years than any time in the last 400” it would help if that was actually broadly accepted.
Look, everything you people write is both barrels, everything is a lie! And every time I look into the statements written with the broadest and most forceful strokes, well it seems that the statement is not justified. Anyone got just one thing they can say that would actually stand up to scrutiny?
By the way, I do appreciate that these posts have stayed up. No lagging in approval, and no editing.
Thanes says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Look, everything you people write is both barrels, everything is a lie! And every time I look into the statements written with the broadest and most forceful strokes, well it seems that the statement is not justified. Anyone got just one thing they can say that would actually stand up to scrutiny?
I’m reminded of an old episode of “Quincy”. A business man offers a $100,000 reward for anyone who can provide evidence the holocaust was real. Quincy and friends spend the rest of the episode collecting evidence. When they present the evidence at the end of the show, he tells them…..All Lies.
If the shoe fits……
Opposing views are welcome on this blog, but you have been given the benefit of doubt and it appears that you’re just trolling.
Thanes you are starting to appear disingenuous. You say “PMOD clearly shows decrease, and sunspot counts correlate with PMOD” . No argument
So if you look at the sunspot record which is generally accepted the statement stands.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
Then you say everything is a lie!? Every thing I wrote is documented in peer review literature. So how do you call every thing a lie?
The paper on regime shifts in the North Atlantic is cited above. Here’s the citation for the increase in Penguins in the Ross Sea which is the most studied population.
“Decadal-scale changes in the climate and biota of the Pacific
sector of the Southern Ocean, 1950s to the 1990s” DAVID G. AINLEY et al , Antarctic Science 17 (2), 171–182 (2005)
Maybe you should check yourself and do some reading before you call people liars!
You have to subtract the mean to get a better picture. I see a bit of a hockey stick in that figure.
So Kola Peninsula is all of the northern hemisphere again?
vukcevic says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:54 am
Enneagram says: August 7, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Now I have a full correlation from 100-2000AD between Loehle’s reconstruction and the GMF at the Denmark Strait passage.
All details at :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1a.htm
—…—…—
Very interesting start! From your linked page, how can we contact you to address specific questions about your offsets and scales?
RACookPE1978 says: August 9, 2010 at 8:48 am
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1a.htm
Very interesting start! From your linked page, how can we contact you to address specific questions about your offsets and scales?
This is work in progress.
1600-2000 data are fairly reliable, temperature lags 20 years behind the geomagnetic data.
It should be kept in mind that for period 0 -1600 climate and paleo-magnetic proxies are used, so there is great uncertainty, not only about values but also dating.
It should be kept in mind that for period 0 -1600 climate and paleo-magnetic proxies are used, so there is great uncertainty, not only about values but also dating.
Up to 1100 AD there is a reasonable values agreement, but there is about 30 years timing difference, but this time in the opposite direction.
1100-1600 is far more problematic (since temperatures are now directly proportional to magnetic intensity, there is also serious nonlinearity between two time scales.
I will be periodically updating the web page.
I hate tree rings… very difficult proxy to use with lots of problems… I’m not a fan… 🙁
Jim Steele:
This is incorrect. The divergence problem is a problem because the tree ring temperature proxies diverge from both the instrumental record and other concurrent proxy data.
Jim Steele and Gilbert,
I am sorry for how that came out. I was paraphrasing the longer posts that were just previous against AGW. I did not mean to say these posts themselves were “all lies,” but rather that they seemed to take that stance towards any climate science supporting what is here termed AGW is made up of “all lies!” By using the phrase “all lies”, I was briefly parodying what I felt was a frequent blanket stance, where posts had major points of contention with global warming, in series. That is, so many posts have twelve points of disagreement with “AGW”, and yet, when I look into the first point regarding the physics, that is, that solar forcing has been higher in the last 50 years than any of the last 400, it isn’t supported by the literature as the blanket statement as it is given.
The troll-like character of my last post was unintentional, and because of poor punctuation in a rushed setting. Please consider this as an apology. I do, however, still think the data regarding the issue of solar forcing argues strongly for “AGW.”
“The press release here provides the following Kola temperature reconstruction graph for summertime temperatures”
Why only summertime temperatures? Do the trees stop growing and providing data to the tree rings in the summer? I take it these aren’t year round trees, like varieties of pine.
Thanes,
One of the best resources you will find to articulate the argument against AGW from increasing CO2 is Dr. Roy Spencer’s book “The Great Global Warming Blunder”.
Other than that, spend some time on the WUWT archives. You will find a fair representation of all of the problems with the current AGW science.
kdkd said “This is incorrect. The divergence problem is a problem because the tree ring temperature proxies diverge from both the instrumental record and other concurrent proxy data.”
kdkd, I suggest you read the literature. From “On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes” 2008 D’Arrigo et al review and define the problem.
“An anomalous reduction in forest growth indices and temperature sensitivity has been detected in tree-ring width and density records from many circumpolar northern latitude sites since around the middle 20th century. This phenomenon, also known as the “divergence problem”, is expressed as an offset between warmer instrumental temperatures and their underestimation in reconstruction models based on tree rings. The divergence problem has potentially significant implications for large-scale patterns of forest growth, the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests.
But perhaps you have a reference to concurrent proxy data from the same locality? If so I’d like to see it.
Thane you repeat your claim that my statement ” solar forcing has been higher in the last 50 years than any of the last 400″, it isn’t supported by the literature . Did you really look into it? Did you even take the time to look at the sunspot numbers I posted?
If you really investigated this, then please tell me during what 50 year period sunspot activity has been higher in the last 400 years. I repost the link for your convenience.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
RR Kampen says:
August 9, 2010 at 12:59 am
“So
Kola PeninsulaYamal is all of the northern hemisphere again?”There. Fixed it for you…
…not to mention the obviously incorrect notion that the Arctic region represents global ice cover. But when the Arctic is all you’ve got, that’s what you have to hang your hat on, right?
You could simply admit you’re wrong about CO2 and CAGW. That would be honestly refreshing. But then you would be treated like Dr Judith Curry is by the true believers. Can’t have that now, can we?