Read on for a new Josh cartoon.
What’s wrong with this image? Well if you are part of The Team (RealClimate and friends), it goes against everything you’ve been publishing. You want the Medieval Warm Period to disappear, and you want a hockey stick at the end showing “unprcedented” warming. The shape below just doesn’t cut it when that’s what you are researching selling.
On the left is temperature in Ā°C, on the X axis, years, with labels from 0AD to the year 2000.
Images like the above don’t sell. With a clear MWP and no hockey stick, there’s no alarm, and no $$ coming in for “further studies”. In the Wake of the Gergis et al retraction, Steve McIntyre notes that one of the “screened out” datasets just happens to be the one with the best resolution and the greatest duration – the Law Dome Oxygen 18 data set (from Antarctica). He writes:
An annual version for two millennia was provided to Gergis (who screened it out.) delD and O18 are closely related and presumably the unarchived del D series will look somewhat similar.
For those that don’t know what this data represents, here’s a quick primer from Wikipedia.
==============================================================
Oxygen isotope ratio cycles are cyclical variations in the ratio of the abundance of oxygen with an atomic mass of 18 to the abundance of oxygen with an atomic mass of 16 present in some substances, such as polar ice or calcite in ocean core samples. The ratio is linked to water temperature of ancient oceans, which in turn reflects ancient climates. Cycles in the ratio mirror climate changes in geologic history.
…
Connection between temperature and climate
The 18O/16O ratio provides a record of ancient water temperature. Water 10 to 15Ā Ā°C (18 to 27Ā Ā°F) cooler than present represents glaciation. As colder temperatures spread toward the equator, water vapor rich in 18O preferentially rains out at lower latitudes. The remaining water vapor that condenses over higher latitudes is subsequently rich in 16O.[2] Precipitation and therefore glacial ice contain water with a low 18O content. Since large amounts of 16O water are being stored as glacial ice, the 18O content of oceanic water is high. Water up to 5Ā Ā°C (9Ā Ā°F) warmer than today represents an interglacial, when the 18O content of oceanic water is lower. A plot of ancient water temperature over time indicates that climate has varied cyclically, with large cycles and harmonics, or smaller cycles, superimposed on the large ones. This technique has been especially valuable for identifying glacial maxima and minima in the Pleistocene.
============================================================
McIntyre adds:
Oxygen isotope series are the backbone of deep-time paleoclimate. The canonical 800,000 year comparison of CO2 and temperature uses O18 values from Vostok, Antarctica to estimate temperature. In deep time, O18 values are a real success story: they clearly show changes from the LGM to the Holocene that cohere with glacial moraines.
On its face, Law Dome, which was screened out by Gergis and Karoly, is an extraordinarily important Holocene site as it is, to my knowledge, the highest-accumulation Holocene site yet known, with accumulation almost 10 times greater than the canonical Vostok site. (Accumulation is directly related to resolution: high accumulation enables high resolution.) The graphic below compares glacier thickness for some prominent sites for three periods: 1500-2000, 1000-1500 and 0-1000. its resolution in the past two millennia is nearly double the resolution of the Greenland GRIP and NGRIP sites that have been the topic of intensive study and publication.
Given the high reliance on O18 series in deep time, one would think that paleoclimatologists would be extremely interested in a publication of the Law Dome O18 data and be pressuring Tas van Ommen on this point.
…
But despite the apparent opportunity offered by Law Dome, there has been virtually no technical publication of a high-resolution O18 or delD isotope series.
…
A Climategate email shows that Phil Jones asked about the omission of the Law Dome series from the IPCC illustration in the AR4 First Draft. I asked the same question about the AR4 Second Draft. They realized that the Law Dome graphic had an elevated medieval period and thus, including it in the graphic would ā to borrow a phrase from the preparation of AR3 ā would ādilute the messageā and perhaps provide āfodder to skepticsā.
Read the whole report at Climate Audit here
The Team keeps trying to bury this stuff, and Climate Audit keeps digging it up:
Okay, this post definitely gets bookmarked!
As close to a smoking gun as I have seen yet. Present it as evidence in every court in the land!
1) the graph clearly shows that modern warming is in no way unusual. It has been warmer in much of the past 2000 years without any relation to increases in CO2.
2) the climategate emails show the Team knowingly conspired to downplay this information and paint a false picture for the IPCC.
3) the world owes Steve McIntyre a debt that can never be repaid. Rather he is slandered for his efforts by politically correct “scientists” in their pursuit of fame and fortune.
It really doesnāt take too much to figure out why the series hasnāt been published.
It would be scientific suicide to any scientist that did publish the result. They would be vilified and at risk of ruining their career.
There would be a hue and cry against them. No matter how careful and exacting their work, it would be labelled rubbish. Even if they could get it published, dozens of counter arguments would be widely published before the ink was dry.
So, when faced with the reality, the result are tucked away in the closet and the politically correct answer is submitted instead.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/climate-skeptic-instructor-fired-from-oregon-state-university/
The significance of the Law Dome series is staggering, as the Team’s determination to keep it in obscurity.
Ferd Berple is on the money with no 3 above!
If Global Warming is a fact, then surely “global” means just that. The hockey stick should be replicated in Antarctica studies if AGW is happening, the fact that it isn’t in this study confirms what a load of c**p AGW is.
I think in years to come, the hockey stick will rank equally with epicycles as far as science by bigotry goes.
The Mushroom Policy: Kept in the dark and fed on s**t!
If the GW movement was Monty Python themed, they’d all be screaming “but look at the bones!”
Lazy Teenager will no doubt say this is an purport…
It’s upside down.
“They realized that the Law Dome graphic had an elevated medieval period and thus, including it in the graphic would ā to borrow a phrase from the preparation of AR3 ā would ādilute the messageā and perhaps provide āfodder to skepticsā.”
Aha, so that’s what “screening” means. Got it.
If the suppression of such data confirms one thing, it’s that these so-called scientists are nothing more than political advocates, with science being just a means to advance their policies. It was always about politics, never science.
Pointman
Watermelon Warmers are not interested in Facts.
They work with BS (Bureaucratic Science)
When all the Watermelon Warmers admit their Lie
We will raise a Monument into the Sky
A Monument of Solid Carbon
To commemorate their Bogus Bargain.
Certainly a “WOW!” moment for me when I read this over breakfast. Ferd Berple is correct – we owe Steve McIntyre a huge vote of thanks.
Dare I say….
‘This constructionās important because, for the first time, we can actually say that weāre virtually certain that the MWP did exist, and that present warming is caused not by man contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, but by natural variability primarily.’
‘Climate Audit did it. No matter how you look at it, Steve did it. Thatās it.’
Yikes – I wouldn’t want to play hockey with that!
Tas van Ommen, who’s done the work but apparently not published much, sees a clear hockey stick in snowfall; “What we found is that the last 30 to 40 years stands out as a complete outlier. Itās not something thatās within the band of natural variability at all….Weāve got the smoking gun that shows this recent period is outside the range of natural variability”.
http://www.sciencepoles.org/articles/article_detail/tas_van_ommen_the_information_ice_cores_from_law_dome_provide/
This conclusion seems to be a bone of contention in Australia:
http://landshape.org/enm/droughts-and-antarctica/
Mr. McIntyre’s post bends over backwards to be polite, as always. In looking at the Climategate emails, one can only cringe at the CRU response: (Jones to van Ommen on the McIntyre request for data) “I’ll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike [Mann] will likely do the same…”.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1076336623.txt
Finally, nice to know – in Googling the Law Dome ice cores, Josh’s ‘burning hockey stick’ cartoon appeared!
Sorry, for the non-astronomical minded I should have defined epicycles.
In medieval times the Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything circled around it. When observations became more accurate in the 17th century and this was found not to be the case, religious “scientists” said that to explain the observations, the heavenly bodies moved in circles around the earth, but also in smaller circles at the same time. As observations got even more accurate and it was discovered that the perfect circular orbit did not exist they kept adding more and more epicycles to interpret these observations.
The parallel between early 17th century science and AGW is very close, except for having dissenters burned at the stake, although I think the warmists would like this to happen!!
I suspect that you would get a similar graph for land temps if you a) removed all the CRY and GUSH “corrections”, and b) made proper corrections for urban heat effects and really bad changes in the surrounding environment of many land based thermometers.
Speaking of something not cutting it. Yesterday the wooly mammoth went extinct because of a meteor . Today we discover it was climate change. Not a meteor. Campfire Global Warming. Or something like that.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120612144809.htm
This is the only logical data that demonstrates why the Vikings were able to survive so long in Greenland. Today they would not have been able to do so so the climate in those days must have been radically different.
the ideologues are too busy “forging a consensus” – ie finding new ways to keep inconvenient truths away from the public – to do anything resembling science. Real science is falsifiable, and this is one of the many research projects to falsify the anthopogenic climate change consensus. But while real scientists embrace Popper and his doctrine of falsification, pseudo-scientists run away from him.
That is one stunning graph. With resolution like that, and a shape like that, it’s a bit like hearing a CD of something you’ve only previously heard on a badly beaten-up cassette from about 1970 – and discovering it was a completely different piece of music all along.
I do hope there are multiple safe copies of the data around, given what tends to happen to inconvenient data which threatens The Cause. As it is, I shall print out the graph anyhow and keep a copy in my pocket at all times for ease and speed of deployment.
Doubtless this chart will either be ignored, or suitably ‘adjusted’, by the IPCC in its next fantasy report.
The Law Dome Oxygen 18 data set should be the final nail in the CAGW hoax, but unfortunately it won’t be. It will be explained away as not being scientifically significant, a local aberration or whatever.
Perhaps what is most frightening is the fact that if Steve had worked for government or an NGO, this would have been quashed and he would most likely have been dismissed for his heretical discovery, such is the censorship power of the CAGW cult.
I can see the problem, in the first chart they have forgotten to turn it upside down.
Sorry anorak historian alert.
There wasn’t a 0 AD. It started at 1, because the Romans didn’t have a zero. It is 754 after the founding of Rome ( depending on where you take the start of the year ).
I wonder if they had a Millenium Bug type problem when the calendars changed from BC to AD ?
Again, where’s the freaking media? This has to be spread far and wide. This has to go to Rio, smuggled in in briefcases if necessary.
“With a clear MWP “
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.
Oops, I had not realised that the Law Dome Oxygen 18 data set had already been officially ignored by the IPCC as being inconvenient.
‘Ignored’ is probably not exactly correct, as passing reference is made (without illustrations) in the IPCC’s last report, but in a way that no one will realise it is even there. Classic tactics of hoaxers who can then deny any criminal wrong doing, if they are caught out.
Also the Early Middle Ages (c. 5thā10th century) ‘Dark Ages’ don’t look that dark anymore. Today looks a lot ‘darker’.
Nick Stokes siad at 12.39 am
Nick, if you look at the vertical axis, you’ll see that the top reads 20.0 and the bottom reads 23.0.
Does that in any way affect your perception of the MWP, in the light of your revelation that d18O correlates negatively with temperature?
What the heck is the “Law Dome”?
“This data set includes CO2 and CH4 records derived from three ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica, from 1987 to 1993. Law Dome is a medium size, approximately circular, (200 km dia., 1390 m high) ice sheet situated at the edge of the main East Antarctic ice sheet. The data in this set include cores drilled between 1987 and 1993 to a depth of 1199.6.”
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0245.html
Location of the Law Dome Ice Sheet?
“measured at approximately annual resolution along the DSS (Dome Summit South) ice core drilled on Law Dome (66.46S, 112.48E, 1390 m above sea level)”
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series
Which places it here on the map, almost due south of Australia, on the coast of Antarctica.
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=66.46+S,+112.48+E&hl=en&ll=-47.694974,147.480469&spn=59.194513,63.28125&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=57.005241,63.28125&t=h&z=4
Why is it named “Law Dome”? Anyone? Was “Law” a person it’s named after? What about “dome”?
Was it only three ice cores that where ever taken? If not how many cores? When? Where is the data?
I have found the Hockey Stick in the above graph:
http://goo.gl/J3wXP
It was quite easy actually – I simply applied a Mannian Tiljander filter to the existing graphic and there it was!
š
I went to look for what the Taylor Dome O18 series, to see if it were similar. The Taylor Dome shows synchronization between NH and SH climate over the Holocene and seems a more accurate record compared to Vostok at least.
Surprisingly, nothing has been published for the Holocene .
Something that SM has remarked on,
In their figure, they illustrated Taylor Dome from interior Antarctica: here is the bottom panel of Figure 6-2 showing information from Taylor Dome ā curiously they show dD values rather than dO18 (shown for the other sites) , even though dO18 is available for Taylor Dome.
I suspect inconvenient truths.
Well posted. Yes, superb thing is it clearly resolves early and late medieval warm periods.
Pointman says:
June 12, 2012 at 11:30 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Too damn right.
I dislike proxy evidence in the sense that you can have no confidence in the correctness or accuracy of the evidence, and any extrapolations drawn therefrom. At best it may give a shape of trends but even that is uncertain.
I do not know how accurate the Law Dome O18 evidence is and whether it is to be preferred to other proxy evidence. However, the mere fact that it is not included and discussed in the IPCC reports clearly demonstrates that these reports make no attempt to impartially examine the science and issues arising from climate and climate change, but instead it is an advocacy document promoting political aims.
This evidence should be promoted to a wider audience with questions being asked as to why it is not included in the IPCC reports.
pat says:
June 12, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Speaking of something not cutting it. Yesterday the wooly mammoth went extinct because of a meteor . Today we discover it was climate change. Not a meteor. Campfire Global Warming. Or something like that.
We found out they tasted like chicken.
From a link in the sidebar: “The bottom line is that we really don’t know why some of these ancient species became extinct,” adds Ted Goebel, researcher in the Department of Anthropology at Texas A&M and affiliated with the Center for the Study of First Americans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102161253.htm
Nick Stokes says:
June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am
It is when you learn to read graphs. That would be why the Y axis is ‘upside-down’, or the scale goes from larger to smaller as it goes up.
Looks nice, but again not quite “it”.
The MWP is not long enough. My contention is that the LIA that started around 1300-ish was a catastrophic drop in temperatures from a previously very high point. This has a decline about 150 years early. There also aren’t enough deep troughs in the LIA for my liking.
I have never really been able to define when the MWP started, this looks a bit early to me but I’m willing to be convinced.
“Nick Stokes says: Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.”
Must be hard to go through life with your thumbs in your ears, your fingers covering your eyes and chanting Baaaagh, Baaagh, Baaagh, whenever contrary evidence is presented.
If you know the correlation factor, others would as well and have accounted for it.
As a historian, these charts look much more like recorded history than the hockey stick. I have never heard any AGW chicken little explain the growing of grapes in Northern England in the Middle Ages.
For the confused, the temperature scale on the left is in negative degrees — it’s cold in them thar Antarctic hills. So the warmer temperatures are indeed higher on the axis.
… that is, assuming it is indeed temperature, and not some isotope ratio or some such.
Steve McIntyre reminds me of Einstein or that bloke that painted the ceiling Mickey someone, just sitting there doodling away.
Steve is worth his weight in gold ten times over, I’ll let the readers decide what these so called charlatan scientist are worth their weight in.
Nick Stokes says:
June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am
āWith a clear MWP ā
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.
You recall incorrectly.
“In addition, kernel Ī18O correlated negatively with grain yield under well-watered and intermediate water stress conditions, while it correlated positively under severe water stress conditions.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02013.x/abstract
Even Gavin Schmidt states as much: “As mentioned above, there are a priori reasons to assume d18O records in terrestrial records have a temperature component. In mid-latitudes, the relationship is positive ā higher d18O in precipitation in warmer conditions. This is a function of the increase in fractionation as water vapour is continually removed from the air. Most d18O records ā in cave stalagmites, lake sediment or ice cores are usually interpreted this way since most of their signal is from the rain water d18O. However, only one terrestrial d18O record is used by Loehle (#9 Spannagel), and this has been given a unique negative correlation to temperature.”
http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/30/gavin-schmidt-and-uniquely-oriented-speleothems/
Just like the earlier IPCC report which showed a graph of low Arctic sea ice extent in the early 1970s. These climate scientists are seeing what they want to see. Their story is based on biased adjustments and outright fabrications.
Meanwhile over at the Climate Audit site I see this:
[My bold]
Need I say more?
Nick Stokes says:
June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am
āWith a clear MWP ā
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature
Why is it that sometimes you can appear to be intelligent and at others, like this, well…….you know.
Doug UK says: June 12, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Certainly a āWOW!ā moment for me when I read this over breakfast. Ferd Berple is correct ā we owe Steve McIntyre a huge vote of thanks.
And Anthony too, just as much, less in some ways but more in other ways. And the team here. Not least the astounding, utterly astounding way Anthony has laboured on and on, under pressure but keeping up the pressure, with almost unfailing courtesy and insight, no time for “feeling off” days.
BTW, there are problems with the ice core record – the oxygen isotope record is fine, no probs there, but there are very serious issues as far as I am concerned, with the CO2 therein encapsulated and the supposed records the ice core shows of CO2 levels.
Please don’t forget folks, it was Al Gore’s (and others’) original use of these two ice core records alongside each other, temperature and CO2, that was a big cause of our current alarmism problems. Certainly it is the scientific weak link that allowed money interests in, and still IMHO needs more air time here on the skeptics blogs. The Ice Hockey Stick. Exactly the same kind of issues as with all the other hockey sticks – improper splicing – but in this case, the fact that it’s spliced is not nearly so obvious.
The ordinate dO(18) scaling doesn’t appear correct. Is it in parts per 10,000? Or a log scale?
A bit of a fail on Josh’s cartoon. The Climate Audit bulldozer looks set to cover up the reports being dumped. It ought to be an excavator if he wants the meaning to be clearer.
Hmm… Anthony, is the vertical axis for the Law Dome graph really temperature in Ā°C? Wouldn’t the peaks before 1000AD correspond with the Dark Ages Cold Period, and the dips after 1000AD be the MWP?
Andrew Harding says:
June 12, 2012 at 11:14 pm
I think in years to come, the hockey stick will rank equally with epicycles as far as science by bigotry goes.
You are doing Ptolemy a great disservice. His theory of epicycles enabled astronomers to make predictions of the movements of the planets that were accurate enough for most purposes and that is why his theory survived for centuries.
What reasonably accurate predictions can the hockey stick gang make?
Nick Stokes says “Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.”
Which is why the y axis in the first graph decreases in value – that is reflecting increasing temperatures….
@Nick Stokes
Does that mean we get to use it upside down?
Its high time these people were sent letters as to why their employment should continue at the University of Melbourne at taxpayers expense
The superlative of ‘high’ is ‘highest’.
Nick Stokes says:
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.
You obviously didn’t read the article or you would have read the sentence that says just that. “Water up to 5 Ā°C (9 Ā°F) warmer than today represents an interglacial, when the 18O content of oceanic water is lower”
The 18O/16O ratio provides a record of ancient water temperature.
[b]No, it does not![/b] A sad mistake, started with Willy Dansgaard and there are several studies finding contradictions with that supposition.
For meteorologists it’s easy to explain where the error is. In the textbooks and several studies you will find that the major drivers for 18O fractination, d18O is the temperature at condensation and the raining out or Rayleigh processes.
So what is that cloud temperature? Isn’t that the dewpoint, which is primairely a function of absolute humidity. And of course, most of the time there is a correlation between temperature and humidity, but not always as in the desert.
But the rayleigh process may even be a bigger problem, if the prevailing weather patterns change for some reason, as everything was changing between glacials and interglacial periods, the rain out could also change considerably.
“As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.”
I recalled coral numbers – I was wrong here.d18O in ice goes the other way.
Nick Stokes says:
June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am
āWith a clear MWP ā Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.
You are of course correct Nick. Now would you like to have another look at the labelling of the y axis and post back with your revised interpretation.
Nick Stokes says:
June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.
Note the y axis on the graph. Decreasing d18O concentrations.
“Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.”
Really?
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/observed.gif
This concurs with an ice core temperature reconstruction from the Penny ice cap on Baffin island in the Arctic.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c016765a161db970b-popup
This graph (unlike many played with by many) speaks for itself, in loud voice.
Although I disagree with Steve’s remark about people being “entitled” to respect, in this case Steve McIntyre does deserve respect. Bravo.
P.S.
Those who are so fond of Andrew Rivkin’s “balanced reporting” should ask him to investigate, why this most important data is being “screened” (disappeared) by ever-so-honorable “scientists.”
Bet you $100 he won’t bother.
I don’t like to criticise Josh’s work but, the bull-dozer with climate audit on the side appears to be burying the reports not excavating them. Perhaps it should have been labeled The Team
Nick Stokes on June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am said:
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.
– – – – –Ā
Nick Stokes,
Which makes the charts shown in the post correctly indicating the dO18 relationship with temperature . . . so, yes there was indeed a MWP in the SH.
John
The data had to be there if enough effort was made or the correct site chosen for the best resolution. The graph showing temperature from the Cambrian shows the Ordovician ice age when the atmospheric CO2 content was in excess of 6000ppmv with some data showing 8000ppmv. What happened to the GHG theory then?
Good, interesting post.
Nick Stokes 12:39…
so there was an ice age in the MWP and a warm period following it, now to be known as the Little Warm Period??
Nick Stokes:
Write to Michael Mann.
He is a specialist in turning data graphs upside down.
And he will feel your pain (for a fee).
Stokes: You are wrong. The IMAGE has a clear MWP. Easy to see.
But if you believe that the science behind the image is wrong, show which part of the Wikipedia explanation above is mistaken.
Nick Stokes says:
June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am
āWith a clear MWP ā
“Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.”
The graph is labelled d180 but the units are degrees C, with temperatures increasing upwards. Therefore the graph does show a clear MWP.
Chris
Looks to me as though an arbitrary axis was inserted around -21.5Ā°C & flipped the graph at that point to show continued warming as opposed to moderate cooling since the MWP! You have to admire their sheer treachery & deceit all for a fast buck & a pension plan!
The Law Dome is in Antartica – southern hemisphere – which has a somewhat different climate to the northern hemisphere – so I would hesitate to use Law Dome alone to project a global picture of the past. Vostok shows something different .
Also, as Nick Stokes says, d18O correlates negatively with T. – so how does the graph show a medieval warm period? Please clarify someone!
To clarify,
Surprisingly, nothing on the d18O data from the Taylor Dome has been published for the Holocene. Data for earlier periods has been published.
By the way where is Lazy Teenager?
This Law Dome graph needs to be strongly challenged.
It needs to be picked apart in detail.
Every assumption must be clarifed and tested.
It must be proven to be robust not just because we want it to be but because it is robust.
Because if this proxy does show what it looks like showing then the AGW hypothesis is disproven.
CO2 sensitivity can’t be high enough to cause a problem if the current tempertaure response is well within natural variability.
This is either a rightly discarded false proxy or the end of the scare.
Nick Stokes,
“As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature”
You may want to check out the numbers, and in which direction the go up/down on the axis to the left ..
AndrewMHarding, you are mixing two issues. There was the empirical issue of circles versus ellipses and the formal issue of the centre of the system. Because all motion is relative, it does not matter from which point of view a system of moving bodies is described. Bruno was burned at the stake because of the formal issue. Perhaps he was the only one. Many people got this treatment because of their Protestant rebellion against the Old Church and State. It is an historical myth that scientists shared their cruel fate. You better should explain that AGW is an empirical issue because it makes wrong predictions (like the hot spot, etc.).
Nick, look at the scale on the X-axis.
Ah Ha, Nick turns the graph upside down with: “Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.” We just knew it w/could happen.
Nick, you need to read the entire post again. It certainly is not a negative correlation.
Nick Stokes says:
āWith a clear MWP
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.”
Indeed it does – that’s exactly the point. Colder temperatures cause O18 to precipitate closer to the equator with less making it to higher latitudes. Warmer temperatures allow more O18 to diffuse to higher latitudes. The MWP is clearly shown on the graph from approximately year 650 through 1150. The LIA is not so clear, but still present.
Clean your glasses, read the articles carefully, then support your snark with real science, (oh, but first, open your mind).
In all scientific curiosity, I truly want to hear the honest explanation from someone on the Team or their fan club why they exclude this data. We speculate conspiracy, but is there some scientific justification for exclusion? In Big Pharma you cannot exclude any data. If you collect it, you have to make it available. No excuses.
“not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.”
Nick, take a closer look at the graph. The
Y- coordinates decrease as you move vertically up the graph. Did you borrow Mike Mann’s Tiljander colored glasses before doing your analysis?
Sorry, I meant look at the scale on the Y-axis.
Hey, I just got things back to front. Does this qualify me for a place on the Team and a big grant ?
@John Barrett
The MWP is not long enough. My contention is that the LIA that started around 1300-ish was a catastrophic drop in temperatures from a previously very high point.
According to HH Lamb the LIA started later in the SH, with Antarctic sea ice not a maximum till as late as 1900.
pwl asks who Law was. Phillip Law was an Australian scientist who worked in Antarctica for many years between about 1950 and 1965.He added a great deal to early post-war Antarctic science and exploration.
@ andrewmharding “I think in years to come, the hockey stick will rank equally with epicycles as far as science by bigotry goes.”
I would respectfully disagree and suggest that you are being a bit unfair to the idea of epicycles. When the theory of epicycles was proposed it was really the best explanation of what was being observed. Granted, after the data became more clear with longer and more accurate observations, the idea of epicycles became more and more complicated until it was finally replaced by heliocentrism, but it seems that at a minimum we can grant that the people who supported epicycles were honest in their support. CAGW, in contrast, is perhaps more akin to the Piltdown Man story. As we see in CAGW theory a longer and longer trail of unexplained and unethical alteration of data, misrepresentation of the facts, and unscientific refusal to allow for discourse and debate, one can only come to the conclusion that — just as with Pildown Man — we are not witnessing honest error, but rather conscious fraud.
Louis Hooffstetter says: June 13, 2012 at 4:04 am
“Clean your glasses, read the articles carefully, then support your snark with real science, (oh, but first, open your mind).”
No snark. It’s a question of how d18O varies with T. I simply said that n my understanding of that relation it didn’t seem that way to me. And got a bewildering array of responses.
The graph isn’t in Celsius, it’s in d18O ratio units. And the scale isn’t inverted, as a lot of people said. What I was probably wrong about, as I promptly noted, is that the interpretation of d18O vs temp scaling can vary. In coral etc it’s negative, which would make the logic here wrong. But in ice cores, it’s apparently generally positive.
OK, sorry for raising the question. But it seems I’m not the only one confused.
āWith a clear MWP ā
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.
I wondered the same thing, noting that the d18O graph of the Pleistocene warmer temperatures were increasingly negative, while in Law Dome they are the opposite.
However, after hearing dozens of different commenters telling “Nick Stokes” he is an idiot with conflicting reasons why, I still don’t have a clear explanation.
Am I imagining things, or are Google searches becoming more ‘fair and balanced’? I googled ‘law dome’ (without the quotes) and was shocked to see several links back to climateaudit.org in the top half of the first page.
Or perhaps the Google folks just haven’t adjusted this query to push the usual AGW/CAGW sites into the front of the response queue.
Here’s my original query, in case the weights get adjusted as we speak:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=law+dome&oq=law+dome&aq=f&aqi=p-p1g3&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..35i39j0l3.10869.12897.0.13117.8.7.0.1.1.0.304.1057.0j6j0j1.7.0…0.0.pWUmh3VDzDs&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e4ffb39c8a89267f&biw=1008&bih=622
š
Roy says (June 13, 2012 at 1:59 am):
You are doing Ptolemy a great disservice.
———-
Absolutely. And it cost the taxpayers nothing for 1500 years despite being wrong.
PS: Has anyone pointed out to Nick Stokes……oh wait. š
Ignore Antarctica folks, the Medieval Warm Period was a kinda patchy, northern hemisphere affair (except for South America, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and of course the hot house Antarctic Peninsula).
Lots of peer reviewed evidence that the MWP was global phenomenon.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Gary,
Right above the graph, it says in English:
“On the left is temperature in Ā°C, on the X axis, years, with labels from 0AD to the year 2000.”
Still not clear? Go join some mega-church.
John Day,
Something is obviously changing in Google; recently, they started fighting the Chinese censorship in all seriousness. Maybe their green bias is also subsiding?
Nick Stokes says:
June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am (Edit)
āWith a clear MWP ā
Not so clear to me. As I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.
—————————————————————————————————
“Oxygen isotope series are the backbone of deep-time paleoclimate. The canonical 800,000 year comparison of CO2 and temperature uses O18 values from Vostok, Antarctica to estimate temperature. In deep time, O18 values are a real success story: they clearly show changes from the LGM to the Holocene that cohere with glacial moraines.”
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/
Alexander Feht says: June 13, 2012 at 5:35 am
“Right above the graph, it says in English:”
Yes, but on the graph it says, equally clearly, d18O. And I’m sure that is right. The numbers are in the usual range for d18O. And proxies are not related to absolute °C, only to anomalies. Otherwise you’d have the task of saying exaqctly where the °C, was measured. It certainly wasn’t at Law Dome. There’s no station there.
Nick, the sentence above the graph says, “On the left is temperature in Ā°C ……”
The numbers run from -23 to -20. I’ve never heard of negative ratio units.
I imagine that the jagged grey lines on the graph are plotted from the d18O ratios but the scale has been interpreted into the equivalent implied temperature.
The do18 proxy is the best temperature proxy we have. Yet the pro-AGW posters do their best to denigrate it.
On the other hand, tree-rings are the worst temperature proxy that we have and the pro-AGW posters believe the tree ring data without question.
This whole science is like that. It’s not science, it’s choosing which data to believe. It’s a “belief system”.
For once I have to sort of agree with Nick Stokes. The graph, though interesting, does not clearly lay out a picture of earlier temperatures…and it is those that we are interested in. Having a y-axis labelled ‘upside down’ does not help, and using the unfamiliar unit of ‘d180’ does not aid our understanding.
If this graph really shows what some have claimed it does…the ‘Death of the Hockey Stick’ and/or the final proof of the MWP, then it is indeed big news.
But for general consumption (ie. anybody who doesn’t have a Masters in the gaseous absorption of ice cores) it needs to be redrawn with familiar y-axis units (C, K or F) and with a readily comprehensible but scientifically watertight explanation of how it has been derived – and all the data published in an easily accessible form.
.
Unless and until this has been done it is better not to run around like Chicken Little making possibly unsubstantiable claims. The recent experience of our Australian friends has shown that premature ejaculation can be deeply problematical – even in a closed circle of supposed mates. Advice that we should heed.
Happy to help if I can, but others probably have better skills than me.
“However, after hearing dozens of different commenters telling āNick Stokesā he is an idiot with conflicting reasons why, I still donāt have a clear explanation.”
There may, indeed, be conflicting reasons “why” but on the substantive issue there seems to be a consensus. (Just a joke, Nick. I know you’re a clever guy).
What do people think the motivation is to persuade the world that global warming is real? Investment in “green-tech”?
I see at CA that in fact the Law Dome d18O data is available, and has been for some years.
REPLY: Yes but it wasn’t prominently published, which is McIntyre’s point – take care not to thread bomb here or it will be back to the troll bin for you. – Anthony
My analysis of the high resolution ice core data (including Law Dome) clearly shows both the MWP and LIA, http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
Looking from the interactions betweens the climate blogs, its looking more and more like believers and lukewarmers such as SM and Lucia by now are beginning to realize had badly they have been had by “climate Scientists” Expect to see a shift in readership (ie believers abandoning the sites en masse) LOL
Right above the graph, it says in English:
āOn the left is temperature in Ā°C, on the X axis, years, with labels from 0AD to the year 2000.ā
Still not clear? Go join some mega-church.
And on the ACTUAL graph it is labeled d18O ranging from -23.0 up to -20.0 – going more positive.
while on the Pleistocene graph it is labeled on the right side d18O ranging from +3 up to -4 – going more positive.
And I want to know why in the one case positive is warmer and in the other case positive is colder.
But since none of you seem to know the answer I’ll go join a mega church – they are probably a lot smarter than you and certainly do their cause a lot more credit.
And on the ACTUAL graph it is labeled d18O ranging from -23.0 up to -20.0 ā going more positive.
while on the Pleistocene graph it is labeled on the right side d18O ranging from +3 up to -4 ā going more NEGATIVE.
Hasn’t the Gergis paper been put ‘on hold’ rather than withdrawn outright?
REPLY: It was removed from the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate. That’s what you call “withdrawn”. The “on-hold” language is just face saving wordcraft on the part of the authors, especially after Gergis berated McIntyre for daring to ask for additional data. – Anthony
sticky post ? BTW I would have thought that this is a VIP story as the Law Domet is probably a real view of world temps. (ie no warming whatsoever). I still do not trust ANY of the data provided by GISS, Hadcrut or the BEST as it is derived from those centers. I do trust NOAA satellite data R Spencer. and it looks like a binomial curve to me (ie no warming again, due to C02 anyway)
Nick Stokes wrote: “OK, sorry for raising the question. But it seems Iām not the only one confused.”
No, but you are clearly the one who is the most confused.
WRT Paul Homewood June 13, 2012 at 4:25 am
Actually that’s my point, although I suppose I didn’t make it very well.
The MWP ( yes there is one Mr Stokes ) tails off about 100-150ish years too early. The sudden drop that we associate with the LIA looks roughly on the money at 1300-ish, but from a much lower base and then recovers again a bit too quickly.
But of course this is Antarctica we are talking about and not Sussex.
The second, longer scale graphic is mislabeled. The time units at the bottom should be in thousands of years, not millions.
I can say I am always looking for data such as this high resolution Law Dome ice core (I just trolled through the whole paleo ice core database at the NCDC a few days ago looking for new ones) and I can say I have never seen this Law Dome d018 record.
Paul Dennis posted on Climate Audit about the Gomez ice core (not Law Dome) and it only goes back to 1857.
Nick Stokes has a valid question. The text says the Y-axis is in degrees C. The graph says d18O. One of them must be wrong.
However, the real topic here is the IPCC and the Warmist community’s suppression of high quality data because it shows a major flaw in their theory. This is the action of religion, not science.
I think I heard a few people call out my name. Hi guys.
I was puzzling over the contradictory labeling of the vertical axis. Decided to wander over to climate audit. Got past Steve’s interpretive acrobatics and had a look at some of the discussions.
Seems there is supposed to be conflict between the bore hole and delta O18 values but could not see it myself.
But on the way there came across the CO2 measurements which also contradict the O18 values.
But leaving that aside and looking just at the graph above there are 2 problems.
1. I can’t see much temperature variation corresponding to modern thermometer readings.
2. The kicker is that the graph says that current temperatures are lower than those of the little ice age. Short of some Brit announcing that the Thames has frozen over, that is clearly wrong.
But apart from that, this graph is incontestably the best evidence you guys have come up with so far.
Steve McIntyre’s data source
Underneath his sixth figure: “Law Dome O18 record. Plotted from LD2.1yyr data set sent by email by Tas van Ommen on 2006-03-14”
Nick – you are way too accustomed to looking at data upside down. This is not a Mannanian type graph. So now we can expect you to become a full fledged skeptic, or will you continue with upsidedown denial?
I would love, to actually witness, someone emerge from a deluded state, into the light of reality. GK
If one wants to convert the Law Dome do18 isotope numbers above into Temperature, the formula for Law Dome would be about:
Temp C = 0.80 * do18 – 4.0
This will give you a temperature around -20C which is the average annual temperature at the Law Dome summit. It will also give you temperatures at about -27C during the height of the last ice age (Law Dome on the coast did not decline as much as central Antarctica at -10C in the ice ages).
For other places in Antarctica, the formula will vary some (for central summits the 0.80 changes to about 0.90 and the 4.0 to about 8.0 – for the Antarctic Pennisula, the 0.80 changes to about 0.65).
David L says:
June 13, 2012 at 4:06 am
In all scientific curiosity, I truly want to hear the honest explanation from someone on the Team or their fan club why they exclude this data. We speculate conspiracy, but is there some scientific justification for exclusion?
====================
Bad news sells newspapers. It also brings in grant money. That is the scientific justification.
There is no speculation required. Read CA (see below) for the climategate email. This was no accident. It was a conspiracy to leave the information off the IPCC graphics, but mention it BRIEFLY in the text . Thus, most readers would not see the implications, and there would be a defense against the few that did.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#more-16301
“Hi Tim, Ricardo and friends ā your suggestion to leave the figure unchanged makes sense to me. Of course, we need to discuss the Law Dome ambiguity clearly and BRIEFLY in the text, and also in the response to āexpertā review comments”
There is a clear conflict of interest going on here. Tax paid scientists are selectively publishing information that says there should be an increase in taxes (more grant money). They are knowingly hiding information that says an increase in taxes is not justified (less grant money).
Let your elected representative know where you stand and encourage you fellow tax payers to do the same. Call and write your local representative and let them know this must stop. Until it does they will lose your support, campaign funding and your vote. Let your politicians know that self-serving scientists directly threaten the politicians’ future.
Notice how this “science”, ensconced in universities, funded by government grants bringing in boodles of “general budget” monies (often up to 80% of grant funding), with “scientists” enabled to attend multiple jet-set-location conferences, employ many grad students and “technical staff’, buy mountains of computer power to develop more hockey-stick models — notice how they are all part of the higher education bubble. It is bursting today. All those students and their parents who have been shelling out the trillions (or quadrillions? — including tax-payer backed loans) for something they thought had value both in terms of education/enlightenment (Enlightenment) and skills for future jobs are finding out that they have been had. This will not end well for the fraudsters. My hope is that the most prominent of the liars spend some time in prison; my other hope is that the most “influential” lose their lucrative pensions. I wish them a retirement of poverty as punishment for being part of a cabal attempting to drive the developed word into poverty.
Now for the positives! It is time for new institutions of integrity. The old have failed, including most of higher education, “mass” (corporate) media, and crony corporatists. Free enterprise such as practiced by Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and many others who touch base at WUWT is the path to the future. (I am also thinking of the serious on-line courses from scientists and mathematicians of integrity.) Thanks to all for the magnificent efforts.
Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores
Graphics Digital Data
Investigators
D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds and R.J. Francey
Division of Atmospheric Research, CSIRO,
Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
J.-M. Barnola
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et GĆ©ophysique de l’Environnement,
Saint Martin d’HĆØres-Cedex, France
V.I. Morgan
Antarctic CRC and Australian Antarctic Division,
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Trends
The atmospheric CO2 reconstructions presented here offer records of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios from 1006 A.D. to 1978 A.D. The air enclosed in the three ice cores from Law Dome, Antarctica has unparalled age resolution and extends into recent decades, because of the high rate of snow accumulation at the Law Dome drill sites (Etheridge et al. 1996). Etheridge et al. (1996) reported the uncertainty of the ice core CO2 mixing ratios is 1.2 ppm. Preindustrial CO2 mixing ratios were in the range 275-284 ppm, with the lower levels during 1550-1800 A.D., probably as a result of colder global climate (Etheridge et al. 1996). The Law Dome ice core CO2 records show major growth in atmospheric CO2 levels over the industrial period, except during 1935-1945 A.D. when levels stabilized or decreased slightly.
What is so clear to me, is that the IPCC is a Political Action Committee.
In the United States it is expected that PACs spin and selectively choose facts, advocating a position, and that is what the IPCC does quite well.
If we compare this data with the land based temperature record – does it give a possible estimate of the UHI?
@lazy teenager
‘Short of some Brit announcing that the Thames has frozen over, that is clearly wrong.’
I can assure you,, Lazy, that the Thames is not frozen over…or wasn’t an hour ago when I took the dogs for a run. But forty years of year on year unstoppable global warming has given us the coldest and wettest June within living memory – and probably since records began a very long time ago. So the river is nearing overflow….it’s just a matter of where floods first.
Interesting to note too that the ‘relevant authorities’, fearful of the dreadful consequences of the forty years of unstoppable global warming mentioned above, decided that we are ‘in drought’ about a fortnight before the deluge began. So not only are we cold, wet and flooded, I am not able to use a hosepipe to wash my bike.
Can you please tell me when the ‘warm’ bit of global warming will kick in for UK? I see all these lovely hockey sticks promising us an improved climate…but it never seems to come.
Best yet!
So, given that atmospheric CO2 levels lag significant temperature change by about 1000 years, we should expect atmospheric CO2 levels from natural variation to be peaking right … about … now.
LZ:- I canāt see much temperature variation corresponding to modern thermometer readings.
Indeed. Also I notice that the MWP down South was between about 700 and 1000 AD. About 3 centuries before it is purported tohave occurred in Europe.
Not global, then.
@jacksavage: “Does that mean we get to use it upside down?”
Jack – as I noted above, yes, that is where you find the Hockey Stick in the above graph – I have shown the corrected graph with a “Mannian Tiljander Filter” applied here:
http://goo.gl/J3wXP
Viola! – a magical hockey stick appears before your very eyes …. š
Regarding the possibility of a frozen Thames: A poster here pointed out that the discharges of warmed water from power stations upstream (where it’s used for cooling) ensure that such a freeze won’t happen in the future.
Ah, a minor point. Delta O-18 is a negative fraction, so the Y-axis is not upside down. The ratio between the sample and standard concentrations are subtracted from 1, so larger amounts of O-18 in a sample correlate positively with higher temperatures. If you all glance at that graph again, there are negative signs preceding delta O-18 numbers.
“Phil Clarke says:
June 13, 2012 at 11:01 am
LZ:- I canāt see much temperature variation corresponding to modern thermometer readings.
Indeed. Also I notice that the MWP down South was between about 700 and 1000 AD. About 3 centuries before it is purported tohave occurred in Europe.
Not global, then.”
But it does show a tiny, tiny, bit of late 20th century warming. Looks about right to me….
The recent Gergis and Karoly paper not only screened out the Law Dome paper. They also
1) Included two from Vostok ice core proxies covering just 226 years. The same paper, but different methods. One had a C20th warming rate over 5 times the other.
2) Included the Palmyra Atoll coral proxy. This had the fastest C20th warming rate of any proxy – a significantly cooler C12th than the two 1000 year tree-ring proxies.
I have some relevant graphs and data at
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/11/how-gergis-suppressed-the-medieval-warm-period/
Phil Clarke says:June 13, 2012 at 11:01 am
“……..I notice that the MWP down South was between about 700 and 1000 AD. About 3 centuries before it is purported tohave occurred in Europe….. Not global, then.”
Indeed, and the whole point of Gergis et al was to show ‘current warming’ IS global …. and that appears to require some ‘data convolutions’…..maybe the hemispheres are not quite so ‘in sync’?
Tas van Ommen, whoās done the work …..
http://www.sciencepoles.org/articles/article_detail/tas_van_ommen_the_information_ice_cores_from_law_dome_provide/
I read the interview…even though his own data shows profound cooling, he says it confirms climate change theory…
When discussing Ī“18O, Wikipedia says
and McIntyre agrees. While this may be true for ice cores, the ratio in ocean calcite cores is linked to salinity and has nothing to do with temperature.
I have not found any good reference that publishes both Ī“18O and deuterium for the same core. However, I have combined 2 separate Vostok data sets – Ī“18O and deuterium – and discovered that there is NO correlation. It should be obvious to everyone that there is a problem. Specifically, deuterium indicates that there are 4 interglacials recorded in the Vostok ice core – Ī“18O indicates 8 (eight) or more.
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Icecore_Data/images/Vostok_200x320_Deu_18O.jpeg
[SNIP: John, your enthusiasm and commitment are admirable, but this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread and WUWT is not a soapbox for anyone to preach from. Sorry. -REP]
Interesting. Could the Law Dome findings lead to some individuals being brought to law?
From what I remember the the O16 to O18 ratios are determined at the point of evaporation and carries no additional information from transit or deposition. What I also remember is that it takes more energy to evaporate water containing O18 just as it takes more energy to evaporate water containing deuterium (heavy hydrogen).
Katherine says:
June 13, 2012 at 1:51 am
A bit of a fail on Joshās cartoon. The Climate Audit bulldozer looks set to cover up the reports being dumped. It ought to be an excavator if he wants the meaning to be clearer….
________________________________
I agree he needs to put in a backhoe instead of the bulldozer: backhoe photo
Nice find by Steve M. goes well with the Greenland graph: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsZbFvC5SJI/AAAAAAAABLY/uZxh6g17bmE/s1600-h/GISP2_10Ke.jpg (note hockey stick spliced onto the end highlited in yellow)
COB says:
June 13, 2012 at 3:18 am
By the way where is Lazy Teenager?
____________________________
On his way to Rio – 20 of course! (/sarc)
Again this is a great blog. I just re-read the article and the references. It looks like there is also O16 O18 partitioning during precipitation. I have just updated my old knowledge data base.
Thank you again.
Latimer Alder says:
June 13, 2012 at 9:14 am
Can you please tell me when the āwarmā bit of global warming will kick in for UK? I see all these lovely hockey sticks promising us an improved climateā¦but it never seems to come.
========
Here on the west coast of Canada we are celebrating a brand new month – Junuary. Cold and wet like January, but it happens in June. Warmest decade my ass.
While on the subject of O16 to O 18 ratios I just ran across a paper that shows that there is fractionation taking place due to sublimation, after deposition as snow. (http://iahs.info/redbooks/a114/iahs_114_0122.pdf)
Does this mean that thick deposits of are more representative of the source and transit temperatures? I noticed that Law Dome had thicker layers mentioned.
Are the thinner deposits that are subject to sublimation modified and have a local signal added to them?
@ Barry R: June 13, 6:55 am
The second, longer scale graphic is mislabeled. The time units at the bottom should be in thousands of years, not millions.
No, Barry. The second graph with Cm, O, S, D, C, P….. is a Geologic Time Scale with Cambrian (about 550 million years ago) to present.
Tr, J, K, are the Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous which ends at about 65 million years ago.
The uncertainty in the actual number of years is down to about 1%
One of my favorite charts is Manfried Menning, “A Synopsis of Numerical Time Scales: 1916-1986”
See: http://www.episodes.co.in/www/backissues/121/ARTICLES–3.pdf
There is a loose chart about 2 x 3 feet, that compares the time (millions of years ago) for each geologic age and epoch, by about 20 different major authors. It is a beautiful example of uncertainty in science and how a science wrings out the uncertainty over time.
@Nick Stokes
> I see at CA that in fact the Law Dome d18O data
> is available, and has been for some years.
I clicked on the link which lead to this site (via climateaudit):
sites.google.com/site/silenvuea/research-highlights/gomez-nunatak
The data at this link is from Gomez Nunatak ((73Ā°57ā²S 68Ā°38ā²W), not Law Dome (66Ā°44ā²S 112Ā°50ā²E), which is located on the opposite side of the continent:
But just for grins I looked at the data and plotted it here:
http://www.qsl.net/a/af4ex//images/gomez-plot.png
Note that the x-axis is calibrated in meters, so the low xvalues correspond to the top of ice i.e. recent times. The writeup with the data states that it conists of 2314 data points covering 150 year (1855-2007), which makes sense, consistent with late 20th century warming trend.
This can’t be the plot in the article because Anthony claims that it covers 2000 years.
But I’m a bit skeptical about the x-axis labeling. Nobody would use Common Era dates on a numeric scientific plot, because there is a discontinuity at 0 CE. Typically one would use an offset in years from present time etc.
Now the Gomez plot had about 2218 points (with 110 missing values which I filled in with mean values from the time series). So is it possible that Anthony’s x-axis is just a count of data points, not years? In other words this might just be raw data, not calibrated to temperature (which might explain the unusually low recent temps)
Can someone point me to documentation on this particular Law Dome ice core, which will verify that it is calibrated accurately for temperature over a 2000 year span? Other factors (e.g. volcanism) can also create spikes in these 018/O16 plots. So some sort of calibration routine (yikes, a model!) must be applied to smooth and correct for these aberrations and other noise.
š
:
John Day says:
June 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm
————————-
The Gomez ice core has nothing to do with the Law Dome ice core. Nick Stokes was mistaken when he brought attention to the post on Climate Audit by Paul Dennis of UEA (who was a co-author on the Gomez ice core paper). The metres of accumulation in Gomez have been translated into “time” which only goes back to 1857.
The issue is – why has this high resolution do18 temperature proxy ice core from Law Dome been suppressed.
There isn’t a lot of opportunity to provide annual (or even decadal resolved) temperature estimates from the ice cores. Law Dome is one of those that has very high accumulation rates and therefore we can get annually resolved CO2 / Methane / Lead measurements from Law Dome (which are published) but the do18 temperature proxy data has been withheld by the scientists who gathered it (other than an email to Steve McIntyre and to many of the ClimateGate scientists).
It obviously didn’t fit with the global warming storyline. Michael Mann would obviously not use it for a hockey stick reconstruction and neither did the IPCC or anyone – because it has been suppressed.
Unprecedented late 20th century global warming is our very own un-dead Piltdown Man. Maybe its Son of Piltdown Man.
“””””…..cui bono says:
June 13, 2012 at 5:30 am
Roy says (June 13, 2012 at 1:59 am):
You are doing Ptolemy a great disservice.
āāā-
Absolutely. And it cost the taxpayers nothing for 1500 years despite being wrong……”””””
Where did you get the idea that Ptolemy’s epicycle theory is wrong. Of course it is correct. Why don’t YOU take whatever 21st century theory you happen to believe, and then transfer the origin of your co-ordinate reference frame, from the sun to the earth; and then explain how it is different from Ptolemy’s epicycles.
I do believe it was Albert Einstein who told us there is no absolute reference frame.
I actually found a book in my old alma mater library, that had a full description of Ptolemy’s epicycles, with simply stunning graphs. As I recall, it also had a derivation of the elastic properties of the “ether” medium, in order for it to be able to propagate waves at the velocity of light.
Either one is a whole lot easier to understand as well as believe, than string theory is.
Old and busted: Hockey Stick.
New Hotness: Molehill?
I’ve updated my page on the Ice Hockey Stick concerning the ice core record of CO2 which I regard as the biggest scam going, still not widely commented-on, and with Al Gore’s input, the mother of all our AGW alarms. Will do an article if I can, after Graeff.
In checking out the availability of ice core date in relationship to the Gergis debacle, I found this NOAA graph which shows CO2 at around 200ppm for a long time… but plants starve at that level of CO2.
Yeah, you get to offer the first guess what happens to data when it gets “proceesed”. Don’t bother being polite!
š
Has the paper been killed or is it coming back?
@Bill Illis
> The Gomez ice core has nothing to do with the Law Dome ice core.
> Nick Stokes was mistaken …
Yes, of course
1) The two sites are on opposite edges of the Antarctic continent
2) The Gomez core data sample covers only 150 years from present
But Tas van Ommen, who seems to have been the principal investigator for the team which studied this 2000 year Law Dome sample, claims the findings have been published and the data for this sample are ‘publicly available’:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-337947
Question is: where are these ‘publicly available’ findings and data? Is Tas telling the truth?
Sorry if someone has already answered this question above. I skimmed so might have missed it.
š
No, Barry. The second graph with Cm, O, S, D, C, Pā¦.. is a Geologic Time Scale with Cambrian (about 550 million years ago) to present.
Tr, J, K, are the Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous which ends at about 65 million years ago.
The uncertainty in the actual number of years is down to about 1%
Oops. Misread that. A graph going back several hundreds of thousands of years would actually make more sense there, in my opinion, but you are right.
John Day says: June 14, 2012 at 5:57 am
Yes, I too wondered where Tas van Ommen’s “publicly avilable” data are, apart from Steve’s laptop. I looked at the ITASE IceReader which Wikipedia mentions, which appears to be the de facto website for ice core data, and does have a lot of NOAA and NSIDC links (about a quarter of the 200 ice cores mentioned) but doe NOT have URL links for Law Dome.
Can anybody help?
Lukey B says: June 14, 2012 at 5:36 am
āWhat do people think the motivation is to persuade the world that global warming is real? Investment in āgreen-techā?….
Partly that. But, that is only a tiny part of it. There is a wide array of beneficiaries:
Governments: all levels: more power, more tax, more budgets, and more bureaucracy ā they thrive on any form of āover- regulationā and ārevenue-sourcingā. And for government regulatory arms (eg US EPA) – power, funds, headcount, and ‘a noble cause’!
Researchers and research establishments (publically funded) ā obvious enough, and the āsynergy and feedback loopā with the above is also obvious.
The UN, The World Bank, NGOs: added roles, power, control and MONEY, head count, bureaucracy. In fact, it provides all that they live and exist for. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/from-rio-20-the-future-we-dread/
Financial institutions, banks, traders; this to them is another huge source of trading funds to slosh around the world in churning tides of profit generating trading. Well illustrated here (Yep, about 99% of it is future trading, or worse, options on futures!): http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/global-carbon-market-hits-176-billion-in-2011/
Green and conservation groups; a wonderful world saving cause and another reason to exist. And a source of funding so long haired sandal wearing layabouts can continue to live their dissolute existence while giving themselves the illusion they are actually doing something.
And no, it does not mean there is a conspiracy afoot. What we have here is a loosely aligned array of groups utilizing (in some cases subconsciously) a common lever to achieve their own ends. It just happens to be something which entirely matches the reason they exist, so asking questions re the validity of the science is not considered or tolerated.
I think all should consider what is actually happening:
“A recent NASA study may provide some new information on why the human produced greenhouse gasses are not destroying the planet. During the past ten years, NASA has been collecting atmospheric data from their Terra satellite. Their data shows that when the earth heats up, the atmosphere is able to channel energy and gasses out into space much better than they had previously believed.”
and from James Lovelock, leading environmentalist and one of the initial AGW alarmists and author:
“in a recent interview in April of 2012, Lovelock stated, The problem is we donāt know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books ā mine included ā because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnāt happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. Thereās nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”
Lucy Skywalker says: June 14, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Yes, I too wondered where Tas van Ommenās āpublicly avilableā data are…
Paywalled.
If this is the longest and best paleoclimate indicator that’s never been published, why doesn’t Watts or McIntyre publish it?
And by “publish,” I mean submit it with “computer codes” and all supporting data, to a real journal for real review by people that know the science.
Of course, then Watts or McIntyre would be in the position of having to defend it against people who actually know something. I’d pay to see that.
We could start with just a wee bit of common sense, of course. We know what temps have been like for the last 150 or so years… How does this reconstruction compare to the instrument record? If it varies significantly from the instrument record over the last 150 years, then we ask, “What are we missing?” Is there some reason WattsUpWithThat didn’t bother to include the instrumental comparison here?
Nick Stokes says:
June 13, 2012 at 2:18 am
āAs I recall, d18O correlates negatively with temperature.ā
I recalled coral numbers ā I was wrong here.d18O in ice goes the other way.
Nick Stokes retracted his first post honestly – but folks kept on attacking him. Read the thread a bit more before unloading opinions and ad-homs!
@Lucy Skywalker:
> Can anyone help?
I contacted Tas van Ommen (via IceReader) and he kindly responded with links and helpful information. Tas was right, these records and data, though somewhat “hidden in plain sight”, are indeed ‘publicly available’ (after you request and receive a free account for downloading).
The data is on an Australian AADC server, for which you will have to request a user account (which was approved instantaneously for me). This NASA/Goddard link will get you to the AADC login, after a few clicks and registration processing:
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=Parameters|PALEOCLIMATE|ICE+CORE+RECORDS|ISOTOPES&EntryId=[AADC]ASAC_757_LD_d18O&MetadataView=Data&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb5
The meta information with the file explains that the date column is indeed time before present (BP), where present is 2000. The most recent datapoint has a value of 4, thus represents 1996 etc.
Also, contains a note that points older than 700BP are computed via a different data-flow model, presumably because the annual stripes have diffused together.
Anthony’s title for this post had me thinking this dataset would also be high-resolution. Not so.In fact the entire dataset is rather low-resolution, point estimates are 4-years apart.
Having said that, I should point out that the site itself is a ‘high-accumulation’ site, meaning a lot of snow, on the order of a 1 meter per year or so. So the original ice core itself, which the d18o dataset represents, certainly could provide a lot more samples of higher resolution than this highly processed and homogenized d18o data.
š
I said:
> Also, contains a note that points older than 700BP are computed via a
> different data-flow model, presumably because the annual stripes have
> diffused together.
… so you have to be really careful in comparing present-day conditions (timeBP << 700) with the points representing the MWP, which are greater than 700 years, because two different estimation models are being used, which haven't necessarily been optimally calibrated for such comparisons. Also, as the metadata reveals, the reliability of the estimates degrades with time. So the oldest sample values (with BP=2100 representing 100 BC) have a temporal uncertainty of decades!
As I seem to have the last word on this post, I will merely agree with the most of you that it would be gratifying to learn that those two big bumps do indeed represent a MWP warmer than the current 'unprecedented' warm spells. Gratifying in restoring confidence in government-run science, because "global warming" does indeed seem to be over-hyped by the government(s).
But wanting something shouldn't be interpreted as a proof of what you want. Let's see some solid proof before declaring any kind of 'victory' here.
š