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 °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 15 °C (18 to 27 °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 5 °C (9 °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 – to borrow a phrase from the preparation of AR3 – would “dilute the message” and perhaps provide “fodder to skeptics”.
Read the whole report at Climate Audit here
The Team keeps trying to bury this stuff, and Climate Audit keeps digging it up:
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:
“On the left is temperature in °C, on the X axis, years, with labels from 0AD to the year 2000.”
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 – going more positive.
while on the Pleistocene graph it is labeled on the right side d18O ranging from +3 up to -4 – 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 I’m 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 – 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 “expert” 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 Géophysique de l’Environnement,
Saint Martin d’Hères-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 can’t 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 …. 😉
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.