Validity of Marcott et al. contention that “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years” ”
Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
Part I of this series looked at the validity of conclusions for the 11,300 time span covered in Marcott et al. “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years.” This segment (Part II) analyzes conclusions in the Marcott et al. paper in which they contend that “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years”
As in Part I, this segment analyzes the Marcott et al. conclusions using the scientific method of Feynman in which conclusions are checked against well-established data from other sources,. As Feynman points out, if a hypothesis (conclusion) disagrees with observations and data, it is wrong. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful the hypothesis (conclusion) is, how smart the author is, or what the author’s name is, if it disagrees with data or observations, it is wrong.
So let’s check the Marcott et al. conclusions against several of the best data sets available.
For this exercise, we’ll use (1) the GISP2 oxygen isotope data of Stuiver and Grottes (1997), (2) the GISP2 paleotemperature data of Cuffy and Clow (1997) and Alley (2000), and (3) temperature reconstructions from Chinese tree rings. Among the many data sets that could be used, the GISP2 ice core data have been selected because (1) the ice core data is based on thousands of isotope measurements that quantitatively reflect paleo-temperatures, (2) the chronology is accurate to within about 1-3 years, (3) even small fluctuations of ice core paleo-temperatues can be clearly and unequivocally correlated with advance and retreat of glaciers globally, confirming that the ice core data mimic global temperatures, and (4) Greenland temperatures measured over the past century match global temperature trends almost exactly, confirming that Greenland temperatures march in lock step with global temperatures. Thus, the GISP2 ice core data provides an excellent check against conclusions about global climate—it is quantitative, chronologically accurate, and representative of global climate. Keep in mind, however, that the magnitude of temperature fluctuations generally increases with latitude, i.e., the higher the latitude the greater the temperature fluctuations are likely to be, so Greenland temperature variations are likely to be greater than global averages. It also means that we are more likely to see details of temperature changes in the Greenland data than in global averages.
Figure 1 shows a comparison of the Marcott et al. temperature curve for the past 4,000 years (1A), the Greenland GISP2 temperature curve of Alley (2000), based on the data from Cuffy and Clow (1997) (1B), the Greenland GISP2 and Δ18O (the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 relative to a standard) from isotope data measured by Stuiver and Grootes (1997)(1C), and a temperature reconstruction based on Chinese tree rings (1D) (included as an example of the good correlation of the GISP2 data to places far away from Greenland).
Several things are worth noting about the Greenland data. There are two kinds of temperature data: (1) figure 1B, which shows temperatures from borehole measurements, and (2) figure 1C, which shows variation in oxygen isotope ratios. The significance of this is that temperature variations in both curves are essentially the same, confirming one another. The Little Ice, Medieval Warm Period, Dark Ages Cool Period, Roman Warm Period, and other temperature peaks show up equally well in both types of curve.
Figure 1. Comparison of the Marcott et al. temperature curve (A); the Greenland GISP2 temperature curve of Alley (2000) based on data from Cuffy and Clow (1997) (B); Greenland GISP2 oxygen isotope ratios (delta 18O) from ice core data measured by Stuiver and Grootes (1997)(C); and temperature reconstruction from Chinese tree rings (D) (Liu et al., 2011).
The Marcott et al. curve shows a nearly vertical line for recent warming, which they claim puts present temperatures above any in the past 4,000years. This nearly vertical part of their curve apparently comes not from their proxy data, but is pasted on from elsewhere and plays a central role in their contention that present temperatures and the rate of warming are ‘unprecedented in the past 4,000 years.’ Let’s test both of these assertions against ice-core and global glacial data.
Both the Greenland GISP2 temperature curve (Figure 1B) and the oxygen isotope curve (Figure 1C) clearly show that except for the Little Ice Age and Dark Ages Cool Period, temperatures for all of the past 4,000 years have been warmer than the end of the ice core (1950 AD). The Medieval Warm Period was 1.1° C warmer than the top of the core (1950) and at least four other warm periods of equal magnitude occurred in the past 4,000 years; four other warm periods were ~1.3°C warmer; two other warm period were 1.8-2.0°C warmer; and one warm period was 2.8°C warmer. At least a dozen periods more than 1°C warmer than 1950 occurred, clearly contradicting the Marcott et al. conclusions.
Figure 2. Peak temperatures warmer than 1950 in the past 4,000 years.
The top of the GISP2 ice core is 1950 AD, so we need to look at more recent temperatures in Greenland in order to get to the ‘present temperature’, i.e., has the temperature in Greenland risen since 1950? Figure 2 shows 1880 to 2004 temperatures in Greenland (Chylek et al., 2004, 2006). Temperatures in 2004 were slightly lower than in 1950, so temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice core are not significantly different than those ‘at present.’
Figure 3. 1880 to 2004 temperatures in Greenland (Chylek et al., 2004, 2006).
The Marcott et al. conclusion that “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., it is are wrong.
Marcott et al. contend that “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years. “If any period in time had a sustained temperature change similar to what we have today we would have certainly seen that in our record.” Let us test this conclusion against real-time data. First, their statement that “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century” is not true. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age occurred about 400 years ago, during the Maunder Minimum, so right off the bat, their conclusion is flawed. They appear to be unaware of the cyclic nature of temperature change and use the low point of the 1880-1915 cool period as their starting point for assessing the rate of warming over the ‘past century,’ rather than 1913-2013. Comparing the depth of cooling in a cool period with a warm period peak is comparing apples and oranges. It distorts the real rate, which should be measured from cool peak to cool peak or warm peak to warm peak. The 1880-1915 cool period was followed by the 1915-1945 warm period, the 1945-1977 cool period, and the 1978-1998 warm period (Figure 4). The rate of warming from 1913 to 2013 is about 0.7°C per century (which is about the same as the warming rate over the past 400 years as we have been thawing out of the Little Ice, long before atmospheric CO2 began to rise significantly).
Figure 4. Global temperature during the past century.
So let’s compare this rate (0.7°C per century) to rates of temperature increase in the past 11,300 years. Figure 5 shows rates of temperature change in the Greenland GSP2 ice core from the end of the last Ice Age through the Holocene (Figure 4A). Figure 4B shows some of the higher rates of temperature change in Figure 4A. The highest rates occurred at the transition from the Ice Age to Holocene when warming rates in Greenland were 20 to 24°F per century and the huge continental ice sheets that covered large areas of North America and Eur-Asia melted dramatically. As shown in Figure 4B, the rate for the past century (0.7°C) is puny indeed compared to late Ice Age/early Holocene rates.
Figure 4. A. Temperature changes in the Greenland GISP2 ice core from the end of the last Ice Age through the Holocene. (Easterbrook, 2011 modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997). B. Rates of temperature change. (Easterbrook, 2011)
Holocene rates of warming and cooling were not as profound as those at the end of the last Ice Age, but were nonetheless greater than or equal to recent warming rates. Marcott et al. contend that “If any period in time had a sustained temperature change similar to what we have today we would have certainly seen that in our record” As shown in Figure 4A, we do indeed have a record of warming rates far in excess of those in the past century.
The Marcott et al. conclusion that “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years” is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., their conclusion is wrong.
Next, in Part III, we’ll analyze the Marcott et al. conclusions that “Over the coming decades we are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age.” “Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.” Our global temperature reconstruction for the past 1500 years is indistinguishable within uncertainty from the Mann et al. reconstruction”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amazing how the MWP manages to disappear right in time for an IPCC AR isn’t it. I’m not indulging in conspiritorial ideation or any counterfactual claims or anything nefarious like that, I’m just sayin.
Talk about your greedy, lying bastards! Time to juice the watermelons, add rum & make daiquiris, with a blender powered by fossil fuels & ice made with energy from the same sources. For the children, since the more CO2 the better, up to the point at which humans suffocate (7000 ppm?).
The Marcott et al. paper is junk.
Nough said.
If one is to use Ice cores or tree rings would one not be required to have some from the South pole, some from the north poles, some from Europe some from Alaska. Then would they not need to meet the same criteria so that one could then feel more comfortable making a statement about the GLOBAL climate and temperature? Isolated areas are isolated areas and can not be used to provide a PROOF.
I’ve graphed all 73 proxies and uploaded to Dropbox:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/75831381/Marcott.SM.database.S1–law.xlsx
The graphs are on sheets 5-77 of the Excel database provided by Marcott.
Seems amazing that anyone could try to make something of the “dog’s breakfast” to quote Steve McI.
I chose to graph the published age (column E) as the x-axis. It may be that I should have used the “Marine 09” age, whatever that is. That includes an estimate of the 1-sigma error, usually in the range of a few hundred years. Plotting these horizontal error bars would add to the confusion in the most delightful way.
See also the graph of the last 300 years by Paul Matthews in the Bishop’s blog.
“Feyerabend was also critical of falsificationism. He argued that no interesting theory is ever consistent with all the relevant facts. This would rule out using a naïve falsificationist rule which says that scientific theories should be rejected if they do not agree with known facts. Feyerabend uses several examples, but “renormalization” in quantum mechanics provides an example of his intentionally provocative style: “This procedure consists in crossing out the results of certain calculations and replacing them by a description of what is actually observed. Thus one admits, implicitly, that the theory is in trouble while formulating it in a manner suggesting that a new principle has been discovered” Against Method. p. 61. Such jokes are not intended as a criticism of the practice of scientists. Feyerabend is not advocating that scientists do not make use of renormalization or other ad hoc methods. Instead, he is arguing that such methods are essential to the progress of science for several reasons. One of these reasons is that progress in science is uneven. For instance, in the time of Galileo, optical theory could not account for phenomena that were observed by means of telescopes. So, astronomers who used telescopic observation had to use ad hoc rules until they could justify their assumptions by means of optical theory.
Feyerabend was critical of any guideline that aimed to judge the quality of scientific theories by comparing them to known facts. He thought that previous theory might influence natural interpretations of observed phenomena. Scientists necessarily make implicit assumptions when comparing scientific theories to facts that they observe. Such assumptions need to be changed in order to make the new theory compatible with observations. The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that Feyerabend provided was the tower argument. The tower argument was one of the main objections against the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians assumed that the fact that a stone which is dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been “left behind”. Objects would fall diagonally instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought that it was evident that the earth did not move. If one uses ancient theories of impulse and relative motion, the Copernican theory indeed appears to be falsified by the fact that objects fall vertically on earth. This observation required a new interpretation to make it compatible with Copernican theory. Galileo was able to make such a change about the nature of impulse and relative motion. Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of ad hoc methods and proceed counterinductively. So, “ad hoc” hypotheses actually have a positive function: they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory to be defended can be supported by other theories.”
contrary to Popper and Feynman, when theory and data come into collision ( they are always in collision) the experimenter has three choices:
1. Conclude the theory is wrong. This is almost never done on the basis of a single experiment since it is impossible to isolate a single aspect of a theory to test it. And it’s rarely done unless one has a replacement theory that is as good as the theory it replaces.
2. Conclude the data is wrong. Since all data is theory laden, this becomes an even thornier problem. For example temperature “data” from a satellite is “theory” laden as it is produced from a sensor measurement and a physics theory. Such that a conflict between theory and data in the end is a conflict between two theories. The theory being tested and the measurement theory embedded in the observation.
3. Provide auxilliary hypothesis that reconcile the data with the theory.
One should not appeal to the authority of Feynman especially since he was factually wrong, and historically wrong, and ironically blind on the renormalization issue.
My main reservation with this article is the leap from Greenland temperatures (as seen in the ice cores) to global. Yes, they appear to have correlated well for the last century, but is that correlation robust?
The Greenland ice cores certainly put doubt into the Marcott et al. conclusions, but to say that they prove that the Marcott et al. conclusions are therefore wrong is, I believe, stretching matters. Evidence to suggest that the conclusions are wrong: yes. Evidence to prove that the conclusions are wrong: no.
Just another Mann-made warming deception me too paper. Has all the credence of revealing truth as the original Mann paper did.
Peer-reviewed failure yet again.
Who is Steve Mosher?
Steven Mosher, B.A. Philosophy and English, Northwestern University (1981); Director of Operations Research/Foreign Military Sales & Marketing, Northrop Aircraft Northrop Aircraft (1985-1990); Vice President of “Engineering” [Marketing], Eidetics International (1990-1993); Director of Marketing, Kubota Graphics Company (1993-1994); Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Criterion Software (1994-1995); Vice President of Emerging Technology [Marketing], Creative Labs (1995-2006); Vice President [Marketing], Openmoko (2007-2009); Marketing Consultant, Qi Hardware Inc. (2009); Marketing Consultant (2010-Present); [Marketing] Advisor, RedZu Online Dating Service (2012-Present)
…and why is he so obsessed with defending Marcott et al.?
You are all correct/wrong, this is a masterful work of Climatology.
It follows the rigorous logic of this pastime.
1 Choose the conclusion you desire.
2 Collect data sets that might support chosen conclusion.
3 Massage data to suit.
4 Publish, through friendly propagandists & press release.
5 Data and methods paywalled or not “yet” available.
If reality contradicts my model output, reality is at fault.
Climatology 101.
Steven Mosher says:
March 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm
———–
Steven, if I ever commit a heinous crime and get caught, I want you representing me instead of a lawyer.
GoodBusiness says:
March 13, 2013 at 1:44 pm
—
Once again you have failed to read the paper in which they demonstate that the Greenland ice data is a good proxy for global temperatures.
populartechnology says:
March 13, 2013 at 2:16 pm
—
Mosher has been obsessed with defending the global warming orthodoxy in general for quite some time.
“temperatures for all of the past 4,000 years have been warmer than the end of the ice core (1950 AD)”
Check the axis on your plot, which is in any case mis-labelled. It says “years before 2000 AD” when it should be years before 1950. But further, the most recent data point is 95 years BP – ie 1855. That is about what Marcott et al said was the coldest time.
populartechnology says:
March 13, 2013 at 2:16 pm
————
PopularTechnology I wish you wouldn’t do that. Who gives a $#!% what Mosher’s resume says, what’s that got to do with anything? The guy is sharp. I don’t care if he studied beer and pretzels and worked as a basket weaver for his entire career. I think he’s wrong sometimes (like now), but I don’t see dismissing anybody based on what they studied or what they’ve done for a living as terribly sensible.
~shrug~
re Steven Mosher’s comments on Feyerabend, and more generally the homilies about scientific method we frequently have to read in posts, he and others may enjoy this funny send-up of “linguists doing bad philosophy of science instead of linguistics:”
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/PullumMoaners.pdf
A taste: “I discern three main factions in philosophy of science… The third faction consists of Paul Feyerabend. What Feyerabend offers is not so much philosophy as guerilla theater for philosophers. His work is marvellous reading: bubbling wit, boiling invective, deep erudition, a constant twinkle in the eye – to read Feyerabend is to experience an intellectual analog of what dogs seem to enjoy when they get a chance to roll on their backs in a patch of fresh, crisp grass. But make no mistake: reading Feyerabend without appreciating that he is sending the whole business up is like mistaking Monty Python’s Flying Circus for the Ten O’Clock News. In his celebrated book Against Method, for example, Feyerabend offers, tongue in cheek, a recipe for the destruction of science. Deadpan, he presents a purported methodology for modern scientists that will allegedly take them in the footsteps of their great heroes such as Galileo: develop theories that are in conflict with known facts; lie about the observational support for them; maintain them stubbornly in the face of objections; defend them by means of dishonesty and bluster. Feyerabend seems to be alternately amused and disgusted to see that there are people who read his satirical proposals as if seriously put forward (see e.g. his ‘Marxist fairy tales from Australia’ (1978)). He would really get a kick out of seeing how linguists are solemnly citing him (see Hornstein and Lightfoot 1981, p. 29, note 5, for a wholly serious reference to Against Method), and how some seem to be actually trying to live by his ironically proposed principles.”
John Tillman says:
March 13, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Low by about a factor of 10. See here.
The relevant extract is:
As others have posted at WUWT nuclear submarine crews are exposed to CO2 levels of 7000 ppm or higher for extended periods of time (months). Of course, submarine crews are not representative of the population as a whole. YYMV.
US air quality standards for commercial buildings (ASHRAE) accept indoor CO2 concentrations up to 2100 ppm above outside ambient levels (which would typically equate to ~2500 ppm). But in this context CO2 is used as a proxy for a whole host of “bio-effluents” and other indoor pollutants (and also an inverse proxy for O2 levels), so this does not establish a CO2 level which is unhealthy on its own.
The only way I can imagine getting anywhere near 7000 ppm CO2 in any of our lifetimes is from some truly massive and sustained increase in volcanic activity, at which point 7000 ppm of CO2 would be way down on our list of problems.
The ice core show 1-3 year layers, BUT, due to breathing of ice, [I think] the temperature and gas content represents about 70 years of averaging.
Got this from some ice core explanation, Antarctica, I think.
So we still have a smoothing function going on with the ice core, something that the temp data does not have.
I would suppose that thousands of studies showing the existence of more dramatic global warming and cooling periods than Marcott et al. demonstrate should present a high bar to Marcott’s conclusons. Marcott et al. use methodology quite similar to previous studies showing different warming and cooling patterns. Therefore, Marcott’s burden is two-fold: demonstrate validity while showing how other studies were wrong. With their lack of sample definition and long-period averaging, it does not seem that they have much with which to demonstrate superiority over previous work.
Are you saying Earth is actually at -30 degrees now? Doesn’t seem plausible to me.
You know something is wrong when a branch of science can only produce drawings that look alike.
Obviously a lack of imagination going on.
Andrew
Its hilarious that someone claims to produced a measurement to a claimed accuracy of .01 when all they have to measure with is a device that can only be accurate to 10.00 , which in effect is what Marcott is doing with their claims over recent warming . Do that in any other area , especially engineering , and you lucky if they just laughed at you. So you have to ask , just how low are the standards within climate ‘science’ , that such approaches are acceptable ?
Steve, this is the funniest thing that you’ve written and that I got to read.
Feynman was factually wrong? Got proof? Especially got any proof that he reviewed the alleged error and stayed in error? Or is this a slime swipe to try and minimize Feynman’s brilliance?
Feynman was historically wrong? What? Did he get his birth or death dates wrong? Again, the same questions as the previous question about factually wrong.
Feynman was ironically blind on re-normalization issue? Seriously? This kind of claim must have some sort of verified research behind it right?
Feynman in error on mathematics…? I’d like to see this proof. I’d also like to see all exchanges between Feynman and whoever claimed Feynman was in error.
“Its hilarious that someone claims to produced a measurement to a claimed accuracy of .01 when all they have to measure with is a device that can only be accurate to 10.00”
All you have to do is measure it 10,000 times and take the average. Sheesh, I am no climate believer, but that was moronic.
populartechnology says:
> Who is Steve Mosher?
It does not matter a single bit who Steve Mosher is or what positions he held. We know he is a nice guy, but even that does not matter. Most of us here are officially nobodies (or even wrong-bodies), but that does matter. What matters is whether our ideas or the ideas we quote hold water.
Renormalisation is not a scientific theory. It does not explain anything; it does not predict anything; all it does is it matches some data — just enough to please Feynman (who nonetheless told us it was just a hocus-pocus, and no, Mr. Feynman was not joking when he said that). Beyond that, it is just as bad as the infamous hockey stick. The only difference is that the hockey stick supports fraudulent politics, while renormalisation supports carrer pseudoscientists.
I agree that matching data is not a sufficient test for a scientific theory, but let’s see an example of a good theory that does not match data. I can’t think of one off-hand.