Image Credit: Photobucket.com – GISP2 – Moberg – Keigwin – HadCRUT3
By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
During the first crowdsourcing thread for the under construction WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page, we had a number solid recommendations and WUWT moderator D.B. Stealey dropped a virtual mountain of links into comments here and here. The result is that the original WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page has more than doubled in size and continues to grow as more comments from the prior crowdsourcing thread are added. Given the large number of additions and the fact that we now have a number of near-duplicate graphs, it seemed prudent to continue this crowdsourcing exercise to gain further input on the validity and value of each and all of the graphs.
There will likely be at least one more crowdsourcing thread for the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page, in order to assess a number of the currently disputed, questionable and falsified graphs, including Briffa et al., 1998, Jones et al., 1998, Mann et al., 1998, Pollack et al., 1998, Jones et al., 1998, Mann et al., 1999, Mann et al., 2000, Briffa et al., 2001, Esper et al., 2002 and Jones and Mann 2004, AR4 section 6.6.1.1 2007 and Marcott et al. 2013. Note that two (1, 2) of the graphs currently on the Paleoclimate page have a Disputed label, as per this comment and Alley’s own graph, the x axis label should read Years Before Present (1950 AD) not (2000 AD)
However, disputes aside, a gigantic thank you to D.B. Stealey, and all of those who have contributed to the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page. The following are some of the new additions to the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page:
472 Years – CET Extended Graph – Tony Brown – Graph Background
1,205 Years 800 – 2005
2,000 Years
2,100 Years – Law Dome O18
2,500 Years
3,000 Years
4,000 Years
10,000 Years GISP2 Ice Core
10,000 Years Vostok Ice Core
10,000 Years
10,000 Years Vostok Ice Core
10,000 Years GISP Hadley
10,000 Years GISP Hadley
10,000 Years GISP Hadley
10,000 Years GISP
12,000 Years – Vostok Anatarctica
20,000 Years
110,000 Years GISP2
110,000 Years GISP2
120,000 Years
140,000 Years Antarctic/Vostok
140,000 Years
140,000 Years
400,000 Years Antarctica/Vostok
420,000 Years
423,000 Years Antarctic/Vostok
450,000 Years
450,000 Years
740,000 Years
800,000 Years (Click the Pic and zoom in)
65,000,000 Years
108,000,000 Years – Cramer et al., 2011
545,000,000 Years
570,000,000 Years
750,000,000 Years
4,500,000,000 Years
(Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.)
Please post your thoughts, recommendations, graphs, links, research, suggested graph titles, etc., for the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page in comments. Thanks JTF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil. says: March 31, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Craig Loehle, Ph.D. and J. Huston McCulloch – PLUSAF.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
You have as the 2000 yr plot Dr Loehle’s 2007 paper data. He subsequently issued a correction, which made substantial changes.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/
Authors
Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch
Abstract
A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals are added. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the bimillennial average during most of the period 820 – 1040 AD. The Little Ice Age was significantly cooler than the average during most of 1440 – 1740 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.
I haven’t read the paper, as I refuse to pay 18 Pounds to read someones correction;
https://multiscience.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=caxasoc5s4ybdjupub4ns1ov&sh=multi-science.metapress.com
but the graph certainly seems deserving of a Disputed label, unless someone disagrees?
As one of those who pitched in on CA to fix the errors in the original version, if Nick hadn’t posted that I would have. The original graph is not disputed it’s acknowledged to be in error by the author (it’s not ‘someone’ who corrected it it’s the original author). To save you the money you can access the paper here: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
The data in the corrected graph extend to 1935 due to misdating in the original paper.
I’ve added the Loehle graph to a new section at the bottom of the Paleoclimate page titled,
Incorrect/Falsified Graphs and cited your comment among other background.
2,000 Years – Incorrect Graph The data in this graph should only extend to 1935, not 1980. Per “Correction to: A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREE RING PROXIES” by Craig Loehle, Ph.D. and J. Huston McCulloch, “With the corrected dating, the number of series for which data is available drops from 11 to 8 in 1935, so that subsequent values of the reconstruction would be based on less than half the total number of series, and hence would have greatly decreased accuracy. Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935 AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007). paper The paper is listed here and a comment addressing the issue can be found here.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
Thank you for your input.
Nick Stokes says: March 31, 2013 at 3:07 am
2500 years marks it correctly. 3000 yrs isn’t explicit, but seems right. 4000 yrs doesn’t number the x-axis at all, or identify the data, but it seems to be GISP2. 10000 yrs gets it wrong, in marking the last 100 years; however adding the recent warming counters the effect. Then Easterbrook at 10000 yrs has it explicitly wrong, but 2 plots down there’s another 10000 yrs that gets it right, and the one below also seems right. Then the animated gets it wrong, but below that Esper getting it right, with 1855 explicitly marked.
Phil. says: March 31, 2013 at 1:22 pm
They’re not disputed, they’re wrong. Any graph that claims to use Alley’s GISP2 data must either finish at 95 years Before Present (BP=1950) or AD1855 because that is the final date in his database which is on-line and freely available to us all. Lappi’s graph mistakes Present for 2000 as does Easterbrook, they should have a note added pointing out their error or be excluded.
Nick Stokes says: March 31, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Incidentally, do you really want to fill your page with umpteen people graphing Alley’s data?
We are definitely going to want to thin out the Alley graphs and the ones with incorrect axis labels seem like good candidates, but the best way to address this is probably an Alley dating specific thread to hopefully address any disputes if they exist. Ideally I’d like the authors of the graphs to either present evidence supporting the accuracy of the axis labels or issue corrections if the axis labels are inaccurate.
Bill Illis says: April 1, 2013 at 6:02 am
Bill Illis – S12.postimg.org – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
So here is a chart showing NGRIP-extended, NEEM, Epica DomeC Antarctica and the estimated Global temperature going back 135,000 years ago.
Could probably add this chart to the Reference page.
http://s12.postimg.org/9ctilkusd/NGRIP_NEEM_EDC_Global_135kya.png
Yes, good one, added to the Paleoclimate page:
135,000 Year – NGRIP-extended, NEEM, Epica DomeC Antarctica and the estimated Global temperature
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500"]
Thank you.
For your Incorrect/Falsified Graphs section, if you think appropriate. Here are the hoary old USHCN version 1 vs version 2 raw data charts for all stations in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Revised raw data.
Avoid caffeine before clicking.
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_iowa.htm
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm
Steve Keohane says: April 1, 2013 at 8:49 am
JoNova – IPCC AR1 – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
How about the IPCC graph from AR1. It showed the typical depiction of temperature reconstructions of at least the 40 years prior to its being published.
http://i39.tinypic.com/bgemm9.jpg
Yes, IPCC Assessment Report 1 (AR1) Figure 7.1 on page 202;
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
highlighted by Jo Nova here;
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-4-past-temperatures/
and just added to the WUWT Paleoclimate page:
1,100 Years – IPCC Assessment Report 1
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
Thank you for your input. If you, or anyone else, knows what data set and paper the AR1 graph is based on, please post them in comments, as they are not readily apparent from reading AR1.
Hi you should look this:
http://lustiag.pp.fi/gt_trace2008h.pdf
Treeringdata from Finnish Lapland partly source for Esper& al 2013
J. Philip Peterson says: April 3, 2013 at 3:25 pm
suyts space – http://suyts.wordpress.com/ – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
I’d like to submit this graph from GISS:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
I think it tells the whole story.
That’s an amusing graph;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
but it doesn’t extend back far enough for our Paleoclimate page.
JTFWUWT,
That is an excellent graph from suyts. which I have delighted in posting all over the internet. It puts the whole “carbon” scare into perspective. Similar to this one.
dbstealey says: April 11, 2013 at 6:59 pm
http://catallaxyfiles.com/ – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
JTFWUWT,
That is an excellent graph from suyts. which I have delighted in posting all over the internet. It puts the whole “carbon” scare into perspective. Similar to this one.
Yes, that’s another good one:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
They both might earn themselves a place on the WUWT Global Temperature reference page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
right after the Met Office graphs.
dbstealey
climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
bp1.blogger.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
s19.postimage.org – Click the pic to view at source[/caption];
Also, from the pile of links you dropped in the prior crowdsourcing thread I added this graph;
Atmospheric Specific Humidity
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
to the Atmosphere;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/atmosphere/
and Global Climate reference pages:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
and I am considering including these:
Global Relative Humidity
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
Water Vapor Levels
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
Mike McMillan says: April 7, 2013 at 4:09 am
For your Incorrect/Falsified Graphs section, if you think appropriate. Here are the hoary old USHCN version 1 vs version 2 raw data charts for all stations in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Revised raw data.
Avoid caffeine before clicking.
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_iowa.htm
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm
Those are interesting graphs, but don’t extend back far enough for our Paleoclimate page.