UPDATE: McIntyre discovers a serious flaw right away, more upside down Mann world – he writes:
In keeping with the total and complete stubbornness of the paleoclimate community, they use the most famous series of Mann et al 2008: the contaminated Korttajarvi sediments, the problems with which are well known in skeptic blogs and which were reported in a comment at PNAS by Ross and I at the time. The original author, Mia Tiljander, warned against use of the modern portion of this data, as the sediments had been contaminated by modern bridgebuilding and farming. Although the defects of this series as a proxy are well known to readers of “skeptical” blogs, peer reviewers at Nature were obviously untroubled by the inclusion of this proxy in a temperature reconstruction.
More here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/11/more-from-the-junior-birdmen/
=========================================================
‘Charles the Moderator’ writes to inform us that there’s another multiproxy study published, with flat blade and a somewhat limp hockey stick combined with that “unprecedented” claim that has become almost a red flag for bad proxy studies when they are that certain. From the SI PDF file, it looks like it is another splicing study, where they have added CRU data to the paleo reconstruction using tree ring, ice core, and varve data.
I have to wonder though, about the insensitivity of the proxies in the past, that blade seems pretty flat.
Of course it is paywalled, so we can’t examine it in detail yet, but that hasn’t stopped the MSM from ramping up science by press release stories already. The small figure are from the Nature page on the paper.
Abstract:
Recent temperature extremes at high northern latitudes unprecedented in the past 600 years
Martin P. Tingley & Peter Huybers
- Nature 496, 201–205 (11 April 2013) doi:10.1038/nature11969Received 01 September 2012 Accepted 29 January 2013 Published online 10 April 2013
Recently observed extreme temperatures at high northern latitudes1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are rare by definition, making the longer time span afforded by climate proxies important for assessing how the frequency of such extremes may be changing. Previous reconstructions of past temperature variability have demonstrated that recent warmth is anomalous relative to preceding centuries2, 8, 9 or millennia10, but extreme events can be more thoroughly evaluated using a spatially resolved approach that provides an ensemble of possible temperature histories11, 12. Here, using a hierarchical Bayesian analysis13, 14 of instrumental, tree-ring, ice-core and lake-sediment records, we show that the magnitude and frequency of recent warm temperature extremes at high northern latitudes are unprecedented in the past 600 years. The summers of 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011 were warmer than those of all prior years back to 1400 (probability P > 0.95), in terms of the spatial average. The summer of 2010 was the warmest in the previous 600 years in western Russia (P > 0.99) and probably the warmest in western Greenland and the Canadian Arctic as well (P > 0.90). These and other recent extremes greatly exceed those expected from a stationary climate, but can be understood as resulting from constant space–time variability about an increased mean temperature.
Figure 1: Time series of temperature anomalies and centennial slopes.
a, Average land temperature between 45° N and 85° N (black), 90% pointwise (blue shading) and pathwise (grey) credible intervals20 (see Methods); the unweighted average of all available instrumental observations (magenta)
Figure 2: Warm and cold extremes.
a, The proportion of draws (see Methods) for which 2003 and 2010 were warmest, and for which the warmest year fell in the 1990s and 2000s. White shading indicates zero. b, The fraction of all locations for which years were warmest
Figure 3: Histograms of temperature anomalies and instrumental maxima for the period 1992–2011.
a, Histogram of temperature anomalies across locations, ensemble members and years for the interval 1992–2011 (blue); the simulated distribution of temperature anomalies, using median parameter values fitted over 1400–2011 (black)
===============================================================
There are a number of SI files though:
PDF files
-
- Supplementary Information (8.3 MB)
- This file contains Supplementary Figures 1-53 with legends, Supplementary Tables 1-6, Supplementary Discussion and additional references.
Zip files
-
- Supplementary Data 1 (630 KB)
- This file contains the instrumental data sets used in the analysis, in both original form and standardized as described in the Methods, in Matlab and .txt formats. Also included is a short ReadMe document that describes the data files.
-
- Supplementary Data 2 (716 KB)
- This file contains the tree ring density data sets used in the analysis, in both original form and standardized as described in the Methods, in Matlab and .txt formats. Also included is a short ReadMe document that describes the data files.
-
- Supplementary Data 3 (218 KB)
- This file contains the varve data sets used in the analysis, in both original form and standardized as described in the Methods, in Matlab and .txt formats. Also included is a short ReadMe document that describes the data files.
-
- Supplementary Data 4 (262 KB)
- This file contains the ice core data sets used in the analysis, in both original form and standardized as described in the Methods, in Matlab and .txt formats. Also included is a short ReadMe document that describes the data files.We are unable to host the Supplementary Code and Model output files and these can be found at the following link:- ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/tingley2013/tingley2013.zipThese files contain a number of model outputs, available, where possible, in both Matlab and .txt formats. Also included are a number of Matlab scripts that manipulate the model output to reproduce the main features of the analysis, and a short ReadMe document that describes the data and files.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ok, the key part here is “unprecedented in the past 600 years”. Of course, that is exactly what I would EXPECT to see. What they are saying is that current global temperatures are warmer than they were during the Little Ice Age.
This theory seems to have more splicing, grafting and unnatural manipulation than Frankenstein’s monster.
This is beginning to have that same feel as precursor to an overly used bad joke; stop me if you have heard (read) this one before.
It seems that Mike Mann’s trick is becoming more public knowledge by the day.
crosspatch,
It could also mean that 600 years ago — when CO2 was very low — that temps were higher than they are now.
They can’t even keep their convoluted stories straight.
@dbstealey: I believe there is a reason why they didn’t go father back than 600 years. They did not want to put the post-LIA warming into context with the cooling going into it. If they went back 1200 years, today would not be “unprecedented” at all.
It is sort of like saying that 3pm temperatures reached a level unprecedented over the previous 6 hours. I suspect the finding here would be accurate. What this is doing is intentionally picking start/end points in order to attempt to make things seem worse than they really are. I would fully expect any accurate temperature proxy to show that global average temperatures are warmer today than they were in the 15th century.
“……….expected from a stationary climate.”
Idiots, climate is never stationary. Climate change is the norm, it is the usual state of things and has been for billions of years.
Regarding the bigger picture, what are the chances of this study as well as Marcott et al. being included in AR5? I also note that Muller has circumvented tight peer review scrutiny by publishing work in an obscure journal, Volume 1, Issue 1.
I understand there are deadlines regarding submission of papers to get into AR5, but has the IPCC been pinned down on this, particularly whether they have wiggle room to play loose?
It’s worse than we thought!
The science is settled!
In the UK, snow will be a rare and exciting event!
Climate refugees will move North from the Mediterranean due to drought and encroaching deserts
Vineyards will flourish in Northern England!
The B*****t continues!
Splice at 1880.
So proxies aren’t any good after 1880. Huh.
Without any analysis at all you know this is bolixed up somehow. It is NH, and there is no LIA which is documented not only by proxies but also by observation and early thermometer records. Forget the blade. The shaft is wrong!
This whole branch of historic science, paleo-climatology, has taken on the same persona as alchemy did. Is there a book of secret magic, incantations, codes, and symbols that makes its way around a secret society that has mysteriously endowed the insightful with enlightenment that the rest of us mortals cannot fathom? Maybe, there is a special Hermetic drink that is consumed that opens ones eyes to the proper use of facts and mathematical tweaking while walking the entrails tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediment that brings one to the pre-conceived notion of the truth. It is odd how these self-proclaimed shamans are the only ones who can accurately read these entrails to reveal our past and our future. It has baffled mathematicians as McIntyre, McKitrick, North, Wegman, et al.This secret has found a shape, the hockey stick, the shape of death and almost certain destruction.
The flatness of the blade is generally a signal that the proxies have a lot of noise. I doubt greatly whether most of the proxies themselves look anything like the final graph.
The whole thing looks to my first glance to be a typical product of hockeystick mining … the underlying problem is usually they pick proxies which have a good “fit” with the recent century or so of warming. As a result, the warming is common to all selected proxies to form the blade, and the rest is basically random, to give a nice straight shaft.
At least they’ve included their data, code, and sample outputs. Should make it easy to determine.
And for those who think that the skeptics are having no effect, through unrelenting pressure from the skeptical community, the journals and the authors are starting to actually follow the scientific method, providing the necessary transparency to replicate their results.
w.
For about the gazillionth time…
If they want to overlay proxies with CRU measurements of the same time frame to demonstrate how well proxies work, fine.
If they want to overlay proxies with model outputs to demonstrate how well the models work, fine.
But you freaking well do not splice together two entirely different datasets and pretend they’re the same thing. I recall a mining engineer pointing out that a silver mine investor prospectus that truncated projected silver output and spliced in copper output would get someone sent to jail.
I agree with crosspatch, except that the headline ought to read “Highest temps since the Vikings got frozen out of their farms on Greenland”. We’ve known for quite a while that there are millennium-long climate cycles, and we’re probably pretty close to the peak of the current cycle. (The low solar max numbers posted here a couple of days ago would seem to say that, too.)
Glad to know the LIA lasted till 1920… sarc/
They never learn. Every single time, and I mean EVERY TIME, they come up with an “unprecedented temperature graph” it is shown to be fraudulent. Mike’s nature trick, upside-down Tiljander sediments, redating proxies. Can’t wait to see how their trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes here.
I’m going to have trouble with any proxy study using things that can be measured currently without a multi decade, wide area study conducted with well sited, well manged co – located environmental sensors.
Why didn’t someone start doing this in the 1950s?
Do they ever sleep?
good Lord, they smooched all the noise out….
..and now I was born in the LIA
These temperature reconstruction studies are coming at us like sporting clays. PULL!
Another upcoming-UNIPCC-railroad-engineer-political-report-support-paper. This is about “Northern” temperatures, between the most developed area on the planet and the cold Northern wilderness. It is interesting that this is not about “Global Warming” but produces a scarry graph for a scarry headline.
I no longer believe anything these people say. If the UK Met Office, Phil Jones The Poor Bastard, or Mr. Mann told me it was day, I would turn the lights on so I could see.
These people lie, trick the data and are professional propagandists, not scientist.
Anyone remember Lysenko?
I completely understand about temperature estimation. But the hairs on the back of my neck still stand up when anyone says they can tell me what the worldwide temperatures were to less than a degree 200 years before the invention of the thermometer….
Uh oh, they’re switching to a battle of attrition. Quantity instead of quality. When we drop of exhaustion, they’ll have their hockey victory.
Good to see what appears on the face of it be full archiving of code and data.
Maybe Anthony could run a poll so we can guess whether it’s inverted data, selection bias or re-dating again.
Maybe they’ve even invented a new kind of hockey stick.