From the University of Toronto, Underwater ‘tree rings’
Calcite crusts of arctic algae record 650 years of sea ice change
Almost 650 years of annual change in sea-ice cover can been seen in the calcite crust growth layers of seafloor algae, says a new study from the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM).
“This is the first time coralline algae have been used to track changes in Arctic sea ice,” says Jochen Halfar, an associate professor in UTM’s Department of Chemical and Physical Sciences. “We found the algal record shows a dramatic decrease in ice cover over the last 150 years.”
With colleagues from the Smithsonian Institution, Germany and Newfoundland, Halfar collected and analyzed samples of the alga Clathromorphum compactum. This long-lived plant species forms thick rock-like calcite crusts on the seafloor in shallow waters 15 to 17 metres deep. It is widely distributed in the Arctic and sub-Arctic Oceans.
Divers retrieved the specimens from near-freezing seawater during several research cruises led by Walter Adey from the Smithsonian.
The algae’s growth rates depend on the temperature of the water and the light they receive. As snow-covered sea ice accumulates on the water over the algae, it turns the sea floor dark and cold, stopping the plants’ growth. When the sea ice melts in the warm months, the algae resume growing their calcified crusts.
This continuous cycle of dormancy and growth results in visible layers that can be used to determine the length of time the algae were able to grow each year during the ice-free season.
“It’s the same principle as using rings to determine a tree’s age and the levels of precipitation,” says Halfar. “In addition to ring counting, we used radiocarbon dating to confirm the age of the algal layers.”
After cutting and polishing the algae, Halfar used a specialized microscope to take thousands of images of each sample. The images were combined to give a complete overview of the fist-sized specimens.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: This is a diver dislodging coralline red algal crust from rock surface using hammer and chisel while enduring the near-freezing water temperatures of the Labrador Sea.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
Halfar corroborated the length of the algal growth periods through the magnesium levels preserved in each growth layer. The amount of magnesium is dependent on both the light reaching the algae and the temperature of the sea water. Longer periods of open and warm water result in a higher amount of algal magnesium.
During the Little Ice Age, a period of global cooling that lasted from the mid-1500s to the mid-1800s, the algae’s annual growth increments were as narrow as 30 microns due to the extensive sea-ice cover, Halfar says. However, since 1850, the thickness of the algae’s growth increments have more than doubled, bearing witness to an unprecedented decline in sea ice coverage that has accelerated in recent decades.
Halfar says the coralline algae represent not only a new method for climate reconstruction, but are vital to extending knowledge of the climate record back in time to permit more accurate modeling of future climate change.
Currently, observational information about annual changes in the Earth’s temperature and climate go back 150 years. Reliable information about sea-ice coverage comes from satellites and dates back only to the late 1970s.
“In the north, there is nothing in the shallow oceans that tells us about climate, water temperature or sea ice coverage on an annual basis,” says Halfar. “These algae, which live over a thousand years, can now provide us with that information.”
The research, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Ecological Systems Technology.
###
here is the paper:
Significance
The most concerning example of ongoing climate change is the rapid Arctic sea-ice retreat. While just a few years ago ice-free Arctic summers were expected by the end of this century, current models predict this to happen by 2030. This shows that our understanding of rapid changes in the cryosphere is limited, which is largely due to a lack of long-term observations. Newly discovered long-lived algae growing on the Arctic seafloor and forming tree-ring–like growth bands in a hard, calcified crust have recorded centuries of sea-ice history. The algae show that, while fast short-term changes have occurred in the past, the 20th century exhibited the lowest sea-ice cover in the past 646 years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At first the paper sounded reasonable; i.e. until I read the caption under the photo:
Wait a minute! Exactly what depth was that coralline algae concretion harvested at?
You mean they don’t actually know? It’s guessed. When? When the diver ascends, descends, checks his depth gauge (certified? doubtful), is writing up the paper?
Of course, a true aficionado of science match coralline algae concretions of a specific defined depth against other coralline algae concretions at the exact same depth? Sure isn’t stated so in the freebie part of the paper.
Therein lies a major part of their quandary. First make assumptions, then make more assumptions.
This coralline algae that is so sensitive to light conditions that they will be able to determine sea ice cover.
No reference is made to effects of water clarity or lack thereof.
No reference is made to determining differences of light penetration (wavelength and strength) by mm, inch, or even foot.
Ah, the mish mashed method of teasing out hidden trends. Averaging and combining what I assume are coralline samples from different places and depths.
Fortunately, this series of charts are near the end of the addendum_dum and I wouldn’t have to read further.
What is baffling about the charts is when one reads one chart ends at years 1530 and the chart below it begins at 1530; one normally expects that where the graph ended at 1530 is where it would begin in the new chart at 1530.
None of the charts pick up where the previous one ended. They’re all off; averaged and combined beyond reckoning no doubt.
So there is a new paper that proposes to determine sea ice cover from coralline algae growth concretions, extremely dependent on water clarity using concretions harvested at different ‘average’ depths. To simplify findings, all changes in coralline growth are automatically assumed to be sea ice.
What’s that one says? Correlation is not causation and non correlation is climate research success!?
Must be the season. Bah! Humbugs!
The Wa-c-er says:
November 18, 2013 at 8:56 pm
It is you Clysenkoists who are the creationists. AGW theory only works post 1850. The entire proxy climate record on all timescales longer than this make it transparently clear that CO2 cannot drive global temperatures although it might sometimes follow them.
Where was your coral dissolving in acid ocean infantile scare when corals evolved in the Cambrian-Ordovician with CO2 20x higher than today? This is actually quite a simple and scientific question.
Where was your runaway warming and CO2 positive feedback during the Cryogenian under conditions of snowball earth and several thousand ppm CO2? This is also a simple logical question.
You are the one making a fool out of yourself, your language betrays your desperation.
The mainstream acceptance of CAGW is a monstrous and unprecedented fiasco and you will be among many who will be lucky to avoid a rope round your neck when all this finally settles.
Re: Arctic Warming in the 20th century (to the extent that warming may be a controlling causation of variations in the subject algae proxies), this post by Jimbo! at 1:37pm on 11/19/13 on the “11/19/13 New Paper: Arctic Temperature…” thread is interesting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/new-paper-arctic-temperatures-peaked-before-1950-declining-since/#comment-1479428
A typical excerpt from Jimbo’s post to characterize it for you:
(bolding partially edited by me)
And one more post re: warming in Arctic, this time by Leif Svalgaard on the same thread as Jimbo’s (linked above) at 3:12pm today:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/new-paper-arctic-temperatures-peaked-before-1950-declining-since/#comment-1479516
Later in that same thread, Jim Steele and others also post some good info..
Yes, I realize that warming is NOT proven by the above posts to be the controlling cause of algae variation. I just posted the info. on this thread to provide some context and background information.
[Mods – please delete my last post.]
Ian W says:
November 19, 2013 at 3:57 pm
You’re joking, right?
The researchers removed Clathromorphum compactum from the rocks, not some other species. They know the age of the samples of the species they selected from their annual growth rings, backed up by other dating methods.
I’ve already gotten angrier than is suitable in a science blog, but you’re really testing my limits here.
Phlogiston (re: delete request) — why? Long live freedom of speech! The gist of your post is GREAT. And that last sentence is (obviously metaphorically; don’t worry about any dopes who take it literally, they’ll be working on how to get their TV remote to open their garage door so long that they’ll forget what you wrote, (heh, they’ll forget why they even have their car keys in their hand) before they’ll manage to drive over to your house and do a burn-out on your front lawn) dead on accurate.
Your fan,
Janice
Janice Moore says:
November 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Regardless of what your friends may think, creationism is anti-science. It has to be. It rejects not only biology but astronomy, physics, geology & probably chemistry as well.
I’d be happy to be your friend, but your adherence to an anti-scientific cult injurious to the fight against CACA might prove a barrier.
I don’t know why you think I’m a musician. I’m not. While not quite a musical moron, my MQ is probably barely 100. As a pianist I’m at best mechanical, although from a musical family.
Hi, Milodon Harlani,
My faulty memory is the reason I thought you were a musician. I mistakenly “recalled” that on the thread where W. Eschenbach described a breathing technique that you said that you as a woodwind player had to be (v. a v. your lungs) “human bagpipes.” Someone else.
Well, anyway…. . So? What music do you enjoy listening to? #(:))
(I will just not “go there” with the intelligent design theory topic — that way, we CAN be friends!)
Well, if my opinions make you frown, at least you can smile for your driver’s license photo (we can too, up here in WA).
Take care,
Janice
Don says:
November 19, 2013 at 1:04 am
I can’t improve much upon the work of Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Project & opponent of ID, as any practicing biologist would of necessity be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief
His view is more theistic than mine, but shows, as of course does Dobzhansky, inter alia, that Christian faith is not incompatible with biology.
Janice Moore says:
November 19, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Your memory wasn’t faulty. I did indeed comment on bagpipe breathing techniques, but more as an observer than practitioner, although I have tried it with humorous results. I’m of Highland descent & my community puts on Highland games, started by my Scottish immigrant, sheep-herding great grandfather. Even a lot of the cattlemen around here are descended from sheepmen, although they’d rather no one knew. Annie Proulx’ original Brokeback Mountain was actually kind of an in-crowd joke.
I’d like to apologize & ask your forgiveness however for my uncharitable (anagape!) outburst occasioned by decades of experience with the shenanigans of your fellow creationists. I’m happy for your co-religionists to adhere to your beliefs as long as you don’t try to foist them on innocent children of parents whose faith differs from yours as “science”. If public schools want to teach creationism in world religion classes, fine. Just not in biology.
Rather than watch videos of paid liars, I’d recommend your reading the transcripts of the Dover, PA trial, in which ID advocates were publicly humiliated, as they so richly deserved to be. Their star witness, Dr. Behe (of “irreducible complexity” infamy), was forced to admit that there is no evidence whatsoever for ID & that it’s comparable to astrology. That was in addition to the discovery that ID advocates simply substituted ID for creationist verbiage, but ineptly so, leaving parts of the words altered in their texts.
As I’ve commented before, you & your co-religionists do CACA skepticism no favors by lumping the scientific fact of evolution in with the corruption of science that is consensus “climate science”. In my experience, the first question that CACA proponents ask of “d*n**rs” is, “Do you believe in evolution?”
Evolution is scientific fact. CACA is fantastic fiction.
Dear Milodon Harlani,
I forgive you — with all my heart.
What a fine heritage you have. To successfully create a sheep herd in a new land was a feat of which to be proud. Did he use Border Collies or another breed to help herd them? My favorite breed of dog (not the best for sheep, I know, lol) is the German Shepherd Dog. I love them. My Riley is my “little” buddy (all 95 lbs. of him, heh — he’s just a big baby).
Thank you for letting me know that my memory was not as bad as I thought. Bagpipes! They are so difficult to master that I would not even begin to try to play them. Good for you to make a valiant attempt. I’ll stick to the piano and singing. There is no more stirring sound in the world than bagpipes, though. Have you heard the recording of The Royal Grays playing “Amazing Grace” upon their permanent retirement around 1976? Magnificent.
Well, I suppose I ought not chat TOO long, here. Say, if you would be so kind, would you please do me the favor (since I told you that I am going to do my best to not “go there” with intelligent design) of not making assertions about that topic, either? It is so hard to just ignore what you say…. and it isn’t really fair, is it?
Your friend,
Janice
The data from the paper has now been posted to the NCDC paleo archive (although it may not have fully posted over given what is there and its named Halfar2014 so there may be some problems in how it got transferred over).
What is there shows the Sea Ice Cover doing this since 1365.
http://s15.postimg.org/u4sp975ij/Halfar_2013_Sea_Ice_Cover_1365_2010.png
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/halfar2014/halfar2014sic.txt
Watcher, I pity you.
Mainsteam Science like Mainstream Media have the outcome pre-determined then these entities try to connect to that pre-determination. They both vehemently reject their being questioned. They both avoid debate.
No Watcher, you tool, you useful idiot. I won’t be trusting “Mainstream Science” .
My decision is “Settled”
[Snip. Persona non grata. ~mod.]
@Rob Roy
@Ken L.
@davidmhoffer
I suppose I resort to some ad hominem attacks because I’m so frustrated with the lack of intelligence and science on the website here. Just like I resorted to yelling with my ex wife when she kept accusing me with false accusations, bombarding me with BS and wouldn’t let go even though the facts *always* proved her wrong. An intelligent person can only take so much, seeing continual lack of intelligence from people who seem to be, and likely are, intelligent in other areas.
It is always interesting to see the tactics used by those practicing an apparent religion (AGW skepticism–which is grounded in so few facts that it truly isn’t science-based) to battle the overwhelming evidence of tested, verified and validated climate science.
One such tactic, used by several of you, is “projection.” You’re not the first to employ this failed technique. It involves accusing one’s opponent–falsely–of the very same flaws (or underhanded techniques, or whatever) that plague and invalidate one’s OWN position. (see
http://stfuconservatives.tumblr.com/post/25447473928)
Ken L.’s “the pseudo – religious nonsense that is propaganda masquerading – as science”–hypocrisy and hyperbole both–as well.
These flaws are NOT true of established science as they are of the research of the roundly discredited Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels and others. That’s because science has its own internal mechanism for ensuring the best science keeps coming up, replacing inferior and poorly done science. That mechanism, apparently not known by conservatives who disbelieve anthropogenic global warming, is known as the scientific method.
Just as it’s senseless to try to convince a Christian there’s no evidence Jesus manufactured fish or miracles or flew or rose from the dead or did any other inhuman, superpowered feats, it is apparently just as useless to convince those who believe in skepticism instead of Science.
Such use of disinformation propaganda techniques as projection cannot change the horrific fact that we are plunging toward a warming, far more dangerous and environmentally impoverished world due to negative human impacts of ALL KINDS of pollution, not just global warming, worldwide.
In a highly related note, if conservatives are so interested in helping the world recover from all the pollution, why aren’t they leading the charge in Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and other nonprofits???
The fact is, they are generally way too selfish to care about others or the world. They are too busy working FOR industry to promote pollution (a.k.a. the LIE called the “free market”) and water down environmental laws. If that were NOT true, where are the green conservative organizations to prove me wrong???
Thanks again, to liberals ONLY, for ensuring that progress against pollution, slavery, drug abuse, AIDS and other world problems still happens. No thanks to much of the GOP and Tea Party for filling up their dead brains with conservative lies on Faux Snooz and holding us back in the stone ages where only the rich get richer, Potterville reigns supreme as Republicans try to take money AND food from poor people with no money and no homes– who are in fact impoverished because of Republican policies! (E.g., offshoring jobs, the low low minimum wage, outsourcing automobile parts rampantly to other countries, and way too much else to mention here.)
——–
Ken L. says:
November 18, 2013 at 9:23 pm
“…the pseudo – religious nonsense that is propaganda masquerading – as science. It’s obvious that you would love there to be a technocracy, with you or your scientific papal wannabes handing out the truth to be accepted without question.”
Rob Roy:
“Watcher, I pity you.
Mainsteam Science like Mainstream Media have the outcome pre-determined then these entities try to connect to that pre-determination. They both vehemently reject their being questioned. They both avoid debate.”
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 8:00 pm
“It’s the same principle as using rings to determine a tree’s age and the levels of precipitation,” says Halfar.
Wow, how’d that get past the censors? Tree rings respond to precipitation? Mann must be scurrying around in circles screaming “off with his head!”
FACT CHECK:
Actually tree rings DO respond to precipitation levels, being smaller or thinner with less water. It is THE VERY REASON tree rings reveal the age of the tree: typically in winter there’s very little precipitation that gets absorbed by the dormant tree! In summer the rings are much thicker because the precipitation is absorbed, so the tree grows thicker. The cycle of thin to thick rings represents one year’s growth. This is 7th grade science.
And apparently those posting (most of whom clearly support the dearth of scientific validity your views generally represent) were too embarrassed by your apparent lack of knowledge to correct you. This reveals the herd mentality of conservatives, gathering around a losing argument for the sake of the Gathering rather than the truth–or in this case, lack of it.
BAM! Wouldn’t it be better to get your facts straight before you gloat so much about a nonexistent error in something you know NOTHING about? This in a nutshell, reveals the ENTIRE skeptical global warming science’s community’s flaw–lack of knowledge and subsequently making TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS!!
Ergo, the science of global warming skepticism is equivalent to 7th grade science. Basically, the scientists you trust have not progressed their abilities beyond the 7th grade level, compared with real and qualified climate scientists. Including Michael Mann, whose credentials are impeccable–and suspect only in the eyes of those living in an alternate universe in which real science simply does not exist.
@moderator:
[Snip. Read the site Policy. Labeling others as ‘denialists’ is not allowed here. It is a mindless pejorative that takes the place of thinking. —mod.]
Check your own site. I see the word “alarmist”–which is, using YOUR WORDS, a “mindless pejorative that takes the place of thinking”– mentioned 5 times without any comments or snips from you.
This is an example how “oversight” can be construed both ways. Is it an oversight to ignore such glaring hypocrisy with a lack of oversight? Or is it bias?
If this is a science based website, supposedly devoted to scientific discussions about scientific issues, why are biased, non-scientific, politically slanted words like alarmist and alarmism allowed unfettered on the site?
Methinks I just revealed a key to why WUWT is a laughing stock of a website in the eyes of science.
If the goose is good for the gander, ban ALL politically slanted words such as alarmist and denialist.
But then, conservatives aren’t really known for fighting fair. So why would I expect anything better from a conservative oriented, nonscientific opinion outlet?
[Note: the term alarmist isn’t associated with “holocaust denier” or other similar derogatory terms, so isn’t considered a hateful word. It is in the dictionary.
a·larm·ist
əˈlärmist/
noun
noun: alarmist; plural noun: alarmists
1.
someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.
– ignore site policy at your peril or don’t comment, but that is the house rule -mod]
Ken L. says:
November 18, 2013 at 9:23 pm
” It’s obvious that you would love there to be a technocracy, with you or your scientific papal wannabes handing out the truth to be accepted without question.”
You want others to accept this statement without question–ironically without asking me ANY questions?? My god, what hypocrisy!
The only thing obvious is that you did not ask me any questions about the scientific method, truth or my beliefs. You simply made your own assumptions, then attached them to me, McCarthy style. This is a favorite technique of the Glenn Becks of the world, Nazis, Spanish Inquisitors–people who have no interest in truth or facts, but simply want to smear others and promote to their own opinions, regardless of the factual validity of those opinions.
Unfortunately, this technique is a hallmark of the ignorant and, not coincidentally, those who are skeptics about global warming.
The inconvenient truth IS the truth, the preponderance of real scientific evidence supports it, and the fact that you don’t like it does not matter at all–EXCEPT that you can use your lack of knowledge to hinder progress that would help people and the planet. THAT is evil. If it is not intentionally evil, the result certainly remains evil.
Your comment says much more about your ability to jump to conclusions than to understand anything real. Such leaps reveal a lack of ability to reason. True scientists, like lawyers and legal and forensic investigators, will ask all questions necessary to understand an issue or situation. Someone who merely wants to target or demean someone else will only ask those questions necessary to make his point, whether it is valid or not. Are you seeing an unpleasant resemblance here??
In a previous post, I make it clear that I understand and support the scientific method. I hope you understand that it can be used to falsify any results or conclusion so long as sufficient evidence is found to support the new conclusion. Questions– but NOT the skeptics’ leaps to conclusions (largely unsupported by facts)–are the HEART of the scientific method.
I suggest going to the Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica page, or the American Academy of scientists or the Union of Concerned Scientists, and read the definition of scientific method. If you compare the scientific method with what the skeptical community does regarding global warming, you will get a giant wake up call. The skeptic community is NOT SCIENTIFIC in its research, its analyses, nor its conclusions.
NONE of the research I mentioned earlier by Willie Soon or Patrick Michaels or others that skeptics revere has upended the preponderance of evidence that demonstrates that AGW IS a fact.
(By the way, not one person who commented re me focused on the poor research by Patrick Michaels! Do you suppose there’s a reason for that? Yes there is: his research is flawed and not worthy of supporting. It has been picked apart and torn apart by real scientists, who have shredded the science and methodology and conclusions.)
Please get your facts straight, get them from ALL RELEVANT sources, and then make your assumptions and draw your conclusions. At least then you will have attempted or made a fair attempt at the scientific method. Anything else is hogwash.
The ultimate in psychological projection is someone like the Watcher projecting his faults onto others.
He does plenty of name-calling, with zero testable science.
I wonder how the Watcher reconciles his True Belief in runaway global warming and climate catastrophe with Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick chart being so thoroughly debunked?
Mann’s MBH97 chart was so completely falsified that the UN/IPCC can no longer publish it! Ever since AR-4, it is nowhere to be seen. And the IPCC LOVED that chart! It was a triumph of alarmist propaganda, causing wild-eyed spinning in circles by lemmings like the Watcher, who thought they had it all figured out. But now the IPCC must make do with much more confusing spaghetti graphs, which do not have nearly the impact of Mann’s scary chart.
It is too late for the Watcher, though. He is now a True Believer in climate catastrophe, and neither Occam’s Razor, nor the Scientific Method, nor the Null Hypothesis can save him. He Believes.
As George Cantor wrote: “A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged, and the less it is understood the more tenaciously it is held.”
Even more appropriate to the Watcher is Leo Tolstoy’s comment: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
That is the Watcher’s psyche to a tee. He has carefully explained to everyone over the years exactly why we must stop emitting “carbon”. But now that CO2 [“carbon” to the scientifically illiterate] has been shown to be harmless, beneficial, and not a measurable cause of global warming, the “Watcher” is watching his failed belief system crash and burn.
Rather rthan being so certain he was right, the Watcher should have been a scientific skeptic. Then he would accept whatever the planet told him. Instead, he has ended up with egg on his face. Now all he can do is call names. Pathetic, really.
Finally, “alarmist” is not a pejorative, it is a statement of fact. If the populace is not alarmed, the gravy train will derail. Thus, climate alarmism must be kept on the front burner at all costs. That’s just the way it is.
[SNIP ok Tim, that’s it, we don’t need to have you labeling us as ‘reptiles’ and other derogatory terms. – beat it – Anthony]
[snip – banned – see above – mod]
Watcher:
“Preponderance of the evidence” does not apply to the Scientific Method, any more than “consensus”. To paraphrase Einstein, all it takes is one fact to destroy a hypothesis. And catastrophic AGW has been repeatedly annihilated — and cAGW was merely a scientific conjecture.
If regular AGW is a “fact”, then I challenge you to post testable, verifiable, measurable scientific evidence showing that global ∆T is caused by the rise in human-emitted CO2.
Make sure we can verify the portion of temperature change due specifically to anthropogenic emissions. Show us verifiable measurements.
While you’re at it, explain why global temperatures have been flat to declining, while CO2 levels continue to rise. Note that this is not a temporary condition, but that it has been going on for a statistically significant seventeen years now.
Making baseless assertions does not cut the mustard here at the internet’s “Best Science” site. So you need to show conclusively how much T rise is caused by the rise in CO2. If you can do that, you will be the first — and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
Making assertions is one thing. But supporting the CO2=cAGW conjecture with solid, verifiable, testable scientific evidence is necessary to be taken seriously here.
Finally, your lame attempts to denigrate this “Best Science & Technology” site are laughable. No alarmist blog comes close to the traffic generated here: WUWT has more than three quarters of a million reader comments, in only a few years.
There are far more scientific skeptics than climate alarmists. You can tell by just running back to your thinly-trafficked alarmist blog, where you enjoy reading only alarmist comments, because skeptics’ comments were censored. You probably believe that just because your like-minded clique agrees with each other, that there are a lot of you. But there aren’t.
Sorry, I was responding to the snipped comment. What Anthony did is for the best.
@davidmhoffer
“they seem to have only six samples, of which only two go back further than 1800. The other two have a glaring discontinuity about 1850. Will be interesting to see if SteveM decides to pick this one apart”
Fig S1 shows they have twenty samples.