Advertisements

Climate.gov embraces the "cartoon science" of Mann and Marcott

From climate.gov, making two debunked papers into “cartoon science”, I think Josh could do a better job than this. Mann’s hockey stick is like zombie science, it’s dead, it keeps shuffling about on the streets of science with no purpose except to be reanimated in press releases like this one. Marcott’s paper has a lot of the same problems, using a limited set of proxies that are pre-selected. If only these people had brains, brains!

What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?

Comic_RollerCoaster_610

Difference from historic average temperature since last ice age. NOAA Climate.gov cartoon by Emily Greenhalgh. Inspired by Figure 1(b) in Marcott et al., 2014.

This article is the second of two articles describing the hottest time periods in Earth’s history.

Throughout its 4.54-billion-year history, Earth has experienced multiple periods of temperatures hotter than today’s. But as far as the “recent” past, a study published in March 2013 concluded that global average temperature is now higher than it has been for most of the last 11,300 years.

The scientists assembled dozens of temperature records from multiple studies, including data from sediment cores drilled in lake bottoms and sea floors, and from ice cores. Assembling data from 73 records that overlap in time, the scientists pieced together global average temperatures since the end of the last ice age.

A researcher examines an ice core extracted from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Photo courtesy Thomas Bauska, Oregon State University, National Science Foundation.

The 11,000-year temperature reconstruction shows global average temperature increasing after the end of the last ice age and leveling off about 7550 and 3550 BC. After that time, global temperatures dropped until the “Little Ice Age,” bottoming out somewhere between AD 1450 and 1850. Afterwards temperatures rose again, first slowly then very rapidly. (The estimated temperatures for the past 1,500 years correlated with previous research that covered the same time period.)

Global temperature anomalies over the past 11,300 years compared to historic average (1961-1990). The purple line shows the annual anomaly, and the light blue band shows the statistical uncertainty (one standard deviation). The gray line shows temperature from a separate analysis spanning the past 1,500 years. Image adapted from Figure 1(b) in Marcott et al.

Natural variability can explain much of the temperature variation since the end of the last ice age, resulting from factors such as changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis. Over the past century, though, global average temperatures have “risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels” in the past 11,300 years, the 2013 study authors explain. Over this same period, emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have increased.

Given the uncertainty inherent in estimating ancient temperatures, the scientists conservatively concluded that the last decade has brought global average temperatures higher than they have been for at least 75 percent of the last 11,300 years. The recent increase in global average temperature is so abrupt compared to the rest of the time period that when the scientists make a graph of the data, the end of the line is nearly vertical.

What about the future? To project future temperatures, the research team used greenhouse gas emission scenarios outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis report, and the authors expect the steep increase to continue through the year 2100 regardless of which one of the emission scenarios from the 2007 report is considered.

Most of what we consider modern civilization fits within the last 11,000 years—a period of remarkable climatic stability in which people have been able to continuously inhabit in the same regions for millennia. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization describes Tell es-Sultan (ancient Jericho) as “the oldest town on earth.” Photo courtesy Seetheholyland.net (some rights reserved).

For most of the past 10,000 years, global average temperature has remained relatively stable and low compared to earlier hothouse conditions in our planet’s history. Now, temperature is among the highest experienced not only in the “recent” past—the past 11,000 years or so, during which modern human civilization developed—but also probably for a much longer period.

Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”

References

Mann, M.E., Zhang, Z., Hughes, M.K., Bradley, R.S., Miller, S.K., Rutherford, S., Ni, F. (2008). Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(36), 13252-13257.

Marcott, S.A., Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., Mix, A.C. (2013). A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. 339(6124), 1198-1201.

Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Rosenbloom, N., Stone, E. J., McKay, N.P., Lunt, D.J., Brady, E.C., Overpeck, J.T. (2013). How warm was the last Interglacial? New model-data comparisons. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series A, 371(2001), 20130097.

Perkins, S. (2013, March 7). Global temperatures are close to 11,000-year peak. Nature News. Accessed February 4, 2014.

Revkin, A. (2013, April 1). Fresh thoughts from authors of a paper on 11,300 years of global temperature changes. The New York Times. Accessed June 13, 2014.

Advertisements

116 thoughts on “Climate.gov embraces the "cartoon science" of Mann and Marcott

      • Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”
        PeteMB, read the above and think really really hard.

  1. I have a hard time believing anyone can figure out temperature anomalies in the plus/minus half a degree range going back 11,300 years with an uncertainty range of a mere plus/minus tenth of a degree. Call me skeptical.

    • The Earth is tiny, that is what makes it so easy for them to measure the entire average global temp in 4000 bc to .01 degrees of uncertainty. Temp variations from the Arctic to Equator are small too.
      You can trust them.

    • Temperatures were recorded to the nearest whole degree for most of the 20th century, ie +/- 0.5 degree recording accuracy. It makes a mockery of the +/-0.1 degree claim.
      http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/dad/coop/EQUIPMENT.pdf
      page 11:
      “The At Observation temperature is the current temperature displayed.
      Record temperatures in whole degrees only.
      For example, if the display shows a temperature of 76.5, record “77”.
      For a temperature of 76.4, record “76”.

      • I was taught in undergrad statistics to round down on even numbers and round up on odd numbers; i.e., 76.5 is 76 and 77.5 is 78. The rounding error balances out over multiple observations.
        Using the NOAA method would introduce an upward bias.

      • Then take into consideration that these global-temperature anomalies with (at best) a precision of 0.5 degree C were used to calculate the corresponding anomaly from the proxy measurement. I’ve seen the result of similar reconstructions done by a real scientist and the uncertainty is so large that no conclusion can be drawn.
        Is the range of uncertainty one standard deviation? That is a 68% confidence interval. Some honesty would be good, especially as it is highly unlikely that the actual global temperatures changed so smoothly prior to the invention of the thermometer.

    • Yes, clearly it’s nonsense.
      The whole ‘average’ temperature concept is ridiculous. The natural cycles between day and night and the hourly changes that are caused by weather, wind, clouds etc would make it impossible for me to sensibly define the ‘average’ temperature, over a week, in my back garden – never mind globally.
      The only chance I would have is if I could eliminate as many variables as possible, so using the same thermometer in the same location read at the same time of day might yield an average for that part of the garden but 20 feet away, where there’s some cover, it might be different by several degrees.
      These clowns aren’t even eliminating a single variable, nothing is consistent. But putting a +/- 0.2° error range on a 10000 year old proxy reconstruction is just silly. Why won’t other real scientists point this out?

    • Not only do they claim they can, they, like Mann, feel they can overturn, with out so much as even an acknowledgement, dozens of historic past peer reviewed publications showing much warmer past periods.
      In normal science you are suppose to explain why the past science you are overturning is wrong.
      In addition they neglect that the past T reconstructions have virtually zero resolution on periods less then 100 years, and are therefore not valid to compare to the last thirty years.

  2. ‘T-Rex’ of winters in store for Canada: Old Farmer’s Almanac
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/t-rex-of-winters-in-store-for-canada-old-farmer-s-almanac-1.2012804
    “We’re looking at the T-Rex of winters,” Jack Burnett, editor of the Old Farmer’s Almanac, said on CTV’s Canada AM on Thursday. From Calgary to Quebec, we’re going to be up to our neck,” Burnett said.
    Dave Phillips of Environment Canada doesn’t quite buy the almanac’s prediction, though. “This winter is not going to be as long and cold as last year,” he said. “Even if it’s a normal winter, it will feel like a tropical heat wave compared to what we had to endure as Canadians last year.”
    ===========
    So there we have it. Farmers Almanac versus Environment Canada. Any bets on who will be the more accurate?

  3. We merely live in a temporary, warm interglacial among many, and repeated glacial ages. The next will return as surely as the sun rises. It may be sooner, it may be later, but it will return.
    New mantra: CO2 is good. It feeds the plants upon which all higher life on Earth depends. It keeps us warm and buffers against cool downs and the next ice age. CO2 is our friend.

  4. The “Vinland Saga” clearly shows that the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today, as it states about Newfoundland: “There was never any frost all winter and the grass hardly withered at all”. Furthermore, the Vikings farmed and had cattle in southwest Greenland, which could not be done today.

    • ” Norsemen in Greenland were primarily farmers, raising cattle, sheep and goats, but supplementing that regimen with local marine and terrestrial fauna, trading polar bear fur, narwhal ivory and falcons for grain and metals from Iceland and eventually Norway.”
      http://archaeology.about.com/od/vikings/qt/eastern_settlement.htm
      “Potatoes, Sheep and Strawberries in Greenland – …..A thousand years ago the Vikings had farms here, and for much of the last century many Greenlanders have had them too, focusing mostly on sheep and potatoes.”
      http://modernfarmer.com/2013/10/arctic-farming/

    • Vinland almost certainly was further south than Newfoundland, most likely in the bay of Fundy. And keeping cattle (mostly sheep) is actually possible once more on Greenland, though only in the warmest part of the former Eystribygd (Eastern settlement). It is still impossible in the old Vesterbygd (near Nuuk). And barley still can’t be grown anywhere in Greenland, which it was in Eystribygd during the MWP, as shown both by archaeology and historical sources (Konungs skugsjá).
      So, it has been getting warmer in Greenland, but it is still colder than the MWP.

    • Yet the schools keep repeating the nonsense about the vikings calling Greenland green to con other people to move there. I corrected that part of their curriculum for my son.
      Ask any Newfie if they or any of their old folk ever mentioned a winter without snow where the grass didn’t die. They’ll laugh and ask if you’ve been into the skreech?

    • The joke is in the last line of the climate.gov article.
      “Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.””
      Of course we live in an interglacial… NOW.
      But wait….. hang on…. drum roll…. CO2 is higher now, BUT today’s temps are lower than the last interglacial per Ms Morrill. So where is the causation? Which direction does the causation arrow lie? Did the Earth not then fall back into a hard, devastating glacial? Lack of stabilizingCO2 maybe????
      Even Anthropologists clearly have shown the devastating effects of the descent into the Pleistocene. Genetic analysis shows Homo sapiens bottlenecked to only a few handful or so breeding pairs 70K-80K ya during the onset of the worst of the Pleistocene cooldown.
      Climate.gov just refuted their own evil-CO2 AGW alarmism. CO2 is good.

      • Ahhhhhhh. I love the smell of scientists paying attention in the morning.
        That’s a beautiful thing you just did their Joel. Thanks for the morning lift.

  5. Is Mikie trying to tell reasonable thinking men and women he’s re-found the MWP and it was 0.2° C cooler back then than today. Really, 0.2° warmer now and the error bars are ±0.2°?
    He’s kidding, right?
    I’m glad they made Mikie give back the MWP but, I wonder how he treated the real data while he had it in hiding? Was Penn State paying attention?
    Once again Mikie’s been able to make me point and laugh at him and The Team and The Cause.
    Is it more reasonable that they know the exact global temperature of the MWP or that some one is manipulating the data while ensuring the correct language is always out in front, you know, embellishing?

  6. ?????
    19 Sept: Mashable: Andrew Freedman: World Smashes All-Time Temperature Records Ahead of UN Climate Summit
    The June through August period was the warmest such period on Earth since record-keeping began in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Thursday.
    In addition, the month of August was the warmest such month on record since 1880 as well, and featured the warmest ocean temperatures ever recorded for any month…
    These temperature records, along with others, have set the world on course to have its warmest year on record, NOAA said…
    The NOAA said record warmth was observed across much of the central and western equatorial Pacific Ocean, as well as parts of the western Indian Ocean, especially in the vicinity of Madagascar…
    The new temperature data also comes just before one of the largest gatherings of world leaders ever to take place on the subject of global warming. The daylong U.N. Climate Summit will be held in New York on Sept. 23.
    http://mashable.com/2014/09/18/world-smashes-all-time-temperature-records-ahead-of-un-climate-summit/

  7. Have just read a lovely book – “The Holocene” by Neil Roberts (1989). Old fashioned science – just listing all the climate and environmental changes throughout the last 12000 years. All the evidence is there, shown dispassionately. A joy to read. No fancy propositions or novel interpretations of the past. Just plain observations (and possible deductions). Just as science ought to be.
    Let us get over these present (and I hope only temporary) diversions into very questionable research where results are aimed-for and predetermined, and all previous findings quietly swept under the carpet.

    • Climatology has been hijacked by some marauders who are using it for a political agenda and yes the discipline has been degraded.

  8. What that graph really needs is a person resembling Hansen or Schmidt, with a level pulling on that very right hand end.to turn it to an upright position.

  9. Just a couple more days of this type of stunt , then following the none event a break before the ‘stunts return’ has Paris 5 start hotels revive a boast to their income .

  10. Amongst other faults with the reconstruction, the pre-1000 AD data is smoothed to heck to about a 500 year moving average (if my memory serves) and carried up to a current end point, a trick designed to fool the unwary.
    For the mathematically challenged, like me, this is a good explanation of the principles of data smoothing in a time series graph: “… extending smoothed graphs beyond their formal endpoints represents an unfortunate habit which should be avoided in the analysis of meteorological data series. Always ask to see a plot of the original data along with the smoothed graph …”. 
    http://www.climate4you.com/DataSmoothing

    • +1
      Based on better evidence, and comparing apples to apples, the current temperature should be shown at about the same level as Medieval times. More consistent smoothing would probably have that result. A critique of science.gov around this graph needs to mention this issue, and ideally should offer a better graph.

  11. “The scientists assembled dozens of temperature records from multiple studies, including data from sediment cores drilled in lake bottoms and sea floors, and from ice cores.”
    Notice how that is stated. What do you want to bet some of those studies include treemometer data?
    Note that many proxies don’t catch spikes in temperature of a brief duration similar to that of the recent warming. There’s no guarantee that there haven’t been multiple occurrences over the past 1000 years of temperatures well in excess of current.

    • Sometimes I wonder if proxy data is equivalent to hear-say evidence in court.
      I know in a court of law hear-say is not allowed and if that is the only evidence the case is dismissed.
      I realise that proxies are more related to indirect evidence, such as proving poisoning, not by finding poison in the body but the specific chemical effects on the body of certain poisons. The poison is gone but there is a clear signature of the poison left.
      But posion effects are easily replicated and specific, they are proven. Proxy records as a signature of temperatures is all over the place, with different proxies giving different results. They are unreliable and subject to bias in the same way hear-say evidence is.

  12. Rather than a Josh riposte, how about The Minnesotans for Global Warming weaving their musical magic on Ozzy Osbourne’s “Crazy Train”.
    Here’s a start:-
    Gravy Train….
    I’ve listened to preachers,
    I’ve listened to fools
    I’ve watched all the dropouts
    Who make their own rules
    The Science conditioned to rule and control
    The media sells it along with their soul
    Mental wounds still screaming
    Driving me insane
    I’m goin’ off the rails on this gravy train
    I’m goin’ off the rails on this gravy train

  13. Looks like that ride car is defying gravity as well as most other sciences. how could get up that high unless it was pushed?

  14. This is Marcott back from the grave. Marcott and Mann’s hockey sticks are both disgraceful fraud.
    Mann’s skulduggery involved extreme selection of trees – the key result depended on a single Yamal tree.
    Marcott’s trick was to smudge together many proxies including some that deliberately chosen due to their weakness. Many studies show that some sediment record or shell deposit layer or pollen or some other biological indicator has SOME correspondence with past climate. However these proxies vary hugely in their precision and accuracy. The objective of the studies using these proxies is not to claim “this is exactly how the climate was” but instead to show “this particular proxy shows SOME correspondence with some aspect of historic climate”. This is obvious from the huge discrepancy between them in results.
    Some “proxies” hardly even resolve the Holocene itself, let alone features within the Holocene such as warm and cold periods. It is deeply – and deliberately – fraudulent to mix such weak proxies with others such as the much higher quality ice core records and claim that this adds value to the proxy record. It does not add value, it subtracts value, and this is deliberate.
    Averaging strong with weak proxies achieves the politically convenient objective of squashing the Holocene flat and giving life to the egregious fiction that the current warming spike is in any way remarkable within the Holocene. It is not.
    This is an attack on proxy reconstruction, an attack on history and truth.

    • Marcott is IMO a case of scientific misconduct. I deconstructed it in a post at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc last year. Simply compared his thesis to Science. There was no hockey stick in the thesis, and the reconstruction method has zero resolution under 300 years. Is repeated as an essay in the forthcoming book, Blowing Smoke. Steve McIntyre did a more detailed analysis of the alkenone proxy subset. Same result.
      I wrote Science last year with the evidence. Receipt acknowledged, no further reply or action. I wrote them again last Friday providing the entire essay. No response yet. Hopefully the book’s appearance may get them off their duff.

  15. Finally Marcott rots.
    Climate.gov was Pravda by design, easily skewered in our age of pocket fax machines:
    http://s16.postimg.org/54921k0at/image.jpg
    “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” ― Theodore Dalrymple

    • “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” ― Theodore Dalrymple
      Really important and useful quote, thanks, I’ll save it.

  16. It seems completely unbelievable to me that what is seemingly an official government site can publish such obvious lies and distortions and expect anyone to believe them. What about Greenland, just as one for instance? The clue lies in the name. Why would this area of the world have this name if it had always been like it is now? As a joke? We know there were farms there 1000 years ago because they have been found under the ice. But they want us to believe that the earth is warmer now than it was then.

    • There is a lack of accountability for malfeasance in public office that leads those working for such establishments to believe that there is no requirement for ethics. Can anyone cite a case where such accountability was enforced?

    • Eric the Red, according to the Norse saga, gave it the name Greenland because he thought that such a name would more readily attract settlers. He was a real estate promoter, you see.

      • Do you really think that after conning a bunch of the most blood-thirsty men ever to grace our planet Eric the Red would have survived two seconds once they saw nothing but snow where there was supposed to be green farmland

  17. http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/2014/06/reddit-ask-me-anything-with-epa-administrator-gina-mccarthy/
    Copy and Paste this link its an online public consultation with Obama,s Climate Change strategist.
    Google “Reddit ask me anything Climate Change”.
    Someone should have asked her if making Energy more restrictive and expensive and making thousands unemployed is really a good way to reduce CO2 and mitigate the effects of AGW and how many bedrooms she has in her private mansion?

  18. Ah well the spurious blip disowned by its own authors. The history before the uptick is much more interesting even though it has such a low time resolution; it shows long term cooling. And that part of the graph is probably even defensible.
    MAR 13 Marcott & Shakun
    Via climateaudit I found this link
    Shakun video
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/#more-48664
    Video of loose cannon Shakun explaining Marcott & Shakun’s “findings” to Revkin. Revkin is fascinated. Not sceptical. Shakun explains they can’t resolve fast blips in the past but nevertherless both he and Revkin are totally confident that the M&S Hockeystick is real. Most fascinatingly neither of them says “But wait a minute, over the last 15 years we had zero warming, how does THAT go together”.
    All in all a fascinating video of two stupid and deluded members of the same cult feeding each other’s confirmation bias.
    CA
    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/#comments
    Steve McIntyre:
    Imagine if Craig Loehle or I had produced a reconstruction making a similar re-dating of cores dated by specialists. We’d have had our heads handed to us by the specialist community. Imagine what Gavin Schmidt would have written if Loehle had redated a core by 1000 years. He’d have run Loehle out of town

  19. What amuses me is the picture of the researcher and ice core. There is no protection of the ice core from the researcher’s breath, 40% CO2. It must be important with so small quantities to measure to remove any chance of external inputs.
    Mann is still wrong by light years.

  20. “Global temperature anomalies over the past 11,300 years compared to historic average (1961-1990). The purple line shows the annual anomaly, and the light blue band shows the statistical uncertainty (one standard deviation).”
    One standard deviation is NOT the “statistical uncertainty”! One SD only covers 68% of possible values. They could be justified in using 2 SDs since it’s roughly 95%. But you need 3 SDs to get to 99.7%, or what might be considered true statistical uncertainty. But of course the narrower the “light blue band” the more accurate the graph looks and the more horrifying the “unprecedented recent warming”.

  21. Yet another example of how the climate obsessed do not care about science, accuracy, honesty or integrity. Not to mention accountability for there use of tax payer money.

  22. You begin to lose faith in the idea that climate propaganda mistakes are just that, mistakes, but the revival of the Marcott up tick is either grossly negligent or a deliberate intent to deceive.

  23. I that you deniers would give up on this finally when sea levels rose enough that the Maldives were made uninhabitable, and they had to evacuate the population to New Orleans and Venice. Oh well, I guess you’ll NEVER learn.
    [Reply: You are new here, so you get a warning instead of having your comment deleted: labeling others as “deniers” violates site Policy. Please refrain. ~mod.]

    • @Brock Way:
      Sea level rise is not accelerating, despite numerous alarmist predictions that it would. Those predictions were wrong. All of them.
      Therefore, the Maldives inhabitants have nothing to worry about, and New Orleans and Venice will not have to ‘evacuate’ their populations.
      Where do you get your misinformation? More importantly: why would you believe such nonsense?

    • Umm, Brock,
      Did I miss a major news item or did you forget your /sarc tag ?
      or, to put it another way … What the heck are you talking about ?

      • I think he forgot the /sarc tag … otherwise why would he have the Maldives evacuating to New Orleans and Venice.

    • Does badgering us by calling us names make your point.
      But then I just think it your way.
      Do not put down to stupidity, that which is ignorance.

    • Brock Way,
      I guess you never read this:

      On February 7th 2012 Mohammed Nasheed resigned as President of the Maldives and immediately blamed climate change sceptics for being the dark forces behind his demise.
      Nasheed was the poster boy of the warming alarmist movement, a shrewd politician who saw that rich western Liberals wanted to give money away to fight the fantasy of man made climate change, so Nasheed played them to the hilt by claiming the Maldives were sinking due to rising sea levels, even though globally sea levels have been receding for the last 10 years as the latest Envisat data shows.

    • 1. Making mistakes is human.
      2. Being mis-informed is not a virtue.
      3. Making wild predictions about the future is for tabloid magazine fortune tellers.
      4. Calling names does not increase ones knowledge, though granted can feel good at times. See #1 above.

    • Brock, the Maldives are a group of atolls. Atolls are caused by rising and falling sea levels. The slower than snails change in sea levels are easily adjusted to by coral changes responding to sea level changes, regardless of the cause. You can find lots of information about atolls on the internet and in high school geography books. Nonetheless, living on an atoll is living on high risk coral rubble. One single strong hurricane can wipe out entire communities in a single Maldive atoll in the chain, maybe more, even when sea level is falling. So the real and present threat to the Maldives are ocean storms, not rising or falling sea levels. As for ocean storms, solid data indicates no increasing threat. So sleep well tonight friend and get up refreshed ready to go to school. No worries.

    • Could you say when the Maldives will become uninhabitable?
      Let’s hope the new airports are finished before then, so people can be resettled before it is too late.
      ( Mod, I think this is sarcasm, and that Brock is probably a “denier” himself. )

  24. My friends, we live in a time where it is claimed that grant-eaters with a computer can tell us what the temperature was in the distant past far better than the records recorded in those days. They can use “proxies” or “adjustments” or “homogenization” to “correct” the data of the past.
    If there are farms or trees under the ice and we discover it; they will tells us that we are deluded — it was cold then and hot now.
    These people are like the biblical description of Satan: “and the truth was not in him”.

    • This bible verse was not about Satan but about ourselves – if we claim to be without sin.
      1 John 1 8: If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

  25. Not so biblical, but what bugs me the most is that every regular Joe, say pizza delivery guy, is also referred to as scientist as soon as he happens to be in a same scene with equipment/materials of any scientific significance 😆

  26. About Marcott’s hockey stick, (1) the “present” is 1950 — that’s the zero BP on the horizontal axis. (2) Marcott used a smoothing method which smoothed by hundreds of years over most of the chart, but decreased the smoothing near 1950, and at 1950 (zero BP) there was no smoothing at all. The blade is the unsmoothed dust bowl decades 1930-1950. Cherry pick much?

  27. As other commenters the whole premise is invalid since no rational person or scientist could expect tenth of degree accuracy estimating temperatures over 12,000 years ago. We are still trying to figure out what the global temperatures was from 50 years ago.
    But let’s assume the graph is 100% correct, not by science of course, but by miracle, that the temperature steadily declined from 6,000 years ago to about 100 years ago. According to GW theory that indicates there must have been a parallel steady drop in CO2 over that period. Queue the people now who just make stuff up, to provide an explanation as to how that steady CO2 drop occurred.
    Queue another set of people to explain why we would want that increasingly colder trend to continue indefinitely.

  28. Does anyone have a link to a list of peer reviewed papers that do NOT show a hockey stick in a reconstruction going back at least 1000 years? As in they show a MWP and LIA? I know there are many, Mann claims 12 Hockey Stick papers. I think someone should compile an anti-hockey stick list if it does not exist.

  29. Based on their trend line it appears we may have nipped the impending ice age in the bud. Hurray for global warming.

  30. Um, didn’t Marcott admit that the “blade” section is not at all robust? How are they still getting away with claiming it is when they have openly conceded:
    “20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/

    • That’s what I thought too. I’m sure I read where he rejected Mann’s claim that it confirmed his (Mann’s) hockey stick. Perhaps we are being too harsh on Marcott – on this point at least..

  31. “Global temperature anomalies over the past 11,300 years compared to historic average (1961-1990).”
    Gee, too bad we don’t have any data since 1990.
    Oh, wait:
    “To project future temperatures, the research team used greenhouse gas emission scenarios outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis report, and the authors expect the steep increase to continue through the year 2100 regardless of which one of the emission scenarios from the 2007 report is considered.”
    We don’t need that data, or any other in the future. We’ve got model “scenarios” that tell us what we need to know.
    Too bad none of those scenarios got the period from 1990 to today right – don’t they all overestimate the warming?

  32. Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”
    Yes Joel O’Bryan, I do wish people would think before they opened their mouths & just let drivel out! As Monty Pythoners’ would say, “It’s statin the bleedin obvious!”! Did she not realise we are in an inter-glacial? Four of the last inter-glacials dating back 500,000 yrs were warmer than today by as much! Sheesh!

  33. Anyone else notice that their “references” include two that are purely reviews (one is a newspaper article…) of their second reference? So out of 5, only 3 are original… pretty sad science if you ask me.

  34. When the present is not turning out well for you, then it is time to rewrite climate history – climate history revisionism – it is simply an act of desperation.

  35. No mention of the temporal resolution of Marcott et al? I believe their resolution is larger than the whole of the instrumental record. Which means any changes less than 200 years won’t be seen.

  36. “a period of remarkable climatic stability in which people have been able to continuously inhabit in the same regions for millennia”
    Except for the civilizations whose fall is blamed on climate change, which we’re reminded about when we’re being warned of the dangers of climate change.

  37. That entire stock-market-downturn would have been a whole lot easier to ride through if I had just waited a couple of years and looked back over smoothed data. I would have been none-the-wiser, and would have slept better.

  38. It never really struck me before, but after looking at that figure from Marcott et al., the thing that is really anomalous is where they draw the average temperature line. They cherry-pick the 30-year period from 1961-1990 and set that as the “average” temperature for a graph showing 11,500 years of temperature estimates and data. Approximately 80% of the temperatures in the graph are greater than that average line; so how does that “average” constitute an average? The periods that are below the “average” line include both about 500 years of coming out of the ice age and the Little Ice Age Period. It looks to me that the average temperature line should be about 0.2 degrees higher.

  39. As Steve McIntyre discovered, there was no obscure statistical black box that created the entirely spurious Marcott 2013 blade as a pure artifact, an artifact of intentional and somewhat bizarre proxy re-dating compared to the original Ph.D. thesis data, creating quite simple sudden data drop off in the present day, of evidently low lying series when those dropped out, the average shot up. There simply is no significant blade in *any* of the input data to even cherry pick from, just some variation well within the noise level:
    http://oi60.tinypic.com/2lwtawk.jpg
    This is the most epic exposure of corruption so far in climate “science” for it so clearly reveals their cheating hand as being of Enron level, indeed criminal, deceit, not just paradigm fueled bias. I’m utterly delighted Marcott 2013 is now official, for it’s so much easier now to debunk the entire paradigm, based on their knowing and willing promotion of such an undeniable fraud that once and for all proves that they are fully aware of being liars, not so much the flawed paper itself but the way the admitted to flaw is being now used to promote alarm, for power and profit, Mann included in this.

    • Ah yes.. The Mike Mann use of 100 year plots and then a whole bunch of ten year plots on the end.. I wonder if the cartoonist and Mann attended the same school? (together or who was teaching whom.)
      Just a thought….

  40. Ironically, when the NSIDC publishes the September Antarctic Sea Ice Extent figures here, it’ll look remarkably like a hockey stick.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
    (Click on the Antarctic tab at the top and see the monthly graph on the right.)
    The parody article almost writes itself. Anyone want to estimate how much this will increase albedo?

  41. It might be a little late but hopefully someone responds.
    The standard deviation for the HadCRUT3 10 year moving mean is 0.1-0.15. If the proxies are calibrated using instrumental data, how is the standard deviation only slightly larger.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: