Eric Worrall writes: Mann’s thermometer spliced hockey stick has taken even more damage in the last few days, with Steve McIntyre helpfully providing reconstructions based on tree rings which demonstrate how, without the benefit of Mike’s scientifically dubious “nature trick”, the hockey stick simply disappears – tree rings demonstrably don’t correlate with temperature.
According to McIntyre;
The new information shows dramatic failure of the Sheep Mountain chronology as an out-of-sample temperature proxy, as it has a dramatic divergence from NH temperature since 1980, the end of the Mann et al (and many other) reconstructions. While the issue is very severe for the Mann reconstructions, it affects numerous other reconstructions, including PAGES2K.”
What is worse, in my opinion, is that Mann and Briffa can’t even claim they weren’t warned. As early as 1998, the very Russian Scientists who Briffa hired to collect the tree ring samples, tried to alert Briffa that the samples didn’t show what they wanted them to show. The difference is, the Russians weren’t measuring tree ring width, their favoured metric was the polar timberline – the northernmost edge of the great Arctic forests.
According to Rashit Hantemirov, of the Russian Academy of Science;
According to reconsructions most favorable conditions for tree growth
have been marked during 5000-1700 BC. At that time position of tree
line was far northward of recent one.
[Unfortunately, region of our research don’t include the whole area
where trees grew during the Holocene. We can maintain that before 1700
BC tree line was northward of our research area. We have only 3 dated
remnants of trees from Yuribey River sampled by our colleagues (70 km
to the north from recent polar tree line) that grew during 4200-4016
and 3330-2986 BC.]
This period is pointed out by low interannual variability of tree
growth and high trees abundance discontinued, however, by several
short (50-100 years) unfavorable periods, most significant of them
dated about 4060-3990 BC. Since about 2800 BC gradual worsening of
tree growth condition has begun. Significant shift of the polar tree
line to the south have been fixed between 1700 and 1600 BC. At the
same time interannual tree growth variability increased appreciably.
During last 3600 years most of reconstructed indices have been varying
not so very significant. Tree line has been shifting within 3-5 km
near recent one. Low abundance of trees has been fixed during
1410-1250 BC and 500-350 BC. Relatively high number of trees has been
noted during 750-1450 AD.
There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during
last century.
Some of Mann’s own colleagues warned Mann about the unreliability of tree rings – this email from Tom Wigley, discussing how his son’s high school project falsified Mann’s research.
“Also, stationarity is the key. Let me tell you a story. A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation. Interestingly, the temp correlations are much more ephemeral, so the complexities conspire to make this linkage non stationary.”
On this occasion though, Keith Briffa decided to support his friend Mann with some helpful advice (from the same email as the Wigley quote) – Keith’s suggestion is that Mann could dismiss the relevance of previous warm periods being warmer than today, by spinning the suggestion that the current warm period is different, because it is anthropogenic;
“Mike there is often no benefit in bandying fine points of emphasis and implication- Hence , I think that what you have already drafted is fine. Do not start to dilute or confuse the issue with too much additional detail. The job , as you state , is to place on record the statement of disagreement with the “science(!)” and spin. To this end , it may also be worth stating in less couched terms that merely eyeballing the relative magnitudes of recent versus prior period(s) of large scale warmth, is in itself very limited as a basis for claiming the reality OR OTHERWISE of anthropogenic forcing of the recent warming , if this is done without reference to the uncertainty and causes of these differences. The points you make to Tom are of course very valid , but do not be tempted to guild the lily too much here – stick with your current content
Has any piece of scientific research ever been so thoroughly discredited? Tom Wigley’s son’s high school project falsified the hockey stick. The latest Sheep mountain study shows the hockey stick disappears, unless you use Mike’s trick of splicing in the thermometer record, to hide the divergence problem. The Russian scientists who collected the original tree ring samples, tried to warn Mann he was measuring the wrong metric. Yet somehow this nonsensical analysis became a central icon of the climate alarmist movement – and is still widely reproduced by the more scientifically illiterate alarmists.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
little bit of common sense would have gone a long way here re tree rings.
some of us cut wood to survive in the cold. literally life and death issue.
we saw south facing and north facing slopes (with equal precip and soil conditions) had different ring sizes.
we also saw years when trees gained more height than width (hybrid poplars good for this) so tree rings made it look like low growth year.
way too much crap that affects growth to use these things. poor soil, poor brush/tinder control,large canopies, fungus/worms, etc.
sophomoric idiots with too many letters behind their names.
You are right, a lot of factors influence tree ring width including temperature. If you have a sufficient sample size and account for other sources of variation (the main one is precip), the temperature signal is there. As I have suggested to others, I encourage you to reanalyze the data and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. The data are available on the web.
Luke
My understanding of the scientific method is since Mann claims the “temperature signal” exists, it’s his responsibility to perform (or cite) credible analysis to support the claim.
Just because you “really believe” in the tooth fairy doesn’t make it real.
Luke, there is a pot of Gold at the end of a rainbow somewhere. There are lots of rainbows, you only have to find the right one(s). Organize a movement to locate and investigate all the rainbows and their ends, and I’m sure you’ll find one with the treasure. Honest!
Prat.
Yes, the rainbows are the data sets. Some very good scientists have taken the time to mine the gold out of those datasets and they have revealed consistent and unmistakable working over the past 150 years. You are welcome to use the data and mine them for the information they provide. Like I said before, reanalyze the data, submit your paper to a peer-reviewed scientific publication and refute the National Academy of Sciences- you will be famous!
I have been looking at climate reconstructions since 1960. Mann’s chart is a complete fabrication that contradicts everything before it.
Even the IPCC started off presenting some science: http://i39.tinypic.com/dcxzwh.jpg
That is their original depiction of the past which concurred with what I have read. Kind of hard to pin warming on CO2 when compared to reality isn’t it?
Indeed the IPPCC did start by doing good science. Then the climate deteriorated.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/IPCC%20-%20an%20opinion%20changes%20results/IPCCMWPopinions.jpg
Jimbo,
Note also the slope of the line coming out of the Maunder Minimum, the depths of the Little Ice Age. It’s steeper & makes a bigger move than any phase of the Modern Warm Period.
Thank you for your post JImbo.
We knew that Piltdown was wrong at the time his papers were published (MBH98, etc.).
I published the following article in E&E in early 2005, in defence of several legitimate climate scientists.
“Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.”
Regards to all, Allan
Full article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/#comment-811913
Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville
The global warming debate heats up
Energy & Environment 2005
Allan M.R. MacRae
[Excerpt]
But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.
Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the “hockey stick” temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature.
Mann’s hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2. Mann concluded: “Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”
Mann’s conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect.
Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.
In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.
In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today’s levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received “special attention” from EOS.
In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.
*************
Luke says “You are right, a lot of factors influence tree ring width including temperature. If you have a sufficient sample size and account for other sources of variation (the main one is precip), the temperature signal is there.”
And just how might you “account for other sources of variation”, bearing in mind that they may be related, unrelated or, indeed, change their relationship over time?
What the serial fraudster, Mann, did was to run all the data he could find against recent temperature series, from far and wide and inevitably found some trees that showed a correlation with some temperature series. They were then given the largest weighting in his subsequent “analysis”.
It’s called a spurious correlation, just like saying that more people are living longer because they have been watching more television.
It is not correct, Mann knew it wasn’t correct and deep down, so do you.
Then tell me how the National Academy of Sciences in their reanalysis of Mann’s data other data sets got it wrong too.
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.
This free PDF was downloaded from:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
Luke @December 7, 2014 at 8:54 am
I don’t believe that the committee did a full-scale reanalysis of Mann’s opus.
From p.115 from the NAP document you linked to above (bold mine):
Apparently, “plausible” is not exactly “was unprecedented” when one takes the inherent statistical uncertainty into account…
So you’re saying the NAS is just as wrong as Mann?
Time for school!
D.R. Tucker and Betsy Rosenberg conducted an interview AGW believer Dr. Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley in August of 2012. This is what he had to say about the hockey stick:
Interviewer ”…now that you have validated the information that was in dispute, supposedly, in the Climategate matter, is it fair to say, once and for all, that that is a settled matter, that should be all be [inaudible] and set aside?”
Prof Richard Muller: “No, no, no. Just the opposite. Actually, that’s not really accurate at all. The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that. What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their license.” [at minute 13:00 in the interview]
Further in the interview at time 14:30:
Richard Muller: “What’s wrong is what they said. The conclusions that Michael Mann drew, that it’s the warmest it’s been in a thousand years – I was on an international academy review panel that looked at that. Our conclusion was: he could not draw those conclusions.”
Here is an mp3 of the interview:
http://bradblog.com/audio/GreenFront_RichardMuller_080112.mp
Luke, you say
Sorry for the poor quote-formatting …
The Mann hockey stick was completely discredited by Wegman’s non-partisan committee (Committee on Energy and Commerce Report).
The North committee (National Research Council Report) reached similar conclusions as stated below, but attempted to soften its stance and has often been misinterpreted.
____________________________________________________________
Here are some excerpts from the Wegman Report:
The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility… The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann’s work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”
*********************************
Did Wegman and North Disagree?
There’s obviously been a lot of spinning here, as Wegman’s language was much more forthright. The realclimate crowd have tried to marginalize the clear statements in Wegman.
At the July 19, 2006 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Barton asked North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman’s findings and North (under oath) said no as follows:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–
DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
\CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.
DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.
MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
There’s no way they couldn’t have realized it. They had to create their own “novel” statistical method to get the result they wanted. They had to give one proxy grossly more weight than all the others to get there. That can’t happen by accident.
A repeat: One takes a look at the vortex’s and flows and one just has to realize that if there is ANYONE who believes they can model and predict based on the number of variables present is this amazing world of ours is either an idiot, has an ego that will not quit or really needs the money and is willing to sell their soul to sell ice to Eskimos.
http://earth.nullschool.net/
correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t he also refused to release all the data and methods he used?
I may be remembering wrong.
I may be wrong but I think you’re right.
Why else would he fight so hard to avoid his tax-payer-funded emails related to his work from being released?
Plausible is enough for me especially given that so many on this site have said Mann’s analysis was debunked. In addition, the pattern has only gotten stronger with additional data. Mann’s only overstep was making an inference to a short time scale (the decade of the 1990’s and 1998). The overall pattern is clear.
Uh….Just how can what you said be construed as a reply to dmacleo or me?
PS “Plausible” is enough for you? Beam me up, Scotty!
Interesting, where is your work published?
Luke, in re your response at 8:32 am, I am not sure which above response you are responding to, so I have to guess at your point. Are you suggesting people should only respond on this site if they are referencing their own published works? My guess is supported by your responses at 7:30 am, 7:52 am and 8:14 am.
If that is your opinion of appropriate behavior, why have you not applied it to yourself?
SR
You can start with
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf
Luke, I checked the link you provided, and did not see a “Luke” credited with the paper. Why did you provide that link instead of answering either of my questions?
SR
Luke. You post a reference to Marcott et al 2013? A paper that’s been seriously debunked by McIntyre at Climate Audit.
Methinks you’re a SkS shill.
“and is still widely reproduced by the more scientifically illiterate alarmists.”
Because so many of the alarmists are well aware of the fatally flawed hockey stick, having been alerted repeatedly in recent years just as as Mann was warned earlier, it is not their illiteracy causing them to reproduce the stick.
It is wholesale, institutionalized mendacity which purposefully distributes the falsehoods.
Unleashed limitless lying has taken hold of countless people in every conceivable position.
Graphic: How We Know We’re Causing Global Warming.
BY CLIMATE GUEST CONTRIBUTOR POSTED ON AUGUST 10, 2011 AT 10:30 AM UPDATED: AUGUST 24, 2011 AT 4:05 PM
by John Cook, in a Skeptical Science cross-post.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/10/286691/global-warming-graphic/
What’s interesting about this article is what it leaves out. There is no mention of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph. This is because it has been discredited. But the point is this a major reason why the great alarm bells went up about the rate of temperature increase in the second half of the 20th-century. It was known that the global temperatures had been rising for some time, but the hockey stick graph seemed to showed it accelerated grossly in the late 20th century.
But without this graph the rate of temperature increase is not significantly greater than what had already been happening for hundreds of years, i.e., prior to the time of fossil fuels. Oddly, AGW supporters still keep referring to an “unprecedented” rate of temperature increase without saying what is the evidence for this.
The reason why they don’t is because the evidence was the hockey stick graph which has now been discredited.
So it remains like a ghost in their arguments without being specifically stated yet still acting like its conclusions were still true.
Bob Clark
On the subject of damage done by GW activists.
Remember this?
“Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. (SCOTUS – Mass v EPA 2007). A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related.”
“According to the climate scientist Michael MacCracken, “qualified scientific experts involved in climate change research” have reached a “strong consensus” that global warming threatens (among other things) a precipitate rise in sea levels by the end of the century, MacCracken Decl. ¶15, Stdg. App. 207, “severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems,” id., ¶5(d), at 209, a “significant reduction in water storage in winter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct and important economic consequences,” ibid., and an increase in the spread of disease, id.,¶28, at 218–219. He also observes that rising ocean temperatures may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes.” ¶¶23–25, at 216–217.
One has to wonder what evidence was used to support the “strong consensus”. A “Hockey Stick” maybe?
This is also the time that CO2 became a “pollutant” rather than the life blood of plant life and life on this planet for those of us dependent on O2.
How any angels can dance on the tip of a needle?
Wrong blog for that question. You want Judy Curry’s place. http://judithcurry.com/
May Mann-Made glo-bull warming suffer an ignominious and richly deserved demise, never to rise again.
Temperature aside, ask a typical AGW devotee what is the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere. Rarely do they have an idea and often default into “it doesn’t matter because it is forcing…etc.” Then follow up with how much MAN MADE carbon is in the atmosphere followed by how much of that can man be expected to stop using and when you get to something around a couple of 10,000th of a percent they will give you the finger and walk away.
Luke, first know yourself.
Do not use a mirror.
Go and sin no more.
And leave the Passion to St. Michael.
Didn’t Bach write something like “Mann in B minor”?
At what point did Mann know and ignore or avoid mentioning the post-1980 divergence problem? As a “top” tree-ring climatologist, he should have been aware in intimate detail of tree-ring data that showed his premise to be false, that showed his hockey stick graph to be misleading. He hasn’t been updating his work – on purpose?
Steyn says that Mann has been producing “fraudulent” content for the world, in the legal sense that he is producing material he knows to be misleading and designed for, and resulting in, actions by other people who would not otherwise do so. Even this year, in Britain, his continued use of non-updated graphs has been observed. If he has been not updating his material because it would invalidate the “narrative”, then I would say that Steyn is righter than right.
Being technically negligent or professionally incompetent is not a crime, but it is cause for censure and the termination of employment. The time-line of Mann and his tree-ring proxies and subsequent opportunities for updating the work is critical to whether fraud has been committed.
Luke, here are some more snippets from your wonderful reference.
As has been shown above bristlecone pines are responsive to precipitation. They can lie almost dormant during arid times.
Yes, there are other sources of variation- especially with tree ring analysis but with sufficient data and careful analyses the warmining signal is cleaar. It is also helpful to look at other data sources (marine, lake, and cave proxies, ice isotopes, glacial length and mass balance records) all of which show the same pattern that Mann et al. found.
Luke,
Mann’s hockey stick was all noise in the shaft. The other proxies are all examined at Climate Audit, very meticulously, and there are problems with all of these.
You seem quite uninformed on the matter of temperature proxies and their misuse.
It’s not the temperature rise that’s the issue, it’s the HOCKEY STICK ‘BLADE’ which forgot the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD. That’s the gripe I and many here have.
Yes Luke, the warming signal in the last 150 years or so is clear. Even if those data sets have their issues too. But that was not the issue with MBH. (They didn’t even manage to establish that their ‘reconstructions’ managed to recreate the modern warming.) And the real issue is whether they can say anything meaningful about temperatures many centuries even a millennium ago? And with what confidence-
Luke,
don’t forget about Mann’s tree ring failure after 1960. If they responded so well to temperature BEFORE 1960, then what went wrong AFTER 1960? If they are no good after 1960 then what level of confidence should we place on them before 1960? Hung by own petard.
Jimbo
December 7, 2014 at 12:29 pm
“….or the possibility that surface instrumental temperatures are affected by an upward bias (Hoyt 2006).”
//////////////////////////////
This is a useful post since it well describes some of the problems with the data, as well as the reliability and worth of the proxy.
Ever since Climategate (when I became more interested in this subject), I have been posting comments to the effect that Mann had found something interesting from his studies, and he should have published a paper on the divergence issue, and the implications of the divergence issue and what it suggested. I have frequently pointed out that his study (and data collated by Briffa) supports the view that by the 1960s onwards the land based thermometer record had become polluted by UHI, station drop out and/or incorrect homogenisation/adjustments.
One should not overlook that whilst the satellite data does not go back to the 1960s, post 1979 through to the run up to the super El Nino of 1998, it shows no warming. Had the satellite been up earlier, it is quite conceivable that it would have shown no warming betwen the 1960s and the run up to the super El Nino of 1998 (especially since there is, in the land based thermometer record, some evidence of cooling post 1940s through to the late 1960s).
The tree ring data is evidence that there are problems with the land based thermometer record, and I was not previously aware that Hoyt (in the 2006 paper) has noted this very point. It is an important point worth noting, and should be mentioned whenever one considers the reliability and worth of the land based thermometer record.
WATER!
Luke,
Marcott is not credible.
Please find a better source, because Marcott has been thoroughly debunked.
Sorry, a reference to a WattsUp post is not credible. Show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that debunks Marcott et al.
Who needs a “peer-reviewed scientific paper that debunks Marcott et al.” when MARCOTT DID IT HIMSELF!!! LOL.
LOL. Marcott himself admitted to the criticisms against his paper, the published version of which didn’t even match his actual thesis, with no explanation to date as to why. No need to debunk it, the author already did that.
Hey Jimbo.
…
What Marcott says does not invalidate the reconstruction from 11,000 year bp until 1900
David Socrates stated: “What Marcott says does not invalidate the reconstruction from 11,000 year bp until 1900
Huh? Stopping at 1900 eliminates the 20th century uptick. The graph then would indicate the MWP being warmer than today. It would also indicate that the temperatures from the MWP back 10,000 years are warmer than the MWP.
Can you please quote me exactly where I said words to the effect that what Marcott said invalidates the reconstruction from 11,000 year bp until 1900? The issue is with his late 20th century HOCKEY STICK BLADE? Which Marcott disowned. See dating.
But first can you please explain the cause[s] of one of the two periods of greatest warming in the 20th century 1925–1944? (Phil Jones et al 2010)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/marcott-a-10001.jpg
David Socrates,
Here is a the graph from the IPCC’s FAR showing the Medieval Warm Period. Whatever the debate about temperature since mid-1970s the Little Ice Age and MWP were clear. Now Warmists want to unclear it. This has made many into sceptics.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg
Postings on WWUT don’t “debunk” anything.
…
Show us a peer reviewed scientific paper that debunks Marcott.
Visit CO2 science and you’ll find several hundred.
http://www.co2science.org
co2science.org is not a peer reviewed publication.
..
It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, but then, you don’t know where they get their funding because of that
…
Got something from a reputable scientific journal?
Try this post on ClimateAudit for more information:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/04/marcott-monte-carlo/
If you understand the math and stat, please tell me where I went wrong. If you can’t understand the concepts, I’ll be happy to explain them to you.
For more posts at CA on the subject, search the term “Marcott” and you will read of more flaws in the paper.
David Socrates I showed Marcott at Real Climate (in his OWN WORDS) disowning his Hokey Schtick blade. Once he did that there is little left.
David Socrates,
Co2Science is a repository of peer reviewed science. By all means IGNORE their interpretation on anything, but visit the papers where available online by visiting http://scholar.google.com . Simply stating that Co2Science is not peer reviewed is called ‘ducking and diving’ in my book.
Here are some proxies brought to you by Dr. Michael Mann. Where are these trees and crops today? These proxies cannot easliy be manipulated (unless you use a glass greenhouse). 😉
The obvious conclusion that any sane, rational thinking person would come to is if the tree rings “lose correlation” to temperature after 1980, then how can anyone state with any confidence they EVER HAD any correlation to temperature? Anyone that continues to stand behind this frauduent science have zero credability anymore. Unfortunately, it appears the damage is done, as the hokey stick continues to be paraded out time and time again by the warmists.
Will Mann have to relinquish his Nobel for this?
Luke,
I learn something new everyday. I have been reading a bit about bristlecone pines (STRIP-BARK and FULL-BARK). Co2 fertilization etc. Luke dear boy, this whole tree ring circus is ‘bristling-cone’ with issue after issue. I think I’ll move on now. Michael Mann’s proxy is a proxy of something other than temperature.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/16/luckman-at-the-canadian-society-for-petroleum-geologists/
I am no scientist, an engineer and i believed most of the ‘ temperature is rising ‘ scare until , Al Gore came out with his move and it started me thinking , something ‘ fishy ‘ here as a perhaps corrupt politician starts flailing the drums i turned to looking for rebuttals and found sites such as WUWT and in couple years realized it was all about the money, just follow the money .
I too was alarmed and believed the Climastrologists. Then I had had enough of the alarm and decided to take a closer look, as many here had done. Pooof! I am no longer alarmed and sleep well without worrying about tomorrow. I just do the best I can to convince people not to worry. They are being fooled.
One thing in back of my mind was ; engineers design and build things that can ‘ crash ‘ so, i suspected scientist could do the same thing then when the money angle entered the picture of climate it convinced me it was ‘ crashable ‘ .
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/us_heartland_spending.jpg
The ironically named “Socrates”:
Look at Table 1 on page 8 in this document for some of the annual US wasted spending on climate:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
Notice where the document originates. $2.5 billion (plus) … and that is not all of it!
Jimbo
Go to this site and you can see wind, temperature ,ect. in real time all over the globe .
When news hypes a category 1 Typhoon to a Super Typhoon i look for myself.
http://earth.nullschool.net/
Jimbo, the $627 million spent by the DOE was not spent on climate change research.
A hell of a lot of it was — much more than Heartland ever gets.
Spending on clean energy technology is not the same as spending on “Climate Change Research”
..
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
The total DOE budget request for Fiscal 2015 is $27.9 billion, up 2.6% from 2014. Of that, spending for “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy” is $2.3 billion, up 21.9% from 2014.
Of that, wind energy research gets $115 million, up 30.5% over 2014; solar power $282 million, up 9.8%; Bioenergy, $253 million, up 9%.
Total spending on the entire fossil fuel energy program is $711 million, down 8.8%. Of that, spending on clean coal research is zeroed out. I.e., no money budgeted. Of the $711 million, actual spending on fossil fuel energy is $475.5 million, down 15.4%. $205 million goes to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Most of the $575.5 million of the fossil fuel budget focuses on carbon capture, including the budget for natural gas. “Natural Gas Technologies,” $35 million, up 69.9% “focuses on technologies to reduce the carbon footprint, emissions, and water use …[addresses] high-priority challenges to safe and prudent development of unconventional resources [and evaluates] the occurrence, nature and behavior of naturally occurring gas hydrates and resulting resource, hazard, and environmental implications ” Not a word about research on improving methods actually used for fracking, or helping to actually develop shale gas.
Carbon capture, carbon storage, “Advanced Energy Systems, which “increases the availability and efficiency of fossil energy systems integrated with CO2 capture” and “Cross-Cutting Research,” which “fosters the development of innovative systems for improving availability, efficiency, and environmental performance of advanced energy systems with CCS“, where CCS is carbon capture and storage, total $243.4 million.
Fossil energy program direction (salaries) is $114.2 million. So, let’s see: CCS-type programs (243.4) + natural gas hazard amelioration (35) + salaries (114.2) = $392.6 million, leaving $82.9 million (17.4% of the budget) for everything else.
It’s easy to see where the energy-related DOE emphasis is placed: on ameliorating the presumed consequences of CO2-induced global warming. Huge amounts of money are going there, with virtually nothing to support research where the energy actually comes from.
Chapter 4, page 91ff of the DOE budget request provides the projected 2015 outlays for climate science. These are:
Atmospheric System Research: $26.4 million.
Climate and Earth System Modeling: $102.6 million, of which $57.2 million is for climate models alone.
Another $118.9 million is budgeted for climate and environmental facilities and infrastructure.
That’s $247.9 million for climate science alone.
And that does not include the money budgeted for improvements in computing (exaflop research), which specifically includes language directed to improving the resolution, complexity, and computational speed of climate models. The total in advanced scientific computing research is another $541 million.
So, transferring 10% of the exaflop money to climate model computing, it looks like climate science is getting some $300 million a year from the DOE alone.
D. Socrates,
You didn’t even look at Roman M’s link. Did you?
RESPONSE – Here is the exact DOE page from the Wayback Machine as at 11 August 2011 – the date of the graphic which I posted and which you challenged. They are still funding climate research. Do you still stand by your statement and why??
http://science.energy.gov/ber/research/cesd/integrated-assessment-of-global-climate-change
Lonnie, we are pxing away our children’s heritage on the alter of a false science and Mann led the charge. Let’s take CO2 “emissions” to below 180 and see life on earth disappear. The Maann is a fraud.
Norman .
Agreed .
We have examples of boondoggles such as ; the Ivanpah three ‘ Towers of Power ‘ fiasco where the principals are begging for a government loan to pay of the government loan .
Perhaps it can be a monument to future generations of the stupidity of the era , but perhaps they can use the surviving mirrors to direct sunlight at the advancing glaciers.
Amazing how Mann’s study with its dubious end game gets accepted, but Liu’s is not
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/china/liu-2011-tibet-tree-rings-2485-year.gif
The difference is of interest from a sociological point of view.
But neither study justifies why tree rings are an acceptable proxy of T at all.
Why the conclusions affect citability is very interesting, from a history of science point of view.
Well, considering that Mann’s study was global in scope, and Lin’s study only applied to central-eastern Tibetan plateau, it makes sense that Lin’s wasn’t that important
..
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-011-4713-7#page-1
Mann’s hockeystick graph was a northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction.
Mann’s reconstruction was dominated by ONE proxy at ONE location in North America. It was overweighted so much that it overwhelmed every other proxy, none of which showed any dramatic modern warming.
This is why D. Socrates doesn’t like the link:
The results showed that extreme climatic events… such as the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th Century Warming appeared synchronously with those in other places worldwide.
Mann’s Hokey Stick chart has been so thoroughly debunked that the IPCC can no longer publish it. And the IPCC LOVED Mann’s MBH97/98 chart. It fit their narrative perfectly. But now all they have are confusing spaghetti charts, which do not have nearly the visual impact of Mann’s chart — which was SCARY. Scary, but fake.
You can be certain that the IPCC would still be publishing Mann’s scary chart constantly, if they could. But they can’t. It’s been debunked.
Dbstealey, when you quote a passage, don’t forget to copy and paste ALL of it….( added the bold to the words you left out)
..
“The results showed that extreme climatic events on the Plateau, such as the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th Century Warming appeared synchronously with those in other places worldwide”
Question for you, David Socrates:
Did the same climatic events appear synchronously also in Mann’s allegedly ‘global’ reconstruction?
Or was the ‘importance’ of it rather the opposite?
Just askin’
The LIA is evident in Mann’s work, so is the 20th Century Warming. But there is not a whole lot of evidence that the MWP was global.
So at 4:13 PM you say that the MWP was worldwide, and then at 4:47 you say it wasn’t. Could you pick on or the other?
David Socrates,
I suggest you wander over to Climate Audit and see how far you get.
D. Socrates,
Here is an interactive world map, showing that the MWP was a global event. Just scroll across any part to see that location and what was found.
I love these MWP/LIA debates. There are mountains of observational evidence proving beyond any doubt that the MWP happened globally. When Michael Mann tried to pretend that it was just a local, North American event, he was bombared by scientist pointing out that the “consensus” for the past century supported the global MWP because of the immense body of evidence.
The MWP is not discucced much by the alarmist crowd because whenever they bring it up they get thrashed. They think if they admitted the MWP was global, then Mann’s hokey stick chart would be deconstructed. And they’re right. So they don’t discuss it.
Mann’s lemmings used to try and make the case that the MWP wasn’t global. They are very foolish to get into that argument, but based on our experience, they keep arguing losing conjectures. So, for every citation claiming there was only a limited, local MWP, I will post at least two (2) links showing the MWP was a global event.
Ready, Socrates? Ready, Warrenlb? OK! Ready?
On your mark… Get set… GO!
☺ ☺ ☺
David, your correction makes no substantive difference. dbstealy’s ellipsis was not misleading.
For evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global see the reviewed and published evidence collected by the Idsos at CO2 Science.
If Jeffid is around, he can point you to the analysis he published in the AirVent a few years ago, showing that the declining trend prior to the 20th century in the MBH98/99 reconstruction was entirely an artifact of Mann’s PCA method.
Mr David Mhoffer
“So at 4:13 PM you say that the MWP was worldwide,”
..
No, I didn’t say that, I was posting a correction to dbstealey’s quote.
Mr Pat Frank
…
You are incorrect.
When you leave out the words “on the Plateau” it changes what “extreme climatic events” refers to.
Dbstealey
…
The problem with your “interactive world map” is that it fails to show what areas on the globe were COOLER than normal for the time period(s)..
…
The problem with your “evidence” is that it is plagued by confirmation bias. You’ve selected only the data that supports your argument, and have left out all the data that contradicts it
Not to mention that the time scales on the various graphs don’t align
D. Socrates says that:
I have “left out all the data that contradicts” the MWP.
O really. And what evidence would that be?
See, the conjecture that the MWP was not a worldwide event is your conjecture, D. Socrates-Grouse, and I note that the total support you have for your conjecture amount to only your own baseless assertions. Your beliefs.
Sorry pal, that isn’t nearly enough. You don’t like the evidence I posted. Tough noogies, since all you have to counter it is your opinion. And we already know you get your misinformation and your talking points from a low-trafficked alarmist blog with zero credibility. Isn’t it you who keeps trying to post links to Hotwhopper? It’s you. Isn’t it?
All you do is parrot the opinion of ignorant people who feed you misinformation. When we show you evidence that you’re flat wrong, you deflect, or change the subject, or you just emit more of your baseless opinions. Other commenters have been posting links here. Have you read any of them?
The link above says: In fact, clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced the highs of the Medieval Warm Period… [we] compiled and examined results from more than 240 research papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. And your CV is… ?
I think I could post a hundred more papers, and ice core observational evidence, showing the MWP was global — but you would still give your typical response. Tell me, what would it take to convince you:
1. That CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere, and
2. That there is a mountain of solid evidence supporting the global MWP
I don’t think anyone could convince you of anything. A new Ice Age could start, and glaciers could cover Chicago again, but you would still be parroting your catastropphic AGW nonsense.
So tell us: what would it take for you to change your mind? Anything? Or is AGW your religion?
Time to quit deflecting, and put up your answers.
Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world‐wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950, doi:10.1029/97GL01846.
Abstract:
Analysis of more than six thousand continental heat flow measurements as a function of depth has yielded a reconstruction of a global average ground surface temperature history over the last 20,000 years. The early to mid‐Holocene appears as a relatively long warm interval some 0.2–0.6 K above present‐day temperatures, the culmination of the warming that followed the end of the last glaciation. Temperatures were also warmer than present 500–1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2–0.7 K below present about 200 years ago. Although temperature variations in this type of reconstruction are highly smoothed, the results clearly resemble the broad outlines of late Quaternary climate changes suggested by proxies.
Pat Frank,
Thank you. I was trying to make a point, that the MWP appeared sychronously, worldwide. But of course D. Socrates completely ignored that, and tried to deflect again. If it weren’t for misdirection [“Look! A squirrel!”] he wouldn’t have much to say.
As usual, ‘Socrates’ ignores my request for citations, preferring to rely on his assertions instead. No wonder he’s floundering around trying to debate the much more knowledgeable folks here.
====================
SkepticGoneWild,
Thanks for yet another peer reviewed paper showing that the MWP was warmer than now, and worldwide in extent. Also, the fact that ice cores from both hemispheres, and multiple locations, show that global T rose and fell simultaneously indicates that the MWP was not just confined to one limited area, as Mann’s credulous acolytes believe.
Dbstealey
..
Love this graph in your global map…
..
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Patterson-1998.html
..
Eight data points covering 1000 years?
…
Heavens knows what the calculated variance is on that data set.
…
Oh, and another remarkable thing about that map
…
No data from Australia ?
No data from Antarctic ice cores?
…
Do you leave these geographical areas out of the map because they don’t fit the confirmation bias?
SkepticGoneWild
…
“Continental heat flow”
…
That measures 30% of the earth’s surface. What about the other 70% covered by water?
Dbstealey
..
Again you post a link to a unlabeled graphic.
..
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017742b2697f970d-popup
…
No labeling on the X-axis, or Y-axis
..
What is this graph saying?
Dbstealey
…
Love your citation of the Soon and Baliunas paper. ( http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html )
…
How many editors of CR resigned over the publication of that paper?
Didn’t the publisher Otto Kinne say that the paper should not have been published?
David Socrates squealed, “That measures 30% of the earth’s surface. What about the other 70% covered by water?
Hockey stick was northern hemisphere. And last time I checked, trees don’t grow in the oceans. Why aren’t you complaining lack of global data for hockey stick graph?
D. Socrates tries to criticize the S&B peer reviewed paper that I linked. Once again, that is nothing but opinion. The paper passed review and was not withdrawn, nor was there a Corrigendum — unlike Mann’s paper.
‘Socrates’ can nitpick all he wants, but all it amounts to is impotent cherry-picking like this:
Eight data points covering 1000 years?
Yes, and you would snivel about it if it was seven data points, or 77 data points, or 7,000 data points. You are merely a high school graduate looking for something to confirm your alarmist bias. Unfortunately for you, Planet Earth is debunking your globaloney. The planet trumps your Belief System (BS), as you continue to argue against what she’s clearly telling you. I can’t educate you — and neither can Planet Earth.
I wrote upthread:
…for every citation claiming there was only a limited, local MWP, I will post at least two (2) links showing the MWP was a global event.
But you post no citations, you only try to nitpick, deflect, and misrepresent.
Next, you say:
Love this graph in your global map…
Of course, that graph flatly contradicts your Belief, using empirical evidence — something you’re supremely ignorant about.
Next, you say:
Do you leave these geographical areas out of the map because they don’t fit the confirmation bias?
I leave out nothing. I link to sources that debunk your Belief. You can always find a location, or a year, or a measurement that you can claim is missing. But the overwhelming evidence shows conclusively that the MWP was global, and that it was warmer than now.
You are merely trolling the comments, adding nothing of substance, while I post facts.
As usual, Socrates adds nothing of substance. Instead, he merely trolls with the next in his endless series of obfuscating demands, instead of answering questions:
Any ice core from Antarctica
This is an ice core record from Vostok, in the Antarctic. Note that temperatures have been declining for thousands of years. And as we see, the surface is also cooling. Even the Arctic has begun cooling.
Now that’s cleared up, I’m sure we can expect more deflection by the evidence-free trollmaster, Grouse Socrates. Like this:
OK, tell us. Which ones were cooler? Please provide the peer reviewed… &etc.
Why should skeptics explainanything? You cannot be educated. That is unpossible. When skeptics debunk your nonsense you simply MovOn to something else, and/or deflect, and/or misrepresent. For example, Pat Frank corrcted you:
dbstealey’s ellipsis was not misleading.
But Socrates-Grous is deliberately misleading. He knows my point was that the MWP was ‘synchronous worldwide’. That is why I bolded those particular words. But since Socrates cannot post any credible evidence to support his True Belief in climate catastrophe, he constantly deflects like that. Really, he is getting thrashed with facts in these debates, but he doesn’t even know it. He can’t be educated, and he is out of touch with reality — a typical alarmist True Believer.
Thank you very much Mr Dbstealey for posting a link to the Vostok ice core which does not show MWP I guess that is why your global map of all the locations that show MWP does not have one for Vostok.
…
Always appreciate when you provide evidence to support my contention.
D. Socrates,
still trolling, I see.
There is a technique in rhetoric, in which a protagonist finds something not contained in a statement, which is then attacked. You are trying to attack a negative; something that isn’t there. Now we call it trolling, and it is used by trolls, who have nothing else, who use it to deflect from the basic premise: Mann’s tree ring proxy is bunkum.
You misrepresent again here:
Always appreciate when you provide evidence to support my contention.
Nothing supports your contention. You won’t even answer one question about it! As a Mann lemming, you can’t answer questions because the real world would make an even bigger fool of you if you tried.
You deflected again rather than answering, by demanding an ice core record showing that the Antarctic is cooling. You said:
Any ice core from Antarctica
Easy-peasy. I posted an ice core record from Vostok, Antarctica, showing the Antarctic cooling for the most recent several thousand years. You wrongly claim that supports your contention?? heh. As if. You are deluded.
Start answering questions, and quit being a jamoke. There are at least a dozen from other readers that you’ve completely ignored. You have provided exactly nothing to support your anti-science nonsense; you just continue your despicable rhetoric. So answer a question or two. Or…
…keep trolling. It’s the only thing you’re good at.
Your MWP was global is not helped by the Vostok cores.
…
Note also there is no evidence from Australia.
..
Seems to be kind of fishy that the Southern Hemisphere doesn’t seem to be following your “MWP” meme.
Trolling, trolling, trolling. Never answering a question. And I know why:
Because you’ve got nothin’. All you can do is deflect.
What a jamoke.
Again Mr Dbstealey, thank you for posting the link to the Vostok ice cores. As you can tell from the graph, the MWP did not affect Antarctica. You would think that if MWP was global, you’d see evidence of it in the Vostok cores. You are shooting yourself in the foot with that link.
..
So, we have determined that the MWP did not affect either Australia or Antarctica.
…
Yes, your MWP seems not to have occurred in the Southern Hemisphere.
@D. Socrates,
I sincerely have trouble answering this question: are you a troll, or are you an idiot?
Because Vostok is in Antarctica.
You specifically asked for an ice core record of ‘Antarctica’. That is what I posted for your education. And you could probably find one or two other areas that have sparse data, like Boreo or Haiti. So what? That proves nothing. The fact is that I posted exactly what you asked for: ice core data from Antarctica.
Your response:
You are shooting yourself in the foot with that link.
You are nothing but a troll, Grouse. You fool nobody. You’ve got nothing except your constant deflection and misprepresentation. No wonder you’re getting thrashed in these debates. You have no credible facts, only your despicable rhetoric. Everything you write is deflection.
Others have also posted a lot of solid scientific evidence here, showing that the MWP was in fact a global event. You cannot refute them, just because you found an area that has less data. You lost the debate, kid. Finish high school before you pretend to understand science. We’re on to you here.
Mr Dbstealey.
…
You really need to calm down.
Secondly, you also need to dispense with the name calling. “Troll”, “jamoke” and “idiot” are ad-homimems and clearly show you are unable to focus, and keep to the discussion at hand. I have said to other posters on this site, when dbstealy begins to call you names, you have won the argument.
Thirdly, Your Vostok graph PROVES that the MWP did not occur in Antarctica
…
Lastly, if the MWP was a global event, why is it not in the Vostok cores? Why is there no evidence for it in Australia ?
…
Posting the link to that data shows the MWP did not affect the southern hemisphere. Also note that your global map of “evidence” has none for Australia. Just another item proving the MWP did not happen in the SH..
D. Socrates says:
You really need to calm down.
I’m like I always am. You need to get a productive job. Posting on the internet throughout the workday means you’re not employed. Thus: jamoke, and old Italian-American term for someone who sits in a coffee shop all day, shooting the breeze about everything. Appropriate, no?
You asked for an ice core measurement that shows global cooling happening. You asked for:
Any ice core from Antarctica
I posted one, to help you understand. But you don’t want enlightenment, you’re just trolling. Because you then deflected to Your Vostok graph PROVES that the MWP did not occur in Antarctica.
See, no matter how much real world evidence we post, you always deflect.
Next, you say it “proves” the MWP “did not affect the southern hemisphere”.
Wrong again. It “proves” no such thing. I gave you what you wanted. All it “proves” is that you don’t understand anything about the Scientific Method: see, skeptics have nothing to prove.
The onus is on you to support your conjecture. But as usual, you have failed.
Another example of your failure: just because that one particular link did not include Australia means nothing more than it did not include Australia. It does not prove…
…the MWP did not happen in the SH.
You are a case study in illogic. From Hubert Lamb on back, the world-wide MWP is a given. It is an established Theory. If you want to falsify it, feel free to give it a try. But the onus is not on skeptics; the onus is entirely on you. So get with the program, and start falsifying — IF you can.
In addition to mine, Dave Hoffer posted about fifty (50+) links, showing that the MWP was worldwide. Now you, just a high school graduate, come along and pontificate as if you know anything. You don’t.
” You need to get a productive job”
…
LMAO…the post calls the kettle black.
..
“Jamoke”…..name calling…pure and simple. Try as stop using the ad-hom argument technique.
..
The ice core you posted doesn’t show any MWP
…
“you always deflect.” ….Nope, we’re talking about MWP. Try and focus
…
“You are a case study in illogic.” ……I would say calling people names is a case study in “illogic”
..
“Dave Hoffer posted about fifty (50+) links, ” …. none of which show synchronicity.
…
” Now you, just a high school graduate,” another ad-hom? Not only are you violating site rules, you are also wrong to boot!!!!!
…
Socrates,
“was possibly”
…
Not very conclusive.
Now you look like you’re becoming a sceptic without knowing it! Now look at every new paper that comes out from climate scientists and look out for those caveats – may, might, could………………..
Really? Isn’t it rather the other way around, the modern warming is in fact evidence that the tree rings aren’t temperature proxies? I agree however, that other than that “there is not a whole lot of evidence” .. “in Mann’s work”
David Socrates says “there is not a whole lot of evidence that the MWP was global.”
According to what?
There is more evidence of the global MWP than the essentially none for the 20th century warming.
Unless you think climate models produce evidence?
Here is the tabular data GISP2 ice core data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
The first data point is listed as 0.0951409 (thousands of years before present). That is 95 years to the nearest whole year. The temperature is -31.5913 degrees C. Now let’s go down in history to 0.964939, which is 965 years before present. This is during what is known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The temperature per the data is -30.46 degrees C. (On the NOAA website, the year 2000 is indicated as ending date, or “present”. So the first data point is the year 1905). So the MWP was 1.1 degrees C warmer than “present”, or 1905. How much has the earth warmed since 1905? According to the IPCC, since 1905, the earth has warmed about 0.9 degrees C (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-spm-1.html) So the MWP was about 0.2 degrees C warmer than today.
Going further back to the year 2.06824 (2,068 years before present), the temperature is listed as -29.57 degrees C. That is 2.0 degrees C warmer than the year 1905, or 1.1 degrees C warmer than today.
And finally back to the peak of the Minoan warming, year 3.29707 (3,297 ybp), the temperature is -28.748 degrees C. That is 2.84 degrees C warmer than 1905, or 1.94 degrees C warmer than present.
‘present’ in the context of the Alley data is 1950, therefore the first datapoint is 1855. That dataset refers to the Greenland summit where temperatures have risen faster than the global average.
But there is not a whole lot of evidence that the MWP was global.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
You’ll have to scroll through them as many are on the wrong time scale, but dozens of the rest are from peer reviewed papers confirming the MWP.
“There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during last century.”
—
If this is true, it seems like a very significant point to me. Don’t global-warming enthusiasts claim that plants and species are all migrating northward, and that this is proof that the planet is warming? So why hasn’t the polar timberline moved to the north if the polar region has been warming faster than the rest of the planet? Some say twice as fast, and some, like Cowtan and Way, say that the poles are warming 8 times faster. (When you have very little temperature data from a region, it’s easier to claim anything you want.) But if the polar timberline is not moving, isn’t that pretty strong evidence that the average temperature in that region has not changed much, if any?
David Socrates December 7, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Dbstealey
…
The problem with your “interactive world map” is that it fails to show what areas on the globe were COOLER than normal for the time period(s)..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK, tell us. Which ones were cooler? Please provide the peer reviewed studies which confirm them. Seriously, in all the times I have seen this issue debated, not once have I seen someone present a similar list of studies from all over the world using a variety of proxies, that shows cooler than normal during the same time period.
Any ice core from Antarctica
I asked for a comprehensive list of locations and proxy types and links to them. You provided a single location, no links.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_domec.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_victoriaglacier.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_firthoftaybay.php