Trond Arne Pettersen writes via Tips and Notes:
Something (funny) for you? On realclimate there is a guest post by Mark Boslough. He writes about the cynicism of the deniers and presents two graphs.
The first is of paleotemperature reconstruction of Sargasso Sea surface temperature. And the second one he claims is a doctored version that is a misrepresentation of Sargasso Sea temperatures by global warming doubters.
But actually the two graphs are exactly the same. The second is just a mirrored version, the time axis is turned the other way around. He says that the second one falsley claims that the global temperatures were higher 3000 years ago (something other sources say the were). So who has missed the point here, I or Mr Boslough?
Link to realclimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/non-condensable-cynicism-in-santa-fe/
Archived here:
non-condensable-cynicism-in-santa-fe-realclimate (PDF)
Link to my cut and paste of the graphics:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3i1mu4clopnq59j/Doctored%20version.pptx?dl=0
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, yeah, but you cherry picked the data on that second graph.
(Just trying to second guess RC’s response.)
/grin
All this proves is that we are all doomed by rent seekers and the system that leads to rent seeking, namely, democracy. Democracy is a LCD system, Lowest Common Denominator. The real issue is that despite several thousand years of political development we are unable to come to a better system or even refine the existing one to prevent LCD doom.
Think Electoral College. Ours is the most evolved democracy yet. Our forefathers knew well the pitfalls of Greece and Rome and especially England. Our democracy in its infancy would see the French Revolution revert to Napoleon.
We are seeing a correction based on their wisdom (and ours). There I hope yet.
@ur momisugly gymnosperm February 3, 2017 at 8:27 pm
While I agree that the USA attempted to create a government system that improved on the historic norms I would point out that Great Britain was in no way a democracy in the 1780s where only 3% of the population could vote in parliamentary elections.
You might look into the development and history of Mob Rule from the beginning in Ancient Greece. Aristotle addresses it in Politics IV about Bekker 1294 IIRC, where the tyrants enjoyed majority rule, while the citizens elected volunteers by lot.
Consider the difference in error propagation between a random process and a corrupt and precise process.
Seems to have worked admirably in America recently. I might have shared your view if felonious HRC had gotten in.
Izzit true that the Sargasso Sea is where all eels go to breed ??
Place must be crawling with them.
g
George it is indeed true. The young are born in rivers and lakes thousands of miles away and find their way ‘back’ to Sargasso where they never have been before.
JohnWho, you even don’t try to follow.
It’s really dangerous to share a thought here.
Johann Wundersamer,
Maybe I’m the one who can’t follow. I took his comment as sarcasm (hence the /grin tag).
John, sarc to sarc. Cheers – Hans
As the ex- Mayor of Phila, Pa. Micheal Nutter once said, and I quote, “what a dumb ass.”
“dumb ass” does not do his utter stupidity real justice.
According to Wikipedia:-
“Boslough is a vocal critic of pseudoscience and anti-science and has written about climate change denial in the Skeptical Inquirer in reference to “Climategate” conspiracy theories.[17] He is also active in uncovering scientific misconduct.[18][19]”
and he is also given to April Fool’s jokes and other hoaxes.
Is this another one?
I think Boslough objected to deleting the instrumental data from Kegwin, and calling it GLOBAL temps. Both valid points, BTW.
Yes, both valid points.
Les Johnson February 3, 2017 at 1:36 pm
Thanks, Les. You are correct that Boslough is not confused about the timescale as the author seems to think. And you are correct about the nature of his objections … but neither point is valid.
First, regarding “deleting” the instrumental data, the shoe is on the wrong foot. Kegwin has SPLICED instrumental and paleo data, a definite no-no in any graphic presentation, even Michael Mann agrees. So it is totally valid to remove it. It is in there to muddy the waters.
Second, read what was said:
No disagreement here with that statement. It did NOT say that the graph was of global temperatures. It said what most everyone agrees with, that global temperatures have gradually risen in the three centuries since the Little Ice Age.
And it goes on to say that based on that graph in Figure 2, we’re not yet back to the mean temperature of the whole period … also true.
So I’d say that Boslough is wrong, but not for the reasons the author of the head post says.
w.
Yes, I agree that Boslough is wrong, but not for the reasons in the post.
I agree that pasting 2 types of records together is objectionable, especially when it is not obvious in the chart, or mentioned in the caption.
I think its is confusing at the least, to put “global” in the caption box, in Robinson 1998.
Both papers suffer from defects. I don’t think either paper deserved a posting at RC or even here, detailing these defects.
Exact words from RealClimate:
So they clearly think Mike’s Nature Trick is fair game. The alarmists are twisting themselves into semantic pretzels trying to justify that.
“Kegwin has SPLICED instrumental and paleo data, a definite no-no in any graphic presentation”
We all seem to have a different objection. I don’t think it is unreasonable to show and compare two different representations of the same thing on a graph. It’s important to compare. What is not so good here is that he is comparing with a fixed “station” (a buoy, I think) at Bermuda, 700 km away. But that isn’t so bad either, and he looks carefully into the issues. His paper is here.
Boslough’s objection is rather specific, and orthogonal to this article:
“(1) omitted Station S data, (2) incorrectly stated that the time series ended in 1975, (3) conflated Sargasso Sea data with global temperature, and (4) falsely claimed that Keigwin showed global temperatures “are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years.””
(2) and (4) are justified. The caption to the Fig in question says:
“For the past 3000 years, globaltemperatures have been gradually recovering. As shown in Figures 2 they are still below the average for the past 3000 years.”
My bold reflects emphasis in the original. The Keigwin data obviously doesn’t give information about modern warming. The first actually dated point is 320+-150 years bp, although he applied a dating correction of 400 years to bring it to present. Everything is expressed as 50 yr averages.
His objection isn’t just to Robinson 1998. He says it was used in an Exxon advertisement, and:
“Various mislabeled, improperly-drawn, and distorted versions of K4B have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, in weblogs, and even as an editorial cartoon—all supporting baseless claims that current temperatures are lower than the long term mean, and traceable to Robinson’s misrepresentation with Station S data removed. In 2007, Robinson added a fictitious 2006 temperature that is significantly lower than the measured data. This doctored version of K4B with fabricated data was reprinted in a 2008 Heartland Institute advocacy report, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” “
The Robinson captions and bolding got messed up. It should show as
“For the past 3000 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering. As shown in Figures 2 they are still below the average for the past 3000 years.“
” The first actually dated point is 320+-150 years bp”
Correction, that was only for series A. For series D, (which he merged) the earliest date measured is 115 +-30 years BP (before 1950).
Global Temperatures have generally stayed between -94 deg. C and +60 deg. C
That’s for surface Temperatures.
G
What is the issue with combining instrumental and paleo data on the same graph? Would you
object if someone said it was warmer now than during the last ice age? And if not would you
object to that information being presented on a graph?
This is just a tip and far from a complete edit. But when Boslough says the second graph is doctored it sounds a bit serious. And at first glance it can look a bit confusing to the common reader, the graphs really look different. But to be fair, he says that he presents them “as presented” in two different papers. But in spite of pointing out the issue of instrumental data, it could leave some doubt about the whole graph. (Still I did not doubt for a second that Boslough actually was unaware of the opposite direction on the time axis.) So after some cut and paste I found them to be similar, which was not very easy to see in the first place. But this is more than 95% of a tiny graph, where the doctorizing pointed out by Boslough is just a tiny vertical line to the very left in the first graph. For the presentation as a whole, I find it at least a bit funny. And If the splicing is accepted, it still shows that SSTs in The Sargasso Sea was quite a bit higher 3000 years ago than present. And since the Sargasso Se is a fairly large region of the North Atlantic I tend to believe it would have effected global mean temperature quite a bit even if the graph is not a GMT graph. Not to mention other documentations of the Minoan warm period. So a bit funny still. But maybe it is a little bit too much both here and on RC, it can certainly become “Much Ado About Nothing” :-).
It seems the only thing holding back full planetary support for the Global Warmist cause these days, (other than continual record cold temperatures and snowfall tallies being set), is the consistent lack of warming as evidenced by both the UAH and RSS satellite temperature records.
Question:
Considering that literally trillions of dollars in annual profits and complete global control over energy resources are now at stake, how difficult would it be for some unscrupulous entity to alter some lines of computer code or the black body calibration procedure to create a steady annual rise in recorded satellite temps of a barely noticeable .04-.05 degrees C. per year?
Now I’m not suggesting that either Hansen or Schmidt at NASA GISS would ever dare compromise science in order to achieve a political objective… but if someone or some entity was…
What would stop them?
“What would stop them?”
Apart from anything else, the fact that NASA GISS does not handle satellite temperatures.
“NASA GISS does not handle satellite temperatures.”
Gosh, could have sworn I’ve downloaded their satellite data.
It’s a common trick of alarmists to tack on the alleged surface instrumental data on the end of very low resolution paleo-temperature graphs.
It’s a point made strongly by Professor Humlum at climate4you:
“The fact remains, however, that extending smoothed graphs beyond their formal endpoints represents an unfortunate habit which should be avoided in the analysis of meteorological data series” (climate4you: data smoothing).
Smoothed graphs are fake news anyway. So extending them only compounds the felony.
The raw data is all the real information you will ever have. The rest is fiction.
G
No doubt sabotaged by a denier to make the warmist look bad. Maybe one of those right-wing Breitbart stooges that shut down the speech at Berkeley according to Robert Reich?
/sarc (Just in case)
Wasn’t RR’s nutter effort hilarious. The masked leftist thugs were summoned by indelible social,media. Berkeley police apparently knew this was coming and did not stop it. Then RR tries to blame the right in a double pretzel conspiracy theory. They really are losing it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/03/robert-reich-rumors-that-berkeley-riots-were-a-right-wing-false-flag-or-something/
Fascists acting like Fascists, while claiming to be fighting Fascism. >¿<
From Jonah Goldberg, National Review: “If you think free speech is assault but assault is free speech you’re a moron of world-historical proportions.” I think Robert Reich is polishing his world-historical proportions.
Who was Robert Reich ??
Well whenever he was some sort of a somebody ??
g
Is that Robert Reich IV ? would make sense. National Socialism is socialism, and socialism is totalitarian. The Fascists are Far Left, the Far Right are the Libertarians, only the Extreme Left propagandists in the media see the Far Left as ‘far right’ because everyone is to the right of the extremist collectivists (who also run the UN and form the political component of the IPCC).
Moa says: “socialism is totalitarian” .. That is not true. Take for example Norway. It is a democratic socialist state. You seem to be confusing the structure of government with the economics.
Yep. That ol’ Warmist Cognitive Dysfunction/Denial really blocks the ol’ observational skilz. They only see what the want to see – even when it isn’t there.
If you have to call people “climate deniers” and impugn their honesty because they don’t think an instrumental record should be pasted onto the end of a proxy series and mislabel a popular local proxy as global (like that doesn’t happen twenty times a day in various alarmist publications), then you fail at science and are little more than a political hack in a lab coat.
Talk about “political hack”(s), I wonder how many scientists will be in the “scientist protest” are actual scientists or is this going to be “they have white lab coats on, they must be scientist” protest thing.
The latter. Everyone knows a white lab coat makes you a scientist. Didn’t you watch those old horror movies with the mad scientists in white coats?
Kenji may be there. $ome “green” was sent in his name. That seems to the only requirement for the “Union of Concerned Scientist” for one to be declared a “scientist”. (If you have or used to have a TV show, then it would be “scientist” with a capital “S”.)
How many scientists? Here’s a clue. They are all staying at a Holiday Inn Express.
Check to see which ones have the white coats on the right way round and which ones have arms that tie in the back!
Hey now, don’t mock those wearing self-hugging jackets.
We may be crazy, but we’re not crazy enough to believe CO2 levels 10% of historical maximums will end civilization or life on Earth. ^¿^
Lab coats are somewhat like Kimonos.
You can wear them either way round; depending on your intentions.
g
And they call skeptics stupid…?
Deleting instrumental data, was pointed out as a complaint.
But the instrumental data is a modern record they spliced onto a proxy reconstruction going back 3000 years. (I would delete the spliced data too.)
Now, who else do we know did that dirty little trick, and got nailed for it? Hockey sticks, anyone?
Anyway, from 1996 and 1998, twenty years old news.
A ‘dirty little trick’ indeed, I (as a layman) don’t understand how those proxy-based low resolution paleo-temperature records can possibly be reliably correlated with the past 100 year or so instrument data.
They cannot. Although Mann still tries.
It sounds reasonable. After all, why wouldn’t you want to use the most accurate data available?
Most people will look at proxy data and not know that it isn’t the same as temperatures measured with a thermometer.
Classic ‘climate science’.
Always misleading, but at least this time it was humorous.
Embarrassing to make such an elementary mistake. Astonishing that not one of the comments on realclimate points it out.
They’re not allowed, dissent there gets deleted quietly and effectively by their mods.
If they think they can twist a comment for mockery purposes, it goes to the borehole. If it hits to close to the truth, it disappears without a trace.
Right on. Inconvenient truth. The mods there are part of a mob for the cause. It’s a very common way on keeping appearances on some extreme pc sites.
Any post pointing out their errors would be instantly deleted,
Can’t have the faithful doubting the priesthood.
Actually, I pointed it out quite politely. My comment has not appeared. And the article is still up…
Now they are resorting to fraud and lies. I guess they are getting desperate.
…Wait, NOW they are resorting to fraud and lies? What were they doing before? •¿●
Lie and Frauds. 😉
Below is one chart that skeptics didn’t doctor.
But NASA and NOAA have doctored almost everything:
Above NASA eliminated “the 1940s cooling blip.”
Just as suggested by a top warmist climate “scientist” (leftist activist) in a ClimateGate email:
Warmist Tom Wigley proposes fudging temperature data, then, as you see in the graph above, that exactly the fraud that was committed:
2009: “Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip.'” [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/climategate-email-warmist-tom-wigley.html%5D
Btw, include the cooling blip, and add all their data manipulations, and the urban heat effect, and you get a picture of a world where, actually, the 1930s were hotter than today!
Because of a bracket, the Tom Nelson link to the Wigley email got broken.
Here’s the corrected link: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/climategate-email-warmist-tom-wigley.html
Eric, Nice post. What is the source of the graph? Was it published elsewhere before?
Thomas Mee Thanks. The graph can be found here: http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/16/massive-data-tampering-uncovered-at-nasa-warmth-cooling-disappears-due-to-incompatibility-with-models/
That was a top post at Notrickzone. In the article Kenneth Richard, step by step, breaks down the incredible NASA malfeasance as illustrated by the chart above.
Excerpt:
NoTrickZone showed how, in the 21st century, Nasa mangled the pre-1982 data to suit its leftist “climate change” agenda. The graph below shows how NASA has also warped the post 1996 data.
You add everything together (all the manipulations, homogenizations, rural station disappearances faulty “airport adjustments,” overstressing the less relevant [and spotty] polar data, and especially the urban heat effect) and that’s how I get a picture of the world of the 1930s likely being hotter than today, meaning, the often stated supposed truism that “the world is warming” is actually false:
“The graph below shows how NASA has also warped the post 1996 data.”
If so, they were not alone:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/02/uah56.png
Misery loves company.
Thomas Mee Thanks. A longer reply from me to your question seems to have gone to spam, so I’ll just be concise now and give you the link where the above graph was presented: http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/16/massive-data-tampering-uncovered-at-nasa-warmth-cooling-disappears-due-to-incompatibility-with-models/
Can’t even read their own damn graphs.
Northern latitudes warmed a whole 1.0 degrees between 1880 and 1940; NOT 0.8 degrees.
G
Right about now Nick Stokes or some other “homogenization” expert usually explains the propriety and necessity of such adjustments as the above involving Wigley and Jones.
At least they didn’t turn it upside-down too. ;->
RealClimate posts something and it’s noticed?
I thought it only existed to provide legal cover. “I did publicise it, My Lud. It was on the prestigious RealClimate blog”
No-one pays attention to that zombie blog.
Ever since they failed to be honest about the hockeystick and were caught being naughty in the Climategate emails… they have been ignored.
Rightly.
So why embarrass them now? If the words were meant to be important they wouldn’t be published on RealClimate in the first place.
Why embarrass them now?
Because there some youngsters and others out there that are curious that might think that ‘RealClimate” might be more than just a name. They might think what is there is “Real” rather than just another source of information to evaluate.
(Do schools still teach kids how to “evaluate” rather than just “accept”?)
Perhaps to show some sympathy, or is that better described as pity for those disagreeable antisocial twits.
At any moment, someone is going to pull that plug.
If not the plug, then the official NOAA employees will not be allowed to “monitor and manage” such a shamefully biased fake news web site during working hours.
Even participating at the RealClimate web site after working hours is likely to be viewed as confrontational and dispiriting to honest hard working NOAA employees without activist agendas.
I’m fascinated that you can reproduce Boslough’s graph complete with his highlighted objections (instrument data deleted and local temperature misrepresented as global) and the denizens mostly don’t seem to notice. I wonder sometime if this site is some grand experiment to see how much you can put over on an uncritical audience..
MarkB
Your comment “…grand experiment to see how much you can put over on an uncritical audience…” is a 14-word definition of CAGW.
+ a bunch!
I don’t you mean fascinated I think the word you mean is ignorant …
What is it about a word that makes it ignorant ??
g
Several commenters above did say he had some valid points. But then, most later commenters said it was good to remove the instrumental splice, so they did notice what he wrote. It is possible that Boslough misread 300 as 3000 since I would think that most people would agree that the LIA was colder than the present. The only reason we have a “global” record now is to the efforts to process the data (homogenization, etc) to give us one. This is fine. But most proxies will be local or regional and there were no thermometers to give us a global to compare to today. The best you can do is to compare lots of different local/regional proxies and call it global. But, here is my point: The LIA is referred to as mostly NH and regional. This is mostly Europe and USA – the places with the most and best temperature measurements at the time. But, it is widely acknowledged that the biggest changes today are largely NH and regional and these are still the places with the best temperature measurements. So, putting together a “global” number and then saying these other measurements are not “global” is a bit disingenuous. Both the LIA and today’s warming are largely NH and temperatures have gone up in the last several hundred years. The fact that someone can’t even state an obvious fact agreed on by most without being called out as being wrong and a “denier” is what is really fascinating. Even more fascinating is that we used to have most societies on earth (fewer now) organized around the idea that there were central truths that only the guardians could interpret and if someone varied from these points, they were called blasphemers and deniers and only these special guardians of knowledge could properly interpret the data and since they all agreed, it had to be true. Then came the Enlightenment. Sadly, now some seem to be reverting back to pre-Enlightenment ideas and think that certain topics are above debate.
“(something other sources say the were)”
The chart is embarrassing to say the least. But remember, if you are giving others a hard time for inaccuracy, carefully proof read your own writing. Your quoted line makes no sense.
On the other hand, we’ve all done it.
That is particularly amusing coming from you Gareth.
It is indeed!
That’s why I ended by writing the phrase, “On the other hand, we’ve all done it” If you look carefully, you can see the words just at the end of the posting. It means, don’t take it harshly, all of us are guilty of the same crime. Maybe by self deprecating humour is a little to obtuse at times?
A “temporal Tilander” if you will.
Good one. Upside down being similar to backwards. A certain symmetry.
There’s a great ClimateAudit piece on the Sargasso proxy and why it’s so popular.
https://climateaudit.org/2005/03/20/medieval-5-the-sargasso-sea-proxy/
Yes. I was looking at both charts and thinking, “Hmmmm, the Medieval Warm Period is showing. It’s even warmer than the present (even with the instrument data tacked on). Heresy alert!!! Heresy alert!!!”
Didn’t this set off any alarms at Real Climate? Or do they just excuse it by automatically thinking, it’s not global, it’s just a local phenomenon. If you add up enough of these world-wide local points that show a warm period, it just might cover the globe better than a larch in Yamal.
Also, as the author of the CA piece (John A) notes, it’s not crazy to think the Sargasso Sea proxy might represent global conditions, as it has oceanic inputs. So even that complaint is not as strong as you might think from the RC article.
As far as Keigwin 1996 is concerned, it is an interesting proxy study which is based far from land-based influences and has high resolution. I said only “conceivably” a proxy for the world. It is certainly not a “Bermuda-only” proxy, since its inputs are oceanic in scope.
Figure 7 in the guest post here shows the only time in all of history (to my knowledge) that the Keigwin d-O18 Sargasso Sea proxy was plotted with physically real error bars.
They sort of put the RealClimate objections in their proper context (i.e., meaningless).
Every now and then, the ecoloons publish information that on deeper inspection disproves what they are saying. For example, National Geographic Sept 2004 Global Warming had this picture. The caption said [paraphrasing], “climate can be reconstructed from tree cores, like this one under the ice, burred for millennia. At last check, a millennia is a 1000 years ago.
On closer inspection, WHAT THE HECK is a tree doing at the top of a mountain without a tree in sight only a 1000 years ago. Obviously it was warmer back then. Presumably is came from further up the mountain, carried down by the glacier.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2SUakWV8_Y7Y1Q5REF6NGVIX0U/view?usp=sharing
Yes.
And as others have pointed out recently, the tree line is again moving higher on mountains as the quantity of CO2 at altitudes enables successful plant growth again.
• More interesting correlations that require serious research, without basing the research on assumptions, preconceived notions and jumping to climate troughers’ magic budget summations.
• Genuine tests and complete observations.
• No models! i.e. unless fully verified and validated by observations.
• Full test structure along with research success or failure metrics decided before initializing the tests.
• True controls and control groups; with before during and follow-up studies.
• etc. etc.
• Complete ban on waffle words or the research gets filed in the circular file, emptied every Monday with the empty coffee/tea cups.
• Researchers who continue to use waffle words, activist assumptions, unworkable code/formulae, badly maintained data, misrepresented data, etc., should immediately lose funding, allocated resources, staffing.
• No more holidays while allegedly working in some world renown vacation spot for conferences without practical or functional purpose.
• • e.g. American scientists working for an international working group whose purpose is to blame an atmospheric gas, rather than conduct genuine science. Especially given that what passes for IPCC science is rewritten by politicians, without any concern for science.
Duncan, as glaciers retreat in the European Alps, they are exposing 5000 year old wood. 5000 years ago those valleys were not only free of ice, they were free of ice long enough to become forested. Also, nobody denies climate is warming, we are denying that human CO2 emission is the control knob for climate.
Not being argumentative at all, 5000 years, maybe even as early as 1000 years ago, definitely 2000. So within our recorded history, after the Pyramids were built, it has been warmer than today. This is a geological blink of an eye. To me this is proof enough.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/mendenhall-glacier_n_3975699.html
http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb
“Before Present” is before 1950, so there is a 50 year shift.
The RealClimate piece is in error, but not exactly for the reason stated here at WUWT.
I commented at RC:
“Something a bit wrong in the article above. [referring to the RealClimate article linked — kh ] Robinson 1998 does not use the caption claimed in the image supplied by Mark Boslough.
The actual caption (and it is Figure 1 in the paper) in the Robinson 1998 [ available at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf ] uses this caption:
“Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.”
The graph in the original Robinson paper (as noted in the caption) includes a derived 2006 value, which appears to have been removed in the images used here.
As for “instrument data deleted”, there are two points of interest. It is almost never correct to compare paleo-proxy data to modern instrument data on the same graph…they are not compatible data. Keigwin did it so he could make this point, from his original caption “… it is clear that on centennial and millennial time scales, SST variability as been greater than has been measured over the past four decades at Station “S”.” The caption for the graph in Robinson 1998 correctly states what data is shown in their version — which did not include the Station S data as it was not paleo data.
Mr. Boslough should be more careful and check original sources before making accusations that are easily shown to be incorrect.
Someone has altered a graph and caption, but it is not Robinson et al.”
Let’s see how long it lasts. I have been deleted there long ago, so I do not bother.
‘paleotemperature reconstruction of Sargasso Sea surface temperature’
Sorry, I’m skeptical of such a reconstruction. And even if they could, what relevance it would have?