Yet another climate reconstruction confirms warming.

[Threegoofs]

The hockey stick has long since jumped the shark. What does one do after having jumped the shark? One just goes on making a fool of oneself.

Climate change as a driver of public policy died years ago. Give it up.

If the climate changes we will adapt whatever happens, and we have no idea what will happen.

I dont know what you exactly mean by 'jumped the shark'.

If you mean it has been reconfirmed so many times that it is getting old , then you might have something.

As mentioned here, (with links to references, natch) there have been multiple studies confirming the 'hockey stick' since it was first published in 1998, and NO studies refuting it, although there is a lot of stamping of feet and gnashing of teeth on blogs about it.

Global warming: Wall Street Journal article cites bad evidence, draws wrong conclusion.

 

[LowDown]

I dont know what you exactly mean by 'jumped the shark'.

If you mean it has been reconfirmed so many times that it is getting old , then you might have something.

As mentioned here, (with links to references, natch) there have been multiple studies confirming the 'hockey stick' since it was first published in 1998, and NO studies refuting it, although there is a lot of stamping of feet and gnashing of teeth on blogs about it.

Global warming: Wall Street Journal article cites bad evidence, draws wrong conclusion.

The refutation of the hockey stick has never been acknowledged or successfully rebutted by the AGW activists. The two sides of the issue are talking past each other currently, but what is more important is that the issue of climate change is being ignored by policy makers world wide. The demands made at Copenhagen fell flat, and efforts to revive the climate conference have stalled.

Here's where the hockey stick issue stands.

Pro:	Con:
The hockey stick is real.	The hockey stick is an artifact of improper analysis and improper sampling.
The medieval warm period didn't exist or was limited in scope	The medieval warm period was world wide and exceeded current temps
Proxies can be used to estimate temps to the nearest tenth of a degree	Proxies have too much variability for accurate estimates

There are peer reviewed papers supporting both sides. It's the activists that will tell you about only one side of the arguement.

 

[Threegoofs]

There are peer reviewed papers supporting both sides. It's the activists that will tell you about only one side of the arguement.

Well this should be simple then. Show us the peer reviewed study that refutes Mann's original 1998 work, or Marcott's work from this year, or any climate reconstruction in between.

Marcott's paper (2013 - http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf ) , says in the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE ABSTRACT:
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.

This statement is the basic crux of the 'hockey stick'. It is presented without correction in the paper. Peer reviewers would not let a statement such a that stand without correction if it were not established thinking of the entire paleoclimatology community... which it is.

But please, show us a paper that directly contradicts this. Because for all the yapping about "rebutting a refutation', the concept of unprecedented warming over the last century is a scientific fact, and you're feeble attempts at 'refutation' are blog post ravings.

 

[code1211]

Again, the best scientists in the world disagree with you.

You remind me of a high schooler who has a great argument why 'X' can not be true because of 'Y' yet 'X' is plainly obvious to all.

Can you post the link to the quote in which the 97% of the scientific community that you love to cite says that there is absolutely no doubt that the Ice Core data is absolutely accurate?

 

[Threegoofs]

Can you post the link to the quote in which the 97% of the scientific community that you love to cite says that there is absolutely no doubt that the Ice Core data is absolutely accurate?

No. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

 

[code1211]

Personal insult? No.

It's reality. You're trying to prove on the back of an envelope why the entire structure of climate science is wrong, and why your scribbling a are better than the AMerican Association for the Advancement of Science, and how your kitchen table figurings trump NASA,NOAA and virtually every climate researcher and biologist in the world.

Maybe you're some kind of closet genius. But until you get published, I'm sticking with the guys who know.

The entire scientific community? Here are quite a few that haven't gotten you memo.

View attachment 67150666


Reconstructions

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
(dark blue 1000-1991):
[abstract] [DOI] Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471.
(blue 1000-1980):
[abstract] [full text] Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.
(light blue 1000-1965):
[abstract] Crowley, Thomas J. and Thomas S. Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. ; Modified as published in [abstract] [DOI] Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277.
(lightest blue 1402-1960):
[abstract] [DOI] Briffa, K.R., T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.
(light green 831-1992):
[abstract] [DOI] Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253.
(yellow 200-1980):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820.
(orange 200-1995):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002.
(red-orange 1500-1980):
[abstract] [DOI] Huang, S. (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205.
(red 1-1979):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617.
(dark red 1600-1990):
[abstract] [DOI] Oerlemans, J.H. (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677.

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v was used. Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in:
[abstract] Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.
Copyright

This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly available data.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'd like to know how they explain the harbor 2 miles inland in the UK, or fishing villages under the Greenland Glaciers if it wasn't warmer in the past.

 

[Threegoofs]

You got that from a blog, didnt you?

Why are you not posting your source for this???

 

[LowDown]

Well this should be simple then. Show us the peer reviewed study that refutes Mann's original 1998 work, or Marcott's work from this year, or any climate reconstruction in between.

Marcott's paper (2013 - http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf ) , says in the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE ABSTRACT:
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.

This statement is the basic crux of the 'hockey stick'. It is presented without correction in the paper. Peer reviewers would not let a statement such a that stand without correction if it were not established thinking of the entire paleoclimatology community... which it is.

But please, show us a paper that directly contradicts this. Because for all the yapping about "rebutting a refutation', the concept of unprecedented warming over the last century is a scientific fact, and you're feeble attempts at 'refutation' are blog post ravings.

This is responsive to Mann 1998:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/moberg-nature05.pdf
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf (not peer reviewed, but a nice summary of the issue)


I'll have to go over the more recent paper, which includes a lot of details. One point I'd make early on is that they seem to have succumed to the climate scientist disease, that is, the tendency to launder data using computer models. I regard all such as bogus because it introduces fudge factors. If something doesn't stand out in the raw data it doesn't exist. But I'm not yet saying their results are not valid. They seem to endorce the MWP followed by little ice age followed by recent warming trend that even most skeptics agree on.

So I don't think the paper says what you seem to think it says, i.e., they say that current temperatures don't exceed the maximum interglacial temperatures. They think that temperatures will exceed it because climate models! But then elsewhere I've written about how worthless those models are. There is also peer reviewed support for that.

You should also note that Marcott et al don't cite Mann 1998. They are citing Mann 2008 in which Mann gave up trying to erase the medieval warm period. (It's not a hockey stick any more -- more like a recurve bow.)

So, like I said, the hockey stick is dead (or words to that effect). Even Mann tacitly admits it. The basic crux of the hockey stick was not that there has been a recent warming trend. It was that temperatures were supposedly flat until modern times when they all of a sudden shot up. That is why the hockey stick was used as a propaganda tool so much. But it was a lie.

By the way, always insisting on peer reviewed work is a bogus appeal to authority. History has shown that a lot of groundbreaking work could not be published or had its publication delayed because scientific consensus. One should decide for oneself about whether a given body of work is valid. (And don't delude yourself, a lot of worthless trash gets published.)

Finally, go to Marcott et al and you'll find that they are claiming to be able to get temperature measurements from 11,000 years back at an accuracy of a tenth of a degree using these proxies. If you've ever seen the raw data they use, such as from tree rings, you'd know instinctively that their results are not credible. The proxies all fitting together to make those smooth lines is almost entirely an artifact of computer processing, processing that I suspect includes more ad-hoc parameters than data.

I've got to attend to business. Good evening.

 

[code1211]

You got that from a blog, didnt you?

Why are you not posting your source for this???

These folks who are real live scientists disagree with you assertions.

Please note that various stages of most of the proxies exceed the current temperatures.


http://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif


Data Sources

The following data sources were used in constructing the main plot:
(dark blue) Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: Zhao, M., N.A.S. Beveridge, N.J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton (1995). "Molecular stratigraphy of cores off northwest Africa: Sea surface temperature history over the last 80 ka". Paleoceanography 10 (3): 661-675.
(blue) Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: [abstract] [DOI] Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999). "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436.
(light blue) GISP2 ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Greenland: [abstract] [DOI] Alley, R.B. (2000). "The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland". Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226.
(green) Kilimanjaro ice core, δ18O, Eastern Central Africa: Thompson, L.G., E. Mosley-Thompson, M.E. Davis, K.A. Henderson, H.H. Brecher, V.S. Zagorodnov, T.A. Mashiotta, P.-N. Lin, V.N. Mikhalenko, D.R. Hardy, and J. Beer (2002). "Kilimanjaro Ice Core Records: Evidence of Holocene Climate Change in Tropical Africa". Science 298 (5593): 589-593.
(yellow) Sediment core PL07-39PC, interpreted sea surface temperature, North Atlantic: [abstract] [DOI] Lea, D.W., D.K. Pak, L.C. Peterson, and K.A. Hughen (2003). "Synchroneity of tropical and high-latitude Atlantic temperatures over the last glacial termination". Science 301 (5638): 1361-1364.
(orange) Pollen distributions, interpreted temperature, Europe: [abstract] [full text] [DOI] Davis, B.A.S., S. Brewer, A.C. Stevenson, J. Guiot (2003). "The temperature of Europe during the Holocene reconstructed from pollen data". Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 1701-1716.
(red) EPICA ice core, interpreted site temperature, Central Antarctica: [DOI] Stenni, B., J. Jouzel, V. Masson-Delmotte R. Roethlisberger, E. Castellano, O. Cattani, S. Falourd, S.J. Johnsen, A. Longinelli, J.P. Sachs, E. Selmo, R. Souchez, J.P. Steffensen, R. Udisti (2003). "A late-glacial high-resolution site and source temperature record derived from the EPICA Dome C isotope records (East Antarctica)". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217: 183-195.
(dark red) Composite sediment cores, interpreted sea surface temperature, Western Tropical Pacific: L.D. Stott, K.G. Cannariato, R. Thunell, G.H. Haug, A. Koutavas, and S. Lund (2004). "Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch". Nature 431: 56-59.
Additional data used in inset plot and for matching temperature scale to modern values. Colors match those used in Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png.
(orange 200-1995): [abstract] [full text] [DOI] Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002.
(red-orange 1500-1980): [abstract] [DOI] Huang, S. (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205.
(red 1-1979): [abstract] [full text] [DOI] Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617.
(thin black line 1856-2004): Instrumental global annual data set TaveGL2v [3]: [abstract] Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.

 

[Jack Hays]

This time, its a reconfirmation of Mann's seminal "hockey stick' work, looking back about two milennia and showing that the current temperature is much higher than any past temp (Marcott did similar work reconstructing global temps back to 11000 years ago) using multiple temperature proxies (pollen, tree rings, corals, sediments, etc etc) and proving, probably for the two dozenth time, that Mann's original work in 1998 holds up very well.

This one is the most comprehensive look at the issue ever, with much better data than Mann's paper originally had access to.

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick | ThinkProgress


If we look at Marcott's work, it sure looks like we are living in the warmest age since we domesticated animals and crops, and founded cities, and the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented.
Original abstract here: Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

I guarantee the fangs are going to show on popular denier blogs like WUWT, and guys around here will be skeptical of the prestigious journal, Nature Geoscience, it was published in (if its so good, why wasnt it published directly on a blog, huh?), but I'm fairly certain actual paleoclimatologists will consider this issue - the infamous hockey stick issue - to be proven beyond a doubt.

No warming the last sixteen years. Warmer in the Middle Ages than now.:mrgreen:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Yes, tonight, and similar works several years ago.

Did I miss something important?

Did you see how it describes having to account for other variable like in coral?

Shell O18 content as it relates to the O18 of the ocean water in which they were formed is corrected by looking at other compounds and elements in the shells.

 

[Threegoofs]

The blizzard of bull**** is too dense to respond to.

Lets just suffice it to say that the the first statement, that Mann 'tacitly admits' he hockey stick is discredited is so laughable that if it was said out loud in a lecture hall virtually everything else that you followed with would be drowned out by giggling scientists.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Shell O18 content as it relates to the O18 of the ocean water in which they were formed is corrected by looking at other compounds and elements in the shells.

Yes, and that is my point. You take something not real accurate, and correct it with other things that are not real accurate. The stack-up of error becomes ridiculous.

 

[code1211]

The blizzard of bull**** is too dense to respond to.

Lets just suffice it to say that the the first statement, that Mann 'tacitly admits' he hockey stick is discredited is so laughable that if it was said out loud in a lecture hall virtually everything else that you followed with would be drowned out by giggling scientists.

The IPCC used the weight, the length and breadth of science to present the climate history in their 1990 report. See the image below. When that did not produce the correct public reaction, they changed over to Mann's fantasy and you accepted the thing hook, line and sinker. See the two climate histories as presented by the IPCC below. Can you imagine a scientific organization throwing away science because it did not support their agenda?

Can you imagine a political organization doing so?

The Hockey Schtick is a bad pieces of reporting. It's an even worse example of statistics. It can hardly be called Science at all since it's a rigged display based on faulty methods of statistics. The link below is a good article of why the thing is a swindle and how the thing came into being.

It's a little long, but a good read. Here is the nugget:

<snip>
As we have seen what Mann had done was blend together lots of different proxy studies of the past climate going back a 1000 years and then produced an average of all these studies and a single graph showing the trend. Clearly the validity of the techniques used to blend together and average the different data from the various different studies was absolutely critical as to the validity of the final conclusions reached and the resulting Hockey Stick graph. This sort of blending of data sets is a very common statistical exercise and there are very well established techniques for undertaking such an exercise, these techniques use values that are called ‘principal components’ (if you want to know a lot more about the technical details then download McKitrick’s paper from here).

What McIntyre and McKitrick discovered was that Mann had used very unusual principal component values and the effect of the choice of value used had drastically skewed the outcome of the blending and averaging exercise. Effectively what Mann’s odd statistical techniques did was to select data that had any sort of Hockey Stick shape and hugely increase its weight in the averaging process. Using Mann’s technique it meant that any data was almost certain to produce a spurious Hockey Stick shape.
<snip>

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

http://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif

View attachment 67150695

 

[Threegoofs]

Yet the science of climatology generally disagrees with your blogging engineer.

How do you explain that?

 

[MoSurveyor]

Yes, and that is my point. You take something not real accurate, and correct it with other things that are not real accurate. The stack-up of error becomes ridiculous.

You think isotope distributions and how isotopes are used by animals in shell making is "not real accurate" over a statistically large sample?

 

[code1211]

Yet the science of climatology generally disagrees with your blogging engineer.

How do you explain that?

The Science of climatology disagrees with science.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Science of climatology disagrees with science.

Bingo.

 

[Threegoofs]

The Science of climatology disagrees with science.

Let the AAAS know that.

 

[Jack Hays]

Let the AAAS know that.

Most physicists, chemists, astronomers and geologists regard climate scientists as scientists only by courtesy. Among themselves, they make jokes about them very similar to old time ethnic slur humor.:mrgreen:

 

[Threegoofs]

Most physicists, chemists, astronomers and geologists regard climate scientists as scientists only by courtesy. Among themselves, they make jokes about them very similar to old time ethnic slur humor.:mrgreen:

Again, then why does the AAAS, American Chemical Society, The Royal Society, geological societies, 34 nations Acadamies of Science etc,etc, ALL agree with the basic premises of AGW???

I'm guessing you either don't know scientists personally, or work in some bum**** place that only has backward scientists employed in your midst.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[Jack Hays]

Again, then why does the AAAS, American Chemical Society, The Royal Society, geological societies, 34 nations Acadamies of Science etc,etc, ALL agree with the basic premises of AGW???

I'm guessing you either don't know scientists personally, or work in some bum**** place that only has backward scientists employed in your midst.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's the sort of nonsense that no one takes seriously.eace

 

[Threegoofs]

That's the sort of nonsense that no one takes seriously.eace

But of course, the single study you presented is hallowed science.

You have been dispatched fully here, Mr. Hays. You may want to leave now and go find your dignity waiting for you outside the door.

 

[Jack Hays]

But of course, the single study you presented is hallowed science.

You have been dispatched fully here, Mr. Hays. You may want to leave now and go find your dignity waiting for you outside the door.

Au contraire. I have won the day, because truth is my ally. There will come a day, and I know it's coming, when I will hope that these posts are recoverable and you will hope they are not.:mrgreen: