Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[rambot]

Apples and oranges.

You can use all reconstructions. Or you can use the temp record. But you can't graph temp data unto reconstructions, because they are two different animals that operate in different ways.

So not apples to oranges at all. You can do a reconstruction of weather on Wednesday but scientists don't. There must be a reason

The reason Mann so adamantly denied doing this is that even though he, as a proven disgrace to science, knows that you don't do that if you want to be taken seriously. (fake hockey sticks are fine, however)

Ooo libel! I mean, false and incorrect libel, but libel! Eclipse now seems to show the chart where it CLEARLY indicates "instrumental records" separate from "simulations". So I don't see denial from Mann at all. How can it be denial when the graph, pretty clearly labeled?

 

[andypro7]

So not apples to oranges at all. You can do a reconstruction of weather on Wednesday but scientists don't. There must be a reason

You can do a reconstruction of temps in the 19th and 20th centuries
You can do temp readings of temps in the 19th and 20th centuries
But you CAN NOT do reconstructions of 19th century temps and then instrument temps in the 20th century and put them side by side and act as if they are the same and they tell us something.

Both Mann and Marcott smooth away the MWP with their reconstructions. The effect, the INTENDED effect I believe, is to make the past seem more moderate than it was and the present seem more extreme than it is.

When you look at the overwhelming volume of data that shows that the MWP was warmer than even the most recent temperatures, and the availability of this data to people like Mann and Marcott, what they're doing is just fraud.


Ooo libel! I mean, false and incorrect libel, but libel! Eclipse now seems to show the chart where it CLEARLY indicates "instrumental records" separate from "simulations". So I don't see denial from Mann at all. How can it be denial when the graph, pretty clearly labeled?


I no longer even bother looking at Eclipse Now's stuff. I did not say that I was sure no one did it, I said that Michael Mann said no one did it:

Michael Mann at Real Climate, Dec. 2004:
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim, which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites".

So, therefore, I guess we're saying that something that Michael Mann said at Real Climate in 2004 is a lie. I mean, I think that's what you're inferring here.

 

[rambot]

You can do a reconstruction of temps in the 19th and 20th centuries
You can do temp readings of temps in the 19th and 20th centuries
But you CAN NOT do reconstructions of 19th century temps and then instrument temps in the 20th century and put them side by side and act as if they are the same and they tell us something.

Did I miss something, I thought they did reconstructions of temperatures back millenia ago, NOT reconstructions of the 1800s...?

Both Mann and Marcott smooth away the MWP with their reconstructions. The effect, the INTENDED effect I believe, is to make the past seem more moderate than it was and the present seem more extreme than it is.

K, but what if the past WAS more moderate than YOU BELIEVE it was (I haven't seen you provide research contradicting those numbers. Have you posted it somewhere in a previous post?) and what if the present IS more extreme than you BELIEVE it is?

When you look at the overwhelming volume of data that shows that the MWP was warmer than even the most recent temperatures, and the availability of this data to people like Mann and Marcott, what they're doing is just fraud.

So this "overwhelming volume of data" that you suggests exists, in that sense it IS okay to compare temperature reconstructions to modern temperature instrument readings?
RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

I no longer even bother looking at Eclipse Now's stuff. I did not say that I was sure no one did it, I said that Michael Mann said no one did it:

Michael Mann at Real Climate, Dec. 2004:
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim, which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites".

So, therefore, I guess we're saying that something that Michael Mann said at Real Climate in 2004 is a lie. I mean, I think that's what you're inferring here.

Depends on how he used the word "grafted". To me, that means it was put RIGHT INTO the dataset and that all the data was mixed together. I'm guessing that is what MM meant too. THat is NOT what is happenning.
Putting two different data sets on one graph is NOT "grafting"...it's comparing. I want to believe you can accept that there is a difference between "mixing data" and "comparing" data.
Instead of inferring though, I will clearly say that this sounds more like a "English-compromising" attempt to besmerch yet another climatologist.

 

[andypro7]

RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

First of all, you should NEVER cite anything from RealClimate. Everything they do is slanted and varies from fudging the data to outright lying.

I wanted an example, so I went to their homepage. The very first article had this as it's very first line:

No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.
Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles, human-caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated. Indeed, the most recent year (2014) was likely the warmest year on record.

#1 There has been statistically no global warming for 18 years and 3 months, sat data (the kind that climate 'scientists' can't fudge) proves this
#2 LIKELY the warmest year on record. Not quite. The same sat data goes back only to 1979, and shows two warmer years. So, the 3rd highest year of the last 36 can certainly not be called LIKELY the warmest year on record
#3 Even the climate gurus who trumpet 2014 as the warmest year on record say there's only a 35% probability that it's true. Hardly LIKELY.

My point, I went to the site and found this in the FIRST SENTENCES of the FIRST ARTICLE. Everything else I've read there follows the same pattern.

 

[andypro7]

K, but what if the past WAS more moderate than YOU BELIEVE it was (I haven't seen you provide research contradicting those numbers. Have you posted it somewhere in a previous post?) and what if the present IS more extreme than you BELIEVE it is?

There's a lot of stuff do deal with, but I'll just go over this main point, because it gets to the heart of the deception by Mann, Marcott, and the rest of the climate zealots.

My assertion:

The Medieval Warming Period was much warmer than today, and was global in extent. Almost nothing that is every presented by guys like Mann, Marcott, and the rest of the climate-heads EVER shows this, because if they did it would ruin their ENTIRE thesis on global warming. You can read Mann and Jones talking about how they had to 'get rid of the MWP' in the climategate emails.

Once we establish as fact that the MWP was warmer than now, we can safely then establish the fact that studies and graphs like the ones Mann and Marcott present are patently false.

That's my assertion. Now, I will prove my assertion beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone who was honest.

The Medieval Warming Period Project

The MWP Project assembles published, peer-reviewed scientific papers from over 600 different research institutions and over 1000 individual scientists to show that the MWP was warmer than today and that it was global.

The MWP Project does not create it's own study, but rather just collected data that had already been published, the vast majority of the published work from believers in global warming.

When complete is shows a clearly much warmer earth during the MWP, and that it was happening all over the place. And thus, it disproves the most basic assertions of the entire global warming movement.

Here is a wonderful map that has links to papers that show the warming in a particular region, and adds them all up.

I challenge you to look at this map, the papers behind it, and the conclusion, and explain to me why anyone would think that the MWP does not exist.

Medieval Warm Period

 

[eclipsenow]

So not apples to oranges at all. You can do a reconstruction of weather on Wednesday but scientists don't. There must be a reason

You can do a reconstruction of temps in the 19th and 20th centuries
You can do temp readings of temps in the 19th and 20th centuries
But you CAN NOT do reconstructions of 19th century temps and then instrument temps in the 20th century and put them side by side and act as if they are the same and they tell us something.

As I said previously:

Yes you can if you simply colour the lines differently.​

This is Graphic Design 101.
It's junior high maths.
It's high school data plotting.
It's basic.

P28 of the 2003 paper CLIMATE OVER PAST MILLENNIA.

As I said previously:

But you go ahead and stamp your foot and shout "fraud" or "conspiracy" or whatever it is you believe. The rest of us will just sit back and laugh at your petty little storm in a teacup, and see the evidence for what it is: open and accessible, with no cover up at all.​

 

[eclipsenow]

First of all, you should NEVER cite anything from RealClimate. Everything they do is slanted and varies from fudging the data to outright lying.

Yes, they do climate science and your politics / creationism prevents you accepting that a-priori, doesn't it?
By the way, do I detect a subject change? Are you attacking Real Climate now because you want to "Move along, nothing to see here?" Are you dropping your argument that you CANNOT put instrumental data alongside proxie reconstruction data? If so, why? Does this reveal that you just hadn't read climate papers before, or even looked at the pretty pictures you are so busy castigating?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Wait, are you saying that it's good science to graft on intrumental records to reconstructions to reach the conclusion Marcott did?

No, andypro7.
We are saying that after many posts you still do not know what Marcott et al conclusions are .

None of the graphs in Marcott et al contain instrumental readings.
Marcott et al compare the current global temperatures as contained in the HadCRUT3 dataset to the global temperatures in their reconstruction to find the current global temperatures are ~75% of the values in the past.

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3).
...
Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

Reference 34: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850, i.e. the HadCRUT3 dataset.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Some questions that need answering:

1. 3rd March 2015 andypro7: What is your source for that graph of Greenland temperatures?
2. Are you still in denial that 4th March 2015 andypro7: Several independent scientific papers agree with the hockey stick graph!
   For example: 5th March 2015 andypro7: Wahl et al 2007 analyzed the Mann data with and without principal components (the main issue in the McIntyre and McKitrick papers) and found insignificant difference.
3. 5th March 2015 andypro7: If you know EXACTLY how that graph shows that Holocene temperatures before ~1900 are significantly different from the Marcott et al. paper then tell us.
4. 5th March 2015 andypro7: Please quote where Science says that Marcott et al was "proof of great 20th century warming".

And what Steve McIntyre's graph on his blog page actually contains:
5th March 2015 andypro7: Steve McIntyre's [URL="http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/"]graph shows similar Holocene temperatures to the Marcott et al. paper and so confirms the conclusions. [/URL]
which are:
5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures as in HadCRUT3 are ~72%/82% of the Holocene)

 

[RealityCheck01]

It was shown a few posts ago in the Loudmouth post, that the lack of robustness was mentioned IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE SAME PAPER.

Just to make this clearer, rambot: To a climate scientist reading their paper it might be clear that they do not use the last 200 years of their reconstruction. However the word robust does not appear in the conclusion. It may be in their introduction:

Without filling data gaps, our Standard5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6°C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and
D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.

For the layman this was made explicit in their response at RealClimate. Response by Marcott et al.

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; Welcome | AGU).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Here's the paper's conclusion:

andypro7: That is a list of unattributed quotes.
Shaun A. Marcott has stated A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years .

That is science reporting.

These are basically from the paper:

• Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years
• Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.”

That is science.

 

[andypro7]

Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures to the Marcott et al. paper and so confirms the conclusions.

Does your climate 'science' tell you that if you wait a few days and come back and say the same thing, THEN it will make it true.

Let me spell it out yet AGAIN: You do not understand what McIntyre is saying. If you did, you wouldn't say that. PERIOD!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The READ how they gleefully assert that it affirms Mann's hockey stick.

andypro7: Other than that inane "gleefully" you are almost correct .

Mann's hockey stick graphs has been confirmed many times - it is established science. So 'A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years' tests the recent part of their reconstruction against an established and correct reconstruction:

Our global temperature reconstruction for the past 1500 years is indistinguishable within uncertainty from the Mann et al. (2) reconstruction; both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a warm interval (~1500 to 1000 yr B.P.) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 yr B.P.), which is approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age (Fig. 1A). This similarity confirms that published temperature reconstructions of the past two millennia capture long-term variability, despite their short time span (3, 12, 13).

But you have it the wrong way around - Mann et al 2008's hockey stick affirms their reconstruction over the past 1500 years.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia by Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Malcolm K. Hughes, Raymond S. Bradley, Sonya K. Miller, Scott Rutherford, and Fenbiao Ni

Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

 

[andypro7]

But let's make this simple, like I did to Rambot. Because everything you say is patently false and I can prove it. For instance:

Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years
Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.

Neither one of those things is true. Again, you'd like them to be true, but they simply are not true. I will give you the proof that they are not true, and then I will finally be rid of you since I know you have NO REPLY to this:

My assertion:

The Medieval Warming Period was much warmer than today, and was global in extent. Almost nothing that is every presented by guys like Mann, Marcott, and the rest of the climate-heads EVER shows this, because if they did it would ruin their ENTIRE thesis on global warming. You can read Mann and Jones talking about how they had to 'get rid of the MWP' in the climategate emails.

Once we establish as fact that the MWP was warmer than now, we can safely then establish the fact that studies and graphs like the ones Mann and Marcott present are patently false.

That's my assertion. Now, I will prove my assertion beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone who was honest.

The Medieval Warming Period Project

The MWP Project assembles published, peer-reviewed scientific papers from over 600 different research institutions and over 1000 individual scientists to show that the MWP was warmer than today and that it was global.

The MWP Project does not create it's own study, but rather just collected data that had already been published, the vast majority of the published work from believers in global warming.

When complete is shows a clearly much warmer earth during the MWP, and that it was happening all over the place. And thus, it disproves the most basic assertions of the entire global warming movement.

Here is a wonderful map that has links to papers that show the warming in a particular region, and adds them all up.

I challenge you to look at this map, the papers behind it, and the conclusion, and explain to me why anyone would think that the MWP does not exist.

Medieval Warm Period

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael Mann at Real Climate, Dec. 2004:
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim, which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites".[/B]

So, therefore, I guess we're saying that something that Michael Mann said at Real Climate in 2004 is a lie. I mean, I think that's what you're inferring here.

No, andypro7, we are seeing that you so not understand what Michael Mann is saying. In 2004, Michael Mann did not have knowledge of researchers in proxy reconstructions grafting the thermometer record onto any reconstruction.

This is not 2004 . Eleven years have passed since then. We have at least one documented case of thermometer record being grafted onto proxy data in graphs. It is the trivial "trick" of getting rid of the known to be invalid data from trees since 1960's (?) and replacing it (with the appropriate captioning) with instrumental data.

P.S. This is what a proper link looks like without quote mining: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

Numerous myths regarding the so-called "hockey stick" reconstruction of past temperatures, can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites, internet newsgroups and other non-scientific venues. The most widespread of these myths are debunked below:
John Finn says: ... Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.
[Response: No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here). Most studies seek to “validate” a reconstruction by showing that it independently reproduces instrumental estimates (e.g. early temperature data available during the 18th and 19th century) that were not used to ‘calibrate’ the proxy data. When this is done, it is indeed possible to quantitatively compare the instrumental record of the past few decades with earlier estimates from the proxy reconstruction, within the context of the estimated uncertainties in the reconstructed values (again see the comparisons here, with the instrumental record clearly distinguished in red, the proxy reconstructions indicated by e.g. blue or green, and the uncertainties indicated by shading). -mike]

(my emphasis added.

 

[andypro7]

No, andypro7, we are seeing that you so not understand what Michael Mann is saying. In 2004, Michael Mann did not have knowledge of researchers in proxy reconstructions grafting the thermometer record onto any reconstruction.

This is not 2004 . Eleven years have passed since then. We have at least one documented case of thermometer record being grafted onto proxy data in graphs. It is the trivial "trick" of getting rid of the known to be invalid data from trees since 1960's and replacing it (with the appropriate captioning) with instrumental data.

The Medieval Warming Period Project disproves every part of this.

 

[RealityCheck01]

[Let me spell it out yet AGAIN: You do not understand what McIntyre is saying. If you did, you wouldn't say that. PERIOD!]

Let me tell you once again, andypro7 - it is a couple of curves in a graph so try using your eyes to see that the pre-1900 temperatures are similar and so
5th March 2015 andypro7: Steve McIntyre's [URL="http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/"]graph shows similar Holocene temperatures to the Marcott et al. paper and so confirms the conclusions. [/URL]
5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures as in HadCRUT3 are ~72%/82% of the Holocene)
!

Outstanding questions and remaining ignorance from andypro7

 

[andypro7]

Outstanding questions and remaining ignorance from andypro7

The Medieval Warming Period Project, with it's 1000+ peer-reviewed scientific papers, disproves virtually everything you believe about all of this

 

[RealityCheck01]

Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years
Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.


Neither one of those things is true. ...lots of ignorance in purple snipped!...

Linking to a web page containing an image is rather ignorant when real climate science exists, andypro7


I challenge you to read some actual climate science, andypro7, before I am forced to add it to the list of what you do not know:
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
...
The Medieval Warm Period spanned between the 10th and 15th centuries, and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions around the world. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Prior temperature reconstructions tend to focus on the global average (or sometimes hemispheric average). To answer the question of the Medieval Warm Period, more than 1,000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1,500 years (Mann 2009). The Medieval Warm Period saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures were even as warm as today. However, certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average.

Followed by two graphs of anomalies referenced to the 1961– 1990 reference period for the Medieval Warm Period and for 1999 to 2008.

Also the Medieval Warm Period was not global!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The Medieval Warming Period Project disproves every part of this.

No according to the science, andypro7: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

That blog entry cites the science and then goes onto the PAGES (Past Global Changes) project which was instrumental (pun intended!) in showing the MWP was varied over the globe.

The PAGES 2k team found that a global surface cooling trend over the past 2,000 years has been erased by the global warming over the past century. Current temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years, including during the Medieval Warm Period (Figure 5).

And will we see a fraud rant over this , andypro7,
Major PAGES 2k Network Paper Confirms the Hockey Stick Posted on 22 April 2013 by dana1981

PAGES (Past Global Changes) is a scientific network which supports research aimed at understanding the Earth’s past environment in order to make predictions for the future. It's funded by the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Over 5,000 scientists from more than 100 countries subscribe to PAGES, which is essentially an organizational group to bring international scientists together.
...
Their two main results are a confirmation that current global surface temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years (the general 'hockey stick' shape, as shown in Figure 1), and that while the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) are clearly visible events in their reconstruction, they were not globally synchronized events.