Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[andypro7]

It looks like Steve McIntyre may have some relevant analysis on his blog. Read How Marcottian Upticks Arise and ignore the actual subject because the Marcott et al. paper already discounts that "uptick" as not robust.

The first graph is interesting though: "In the graphic below, I’ve plotted Marcott’s NHX reconstruction against an emulation (weighting by latitude and gridcell as described in script) using proxies with published dates rather than Marcott dates.". Note that the Marcott et al. curve overlays McIntyre's reconstructed curve from ~-9000 years to ~+1900.

Steve McIntyre is confirming the conclusion of the paper - the current temperature has risen to a sizable part of the temperature in the last ~10,900 years.

This is something we may trust from McIntyre since it is not ocean core dating - just running of data though a computer program.

I'm pretty sure you didn't understand what you read, or you wouldn't have posted it. It's laughable, really. But, instead of embarrassing you, I'll give you a chance to re-read what McIntyre wrote and explain it to me. I'm pretty sure you let your bias miss the forrest for the hockey sticks.

It's funny, if I would have linked that EXACT article you just did, and then explained to you what it meant, you would have dismissed it as 'denier lies from the liar McIntyre'. I will now use only that article to rebut anything you say from here on out. Thank you for that.

And this:

This is something we may trust from McIntyre since it is not ocean core dating - just running of data though a computer program.

Do you know anything about the original hockey stick and what McIntyre did? If you did, you wouldn't have posted the above statement.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...insults snipped....
Do you know anything about the original hockey stick and what McIntyre did? If you did, you wouldn't have posted the above statement.

Firstly read what I wrote - it is the graph than confirmed the paper's conclusion not the words:

The first graph is interesting though: "In the graphic below, I’ve plotted Marcott’s NHX reconstruction against an emulation (weighting by latitude and gridcell as described in script) using proxies with published dates rather than Marcott dates.". Note that the Marcott et al. curve overlays McIntyre's reconstructed curve from ~-9000 years to ~+1900.

Steve McIntyre is confirming the conclusion of the paper - the current temperature has risen to a sizable part of the temperature in the last ~10,900 years.

I know about the original hockey graph and what McIntyre did. He wrote a couple of papers with Ross McKitrick in 2003 and 2005 !
Since you like blogs:
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick

...
Here, however, we choose to focus on some curious additional related assertions made by MM holding that (1) use of non-centered PCA (as by MBH98) is somehow not statistically valid, and (2) that “Hockey Stick” patterns arise naturally from application of non-centered PCA to purely random “red noise”. Both claims, which are of course false, were made in a comment on MBH98 by MM that was rejected by Nature , and subsequently parroted by astronomer Richard Muller in a non peer-reviewed setting–see e.g. this nice discussion by science journalist David Appell of Muller’s uncritical repetition of these false claims. These claims were discredited in the response provided by Mann and coworkers to the Nature editor and reviewers, which presumably formed the primary basis for the rejection of the MM comment.

Contrary to MM’s assertions, the use of non-centered PCA is well-established in the statistical literature, and in some cases is shown to give superior results to standard, centered PCA.

In the real world:
You are still ignorant that 4th March 2015 andypro7: Several independent scientific papers agree with the hockey stick graph!
You cannot still answer a simple question of 3rd March 2015 andypro7: What is your source for that graph of Greenland temperatures?

ETA1: Real climate scientists comment on the 2003 paper: False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction

ETA2: Real climate scientists comment on a book about the McIntyre and McKitrick papers: The Montford Delusion

...
As a great deal of other research has shown, you can even reconstruct past temperature without bristlecone pine tree rings, or without any tree ring data at all, resulting in: a hockey stick. It also shows, consistently, that nobody is trying to “get rid of the medieval warm period” or “flatten out the little ice age” since those are features of all reconstructions of the last 1000 to 2000 years. What paleoclimate researchers are trying to do is make objective estimates of how warm and how cold those past centuries were. The consistent answer is, not as warm as the last century and not nearly as warm as right now. The hockey stick is so thoroughly imprinted on the actual data that what’s truly impressive is how many things you have to get rid of to eliminate it. There’s a scientific term for results which are so strong and so resistant to changes in data and methods: robust.

 

[andypro7]

it is the graph than confirmed the paper's conclusion not the words

First of all, the graph is BASED on the words. He explains in words how he graphed what you see.

But more importantly, it doesn't confirm that paper's conclusion at all, but rather refutes it. Whoopsie.

But thanks again, I will now use that graph as a response to you every time you make a claim.

Just remember, for future reference, YOU cited the article and YOU cited the graph. I'll put this in purple so you'll remember.

 

[RealityCheck01]

This needs a separate post: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

This is a direct rebuttal of McIntyre and McKitrick papers.

 

[RealityCheck01]

5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper

These conclusions include
1. “Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.”

2. “Global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 …. are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene”

And guess what, andypro7, we have had instruments to calculate the global temperatures for over 300 years! It is those measurements that are referred to in "Current global temperatures of the past decade" and "Global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009"

 

[andypro7]

This needs a separate post: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

This is a direct rebuttal of McIntyre and McKitrick papers.

C'mon, be honest. You don't know any more about how McIntyre disproved Mann's hockey stick than you do about what 'How Marcottian Upticks Arise' says.

I'm not clicking anymore of your links until you at least demonstrate that you understand the conclusions of the last link you sent me. If you're going to send me links, and then tell me the conclusion of those links, and then I investigate and find those links prove the exact opposite of what you say they do, why should I waste my time.

Now, back to business. Are we both in agreement that the McIntyre link you sent me to and the graph are legit? Because if we're in agreement, then we can end this right now.

Study up.

 

[RealityCheck01]

But more importantly, it doesn't confirm that paper's conclusion at all, but rather refutes it. Whoopsie.

Whoopsie, andypro7: a fantasy born I guess from continued ignorance about the paper's conclusion .
5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)
5th March 2015 andypro7: Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures to the Marcott et al. paper.

Thus Steve McIntyre's graph confirms the two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper !

 

[RealityCheck01]

C'mon, be honest.

Ok:
5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)
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]

Wahl 2007 is a direct rebuttal of McIntyre and McKitrick papers by showing that the reconstruction is robust:
Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05&#8728, which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400–1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work.

The actual paper is available at http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf, andypro7.

 

[eclipsenow]

Steve McIntyre is unfortunately a known climate change denier who as you have shown has lied about the hockey stick. But he almost has a valid point here


What you've done here is called circular reasoning. You demand proof that global warming isn't real, but when I supply any info, you say it comes from a 'denier', and therefore can't be proof.

Therefore, until you stop using the word 'denier', which is a childish trick, which proves BEYOND A DOUBT that this is not about science, ANYTHING that you cite or assert that comes from anyone who believes in global warming is INVALID. (I'm just using your logic here).


All those people who say Mann's hockey stick is correct are just know global warming zealots, and therefore we can't believe anything they say. Again, just using your logic here.

All of your information that you shared comes from known 'warmists', and thus, AGAIN, BY YOUR LOGIC, can't be taken seriously.

What you've done here is psychoanalyse your opponent rather than looking at the data your opponent links to!

 

[andypro7]

Thus Steve McIntyre's graph confirms the two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper !

Nope, it does nothing of the sort. You continue to show your ignorance in both science and reading comprehension.

Again, it would be easy for me to tell you where you're going wrong, but it's so much fun watching you TOTALLY NOT GET IT. It's RIGHT-FREAKIN'-THERE, yet your bias has you absolutely blinded.

Thus, Steve McIntyre's graph DOES NOT CONFIRM the two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper



Now, I'm going to do a little preemptive strike here. I've seen this before, and I've seen it from you, so listen up.

Many times you warmists are so sure of yourselves, and I spend a lot of time trying to get them to see their error. But inevitably, when they finally do realize where they've messed up, they then turn it back on ME, as if they are just alerting me to the thing I've been trying to get them to see for days.

I just want to have that down so that when you do finally realize how badly you are misinterpreting McIntyre's article and his graph, that you don't come back to me and say, "we already knew that".

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nope, it does nothing of the sort..
..usual insults...

Maybe some baby language will help you, andypro7 :
* Big stuff happen long time ago (Marcott). Now stuff close to that big stuff.
* Similar big stuff happen long time ago (McIntyre). Now stuff close to that similar big stuff.
These things are alike.

Thus
5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)
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]

 

[eclipsenow]

This needs a separate post: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

This is a direct rebuttal of McIntyre and McKitrick papers.

Hi Reality Check,
while it might help to show where McIntyre and McKitrick are wrong in their accusations, isn't it also worthwhile highlighting the many other peer-reviewed studies of bore-holes etc that also confirm the 20th Century as the warmest?

[1] We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate three types of geothermal information: a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements, another database of temperature versus depth observations, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961 – 1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1– 2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.

Citation: Huang, S. P., H. N. Pollack, and P.-Y. Shen (2008),
A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L13703, doi:10.1029/2008GL034187

http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf

 

[andypro7]

Thus
5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)
5th March 2015 andypro7: Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures to the Marcott et al. paper and so confirms the conclusions.

Nope. It does not do that at all.

But you know what, I've been approaching this all wrong. It's clear that you don't understand much about science, so perhaps you believe that saying 'so he confirms his conclusions' many times equals scientific proof. It certainly seems that way.

Just let me tell you, that's not how real science works.

I'll say what I've already said: If you knew what McIntyre was saying, and what that graph shows, you would not be using it as proof of Marcott, et al.

But since you are, you obviously don't know what it says.

READ it again. LOOK at it again.

But I'll tell you what, do this one thing:

Declare right now that you accept McIntyre's work and what that graph says, and you and I will both accept whatever conclusions are contained therein.

Deal??

 

[eclipsenow]

Nope. It does not do that at all.

But you know what, I've been approaching this all wrong. It's clear that you don't understand much about science, so perhaps you believe that saying 'so he confirms his conclusions' many times equals scientific proof. It certainly seems that way.

Just let me tell you, that's not how real science works.

I'll say what I've already said: If you knew what McIntyre was saying, and what that graph shows, you would not be using it as proof of Marcott, et al.

But since you are, you obviously don't know what it says.

READ it again. LOOK at it again.

But I'll tell you what, do this one thing:

Declare right now that you accept McIntyre's work and what that graph says, and you and I will both accept whatever conclusions are contained therein.

Deal??

What, and have one's brain so easily manipulated into believing it's all a conspiracy of the guv-orn-ment and that no one anywhere else is able to test proxies and develop their own independent temperature timelines and confirm pretty much the same data set?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm pretty sure you didn't understand what you read, or you wouldn't have posted it. It's laughable, really. But, instead of embarrassing you, I'll give you a chance to re-read what McIntyre wrote and explain it to me. I'm pretty sure you let your bias miss the forrest for the hockey sticks.

It's funny, if I would have linked that EXACT article you just did, and then explained to you what it meant, you would have dismissed it as 'denier lies from the liar McIntyre'. I will now use only that article to rebut anything you say from here on out. Thank you for that.

And this:

This is something we may trust from McIntyre since it is not ocean core dating - just running of data though a computer program.

Do you know anything about the original hockey stick and what McIntyre did? If you did, you wouldn't have posted the above statement.

The hockey stick comes from direct instrument readings. Excluding the paleoclimate data does not make the direct instrument readings go away.

You seem to be confusing the two. They excluded the last 100 years of paleoclimate data because it was not robust. So what did they use? Direct temperature measurements using instruments.

Now, can you tell us why this is not a valid way of measuring and comparing temps?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nope. It does not do that at all. ...irrelevant stuff snipped...

Repeating the inability to read a graph remains bad, andypro7.
It is simple enough.
Steve McIntyre's graph does not double or triple the temperatures before ~1900.
Steve McIntyre's graph does not even add 10% to the temperatures before ~1900.
Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures before ~1900. to the Marcott et al. paper.

Thus 5th March 2015 andypro7: Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures to the Marcott et al. paper and so confirms the conclusions.
which are
5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)

FYI, I seem to know a lot more science than you, andypro7.
That an engineer (Steve McIntyre) is not a climate scientist . So if he states an opinion that re-dating of ocean cores should not be done, does not give any scientific reasons to not re-date and climate scientists are content with the re-dating then that re-dating stands as correct. This is even if I personally think that it is dubious which I do.
What evidence is in science - it is work that is published in peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.
How to read graphs (see above).
What a source is:
3rd March 2015 andypro7: What is your source for that graph of Greenland temperatures?
That multiple confirmations of the hockey stick from independent sources exist:
4th March 2015 andypro7: Several independent scientific papers agree with the hockey stick graph!

 

[andypro7]

Thus 5th March 2015 andypro7: Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures to the Marcott et al. paper and so confirms the conclusions.
which are
5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-34/#post67121031

Nope, it STILL doesn't say that. Once again, let me restate: Something that's false doesn't become 'science' based upon the number of times you repeat it.

Let me say again, you are MISINTERPRETING McIntyre's article, and you are MISREADING his graph, and thus, you are coming to the wrong conclusions.

Again, I could tell you EXACTLY what you're doing wrong, and I could show you how McIntyre spells it out for you, but you've made that impossible because every time I'VE cited McIntyre's work, you yell "DENIER".

So you're going to have to figure this out on your own.

You don't know what you don't know.

READ it again. LOOK at it again.

 

[SkyWriting]

And let us not commit the fallacy that Greenland is the entire world.

IN the Greenland report they note that other drilling sites match the data.

Climate scientists know that the world has been much warmer and much colder than it is today. They analyze these periods to see how sensitive the climate is to changes in drivers such as the Sun and CO2.

How well? 3 out of 117 models?

 

[eclipsenow]

Nope, it STILL doesn't say that. Once again, let me restate: Something that's false doesn't become 'science' based upon the number of times you repeat it.

Let me say again, you are MISINTERPRETING McIntyre's article, and you are MISREADING his graph, and thus, you are coming to the wrong conclusions.

Again, I could tell you EXACTLY what you're doing wrong, and I could show you how McIntyre spells it out for you, but you've made that impossible because every time I'VE cited McIntyre's work, you yell "DENIER".

So you're going to have to figure this out on your own.

You don't know what you don't know.

READ it again. LOOK at it again.

Ah, yes, I've been here. Andypro's sulking and going to repeat the same line until eventually, after 10 or 20 iterations of pretending he's got a rational argument and everyone here is just too dim to grasp it, he slinks off ignoring all the OTHER hockey stick graphs completely INDEPENDENT climate studies have developed.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nope, ...followed by nothing that says I am wrong !...

Read what I wrote, andypro7:
A simple explanation that Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures before ~1900. to the Marcott et al. paper and so supports their conclusion that current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)

You are not "citing" Steve McIntyre. You are linking to his blog. The appropriate citations would be to his two papers.

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.

I state the obvious: Steve McIntyre is an engineer who was a coauthor on two invalid papers looking at Mann el al 1998 paper. As an engineer his comments about climate science are dubious. His blog looks like s a lot of analysis that tries to deny climate science. Thus I call him a denier of climate science. If he published his analysis then I would call him a climate change skeptic. The difference being that a skeptic has reasons with a good basis (reviewed!) to doubt the science while a denier has only their personal analysis (which may or may not be flawed). This means that analysis by a skeptic is worth reading because it is much more likely to be valid science.

We know that the McIntyre and McKitrick papers are scientifically invalid because their conclusion that the hockey graph is incorrect has been shown to be wrong in the scientific literature:
* Wahl et al 2007 analyzed the Mann data with and without principal components (the main issue in the McIntyre papers) and found insignificant difference.
* 4th March 2015 andypro7: Several independent scientific papers agree with the hockey stick graph!
That is a basic part of science - independently verifying (or not!) the results of a paper.

Climate scientists pointed out the problems with the McIntyre and McKitrick papers when they were published:
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
and when cited in a book:
The Montford Delusion

The AFAIK resounding silence in blogs about McIntyre's Marcott pages is a small indicator of how minor they are. For example, no analysis of the pages on RealClimate (climate science from climate scientists). He gets mentions in the comments of Response by Marcott et al.

[Response: Tamino, thanks for clarifying regarding your post, and weighing in. I think your answer addresses John Mashey’s question rather well too — the celebrated “uptick” that McIntyre is so obsessed with was never the point of the paper...
Here are a few unanswered questions posed by Steve McIntyre....
Nor did they discuss the implausibility of their coretop redating of MD95-2043 and MD95-2011.

[Response: The whole point of the age model perturbation analysis (one of the important novelties in this reconstruction) is to assess the impact of age model uncertainties – it is not as if the coretop date is set in stone (or mud). For MD95-2011, I understand that Marcott et al were notified by Richard Telford that the coretop was redated since the original data were published and that the impact of this on the stack, and therefore the conclusions, is negligible. – gavin]