archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Varved Inconsistency « Climate Audit
    another important factor as was well known in the pre Overpeck pre Bradley literature In the third panel of the above Figure I ve shown the varve thickness series from Hvitarvatn Iceland that I ve recently discussed since its authors Miller et al 2012 also associated varve thickness on a centennial scale with glacier advance rather than warmer temperatures Although its interpretation matches that of the authors of Silvaplana the timing of the series is definitely not synchronous with Silvaplana Whereas varve thicknesses at Silvaplana have declined in the 20th century 20th century varve thicknesses at Hvitarvatn are among the thickest in the entire record Despite the apparent inconsistency I think that it may be possible to extract a consistent story from this data incoherent as it seems I ve flipped the Silvaplana and Hvitarvatn series in the figure below so that warm is up Thus oriented the Silvaplana varves provide a convincing record of recovery from the Little Ice Age with the modern thin varves standing as evidence of glacier retreat Figure 2 Re oriented varve thickness series from Figure 1 In contrast the Hvitarvatn record suggests to me that the Little Ice Age in Iceland was unsurprisingly much more intense than in Switzerland and that recovery remains incomplete It seems virtually certain to me that Hvitarvatn varves will become thinner over the 21st century as the glacier recedes That present varves are thicker than medieval varves indicates to me that present glacier retreat rapid as it may be has still not reached medieval and Holocene retreat stages In picturing glaciers this way I am in my own mind picturing glaciers as a sort of Last In First Out inventory a form of non linearity that is intuitive in business applications and which seems completely applicable here Under this concept Switzerland would have entered the LIA later than Iceland and left sooner I mention the above concept with the following caveat defects in my interpretation of the varve thickness series are irrelevant to the garbage ness of their use as linear proxies for temperature in multiproxy studies I see no redeeming qualities in the Overpeck Bradley Kaufman interpretation of this data Even if modern temperatures are warmer than medieval temperatures a distinct possibility it is my view that any HS ness in the composite of varve thickness series used in recent multiproxy studies is entirely artifact and does not represent an authentic HS signal APPENDIX Note on Finnish Varve Series In the preparation of this note I closely examined the versions of the various Finnish series including upside down Tiljander used in the multiproxy studies which I ll place here as a sort of memo to file Mann used four Korttajarvi series three varve thicknesses series light thickness dark thickness and combined thickness and X ray density XRD The enormous supersticks were in the thickness series rather than XRD which had elevated 20th century levels but not crazy levels like the other series Tiljander oriented light thickness combined thickness and XRD negatively thus for these series in addition to using contaminated data Mann used them upside down to the interpretation of the original authors an interpretation which some Mann defenders contest Dark laminae thickness is less common in this field but occasionally used by others e g Overpeck at Upper Soper Lake Baffin Island Kaufman used the Korttajarvi XRD series not thickness but cut off at AD1800 because of modern contamination Kaufman originally used this series upside down to the orientation of the original authors but reversed the orientation in their corrigendum Since they had already truncated the series at 1800AD the flip had little effect on their final result It is useful to note that Kaufman had no difficulty in understanding what it meant to use this series upside down though many commenters e g William Connolley have pretended that no climate scientist could reasonably be expected to understand this criticism without much greater elaboration The Korttajarvi series was avoided in Ljungqvist studies other than Ljungqvist et al 2012 where the XRD series truncated to 1899 was used in negative orientation However the Korttajarvi superstick bizarrely re emerged in Tingley and Huybers 2013 who used the supersticked varve thickness dark laminae without truncation or apology PAGES2K used a truncated version of the XRD series in negative orientation Kaufman also introduced the Lehmilampi varve thickness series Kaufman originally used it in positive orientation slightly truncated back to 1945 It had elevated closing values but not supersticked In their corrigendum Kaufman inverted the Lehmilampi varve thickness series to match the interpretation of the original authors thin varves now denoting warmth retaining the 1945 truncation Lehmilampi was not used in the Ljungqvist studies except for Ljungqvist et al 2012 which used the XRD data in negative orientation as with the other Finnish sites PAGES2K returned to use of varve thickness again inverted and truncated to 1800AD Nautajarvi the third Finnish series used by Kaufman was another varve thickness series dark laminae thickness used in positive orientation which was truncated in AD1800 It was left unchanged in the Kaufman corrigendum As with the other Finnish series in the Ljungqvist studies the site was only used in Ljungqvist et al 2012 where the XRD data was used in negative orientation consistent with Ljungqvist et al 2012 policy on the other two sites PAGES2K reverted to the use of dark laminae thickness in positive orientation truncated to 1800AD Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Dec 14 2013 at 2 31 PM filed under Uncategorized and tagged big round bradley c2 donard hvitarvatn iceberg kaufman korttajarvi ljungqvist overpeck pages2k silvaplana varve Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Does the observational evidence in AR5 support its the CMIP5 models TCR ranges A New Alaskan d18O Series 40 Comments Brian H Posted Dec 14 2013 at 4 28 PM Permalink Data discipline where art thou Paul Baverstock Posted Dec 14 2013 at 4 50 PM Permalink How come you can do this work but climate scientists do not pottereaton Posted Dec 14 2013 at 4 53 PM Permalink Bad link at the end of this sentence PAGES2K s use of the Igaliku data was a similar error discussed at CA in the past here Chuck L Posted Dec 14 2013 at 7 04 PM Permalink Vintage McIntyre I mention the above concept with the following caveat defects in my interpretation of the varve thickness series are irrelevant to the garbage ness of their use as linear proxies for temperature in multiproxy studies I see no redeeming qualities in the Overpeck Bradley Kaufman interpretation of this data Acerbic wit at its best kim Posted Dec 14 2013 at 7 16 PM Permalink Simply varvelous the glaciers do perform Richard Drake Posted Dec 14 2013 at 7 26 PM Permalink Yeah varvels never cease I enjoyed this line especially Loso was aware of the 1957 event which is clearly disclosed in his article and excluded 1957 values from his composite a limited hangout that ignored the post 1957 inhomogeneity Scientist as spy or at best propagandist Limited hangout worth a google if unfamiliar S Geiger Posted Dec 14 2013 at 8 05 PM Permalink Readers and myself wondered how the prior consensus so to speak that thick varves were related to glacier advance and vice versa had been replaced by a model in which thick varves were now interpreted as evidence of warmer temperatures Hide the define Brian H Posted Dec 14 2013 at 11 42 PM Permalink Hm maybe glaciers advance when it s warm A new physical fenomalnon DocMartyn Posted Dec 14 2013 at 11 43 PM Permalink I find it very odd that there seems to be no attempt to identify the type of pollen in these cores Modern PCR techniques allow you to quantify the amount of DNA from a multitude of species of individual species You could with ease test a sample for the absolute levels of 80 different species of pollen with 16 internal controls in a day It would not take all that long to explore the organic layers and know the sort of ecosystem that was present at the time the pollen sedimented The ecosystem that laid down pollen will give you a rather good proxy of climate of the time There are quite a few lake studies where pollen was identified by eye very man power intensive but the polar studies seem to ignore this angle Are the cores taken by these scientists preserved in cold humid long term storage Steve there are numerous pollen studies of Arctic lake sediments though not used in many studies because of lower resolution Another day s story DocMartyn Posted Dec 15 2013 at 12 41 AM Permalink Thank you Steve I look forward to it tty Posted Dec 15 2013 at 1 54 PM Permalink Indeed palynology is probably a much better climate proxy than varves or treerings for that matter Indeed for a long time it was considered as essentially the only workable climate proxy However it has low temporal resolution and large lags particularly for warming so it is pretty useless for short term hockeysticking Trees for example don t disperse more than a few kilometers per year no matter how good the conditions are Another problem often ignored with biological proxies is that no amount of climatic change can cause reactions in species that aren t there Suppose for example that temperatures were to rise abruptly on Iceland Undoubtedly in time a number of warmth demanding species would appear but they would first have to disperse across wide water barriers by wind or by birds or by floating across which might take thousands of years and will indeed never happen for many species that lack the ability to cross such water barriers AndyL Posted Dec 15 2013 at 12 36 AM Permalink In the appendix it would be helpful to clarify positive and negative orientation Is positive orientation where greater thickness or density more warming Hector Pascal Posted Dec 15 2013 at 3 56 AM Permalink XRD normally refers to an analytical technique X Ray Diffraction Do we now have a re definition with D density Tony Mach Posted Dec 15 2013 at 5 06 AM Permalink When I read Silvaplana I wanted to look where it was somehow the name rang a bell Well The good thing is it is located in a more remote location of the Alps The bad thing is that doesn t mean much even without 1957 According to the German Wikipedia Silvaplana is an tourist location Silverplana is located the proverbial stone s throw away from St Moritz which in turn was one of the destinations of the 30s and 40s jet set I take it But Silverplana as tourist location is even older than that Nietzsche stopped at a rock near Silverplana in August 1881 at which point he developed the idea of eternal recurrence which lead to Thus Spoke Zarathustra I m not making this up The English Wikpedia has this There was quite some fluctuation in the population in the 1804 1850 1900 data points Unfortunately the population time series for Silverplana is of low resolution and does not extent to pre 1804 however it makes a nice hockey stick in the 20th century Maybe another prime candidate for inclusion in a multiproxy temperature resconstruction And of course Romans The first sign of a settlement in the borders of the municipality are some roman era broken pillars in the Julier pass Very well indeed I would venture that at any location in the Alps one would find an anthropogenic fingerprint or footprint but it probably isn t carbondioxide and is not even necessarily temperature Tony Mach Posted Dec 15 2013 at 5 36 AM Permalink The history of the various pass roads from Roman to modern times is fascinating as well One more tidbit from the German language Wikipedia article to Septimer pass Since the late Middle Ages increasingly more pasture was created by clearing deforestation this increased the rockfall and avalanche danger at the Septimer pass Nachdem man seit dem Spätmittelalter verstärkt Weideland durch Rodung gewann stieg die Steinschlag und Lawinengefahr an Richard Drake Posted Dec 15 2013 at 8 41 AM Permalink I would venture that at any location in the Alps one would find an anthropogenic fingerprint or footprint Doesn t modern science teach us that all footprints are carbon footprints What did the Romans ever do for us and our varves What part of the phrase non canonical don t you understand All these stories must by definition be apocryphal phi Posted Dec 16 2013 at 6 13 AM Permalink A view of St Moritz and lej da S Murezzan Silvaplana and his Lake are located 5km further upstream on the road Malojapass Nietzsche was at Sils Maria at the edge of a third lake Lej da Segl another 5 km further toward the pass He meditated on the beautiful almost island where this photograph was taken the rock lay 100 m at right Nietche was misguided but in my humble opinion this was not the fault of the landscape phi Posted Dec 16 2013 at 8 41 AM Permalink Sorry small correction the rock of the eternal recurrence is not located in the peninsula of Sils Maria but at Surlej in the varves of Silvaplana Lake Antonio AKA Un físico Posted Dec 15 2013 at 5 52 AM Permalink Mr McIntyre The main inconsistency within paleoclimate is what in the IPCC AR5 WGI is set as 5 3 3 2 LGM Constraints on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity I tried to discuss with one leading author of that Chapter 5 the three ways IPCC shows for correlating LGM with ECS but he declined that discussion Later in my pdf https docs google com file d 0B4r 7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA I concluded that the multiproxy inconsistency related with the varved inconsistency evidenced in this post create inaccuracies that drive to opposite ECS estimations Mr McIntyre do you have a contact email I would like to talk with you about presenting some of the ideas in my pdf in your blog Jeff Id Posted Dec 15 2013 at 8 41 AM Permalink With so many historic measurements obviously affected by temperature it is truly unfortunate that they are so painfully useless as temperature proxies Sediment is obviously a really terrible proxy Perhaps one of the worst Tree lines may be the best but even those suffer It would be awesome if something new and overlooked were discovered j ferguson Posted Dec 15 2013 at 9 43 AM Permalink Jeff You raise an interesting question What else is out there that might convey historical temperature data If brains can still storm here is an opportunity The filter would include that the data be collectible by post grads or at worst post docs that it be cyclic and be date able that it occur globally and that the series if that is a proper term be continuous for millenia What else could there be Doubtless the paleo practitioners have spent countless hours in pubs dreaming of better proxies But what phi Posted Dec 15 2013 at 10 14 AM Permalink Jeff Id It would be awesome if something new and overlooked were discovered Why something new There are already material of high quality Perhaps what show this material is not what we wanted to discover Jeff Id Posted Dec 15 2013 at 7 53 PM Permalink Are you serious or tongue in cheek phi Posted Dec 16 2013 at 2 42 AM Permalink Take five minutes to understand what the graph shows and you will get the answer For the first time we have good proxy data until 2006 and therefore a significant overlap with satellite data Overall MXD show an excellent correlation with temperature This is not new What is is that for the first time we can observe an almost perfect correlation with TLT in high and low frequencies For Urals at least the very famous divergence is clearly the result of a failure in stations data and not a weakness of the MXD proxy Treemometers are more reliables than thermometers of stations AndyL Posted Dec 16 2013 at 3 20 AM Permalink Eyeballing that plot the MXD seems to match the annual wiggles of HADCRUT3 and UAH pretty well The problem with that MXD plot from a warmist point of view is that it appears to show a long term trend close to zero charles the moderator Posted Dec 16 2013 at 5 01 AM Permalink Re Jeff Id Dec 15 19 53 That is very interesting Phi I saw what you were getting to before reading your description It s a single dataset but oh the Irony if even only partially true phi Posted Dec 16 2013 at 5 14 AM Permalink Charles the moderator Some other data sets are also interesting http img38 imageshack us img38 1905 atsas png kim Posted Dec 16 2013 at 7 55 AM Permalink C mon next your gonna tell me you can make sense of varves phi Posted Dec 16 2013 at 8 53 AM Permalink Kim True http www mondialnaturisme com Image galerie normales origan 2863467e5ae3 jpg Jeff Id Posted Dec 16 2013 at 10 16 AM Permalink Phi I did take my time I just don t know what you are concluding from that The MXD data that I ve messed with had very poor temp correlation Of course there is some high frequency matching but that s about all I suppose I will try to find the paper it came from and review it Frank Posted Dec 16 2013 at 8 34 PM Permalink Jeff Good high frequency correlation with temperature may be the best sign that the trees in a particular location to respond strongly to

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2013/12/14/varved-inconsistency/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • PAGES2K vs the Hanhijarvi Reconstruction « Climate Audit
    serious consequences Korhola s involvement in the present project is salutary as Korhola unlike Tingley s coauthor in Tingley and Huybers is familiar enough with the data to know when it is pointing up or pointing down and not to use data that has been agriculturally contaminated Keeping proxies in the correct orientation seems little to ask of multiproxy authors but it seems to be an almost insuperable challenge for many supposed specialists I m not presently in a position to comment on technical merits of paico other than briefly I haven t handled the code I don t have any present plans to try to translate from Matlab into R and the authors have thus far only made the package available in Matlab no complaint on that in terms of documentation but it does restrict usability for people who speak R Like most CPS algorithms paico presumes that the orientation of each proxy is known ex ante a protocol that has long been advocated at Climate Audit This avoids flipping as can happen in some multivariate methods including principal components It also avoids the many scaling and rescaling operations that litter most proxy reconstruction methods such rescaling is assumed by practitioner to be cost free but this is not necessarily the case but this is outside the scope of today s post I ve now written a number of posts on PAGES2K see tag I had noticed almost immediately after publication that they had used a sediment series with a huge HS due to recent agricultural contamination Igaliku an error eerily similar to Mann s upside down Tiljander In addition I reported that another of the major contributors to their HS the Hvitarvatn Iceland varves had been used upside down also here and that PAGES2K had inexplicably used a short version of the Lomonosovfonna Svalbard ice core even though one of the PAGES2K coauthors had earlier data with a higher MWP I criticized PAGES post hoc exclusion of the Mount Logan ice core O18 series because it went the wrong way due to regional fluctuations while keeping the upticked Austfonna series the uptick of which could just easily be regional I later observed that PAGES Kepler lake sediment O18 series was similar to the Mount Logan ice core series and that it was impossible to explain the exclusion of one and not the other I disagreed with ex post exclusion of Mount Logan Late last year I wrote a lengthy review of Kaufman s varve thickness series that have become common to nearly all recent reconstructions though even the orientation of these series is sufficiently unclear to confuse specialists and lead to contradictions All of these criticisms were adopted in the PAGES 2014 non corrigendum without specific acknowledgement Part but not all of the Igaliku contamination was removed the Hvitarvatn series was inverted the longer Lomonosovfonna series was deployed Rather than include Mount Logan they removed Kepler In addition they removed the early portion of several tree ring series Coppermine Lower Lena Forfjorddalen where there were insufficient cores incorrectly explaining the change as restricted to temperature sensitive section and replaced a couple of tree ring series with different versions replacing a Swedish version of Tornetrask with a more HS shaped version from the University of East Anglia and another in Alaska Although the above errors warrant a corrigendum Kaufman did not post a corrigendum at the PAGES2K here apparently adopting Mann s technique of not reporting corrigenda at the original article thereby permitting continued use of the impacted results but quietly disclosing the errors in a different location as CYA In my initial response to the non corrigendum corrigendum I observed that there were other shoes that might still drop Kaufman only removed post 1970 contamination from the Igaliku record which remains seriously contaminated in the mid 20th century Some of Kaufman s other series remain very problematic the Big Round varve series has extraordinary similarity to the Hvitatvatn series but they are now in opposite orientation Other Kaufman muds are a mess in the amendments Kaufman removed the early portion of the Blue Lake Alaska series as not being temperature sensitive but the removal seems completely ad hoc and post hoc meanwhile other series with clearly identified inhomogeneities e g Iceberg Lake but HS contributors are left untouched Conclusions The very large differences between H13 and PAGES2K Arctic arise not from methodology but from proxy selection with the diagnosis being sharpened by the fact that H13 is an exact subset of PAGES2K It would be very interesting to a paico run on the non H13 subset of PAGES2K does it have an even more pronounced superstick This sort of inconsistency between proxies with a medieval warm period and HS shaped proxies is of course familiar to CA readers In addition there are still important remaining issues in the PAGES2K including unremoved contamination in the Igaliku superstick and the puzzling mirror orientation of Hvitatvan and Big Round Such changes would take PAGES2K even further to the direction of Hanhijarvi et al Postscript A few days ago Jean S extracted their reconstruction which I ve overplotted on their Figure 7 to prove the match If you squint you can see the dotted black line digital overplotting the blue H13 reconstruction The H13 reconstruction goes from 0 to 2000 H13 Figure 7 showed decadal averages for 0 9 years The closing uptick in the graphic comes from the single 2000 value Any other smoothing yields a closing value that is not only below the medieval values but the 1930s values The other series in the spaghetti graph are Mann et al 2008 CPS and EIV Moberg and Kaufman et al 2009 red Figure A1 Hanhijarvi et al 2013 Figure 7 Calculated reconstruction plotted in blue over the figure showing very close match with plot of Hanhijarvi reconstruction shown in the figure References Hanhijarvi et al 2013 Clim Dyn Pairwise comparisons to reconstruct mean temperature in the Arctic Atlantic Region over the last 2 000 years McKay and Kaufman 2014 Scientific Data An extended Arctic proxy temperature database for the past 2 000 years PAGES2K Consortium 2013 Nature Continental scale temperature variability during the past two millennia Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Oct 7 2014 at 11 04 PM filed under pages2k Uncategorized and tagged hanhijarvi hvitarvatn igaliku korhola MD99 2275 pages2k paico tingley Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed PAGES2K More Upside Down New Article on Igaliku 41 Comments Pethefin Posted Oct 8 2014 at 1 23 AM Permalink Spelling mistake in the headline it should read Hanhijarvi actually Hanhijärvi as it does in the text Jean S Kiitos corrected barn E rubble Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 39 AM Permalink RE Jean S Kiitos corrected For those wondering kiitos thank you One of the few bits of Finnish I can still recall sigh among other things barn anglicized from baärn Ee ruuble Skiphil Posted Oct 8 2014 at 2 20 AM Permalink link missing under The Paico Reconstructions the phrase overplotted on the New York Times version of Kaufman et al 2009 see Andy Revkin here seems to need a hyperlink at here referring to this article graphic http dotearth blogs nytimes com 2009 09 03 humans may have ended long arctic chill Jean S Posted Oct 8 2014 at 2 48 AM Permalink The press release of Hanhijärvi et al here in Finnish Google translation is reasonably understandable although it is also translating Hanhijärvi goose lake Peter O Neill Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 08 AM Permalink Re Jean S Oct 8 02 48 A better Google translation than many I ve seen but as usual some words remain untranslated Posting a short key to such words as well would be helpful when providing a Google translation link particularly if as here some knowledge of Finnish grammar is needed to look up mutated word forms even when a dictionary is to hand which itself is not very likely Here s my version with one uncertainty for clarification merijääpeitteen sea ice cover viilenemiskehityksen framework of cooling Jean S the cooling trend development saneet boost have got a boost should this be saaneet Jean S Yes mannerjäätiköihin mainland glaciers Jean S ice sheet kalkkikiviluolien limestone cave vertailupareihin pairwise comparison Sven Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 25 AM Permalink OK found now where the saneet boost came from In the finnish text it s saneet lisäpotkua a typo should be saaneet and this really is have got an additional boost Jeff Alberts Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 37 AM Permalink Does the universe implode if you translate Finnish to Welsh Sven Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 44 AM Permalink Probably But it s physics so to be really sure you should ask ATTP Richard Drake Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 33 AM Permalink Kenneth Pike told me quantum physics might unlock the deep problems of linguistics the one time we talked But Dr Pike s passed on and we can be confident as you say that ATTP will show us the way Peter O Neill Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 35 AM Permalink Re Peter O Neill Oct 8 09 08 Kiitos Jean I was amused as a foreigner to spot a spelling error Perhaps I should apply for a proofreading job I suggested glaciers here rather than ice sheets since both are mentioned only in the references for the actual article and ice sheets there in the context of A triple sea ice state mechanism for the abrupt warming and synchronous ice sheet collapses during Heinrich events while glaciers appear in the context of Deep drilling of glaciers in Eurasian Arctic as a source of paleoclimatic records Cooling trend does read better than framework of cooling sisällä within had me looking for a word to put something within Jeff Alberts As for universe implosion on translation of Finnish to Welsh I think this is avoided provided you make an intermediate translation to Irish barn E rubble Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 48 AM Permalink RE Re Peter O Neill Oct 8 09 08 RE Jeff Alberts As for universe implosion on translation of Finnish to Welsh I think this is avoided provided you make an intermediate translation to Irish Short answer no My Father was from Finland and me Ma from Ireland Most translations from Finnish to Irish as me Ma was want to do would result in explosions of one sort or another They met in Toronto in the 50 s and according to Da neither could speak English when they got here sigh those were the days barn Sven Posted Oct 8 2014 at 11 19 AM Permalink Yes you are right I started learning Irish some 25 years ago and tried some translation from Estonian very close to Finnish to Irish The result was not an implosion but rather an explosion A small one not catastrophic So to be on the safe side using Irish as a dampener would be a wise thing to do Peter O Neill Posted Oct 8 2014 at 12 39 PM Permalink Re Peter O Neill Oct 8 10 35 Thinking about it more carefully ice sheets probably is the better choice where qualified as here by mainland But least my original point gets lost that was that is always helpful when posting a Google translate link to add a key to the words which remain untranslated Skiphil Posted Oct 8 2014 at 5 08 AM Permalink OT see 26 on Gergis pub list re Gergis et al for PAGES Aus2K project still listed in review at Journal of Climate Is this long overdue work or something new http joellegergis com page id 6 Jean S The year is updated and Phipps is not anymore a co author I think they are still trying Richard Drake Posted Oct 8 2014 at 7 25 AM Permalink Very trying The pun may not translate well into Finnish Of the main post this is incredible work Steve From I m not presently in a position to comment on technical merits of paico other than briefly I haven t handled the code I don t have any present plans to try to translate from Matlab into R and the authors have thus far only made the package available in Matlab no complaint on that in terms of documentation but it does restrict usability for people who speak R I can see more of Jean S s motivation to push Octave But all these things take time Skiphil Posted Oct 8 2014 at 3 59 PM Permalink wonder what the story is with Phipps did he ask to be taken off were they having some conflict over the failings of the project etc Sven Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 19 AM Permalink kehitys is actually development but maybe in the context it could be framework saneet boost or even saaneet have gotten boost is not finnish something wrong there Sven Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 20 AM Permalink oops wrong place It was of course meant as reply to Peter O Neill 9 08 AM Craig Loehle Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 23 AM Permalink A veritable cherry pie bakery I m glad these guys don t design airplanes When the whole story is altered by how you align the curves whole series vs recent decades the story is infinitely malleable That isn t science Steve there s nothing new here about the effect of alignment That s was evident in Briffa s 1992 bodge of Tornetrask or in say Ababneh vs Graybill they align over the whole series and diverge if matched at the end tty Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 28 AM Permalink The weirdest thing about all this Arctic Hockeystickery is that there are actually a number of long high quality thermometer records from high latitudes in the North Atlantic area In particular a composite from southern Greenland from 1784 a very high quality and homogenous series from Stykkisholmur Iceland from 1830 and a composite but very carefully homogenized series from Torne Valley from 1802 They all show rising temperatures since c 1800 a marked high temperature hump in the 1930 s a subsequent decline and new rise with current temperatures about equal to the 30 s No hockeystick anywhere And the same pattern is seen in the very long series from St Petersburg and Uppsala from 1722 It is also odd that everybody is so fond of the Torneträsk treering proxy while nobody uses the Torne älv ice breakup date proxy available since the 17th century since the latter correlates with spring temperature at the 0 8 level for the last 200 years while the Torneträsk series correlation with summer temperatures is about 0 4 for the same interval James Evans Posted Oct 8 2014 at 1 45 PM Permalink Are there any pretty graphs of those thermometer records on the interwebs for an oik such as myself to take a gander at Bob Koss Posted Oct 8 2014 at 3 53 PM Permalink James Evans I was curious also so I graphed the Stykkisholmur data tty mentioned which I found in the ISTI databank The years 1873 1919 1941 are missing either first or last six months of data for the year Couldn t find Torne Valley listed under that spelling though Here it is http i58 tinypic com 29wswtj png Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 8 2014 at 4 07 PM Permalink please do not divert this thread into a discussion of thermometer records These can be discussed at other venues or other threads Thermometers have been discussed endlessly whereas this thread raises an important new issue in connection with the reconstructions miker613 Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 36 AM Permalink But unlike PAGES2K its medieval reconstruction has higher values than its modern reconstruction a finding that has received negligible coverage Amazing Mark Steyn where are you Can t you get your Oil Money masters to publicize this HOCKEY STICK REFUTED That sort of thing Faux News are you sleeping Heartland Institute you re tight with Andy Revkin get him to cover this What are you thinking here s your chance Jeff Alberts Posted Oct 8 2014 at 9 40 AM Permalink You forgot your sarc Or maybe you didn t Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 01 AM Permalink my own take these reconstructions is not that one is necessarily right However one can say that using contaminated data and using data upside down is wrong in some sense Sven Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 02 AM Permalink in some sense miker613 Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 06 AM Permalink miker613 Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 07 AM Permalink Well that didn t work I tried to add a tin foil hat tag as Jeff Alberts suggested miker613 Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 03 AM Permalink Figure 2 from S3A is the one that I can t get my head around They really look the same basically the difference is the blade PAGES2K found some proxies that match current temperatures Another Briffa divergence problem correct The obvious conclusion I would think is that temperature proxies do a really bad job It s not that we ve found the Medieval Warm Period in H13 it s that all of this is probably wrong miker613 Posted Oct 8 2014 at 10 45 AM Permalink From a comment at ATTP PAGES2K One of the new procedures used to reconstruct temperature is an approach developed by Sami Hanhijärvi U Helsinki which was also recently applied to the North Atlantic region Hanhijärvi applied this procedure to the proxy data from each of the continental scale regions and found that reconstructions using different approaches are

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/07/pages2k-vs-the-hanjiharvi-reconstruction/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Millennial Quebec Tree Rings « Climate Audit
    below Wilson s NQU chronology is based on an old Fritts series Fort Chimo and still unarchived data for Pyramid and Lac Tesaliuk both sites attributed to Payette 2007 though only the former site is mentioned in the article Both chronologies are sort of similar through from 1775 1915 or so but the Wilson chronology has a much more pronounced pulse in the 20th century and more of a divergence problem Examining Payette 2007 it appears that even nearby site chronologies can have very different patterns depending on regeneration It s not evident to me that you can average such incommensurate series in any reasonable way Payette 2007 has some interesting pictures showing subfossil trees above the present treeline reminiscent of Polar Urals Comparison to D Arrigo et al 2006 Labrador Here is a similar comparison of the new Gennaretti chronology to the D Arrigo et al 2006 Labrador RCS chronology This is related to the Labrador STD chronology shown in their 2003 article but isn t the same While there are points of similarity in the early 19th century the D Arrigo RCS version shows much weaker growth in the downticks around 1600 and 1700 and has a very large growth pulse in the mid 20th century that is not observed in the Gennaretti data One of the issues that concerns me about the D Arrigo 2006 LAB chronology is that inhomogeneity between sites appears to be expressed in the chronology a very difficult and perhaps insurmountable issue with RCS methods Reference Gennaretti F et al 2014 Volcano induced regime shifts in millennial tree ring chronologies from northeastern North America PNAS pdf NOAA data Thomas et al 2009 Climate of the past millennium inferred from varved proglacial lake sediments on northeast Baffin Island Arctic Canada pdf Payette 2007 Contrasted dynamics of northern Labrador tree lines caused by climate change and migrational lag pdf Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Oct 13 2014 at 10 55 AM filed under climategate Uncategorized and tagged big round gennaretti gifford miller hvitarvatn miller pages2k quebec Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Decomposing Paico Gavin Schmidt and the EPA Denial Decision 42 Comments opluso Posted Oct 13 2014 at 1 59 PM Permalink How do tree ring or lake sediment chronologies generate full annual data curves when there is a gap every winter Is there enough winter growth or sediment accumulation to infer something about the seasonal temperature anomaly Or is the data simply filled in by author generated assumptions Craig Loehle Posted Oct 13 2014 at 2 20 PM Permalink Tree rings typically only record growing season temperatures Usually this is spring summer but in some climates growth occurs in winter if it is mild and wet then like PNW USA Follow the Money Posted Oct 13 2014 at 3 11 PM Permalink Tree rings typically only record growing season temperatures Outside of Australian Climate Science Ltd I have never read anything arguing temperature anomalies are a detectable signal in tree rings except for possibly those from treeline specimens Craig Loehle Posted Oct 13 2014 at 3 35 PM Permalink You are right of course Trees respond far more to rainfall snow variation than to temperature The dendros do try to get treeline data and assert that the rainfall effect is a random effect However studies have shown that major rainfall zones such as the ITCZ and monsoon in China can shift up and down for long periods The Sahara was a grassland shrubland 6000 years ago So this assumption really is unproven if you go back more than a few hundred years if that Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 13 2014 at 2 35 PM Permalink when specialists are being most careful with other specialists they limit reconstructions to summer season and sometimes only a sub season To get to annual data they assert that summer temperature fluctuations correlate to annual This assumption is very not tenable on Holocene scales where there are major changes in summer insolation Indeed the changes in summer insolation over the past 2000 years are not negligible a point made effectively in Esper et al 2012 opluso Posted Oct 13 2014 at 3 31 PM Permalink It seems that dendro graphs should have a flat line representing annual below growth temperatures with data points shown only above the line assuming it is presented rightside up Or perhaps they could use strongly lop sided error bars that stretch to approximately infinity on the winter scale It is truly a remarkable field of study if one can substitute so many questionable assumptions for actual data and still be published Not Sure Posted Oct 13 2014 at 2 04 PM Permalink Does anyone else find the big dip in the middle of the MWP around 1100 CE interesting Maybe the growth response to temperature becomes negative Steven Mosher Posted Oct 13 2014 at 2 09 PM Permalink would there be a dip around 1813 and a peak around 1875ish Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 13 2014 at 2 25 PM Permalink yes The sharp decline commences about 1809 and the peak is 1875 1880 Steven Mosher Posted Oct 13 2014 at 3 21 PM Permalink I have to read the paper more closely CRUTS3 is an interesting choice tty Posted Oct 13 2014 at 4 07 PM Permalink It s interesting that the two low points both coincide with extinction events in Greenland The Norse colony was last mentioned in icelandic sources in 1410 and archeologists date the final demise to c 1450 Inuits in East Greenland were last seen alive in 1824 and were extinct by 1873 Robert Way Posted Oct 13 2014 at 4 31 PM Permalink Very interesting paper I work in the general area and am from the Labrador portion so it definitely fills an interesting knowledge gap My MSc worked on glaciers in northern Labrador Torngat Mountains including estimating the timing of maximum LIA marginal positions The D Arrigo et al 2003 series that I use is very different from the D Arrigo et al 2006 series you re using with a much deeper cooling in the mid 1600s and a much smaller cooling in the late 1800s I got that series as part of Kinnard et al s 2011 release My work on Torngat glaciers supports a maximum LIA marginal position being around 1650 for a subset of glaciers which does not seemingly agreement with what one would expect from the series you ve presented above Undoubtedly regional variations play a role here but it might be worthwhile to mention the D arrigo et al 2003 paper on Labrador tree rings As an aside tree line was higher than present in Labrador during the MWP and the holocene hypsithermal according to tree ring data was only 3000 4000 years ago in the area because the region deglaciated very late Undoubtedly these factors play a role Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 13 2014 at 8 45 PM Permalink Robert I have some notes on Labrador tree ring series and will do a post I used the Gaspe series as a comparandum because they ve been used as Quebec series in multiproxy studies while the Labrador series has been little used In addition Jacoby and D Arrigo s Labrador archive is incomplete Plus I think that it s important to see what people other than Jacoby D Arrigo and Briffa come up with Robert Way Posted Oct 13 2014 at 4 36 PM Permalink I should also mention that as we discussed in our recent paper Way and Viau 2014 linked below the response of Labrador air temperatures to volcanic events is profound but also related to the interaction between volcanism and the Arctic Oscillation which has a tendency towards positive values correspondingly colder Labrador Air Temperatures in the years following a high magnitude event Way R G and Viau A E In press Natural and forced air temperature variability in the Labrador region of Canada during the past century Applied and Theoretical Climatology http link springer com article 10 1007 s00704 014 1248 2 Steven Mosher Posted Oct 13 2014 at 11 14 PM Permalink Congrats glad to see that published Jeff Norman Posted Oct 13 2014 at 5 02 PM Permalink Apropros of nothing I find it interesting that the last glaciers final disappeared from northern Quebec a little over 6 000 years ago Robert Way Posted Oct 13 2014 at 5 06 PM Permalink Technically there are still a couple of glaciers on the Quebec side http www igsoc org journal 60 223 t13j195 html Jeff Norman Posted Oct 13 2014 at 6 05 PM Permalink Okay Robert that is very neat thank you Nice paper I enjoyed reading it and learned Are these ice masses considered to be the remnants of the Laurentide Glaciation Robert Way Posted Oct 14 2014 at 10 52 AM Permalink Well that s one of the big research questions we have They re certainly not remnants of the ice sheet per say in that locally they have extended far beyond their small cirque basins many many km and we do not know whether they re neoglacial of origin or if they survived their the hypsithermal and were individual glaciers that coalesced with the ice sheet when it overtopped the Torngats There was a great deal of prior research on whether the Torngats were overtopped by ice sheets at the LGM or not but a couple papers Marquette et al 2004 Staiger et al 2005 have provided compelling evidence based on cosmogenic exposure dating of erratics that the Torngats were overtopped by cold based ice that did not erode the mountaintop block fields So maybe the short answer is that eventhough they once were part of the laurentide ice sheet they most likely are able to form on their own with climatic deterioration due to their unique setting on the North Atlantic http geochronology earthsciences dal ca gosse downloads Marquette 20CJES 202004 pdf http geochronology earthsciences dal ca gosse downloads Staiger2005ESPL pdf Jeff Norman Posted Oct 13 2014 at 5 07 PM Permalink Apropos to this post this 1975 paper discusses the correlation between prehistoric climate in Northern Quebec and Baffin island http pubs aina ucalgary ca arctic Arctic29 1 48 pdf DGH Posted Oct 13 2014 at 7 14 PM Permalink Figure 1 is labeled Gennaretti 2013 Should be 2014 no MikeN Posted Oct 13 2014 at 9 32 PM Permalink That warm period in 1790 how far does that extend First I ve noticed it Alexej Buergin Posted Oct 14 2014 at 3 05 AM Permalink Seems they did not have to hide the decline Rob Wilson Posted Oct 14 2014 at 3 41 AM Permalink Hi Steve you re quite busy lately nice to see you back looking at data and methods again The Gennaretti study is very important and is a welcome addition to the expanding NH network of longer temperature sensitive tree ring records You however forgot to include the post 1750 Quebec record I used for my JGR07 paper I think you ll see that they agree better than the Gaspe record but all these records are not located close together so we need to keep in mind that there will be regional differences within Quebec Having said that these new data are a significant addition for the study of past climate for northern Quebec NB the data have been RCS processed using a non standard approach not that there really is a standard approach It would be good to see more experiments with different variants of the RCS method i e without corrections use of signal free etc to assess how sensitive the final chronology shape is to different processing choices My gut feeling is that the really sexy record that will come from these samples will be the MXD series but do not know if they have the funds to generate the relevant data Rob Steve Rob I ll take a look at your chronology but with respect the Gaspe chronology has been used in multiproxy studies in one guise or another BTW despite all the articles presenting RCS results there isn t any technical article that presents or justifies the various ad hoc site decisions that specialists use in the development of such chronologies Obviously specialists are aware of inter site inhomogeneity Esper describes this very clearly but dealing with it on a practical basis is not at all easy and whenever I look at actual RCS examples in detail e g Briffa s Yamal article in 2013 the issues seem to be ad hocked or ignored with the result that effects arising from site inhomogeneity are presented as chronology As we ve discussed before I view the problem as a complicated mixed effects problem and think that specialists are unwise to ignore this prior research I also think that the tradition of dimensionless chronology units ought to be abandoned in favor of more conventional statistical approaches but that s another story Rob Wilson Posted Oct 14 2014 at 10 40 AM Permalink I agree hence why it is best to try multiple approaches to get a feel of the sensitivity of the chronology outcome due to different ad hoc choices Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 14 2014 at 11 46 AM Permalink Rob writes I agree hence why it is best to try multiple approaches to get a feel of the sensitivity of the chronology outcome due to different ad hoc choices From a statistical perspective disputes arise when these various experiments are not reported and seemingly arbitrary choices are presented Wagenmakers has sharply criticized such practices in social psychology as data torture In less contentious terminology any results that emerge from exercising such researcher degrees of freedom are exploratory rather than confirmatory thus requiring an out of sample fresh sample to confirm Because Jacoby only archived a fraction of his data the data that contained the signal that he was looking for I don t think that any of the Jacoby D Arrigo data meets objective standards for confirmatory analysis Thus the importance of the Gennaretti results Tom T Posted Oct 14 2014 at 2 34 PM Permalink You mean like removing a highly questionable proxy from your data to see its effect And upon seeing that your entire signal is dependent on that one series you chose to keep it in and call your reconstruction robust dfhunter Posted Oct 14 2014 at 6 17 PM Permalink Hi Rob but was wondering how SCOT2K 2013 2016 Reconstructing 2000 years of Scottish climate from tree rings is going any early results available sorry bit OT Steve Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 14 2014 at 11 39 AM Permalink Added the following postscript to the post In comments below Rob Wilson observed that Wilson et al 2007 contained a northern Quebec NQU chronology and suggested a comparison provided below Wilson s NQU chronology is based on an old Fritts series Fort Chimo and still unarchived data for Pyramid and Lac Tesaliuk both sites attributed to Payette 2007 though only the former site is mentioned in the article Both chronologies are sort of similar through from 1775 1915 or so but the Wilson chronology has a much more pronounced pulse in the 20th century and more of a divergence problem Examining Payette 2007 it appears that even nearby site chronologies can have very different patterns depending on regeneration It s not evident to me that you can average such incommensurate series in any reasonable way Payette 2007 has some interesting pictures showing subfossil trees above the present treeline reminiscent of Polar Urals Craig Loehle Posted Oct 14 2014 at 11 58 AM Permalink I have been following Payette s work for years I think he is an excellent ecologist and knows his trees Not someone whose only contact with trees is the core he drills Genghis Posted Oct 18 2014 at 9 15 AM Permalink Could it be that inhomogeneity is the rule rather than the exception Maybe that is the most important finding from all of this scf Posted Oct 14 2014 at 6 18 AM Permalink I believe I can see in the Quebec tree ring chronologies the effect of the laki haze in the northern hemisphere from the laki volcanic eruption in 1783 in Iceland JamesG Posted Oct 14 2014 at 9 39 AM Permalink Does it now correlate to the local thermometer record I wonder Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 14 2014 at 12 36 PM Permalink Here is a similar comparison of the new Gennaretti chronology to the D Arrigo et al 2006 Labrador RCS chronology This is related to the Labrador STD chronology shown in their 2003 article but isn t the same While there are points of similarity in the early 19th century the D Arrigo RCS version shows much weaker growth in the downticks around 1600 and 1700 and has a very large growth pulse in the mid 20th century that is not observed in the Gennaretti data One of the issues that concerns me about the D Arrigo 2006 LAB chronology is that inhomogeneity between sites appears to be expressed in the chronology a very difficult and perhaps insurmountable issue with RCS methods Geoff Sherrington Posted Oct 14 2014 at 10 29 PM Permalink Am I missing something In the calibration step one would usually construct a graph type relation between tree response and applicable temperature This calibration would give adequate information as to which is the right way up Unless a less clear method has been devised Jimmy Haigh Posted Oct 15 2014 at 3 40 AM Permalink Wow That is almost a coherent sentence from Mosh Steven Mosher Posted Oct 15 2014 at 1 48 PM Permalink thank heavy traffic Keith Sketchley Posted Oct 15 2014 at 12 41 PM Permalink Nick

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/13/millennial-quebec-tree-rings/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Third Warmest Arctic Century « Climate Audit
    the series including after the point when the thermometer records we substituted for the proxies thanks for any clarification MikeN Posted Oct 28 2014 at 2 13 PM Permalink Did MBH use both or is the filtering unknown Names R Passe Posted Oct 28 2014 at 9 50 AM Permalink ClimateBaller is a variation on CalvinBall from Calvin and Hobbes which is a game in which the rules are whatever the player wants them to be at any time i e made up as you go along http calvinandhobbes wikia com wiki Calvinball admkoz Posted Oct 28 2014 at 10 44 AM Permalink I normally just lurk since almost everything here is beyond me but what is this recurring upside down business Is it seriously being claimed that some people think a proxy indicates the exact opposite sign of temperature change than other people think How could such a controversy not totally invalidate the proxy as measuring anything at all in any way What am I missing Craig Loehle Posted Oct 28 2014 at 10 57 AM Permalink You are not missing anything Believe it or not Some proxies have been used based on a contaminated recent period where the contamination causes the proxy to appear to be warming when it is not necessarily so Others are used opportunistically depending on if the proxy locally correlates to temperature if it is negatively correlated in recent years it might be used upside down to indicate that the decrease of that proxy means warming even if other authors or other instances of the same proxy go the other way Like a fun house mirror Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 28 2014 at 12 45 PM Permalink Is it seriously being claimed that some people think a proxy indicates the exact opposite sign of temperature change than other people think In a word yes though I don t particularly like Craig s explanation as the Hvitarvatn problem is different The Hvitarvatn Iceland varve thickness series was used by PAGES2K authors with thick varves being interpreted as evidence of warmth However Gifford Miller the original author of the Hvitarvatn series had interpreted thick varves as evidence of the glacier being nearby cold in the Little Ice Age0 and thin varves as evidence of glacier being in retreat medieval and earlier Supporting this interpretation Miller reported ice rafted debris during the period of thickest varves in the early 19th century I had written several posts on Hvitarvatn even prior to PAGES2K and pointed out the discrepancy My concern over whether the fundamental question of whether thick varves are evidence of cold or warmth has been sneered at by my critics as obsessing with details However it is an important detail particularly when these varve series have been incorporated into most of the recent multiproxy reconstructions ljungqvist included without directly assessing the validity of whether thick varves indicate warmth or cold How could such a controversy not totally invalidate the proxy as measuring anything at all in any way This is one s first instinct but I ve actually found the Hvitarvatn series to be quite instructive in picturing regional climate The Hvitarvatn varve series and the Big Round Lake Baffin Islanf series have enough in common that I think that they show a common signal and can be used as building blocks in a coherent interpretation The problem for the PAGES and multiproxy crowd is that presently they are interpreted oppositely thick varves at Big Round Lake are interpreted as warmth So Baffin Island and Iceland by implication have symmetrically opposite climate histories I find the coinciding of ice rafted debris and thick varves to be a good signature I think that one has to take care about leads and lags since glaciers take time to respond to warmth So thick varves require both that a glacier be nearby and that it be receding because of warmth With care I think that there is information However the handling of this data in Kaufman s article is total nonsense admkoz Posted Oct 28 2014 at 1 22 PM Permalink I really appreciate your response esp since I suspect I speak for others of the lightly informed persuasion It still seems incredible to me that anyone could purport to plot a graph showing alleged temperature changes down to the tenth of a degree where there is this level of disagreement as to the underlying physical processes I imagine that the average lightly informed person thinks there is some equation relating the proxy to the actual change in temperature Clearly that isn t the case here Whether you are right or others are right the most it could possibly say is this year was warmer than last I don t see how if one party thinks it means warmth and the other party thinks it means cold either party can think they know exactly how much growth or shrinkage represents exactly 0 01 degree Celsius admkoz Posted Oct 28 2014 at 1 24 PM Permalink And thank heaven somebody is obsessing over details Don t really know how anybody thinks they have peer reviewed anything where that is a complaint Pat Frank Posted Oct 28 2014 at 2 18 PM Permalink You put your finger right on the problem admkoz with your inference that there be some equation relating the proxy to the actual change in temperature There isn t The whole field is a negligent substitution of ungrounded statistics for non existent physics I have a paper coming out pretty soon in Energy Environment discussing exactly that problem among others The entire consensus AGW climatology runs on the same neglect of detail when valid science as Steve McI has both shown and implied is all about the detail WillR Posted Oct 30 2014 at 12 51 AM Permalink Re admkoz Oct 28 13 22 I predict that this statement will become a classic Re Climate Science The whole field is a negligent substitution of ungrounded statistics for non existent physics Pat Frank just Sayin Energy Research is not much different barn E rubble Posted Oct 28 2014 at 7 27 PM Permalink RE Steve McIntyre My concern over whether the fundamental question of whether thick varves are evidence of cold or warmth has been sneered at by my critics as obsessing with details Has the varve thickness issue not been confirmed or denied by those scientists using shell fish bone isotope ratios for temp proxies I m among those that reasonably I think believe as far as varve thickness goes as per temp proxy it has to be one way or the other everywhere or not useful at all if that s not the case But then again as my wife points out all too often I ve been wrong before maxberan Posted Oct 29 2014 at 4 57 PM Permalink There surely has to be a way through this that allows commonsense judgments to reign but still preserves the integrity of statistical science I m thinking of an analogous situation where one would read such statements as Wednesday is the wettest day of the week perhaps bolstered with some spurious statistical significance test Inevitably the latter would be based on randomly drawn independent values and forget that one of the days has to be the wettest and there was no a priori or physical reasoning behind the hypothesis that it should be a Wednesday Statistical bona fides are preserved by noting that the sample is that of the largest of seven randomly drawn variates an entirely different population The same issue commonly arises with teleconnections where the time step lead time the sign and the location of the leading variable are again not prespecified or graced with any logic and is why so many teleconnections shine brightly for a while and fade into uselessness What might save statistics reputation in the current case would be to consider the multiproxy not to be just some random sample but test its significance as the post hoc maximum correlation of a large sample of possibilities with no a priori reason for preferring one over any other So if a multiproxy was a combination of 5 proxies then the post analysis chosen one could be evaluated against a sampling distribution of the maximum of 2 5 samples with zero correlation with the calibration set Kneel Posted Oct 30 2014 at 4 20 AM Permalink it has to be one way or the other everywhere or not useful at all Not in the speshul world of climate science You d also expect that all proxies of the same type would have to be selected a priori In climate science being speshul we can drop the inconvenient series post hoc and everyone is happy as long as your result supports the consensus This is because we already have a large body of previously approved evidence to show who s right Sadly the above appears to represent the state of the art in climate science in the early 21st century Alas MikeN Posted Oct 28 2014 at 11 28 AM Permalink They didn t say the 20th century is the warmest they said it was warmest in the 20th century Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 28 2014 at 12 16 PM Permalink Mike N said They didn t say the 20th century is the warmest they said it was warmest in the 20th century Hmmm re reading the exact context you are right that they are not talking about 100 year averages in context they are talking about 30 year averages but this doesn t help them as their statement is still incorrect as it stands Here s a longer context for the sentence Our best estimate of reconstructed temperature for ad 1971 2000 can be compared with all other consecutive 30 year periods within each regional reconstruction In Asia and Australasia reconstructed temperature was higher during 1971 2000 than any other 30 year period The Arctic was also warmest during the twentieth century although warmer during 1941 1970 than 1971 2000 according to our reconstruction In South America the ad 1971 2000 reconstructed temperature was similar to the record maximum in ad 1251 1280 Re stating their Arctic sentence in this vein they would have been entitled to say According to our reconstruction the Arctic was warmer during 1941 1970 than 1971 2000 with AD1941 1970 values being only slightly lower than the record maximum in AD381 410 and AD1971 2000 values being only slightly lower than in the medieval periods AD981 1010 and AD1011 1040 I ve added text to the main post to reflect this point The overarching point is that the changes were not changes around the edges but substantive changes MikeN Posted Oct 28 2014 at 2 20 PM Permalink I suspect it is an error but they said consecutive 30 year periods which refers to 60 years It has to be this interpretation because otherwise they have not looked at all consecutive 30 year periods You have 981 1040 warmer in this case as well Pekka Pirilä Posted Oct 29 2014 at 4 12 PM Permalink My interpretation of their use of consecutive is that they want to emphasize that the periods are not overlapping MikeN Posted Oct 30 2014 at 11 36 PM Permalink OK that makes sense They should have used a word like distinct or separate or nonoverlapping halken Posted Oct 29 2014 at 4 49 PM Permalink Are the proxies temperature sensitivity tested up against local historical measured temperatures to check correlation factor before they are used in a reconstruction robinedwards36 Posted Oct 29 2014 at 6 20 PM Permalink I ve downloaded the data that was linked via Steve s article and presume that it is the latest manifestation of McKay and Kaufman s work and that it represents the average that they have arrived at by their methods of treating the individual proxies Very interesting reading studying The essence of the data is I suppose their column headed tempanom ann rather than the 025 and 975 columns which presumably represent a confidence region I attempt to describe what I hope are the large scale features of the data leaving aside the highly technical aspects of individual proxies their orientation and their general reliability They are too complex for me to examine in a competent fashion If you ve made your own plots of this data column against age AD you will have noticed that they show what looks very like a hockey stick pattern for the last 500 or 600 years Prior to that there is a rather indeterminate period of generally rising temperatures What I recommend is first that you think in detail about the period of say 20 years before and after 1920 In particular focus on 1922 Analysis of the complete data by generating its cusum relative to its mean will show a very sharp discontinuity at 1922 just recognisable in the original data when you know where to look The cusum backed up by linear regressions on both sides of 1922 reveals that at that date there was a change point of 1 0C Since then up to the latest data 2000 there has been only minimal warming statistically significant at way below the 95 criterion approx 24 Two stable periods one having a highly significant and fairly steady decrease and the following one with a non significant trend are separated by a step of about 1 deg C by Prior to that dividing year the slope of the data is 0 0048C per decade with standard error 0 00071 probability well below 10E 6 There is no hockey stick The 1922 change occurs in many other Arctic data sets It is virtually inescapable though rarely noticed in the literature that I have read The data also disclose another time of sudden change 1258 at which date an abrupt change of about 0 4C occurred This perhaps associated with the real beginning of the LIA The mysterious 535 event is also captured in this data In the next period up to about 1000 a brief cold period occurred but for 200 years 750 to 950 the grand scale pattern is of stability and relative warmth followed by an abrupt change to a stable even warmer regime lasting to about 1050 These proposed interpretations of the Mann and Kaufman data can be readily verified by fitting regressions over the periods mentioned My belief is that it is not informative to fit a linear model over prolonged periods that are clearly graphically not linear Kenneth Fritsch Posted Oct 30 2014 at 6 09 PM Permalink In my study of the individual proxies that were used in the 2K Arctic temperature reconstruction I took to heart the suggestion that proxies can vary considerably because local temperatures and trends from which the proxy data is derived can vary over a considerable range I do some checking in the Arctic zone with some station data from KNMI and found that indeed there is a wide range of temperature changes in this zone and that it is most pronounce from progressing from longitude to longitude In fact when one does pair wise correlations of stations those stations separated over large longitude differences can actually have significant negative correlations The correlations noted here are all without detrending or taking first differences With these above difference in mind I looked at 2 stations in close proximity to each of the 57 individual proxy locations in the 2K Arctic reconstruction using the GISS adjusted mean temperatures from KNMI I did pair wise correlations for the period 1880 2007 for one of the station series for each proxy in Group 1 and the same for the other station series for each proxy in Group 2 I then compared those pair wise station series correlations with those for the proxy pair wise series from the same locations In effect the pair wise comparisons between proxy pairs are now taking into account the location differences One would expect from an array of 57 valid temperature proxies to see a reasonable correlation of these station to station and proxy to proxy correlations The results were not encouraging however with the Group 1 correlation of the station to station and proxy to proxy correlations having a correlation of r 0 017 with a p value 0 56 for 1107 station to station and proxy to proxy data points Group 2 showed nearly an identical result with r 0 017 and p value 0 55 for 1108 data points The scatter plots for both Group 1 and 2 are linked shown below It should be noted that the station and proxy data did not necessarily cover all the years between 1880 2007 but the average correlation was with 68 years of data A correlation with less than 5 years was not made Also to make the estimate conservative I used the absolute value of the correlations in order to avoid the issue of assigning the correct sign for a proxy Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 11 2014 at 1 27 PM Permalink In my continuing effort to better understand the temperature proxies used in the more prominent published reconstructions and in the context of the basic flaw of directly or indirectly selecting proxies based on the ex post fact measured correlation with the modern instrumental record I have recently been studying the Kaufman Arctic 2K A2K reconstruction individual proxies I have compared the proxy correlations with temperature and pair wise amongst the individual proxies It is easy to show that even the reasonably high and significant correlations between proxy and temperature series that exists for a small portion of the proxies does not necessarily produce a relationship whereby one could confidently expect that high correlation to be a useful indicator of decadal or longer trends It is these trends that after all are the critically important use made of the proxies in reconstructions For the

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/27/the-third-warmest-arctic-century/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Another Upside-Down PAGES2K Non-Corrigendum « Climate Audit
    uncritically include doubtful proxies If someone is going to go to the trouble of preparing a comprehensive review they should at least be more critical than original study authors Otherwise you could just as well write a list of original study references and be done with it Excluding rubbish proxies should be a consistent objective of every study if the original authors don t get it right and it is clear they sometimes don t then someone ought to Nick Stokes Posted Mar 19 2015 at 11 15 PM Permalink SteveF If someone is going to go to the trouble of preparing a comprehensive review they should at least be more critical than original study authors So would you prefer Kaufman to offer as an ex ante rule I ll read through all the papers in the area and decide which ones seem OK to me You seem to forget that it isn t just the author s judgment The papers have already been reviewed Salamano Posted Mar 19 2015 at 5 08 AM Permalink I m not sure this is that cut and dried nor that SM would say it is either After all for example when listening to a cockpit voice recorder or something there can be evidence that is clear and then later garbled but that s no reason to toss out the whole thing Like wise there could be a set of emails with evidence on it but perhaps not the 100 full conversation of all participants And other examples I do not think there s disagreement that a data stream with contamination is automatically all bad data However in this particular example it seems quite questionable to try to weave in and out of a range of contaminated samples to identify something that might remain reasonable especially if it s a proxy Yes obviously in the literature it becomes an originating author s judgment call one that specialists will later avail themselves but it can also be one that specialists can have criticize set aside too It would be a shame if what determines your approach is what the data looks like after you make your decision thomaswfuller2 Posted Mar 18 2015 at 2 08 AM Permalink Have you ever endorsed proxies or made a list of those you like Might be useful Jeff Id Posted Mar 18 2015 at 5 51 AM Permalink I know you are asking Steve but there aren t any good proxies for determining temp that I know of If there were any good ones they have probably been so contaminated by scientists choosing preferred ones and pre filtering that I doubt we would ever really know Even those good ones would probably only be good enough to make the most general claims like the trees were happier in this timeframe than in an immediately adjacent one The data is not of good quality but it would be awesome if it were What a cool window into the past Richard Drake Posted Mar 18 2015 at 6 21 AM Permalink Hasn t the problem been that through Mannomatics they ve been a cool window into the past all through Jimmy Haigh Posted Mar 18 2015 at 6 41 AM Permalink Even the old thermometer readings have been altered Matt Skaggs Posted Mar 18 2015 at 9 16 AM Permalink Jeff Id wrote there aren t any good proxies for determining temp There aren t any good ways to verify that a proxy is adequately tracking temperature over long time intervals without resorting to circular reasoning ex ante selection and or unsupported assumptions Some proxies show impressive fidelity to local temperature over periods of a few decades William Larson Posted Mar 18 2015 at 6 39 PM Permalink I am not really up on the history of temperature measurement but it is probably sufficient to say that the behavior of a column of mercury in a capillary thermometer was originally DEFINED to be the measurement of temperature and then other measurement methods such as thermocouples were calibrated with respect to the mercury column I mean duh that s the only way to do it So now how well do tree rings lake sediments etc calibrate against mercury thermometers Well they do NOT calibrate straight up if you get my drift Maybe if we could collect rigorous data on each of these proxies for a few more hundred years during the mercury thermometer period MAYBE a calibration relationship might emerge no assumptions and no data manipulation or data neglecting required Maybe Wake me when that happens Coldish Posted Mar 18 2015 at 5 19 AM Permalink Thank you for the link to the NSF s definitions of academic misconduct They define plagiarism as the appropriation of another person s ideas processes results or words without giving appropriate credit I can believe that Kaufman and McKay have appropriated your ideas can you actually prove it Or should I be asking them whether they can prove that they haven t done so kim Posted Mar 18 2015 at 11 42 AM Permalink Pledjurism inna litchurchur Time for tea with the Dean joe Posted Mar 18 2015 at 7 37 AM Permalink Kaufman and McKay recently and quietly issued an Arctic2K correction file at NOAA xls here that concedes yet another upside down series previously pointed out to them at Climate Audit Steve do you keep a list of the papers withdrawn and corrigendums issued due to your work at CA Svend Ferdinandsen Posted Mar 18 2015 at 3 10 PM Permalink If they use matrix operations of whatever sort they themselves can combine the series upside down or maybe even sideways so does it matter how they turn them in the input Please Steve can you put some light on this matter I am not expert in the matter but have played a little with http bluebit gr matrix calculator to see what a SVD did Steve the PAICO method used in the Arctic2K

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/17/another-upside-down-pages2k-non-corrigendum/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Balascio et al and the Baffin Island Inconsistency « Climate Audit
    cent level of confidence Do you know whether anything like this is reported for other Arctic glaciers ianl8888 Posted Dec 10 2015 at 3 51 AM Permalink Reply that they now used the very similar Hvitarvatn and Big Round Lake series in opposite orientations Oh dear words are inadequate opluso Posted Dec 10 2015 at 10 05 AM Permalink Reply From the Balascio et al abstract in many Northern Hemisphere regions glacier advances of the past few hundred years were the most extensive and destroyed the geomorphic evidence of ice growth and retreat during the past several thousand years It would appear that they confirm the existence of the Little Ice Age Craig Loehle Posted Dec 10 2015 at 10 57 AM Permalink Reply It is ok for inconsistencies to exist but if so don t use that data in a reconstruction Any reconstruction that does use it should show with and without as a sensitivity test Since glaciers can be affected by both temperature and precipitation like some other proxy we might have heard of there is an essential indeterminacy in the signal In particular some of the lake sediment indices seem to me to have essential ambiguities that have yet to be resolved I personally prefer not to build my house on quicksand kaganovitch Posted Dec 10 2015 at 11 03 AM Permalink Reply a history that is directly contracted should be a history that is directly contradicted Follow the Money Posted Dec 10 2015 at 3 38 PM Permalink Reply Figure 5a not shown above is the Kulusuk Glacier Size record There is a noticeable gap between the endpoint of the data depicted and the end of the time line unlike for Figures 5b c and d At sec 3 2 it is stated Ages are presented in calendar years before AD 1950 BP unless otherwise presented The 5a data does look like it ends around 1950 Why 1950 And why should this glacier study have any relevance for findings about climate after 1950 opluso Posted Dec 10 2015 at 5 52 PM Permalink Reply Using 1950 is just a research convention used to establish the starting date since years ago before present would literally change its start date daily Follow the Money Posted Dec 10 2015 at 9 53 PM Permalink Reply Why is 1950 the research convention Why not 2000 or 2010 Why omit the data at all The paper s abstract makes a couple of claims for 20th century warming Did the paper s authors write the abstract Should not the authors issue a demand for the abstract to be corrected or withdrawn Check out Fig 5a it looks like the warming flattened out in the early twentieth and may have been decreasing even until don t know the data ends Follow the Money Posted Dec 12 2015 at 4 49 PM Permalink Following up the main body of the article very briefly mentions 20th century warming at p 1594 The overall trend reveals a small and very gradual glacier expansion after 0 7 ka followed by 20th century retreat which resembles the overall trend in Arctic temperatures over the past 2ka Kaufman et al 2009 Compare two paragraphs later Both the Kulusuk and Langjokull glaciers appear to have advanced in at last two phases at ca AD 1450 1630 and ca AD 1700 1930 So the glacier was advancing up to 1930 that s in the twentieth century More the data at fig 5a shows a big drop around 1930 indicating the end of the glacier broke off or some other explanation rather than the drop was caused by increasing temps a few hundreds of a degree per annum After this quick drop the post 1930 20th century trend shows no possible correlative evidence of steady warming The data ends about say 1975 I previously said the depicted data line in the graph stops about 1950 There still is substantial missing data the paper s coring was done in AD 2010 and I don t see how the data or the paper itself can correctly claim a 20th century retreat in this glacier consistent with a posited actual or fake upward trend in 20th c temps tty Posted Dec 15 2015 at 10 23 AM Permalink Why is 1950 the research convention Why not 2000 or 2010 Historical reasons Radiocarbon dating was invented c 1950 AD so to avoid inconsistencies between older and newer determinations the present has stayed put at 1950 AD And it is likely to remain so Going back and changing hundreds of thousands of dates would be a daunting task tty Posted Dec 15 2015 at 4 08 PM Permalink Thanks For the carbon isotopes I know there is a 1950 concern about above ground nuclear weapons testing contamination I suppose annular periodicity effects can be eyeballed in the subject relatively easily for recent decades Still the paper makes claims about 20th century warming and depicts data after 1950 I don t think the post 1950 data is an instrumental record attached dynam01 Posted Dec 14 2015 at 12 15 PM Permalink Reply Reblogged this on I Didn t Ask To Be a Blog Caligula Jones Posted Dec 14 2015 at 4 20 PM Permalink Reply Well this has reached the Toronto Star http www thestar com news insight 2015 12 14 climate change didnt force vikings to abandon greenland study suggests html feel free to go an debate the warmunists there I m tired of it Keith Sketcley Posted Dec 20 2015 at 12 11 PM Permalink Reply I think the total picture of Vikings in Greenland includes some theories that if correct would add up to an unviable society but researchers and news media like hype not perspective Climate deterioration is a well supported factor But changes in trading opportunities were likely a challenge alternative source of ivory fewer fish in the north Atlantic nearby reducing visits by fishing boats for supplies and repairs Changes in societies

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/09/balascio-et-al-and-the-big-round-lake-nettle/?replytocom=765197 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Balascio et al and the Baffin Island Inconsistency « Climate Audit
    the one per cent level of confidence Do you know whether anything like this is reported for other Arctic glaciers ianl8888 Posted Dec 10 2015 at 3 51 AM Permalink Reply that they now used the very similar Hvitarvatn and Big Round Lake series in opposite orientations Oh dear words are inadequate opluso Posted Dec 10 2015 at 10 05 AM Permalink Reply From the Balascio et al abstract in many Northern Hemisphere regions glacier advances of the past few hundred years were the most extensive and destroyed the geomorphic evidence of ice growth and retreat during the past several thousand years It would appear that they confirm the existence of the Little Ice Age Craig Loehle Posted Dec 10 2015 at 10 57 AM Permalink Reply It is ok for inconsistencies to exist but if so don t use that data in a reconstruction Any reconstruction that does use it should show with and without as a sensitivity test Since glaciers can be affected by both temperature and precipitation like some other proxy we might have heard of there is an essential indeterminacy in the signal In particular some of the lake sediment indices seem to me to have essential ambiguities that have yet to be resolved I personally prefer not to build my house on quicksand kaganovitch Posted Dec 10 2015 at 11 03 AM Permalink Reply a history that is directly contracted should be a history that is directly contradicted Follow the Money Posted Dec 10 2015 at 3 38 PM Permalink Reply Figure 5a not shown above is the Kulusuk Glacier Size record There is a noticeable gap between the endpoint of the data depicted and the end of the time line unlike for Figures 5b c and d At sec 3 2 it is stated Ages are presented in calendar years before AD 1950 BP unless otherwise presented The 5a data does look like it ends around 1950 Why 1950 And why should this glacier study have any relevance for findings about climate after 1950 opluso Posted Dec 10 2015 at 5 52 PM Permalink Reply Using 1950 is just a research convention used to establish the starting date since years ago before present would literally change its start date daily Follow the Money Posted Dec 10 2015 at 9 53 PM Permalink Reply Why is 1950 the research convention Why not 2000 or 2010 Why omit the data at all The paper s abstract makes a couple of claims for 20th century warming Did the paper s authors write the abstract Should not the authors issue a demand for the abstract to be corrected or withdrawn Check out Fig 5a it looks like the warming flattened out in the early twentieth and may have been decreasing even until don t know the data ends Follow the Money Posted Dec 12 2015 at 4 49 PM Permalink Following up the main body of the article very briefly mentions 20th century warming at p 1594 The overall trend reveals a small and very gradual glacier expansion after 0 7 ka followed by 20th century retreat which resembles the overall trend in Arctic temperatures over the past 2ka Kaufman et al 2009 Compare two paragraphs later Both the Kulusuk and Langjokull glaciers appear to have advanced in at last two phases at ca AD 1450 1630 and ca AD 1700 1930 So the glacier was advancing up to 1930 that s in the twentieth century More the data at fig 5a shows a big drop around 1930 indicating the end of the glacier broke off or some other explanation rather than the drop was caused by increasing temps a few hundreds of a degree per annum After this quick drop the post 1930 20th century trend shows no possible correlative evidence of steady warming The data ends about say 1975 I previously said the depicted data line in the graph stops about 1950 There still is substantial missing data the paper s coring was done in AD 2010 and I don t see how the data or the paper itself can correctly claim a 20th century retreat in this glacier consistent with a posited actual or fake upward trend in 20th c temps tty Posted Dec 15 2015 at 10 23 AM Permalink Why is 1950 the research convention Why not 2000 or 2010 Historical reasons Radiocarbon dating was invented c 1950 AD so to avoid inconsistencies between older and newer determinations the present has stayed put at 1950 AD And it is likely to remain so Going back and changing hundreds of thousands of dates would be a daunting task tty Posted Dec 15 2015 at 4 08 PM Permalink Thanks For the carbon isotopes I know there is a 1950 concern about above ground nuclear weapons testing contamination I suppose annular periodicity effects can be eyeballed in the subject relatively easily for recent decades Still the paper makes claims about 20th century warming and depicts data after 1950 I don t think the post 1950 data is an instrumental record attached dynam01 Posted Dec 14 2015 at 12 15 PM Permalink Reply Reblogged this on I Didn t Ask To Be a Blog Caligula Jones Posted Dec 14 2015 at 4 20 PM Permalink Reply Well this has reached the Toronto Star http www thestar com news insight 2015 12 14 climate change didnt force vikings to abandon greenland study suggests html feel free to go an debate the warmunists there I m tired of it Keith Sketcley Posted Dec 20 2015 at 12 11 PM Permalink Reply I think the total picture of Vikings in Greenland includes some theories that if correct would add up to an unviable society but researchers and news media like hype not perspective Climate deterioration is a well supported factor But changes in trading opportunities were likely a challenge alternative source of ivory fewer fish in the north Atlantic nearby reducing visits by fishing boats for supplies and repairs

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/09/balascio-et-al-and-the-big-round-lake-nettle/?replytocom=765199 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • holocene « Climate Audit
    the MWP recollection claiming that Nobody in 1995 would have been worried about getting rid of the MWP although they might have wanted to dispel the idea the Lamb schematic was Truth They had years before abandoned the schematic Anyone citing By Steve McIntyre Posted in IPCC Uncategorized Also tagged figure 7c ipcc 1990 lamb Comments 161 Arctic Driftwood Re Visited Aug 7 2011 2 30 PM Both Anthony Watts and Judy Curry have covered a new Science article by Svend Funder et al entitled 10 000 Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Variability View from the Beach SI here Funder et al argued that driftwood travelled in sea ice across the Arctic Ocean during periods of less sea ice than at present and was By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged arctic driftwood dyke funder Comments 19 Warm Pool and the Arabian Sea Jan 10 2007 12 33 PM It s a dangerous practice to let your eye get teased into visual comparisons but I was struck by a comparison between the G Bulloides series from the Arabian Sea which is an upwelling proxy and Stott s Warm Pool SST proxies By Steve McIntyre Posted in Moberg 2005 Ocean sediment Also tagged 73KA arabian sea bulloides MD98 2181 Comments 2 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/holocene/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •