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".
  • tingley « Climate Audit
    124 Tingley and Huybers 2009 Oct 23 2009 9 18 PM David Appell has two trailers here and here for his Sci American article Oct 24 url on a new hockey stick article by Tingley and Huybers not yet published but said to have been submitted Tingley s website contains two submissions discussing Bayesian methods but only one submission Tingley and Huybers 2009 url h t By Steve McIntyre Posted in General Also tagged huybers Comments 127 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 Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013

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


  • More Moss from Miller « Climate Audit
    2013 had commented on this question If there is any difference then this further increases the question of how one has Holocene moss growing at 1438m at B226v while a tiny covering of ice pesists at nearby B231v BTW I notice that you slagged me at your own blog on this topic but did not discuss or link to my actual post on the topic or report my present and past favorable comments on Miller s approach BTW do you know what happened to Thompson s 50000 year old moss It has somewhat fallen out of view since his 2005 news release Unfortunately Thompson has a poor record of not reporting bad results e g Bona Churchill and Thompson s failure to report further on the 50000 year old in articles on the Holocene moss at least raises the possibility that there was some hair on the dating of the ancient Quelccaya moss Not saying that there is but when one cannot rely on authors to disclose adverse results one has to account for a wider variety of possibilities So if you can get any news on the ancient Quelccaya moss it would be appreciated Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 27 2013 at 9 56 AM Permalink Another important variable on Baffin Island is the change in ice elevation over the Holocene The location of the present samples is near the Penny Ice Cap which was described by David Fisher a knowledgeable Canadian ice specialist here During the LGM Baffin Island glaciation was included in the Foxe Dome In the early Holocene Fisher argues that the glacier elevation was considerably higher than at present and was lowered through the high summer insolation of the early Holocene There is extensive specialist literature on glaciation history on Baffin Island a topic that has interested specialists for many years It seems that ancient relicts from ice recession on Baffin Island have been regularly reported in specialist literature For example at the Barnes Ice Cap in northern Baffin Island Pleistocene ice is apparently exposed through ice cap recession It would be interesting to test the ice in the B231v ice cap and test to see if it can be classed as Pleistocene rather than Holocene ice Because of the very large changes on Baffin Island through the early Holocene including a major reduction of glacier elevation it is not evident that the recent exposures can in themselves constitute a comparison of Early Holocene and present temperatures though they definitely show a resumption of the glacier drawdown that was interrupted by the Little Ice Age richard telford Posted Oct 27 2013 at 11 21 AM Permalink The age of melting ice at the different ice caps will be dependent on their slope aspect and situation which will affect the amount of ice accumulated during the late Holocene and the melt rate in the current warm period I ve written more on my blog It would be amazingly improbable for Eemian moss to appear from all the margins of all the icecaps simultaneously But let s wait three years to have a PhD student model the fine details of the icecaps before making a declaration that the appearance of Eemian mosses indicates a warming climate Miller et al imply that moss grows around the glaciers but take some time to colonise In order to avoid age bias from re colonization and regrowth we restrict our sampling to rooted moss within 1 m of the ice margin I slagged you off at my blog because you posted a comment at WUWT that was irrelevant and misleading the old carbon effect in aquatic mosses has no impact on the radiocarbon dates of terrestrial mosses Further you didn t take the opportunity to tell Watts that he was writing nonsense I somehow don t think that he would threaten to ban you nor would the hysterical mob he attracts attack and some of the readers might think I didn t link to this post as I wrote my piece before I was aware you were going to write anything I know nothing about Quelccaya I don t follow South American glaciology closely thisisnotgoodtogo Posted Oct 27 2013 at 11 53 AM Permalink Telford said But let s wait three years to have a PhD student model the fine details of the icecaps before making a declaration that the appearance of Eemian mosses indicates a warming climate Oh is that the conclusion which was made Quite reserved eh Richard Telford Phil Posted Oct 27 2013 at 1 46 PM Permalink Re richard telford Oct 27 11 21 Preservation of organic matter from the Eemian is to my knowledge unprecedented Suspecting dating issues is perfectly reasonable It is misleading to state that the distinction is between terrestrial and aquatic mosses more correctly the issue is with whether an organism obtained its carbon from a reservoir that is depleted in C14 If the Eemian samples were spread out over much of Baffin Island I would agree with you that a reservoir effect would be unlikely but these samples are fairly tightly clustered With all due respect I would suggest that dating issues aren t completely off the table richard telford Posted Oct 27 2013 at 3 00 PM Permalink Eemian organic matter is widespread Eemian organic matter form under ice caps much less so because there is little Pleistocene ice exposed and only some of that is cold based It is in no way misleading to make a distinction between aquatic and terrestrial mosses There is a widely known and well understood mechanism for incorporating old carbon into aquatic mosses Terrestrial mosses get their carbon from the atmosphere so have no source of old carbon unless they are growing on a volcanic fumeroles or hotspring out gassing CO2 Neither of which apply to Baffin Island It only takes a few seconds to check whether the moss tested is terrestrial or not Further even if by magic the terrestrial moss used old carbon such that half of the carbon was old The date would be one half life too old so the sample would now date 38kBP rather than 44kBP This would not change any of the conclusions So whereas it is entirely reasonable to first think of potential dating problems it was the first thing I did it should only take a few seconds to realise that they are implausible tty Posted Oct 27 2013 at 2 12 PM Permalink Preservation of organic matter from the Eemian is to my knowledge unprecedented Not at all organic material e g peat tree stumps pollen organic lake deposits from the Eemian is quite common and widespread However using a few odd tufts of moss to date glacier advance recession is a quite shaky method Using uncovered material for dating glacier advance recession requires that it is definitely still in growth position This is easy enough to verify for e g tree stumps but much less so for loosely rooted plants like mosses For example an ice cap may have formed after the end of the Eemian that was cold based i e frozen to the ground Such ice is non erosional At some later time e g the warm early Holocene the ice cap might change to being warm based and start eroding the ground it is lying on in which case the eemian mosses may be far from their original position richard telford Posted Oct 27 2013 at 2 39 PM Permalink The moss is rooted The plants are in situ They have not moved from where they grew and are so fragile that they would rapidly turn to dust if moved The idea that they could be moved by a warm based glacier is ridiculous the moss would be ground to a pulp tty Posted Oct 28 2013 at 6 41 AM Permalink The idea that they could be moved by a warm based glacier is ridiculous the moss would be ground to a pulp Not necessarily Finding fragile identifiable fossils that have been moved by glacial action is not uncommon at least in northern Europe and I don t think American glaciers are really that different richard telford Posted Oct 28 2013 at 12 19 PM Permalink Fragile material in a glacier sure Fragile material under glacier Warm based glaciers grind rocks into clay do you really think moss stands a chance In any event it would no longer be rooted JJ Posted Oct 30 2013 at 8 23 AM Permalink Richard It would be amazingly improbable for Eemian moss to appear from all the margins of all the icecaps simultaneously The same mechanism that could cause Eemian moss to appear from under the same cap at the same time as younger moss scuttles the logic behind the warmest in 120ky claim Essentially you claim that there are two melts A previous cooler melt at temperature X and a current warmer melt at say temperature X 6 You argue that there exist areas that previously melted at temperature X allowing Eemian moss to be replaced by fresh Holocene moss at those sites You also argue that after refreezing some of those sites stubbornly refused to melt the next time they saw temperature X Micro climate variables like slope aspect situation etc create a circumstance that allows them to keep their ice thru temp X to X 1 or X 2 etc Only now that they have reached temperature X 6 are they melting releasing their trapped Holocene moss at the same time some adjacent sites are melting for the first time in 120ky to expose their Eemian mosses OK Plausible However accepting the existence of sites that may sometimes melt at temp X and at other times may hold onto their ice thru temp X to melt at X 6 also renders plausible the scenario wherein the warmer melt event happens first Perhaps there was an X 5 temp event 3kya Those occasionally stubborn sites that can hang on to their ice up to X 6 keep their Eemian mosses safely frozen Now at temp X they melt exposing their Eemian mosses at the same time younger mosses are being exposed at adjacent sites that have melted at temp X or lower before Both scenarios are consistent with the observations and with the sketchy assumptions regarding exposed moss survivability C14 reliability max 70M ice capacity unvarying general temp melt response etc richard telford Posted Oct 30 2013 at 9 22 AM Permalink You also argue that after refreezing some of those sites stubbornly refused to melt the next time they saw temperature X This is NOT what I am arguing What I am am arguing is that the icecap is in a non equilibrium state and that the survival of late Holocene ice is a transient state For example areas that accumulated lots of ice in the late Holocene will take longer to melt out than areas that accumulated less ice JJ Posted Oct 30 2013 at 9 54 AM Permalink Richard You also argue that after refreezing some of those sites stubbornly refused to melt the next time they saw temperature X This is NOT what I am arguing Isn t it What I am am arguing is that the icecap is in a non equilibrium state and that the survival of late Holocene ice is a transient state Are you arguing that all temperatures are held and trends do not reverse until every ice cap has reached equilibrium For example areas that accumulated lots of ice in the late Holocene will take longer to melt out than areas that accumulated less ice For corollary example the same thing could have happened during an earlier period when higher temps than current were reached Preserving some ice over Eemian moss lichens Exposing other moss to degradation and replacement with the younger C14 enhanced model Simultaneous exposure of Eemian and Holocence mosses complicates the historic temp analysis in ways that are inconvenient to your chosen narrative Not that it is necessarily wrong just that it is not necessarily correct daved46 Posted Oct 27 2013 at 10 20 AM Permalink Re richard telford Oct 27 04 40 Well this is better than your previous snarky remark but it still doesn t show that temperatures are higher now than they were earlier We ve melted back to where the ice was or rather wasn t 44k ago in some areas but as I said before temperatures may be somewhat lower as long as they re high enough to allow melting sublimation And the same goes for intermediate accumulation decumulation cycles richard telford Posted Oct 27 2013 at 10 59 AM Permalink The icecap can only shrink when it is not in equilibrium with climate Once it is in equilibrium it will stop shrinking Not once in the last 44ka was it warm enough to melt the ice that has now melted ian005 Posted Oct 27 2013 at 12 00 PM Permalink Richard That comment is not actually consistent with your previous points which is that once a certain temperature is reached the ice begins to melt The characteristics of that melt however are impacted by a number of other variables Some areas will have accumulated more ice during the Late Holocene because of the geometry of the ice cap and so will take longer to melt out The next comment Brian s also suggests that soot may have had an impact There undoubtedly are other confounding variables The fact that this ice didn t melt during previous warm periods does not by itself provide evidence that it is warmer now than at any time in the past 44 000 years which is the implication of your comment ATheoK Posted Oct 27 2013 at 12 18 PM Permalink Ice melts at 0 C or 32 F All it takes are temperatures above the freezing point Technically a combination of albedo sunlight precipitation and temperature enables the ice to melt or accumulate Maximum or higher temperatures are not revealed in this process Only that a continuous series of sufficient temperatures above freezing has occurred inclusive of albedo and precipitation effects As long as melt conditions outweigh freeze conditions the ice cap will continue to melt away Again high or maximum temperatures are not evidenced by ice cap melting richard telford Posted Oct 27 2013 at 3 15 PM Permalink It would be most cunning to read something about glacial mass balance before writing about it When it is warm ice melts faster and the glacier will retreat until it reaches a new equilibrium between accumulation and ablation The warmer the climate the more the glacier must retreat if accumulation remains constant Therefore there is a clear relationship between glacier size and temperature Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 27 2013 at 4 19 PM Permalink Richard you say Not once in the last 44ka was it warm enough to melt the ice that has now melted This is not established from the present facts Nor is it consistent with much other information about the Holocene Contrary to your statement it would have been warm enough in the Early Holocene to melt the ice that has now melted if the Early Holocene ice configuration matched the modern ice configuration However the modern configuration is much depleted from the Early Holocene largely because of the melting that took place in the Holocene The warmth was used to melt the many meters of ice that then was superimposed on the ice that is now exposed which remained in inventory so to speak Think of a Last In First Out inventory it s an accounting concept but exactly applicable Melting during the early and mid Holocene resulted in the removal of over 100 meters of ice in this area Cooling in the later Holocene resulted appears to have stabilized the inventory at much reduced levels followed by accumulation of glacier inventory in the Little Ice Age This subsequent accumulation is now being eroded faster in some places than in others For the sake of argument it seems plausible that the late Holocene accumulation near B221v was less than the 135 other sites and has wasted away more quickly during the modern warm period so that we re now seeing ice in this area more or less as it was in the later Holocene when over 100 meters had eroded but there was still something left The erosion of an ice cap takes time and on Baffin Island early and mid Holocene melting didnt finish the job That melting has resumed doesn t show that present temperatures are warmer than early Holocene temperatures only that melting at this site but not others has now continued the erosion that was going on during the Holocene I m not saying this just to be argumentative this seems obvious to me richard telford Posted Oct 27 2013 at 4 29 PM Permalink The ice cap has a maximum possible thickness of 70m limited by the geometry of the mountain top Ice flow over the edge of the mountain top stops the ice getting any thicker This is explained in the paper 70m of ice can be melted to the current size in 100 years at the current melt rate of 0 5m year So if there was a century in the early Holocene with climate warmer than modern moss now being exposed would have been destroyed This thin ice cap is very different from the Greenland Ice Sheet where the enormous thickness gives it a very slow response time and the type of process you are suggesting can operate Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 27 2013 at 4 58 PM Permalink So if there was a century in the early Holocene with climate warmer than modern moss now being exposed would have been destroyed This doesn t follow As noted before there is plenty of evidence of a very warm Early Holocene which melted lots and lots of Pleistocene ice The melting of Pleistocene ice took thousands of years Even after several thousand years of melting here is a map Dyke 2004 of Baffin Island glaciation at 5500 BP much more extensive than at present As an analogy tet s suppose that you have a situation where daytime temperature is hot but nighttime is below freezing let s suppose that you leave a large block of ice outside and much of melts during the day but there s still some left when night arrives and it stops melting Let s suppose that it starts melting the next morning as it warms up That doesn t prove that the morning temperature were hotter than the previous noon and afternoon temperatures YOur reasoning on this point seems very defective to me richard telford Posted Oct 27 2013 at 5 49 PM Permalink The extensive remnant Laurentide ice in the Early Holocene is irrelevant as these ice caps were independent of the Laurantide ice sheet From the paper Surface elevation contours of the continental Laurentide Ice Sheet LIS show that all four ice caps with pre Holocene dated plants were above the surface of the LIS at its last glacial maximum LGM 21 ka Fig 1 These sites thus supported only local ice caps then as now Your analogy on a block of ice melting is painfully flawed as you do not consider accumulation If a constant amount of ice shavings are added to the block each night the block will grow when day are cool but shrink when days are warm Steve On your first point I ll re read the article but I cannot believe that the authors are seriously suggesting that B223v was merely a little pimple at the LGM As to your second comment yes but so what Resumption of melting in the morning doesn t tell you whether the temperature in the morning is higher than the previous afternoon This seems so obvious to me that your resistance to the point suggests to me that we re talking at cross purposes somewhere Another example Let s suppose that you start out with an inheritance and spend like a drunken sailor for a few years until you don t have much left You spend more wisely for a while and try to live off the interest but after a while you start falling behind and depleting the capital to unprecedented levels That doesn t mean that your current spending is greater than spending in your spree days only that your capital had already been depleted bmcburney Posted Oct 27 2013 at 7 50 PM Permalink The icecap can only shrink when it is not in equilibrium with climate Once it is in equilibrium it will stop shrinking Not once in the last 44ka was it warm enough to melt the ice that has now melted This certainly seems logical and I imagine that for most purposes excluding consideration of the soot issue higher temps generally means more melt But do we really know that the pattern of melting is constant from melt to melt Doesn t it seem possible that for example 1000 years ago there was more melting on the west side of a particular ice cap but less on the south side while 2000 years ago at about the same temps there was more on the east side but less on the north If I dug under the ice and found moss from 1000 years ago would that prove that present temps are clearly colder than the MWP How likely is it that ALL moss from the MWP has been exposed in the current melt Wouldn t you need to know the age of a significant sample of the moss now covered by ice before drawing any conclusions from the fact that some very old moss has been exposed in the current melt daved46 Posted Oct 28 2013 at 9 11 AM Permalink Re richard telford Oct 27 10 59 Certainly the temperature will be warmer than the average climate at present insofar as an average climate can be defined over a 45k period but that s a far cry from being unprecedented I m not sure why you re dodging and weaving about the point but if you have ice remaining from a previous ice age then the fact that more ice has been deposited over the old ice and and around the margins of an ice cap when there s a cold but not ice age period should be a given When there s later a warmer or longer period of warmth eventually some of this post ice age PIA ice will melt revealing any moss or whatever which had lived before the PIA ice was deposited It doesn t matter whether some of this organic material is now being revealed because of warming over a long period of time or because of unprecedented warmth over a short period of time But I see Steve Mc is saying much the same thing so I ll leave it at that Ed Barbar Posted Nov 1 2013 at 6 28 PM Permalink So if there was a century in the early Holocene with climate warmer than modern moss now being exposed would have been destroyed This doesn t follow As you repeat it matters whether the icecap is in equilibrium Glaciers retreat when additions subtractions 0 Newly exposed moss indicates the glacier was retreating at the age of the moss But it doesn t tell you if it was snowing a lot and the temperatures were really high or that it wasn t snowing at all and the ice was melting or that other thing ice does ATheoK Posted Oct 27 2013 at 4 29 PM Permalink Which changes my comment not a whit even with your poor answer Again slower so cunning people can absorb There is no evidence of high higher highest or maximum temperatures in the ice cap s melting or exposing moss Only that temperatures were above the freezing point for sufficient time Brian Klappstein Posted Oct 27 2013 at 8 04 AM Permalink Another parameter to consider is the dust soot content of the ice One would think that as the ice melted some dust soot runs off with the meltwater but some stays with the ice refreezing in winter and gradually the albedo the ice cap goes down over time as the dust becomes more concentrated Thus the icecap will adsorb more sunlight and melt faster irrespective of the summertime temperature changes Steve interesting point Even on the most aggressive interpretation of CO2 forcing the increase in forcing is much much lower than the Holocene summer insolation forcing JJA insolation in the Holocene optimum was more than 40 wm 2 higher than at present Dave Posted Oct 27 2013 at 11 06 AM Permalink Am I missing something here Surely there s a fundamental problem with claiming the warmest in 44 kiloyears Either we must be looking at a fairly steady increase over 44 000 years putting the start of the warming well before the start of the industrial revolution or we must be looking at an absurd spike in the last century that is not reflected in any temperature records Either way the claim is prima facie absurd Is it actually satire perhaps denniswingo Posted Oct 27 2013 at 1 34 PM Permalink Isostatic rebound here What is this location s true altitude now compared to earlier dates of moss michael hart Posted Nov 2 2013 at 9 14 AM Permalink That was one of my questions It also leads to the question would isostatic rebound affect the flow rate of local ocean currents Or their direction Or their salinity You need Joules to melt ice That is heat fluxes not just temperature But how does moss help measure heat fluxes Duster Posted Nov 2 2013 at 8 06 PM Permalink In fact joules can be delivered directly by sunlight leading to sublimation rather than melting No need for anything bit protracted sunny days to gradually erase ice xanonymousblog Posted Oct 27 2013 at 4 16 PM Permalink Would be nice to have orientation compass on google image Slope facing the north pole will be cooler Besides that the topography will effect climate with regards to wind I also doubt the claim about rapid decomposition These environments are cold have very high carbon to nitrogen ratios organic peat probably highly acidic no animals etc They have all the ingredients for non decomposition The only requirement for the moss to grow is no ice Steve it s not reasonable to contest everything Miller and coauthors have observe these sites for a number of years I have no trouble accepting their observation that the moss rapidly degrades once exposed Ian Posted Oct 27 2013 at 4 31 PM Permalink I simply refer you to http en wikipedia org wiki Glacier Girl A fantastic story of survival and 50 years 260ft of accrecetion Dodgy Geezer Posted Oct 27 2013 at 4 46 PM Permalink What this study seems to show is that Miller has found 135 sites where the temperature was warmer than now around 1000 years ago and 4 sites where it was warmer around 44 000 years ago If we are to try to extrapolate from this data to the global temperature it seems to me that he has shown that most things were warmer 1000 years ago and that there may have been a very small percentage of places where something unusual was going on Which doesn t seem surprising gnomish Posted Oct 27 2013 at 5 47 PM Permalink Ice is formed much much faster than it melts or sublimates in nature A single snowstorm can dump so much snow in 8 hours that takes weeks of warmth to melt it I d suggest that 100 years of cold might lay down enough ice that it might take 1000 years of warm temperatures to melt it away This is a product of water s surface exposure virtually infinite during creation of snow and reduced to 2 dimensional surface during melt or sublimation self insulation albedo and perhaps many other factors There is every reason to disregard glacier terminus as a proxy for temperature Bob Koss Posted Oct 27 2013 at 5 49 PM Permalink C3Headlines has a link to a list of studies of the medieval warm period and another link listing studies of the last 10 000 years All which claim arctic temperatures had warmer periods than present day http www c3headlines com 2013 10 extreme cherry picking science exposed in newest alarmist arctic climate study moss picking debunked html This new study by Miller et al is an attempt to overturn what was thought to be known concerning earlier temperatures and promote present arctic temperatures to the highest point in the last 44 000 years based on an astounding four moss samples For the authors of previous studies claiming higher temperatures than present earlier in the last 10 000 years I see three possible positions for them to take 1 Previous authors step forward and graciously accept the Miller study has thoroughly refuted a good chunk of their work 2 They publicly argue against the validity of Miller study 3 They simply ignore the Miller study and let it be used to claim unprecedented high temperatures in the present It will be interesting to see how the authors of those prior studies react David L Hagen Posted Oct 27 2013 at 6 00 PM Permalink Question re the expansion indicating a decline in temperature Can we necessarily infer that What if the expansion was dominated by a change in precipitation that dominated temperature variation e g the Antarctic ice cap is currently at a record high over the last 30 years satellite period while we are allegedly at corresponding global temperature high jim2 Posted Oct 27 2013 at 6 20 PM Permalink Do ice cores of the ice caps exist to agument the study Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 27 2013 at 9 23 PM Permalink there are ice cores at the nearby Penny ice cap by David Fisher twemoran Posted Oct 27 2013 at 7 32 PM Permalink If Miller s argument for the maximum ice thickness being limited to 70m at this location is robust then his conclusion should be accepted If this was simply the remnant of a much thicker cap that eroded during HTO we don t have to accept present temperatures as higher than Holocene but if the cap was limited to a maximum of 70m it s rather obvious that temperatures in this location are now warmer than at any period since the moss lichen grew Terry tty Posted Oct 28 2013 at 7 03 AM Permalink This has an interesting corollary the ice at the base of this very small and thin icecap must then be of early Wisconsin age c 100 KA making it an uniquely easily and cheaply accessible climatological archive The Renland Icecap in East Greenland is a somewhat similar case but it is about 200 meters thick Duster Posted Oct 28 2013 at 4 34 PM Permalink Not necessarily Ice sheets may be lubricated from the bottom by super cooled fluid The pressure of the ice above may permit the water to remain fluid or force ice into a fluid state at temperatures well below normally freezing temperature Another consideration is that ice in shallow depressions may not move while the mass above grinds past So it is conceivable that really old moss might survive if the right surface topography conditions are met Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 28 2013 at 10 39 AM Permalink If Miller s argument for the maximum ice thickness being limited to 70m at this location is robust then his conclusion should be accepted I think that this is the 64 question Miller argues this very tersely As Richard Telford observed this argument relies on the following claim Surface elevation contours of the continental Laurentide Ice Sheet LIS show that all four ice caps with pre Holocene dated plants were above the surface of the LIS at its last glacial maximum LGM 21 ka Fig 1 These sites thus supported only local ice caps then as now In their Figure 1 they draw a dotted line purporting to show the LIS Laurentide Ice Sheet 1 km contour line citing Dyke et al 2002 as source The underlying figure from Dyke et al 2002 appears to be the following continent scale figure Dyke s knowledge of deglaciation appears to be unparalleled In addition Dyke was knowledgeable about Baffin Island as is Gifford Miller who has worked there on and off for 40 years Nonetheless at the scale of Baffin Island s CUmberland Peninsula the Dyke 2002 figure is little more than a cartoon It wouldn t take much to slightly expand the lobe in eastern Baffin Island so that the 1 km contour included the B223v site I do not think that one can safely assume that Dyke intended this map to be used at this level of detail The source for the LIS contour in Baffin Island should be an authoritative regional or local map not a continental scale map Also note that in eastern Baffin Island between the 1000 and 2000 m contours the Dyke map shows a topographic high of 2000 m as being overrun by LIS ice Further recent work by Briner and associates which I have merely browsed seems to indicate that there has been some revision in the interpretation of the Laurentide ice Sheet in eastern Baffin Island since 2002 with the ice sheet now believed to be grounded further seaward on the continental shelf than previously This would move the 1 km LIS line as well Could one picture an LIS ice sheet topography in which a lobe of the 1 km contour was seaward of B223v I think so This doesn t mean that this is the correct interpretation However the idea that B223v had a little local ice cap similar to the present during the LGM makes no sense to me whatever It s hard for me to believe that this is what Miller is actually arguing but I m having trouble figuring out other interpretations of the small ice cap argument on which his argument depends n drawing this figure did Dyje turn his mind to relatively small scale features DocMartyn Posted Oct 27 2013 at 8 44 PM Permalink Dr Telford Your analogy on a block of ice melting is painfully flawed as you do not consider accumulation So it is possible that it is not a change in temperature that has allowed these very old mosses to be uncovered but a change in the rate that snow has been falling in the particular local which has changed the steady state ice coverage TomRude Posted Oct 27 2013 at 9 02 PM Permalink One painfully lacking aspect here is related to dynamical warming induced by an accelerated circulation in the lower troposphere and its well known effects on Baffin region and Greenland coastal glaciers The same can be observed around some Andean glaciers and of course the Antarctic peninsula renewed advection of warmer air displaced by colder HP polar air masses descending to lower latitudes can melt certain regions yet it does not mean global warming quite the opposite in fact Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 27 2013 at 9 56 PM Permalink Andrews et al 1972 has an air photo on which the locations of B221v and B223v are shown First here is a google earth image looking east towards Broughton Island with sites marked oriented to correspond to the 1972 air photo The red pin shows the location of the ancient moss Next here is the air photo from Andrews et al 1972 After discussing recent deterioration in summer temperatures Andrews et al 1972 observed The evidence strongly suggests that

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/26/18501/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • baffin island « Climate Audit
    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 Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE Click on the

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

  • moss « Climate Audit
    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 Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007

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

  • Loso: Varve Thickness and Nearest Inlet « Climate Audit
    senior paleoclimate community Bradley etc are so enormously stubborn about statistical criticism Instead of conceding and responding to Wegman s criticism it s almost as though they ve redoubled efforts to keep statistical outsiders away from the field And thus we see relatively elementary defects repeated time after time while industry leaders like Kaufman refuse to discuss such matters in effect putting their fingers in their ears and saying Nyah nyah I can t hear you It s bad enough for they themselves but the worse side effect is that it becomes very perilous for younger scientists to participate in such discussions Loso 2009 online here Willis Eschenbach is acknowledged h t bender Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Sep 23 2009 at 12 32 PM filed under General and tagged iceberg lake kaufman loso varve Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Varves To Log or Not to Log How To Publish A Scientific Comment in 123 Easy Steps 42 Comments bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 1 09 PM Permalink See my recent comment on the comparable problem in dendroclimatology A much better treatment that is still not ideal and possibly wildly incorrect Charlie Posted Sep 23 2009 at 1 29 PM Permalink When there is a tight knit community with a strong consensus they can be blind to what is very obvious to those outside of the group I ve noted that you have found some good work in various master s theses Maybe there is hope for the next generation Wolfgang Flamme Posted Sep 23 2009 at 2 28 PM Permalink So lake varve thickness might actually be a much better proxy for inverse inlet shoreline distance which might be a reasonable proxy for precipitation which possibly could be a proxy for temperature Dakota tribal wisdom no proxy is too dead to beat suggests that increasing temperatures increase humidity which increases precipitation which fills lakes which increases the area available for sedimentation thereby decreasing varve thickness Thus Loso A is a fallacious proxy and should be replaced by Loso M which should immediately be discarded because of its lack of conclusiveness toot Posted Sep 23 2009 at 2 34 PM Permalink What is the cause of the variations in the lake s level Is it possible that the climatic signal might be imposed through lake level variations so that you wouldn t want to treat lake level as a confounding variable Joe Hunkins Posted Sep 23 2009 at 2 36 PM Permalink though the author is not a statistician the topic is primarily statistical And like most paleoclimate articles also mainly statistical there is no evidence that any reviewers were statisticians This is arguably one of the most indefensible of all the issues in Climate Science Reviewers appear to be either ignoring math problems or perhaps they just don t see them The peer review process clearly does not function as advertised if the math is not scrutinized by math experts bernie Posted Sep 23 2009 at 2 58 PM Permalink Sorry Please delete the previous post I left something out Steve You have done a great job explaining this It appears to me though that Arctic Lakes that vary significantly in level especially the smaller ones all will suffer from this problem making them very difficult to use as proxies This appears so obvious now that you have laid it out that perhaps you have also uncovered the reason why the original research plan kind of enigmatically morphed jlc Posted Sep 23 2009 at 3 48 PM Permalink Distance to inlet That s pretty scientific Any granulometry bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 3 54 PM Permalink Bradley and his coterie I think you might have nailed the team lynchpin here It s time to stop bashing Mann and start asking which words in these papers and which decisions in these projects are Bradley s Pompous Git Posted Sep 23 2009 at 4 47 PM Permalink Many thanks for this Steve I suspect I m learning more about varvochronology than if I d continued with my geology course ianl Posted Sep 23 2009 at 4 59 PM Permalink The geology of varvology is very interesting so from my viewpoint there has been merit in examining these papers Using varves as a palaeo thermometer to trash the MWP is several bridges too far though bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 5 31 PM Permalink To compensate for this heightened sensitivity which violates the goal of stationarity a constant relationship over time between climate variable and proxy response in proxy reconstruction National Research Council 2006 I log transform the raw measurements from the master varve chronology Oh dear Logging does not alter the degree of stationarity i e uniformity of the response coefficients and it also does not stabilize variance These inhomogeneities are preserved under all monotonic functional transforms Who was this guy s supervisor Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 23 2009 at 7 07 PM Permalink Re bender 11 These inhomogeneities are preserved under all monotonic functional transforms Quite so and quite obviously It s shocking to see a statement like Loso s and here it s in a specialist journal and not a popular digest like Nature or Science Loso is staff in Alaska not a Kaufman student The problem is not with any of these folks as individuals or even with their supervisors Despite clangers like this Loso s articles have a number of good points to them particularly because he tries to give enough information so that other people with different perspectives can consider the site I don t even blame Loso for this particular clanger The people to blame in this are the senior people like Bradley and Jones who didn t view Wegman s comments as an opportunity rather than a reason to circle the wagons As we ve discussed endlessly there is overweening hubris in the field where they think they know things that they don t right through to the journals and reviewers Combined with the fact these folks are all guys girls that love the outdoors and care about the earth and all that Maybe they ve taken a statistics course or two but they re not numbers people Rob Wilson didn t become a dendro because he wanted to sit at a desk and think about statistical distributions The trouble hits the road when they do their articles which are 99 statistics but neither the authors nor the reviewers nor the editors really can go much beyond using canned recipes Kaufman is a classic example And rather than engaging with the statistical community here while this topic has our attention he d rather stick his fingers in his ears and say that we don t play nice bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 7 59 PM Permalink Re Steve McIntyre 12 I m sure Loso and even Kaufman are great guys I m equally sure that it s high time for a Journal of Statistical Climatology And I know which senior leaders WON T be on the board Mann Bradley North If they were REALLY smart they would pre empt us and take the name for themselves steven mosher Posted Sep 23 2009 at 11 21 PM Permalink Re bender 13 Right now that journal is called ClimateAudit Tom C Posted Sep 23 2009 at 8 19 PM Permalink 12 Combined with the fact these folks are all guys girls that love the outdoors and care about the earth and all that Maybe they ve taken a statistics course or two but they re not numbers people Absolutely true in my experience The people who are drawn to these fields don t really understand the mathematical analyses They apply mathematics in cookbook fashion and can spout the intimidating lingo but lack the basic insight necessary to match the physics with the models Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 02 PM Permalink Loso 2009 online here bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 09 PM Permalink Re Steve McIntyre 15 typo in the link p d f bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 11 PM Permalink Varve sensitivity to temperature has changed over time however in response to lake level changes in 1957 and earlier I compensate for this by log transforming the varve thickness chronology It s stated right there in the abstract The abstract For pete s sake bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 16 PM Permalink Annual measurements of varve thickness are not well correlated with Davi s temperature reconstruction but smoothing of the two records improves the correlation You don t say Smooth move Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 16 PM Permalink Calibration of Loso s varves Panel a compares varve thickness mm with average May June temperatures C recorded at Cordova and Yakutat Alaska for 1958 1998 AD The two annual time series are positively correlated n 40 r 0 23 p 0 153 However at a gridcell level the correlation to the CRUTEM gridcellis 0 006 bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 23 PM Permalink Re Steve McIntyre 19 the correlation to the CRUTEM gridcellis 0 006 Not bad 0 06 or 0 6 would be really damning bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 18 PM Permalink Due in part to this autocorrelation and in part to residual impacts of changing lake levels on the response of the log adjusted varve chronology the resulting correlation is positive but not significant r 0 24 p 0 471 Fig 5b Uh oh bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 21 PM Permalink As previously noted the confidence intervals on this temperature reconstruction are too broad to claim on the basis of these data alone that contemporary warming is more intense than that of the MWP Well at least the uncertainty wasn t flat out ignored We re making progress bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 24 PM Permalink Hey Willis is in the acknowledgements Steve my my Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 50 PM Permalink Re bender 23 Hey Willis is in the acknowledgements The connection between inlet distance and varve thickness at Iceberg Lake was first reported by Willis Eschenbach at Climate Audit two years ago here My own feeling is that the dropping of the lake level in 1957 is the key to the greatly elevated values in recent times It coincides exactly with the huge jump in the varve thickness in 1957 I think there are two reasons for this One is that the distance from the inflow to the core sites is greatly reduced which would make a permanent increase in the varve thickness Patrick M Posted Sep 24 2009 at 10 41 AM Permalink Re bender 23 Now THAT S progress If one of these young scientists takes the next logical step and realizes that their paper would be practically bullet proof if they have their paper Climate Audited prior to publication steven mosher Posted Sep 24 2009 at 1 27 PM Permalink Re Patrick M 32 The mudmometer looks to have as many problems as the treemometer Seriously bender how many promising young mud scientists want to make their mark on the world by detailing how mudmometers fail No is not an acceptable answer They are driven to say YES yes we can recover a weak climate signal from this morass They have the will to believe http falcon jmu edu omearawm ph101willtobelieve html bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 28 PM Permalink You know what This paper actually tries to be honest I don t understand given this paper and given Tiljander what Bradley thinks he s up to Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 35 PM Permalink Re bender 24 You know what This paper actually tries to be honest Loso has a background in geology rather than climatology Geologists get a very different training I ve said on several occasions that there was much to like about Loso s approach other than his stats I m sure that he d like to do a better job on his stats because he s actually trying bender Posted Sep 23 2009 at 10 30 PM Permalink Those CI s on Fig 6 are awesome Andy Posted Sep 24 2009 at 3 51 AM Permalink Is it me or could one fit any curve to that collection of data points John A Posted Sep 24 2009 at 4 58 AM Permalink Re Andy 30 With a correlation of 0 006 you put the Mona Lisa in there ianl Posted Sep 24 2009 at 6 36 AM Permalink SMc quote Geologists get a very different training Agreed I know I can t make a fault disappear by deleting inconvenient drillholes from my map And any number of accountants have exhorted me to do just that NukemHill Posted Sep 24 2009 at 11 42 AM Permalink Steve I assume you are already aware of this but just in case http article nationalreview com q ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM Apparently the masters at CRU are claiming they lost the original raw data which was used to calculate the 0 6 C increase last century Oh my A little OT but kinda not really Johan i Kanada Posted Sep 24 2009 at 12 28 PM Permalink Is there any physical reason for the logging Or just a way to make some number series correlate better Let s assume logging creates a great correlation and the other stats are ok too does that make the reults any more valid i e if there is no physical reason for doing so Steve The underlying data is hugely non normal Correlation statistics implicitly presume a comparison between two normal distributions I m OK with them trying to normalize prior to doing a correlation indeed I d prefer that they did this even if and perhaps especially if the correlation deteriorated after logging In this case logging isn t enough to fully normalize the data and some sort of non parametric normalization is needed Plus as noted elsewhere logging doesn t do deal with inhomogeneity and Loso and his editor Kaufman have simply gone astray on this point steven mosher Posted Sep 24 2009 at 1 37 PM Permalink Opps Sorry Patrick I meant to say your name and not bender s arrg bender Posted Sep 24 2009 at 4 47 PM Permalink Re steven mosher 36 I knew by context you were addressing Patrick I think varvometry has WAY more problems than dendrometry I think these stats show it Would love to hear from a real dendro on this topic Read Lamoureux and Bradley 1996 It is an honest appraisal But there is this one line which I can only imagine came from Bradley where he argues bizarrely that the burden of proof is on the other guys to show sediments do NOT correlate with temperature i e until shown otherwise the varves should be considered proxies for temperature Really that s what he says So Tiljander does her thing and Loso his and nothing changes It s still a valid proxy Talk about denial Can t wait to see the IPCC chapter on paleovarvoclimatology Johan i Kanada Posted Sep 25 2009 at 1 13 AM Permalink Steve thanks for the feedback re logging But the question remains if there is no physical reason for a logarithmic relationship between X and Y what possible scientific value would come out of carrying out such an operation Willis Eschenbach Posted Sep 25 2009 at 3 21 PM Permalink I appreciate the acknowledgement of Mike Loso it was a lovely and totally unexpected gesture By way of history I had emailed him that I thought I had found several errors in his work He provided his original data acknowledged that I was correct and fixed his errors He was a gentleman throughout would that all climate scientists were so forthright and forthcoming I did not discuss with him the idea that varve thickness would be affected by the varying distance to the nearest rivermouth Either he came up with it independently found it elsewhere or he read it here In any case he ran with it did the hard yards and found an association but that just compounds the problem That just makes it harder to read the varvometer it s another confounding variable The problem is that the mouth of the river changes and wanders about over time In silt laden rivers a delta rapidly develops A single storm can divert the main channel into the lake from one side of the delta to the other This capricious wandering of the rivermouth can change the silt load at a given point by a huge amount in a very short time My own feeling is that this cannot be adjusted for and makes varve thickness a very difficult proxy to use for anything Geoff Sherrington Posted Sep 25 2009 at 7 16 PM Permalink Perhaps I don t get it but the points on the top graph in the leader approach 5 km apart That is the separation of the cored point from the nearest inlet point of the sediments which is sometimes a few tenths of a km Noting that sampling points H and L are not shown on the fig 3 map the sampling points are mostly within 1 km of each other Moving 5 km from the centre of this cluster to an unshown nearest inlet takes one well away from the lake as it is at present The main inlets that are shown are mostly within 1 km of the sampling cluster The graph is not capable of interpretation without the provision of more data and hence cannot be verified Willis Eschenbach Posted Sep 26 2009 at 8 09 PM

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/23/loso-varve-thickness-and-nearest-inlet/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • iceberg lake « Climate Audit
    said that I post the graphic from Loso et al if someone sent it to me today In fact Loso et al is online here and interested parties can consult it for themselves I don t have time to comment on this study other than very briefly but here are some of the key graphics By Steve McIntyre Posted in Medieval Proxies Also tagged loso varve Comments 57 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 Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December

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

  • loso « Climate Audit
    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 Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009

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

  • Varves: To Log or Not to Log « Climate Audit
    a turbidite are carried by density flow in water with suspended solids that make it possible to lift larger particles than purer water The other watery forms of transport of particles to sediments are tractional and frictional flow broadly and these have a different final appearance Again broadly turbidites can have a graded size sequence with large particles at the base too large to be transported by purer water Turbidites were most commonly associated with deep water such as in the delta fans of large rivers and the slopes of continental shelves Sometimes the flow leading to turbidites is ascribed to shock such as earthquakes produce Here in Australia we do not have the abundance of high altitude glacier related shallow lakes that pepper Canada for example So we are less erudite However I would be grateful if a contemporary geologist working on lakes like those described above would briefly explain the mechanisms of creation of turbidites and whether the defiition of a turbidite sequence has widened since the seminal work of Bouma Although we are getting perilously close to thixotropy I will not invoke it here but will mention rheopexy this being not a French taunt like Monty Python s but a Dutch one to recognise Bouma curious Posted Sep 23 2009 at 4 36 AM Permalink Nice graphic but do you have a peer review lit reference for it MarcH Posted Sep 23 2009 at 4 47 AM Permalink Use of varve thickness as a temperature proxy appears to be highly problematic Seasonal annual variation in sediment supply in source regions feeding lakes is affected by a multitude of factors Do Kaufmann et al explain how they can separate out such minor variations in temperature from all the other influences that affect varve thickness Any refs on this anyone Geoff S turbidites in lakes are not unknown and appear to share similar bed features to the better studies marine equivalents However at max depth of 45m I agree Lower Murray Lake does appear a little shallow for true turbidites Perhaps it s a slump desposit MarcH Posted Sep 23 2009 at 5 05 AM Permalink Limitations of using varve at Lower Murray lakes indicated here from Besonen et al 2008 Draws the string to breaking point on link to TEMPERATURE However it is extremely difficult to quantitatively relate varve thickness or other sedimentary characteristics directly to meteorological data because the nearest long term weather stations Eureka and Alert are 320 and 180 km from the lake respectively and the closer station is in a quite different meteorological setting on the Arctic Ocean coast where fog and low cloud are common in summer months Furthermore sediment erosion beneath the 1990 turbidite which we can only estimate as roughly 20 years greatly limits comparison of the varves with regional meteorological data We are thus constrained to simply hypothesize that the varve record represents summer temperature conditions in the Murray Lakes watershed based on our observations and experience in similar settings We can also assess the climatic implications of the LML varves by comparing them with other proxy records for which climate links have been suggested all proxy records are noisy and their links to climate are generally poorly defined in large part because of the severe limitations imposed by extremely sparse meteorological data DOI 10 1177 0959683607085607 page 179 John A Posted Sep 23 2009 at 5 12 AM Permalink Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to the stationarity of the relationship between carve thickness and summer mean temperature Dave Dardinger Posted Sep 23 2009 at 7 47 AM Permalink Re John A 10 Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to the stationarity of the relationship between carve thickness and summer mean temperature From what I ve observed of the carve thickness in late November it s more closely related to the speed of movement from bird to plate than the summer mean temperature Now the plumpness of corn on the cob might relate to summer temperature but here you have to worry about an inverted U relationship since higher temperatures can be related to drought and thus smaller ears John A Posted Sep 23 2009 at 4 44 PM Permalink Re Dave Dardinger 14 Memo to self stop writing comments late at night on your iPhone That way you won t look stupid Re Steve McIntyre 20 I can t help wondering if Kaufman has missed a trick If it was me I d be looking at calibrating variance with inverted temperature the higher the variance the lower the mean temperature That would at least make meteorological sense since warm periods are generally periods of reduced seasonal variability especially in the Arctic Charlie Posted Sep 23 2009 at 6 20 AM Permalink Varves To Log or Not to Log isn t the biggest problem The big problem seems to be Varves To Archive or Not to Archive It s unfortunate that even some of the records that do get archived are modified before archiving Digital storage isn t all that expensive I don t see any reason that both the adjusted and prior to adjustment data can t both be archived It s too bad that the NSF doesn t take data archiving seriously enough to make that a condition for future grants Jeff Id Posted Sep 23 2009 at 7 22 AM Permalink The big problem is varves like noodles are not a thermometer If they re guessing at how to make it one the decision is already made Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 23 2009 at 7 40 AM Permalink I ll expand this survey a little Interesting things like Tiljander need to be mentioned Tiljander uses varves in an opposite orientation to Kaufman Kenneth Fritsch Posted Sep 23 2009 at 8 23 AM Permalink In attempting to keep the big picture in mind can I assume that these different models for relating varve properties to temperatures are developed with the calibration against the

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/22/varves-to-log-or-not-to-log/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •