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

Total: 111

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

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • The Impact of TN05-17 « Climate Audit
    microbial mats and can be actually associated with living E huxleyi cells After anaerobic burial in the sedimentary column alkenones are apparently quite stable and are either not or only very slowly modified by anaerobic bacteria However laboratory methods lead to another source of uncertainty From a review of alkenone modification in 2000 by Joan O Grimalt et al During repeated gas chromatographic measurements major deviations of U37K determinations have been observed as consequence of capillary column adsorption effects These effects shift the U37K indices toward higher values warmer temperatures due to stronger adsorption of the C37 3 compound The deviations are significant when the amount of C37 alkenones injected onto the capillary column is low This instrumental limitation defines a threshold of minimal sample concentration below which U37K determinations are not reliable How many paleo temperature reconstructionists check the analytical method behind the proxy they ve chosen Paul Dennis Posted Apr 11 2013 at 2 34 AM Permalink Pat Frank thank you for finding these interesting references I speculated yesterday on the alkenone divergence off Iceland thread that the recent decline in estimated alkenone temperatures that seemed to be prevalent in most cores was a result of degradation It s interesting to note thatthe magnitude of the temperature shifts observed in this paper are i of the same order as observed in core tops and ii go in the same direction as observed in core tops Still might not be the explanation for what is happening here but it backs the ideas that both you and I have that we need a much better physical understanding of the response and behaviour of proxies Mere calibrations by correlating observed U37k ratios with SST s at core sites might well throw up a good correlation but tells us nothing about the processes and reliability of such proxies Pat Frank Posted Apr 12 2013 at 11 43 AM Permalink Paul hope you re still reading here You re in an excellent position to write a critical review of the physical accuracy of the standard temperature proxies notably dO 18 and the alkenones but also the metal based proxies It would require doing some error analysis on the published laboratory calibration experiments but that should be straight forward Such a paper would be a shot across the bow for all these proxy studies that ignore the physical limits of accuracy You have the professional standing to make everyone pay attention Paul The case could be made that mere statistical combinatorial methods of combining proxies produce physically meaningless results Error bars that do not include the physical accuracy of the method are also meaningless Subsequent papers would be forced to address your concerns Paul Dennis Posted Apr 12 2013 at 12 42 PM Permalink Pat I think I missed your excellent WUWT article last year We re now 60 years on from the original Urey Epstein Lowenstam and McRea work on oxygen isotope partitioning between water and carbonate minerals In many respects the view is still relatively opaque Recent data suggest that the published equilibrium fractionations may actually represent disequilibrium processes In my lab we re starting a new programme to calibrate several isotope thermometers including oxygen isotope fractionation between water and carbonate minerals and the new clumped isotope D47 thermometer I like your suggestion of a review article that critically evaluates the different proxies Such a paper would be timely but also fits with ourongoing work on temperature calibration Could you either email me paul underscore f underscore dennis at fast mail fm to give me your email address so that we could exchange some ideas From my point of view a key issue has been the rapid development of automated systems and black box instruments for stable isotope analysis The result is the generation of large numbers of data without proper consideration of errors Skiphil Posted Apr 12 2013 at 1 18 PM Permalink Re Paul Dennis Apr 11 02 34 I m only the peanut gallery but may I urge Paul Dennis and others to consider purusing Pat Frank s suggestions about more rigorous error analysis for various types of proxies The glaring weaknesses of many proxy studies seem to stem in part from too many untested assumptions and lack of rigor in evaluating the physical basis of proxies It would be great to see some independent scientific analysis of such aspects of the multi proxy papers Pat Frank Posted Apr 12 2013 at 7 02 PM Permalink I ve sent you an email Paul and am looking forward to the conversation MrPete Posted Apr 11 2013 at 10 47 AM Permalink Re Pat Frank Apr 10 21 58 What I see here is that there s published literature on further physical uncertainties that s being studiously ignored Combine that with the allergic reaction to uncertainty demonstrated by various scientists and team apologist posters here and elsewhere and we obtain a very skewed view of LOSU Level Of Scientific Uncertainty In this era of google search scholar and crowd sourced Wikis I m getting hungry for an ongoing community process of indexing important facts related to the physical methodological etc factors that need to be taken into account when using any particular physical data source or math stats methodology in science richard telford Posted Apr 11 2013 at 4 14 AM Permalink Nielsen et al 2004 observed that the alkenone You have a glitch here Nielsen et al 2004 does not mention alkenones just diatoms so your discussion that follows is only partially relevant TN05 17 is near the polar front Small changes in the position of the front would give a large change in temperature at the site Howard Posted Apr 11 2013 at 11 22 AM Permalink Dr Telford Are you saying the TN05 17 mid Holocene declines are not due to depositional or biogeochemical factors The range of the departure is pretty close to the max error range found by Prahl see below Correlation is not causation but it makes one wonder if this is a simple false positive sample Perhaps the false positive factors have been examined and determined to be insignificant Can you shed any light on this More generally for something subject to many many different signal degradation factors through space and time if I was in this field I would be looking at all of these degradation factors and try and figure out which cores provided the most representative unpolluted and undisturbed alkenone signal rather that hoping that all manner type and temporal variability of signal degradation would somehow cancel out using ad hoc statistics and the real signal would shine through I might sound like a jerk but really appreciate your participation here Dr Telford and hopefully you can educate some of us dilettantes who are willing to learn Physiological Impacts on Alkenone Paleothermometry 2003 F G Prahl G V Wolfe and M A Sparrow College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331 5503 Department of Biological Sciences California State University Chico CA 95929 0515 ABSTRACT We conducted isothermal 15oC batch culture experiments with the coccolithophorid Emiliania huxleyi strain NEPCC 55a to evaluate the extent to which nutrient and light stress contribute to variability in the alkenone unsaturation index UK 37 Alkenone content and composition were constant throughout exponential growth in both experiments when nutrients nitrate o phosphate were replete Stationary phase nutrient starved cells continued to produce alkenones amassing concentrations SAlk up to 3x higher than those dividing exponentially 1 5 2 pg cell and the UK 37 of excess alkenone dropped by 0 11 units In contrast five days of continuous darkness resulted in a 75 decrease in cellular SAlk and a significant UK 37 increase 0 11 units Given an established 0 034 unit oC response for exponentially growing cells of this strain the observed range of UK 37 variability at 15oC corresponds to an uncertainty of 3 2oC in predicted growth temperature This level of variability matches that in the global UK 37 annual mean sea surface temperature calibration for surface marine sediments begging the question what is the physiological condition of alkenone producing cells exported to marine sediments Comparison of our laboratory results for a strain of E huxleyi isolated from the subarctic Pacific Ocean with depth profiles for alkenones in surface waters from two contrasting sites in the NE Pacific Ocean suggests the answer to this question depends on the ocean regime considered a possibility with significant bearing on how stratigraphic UK 37 records in marine sediments are to be interpreted paleoceanographically richard telford Posted Apr 11 2013 at 12 02 PM Permalink Nielsen et al 2004 is not an alkenone record issues pertaining to alkenones are simply not relevant Nielsen et al 2004 use the diatom assemblages to reconstruct temperature using a method called the Modern Analogue Technique Howard Posted Apr 11 2013 at 1 37 PM Permalink Thanks Dr Telford I didn t connect the dots that Nielson et al the TN05 17 core What a dummy I am So you are saying that since diatoms are denser they are less likely to scatter So this proxy may be more related to temperature fluctuations from shifting in ocean current patterns due to the proximity to the polar front Does this location near polar front location make this proxy a poor choice for use in global temperature reconstructions Thanks for your help David L Hagen Posted Apr 10 2013 at 7 00 PM Permalink Possible cause from down under or CA Neil Jordan Posted Apr 10 2013 at 7 02 PM Permalink This comment provides input to previous posts regarding alkenone divergence Have any of the core sample datings considered that the upper 10 to 20 centimeters of sediment are continuously worked over by benthic organisms Biological activity bioturbation physically averages out the upper layer of sediment as explained for example in this overview What is bioturbation The need for a precise definition for fauna in aquatic sciences http www int res com articles meps oa m446p285 pdf This reference from Oregon State University describes the impact of bioturbation on dating Long Chain Alkenones An Eyepiece to Past Oceanographic Conditions http chemoc coas oregonstate edu fprahl alkdesc html Organic matter produced in surface ocean waters illuminated by sunlight the euphotic zone provides the fuel for the food chain zooplankton fishes and mammals including humans Very little of this primary production goes to waste in the ocean The vast majority 99 is eaten and respired somewhere within the water column the small remainder settles to the seafloor packaged within particles such as fecal pellets and marine snow Continuation of this particle rain over time yields a sediment record Under ideal conditions the sediment record can be layered varved each varve representing a discrete time in the past More often however the surfacemost part of the deposit is stirred biologically bioturbation smearing the time resolution of the sediment record Other examples of bioturbation affecting age dating Asynchronous alkenone and foraminifera records from the Benguela Upwelling System http nosams mblwhoilibrary org works 1127 Interestingly the ages of alkenones were 1000 to 4500 yr older than those of foraminifera in all samples Such age differences may be the result of different processes Bioturbation associated with grain size effects lateral advection of recycled material and redeposition of sediment on upper continental slopes due to currents or tidal movement are examples for such processes Alkenones as paleoceanographic proxies http faculty washington edu jsachs lab www Sachs Alkenones as Paleoceanographic Proxies G300 pdf Another artifact of bioturbation stems from the fact that the depth of mixing is dependent on particle size Ruddiman and Glover 1972 Thomson el al 1988 Wheatcroft 1992 Wheatcrofi and Jumars 1987 Small particles are preferentially ingested by deposit feeders and mixed downward in effect biologically pumping coarser panicles toward the surface McCave 1988 1995 If the size fraction of alkenone enriched particles differs from that of foraminifera there is the potential for climate proxies to become decoupled or offset in the depth and time domain This process has been cited as a possible cause for the deep penetration of bomb derived radionuclides in North Pacific sediments Druffel et al 1984 and for radiocarbon age differences between forams and bulk carbonate in northeastern Atlantic sediments Thomson et al 1995 and between forams and nannofossils coccoliths in South Atlantic sediments Paull e1 al 1991 w w wygart Posted Apr 11 2013 at 11 19 AM Permalink Another couple of hours of reading ahead of me but this may be yet another case on CA of the comment being even more informative than the original article Well done Any research on the possible effects of microorganisms on bioturbation or sediment composition in general W 3 Nick Stokes Posted Apr 10 2013 at 7 09 PM Permalink it is not particularly reassuring that the main Yad061 even contribution to modern SHX warming in the Marcott reconstruction appears to arise from a cold mid Holocene interval at TN05 17 translated into modern warming through short segment mid Holocene centering and modern proxy dropout TN05 17 is influential in SHX because it is one of few continuing to present But why is it more or less influential than those others The fact that recent values are high would be significant if TN05 17 dropped out but it didn t It has a recent uptrend but that would be reflected in the recon regardless of the anomaly base Its dating has undergone almost no adjustment You might say that its positive value influenced other dropout effects But this just reflects its growing influence as the number shrinks It certainly has behaviour that is worth commenting on But I can t see that its effect is inappropriately amplified by the analysis Marcott et al made no special claims about 19C warming In fact they said The results suggest that at longer periods more variability is preserved with essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years 50 preserved at 1000 year periods and nearly all of the variability preserved for periods longer than 2000 years figs S17 and S18 This is even more true of sub regions like SHX clivebest Posted Apr 11 2013 at 11 46 AM Permalink Nick I already pointed out to you on March 27 in a comment on your blog that TNO5 17 is the cause of the uptick in the Southern Hemisphere see also http clivebest com blog p 4790 I think the spike can be understood by interpolating just one Proxy TNO5 17 There are only 2 recorded measurements post 1900 for this proxy Date Anomaly deg C 1904 2 3 1950 4 5 Interpolation to a 20 year spacing then gives us 1900 2 0 1920 3 1 1940 4 0 1960 5 0 a linearly increasing spike No amount of Monte Carlo simulation or infilling of data by linear interpolation can alter this trend The standard deviation on measurements for this proxy between 5500 4500 ybp is 0 7C The statistical error on the anomaly is 0 8C So the uptick in this one proxy is itself not statistically significant Layman Lurker Posted Apr 10 2013 at 7 13 PM Permalink One thing that this graphic shows for sure the residuals of these proxies from the true temperature history as translated to the respective sites do not remotely resemble a low order AR1 process Consider the potential for variance loss that this poses for the temperature calibration step and propagation of that bias into a reconstruction like Marcott s bernie1815 Posted Apr 10 2013 at 7 20 PM Permalink This is Steve s version of death by a thousand cuts It has got to be painful At the same time it sheds enormous and embarrassing light on the mindset of some of those who put such proxies studies together Salamano Posted Apr 11 2013 at 4 37 AM Permalink So then what can be publishable from all this work I don t think you re going to get away with dictating into the literature that alkenones and tree rings can not be reliably used as proxies in temperature reconstruction Since Steve finds other proxies that weren t used in Marcott but yet seem proximal and or even more informative is the answer to come up with a new reconstruction Other reconstructions can certainly get published with the side advantage of getting words into the record regarding methodology just like Marcott et al and other reconstructions Naturally you d get peer reviewed by purveyors of other reconstructions What can be done with this information New error bar uncertainty understanding New work put into the record regarding the challenges of the validation of proxies during overlap periods eg Marcott vs Mann vs Instrument record etc bernie1815 Posted Apr 11 2013 at 11 20 AM Permalink I think it was Mr Pete on another thread who laid out the procedural steps for a more rigorous and vigorous approach to proxy studies Paradoxically these summary type studies may be poor candidates for publication in high visibility journals such as Science and Nature They seem to be building castles on sand Manniac Posted Apr 11 2013 at 10 28 AM Permalink get your money for nothing and your sticks for free Apologies to M Knopfler jim2 Posted Apr 10 2013 at 7 34 PM Permalink Neil Jordan At one time all the layers were once the upper layer So the smoothing due to bioturbation would affect the entire core Neil Jordan Posted Apr 10 2013 at 8 04 PM Permalink That s right And bioturbation depth say 10 cm divided by deposition rate say cm per century gives a rough estimate of the number of years of averaging beneath any depth in the core jim2 Posted Apr 10 2013 at 9 49 PM Permalink Actually it seems it would be worse than that If you add 1 cm to a 10 cm deposit then the 1 9 cm

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/10/the-impact-of-tn05-17/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive


  • MAT « Climate Audit
    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 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/mat/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Bent Their Core Tops In « Climate Audit
    the ones you refer to by Nick Stokes would it surprise you that the correlation of the proxies with these reconstructions where that proxy is excluded is negative for about 38 28 73 of the proxies I suspect that your overconfidence in this entire work may be due to the fact that much of the technical portions of the paper have not been examined in detail But that may be grist for a different post richard telford Posted Mar 19 2013 at 7 12 PM Permalink Clearly assuming that the error is zero when the anomaly is zero would be crazy I don t believe they did that it would not be the conservative assumption they claim to have made When I first read this I just assumed they meant range rather than anomaly I would not be in the least surprised if many proxies had a negative correlation with the mean Indeed I would be surprised if temperatures were in phase over the whole planet That said some of these proxies may not be ideal but I am very happy that they didn t include any dinocyst reconstructions I don t trust these very much RomanM Posted Mar 19 2013 at 7 27 PM Permalink I agree with you that it would be crazy although I would term it statistically naive Here is the direct quote from the SI Ice core We conservatively assumed an uncertainty of 30 of the temperature anomaly 1σ These temperature were out of phase over the thousands of years of their existence not just over some short calibration period A similar reconstruction using these proxies yields a reasonably straight increasing curve When they are removed the remaining proxies produce a reconstruction similar to the original not surprising since they are positively correlated with it but with reasonably greater amplitude Layman Lurker Posted Mar 19 2013 at 8 41 PM Permalink My referenced comment implied that the variability estimates used in the 1000 stack analysis were understated for certain types of proxies and that taking a 30 error on ice core anomalies meant that there was NO error attributed to a measurement of zero an arbitrary value which was determined by the anomalizing process I m glad you raised this point Roman I would like to see what the reconstruction would look like using a base period much closer to the actual length of the reconstruction A few proxies would need to be excluded in order to accomplish that Theo Goodwin Posted Mar 19 2013 at 6 28 PM Permalink The graph that shows the uptick has to be removed right That graph is one of their conclusions RokShox Posted Mar 20 2013 at 12 51 PM Permalink telford is following Mosher s script to the letter Niggling over A and B while the authors hype C Jeff Alberts Posted Mar 20 2013 at 9 51 AM Permalink It seems to me that the very large temporal resolution of the Holocene recon in this paper isn t granular enough to tell us anything about whether modern temps are unprecedented in scope or rate of change Smoothing it all out kind of takes away those possible indicators This paper doesn t seem very useful for anything Latimer Alder Posted Mar 20 2013 at 11 01 AM Permalink Re Jeff Alberts Mar 20 09 51 This paper doesn t seem very useful for anything There is one thing that paper is always useful for And I am not thinking about wrapping fish and chips Jeff Norman Posted Mar 20 2013 at 11 50 AM Permalink richard telford commented These dating issues are all very interesting but their affect on the Holocene scale trends will be minimal As such they are largely irrelevant I hope that this isn t seen as piling on I can understand Richard s opinion about the broader scope of the Holocene but it seems to me that understanding how these proxies respond in the very last century of the Holocene is very important because we have a temperature record to which we can compare the proxy measurements in order to test the hypothesis that what you are measuring actually represents temperatures Without the modern confirmation aren t you just guessing Why should I or anyone else believe your best guess Howard Posted Mar 20 2013 at 2 00 PM Permalink Jeff The proxies are not individually calibrated The temperature signal is based on chemistry and calibration curves developed by others The calibration errors are ad hoc for each proxy type one is simply 1 7C which is why the error bands are constant throughout the reconstruction except at the end where we are down to just a few proxies Jeff Norman Posted Mar 20 2013 at 9 29 PM Permalink Howard Yes but the calibration is only a hypothesis At some point it has to be tested against reality Paul Fischbeck Posted Mar 19 2013 at 1 16 PM Permalink Any word from the original authors of the core studies about the re dating The notoriety of this research must have reached them by now Lady in Red Posted Mar 19 2013 at 1 32 PM Permalink I didn t know the tune to The Junior Birdmen Lady in Red Paul Dennis Posted Mar 19 2013 at 1 36 PM Permalink Richard Telford I agree that the core top dating issues have negligible impact on the Holocene scale trends These are as expected with low temporal resolution and in that context unremarkable My feeling is that as such the paper would not have been considered by either Nature or Science The issue is with the re assignment of core top dates These play a very significant role in producing the uptick at the modern end of the plots It is this uptick that has entertained the media and scientific colleagues and presumably the main reason why the paper was accepted by Science It is an artefact and contains zero information regarding modern temperatures on a sub centennial scale let alone a decadal scale I note that in the introductory paragraphs the authors draw attention to the fact that there is no data with which to compare the extent and rate of modern warming with that during the Holocene I don t believe they were not unaware even bearing in mind caveats about robustness etc that if they present a graph with a marked uptick that it will not be turned into an icon After all the press releases etc draw attention to it The data simply do not and cannot in their present extent and form answer the question Is the current extent and rate of warming outside the range of natural climate variability in the Holocene To begin to get a handle on this we need more and better characterised high resolution proxies and natural archives Please don t get me wrong I think that it is a worthwhile exercise to try and map out centennial scale variations in regional and global temperature and Marcott et al is a valuable contribution to such attempts It is not cannot and must not be construed as a comparison or test of the modern climate variability against the Holocene variability It is about time that professional colleagues start to ask serious questions of such studies bernie1815 Posted Mar 19 2013 at 1 45 PM Permalink Paul Very nicely said Pat Frank Posted Mar 19 2013 at 5 35 PM Permalink To begin to get a handle on this we need more and better characterised high resolution proxies and natural archives Paul there isn t a physically based proxy that has better than 0 5 C resolution under the best of laboratory conditions And statistical scaling to the instrumental record isn t a physical basis At the risk of Steve s editorial displeasure I add that there isn t any science at all in Marcott Shakun Science Paul Dennis Posted Mar 19 2013 at 5 42 PM Permalink Pat I don t disagree with you re proxy resolutions Pat Frank Posted Mar 19 2013 at 7 07 PM Permalink Paul but you do disagree that substituting statistics for physics is a scientific Paul Dennis Posted Mar 20 2013 at 1 55 AM Permalink Pat I aslo agree that statistical scaling to the instrument record is not an appropriate physical basis on which to reconstruct temperatures I have and continue to spend a huge amount of effort and time trying to establish a rigorous proxy for mineral growth temperatures Ones that have an a priori physical basis that can be described by thermodynamics This work is slow painstaking and ranges from design and construction of new analytical instrumentation through to laboratory experiments computational mineralogy etc to determine the response of proxies Pat Frank Posted Mar 20 2013 at 11 22 AM Permalink All honor to you Paul A large part of the anger I feel about proxy thermometry is that so many have abandoned the hard gritty work of science and substituted facile methods that permit them grand sweeping proclamations They ve made a pseudo science decorated with mathematics They have dishonored your field in particular and the integrity of science in general Best wishes to you and all success Richard Drake Posted Mar 20 2013 at 11 36 AM Permalink That sounded like the blessing of St Patrick only three days too late Theo Goodwin Posted Mar 20 2013 at 1 20 PM Permalink Paul Dennis writes I have and continue to spend a huge amount of effort and time trying to establish a rigorous proxy for mineral growth temperatures Ones that have an a priori physical basis that can be described by thermodynamics A textbook setting forth your methods and standards just might save paleoclimatology from itself The silence about physics among scientists using proxies for temperature is deafening sue Posted Mar 20 2013 at 5 30 PM Permalink Paul Dennis FYI about you http www realclimate org index php archives 2013 03 unforced variations march 2013 comment page 5 comment 325189 I have another comment awaiting moderation and even made it to the borehole once Paul Dennis Posted Mar 20 2013 at 6 06 PM Permalink Sue I think the debate about me at Real Climate you pointed me too says everything that needs to be said about the paranoia group think and lazy vacuous thinking demonstrated by many of the denizens there I don t think I need add anymore sue Posted Mar 20 2013 at 6 16 PM Permalink I figured you d say that tlitb1 Posted Mar 19 2013 at 1 41 PM Permalink Typo here I think On the hand Paul Dennis William Larson Posted Mar 19 2013 at 2 14 PM Permalink With respect to the second lower graph above of OCE326 GGC30 isn t the blue dashed line eliminated values supposed to connect to the red line Marcott and not to the black line Or am I reading this graph all wrong And what does the blue tick mark at about a d 1390 signify Also on the first upper OCE326 GGC30 graph the most recent retained Marcott date is said to be at 12 5cm yet in the graph it looks more to be at 14cm I m guessing that this last consideration is absolutely trivial but you never know until you ask Steve the blue ticks are radiocarbon dates I will provide proper captions to the graphic after i go for coffee The blue values show what the result would be if the dates were interpolated to the last Sachs radiocarbon point Maybe it would be more clearly illustrated as you suggest but the point is there either way The most recent Marcott value is from 14 5 cm I ll crosscheck my text a little later miker613 Posted Mar 19 2013 at 2 29 PM Permalink I do not believe that a properly informed specialist would have signed off on this redating let alone with no caveats I wonder if the specialists who dated these in the first place would care to comment Some enterprising journalist might chase them down and get their positions TerryS Posted Mar 19 2013 at 2 43 PM Permalink Here is the original paper that first dated MD95 2043 batheswithwhales Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 25 PM Permalink 601 BP radiocarbon 980 BP Too big a paranthesis there Steve lgp Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 37 PM Permalink re reassigning the core top from AD943 to AD1950 So they got rid of the Medieval Warm Period by moving it to the Modern Warm Period Ray Boorman Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 40 PM Permalink The sedimentation rate between the final two radiocarbon points of MD95 2043 was 26 7 cm kyr In contrast Marcott et al 2013 dated the coretop to 0BP 1950 AD and interpolated dates back to the radiocarbon date at 14 cm In effect Marcott et al presumed that the sedimentation had tripled from previously observed rates unprecedented Steve I think you made a typo in saying the sedimentation rate tripled surely it is only a third of the prior rate as your first graphic shows Sorry to be pedantic I love your analyse s of the crap put out by the third rate academics who call themselves climate scientists I know you want your posts to be as accurate as possible Steve thanks fixed Klapper Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 42 PM Permalink Marcott et al presumed that the sedimentation had tripled Don t you mean Marcott et al had assumed one third the sedimentation rate for the most recent period JEM Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 48 PM Permalink I guess that depends on whether you re calculating as mm years or years mm Klapper Posted Mar 19 2013 at 4 49 PM Permalink JEM Since the graphs all have years as the X axis the rate is measured in cm year hence Steve s sentence is wrong No big deal JEM Posted Mar 19 2013 at 4 58 PM Permalink I know just making noise Robert Austin Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 52 PM Permalink Who would have thought that a paper from a newly minted phD Marcott etal 2013 would completely overshadow the much anticipated Climatgate password release Just when things climate seem to get repetitive and boring the team drops another steamer on the fan good to see Steve back in fighting form I feel sorry for the young PhD s Marcott and Shakun perhaps lead to the slaughter be their elders who should have known better Manniac Posted Mar 20 2013 at 1 34 AM Permalink The two events are not unconnected mrsean2k Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 53 PM Permalink Marcott state in their archive in my opinion with unwarranted optimism that there is zero uncertainty in the 0 BP dating of the core top splutter batheswithwhales Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 54 PM Permalink And when they make the grand announcement That things are worse than they ve ever been Sounds ominous Steve But I like it Robert Austin Posted Mar 19 2013 at 3 55 PM Permalink Who would have thought that a paper from a newly minted PhD Marcott etal 2013 would completely overshadow the much anticipated Climategate password release Just when things climate seem to get repetitive and boring the team drops another steamer on the fan good to see Steve back in fighting form I feel sorry for the young PhD s Marcott and Shakun perhaps lead to the slaughter be their elders Climate Daily Posted Mar 19 2013 at 4 11 PM Permalink Reblogged this on Climate Daily dearieme Posted Mar 19 2013 at 4 46 PM Permalink Well I think you re all being very hard on the children Marcott and pals This sort of fiddling about with numbers has been common ever since the Second World War of 1520 1890 Reed Coray Posted Mar 20 2013 at 10 09 PM Permalink Thank you After reading the comments on this thread and trying to understand the various points being made I needed a good laugh Skiphil Posted Mar 19 2013 at 5 52 PM Permalink Also on the issue of how the media read the moral of the Marcott paper here is what Marcott s NSF grant manager told media the study implies emphasis added The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age said Candace Major program director in the National Science Foundation s Division of Ocean Sciences which co funded the research with NSF s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences This research shows that we ve experienced almost the same range of temperature change since the beginning of the industrial revolution as over the previous 11 000 years of Earth history but this change happened a lot more quickly EricH Posted Mar 19 2013 at 8 06 PM Permalink The paper was sold by its authors and sponsors as something it was not something that they knew would maximize likelihood of publication and exposure that quote in bold is very damning Theo Goodwin Posted Mar 19 2013 at 11 13 PM Permalink And she really really should have known better Salamano Posted Mar 20 2013 at 7 29 AM Permalink Perhaps this is the initial salvo of any potential FAQ regarding Marcott et al http ourchangingclimate wordpress com 2013 03 19 the two epochs of marcott John Silver Posted Mar 20 2013 at 10 44 AM Permalink grant manager LOL Bebben Posted Mar 19 2013 at 6 30 PM Permalink Come to think of it after 15 years of intense work and presumably good financing the Team and their supporters have yet to produce a credible hockey stick So it would seem that despite all their efforts what they have shown is that there simply is no data to support such a stick Because if there was they should have found them by now EricH Posted Mar 19 2013 at 8 16 PM Permalink yes but we shouldn t assume that it is easy or even possible to reconstruct thousands of years of temperatures from different proxies to a decadal resolution To my layman s eye this is a very hard probably impossible problem given the resolution and quality of the proxies not too mention geographic dispersion contentiousness of the subject etc etc uff da The true skeptic will leave the door open Just because it can t be readily confirmed with current technologies doesn t mean it isn t so Terry Posted Mar 19 2013 at 7 33 PM Permalink Re Robert Austin perhaps lead to the slaughter be their elders I also have a great deal of sympathy for the two young Post docs It will be gut wrenching for them to have thier magnum opus trashed so publically In Shakun s interview Revkin he came across as pretty genuine so I place the entire blame on the senior authors who should have insisted on some more in depth peer review Shame on them and unfortunately a sharp lesson for the young guys superpotentmegainvestors Posted Mar 19 2013 at 7 47 PM Permalink Here s Stoat taking science by the throat I m not even bothering to read the WUWT CA stuff because its clearly just fiddling with unimportant details and that s even if they re entirely correct which is unlikely W http scienceblogs com stoat 2013 03 11 a reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11300 years comment 28657 intrepid wanders Posted Mar 20 2013 at 2 09 AM Permalink Where a stoat fails you need a North American Wolverine but without words this is good http scienceblogs com stoat 2013 03 19 man slumped after hitting wall now is that science or a great self potrait P I have a sick respect for that ermine Steve Posted Mar 19 2013 at 8 03 PM Permalink Steve Do you think it reasonable that these kinds of things should be picked up in peer review and not left for you to find Is there a documented standard for peer review in the journal this was published in If not how is it decided that a paper has passed peer review Thanks Steve pottereaton Posted Mar 19 2013 at 8 11 PM Permalink Steve discussed peer review in a post above http climateaudit org 2013 03 19 bent their core tops in comment 406070 A Sinan Unur Posted Mar 19 2013 at 8 30 PM Permalink Late to the party but I just put together a smear plot lumping together all published proxy ages and temperatures from the SI It helps me see how many proxy observations there are from recent times I don t know if it adds much to the discussion but I like looking at data points to see how much extra and interpolation might have happened David Jay Posted Mar 20 2013 at 12 55 PM Permalink The 6 data points beginning at 10BP and extending to 1BP provide a nice uptick That must be what they mean by robust A Sinan Unur Posted Mar 20 2013 at 4 48 PM Permalink The plot is in degrees not anomalies and it uses published dates not the dates assigned by the Marcott Shakun Dating Service tm so it cannot be used to deduce where the uptick comes from But then Steve has already demonstrated some key points I just wanted to see what they had to begin with Mark Posted Mar 19 2013 at 8 37 PM Permalink To paraphrase a rather wonderful quote Marcott is both valid and confirms the hockey stick Unfortunately the parts that are valid do not confirm the hockey stick and the parts that confirm the hockey stick are not valid Pat Frank Posted Mar 20 2013 at 12 01 AM Permalink I just realized that They bent their core tops in fits the rhythm of The Hokey Pokey And it turns out to be so appropriate They bent their core tops in They bent their core tops out They bent their core tops in And they shook them all about They did the climate science And they ve turned it all around That s what it s all about Skiphil Posted Mar 20 2013 at 12 24 AM Permalink Hilarious Pat Now imagine that instead of the link to a kindergarten version try this one comedian Jim Breuer channelling AC DC in AC DC as inspiration Maybe someone can do an AC DC Core Tops Hokey Pokey for Youtube Pat Frank Posted Mar 20 2013 at 11 14 AM Permalink Skiphil you certainly found a diametrical opposite of the terminal cuteness displayed by little girls singing the hokey pokey AC DC indeed Espen Posted Mar 20 2013 at 3 20 AM Permalink So with MD95 2043 they re moving an MWP uptick to the CWP How ironic Richard Drake Posted Mar 20 2013 at 10 50 AM Permalink As I ve said already it s high time the Middle Ages pulled its weight in providing data to justify ongoing mitigation of unprecendented global warming catastrophe You know it makes sense TAC Posted Mar 20 2013 at 4 44 AM Permalink Steve s analysis of the Marcott Shakun redating is as always entirely convincing Marcott Shakun redating is clearly invalid and inappropriate there is nothing to add A question remains however Why would anyone go to such ridiculous lengths applying bad scientific methods that ultimately discredit the entire climate science community Are they really trying to defend a hockey stick that is itself fundamentally flawed Steve McIntyre Posted Mar 20 2013 at 10 05 AM Permalink A point that hasn t been discussed yet the SI to Marcott et al 2013 is very long and purports to show its robustness to a variety of sensitivities But notably left out is the sensitivity to core re dating a sensitivity that we know that they had done because it s reported as a chapter in Marcott s thesis a chapter which has the same coauthors as the Science article In the Simonsohn critique of false psychology papers Simonsohn was adamant that failed calculations needed to be disclosed Marcott et al should clearly have disclosed the results without coretop redating both to reviewers and to readers HR Posted Mar 22 2013 at 6 55 PM Permalink It s also an issue that has raised it s head in drug testing in the pharmaceutical industry and for which new procedures are in place It seems climate science is way behind the curve with respect to many different fields of research Kenneth Fritsch Posted Mar 20 2013 at 10 19 AM Permalink It has become rather obvious from the reaction to the Marcott paper that individuals will see what they want to see outside the confines of the paper proper These reactions are in my opinion bolstered by discussing parts of the paper and not looking at least as often as I would prefer the entire picture the paper presents The paper has 2 major technical limitations that I judge need attention and that by avoiding those discussions gives credibility were it is not deserved Beyond the technical limitations we have the issues that SteveM has been pointing out in these threads and that is the apparent sloppy and unexplained results that the Marcott authors committed in evidently forcing a reconstruction ending spike upward These issues may eventually be answered to the satisfaction of most the participants in these discussions but in the meantime what needs noting is the apparent lack of a first response by the authors and the seeming rush to minimize these problems by the defenders both as laypersons and scientists The problems pointed to here are those that give or should give pause to those who might otherwise regard the authors and their work as earnest and unbiased by advocacy The slower the response by the authors to these findings the more doubt it places on the integrity of their entire enterprise The more these problems are downplayed by climate scientists the more doubt that will be placed on the work coming out of the climate science community The primary technical limitation of the paper is combining individual proxy responses that are generally incoherent with one another and the lack of a discussion on how these proxy responses can be combined and averaged out to produce a realistic temperature response that has not been overwhelmed by other possibly random response effects Before using these proxies in temperature reconstructions those questions must be answered or at least seriously discussed The second technical issue and limitation is one that the Marcott authors have documented in the paper and then somehow forgotten outside the confines of peer review I have excerpted the following from the Marcott before and do so again below The authors clearly state that from their spectral analysis result there is no centennial variability in the reconstruction That means in effect that a true reconstruction if we assumed the proxy responses to temperature were meaningful would have a graphed appearance with a data point every 2000 years Now if we are looking to compare periods in historical temperature series with those in the modern warming period we would need a resolution of variability in the order of 50 to 100 years and even there the 100 year global modern warming anomaly would be on the order 0 3 to 0 4 degrees C If we averaged the modern warming into a 2000 year period it would change the anomaly by 0 015 to 0 02 degrees assuming the remainder of that period was at 0 anomaly Given the resolution determined in the Marcott paper showing a reconstruction ending spike makes no sense and in fact a reconstruction with a data point every 2000 years makes much more sense Numerous factors work to smooth away variability in the temperature stack These include temporal resolution age model uncertainty and proxy temperature uncertainty We conducted a synthetic data experiment to provide a simple first order quantification of the reduction in signal amplitude due to these factors We modeled each of the 73 proxy records as an identical annually resolved white noise time series spanning the Holocene i e the true signal and then subsampled each synthetic record at 120 year resolution the median of the proxy records and perturbed it according to the temperature and age model uncertainties of the proxy record it represents in 100 Monte Carlo simulations Power spectra of the resulting synthetic proxy stacks are red as expected indicating that signal amplitude reduction increases with frequency Dividing the input white noise power spectrum by the output synthetic proxy stack spectrum yields a gain function that shows the fraction of variance preserved by frequency Fig S17a The gain function is near 1 above 2000 year periods suggesting that multi millennial variability in the Holocene stack may be almost fully recorded Below 300 year periods in contrast the gain is near zero implying proxy record uncertainties completely remove centennial variability in the stack Between these two periods the gain function exhibits a steady ramp and crosses 0 5 at a period of 1000 years Kenneth Fritsch Posted Mar 20 2013 at 10 43 AM Permalink Actually the 2000 year period of the Marcott reconstruction which ends in 1940 would miss the modern warming period entirely Docmartyn Posted Mar 20 2013 at 9 18 PM Permalink The primary technical limitation of the paper is combining individual proxy responses that are generally incoherent with one another and the lack of a discussion on how these proxy responses can be combined and averaged out to produce a realistic temperature response that has not been overwhelmed by other possibly random response effects The actual line shape is unimportant what is important is the distribution of mean temperature over approximately 30 years in length If we know how noisy the temperatures were in the past then we can have an idea if the present is within these bounds Marcott el al present a jack knife 50 of Monte Carlo simulations which is obviously a technique which has been independently validated many times since it was invented by Johannes Kepler durango12 Posted Mar 20 2013 at 1 15 PM Permalink If I understand the analysis correctly the blade that was absent in the thesis but appeared in the publication arises from two overlapping effects 1 Truncation of negative or negatively trending time series 2 Redating of core tops that transferred data points from the MWP to the present Understanding that there are still unresolved complexities does the above capture the essence of it Julian Flood Posted Mar 20 2013 at 1 49 PM Permalink Shakun et al 2012 has Dr Marcott as a co author The primary finding of that paper depended on the dating of 80 proxies Were the proxies put through the same blender as those in the paper under discussion here JF Steve it wasnt concerned with the past millennium Julian Flood Posted Mar 21 2013 at 8 03 AM Permalink Thanks I find that paper s results surpring but I m pleased that they didn t rely on jiggery pokery with the dating JF Kenneth Fritsch Posted Mar 20 2013 at 4 12 PM Permalink I have linked in the three links below a Marcott standard reconstruction on a 1000 year and 500 year bases and the standard reconstruction as presented in Marcott et al minus the last point 1940 and with 2 sigma error bars I would suppose that someone on the opposite side of those hyping Marcott as the hockey stick on steroids could look at these graphs and hype the fact that AGW might be keeping us out of an impending mini ice age Given my confidence in the validity of the proxies as thermometers I would judge both sides to be wrong NZ Willy Posted Mar 20 2013 at 5 13 PM Permalink Nice work but the key to understanding Marcott s final output is that smoothing was not uniformly applied Instead each datum was time perturbed within the age uncertainty of that datum Since the 1940 data had uncertainty of zero they were time perturbed only along the vertical axis Therefore the whole graph was smoothed except for the 1940 data Barry Elledge Posted Mar 20 2013 at 5 12 PM Permalink Steve thanks for your work Have you calculated what the T vs time curve would look like if the proxies used their own dates as published except perhaps for Marcott s 14C standardization revisions and the excluded 20th century data points were included This recalculation would eliminate the major problems to which you have pointed Does the resulting curve look a lot different over recent centuries DaveA Posted Mar 20 2013 at 6 48 PM Permalink This is being discussed as a side argument in a SkS thread bashing Watts As usual the angels are dancing on pinheads though Tom C obviously more aware of the the fatal flaw s is trying to provide a more realistic perspective Sphaerica insists that the paper has a different focus to the thesis and has dared to counter Tom s bold proclamation with his own It s fun watching their own members confronted by their usual wall of obtuseness Steve McIntyre Posted Mar 20 2013 at 8 38 PM Permalink Here are a couple of places where Curtis fails to adhere to the concede nothing deny everything tactics of Mann and his associates Curtis agreed that the submission to Nature chapter 4 of the thesis and the published article in Science had the same focus and methods but that the results were remarkably different and questions deserved to be asked http www skepticalscience com news php p 2 t 107 n 1914 92130 barry 51 the paper does not have a different focus from Chapter 4 of the thesis and nor does it except for minor modifications have different methods Further pointing out that it has different methods minor as the changes are does not answer the question as to which difference in the methods resulted in the changes in the data presented in otherwise equivalent graphs Nor is it clear from the description of the methods in the paper and thesis in what the difference lies While I agree completely with your final sentence the issued raised in bad faith by McIntyre and Watts could also be raised in good faith Merely pointing out that McIntyre and Watts do not ask the questions in good faith does not show the questions do not need an answer Curtis observed that the difference in closing value for the Standard method was 0 7 deg C and retained enough scientific integrity to expect that a difference of that magnitude warranted an explanation Curtis speculated optimistically that the answer lay in enhanced proxy data through updated information or something similar http www skepticalscience com news php p 2 t 107 n 1914 92130 Sphaerica 53 looking closely at the two figures there is only two methods common between the two ie the Standard method Arithmetic mean of the 73 proxies and the RegEM method In both graphs the Standard reconstruction is extended through to 1950 but not further However in the Thesis the value of the Standard reconstruction at its termination 1950 is 0 4 C whereas in the Science article it is nearly 0 3 C In the thesis the terminal value for the RegEM method is 0 0 C whereas in the Science paper it is about 0 05 C Focussing on the difference in the Standard Arithmetic mean method 1 The difference betwen the two is not due to a different terminal point as both terminate in 1950 2 It is not due to employment of a

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/19/bent-their-core-tops-in/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • birdmen « Climate Audit
    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 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/birdmen/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • md01-2421 « Climate Audit
    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 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/md01-2421/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • MD95-2011 « Climate Audit
    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 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/md95-2011/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • OCE326-GGC30 « Climate Audit
    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 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/oce326-ggc30/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • pages2k « Climate Audit
    them Antarctica This is a composite of 11 isotope series mostly d18O It includes some new data e g Steig s new WAIS series and some long By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Multiproxy Studies Uncategorized Tagged pages2k Comments 54 PAGES2K South America Apr 20 2013 3 30 PM A commenter observed that the forthcoming PAGES2K received over 50 pages of review comments from one reviewer One wonders what he had to say about the PAGES2K South American network which has some very odd characteristics Here is a list of proxies with a couple of interesting features highlighted First note that the proxy network By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Multiproxy Studies Uncategorized Tagged pages2k quelccaya Comments 36 PAGES2K Gergis and Made for IPCC Journal Articles Apr 19 2013 10 36 AM March 15 2013 was the IPCC deadline for use in AR5 and predictably a wave of articles have been accepted The IPCC Paleo chapter wanted a graphic on regional reconstructions and the PAGES2K group has obligingly provided the raw materials for this graphic which will be published by Nature on April 21 Thanks to an By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Multiproxy Studies Uncategorized Tagged gergis pages2k Comments 58 Newer posts 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/pages2k/page/2/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •