Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The global warmist plan | Main | Up against the Wall - Josh 260 »

Santer: pause now 20 years long

David Whitehouse has taken a look at the Santer et al paper in Nature Geoscience that claims to find a partial explanation for the hiatus in surface temperature rises in the cumulative effect of a series of small volcanic eruptions.

As an aside, Whitehouse notes that once you have adjusted the temperature data for the non-AGW effects, the pause in warming is very long indeed:

Their Fig 1 shows raw lower temperature data (a), that with the El Nino removed (b) and that with El Nino and El Chichon and Pinatubo removed (c). Looking at 1c one sees that the lower atmosphere shows a standstill since 1993, that is 20 years! This is in itself a remarkable graph extending the ‘pause’ into the start of its third decade.

And suffice it to say, the attribution to volcanoes is shonky indeed.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (106)

DS and others, regarding the warming in the early part of the 20th Century up to 1940, Lindzen asks the question in the APS script: how well do the models simulate that warming? The answer is not very well: they underpredict the magnitue and overshoot the timing.

Stil, the science is settled and its man via CO2 wot dunnit, right?

Mar 1, 2014 at 1:25 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

EM: If you take the published Marcott 2013 hockey stick as valid, in spite of the authors' comments effectively admitting the smoothing is bollocks at the end of the series and contradicts the original PhD then you are really are clutching at straws.

Mar 1, 2014 at 1:28 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

(self snipped......grrrrr.......fake IPCC radiative fizzicks has ukced up the whole damn thing)

Mar 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterMydogsgotnonose

AR 5:
"the early 20th century warming is very unlikely to
be due to internal variability alone. It remains difficult to quantify the
contribution to this warming from internal variability, natural forcing
and anthropogenic forcing, due to forcing and response uncertainties
and incomplete observational coverage."

But the science is settled..............

Mar 1, 2014 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterIbrahim

Ibrahim, there is no significant anthropogenic forcing due to CO2 in the early part of the 20th Century. See Lindzen's comments in the APS transcript.

Mar 1, 2014 at 4:53 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist


The poor statistical quality at the end of Marcott et al's series is not the problem. For the 20th century we have direct measurement of surface temperatures. Even so, the similarity between the two graphs is striking.

What Marcott et al tells us is that the Holocene maximimum determined from the proxies and the 21st century surface temperatures determined from station and marine data are, within the confidence limits, identical.

Regarding the validity of Marcott et all as a source of Holocene temperature data, I notice that it has been cited 69 times to date. Those working on Holocene climate have high confidence in its quality.

Mar 1, 2014 at 5:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


The CO2 content increased from 289ppm in 1884 to 311ppm in 1940.

This would produce an increase in forcing of 5.35ln(311/289) = 0.39w.

At 4w/C that is a direct temperature change of 0.1C. At a climate sensitivity of 3.0 that becomes an expected increase of 0.3C

GISS ( ) give a temperature change of 0.27C over the same period.Certainly not insignificant.

Mar 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Notice how EM relies on a linear response to somethig that is known to behave in a non-linear fashion.

Mar 1, 2014 at 7:24 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter


CO2 forcing increases in proportion to the natural logarithm of the change in concentration.

That is nonlinear. Each extra ppm produces less warming than the one before.

Over the concentration range we are discussing, however, the difference between a linear and nonlinear response is a very small % of the actual change.

Perhaps you might clarify your comment. I fail to see what point you are trying to score.

Mar 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM: Sorry, you are talking rubbish. You are comparing proxy measurements at a minimum 300 yr smoothing with a huge error bar and a modest correlation with temperature to actual</I> temperature measurements. You obviously have no clue about the concept of the <I>support</I> of a measurement or the lack of absolute scaling in a non-temperature proxy, unless of course it is post hoc scaled and calibrated so it looks like it matches.

So tell me, how can proxy data with a minimum temporal resolution of around 300 years be compared to a modern day temperature series which has a length of only 150 years?

I'll read your answer with interest. Afterwards, if you like, perhaps if you want to learn something about change of scale of measurements (change of support) I'll send you some training notes from my course.

Look forward to hearing your answer. I always like a good laugh.

Mar 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

internal variability is going to be the magic word

and EM please do read the IPPC report chapter 9
they just haven't got a clue

Mar 1, 2014 at 10:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterIbrahim

EM says:

What Marcott et al tells us is that the Holocene maximimum determined from the proxies and the 21st century surface temperatures determined from station and marine data are, within the confidence limits, identical

Only if you believe the uptick at the end. Good enough for Nature, not good enough to include in the original Marcott PhD though.

No-one rational*, including the authors, actually believe the uptick at the end and apparent match of modern day temps is real. The holocene maximum was significantly warmer than present day and I think, ignoring the uptick at the end and accepting the low resolution and smoothness of the Marcott graph, its otherwise probably a pretty reasonable reconstruction.

In other words, it would be fine if it had been left as it was presented in the original thesis.

*Actually the BBC environmental numpties believe it. That's because its published in "a peer reviewed journal".

Mar 1, 2014 at 10:08 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

Ibrahim, have you read the APS climate seminar transcript? Its a very interesting read and although long its well worth the time spent to get through it.

Mar 1, 2014 at 10:14 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

Entropic man,
"Regarding the validity of Marcott et all as a source of Holocene temperature data, I notice that it has been cited 69 times to date. Those working on Holocene climate have high confidence in its quality."

Oh Lord, this is such nonsense...

“…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

Regardless of what one thinks about the extremely longerm trend validity of the Marcott paper, it tells us very little about trends lasting less than 2000 years, let alone 100. That is, if Marcott included a proper resolution on Temps up until 2010 in his paper, we would likely not even be able to see what is supposedly the "CAGW" period at the end. Why? Because the work is purposely designed to hide such short trends!

The paper sets out to make sure it doesn't tell you absolutely any context with regards to any of the individual periods it purports to cover. For that context, you must instead look at something like any of the endless papers which show the MWP (among many other periods) was warmer than today; with many such papers being found here -->

A cheesy computer trick does not automatically make that actual reality go away - it just tries to hide said reality so they can later tack on some completely out-of-context nonsense at the end and get unsuspecting dupes (apparently, like yourself) repeating its misleading representation before running out into the streets screaming "OMG, we're all doomed!" and voting for politicians who will increase their grants.

Meanwhile, if this unbelievably short temperature increase is like the no-fewer than 10 other extremely short (and higher) temperature spikes seen generally at the ~1,000 year points thru recent history - well, the Marcott paper would be updated in another roughly 1K years and never even show this silly "CAGW" scare, while temperatures will have continued unaffected on the longterm downward trend the paper also indicates is happening. Or in other words, we could just plot out another 1,000 years onto this overall downward trend
...the only problem is, plotting out another 1K years on the GISP2 cores means temperatures in the foreseeable decades will likely be falling back down to be as cold to colder than they were during the LIA - and that should be the real "catastrophic" concern of the Climatologist, instead of this nonsensical CO2 theory they are desperately trying to make fit a reality that could absolutely care less about CO2

Mar 1, 2014 at 10:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterDS

EM says:

Regarding the validity of Marcott et al as a source of Holocene temperature data, I notice that it has been cited 69 times to date*

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) "Corrections to the Mann et. al.(1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series" has been cited 241 times, and thats without "pal review".

What's your point? Another appeal to authority?

*Google scholar now shows 70 times - perhaps it picked up your comment here?

Mar 1, 2014 at 10:33 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist


I've only read the part with Lindzen
I'll read the rest, thank you

Mar 1, 2014 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterIbrahim

Thinking scientist

The uptick at the end of the Marcott et al graph is the rump of their data, as the number of available proxies decreased. They make that clear themselves.

There is no need to rely on it because we have five other datasets based on direct measurement.

The meat of their paper is the main Holocene ensemble record.

DS is claiming that the Holocene optimum was 1.5 C warmer than the present on the basis of obsolete data. He may even be using that old graph based on one ice core.
DS ; if you have good numbers to your assertion, let's see them. You may believe the propaganda sites, but I do not. Peer reviewed papers only please.

Mar 1, 2014 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Hi EM, so you chose to completely ignore what I wrote about support? Probably wise.

You are still basing your argument on the assumption that proxies (weakly linked to temperature, smoothed, unscaled and indirect information with large error bars) are directly comparable to real modern day measurements.

Your argument remains invalid, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Go and read McIntyre's review of Marcott 2013. Otherwise don't waste our time on nonsensical arguments using completely incompatible datasets.

Mar 1, 2014 at 11:31 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

EM, so if the uptick at the end of Marcott is the rump of their data, and we can ignore it because we have five modern temperature datasets, how do you make the leap of faith that ergo the modern day and holocene maximum are the same?

You cannot compare an unscaled, smooth proxy to modern absolute temperature measurements. Full stop. Period. Fin. The end. No conclusion can be drawn, except that post the holocene maximum the long term temperature trend in the proxy appears to be steadily downward.

Mar 1, 2014 at 11:42 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

I have heard this before, but have never had a sensible explanation.

Why is it impossible to compare one temperature mean with another?

Mar 2, 2014 at 12:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man

DS is claiming that the Holocene optimum was 1.5 C warmer than the present on the basis of obsolete data. He may even be using that old graph based on one ice core.
DS ; if you have good numbers to your assertion, let's see them. You may believe the propaganda sites, but I do not. Peer reviewed papers only please.

1) Whatever the heck you are talking about with this whole "obsolete data" stuff would have absolutely no barring on my post which was regarding your referenced paper (Marcott et al) having zero relevance to today's temperatures and that it tells people absolutely nothing about peak (or low) temperatures during any specific time period (as both TS and I have been telling you, you obviously have a serious issues on scaling that you just keep ignoring)

And I don't really understand your malfunction on the issue, honestly. I mean, I already showed you a collection of peer review papers from all over the globe showing the MWP was warmer than today - are you not even curious as to why that is true despite your Marcott paper failing to show this very real reality?

As I said, cheap computer tricks to try and hide reality you would rather wasn't there does not mean the reality is not there, it just means you can do cheap computer tricks to try and hide it. And that cheap computer tricks can dupe fools into believing they are actually reality just means we have very gullible to straight stupid people among us...

2) You are saying the GISP2 cores are "obsolete data" now? Really? When exactly was this decided, and by whom? Because honestly, this is surely to be news to the rest of the scientific community! (I'm sure NASA is going to be devastated hearing this...)

As far as your "peer reviewed papers please" comment regarding that graph - I suggest you look at the graph again as it tells you about as clearly as it can.

But why are you acting like you are somehow worried about peer-reviewed papers anyway? I have given you a ton and you've paid absolutely no attention to any of them in your desperate attempt to instead believe what you want to believe based off cheap computer tricks you have been told is somehow the complete reality

Mar 2, 2014 at 12:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterDS

EM, yes by your own formula when we apply it to today's CO2 ppm of 399, against the 1940 figure you supply, we get: 5.35ln(399/311)= 1.333 watts
So that gives us, based on your formula of 4 watts per degree .333 degrees, and than apply your sensitivity factor of 3, a yield of ~1.0c.
Since 1940 things have warmed up ~1c?
Please show us just where:

Thanks in advance,
It will be awhile before I can get back. The lovely Mrs Hunter and I are going to go enjoy some nice food and adult beverages.

Mar 2, 2014 at 1:00 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

EM,we are back from a pleasant evening of lamb, lobster, clams, wine and other yummies. I know it is in the wee morning hours in the lovely UK, but I do look forward to your answer.

Mar 2, 2014 at 6:17 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

EM: you cannot compare them in the absolute way you are doing because one is temperature and the other is a proxy. The proxy may tell you about relative changes but not absolute. And you cannot properly calibrate the proxy because its resolution is significantly less than the entire modern temperature record. You don't even have 1 valid calibration point, let alone a series.

Mar 2, 2014 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

Let's let EM respond. I applied his own analytics. And documented my point with credible evidence.
This is, in its own tiny blogosphere way, a chance to see if he is able to rise above the station he has placed himself.

Mar 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Hunter, DS, thinkingscientist


We' re rather getting away from my original point to Ibrahim that there was significant warming before 1940, but I'm quite happy to go with the flow.

I'm envious of your lobster. I'm not allowed crustaceans. They trigger my gout. :-(

The actual warming from 1940 to 2010 is from 14.05C to 14.6C (GISS 5-year averages as usual).. That is 0.55C.

I would love to know myself why the TCR pre - 1940 was 90% of the calculated ECS while for the post-1940 period it was 55%.

The R^2 correlation coefficient between CO2 and temperature since 1880 is 0.82.

Putting these together suggests that the overall effect of CO2 contributes between 55% and 80% of the total climate change. There is also the tendency for the rate of rise to vary considerably over timescales from a few years up to 30 years. Any suggestions for getting a handle on such noisy data? There is plenty of scope for you to find roles for other climate drivers if you can get the numbers.


What computer? I used a calculator, but could quite happily have done the same calculation on paper. I could even have used my Mk1 digital computer (fingers) :-)

GISP2 is one core, with very noisy data. With no indication of the confidence limits for the Holocene spike you target, your claimed 16.1C (1.5C warmer than today's 14.6C ) is going beyond the data. It has also been subsumed within the Marcott et al dataset.

I will resist the temptation to point out that if thinking scientist is correct, such a comparison between an ice core and the current record is invalid.That would destroy borh our arguments and both of us would be wasting our time. :-)

Thinking scientist

As far as I am concerned a temperature is a temperature, no matter how you define it. I am aware that the temporal resolution of the Marcott data is lower than the modern record, but do not see that as relevant when comparing the Marcott value for 8000 years ago with the temperature record now.
I once visited the Dupont nylon plant outside Londonderry with A- level pupils and we got into discussion of their temperature records. The plant opened with a mix of mercury thermometers, bimetallic strips and direct reading thermocouples, data recorded hourly on clipboards by wet and windswept technicians. They then installed thermocouples throughout, recording on paper rolls. Finally they went digital with another generation of thermocouples, data loggers and computer control.

Despite this plethora of different data sources the engineer was quite happy that they could calculate fatigue lives for the reactors, along with spotting trends in performance of the system and planning long term maintainance.

You mention calibration. The initial calibration obviously has to be done by reference to other sources. For example average temperatures derived from pollen analysis were determined knowing the growth limits for the species involved. Others are physics based, such as beryllium and oxygen isotopes.

There is one way of doing direct calibration: proxies that overlap the 1880 start of the temperature record.

Applying this to Marcott et al, their data bottoms out in the early 1800s. By 1880 the proxy ensemble is reading 13.8 +/- 0.2C.
GISS starts in 1880 at 13.8C +/- 0.1C. The two agree within their confidence limits on a value for that date between 13.7C and 13.9C. That's close enough to demonstrate that the proxy ensemble are giving temperature figures comparable with the temperature record.

Contrary to your claim it is also an order of magnitude better than the total GISS range.

Mar 2, 2014 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM: a proxy is not a temperature.

Mar 2, 2014 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

EM: a proxy is not a temperature.

Mar 2, 2014 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

A measurement is not a temperature as a map is not a territory.

A mercury thermometer varies the length of a mercury column. A bimetallic strip bends, a thermocouple or a radiometer generates a voltage; an ice core varies oxygen isotope ratios. All of these are proxies.

None of these is a temperature. The temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules which caused all these proxies to change.

What is of interest is the energy content, and hence the average temperature, of atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and land surface at different times. All our measurement techniques are tools to estimate that actuality.

Be careful not to get caught in the instrument fallacy, confusing the measurement with the reality.

Mar 2, 2014 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, And it was great lobster- prepared over a grill. Sorry about the gout.
And of course you are just dancing around this.
Over a longer term with much more CO2 increase the temps did not respond,
Time to toss models and assumptions.

Mar 2, 2014 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter


A mercury thermometer can be calibrated. You can not calibrate a proxy with what is effectively a 300 year resolution with a temperature record that is 150 years old.

Mar 2, 2014 at 11:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Entropic man

The R^2 correlation coefficient between CO2 and temperature since 1880 is 0.82.

I will assume that is a typo, and you really meant the much more proper r2=0.28

What computer? I used a calculator...

I know you are obviously really, really, really desperate to avoid the actual issue we keep pointing out, but will you please try to stay on topic for a change and just address the catastrophic error in your argument?

Oh wait, maybe you tried...

As far as I am concerned a temperature is a temperature, no matter how you define it. I am aware that the temporal resolution of the Marcott data is lower than the modern record, but do not see that as relevant when comparing the Marcott value for 8000 years ago with the temperature record now.


But let's just take this whole thing out of the Temperature argument because clearly we are not on the same page there. Instead, let's see if we can just agree on this first:
Based solely on Win Percentage, the 2014 Cleveland Indians were the best the team has ever been, right?

Mar 3, 2014 at 12:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterDS

"Be careful not to get caught in the instrument fallacy, confusing the measurement with the reality."
Ha ha! ....Climate Science and Choreography move inexorably closer.

Mar 3, 2014 at 12:15 AM | Unregistered Commenterbullocky

Certainly the measurement is not the reality, but how much more true for the model?
Certainly, as we watch the arm waving and heroic gymnastics performed to distract from model failure, it might be good to recall the other proverb:
The map is not the territory.

Mar 3, 2014 at 2:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

It can be shown that AGW is zero. At least a good chunk of it.

What did the IPCC say happened when they ran models without CO2 in 2nd half of 20th century? They got a flat trend. This is what natural influences do, they said, ... produce a flat trend.

Look at what Santer got when he removed natural influences, i.e, El Nino and some assorted volcanoes. A flat trend.

But, from the IPCC argument above, you're not supposed to get a flat trend when you do that. You're supposed to get the left-over AGW.

Which means, AGW=zero.

Mar 3, 2014 at 3:25 AM | Registered Commentershub

EM, you are becoming more and more obtuse in your arguments. A thermometer is a calibrated instrument, a proxy is not. And if temperatures are so reliable, why do the historical temps at the start of the 20th Century keep getting systematically corrected downwards relative to the latter part of the 20th Century?

Anyway, regarding proxies and "absolute" temps, note Marcott is centred and standardised and then recentred to match Mann (LOL!). It matches modern day temps by construction. It is not independent temperature observation.

From the master of statistics McKintyre at ClimateAudit:

Arbitrary re-centering and re-scaling is embedded so deeply in paleoclimate that none of the practitioners even seem to notice that it is a statistical procedure with inherent estimation issues. In real statistics, much attention is paid to taking means and estimating standard deviation. The difference between modern (in some sense) and mid-Holocene mean values for individual proxies seems to me to be perhaps the most critical information for estimating the difference between modern and mid-Holocene temperatures, but, in effect, Marcott et al threw out this information by centering all data on the mid-Holocene.

Having thrown out this information, they then have to link their weighted average series to modern temperatures. They did this by a second re-centering, this time adjusting the mean of their reconstruction over 500-1450 to the mean of one of the Mann variations over 500-1450. (There are a number of potential choices for this re-centering, not all of which yield the same rhetorical impression, as Jean S has already observed.) That the level of the Marcott reconstruction should match the level of the Mann reconstruction over 500-1450 proves nothing: they match by construction.

(my bold)

Mar 3, 2014 at 10:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

As we see the AGW infrastructure be shown to be dodgy at best, another proverb that comes to mind is GIGO:
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Please show us one AGW driven policy that has made anything better?

Mar 3, 2014 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter


R^2 x 0.89

R^2 = 0.89

R^2= 0.72

Three different calculations for R^2, all showing a high correlation.

Mar 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"And if temperatures are so reliable, why do the historical temps at the start of the 20th Century keep getting systematically corrected downwards relative to the latter part of the 20th Century?"

I think a better question there is why does the then extreme 1960s-1970s cooling keep moving up at the same time! (of course, we know the reason why - they are trying to change the well documented past to match their CO2 theory of today. If they didn't, the trends would still look a lot like this
...but we cant have that in their little "since boiled the planet" doomsday scenario they are trying to con people into believing, now can we?)

No matter, I post because I think some of that conversation is clouding out the much, much, much more important one here (one I believe you are incorrectly allowing him to move you away from). That is, the fact that Marcott et al has absolutely no relevance to recent temperatures anyway because of the much bigger issue than just being proxy vs. instrument

"there is one important limitation that I feel deserves more attention. They rely on proxy data that is widely spaced in time (median sampling interval 120 years) and in many cases may also be subject to significant dating uncertainty. These effects will both tend to blur and obscure high frequency variability. They estimate (page 1, column 3) that only 50% of the variance is preserved at 1,000-year periods. This amount of variance suppression is roughly what you would expect if the underlying annual temperature time series had been smoothed with a 400-year moving average. In essence, their reconstruction appears to tell us about past changes in climate with a resolution of about 400 years. That is more than adequate for gathering insights about millennial scale changes during the last 10,000 years, but it will completely obscure any rapid fluctuations having durations less than a few hundred years. The only time such obscuring might not occur is during the very recent period when dating uncertainty is likely to be low and sample spacing may be very tight.

Because the analysis method and sparse data used in this study will tend to blur out most century-scale changes, we can’t use the analysis of Marcott et al. to draw any firm conclusions about how unique the rapid changes of the twentieth century are compared to the previous 10,000 years. The 20th century may have had uniquely rapid warming, but we would need higher resolution data to draw that conclusion with any certainty. Similarly, one should be careful in comparing recent decades to early parts of their reconstruction, as one can easily fall into the trap of comparing a single year or decade to what is essentially an average of centuries"
- Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist at Berkeley Earth

That is the much, much bigger problem in his reliance on Marcott et al (and why I went as far as to introduce that Cleveland Indians Win% graph hoping 'Entropic man' would finally catch on to and/or address the bloody obvious he so desperately wants to avoid - and maybe he did catch on, he hasn't been back yet... It is also why I kept giving him papers showing the WMP was warmer than today; that is the next issue he needs to address after he finally concedes Marcott's smoothed trendline has absolutely no relation what so ever to today's temperatures)

Because of the numerous other issues within the paper topped off by what was seen as a gigantic misrepresentation, the terms Retraction and Scientific Misconduct started getting branded about - leading to a Marcott Q&A session. To make sure 'Entropic man' cant do his typical diversion away from the topic, I will quote the authors from said Q&A:

Q. What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A. Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions....

Q.Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A.Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.

And earlier I even gave the papers actual quote

“…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

But, as always, he just ignored it...

So in the face of actual reality, we still get the facepalm inducing "I am aware that the temporal resolution of the Marcott data is lower than the modern record, but do not see that as relevant when comparing the Marcott value for 8000 years ago with the temperature record now" from 'Entropic man'

I doubt he will come back, but if he does it is time to make him account for the catastrophic error in his argument that he has been desperately avoiding the entire time (an error that would really be comical if it wasn't done for obviously deceitful reasons - well, unless he really is as dumb as he is acting; in which case I guess it is possible he is merely another in a long line of mindless dupes parroting what SkS has told them to say on topics)

Mar 3, 2014 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterDS

Haha! Looks like I spoke too soon (well, was speaking at least) - he did crawl out from his hole...

Entropic man,

The funnest thing happens to all your little data when you actually look at it

1880-1929 is r2=0.0653
1930-1979 is r2=0.0008
1980-2007 is r2=0.6677

...but wait, there's more!

Don't like those breakdowns? Well hey, we can use the IPCCs labeled time periods if you rather. Those are - everything pre-1950 was natural, everything post 1950 was "man made"
Pre -1950 is r2=0.4073 (well that's sucks - hence their calling that period natural)
Post-1950 is r2=0.7988 (omg, that is almost good! - and hence their concluding CO2 somehow must be causing warming "since 1950" ...although, it is odd you go against the IPCC and all the Warmists in believing that period was somehow CO2 induced as well.)

The problem? Of course it would be okay for that specific post-1950 time! After all

You would have thought the other 44 years of it not matching at all would have been a red flag though, wouldn't you? ...but I guess it was only about 20 of 40 years not matching when they decided their conclusion was absolutely perfectly correct circa 1995, so maybe we should give them some slack for jumping to foolish conclusions?

And wanna do something really, really, really cool? Plot the r2 on CO2 and Human Population going back multiple hundred years if you like. What you will find is a near perfect 100 r2. That is because obviously CO2 creates Humans! Neat huh?

Anyway, I suggest you go back and learn a little something about r2 before using it in your arguments - it will just lead to you being baited into arguments that can only make you look foolish in the end

Now, I believe there are much more important issues on your plate to address though, so please stop avoiding

Mar 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterDS

I love how glibly they toss out the phrase "the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories” without acknowledging that this is the CORE FLAW in all climate projections. This is not a coincidence of unlikely events spoiling their work. It is an obvious error in their methodology, an error so ubiquitous it calls into question the entirety of the discipline. The fact that their inherently flawed assumption led to inherently flawed modelling shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Weather, and by extension climate, is not a static linear system. You don’t have to be a chaoticist to understand this. Anyone old enough to remember ten years’ worth of weather could have told them the planet doesn’t work that way.

The SEC mandates that all investment ads include the disclaimer that "past performance is not a guarantee of future results." Why are climatologists held to such lower standards?

Mar 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterGH05T

I noticed in 2009 after reading the climategate leaks that if climate science was involved in the investment world, those emails would have led to audits, grand juries, subpoenas, and real forced disclosures.
Instead we have had to endure nearly a half decade of goal post moving, smugness, game playing and wagon circling by AGW promoters.

Mar 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter


I haven't checked it recently but Bart shows in one of the blogs using woodfortrees (I think the big rgbatduke epic at WUWT) the Salby integration that suggests CO2 lags temp by 7 months. If there is temporal correlation, the correlation may be due to temp, but if temporally correlated series are concerned, you would still get a correlation at zero lag correlation, but weaker (like in the Vostok ice core data, where there is a good CO2/Temp correlation but it increases if you lag the CO2 by 800 years).

I'll see if I can find bart's link to woodfortrees. It would be interesting to see what the integration correlation looks like split pre- and post-1950...

Mar 3, 2014 at 8:24 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist


Bart's comment is on this page (search on bart)

He links to the following graph at woodfortrees

I recall in another comment he showed the correlation with rss is even more impressive...

Mar 3, 2014 at 8:31 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

Thinking scientist

Try correlating annual CO2 with Northern Hemisphere temperatures. The biggest driver of the annual cycle is the amount of respiration and photosynthesis on the Northern Hemisphere land surface.

Keeling curve minima would be expected to occur at the end of the growing season in September, maxima in March.

Mar 3, 2014 at 11:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM: try Bart's wood for trees link just above. Please explain why CO2 lags temperature by 7 months in the real world.

Mar 4, 2014 at 8:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

thinking scientist

I just did.

Mar 4, 2014 at 1:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

So maybe we can do a navigation check, as it were:
The AGW promoters are now offering multiple self-conflicting excuses for the "pause" (termination?).
The "pause" is extending out, and is now crossing into the territory of showing statistically that the underlying climate crisis thesis is wrong.
Reliance on high sensitivity is proving to be a not-useful thing.
Not one of the predicted weather metrics that were hyped up to show a climate crisis is cooperating as needed.

Mar 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

EM: So now explain how CO2 increase in the atmosphere is man-made...

Mar 4, 2014 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist


Thanks for the link, it will get a bookmark for later reading of that very long discussion!

But the problem is, do we even know the proper CO2 levels for pre-1950? We are constantly told they are completely flat for thousands of years at around 280ppm based off Law Dome and DomeC, but...

A quick nod to someone recently lost,

And if anyone is confused on how he can get CO2 levels that look absolutely nothing like what we are obsessively told they really supposedly looked like, he was using chemical measurements that have been taken since the early-1800s. Further detail can be seen in this paper by him

It is also supported by Plant Stomata, which one can check out a teaser on in FIg3 and AppendixIII here for more information (although the whole thing is an interesting read)

The only thing I can really say is that ideally soon we can get away from this so-called "settled science" attempting to nonsensically dictate with an unbelievably heavy hand what science is supposed to be and what it absolutely must say, and instead get back to reality where we study things we have little understanding of and allow the science to go where it wants. I would think actually knowing what CO2 levels were would be a good start to knowing what effect it might have - until they allow that though, we are all just trying to fit the constantly getting rounder peg they supply into the round hole they have insisted we use.

As it stands we obviously do not have a high degree of certainty on CO2, while our historic temperatures are constantly being 'adjusted' to fit what they insist CO2 was. Reality has left the building a long time ago; welcome to 1984

Mar 4, 2014 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterDS

ThinkingScientist ,

EM: So now explain how CO2 increase in the atmosphere is man-made...

Yeah, good luck on that!

what was that movie quote? "The Ignorce is strong with this one," was it?

Mar 4, 2014 at 5:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterDS

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>