Another hockey stick found in the southern hemisphere

[h=1]Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium[/h]Joëlle Gergis,[SUP]1[/SUP] Raphael Neukom,[SUP]1[/SUP] Steven J. Phipps,[SUP]2,[/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP] Ailie J. E. Gallant,[SUP]1[/SUP] David J. Karoly,[SUP]1[/SUP] and PAGES Aus2K Project Members[SUP]†[/SUP]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1

Abstract:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...h-hockey-sticks-from-the-southern-hemisphere/

 

Ah it must be IPCC filling season again where all the crap studies get filed just in time to make it into the IPCC report but without enough time for the skeptics to rebut them in the published research.

 

Yep seems to be another treeometer study. When are you warmmongers going to get that trees cant tell you the temperature. The divergence problem isn't bad data. It is evidence of what tree experts have trying to tell you. Trees have an optimum growing temperature. The reason treeometers are diverging now is the same reason they don't show a hot medieval warm period. Its too hot now and it was too hot then to use them to tell temperature.

Studies of actual temperature proxies like study of isotopes in stalagmites show a strong medieval warm period in New Zealand.



The wishful thinking of treeomters will never over rule the hard science of isotope ratios.

 

This must be Knee-Jerk-Reaction-To-Hockey-Stick season, where unqualified deniers see yet another proxy study and go bonkers without offering any substantive critique. Wait...that is year-round.

As for published research, good luck to deniers. They rarely publish beyond their shrill little blogs.

 

Trees dont have a linear relationship to temperature. They have an optimum growing temperature which produces a parabolic relationship to temperature at best. They cannot be used as temperature proxies.

 

Fail.

Also, your graph is from Idso, a hack at the disgraced Heartland Institute. For starters, note the date, both of the study Idso pretends to derive it from, and on the time period of their MWP peak.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=702

 

You quote John Cook an unemployed cartoonist and call Idso a hack. Please your source has no credibility what so ever. He makes the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) argument that the correction of Loehle 2008 is somehow significant. It wasn't you notice that no warmmonger like Cook actually says what the correction was. The reason he doesn't is because cook is an unemployed lying sack of (*)(*)(*)(*).

And I note the date. I don't think that when the stalactite was gather has any real significance. It is the same today as it was 1000 years ago or 20 years ago. He also have ice cores collected from the same time and many other proxies. The Graybill series that Mann so relies on was collected in 1982. Just zip it about the date. You are arguing from ignorance.

 

Since you can't dispute the take-down of your Heartland Institute propaganda, Fail again.

To compound your failure, the Idso graph ("adapted from Wilson...") doesn't even go back 1000 years. It goes back less than 900, and its peak is in the late 1300's. Most MWP proxies in the southern hem. and globally are much cooler then. It's also from a single stalagmite, rather than 3000 proxies of a broader region. This is why when you combine proxies into a hemisphere or global average and include recent warming (it's warmed about 0.6 C since 1979), you get a more smooth and less pronounced MWP followed by slow cooling to the LIA and a rapid warming past the 20th century exceeding by far the peak part of the MWP.

That's a lesson in how deniers obfuscate.

 

OMG you are right. It only captures the tail end of the MWP around the time the Vikings colonized Greenland. The peak must have been even higher.

Ha you cant even read your own study. Its 27 proxies genius most of them tree rings calculated 3000 different ways to obfuscate any audit.

No you get approximately the same and you are still comparing apples and oranges. Actual temperature records have a far greater precision and resolution than a proxy. Most proxies have at best poor precision and decadial resolution. Attaching the temperature record on the end is just a technique warmmongers use to obfuscate.

 

Hilarious. You're confusing Greenland with New Zealand now. They aren't even in the same hemisphere. Given how poorly the NZ stalagmite data matches with Greenland data 1100-1400, one might be a little skeptical of your claim

You went from All to Most. That is progress, but still essentially wrong.

"They use an ensemble of 3000 different reconstructions, using different methods and different subsets of the proxy network. Worth noting is that while some tree rings are used (which can’t be avoided, as there simply aren’t any other data for some time periods), the reconstruction relies equally on coral records, which are not subject to the same potential (though often-overstated) issues at low frequencies. The conclusion reached is that summer temperatures in the post-1950 period were warmer than anything else in the last 1000 years at high confidence, and in the last ~400 years at very high confidence."

Someone comparing a single stalgmite data point from New Zealand from a 1979 study with ice cores in Greenland shouldn't really be talking about apples and oranges.

At any rate, peak MWP periods don't match. Challenge to you, Windbag: calculate the average of each of these groups (11 sets of 3). Report your results.

3,2,4
2,3,3
4,2,2
2,4,1
2,3,1
2,2,2
1,2,2
2,1,2
2,2,2
2,3,2
4,4,3

 

[

I'm not comparing temperatures in New Zealand and Greenland just providing historical reference to the time frame of the medieval warm period. The tail end is considered the time that the vikings colonized Greenland. You are like a little dog that thinks it has a hold of something when it is just really the cars bumper.

While their data hasn't been released I'm going to assume that like most Australian coral samples they only go back about 400 or so years, after that time coral loses any meaningful resolution, and show a strong little ice age and their reliance beyond that point to the ever critical medieval warm period is entirely based on tree rings and maybe a coupe of upside down lake sediments.

Brake your tooth on the bumper yet. I'm not talking about ice cores in Greenland. Just the historical perspective on what is considered the MWP. You however are engaging in Loki's wager. Since we cant exactly define when the medieval warm period was we cannot discuss it. This isn't a logical fallacy for no reason. It is one of the most classic.

I'm not a dwarf. I'm not going to play a stupid Loki's wager with you. You aren't that smart and your games are absolutely transparent.

 

Your limited intellectual capacity seems to preclude you from being able to understand that the magnitude and timing of temperatures vary between regions. Sad.

That would be wrong too. They can go back at for several thousand years

That would be a red herring and strawman fallacy. You are claiming that NZ temperature back to 1000 must have been much warmer than its 1100 estimate, because Greenland was. That is fallacious to begin with, as they are entirely different regiions. It's also highly naive given that Greenland and NZ data show a very different MWP from 1100 to the late 1300s.

What is "my game" and if it's transparent, what is it?

Calculate averages for these 11 sets of 3 numbers. Don't be a coward.

3,2,4
2,3,3
4,2,2
2,4,1
2,3,1
2,2,2
1,2,2
2,1,2
2,2,2
2,3,2
4,4,3

 

I think that the timing has more to do with the precision of the proxy than the region itself. He have many proxies of the same regions that give different times so your argument does not follow.

At limited resolution. That is why most of them only go back a few hundred years. Past that point the resolution doesn't allow a good comparison. One of the reason that warmmongers wish that tree rings were a viable temperature proxy is because the nature of tree rings gives great resolution. And while the resolution may be very good they are still not reliable temperature proxies.

I'm arguing nothing of the sort. I only said that it was the same time the Vikings populated Greenland which is still considered to be within the medieval warm period. YOu are the one engaging in a strawman. Perhaps you don't understand that the medieval warm period id defined by history not temperature proxies. So I'm not playing your game.

I already told you to buzz off. You are trying to play Loki's wager arguing that since we cannot define where the medieval warm period began and ended precisely that we cannot discuss it. However, we can easily define it since it was a historical period defined by dated events like the vikings settling Greenland. No amount of disagreement between proxy reconstructions changes the historical dating of the medieval warm period.

 

[/quote]


You think a lot of things that have no scientific basis. 300 years is not a timing precision issue.

Nice try. Here was your argument:

Your logic: The Vikings colonized Greenland (the very southern part to be more accurate). Therefore, the peak in the New Zealand temperatures must have been higher than shown in the graph derived from Wilson 1979, which would be the late 1300's. So foolish on so many levels.

Pick any time period you'd like. The evidence is still the same. Note that if you only use "history" as a guide, then the MWP can never be global. Historical accounts are far less precise. We have the Vikings showing up on the southern tip of Greenland, and some grapes in England, similar to today. You have evidence of LIA being colder than MWP in many locations, but again, no magnitude. Those are very poor proxies, and don't indicate the magnitude and spatial extent. You end up a MWP denier that way.

I'll keep presenting the same question to you. It's easy.


Calculate the average of each of these groups (11 sets of 3). Report your results.


3,2,4
2,3,3
4,2,2
2,4,1
2,3,1
2,2,2
1,2,2
2,1,2
2,2,2
2,3,2
4,4,3

 

Actually its called resolution. Too far in the past and corals lose resolution. Most proxies lose resolution the further back in time you go. Ice cores are a good example. That is why trees would be a very nice proxy if they actually measured temperature. Tree rings give very good resolution. I'm sorry if you dont understand this.

Actually I'm basing my argument on science actually I was simply pointing out the historic context of the midieval warm period and how we define it. But if you want to put words in my mouth lets go over your ridiculous words.

There is no scientific premiss for your argument that the medieval warm period was this random warming that popped up like waldo all over the global at random times in the given window.

You see the proxies which don't do a good job temporally pinning down exactly when the medieval warm was and you jump to the conclusion that the medieval warm was a random event all over the world at different times.

Unfortunately there is no known event or any hypothesized event that can cause this. You are ignoring science and putting all of your faith in the proxies.

When it comes to proxies we skeptics apply a much simpler analysis, proxies simply aren't' very accurate temporally. Differences in timing is simply a problem with the approach and doesn't' represent anything that really happened.

The medieval warm period is a historic event. Its time period is set by history not later proxy analysis that confirmed or refuted.

Seriously buzz off! I'm not playing Loki's wager.

 

Most proxies lose resolution the further back in time you go. Ice cores are a good example. That is why trees would be a very nice proxy if they actually measured temperature. Tree rings give very good resolution. I'm sorry if you dont understand this.
[/quote]
The coral proxies used in the study go back to the 1100's and have good resolution. Tree rings are a good proxy for temperature. False on 2 counts.

The "historic context" doesn't have anything to do with hard science. How one defines the MWP is arbitrary.
Spin away, but you can't delete this:

You are using the Vikings in southern Greenland as a rationale for New Zealand being warmer than their late 1300's peak prior to 1100. Wrong on so many levels.

Don't lie. Those aren't my words, nor has anything I've written resemble that argument.

All climate proxies used in multiproxy studies do a nice job of capturing relative warm and cool periods in each individual proxy. Multiproxy studies can constrain them on larger scales. Your 2nd argument assumes that all warm periods at a given location must be replicated in magnitude in other location in the world and be perfectly in sync in magnitude. You are a regional variation denier. One of the characteristics of the MWP was a tendency towards long-term cooler tropical Pacific (la Nina-like) conditions, for example, which would likely result in large variation in different regions. Coral records date far back in the tropical Pacific and indicate cooler conditions there. The following study even dubs it the "Medieval Cool Period".

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/iugg/htm/abstract/abst/mc12/022025-1.html

Moot point, but irrational also is the assumption that the data must be wrong because you don't know of something specific that would result in the measured values. That would be equivalent to a doctor dismissing a patient's symptoms, when the root cause is not specifically determined.

Deniers do apply a simplistic analysis when it suits them, dismissing the hard data when it's inconvenient.

Looks like you need a history lesson. Hint: start with origins of the term "Medieval Warm Period". Do your best not to ignore the word "proxy".

Elementary school children could solve this problem. Why can't you? Don't be such a coward.

Calculate the average of each of these groups (11 sets of 3). Report your results.

3,2,4
2,3,3
4,2,2
2,4,1
2,3,1
2,2,2
1,2,2
2,1,2
2,2,2
2,3,2
4,4,3

 

While the above is entirely a useless ad hominen argument, I think it's worth pointing out that Windbag can't even tell the truth when hurling ad hominens.

1. John Cook is employed, and not in cartoon writing.

http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/john-cook-3280

2. The source I cited was not even written by Cook.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval_project.html

It was written by Jonsson (moniker hoskibui), a geologist in Iceland. Windbag might have figured that out by clicking on the link, which seems beyond the reaches of his/her intellectual capacity.

 

Citation for this? Or are you just making stuff up again?

 

UPDATE!!!

Well that didn't take long.

Climateaudit totally destroyed the paper here.

http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/06/gergis-significance/

And of course I was right it was yet another treeometer. It even had its own upside down proxy. I so love being right. Its nice to see how all the geniuses were talking about the corals yet the corals were clearly thrown out and the tree rings dominated the reconstruction. Who could have guessed.


The paper has since diapered from the AMS website.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...ion-after-post-peer-review-finds-fatal-flaws/

It is officially "on hold"
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/

Skeptic Blogs 1 - Peer Review 0

 

My, McIntyre certainly is a legend in his own mind, isn't he? The funniest part is how he's raging how awful it was that everyone won't instantly send him their proprietary data, and the lack of doing so proves they're hiding something. Normal people would call that conspiracy theory lunacy, but these are denialists. Which is the correct term for them. Skeptics are rational and don't constantly make crap up, so denialists are the direct opposite of skeptics.

Back in the real world, Gergis was one of multiple studies showing a similar thing, and the results of the calculation error in it probably won't change it much. But if denialists want to claim that the peer review process working properly proves the great conspiracy, they're free to publicly look like idiots.

Oh, note the difference in how the two sides act. Gergis graciously thanks McIntyre for looking over the paper. McIntyre snarls, proclaims Gergis is lying, then adds an insult directed at Gavin Schmidt. Real scientists do ... science. Political hacks rely on innuendo and insinuation (coughcoughSteveMcIntyre).

 

It's quite possible that McIntyre, after all of his years of climate-science "auditing", has actually flagged a significant error in a published paper. If so, it will be a first. We'll know after Gergis et al. rework their calculations.

But if this follows the usual pattern, whatever errors were uncovered will turn out to be trivial and will have minimal impact on the final results.

For example, consider what happened with McIntyre's supposed "debunking" of Mann's original hockey stick work. Mann reran his calculations taking into account every single one of the issues that McIntyre raised -- and what happened? Mann got the same hockey stick that he did with his original calculations.

Furthermore, there were a number of significant errors/deficiencies in the analysis that McIntyre performed in his hockey stick "debunking" -- this is something that I posted about here several weeks ago (and have reposted here for lurkers' convenience):

Unlike Gergis et al, who have graciously acknowledged the possible problems with their paper, McIntyre has never acknowledged the errors that he committed in his attacks on Michael Mann's work.

 

Their data is owned by the people. If you accept government money than you can't claim that your work is proprietary. Furthermore the whole proprietary argument is an invention of the warmmongers. Prior to McIntyre the warmmongers hand no trouble sharing their data with each other and they still don't. The just don't want to share it with anyone looking to find something wrong with it. Multiple FOIAs and later the climategate e-mials proved that the propitiatory argument was an after the fact invention of men like Jones who just wanted an excuse not give their data to skeptics.

The peer review process? The peer review process didn't catch it. The skeptic blogs caught it in less than a week.

Gergis is being gracious. He claims that the independelty discovered the error on the same day that it was discovered on climateaudit. Thats a lie and everyone knows it. They just wont want to give climateaudit the credit. Gavin did the same thing when he reported the error that McIntrye had discovered with the Harris station without giving McIntyre the academic credit and then mocked him for it. I'm sorry if you dont know the history of the event. Perhaps you should try reading some.

 

Let me focus on this fallacy as it is crucial to the now retracted Gergis paper.

The reason we use PC analysis is to avoid the Screening Fallacy particularly double dipping, that is selection upon the dependent variable. That is a statistical no no. You cant select a proxy based on how well it correlates to temperature to determine past temperature. Such a selection will inherently created trends that are consistent with the selection criteria. In the case of temperature proxies that would be a hockey stick.

PC analysis is supposed to select series based on their signal and strength there of and weight them by that strength not the dependent variable. When correct PC analysis is used you cant get a hockey stick. You have to play games. The first game and the game you are arguing for is the use of many more PCs and then the reweighting of the PCs according to their correlation to temperature. This in effect undoes PC analysis. When you select enough PCs to get your desired series into the reconstitution as Mann and Wahl Amman later did and then reweighting according to temperature correlation instead of eigen value you have undone PC analysis. All the PC analysis did was limit the series but in the end the reweighting menas you are still selecting on the dependent variable and falling into the screening fallacy.

 

This whole argument is a fallacy. "You cant select a proxy based on how well it correlates to temperature"?? Are you kidding me? So we can take any dataset randomly and expect it to be a temperature proxy, even if it doesn't correlate to temperature?

Of course you can. If there is a hockey stick signal in the data, PC analysis will give you a hockey stick. In fact, if you don't get a hockey stick from a hockey stick signal, you've done it wrong.

Nonsense. You use exactly as many PC's as you need, no more and no less. That's the point. And that's the key point M&M missed. (And never acknowledged missing. There's that famous McIntyre openness for you.)

The logical conclusion of that process is to simply dump the PC analysis and look at all the data, period. That's the long way around the barn, but it has been done and it leads to the same place: there's a hockey stick in the data. And it's signal, not noise.

 

A summary of the error discovered, from RC:

• 
  
  
  
  
  

The error is being corrected and the paper re-submitted, although early indications are conclusions will be largely intact, and McIntyre is attempting to spin this expectation.

Generally speaking, real errors discovered by deniers (in this case possibly one of Lord McIntyre's minions) are few, and of little to no implication, but you wouldn't know it by the hooting and hollering that goes on in the denialosphere when it happens.