1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

PAGES 2k Paleoclimate Network

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by bwilson4web, May 1, 2015.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Source: Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick | ThinkProgress

    [​IMG]

    I bought the paper. However, there are free resources:
    Careful climate deniers, you might get whacked by a hocky stick shaped, 'clue by four.'

    Bob Wilson
     
  2. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I'm a little confused by the sources. Here is the arctic reconstruction from you source.
    [​IMG]
    I'm glad PAGES is checking and doing other reconstructions, but that 2013 think progress chart looks highly suspect. They lay the green dots of a PAGES reconstruction on the old hocky stick shaft, and HADCRUT temperature data. I'm not sure what we are supposed to see there, other than a pretend confirmation of old data that we have since revised. Certainly we don't get revised error bars or discussion on if PAGES confirms the shaft, or what other reconstructions have found, which was what the controversy was all about. Certainly the LIA and MWP are clear in the 2014 PAGES reconstruction here, but .... it is only one region, and must be combined with other regions to understand how these past climate changes affected the earth and how closely they were synchronized.
     
  3. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    The paper states,"we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions" not just the 'arctic.'

    Still, you've hit the nail on the head:
    [​IMG]
    source: PAGES2k_MBH991.png

    Opps, the chart comes from the "PAGES2k" source. The paper comes from "Nature Geoscience" and is called a "Progress Article" and reports factually what the PAGES 2k Consortium had provided. A reference to "Think Progress" is called a 'Red Herring' that tries to distract from the original, source paper. The only 'pretending' is not found in the paper.
    No controversy as PAGES is the source.

    Did you miss-speak about "it is only one region" when PAGES writes in their paper,"we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions." For example:
    [​IMG]
    Source: 2k-temp-grid-640pix.jpg

    I'm OK with citing, quoting, directly from their paper. If there are specific technical issues, lets start from the source. After all "Think Progress" only shared their summary of the paper so us lay people could get a copy and read it directly. Of course if 'Mojo' were here:
    The source of the pointer to the paper and project does not matter . . . 'red herring.'

    Bob Wilson
     
    #3 bwilson4web, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  4. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Can you show me the pages source. This is my full URL
    http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PAGES2k_MBH991.png

    This is the refered to source from the affinity article you posted, it was down yesterday, but i don't see the chart. It does have a chart of temperatures and compares it to other hemisphere

    Google Translate
    It doesn't appear to have anything like that chart.

    No I was talking about the one area where you posted the reconstruction the arctic and that not being all. Ok here is what they say in that link.

    Note how different this is than there was no Little ice age that we got in defense of the hockey stick as published prominently in IPCC III and defended by affinity sites. The stripped hockey stick had no indication of switching between reconstructions and temperatures and no error bars. This new paper has a defined range of time for it 1580-1880, and it appears they show how it worked in each region. They say it was not synchronous not that it did not exist.

    My biggest problem with the hockey stick was lack of peer review for years, which might have had it fixed earlier, and the defense of it which required mental gymnastics of there was no LIA or MWP, instead of asking the questions was the LIA regional or global, and if it was global was it synchronous or asynchronous. Here we have one of many studies that says global asynchronous.
     
    #4 austingreen, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    The paper I'm using from the project:

    "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia", PAGES 2k Consortium, nature geoscience, 21 April 2013, DOI 10.1038/NGEO1797, Vol 6 May 2013​

    This week's class in Denial 101x addressed the problem of the "Hocky Stick" originally by Mann's team at U. of Penn. had become an icon, a familiar source that tells lay people what is going on. But Mann's chart also became a lightning rod for attack. Then along come PAGES 2k and an independent team of researchers comes up with a global hocky stick. The science does not go away ... peer or no-peer. But there is one latent defect in the claim of 'no peer review.'

    Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1999), "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759, Bibcode:1999GeoRL..26..759M,doi:10.1029/1999GL900070.​

    Letters in Geophysical Research are certainly reviewed by the editors of Geophysical Research or we'd see Watt's nonsense filling the list. The first 'peer' was the editor of Geophysical Research at the time who approved the first publication. The subsequent peers were those who read the letters at the time but this is a 'red herring.' Where are the technical objections?

    Now I have have some minor experience in technical publications in the past via a now defunct group, DECUS (Digital Equipment Corporation User Group.) We faced a problem with separating:
    1. Sales pitches - a DEC goal
    2. Technical presentations - user education
    3. User papers - mixed quality, some just 'warmed over cut-and-paste' to get a trip
    4. Poster papers - often gems of new approaches
    5. Open Mic. - adult beverages were involved with a lot of fun
    So I proposed a "DECUS Journal" so papers could be reviewed by technical experts with feedback to the authors. This significantly improved the quality and led to new insights. After getting recognition in the first Journal, I joined the review team.

    My point is 'letters' are not the local newspaper 'letters to the editor' which are not always accepted either . . . although BLOG technology has taken over that function. Mann's original work has been replicated by independent teams AND in the absence of a technical criticism . . . "peer review" is weak tea.

    Bob Wilson
     
  6. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A


    That was the paper I linked from climate progress. Here is anouther link from google now that it is confirmed
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
    The graph that is in the climate progress is not on the front page (I did not purchase the full article) and the author of the graph is Klaus Bitterman who is not a reference or an author. The paper does have references to Mann's work, but from the multiproxy 2008 and 2009 papers, not the mbh paper that had some errors. See no red herring, and I wasn't trying to slime your thread, it just is the climateprogress has different goals than pages and its not a pages graph.

    There were 2 areas that needed peer review - suitability of PCA and if it was used correctly, suitability of tree rings to be a paleo proxy as used in the paper. The blade was never controversial, although the way it was grafted on was. Mr. Mann refused to turn over his data to anyone other than those hand chosen to be safe.

    Let's go over the easy stuff first. Phil Jones criticized the use of grafting his hadcrut temperature data on to the paleo reconstruction, as looking misleading as if the proxy accurately reflected all temperatures, and that the proxie that average temperatures over longer time periods. In the initial papers this difference was pointed out, but advocacy sites did leave this out, leaving Mr. Jones criticism valid. No problem with showing both on the same graph as long as its clear, but it was later used, even by Mr. Jones himself blurring these differences.

    The second problem, the use of tree rings included many that changed with carbon dioxide, precipitation, as well as temperature. Now you can use these along with other proxies, but as they were used they gave false carbon dioxide and precipitation signals instead of just temperature. The math errors made this harder to detect. Mann did new reconstructions acknowledging this problem in 2008 and 2009.

    The biggie was picking and choosing peers for peer review. In one of the famous climategate emails, Mr. Jones tells Mann to never turn over the data, and they he himself will destroy data if a court compelled him to turn it over. Mr. Mann eventually released the PCA algorithms so that McIntyre could test them. He and von Storch tested them, and .... the algorithms were wrong. I guess we can see why he didn't want to release them. Now both McIntyre and Mann gained fame from the politicial fight, and both made money. McIntyre seemed surprised by the whole ordeal, but happily profited from it. The loser from my point of view was science and the people paying for research, Mann was greatly enriched, and if he didn't like the fame or infamy all he had to do was release all the data.

    Has Mann released all the data? No lots is still secret, which is kind of crazy, which is why these defenses still go on and he still is in the news. He currently is involved in a liable suite, that can be proved if he just releases all the data. Why a Climate Scientist's Libel Case Matters | Michael Mann's Libel Suit Progresses in Court
    It is not for peer review this time, but for his reputation. The court said it will reject his claims if he doesn't release his data, and he may be liable for big counter suits if he does not. I just don't get it. If you want the controversy to go away simply stop the silliness and release the data, or stop the claims.
     
  7. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus


    Folks need to understand I enjoy 'austingreen' posts. We are discussing an area where bright people can see different sides of the elephant.
    Funny thing, we went over the 'tree ring' issue last night in Denial 101x. My understanding is the tree rings have two parts, width and density. But apparently this problem was known as early as 1998:
    Tree ring divergence is a problem of a proxy that went off scale during a period of time when we had temperature records. As explained in the class, it started around 1960s and remains an area of active investigation. After all, the intelligent species that follows us may not be able to read our computer records and mold eaten books. They may only have 'tree rings' to try and figure out why the earth cooled after the 1960s. <grins>
    [​IMG]
    So if we have a broken proxy, do we use it anyway even though we have thermometer data? This is why Phil Jones is wrong:
    When a proxy is proven to have diverged, like a satellite instrument that begins sending wrong values, we don't have much choice but to either 'send a repair mission' as we did with Hubble, try to correct the calibration on the ground (impossible in some cases), or simply stop using it when the divergence is found.

    Hummm, tree ring proxy again:
    Darn, the guy sees the problem and documents the problem. How terrible is that?

    I've made a fair number of posts over the years but occasionally have made mistakes. Recently someone pointed out it is rude to cite a specific member for a general group of fanatics. So I went back and corrected my post substituting the more accurate term for the ad hominem . . . I correct my mistakes which even Christie/Spencer did at least once (another is pending.) That is how science works. The mistake is an OPPs but once corrected, we move on as there are more interesting problems. But apparently 'tree ring divergence' remains in the place were the dead horse was drug away.

    Here we'll have to agree to disagree because "PAGES 2k" superceeds Mann's original work:
    Mann's original work has been validated by an independent team. So if for pi he used:
    I don't get too terribly concerned if his method was not perfect yet got the right answer.

    So he won't get a Nobel Prize like Svante Arrhenius who came up with one of the earliest CO{2} global warming models, too bad. That has nothing to do with the documented 1 C rise and increasing sea levels we see today and are projected to continue in the future.

    So how many millions of dollars did 'Mann was greatly enriched' earn? Is he now one of the 500 richest people in America?
    • Welcome to Forbes
    • Other than the 'tin hat' crowd, who thinks climate scientists are wealthy and where is their proof?
    I'm fairly calm about the natural world. It really doesn't care what electrons we waste posting love notes in PriusChat. Arctic ice continues to melt as apparently does Greenland and Antarctica. The upward global warming trend remains positive although the slope changes thanks to naturally occurring external variables: solar, volcanoes, and orbital. Mann published the right answer now confirmed by PAGES 2k and the 'hockey stick' remains the icon like this fighter:
    [​IMG]

    And later:
    [​IMG]
    Knocking down Mann, the 'Hockey Stick' is up again.

    Bob Wilson
     
  8. Former Member 68813

    Former Member 68813 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    3,524
    981
    8
    Location:
    US
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    the hockey stick is real alright, but the fixation on the lat 2000 years is very misleading. when one looks on the 10,000 year scale, the current warming is a spike on a 5000 year long cooling trend (figure B):
    [​IMG]

    Science Magazine: Sign In

    even better view is on a longer time scale.

    [​IMG]

    that chart shows that the dust levels really control the temps on a long term scale and we live in a dust free anomaly. we are overdue for a supervulcano activity and that will start new ice age despite all that anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
     
  9. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Your charts show it is the signature of man-made, global warming but you've jumped to a conclusion, "very misleading", not supported by facts and data:
    The data shows it is on point:
    1. A temperature increase that initially took ~2,000 years has happened in 150 years, ~25 times faster than natural changes.
    2. A cooling trend that took ~5,000 years has ending in 150 years, ~33 times faster than the natural change.
    The facts are Senator Inhofe claims man is not causing this climate change which is why the detailed 2,000 year record is important. He has written a false book and takes every opportunity to claim man can not change the climate God made.

    The more interesting problem in the slope of the temperature increase. Current research is investigating the 'end game,' when or where it might stop. Right now, we're in for a sea level rise but we don't yet have a hard number on the upper limit.

    BTW, dust is incorporated in the climate models including the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 that led to "the year without summer." :
    • Nuclear winter - a man-made dust event
    • Second 'Chicxulub' impact
    CO{2} global heating is real, man-made, and happening now. Short of a nuclear winter, CO{2} is the current man-made change to our climate. We don't have to wait for Godot and his magic dust.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #9 bwilson4web, May 23, 2015
    Last edited: May 23, 2015
  10. Former Member 68813

    Former Member 68813 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    3,524
    981
    8
    Location:
    US
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    bob, no one sane questions CO2 related climate change. but, you have to look at the bigger picture and not just fixate on one element of the complex system,
     
  11. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Man-made climate drivers:
    • CO{2}
    • nuclear winter
    These are could be extinction events.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #11 bwilson4web, May 23, 2015
    Last edited: May 23, 2015
  12. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,972
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    friendly_jacek, clearly dust in atmosphere is related to climate. When a process has had recurrence intervals averaging 75 000 years, but with large variation, it is not appropriate to say 'we are due or overdue for the next one'

    Bob the ultimately sea level (no grounded ice) is about +100 meters. nobody is really talking about that now. For sure, if we increase CO2 to >1000 ppm and T to +4 oC, there will emerge some sort of human sanity before the ice has time. Next century at the earliest. We have to see to more immediate matters.

    An energy mix that gives us best value in terms of recognized costs, and get a good handle on externalities (climate , food production, health, ecological protection???).

    Then establish a New World Order Universal Commie Govt. to get 'er done :)
     
  13. Former Member 68813

    Former Member 68813 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    3,524
    981
    8
    Location:
    US
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    this is all speculation of course, but if the warming gets out of hand, and no volcanic action comes to rescue, i see escalation of conflicts (for resources) with global nuclear wars providing that dust for the next cooling cycle.

    there could be some natural sources for dust too. i've seen some studies showing that dusts emitted from all deserts doubled in the last 100 years due to drought. maybe this is how the climate cycles self regulated themselves in the last Ma?

    while the science on CO2 is mature, the science on dust is full of holes.
     
  14. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    From Denial 101x, I understand 40% of the annual fossil fuel generated CO{2} is not captured but remains in the atmosphere. But even if the man-made, CO{2} were to stop, it would still take a long, long time to return to earlier levels. At least we know this is one approach supported by the models and now a plant-wide experiment.

    Still, waiting for magic dust, is just another way to wait in the 'warm pot':
    [​IMG]

    Bob Wilson
     
  15. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Bob,
    You are the most brainwashed person Ive ever witnessed.
    Confirmation bias is one thing.But you quote known liars like they are gospel.
     
  16. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Do you realize that Ice Ages have occurred with a regularity over the past 800,000 years?
    Do you not realize that our current interglacial period is over due to end ?
    Heres a theory for you to disprove .
    Solar eruptions shake Earths magnetic field and the Earths core .
    Thus the Sun effects and releases pent up energy realized in volcanoes and earthquakes.
    Currently The Sun is in a minimal phase where there are now often NO sunspots.Historically this coincided with cold periods in Earths history.
    But when the occasional sunspot does occur,its a huge Mother Fker
    Heres my guess .
    What happens when a huge sunspot erupts with greater pent up magnitude due to a sunspot drought?
    Volcanoes and earthquakes .




     
    #16 mojo, May 27, 2015
    Last edited: May 27, 2015
  17. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Intelligent Solar Physicists have been predicting a cooler climate for the next 30 years.
    Starting a few years ago.
    Because there has been a clear correlation between low sunspots and cold climate in the past.
    But Its an easy prediction to dispel .Sunspots are now low so if the climate doesnt continue to cool soon ,there may not be a correlation.
    But so far the cold winter weather in the US and Europe is a harbinger of the prediction.
    Whereas every prediction of global warming alarmists has been bullshit wrong.
    And CO2 wont have a bit of consequential effect to be concerned with.
     
    #17 mojo, May 27, 2015
    Last edited: May 27, 2015
  18. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    In Denial 101x, this is called "jumping to a conclusion:"
    Rather than addressing the observations of global temperature, sea level, earth's spectral distribution, physical properties of CO{2}, loss of polar ice, and surface based spectral observations, this is a claim that since Ice Age cycles occurred in the past, these earlier processes are the only driver. Yet the paleorecord have shown these are not rigid cycles and the early trend of cooling, has been wiped out by CO{2} warming. This is what gave Hansen a clue in 1970s.

    Again, "jumping to a conclusion" that ice ages are not impacted by CO{2} levels:
    The classic example is Galileo complaining his critics won't look through the telescope. The evidence is clear but someone afraid of global warming can not look at the facts and data. Although orbital mechanics suggests the earth should be cooling, CO{2} driven warming has completely masked solar radiance, an external driver.

    In the scientific method, a 'theory' has to have more than some rambling post:
    At a minimum, there should be some observations, not just 'wishful speculations.'

    Now this becomes testable:
    1. Where are the metrics? - Currently there are multiple solar observatories both surface and satellite based. What metrics are available and where.
    2. Astronomers have been observing the earth's ephemeris for a long, long time. Are any of them using changes in the earth's ephemeris to measure sun spots?
    One's "understanding" needs independent verification and validation. That is how science and engineering works:
    Ok, so let's "cherry pick" the regional California drought that has peaked this year versus sunspots:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Ok, so let's compare:
    [​IMG]
    • Peaks have different intervals
    • Minimums have different intervals
    • There is no correlation in the recent record
    One of the predictions of CO{2} triggered global warming is an increase in humidity. This water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, one the amplifiers of global warming. But the climate change involves some regions becoming dryer and other wetter.
    No problem, you make it easy to compare and contrast your approach and empiricism. For example:
    The paleoclimate records reported by the PAGES 2k project have shown before the 1850s, the external forcing functions including sun spots, orbital mechanics, and volcanic dust explained variations in the global temperature records. But as fossil fuel, CO{2} increased, it has overwhelmed these earlier effects. They have not gone away as much are 'noise' on the temperature record:
    [​IMG]
    The slope of local minimum and maximums from the Berkeley team shows the current, global temperature rise.

    The 2014-15 winter in the lower latitudes meant the Arctic sea ice starts the seaons on the low-side:
    [​IMG]
    The cold at the lower latitudes means warmer air comes into the Arctic and reduces the amount of sea ice. With less sea ice, the Arctic sea will absorb a lot more solar heat. This amplifies the rate of global warming.

    This is not quite accurate as the global temperature records continue to show a rise. There are 'noise' events like volcanoes, solar radiance, and orbital changes but fossil fuel CO{2} remains the only consistent factor forcing global warming.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #18 bwilson4web, May 27, 2015
    Last edited: May 27, 2015
  19. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,972
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    mojo @17. For the newer readers here, I mention that we have we have been through all this before. In summary, no, they don't predict colder climates. More more seasoned participants may only wonder why mojo forgets.

    same message, here's a perplexer: "if the climate doesnt continue to cool soon" I'm not even sure that would make sense if the climate were cooling.

    Theory to disprove? got that backwards chum. Hypotheses (like that stated) get supported by observational , experimental data, or not. Enough of the former, and following elucidation of a mechanism, they arrive in theory land. TO the group: many many people get that wrong. So, excusable if there is a sincere desire to understand scientific approaches.

    It is certainly clear that some climate scientists are held in low esteem. We'd probably remember that even without the 'BS' reminders, being not so forgetful as the first-named.

    But it has never been clear to me how granting narrow malfeasance causes all the other data to disappear. I mean really, that's a lot of disappearing..
     
  20. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    Extinction of what? When the human race survives most of Europe and the Northern hemisphere being covered in a mile thick layer of ice, I'm not sure we are that easy to stomp out. Now if the discussion is creating more problems than advantage burning up all our fossil fuel in one sustained orgy of burning, then I'm going to agree that the hazards may outweigh the benefits.