Published today in Science, the paper A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years (Marcott et.al) shows the stunning – hell, terrifying – increase in temperatures that has taken place since industrialisation.
Michael Mann’s famous hockey stick graph reconstructed the temperature for the last 2000 years. It not only became iconic, but a target for those wishing to cast doubt on the science.
Marcott et.al. do not merely replicate Mann’s work, but extend the time-frame to cover the previous 11,000 years:
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
To put into perspective, before the founding of the first cities.
Our civilisation has existed in “the sweetest of sweet spots” – a time of relatively stable climatic conditions.
In the last 10,000 years we have seen the emergence of agriculture, the establishment of great cities, the founding of great civilisations and the invention of writing.
None of this would have been possible without a benign and forgiving climate.
What is different about the past century and a half is the speed of those changes: note the spike in temperature anomalies for what is essentially the period of industrialisation (1850 ff).
The climate has always changed: no self-respecting scientist or climatologist has ever denied this. Temperature records are but one proxy of this change – the multiple lines of evidence for climate change are overwhelming.
Note also the last sentence in that abstract: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
To translate: all the models point to a future that is warmer than anything we’ve seen for the last 10,000 years.
Watching the Deniers 
[…] Stunner: The hockey stick just got scarier, a new temp reconstruction of the last 11k years. […]
Reblogged mike.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0938018124.txt
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. … I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation
Until someone can explain why there was pressure to tell a nice tidy story, and why (if) that pressure went away, I’m not going to take reconstructions like this seriously.
Eric has got the highlighter out for a few lines out of hundreds..he has found something that ‘talks’ to him! Thanks for the link ..that demonstrates your decontextualising cherry picking is compulsive. You left out the “For the record…” bit. And the whole exchange is to be read,but you won’t allow that. Why? Decontextualised Briffa talking about his REGIONAL work in 1999 is the best you’ve got for dismissing ensemble and GLOBAL studies? Shows how truly strong the palaeo case is when you pick one sentence from 1999 and sulk off saying you won’t read anything else!
A statement that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene is not actually contentious. Many paleo studies and sea-level reconstructions show the rises and falls to and from the Holocene Optimum. The non-Milankovitch elements are better understood now. But you’d rather hand your ‘argument’ on a conversation about the relative claims of some studies 15 years ago.
The “pressure to tell a nice tidy story” is understood by anyone who has had to put complex and varied science together for a policy document. Is it so sinister? To one with your carefully-cultivated paranoia,I suppose so.
Urban Dictionary: Absolute Moron,,,, see Worrall
Ironically,”the pressure to tell a nice story” is in reality overwhelming Eric’s ‘arguments’. The ‘nice story’ is of course ‘La-la-la,ACO2 is not problem now or in the future’. The pressure to keep up this grotesque simple-mindedness means ignoring everything we know about the world except a couple of lines in one email.
Watts has pointed out another interesting problem with the reconstruction. Apparently the proxies used for the past 1900 years (prior to 100 years ago) are much lower resolution (120 years) than the instrumental record used to produce the final spike.
This means if there were any say 50 year spikes in temperature comparable to today, in the proxy data, their reconstruction would have smoothed them away.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/07/another-hockey-stick-this-one-billed-as-scarier-than-manns/#comment-1242031
Do I really have to scroll back through all your comments and find the numerous occasions you’ve bleated on about the MWP or any other comment about it being warmer in the past, or do youonly agree with proxy data you think supports your position?
You have no credibility Eric.
Come on, even CRU climate hero Keith Briffa argues the MWP was comparable to today, at least in places, both in the email I cited above, and in his recent paper.
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract
Given the additional evidence I’ve cited, such as a another climategate email which cites “spooky” MWP and LIA signals in Oroko swamp samples (in New Zealand), a reconstruction which does not have a strong global MWP bump is very iffy.
FFS, as far as I can tell from a visual inspection of the reconstruction, the temperature they reconstruct for around 1000 AD is comparable to the mid 1800s, the tail end of the LIA. Its total BS.
“Until someone can explain why there was pressure to tell a nice tidy story, and why (if) that pressure went away, I’m not going to take reconstructions like this seriously.”
“FFS, as far as I can tell from a visual inspection of the reconstruction, the temperature they reconstruct for around 1000 AD is comparable to the mid 1800s, the tail end of the LIA.”
Are you taking it seriously or not Eric? Seems you want it both ways. I can see your get out of jail card though in the caveat “like this”. It leaves you the opportunity to use your lack of scientific skills to pick and choose any proxy record that suits your argument. You have no credibility. Your uneducated and quite frankly stupid opinions are worthless.
I see – so evidence of “pressure” to produce a hockeystick, and a reconstruction which ignores multiple lines of evidence of significant warmth around 1000AD, and obvious poor treatment of different series in the combined graph, is worthless, because you have a new hockeystick to fuel your apocalyptic fantasies.
This one’s going to sink without trace, except in the alarmosphere. Its just too stupid.
Idiot
Multiple lines of evidence is correct, that is why we know that the MWP was about mid 20th century level about 22,000
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=medieval+warm+period+reconstructions&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
if higher than present then CS is understated by nearly half.
cannot have it both ways Mr stolen emails pusher.
I’m fascinated by the speed of Watts’ pseudo-science rebuttals. A bunch of bright people spend months or years on a paper – and a bunch of dlldos who can’t get published write something in a few hours. The man and his flying monkeys can’t spell science let alone do science.
Given Watts spotted such an obvious blunder, its arguable that the authors of the paper can’t do science either.
Bolting a high resolution instrumental record on the end of a low resolution proxy reconstruction is Mannian climate seance at its best.
You are in no position to judge the quality of any science. You’re uneducated opinion is worthless.
John, dildos at least serve a useful purpose (I’m told 🙂 The Eric’s, Watts and fellow travellers serve no useful purpose.
Uki, even I know that if you apply 120 year smoothing to a temperature series it makes a lot of spikes go away, even if they are of significant duration.
The obvious evidence for this is what happens if you apply a 120 year smoothing to the instrumental temperature record.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:1440/plot/none
My extreme “smoothing” drastically reduces the height of the late 20th century peak.
Your sneering at my “unscientific” opinion does not make this obvious blunder go away.
It’s easy when all you need is your eyecrometer and a yellow highlighter.
Not having to worry about review and publication (or science and consistency) saves heaps of time. And having drones like Erric to spread the word just makes the process faster.
None of Watts’ earlier blunder spottings have been true. The man is an incompetent who attracts incompetents.
Mix “Watts” and “obvious blunder” and you get “own goal”. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/
That’s why Watts isn’t a Fellow of his own organisation, Ametsoc, and yet Mann is.
“Watts pointed out a problem” Oh,sure. Whatever you say. LOL
Just looked at Watts’ latest ‘comment’ on Marcott et al 2013.
Wonderboy pulls out Dr. Richard Alley’s GISP temperature reconstruction [IOW,ONE recon from very high latitude] which recons temps back from 1900AD to early Holocene. Alley is of course known as an eminent cryosphere expert and an eloquent debunker of pseudo-skeptical claptrap,so this is name-drop from Watts.
He then overlays Alley on Marcott’s MULTI-PROXY NH recon [and Mann’s of similar],and states that it looks like Alley contradicts Marcott and Mann.
Nevermind the absence of a century’s warming from the GISP data,given it stops at 1900. Wattsy thinks he’s got a point, and made a point!!!! To show present Greenland temp would demonstrate that recent warming is similar to the Minoan warming,equaling the warmest spikes in the 10,000 years ice core recon. So Watts will not show that,NO WAY!
The guy is dumber than a mud fence.
Sorry ,Marcott et al 2013 is a global recon,not only NH…which makes Watts infantile attempt at ‘criticism’ even more unforgivable,and bloody-minded dishonesty.
But then again, Watts is simply insane.
the graph you posted seems to show current temps higher than any time including the holocene maximum, unless one considers the upper extreme of the margin of error around 7,000 years ago.
Revkin has a longish article on this paper. It includes an interesting video discussion with one of the lead authors.
The article can be found here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/
The article and discussion addresses the resolution issue raised by Eric. It is possible that there are some short term blips hidden in the data, but .8 of a degree is a very big blip. We also know why the planet is currently warming and it is very unlikely that the warming will finish any time soon.
Man also makes the point that this study could understate the problem as they proxies are biased towards arctic changes rather than global changes.
At the very least they should have used the same resolution on the instrumental record as they did with the proxy reconstruction. But that would have removed the nice blip at the end. Showing a nice hockey stick was obviously more important than scientific precision.
Well we’ll all wait for you to write that paper up and publish it…oh that’s right, you’re not a scientist.
Here, I’ve smoothed the instrumental record for you.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:1440/plot/none
Oops, there goes the hockey stick.
You again do not know what you are doing. You are ‘pointing out problems’ Watts-style,I guess. Pfft.
Eric, I am no scientist, but it sounds to me that you are saying that uncertainties of 150 years over 11,000 years through proxies are the same as uncertainties of 150 years over 150 years ith actual temperature records. Now if there are proxies of temperature blips of .8 degrees in other time periods, through proxies that would correspond to some phenomenon that was known and that could be attributable to the current increase in temps, then they should be in the literature and easily shown to limit the validity of this study. that is not to say that this study is an absolute answer to all things temperature wise for the holocene. It is just one study, and has it’s own specific contributions and limitations.
However your suggestion of removing the instrumental record seems beyond disingenius and heading into the ludicrous territory.
Of course the mere possibility of Mann NOT being the anti-christ sends tremors through the temple of denail, I would guess.
Sorry that should be Mann not Man.
Another stunner
developed countries must reduce emissions 50% (1990) by 2020 to have any chance of keeping temp below the 2DegC danger level
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513000426
.
I recommend you take your demands to China, and organise a protest in Tiananmen Square, against China’s refusal to cut back on building new coal generators.
That’s not necessary. The plan suggested by Republicans like Reagan’s economic advisor (great 2 minute video) would impose a tariff at the border for any country that doesn’t have the courage to prevent their industries from treating our atmosphere as a free sewer. That’s a powerful economic incentive, and we can check their compliance using satellites. As Reagan said, trust but verify.
As an American, I admire the leadership that Australia, British Columbia, and many other countries have shown. We’ll eventually wake from our slumber. I just hope we’re not too late.
Hilarious – your bright idea is to recreate the iron curtain, keep advanced asian goods away from the victims of your political system with a sky high tariff barrier.
Quite apart from the fact China could retaliate by trashing the US economy (dumping a trillion dollars or so of US bonds on the market), what on Earth makes you think you could maintain such a barrier – when climate skeptic Canada could simply import the goods, slap on a “made in Canada” label, then ship them to the USA?
Or would you try to ban Canadian imports as well?
In that case even better – it would be like the old prohibition days, with Al Capone styles smuggling runs across the Canadian border.
Quite apart from the fact that it’s actually a Republican idea, it’s clear that China’s not short-sighted enough to remain dependent on coal. We can work together, without need for an iron curtain.
Note that British Columbia is part of Canada.
DS “would impose a tariff at the border for any country that doesn’t have the courage to prevent their industries from treating our atmosphere as a free sewer”
eric” when climate skeptic Canada could simply import the goods, slap on a “made in Canada” label, then ship them to the USA?
Or would you try to ban Canadian imports as well?
effin nuts
China is putting a cap on coal plant growth and has made a bigger commitment to renewable energy than the U.S. has. Not saying China’s emissions aren’t a problem of course.
MM (Marcott paper)
The interesting thing about that, is that it suggests that the true conclusions might even be stronger than their already quite strong conclusions, regarding the unprecedented nature of recent warming. That is, it may be that you have to go even further back in time to find warmth comparable — at the global scale — to what we are seeing today. If you look at their tropical stack for example (Figure 2J) [a particular set of data], the modern warmth is unprecedented for the entire time period (i.e, the past 11,000 years). That’s why I said that there results suggests recent warmth unprecedented for at leaat the past 4,000. It’s possible, given the potential seasonality/latitudinal bias, that there is in fact no precedent over the past 11,000 years (and likely longer, since the preceding glacial period was almost certainly globally cooler than the Holocene) for the warmth we are seeing today. In that case, we likely have to go back to the last interglacial, i.e. the Eemian period (125,000 years ago) for warmth potentially rivaling that of today.
SLR…… 3Metres in 50 years during the Eemian
Citation?
Blancon et al Nature 2009).
Wow. Thanks.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7240/abs/nature07933.html
I’m still trying to find the 50 year jump quote…
ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Coastal%20Geology%20Class%20GG420/Blanchon%205e%20reef%202009.pdf
I see a sharp 3m drop in Yucatan’s “elevation above mean sea level” at ~121 kyr BP. Is that it?
Sorry, that’s from Fig. 3.
Received it via one of Jim Hansens emais but must have deleted, may be on his columbia site
What stuck in my mind was reading previous discussion that a 2 metre rise in one hundred years would be absolute max. (2100)
As the IPCC says, it’s not an absolute max because we’re still underestimating dynamic ice sheet processes. Some quote 1-2 meters by 2100 but this should be taken as a 1-sigma error bar that doesn’t fully account for dynamic ice sheet processes.
And hardly any sea level rise during the MWP according to CSIRO
So if Eric Worrall and others want to claim the MWP was as warm or warmer than today, where was the sea level rise?
Sea Level Rise
from CSIRO
Over the last 140,000 years sea level has varied over a range of more than 120 metres. The most recent large change was an increase of more than 120 metres as the last ice age ended
Sea level stabilised over the last few thousand years, and there was little change between about 1AD and 1800AD
Sea level began to rise again in the 19th century and accelerated again in the early 20th century
Satellite altimeter measurements show a rate of sea-level rise of about 3 mm/year since the early 1990s – a further increase in the rate
Those neanderthals must have loved their SUVs.
Some of the Neanderthals are waking up. http://grist.org/news/belief-in-climate-change-is-on-the-rise-even-among-republicans/. In the right light you do look a bit like Fred Flintstone. Yubba Dubba Doo! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s13X66BFd8
Eric,
you seem to be saying that the end of the last ice age has no possibility of being caused by other than extremely rapid CO2 increase. I seem to recall that climate scientists have several other possibilities that have to do with natural variation, <ilankovitch cycles ocean and atmospheric changes, etc.
But maybe you think God changes the climate based on some moral standard?
Or do you jut not know what you are saying, but "Neandertha"l combined with "SUV" sounds like a good insult to throw at alarmists
Yet more evidence that there has been no (statistically significant) acceptance of science by the deniers for the last 16/17/23/[insert your favourite number here] years…
How about we insert the number of years that there hasn’t been any (statistically significant) warming.
Well as Phil Jones said in June 2011, the warming since 1995 is now statistically significant ie. cannot be natural variation.95%
.
That was nearly 2 years ago… see if he still says that now.
Yes that will still be the case as 2012 was warmer than 2011 and 2013 will also be warmer than 2012, Yep statistically significant warming since 1995 a dead cert.
See Skeptikal pretend to know what “statistically significant” means.
See Skeptikal look like a chump.
Just looking through the comments they, eric the stolen email fence and Denikal the denier hardly ever comment of something that Watts has not told them about.
interesting
Climate zombies… just believe whatever the cartoonist tells you to believe.
See Skeptikal spit the dummy.
Ignoring the oceans still Faus-Skepitical?
I’m not ignoring the oceans….
http://www.examiner.com/article/oceans-are-cooling-according-to-nasa
Thanks Skep. I like the author of that non peer reviewed articles takeon Arctic ice
“Since 75% of the planet is water, that would make sense. Just last week, I wrote about the arctic sea ice returning to 1979 levels just 1 1/2 years after the fear of the biggest summer ice retreat in 2007.”
ooooh, so wrong…so so wrong.
Justin is a bit of a worry
. “Just last week, I wrote about the arctic sea ice returning to 1979 levels just 1 1/2 years after the fear of the biggest summer ice retreat in 2007.”
eh!
here denikal
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
Skeptical by name, unsceptical by nature. It would seem he can post Examiner articles without noticing the correction, “Abstract. Two systematic biases have been discovered 9 in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.” http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf.
Or, for the full story on how ocean was found not to be cooling after all read http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php – all the pages. Recycling discredited memes is pretty sad.
Pathetikal hasn’t defunded his busted “the oceans are cooling” meme. Science 1 – denying zealots 0. Again.
John, I’ve looked top to bottom of that page twice… but can’t find anything on ocean temperature. Maybe the oceans have stopped warming, so it isn’t considered a ‘key indicator’ for them anymore. 😛
Hint, SLR
But we’re talking about ‘temperature’, not SLR.
Try to focus a bit here, John.
thanks for that! facepalm moment of the day.
was just coming to say the same, that is two today,
F***wit comment of the day
What has Ocean temperature got to do with SLR?
Oh dear Skep. Too much ignorance. You don’t have enough knowledge to justify being skeptical of it.
Oh, I understand now. You’re using SLR as a proxy for ocean temperature rise. You guys really are at the forefront of post-normal science. You should publish your system of converting SLR into ocean temperature rise. That’s something which would certainly be worthy of a nobel prize.
Skeptical- stop digging. It is becoming embarassing.
Dr No… I didn’t intend to make you and your friends feel embarrassed about all of your idiotic comments… really I didn’t.
Oh, and if you had used your spell-checker… you wouldn’t have mis-spelt embarrassing.
Ooops… guess you’re even more embarrassed now.
I thought it was comedy gold when you doubled down on your ignorance but you’ve just gone again? Seriously? You are the gift that keeps on giving.
And you’re the troll that keeps on trolling.
Sure thing Skep, whatever you say, you’re the expert.
What’s the matter Skep? Can’t find anything about it on WUWT?
Eric says:
“This means if there were any say 50 year spikes in temperature comparable to today, in the proxy data, their reconstruction would have smoothed them away”
Typical denialist tactic, when the short term data spikes above the long term, say it’s just noise. When the long term trend trumps the short term noise, (no warming since 1998 meme) concentrate on the noise.
Wasn’t it Don Rumsfeld who famously said, “you go to war with the army you have”. Well in science, you do science with the data you have. Just because there “may” have been short term spikes in temperature in the distant past that we have no hope of knowing about, does not negate the fact that we are having a major temperature spike right now. And given that we have a pretty good idea of what the culprit is, we, in the rational, fact based world, are right to be worried.
If this temperature reconstruction were the only piece of evidence for GW, then I might concede that Eric (well Watts really, coz Eric hasn’t had an original idea for a while) might have a point. However, if you look at the multiple, independent lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion, (Arctic polar ice retreat, ocean acidification, ocean warming + resultant rise in sea level, increasing levels of extreme climate events, more high temperature records being broken than low temperature records), then you really have to be wilfully blind not to concede that hey, something’s going on here.
Eric is looking for the Climate Fairy. It’s like those plonkers who put the increase in CO2 down to as yet undiscovered undersea volcanoes.
Commenting on the paper
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, told the AP
:
“We have, through human emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, indefinitely delayed the onset of the next ice age and are now heading into an unknown future where humans control the thermostat of the planet.”
Unfortunately, we have decided to change the setting on the thermostat from — “very stable, don’t adjust” to “Hell and High Water.” It is the single most self-destructive act humanity has ever undertaken — but there is still time to avoid the worst
[…] From over at WtD […]
Eric wants to remove the recent records, which have much less uncertainty.
If he knew it existed he’d doubtless want the authors to remove this figure as well. It puts the Holocene in the context of current and ‘optional’ futures (ie depending which path we choose).
Eric refers to Watts ..ahem..er.. ‘analysis’. He might enjoy my little article that gives some of the limelight to his idol (who acted just as Prof Mann predicted!)
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watts-is-whopping-crazy-after-marcott.html
There is no way that Carter could be this idiotic, obviously being paid to write this stuff,
Yes we know the relationship Bob and that is why we know that the warming since the eighties ain’t the sun.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/changing-sun-changing-climate
Yes, Carter is being paid to write this stuff. 1667 dollars per month as I recall, plus expenses, from Heartland.
Not a lot to sell your soul for.
Encouraging start: a ‘stirring’ quote from the tyrant Vaclav Klaus.
His first argument is that solar variation can be seen in regional temperature averages…who knew that you can wiggle-match?…therefore claims about CO2’s role in global warming implicitly can’t be true! That’s,er…sophisticated.
Then he uses an ‘after’ Hoyt and Schatten 1993,’updated’ TSI recon to do the rest of the ‘analysis’ .Why,he’s massaged a data set to suit! Cherry,cherry baby. Then they pump up Soon’s 2005 paper on solar variability and supposed detectability in Arctic-wide temp data built on the same ‘work’.
Then he and his colleagues do science by press release claiming their recent [unfinished] work show that everyone else has missed a lag between SI and effects on part of the ocean…turns out the lag is 5-20 years!! That’s a very broad time period in a centuries reliable data,could be 5y when it suits and 20 when its suits,or anything in between! Very rubbery,and unpublished. But rest assured, Quadrantites, you can trust us!!
Bullshit article, full of slippery,self-serving weasel-speech such as arguing that because other studies did not find the correlations they did, those studies were ‘unsuccessful’.
OMG – the disastrous trio sinks lower. Thanks, John.
To sum up what they are saying – it’s usually hotter during the day than it is at night time. And in the arctic it’s usually warmer in summer (when there’s sunshine) than winter (when there’s none).
Very profound discovery!
Would this be the same R M Carter that appears as co-author on this paper?
Click to access influenceofenso.pdf
(Which, by the way is the only peer reviewed paper that Carter has ever contributed to) which sank without trace when it was shown that the reason they found no warming trend was that they had err…. accidentally removed it during all the complicated statistical shenanigins they did to prove their pre ordained result.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/30/is-enso-responsible-for-recent-global-warming-no/
So now Carter is reduced to peer review by media because he doesn’t dare submit his work to his peers again…. Pathetic.
Not this Carter? Surely not. No one sane cites him as anything but an oily bootlicker. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/bob-carter-what-about-your-papers/
Sorry, I meant to say the only peer reviewed paper on Climate Research Bob has contributed to.
He has had about 50 on Geology, at which time, he had no problems with the peer reveiw process. Now of course, after the severe criticism of his contribution, it is irredeemably flawed.
There’s a denier den I used to frequent regularly belonging to the Climate Sceptics Party and they constantly trash peer review calling it pal review blah blah blah but as soon as they (usually mistakingly) believe there is a peer reviewed paper that supports their point of view the headline on the blog is “Peer reviewed paper………” and peer review is suddenly King. I think they genuinely believe that if what they see as a “sceptical” paper makes it through peer review it must be exceptionaly flawless because they think the system is corrupt. They are moronic and sad.
One of the TCS followers (most recent comment)
AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM
I would place money on the fact china wont introduce a a tax on carbon, it clearly knows it economy will go into meltdown if it did and exports would be ruined. It just wont happen. There strategy will be to wait and see, as is their culture and allow science to either support or deny the climate change myth and then act or not act. In the meantime the rest of the world will suffer a tax that will not have any effect and our manufacturing will cease and China will pick up the world slack. China is too smart.
Reply
you forgot to tell me to put on headgear. You owe me two panadol tablets.
Let’s be clear,Carter has published many peer-reviewed papers in his field of expertise,palaeontology.This paper was his first attempt at ocean/atmosphere dynamics. The co-author who has never before appeared in a reviewed journal was John McLean. Carter is a shill,McLean is an utter crank who must/should be keeping his head down over his dopey cooling predictions,not to mention his loathsome distortions about the IPCC.
Hello, everybody!
Why don’t Watts and his minions produce their own scientific papers and studies? So far, all I see are their futile attempts to poke peripheral holes in the work of legitimate and highly regarded climatologists.
Surely, with all the money the fossil-fueled denialists have access to they can generate something–can’t they?
Not without knowledge, skills and true scepticism.
[…] Finally, Hurst appears to refer to a 2003 paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicists (not climate scientists), which purported to show that globally the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century. The publication of this infamous paper, partly funded by an oil lobby group, led to overwhelming criticism of its dubious methods and data selection. Three of the journal’s editors resigned in protest at the paper’s publication. One of the scientists cited in the paper said that it was “so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all.” It has well and truly been dismissed by mainstream science. There has since been a lot of comprehensive and soundly based work in the field, such as the publication in Science on 7 March this year of a temperature reconstruction by Marcott et al going back 11,000 years. It shows that the rate of warming over the last hundred years is utterly unprecedented over the entire period. […]
I remember that now. Here’s what David Appell wrote in Scientific American, June 24, 2003. The passage outlines one particular egregious error in the study, which pertains directly to Marcott et al.:
“Soon and Baliunas also take issue with the IPCC by contending that the 20th century saw no unique patterns: they found few climatic anomalies in the proxy records. But they looked for 50-year-long anomalies; the last century’s warming, the IPCC concludes, occurred in two periods of about 30 years each (with cooling in between). The warmest period occurred in the late 20th century–too short to meet Soon and Baliunas’s selected requirement. The two researchers also discount thermometer readings and “give great weight to the paleo data for which the uncertainties are much greater,” (Peter) Stott says.”
[…] 2013/03/07: WtD: Stunner: The hockey stick just got scarier, a new temp reconstruction of the last 1… […]
[…] We could play tricks with statistics all day. Alternatively, we could marvel at the recent work of scientists who reconstructed the temperature for the last 11,500 years: […]
Enjoy the denier nonsense. Eric is only averagely daft. http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/marcott-reax.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+QuarkSoupByDavidAppell+(Quark+Soup+by+David+Appell)
The latest on Marcott. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
(No McIntyre to be found. Interestingly, as others have noted, McIntyre’s gyrations don’t change the conclusions one whit anyway.)
“don’t change the conclusions one whit”..
huh? The only conclusion the authors wanted to talk about was the so-called uptick in the 20th century temps. .All that rubbish about all the cooling of the last 5000 yrs being wiped out in a mere 100yrs. Now the authors admit (under severe pressure from McIntyre and the internet peer review system) that the numbers for the 20th century aren’t “statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes” ie there is no hockey stick.
And that’s before they even get around to answering questions about the redating of some of their data samples without which they wouldn’t have been able to get the now discredited uptick.
Gergis et al all over again.