New NATURE paper uses 'hide the incline'

[IanC]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

there is the link, although it is paywalled. fortunately the SI is freely available. W Eschenbach (freelance writer at WUWT) took the data and plotted it up

I recommend reading the article because it also plots all the individual proxies in thumbnail so that you can see the basic process.A reply to Shakun et al – Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?

all-in-all a very interesting description which gives a better idea about the uncertainties in using proxy data than the clear crisp lines usually used in science papers.



but Willis wasnt finished. he wondered why Shakun2012 only used one CO2 record so he found a bunch of other ice core records for the same period and plotted them up as well.

Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy! | Watts Up With That?

imagine that!!!

CO2 increasing while temperature was decreasing for the last 5000 years! isnt that odd?

I understand the tendency of scientists to make as strong a case for their work as possible but I am getting tired of papers chopping off inconvenient data for the sake of 'the cause'. Old Rocks and others denigrate blogs (that they dont agree with) but where else are you going to find information and analysis to form a more complete picture of what is going on? I noticed that the CO2 record stopped short in the original but I basically ignored it because I couldnt do anything about it. what percentage of people would notice that inconsistency and then be able to do something about it? one in ten thousand? so what happened to peer review, why didnt they insist that the record be extended to match the time period of the temperatures?

the problem with being a slave to authority is that you dont get to hear the objections. I dont have a big problem with Shakur2012 but I dont think they really proved their conclusion that CO2 increased first, then temperature. there are some studies one way, others show the reverse. but I am pissed off that they broke the rules of scientific investigation to make their case stronger, knowing that most people wouldnt catch on or be able to do anything about it.

 

[IanC]

another interesting article about Shakun2012. Did Shakun et al. really prove that CO2 preceded late glacial warming? [Part 1] | Watts Up With That?


I am putting these articles up to give people a chance to see some of the difficulties involved with proxy papers and the large uncertainties involved which are seldom apparent to laymen when they look at a graph and just assume the narrow lines are close to being correct.

 

[IanC]

another interesting article dealing with the uncertainties of Shakun2012 and the very distinct possibility that there are other explanations rather than CO2.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/#more-61078

do any of you warmers ever notice that most or all of these reconstructions of the present interglacial all have warmer temps at the beginning than now?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Jeremy D. Shakun,
Peter U. Clark,
Feng He,
Shaun A. Marcott,
Alan C. Mix,
Zhengyu Liu,
Bette Otto-Bliesner,
Andreas Schmittner
& Edouard Bard
Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author
Nature 484,49–54(05 April 2012)doi:10.1038/nature10915Received 16 September 2011 Accepted 01 February 2012 Published online 04 April 2012


The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age

These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that the antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature response at the end of the most recent ice age.

Seems to be stating what has been stated before. That the Milankovic Cycles begin a process and CO2 creates a feedback to creates the majority of the warming. Definitely states that the warming is driven by CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, we came out of an ice age on the differance between 180 ppm and 280 ppm. Now we are at 390 ppm, and over 1800 ppt of CH4, an increase in the CH4 that we never saw in the deglaciations. And we have added industrial GHGs, for which there are no natural analogs. Many of which are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

We are adding CO2 and other GHGs at an ever increasing rate, and the clathrates in the Artic are already getting restless. But, of course, nothing at all to worry about.

 

[skookerasbil]

none of this stuff matters..........................


Climate Coalitions Crumble, Economic Worries to Blame
By Sterling Burnett
April 10, 2012 2:20 P.M.


In recent months, major coalitions of big business/big labor/green lobbyists, formed to combat climate change, have begun unravel. What this portends for the future of the climate controversy is anyone’s guess, but one point is clear: The waning support for these groups is good news for jobs and sound policy.

Environmentalists founded these groups to camouflage the fact that their policies could be demonstrated as bad for the economy and job creation. Corporations and unions joined largely because cap-and-trade legislation and the push for “green jobs” seemed inevitable, and it was in their interest to work with environmentalists to shape climate policies.

But today, the climate-change headlines have been replaced by more immediate concerns over unemployment and foreclosures. As the economy took center stage, environmental groups manufactured a new threat to stir up their supporters and raise funds for their operations. This new target of their campaigns is hydraulic fracturing.

Here in Texas, hydraulic fracturing has been in use since the 1040s and is the tried-and-true technology credited with unlocking oil and natural gas in tight sands and hard rock formations. Its application in the Barnett Shale and the Eagle Ford has helped to create thousands of jobs, significantly increase oil and natural gas production, and given Texas a measure of economic prosperity that few states can match.

Texas also has passed commonsense legislation to regulate fracturing without unduly impeding its use. But in states where residents are unfamiliar with drilling and fracturing, environmental groups are using scare tactics to push for drilling moratoria. Their goal is to stop or delay drilling in shale formations, including the Marcellus Shale which is deemed to be the second largest natural gas deposit in the world.

One of the most common falsehoods is the charge that hydraulic fracturing contaminates groundwater. An ongoing study by the University of Texas has found no link between the fracturing process and groundwater pollution. Furthermore, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Congress last year that there have been no confirmed cases.

Yet the misconceptions and falsehoods persist and are needlessly frightening the residents of several states. The accusations also are slowing the production of U.S. energy resources at a time when advanced energy technologies are poised to greatly reduce U.S. dependence on energy from unstable regions. As energy expert Daniel Yergin wrote recently, innovations including hydraulic fracturing are changing the world’s energy focus from the Middle East to the Western Hemisphere.

“For the United States,” Yergin explained, technologies and “these new sources of supply add to energy security in ways that were not anticipated . . . [demonstrating] how innovation is redrawing the map of world oil — and remaking our energy future.”

Domestic energy production also could help to light a fire under the U.S. economy. According to a Wood Mackenzie study, policies that encourage oil and natural gas production — including the Canadian oil sands, the Keystone pipeline, and other projects — could create as many as 1.4 million jobs by 2030.


Climate Coalitions Crumble, Economic Worries to Blame - By Sterling Burnett - Planet Gore - National Review Online



Like Ive been saying...............

 

[IanC]

I dont know why I keep expecting you to be reasonable, or even inquisitive. Did you read the articles at WUWT? they melt Shakur's case away to nothing but an unsubstantiated conclusion that at best is just not definitively proven wrong. his proxy data does not have the precision to date whether there is a lag or advance between CO2 and temperature. the long standing common interpretation is that the oceans give up their CO2after they warm up. his equivical data are certainly not strong enough to overturn that.

plus he used Mike's Nature Trick of cutting off inconvenient data which show that for the last 5000 years CO2 has been going up, while temperatures have been going down. not very good science.

I really recommend people to read the articles just so that they get an idea about how weak the correlations of proxy data are.

 

[skookerasbil]

the other things is..........every other day there is new evidence which casts doubt about the possible reason for climate change.................

Like a slight change of the earths orbit which caused warming a long, long time ago..............

From this week in RealClearScience.................

Dramatic climate change triggered by Earth's orbit | COSMOS magazine


So who knows?


The answer is...........nobody.






Also...........the exaggeration factor >> Global Warming Forecasts 'Exaggerated' People are now more aware that anything the IPCC puts out always goes with the hyper-hysterical predictions, which of course, always get the most news!!! Because it sells s0ns!!!!!


Indeed...........the Sharpie dynamic is very, very real!!!

Ian........didnt mean to jack your thread..........just adding a bit of Realville into the discussion

 

[IanC]

I hate to cast unfounded aspersions but.....

Die kalte Sonne site writes how the IPCC is attempting to pull another Michael Mann-type history rewrite. In 2001, Man’s now bogus hockey stick was the graph celebre that re-invigorated the global warming movement. But with Michael Mann fading, the IPCC needs a new, young star, fresh with a PhD. They found him in Jeremy Shakun, lead author of a new study that claims to do away with the inconvenient 800-year lag and shows CO2 once again is the real driver.

Shakun claims that the Antarctic climate shown by the ice core reconstruction was a local artifact, and not global. Shakun and his team took temperature reconstructions from numerous locations scattered about the globe and averaged them out and suddenly, lo and behold, temperature lagged CO2. Science now settled!

old paridigm tossed, a new one to replace it. one that is beneficial to CAGW.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Shakun’s co-author is Peter Clark, his PhD advisor who happens to be a coordinating lead author of the new IPCC report. Also co-author Bette Otto-Bliesner is also a lead author of the new report of the IPCC.”

and add:

The stated task of the IPCC is neutral viewing and assessment of the scientific literature. How can neutrality be assured when IPCC members ultimately peer-review their own work?”

Looks like the IPCC is more broken and corrupt than ever.

anybody want to bet against this seriously flawed paper being prominently placed in the new IPCC report? hahahaha, what a bunch of crooks

 

[IanC]

the other things is..........every other day there is new evidence which casts doubt about the possible reason for climate change.................

Like a slight change of the earths orbit which caused warming a long, long time ago..............

From this week in RealClearScience.................

Dramatic climate change triggered by Earth's orbit | COSMOS magazine


So who knows?


The answer is...........nobody.






Also...........the exaggeration factor >> Global Warming Forecasts 'Exaggerated' People are now more aware that anything the IPCC puts out always goes with the hyper-hysterical predictions, which of course, always get the most news!!! Because it sells s0ns!!!!!


Indeed...........the Sharpie dynamic is very, very real!!!

Ian........didnt mean to jack your thread..........just adding a bit of Realville into the discussion

no problem....I was addressing Old Rocks. I just assumed that I would be under his comment

 

[IanC]

bump for rollingthunder-


care to explain how temps have gone down and CO2 has gone up for the last several thousand years? according to your source?

while you're at it, care to put down you opinion on Shakur truncating the CO2 record? do you consider that a scientifically correct thing to do? is it OK to dismiss evidence to present a stronger case for the argument.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

there is the link, although it is paywalled. fortunately the SI is freely available. W Eschenbach (freelance writer at WUWT) took the data and plotted it up

I recommend reading the article because it also plots all the individual proxies in thumbnail so that you can see the basic process.A reply to Shakun et al – Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?

all-in-all a very interesting description which gives a better idea about the uncertainties in using proxy data than the clear crisp lines usually used in science papers.



but Willis wasnt finished. he wondered why Shakun2012 only used one CO2 record so he found a bunch of other ice core records for the same period and plotted them up as well.

Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy! | Watts Up With That?

imagine that!!!

CO2 increasing while temperature was decreasing for the last 5000 years! isnt that odd?

I understand the tendency of scientists to make as strong a case for their work as possible but I am getting tired of papers chopping off inconvenient data for the sake of 'the cause'. Old Rocks and others denigrate blogs (that they dont agree with) but where else are you going to find information and analysis to form a more complete picture of what is going on? I noticed that the CO2 record stopped short in the original but I basically ignored it because I couldnt do anything about it. what percentage of people would notice that inconsistency and then be able to do something about it? one in ten thousand? so what happened to peer review, why didnt they insist that the record be extended to match the time period of the temperatures?

the problem with being a slave to authority is that you dont get to hear the objections. I dont have a big problem with Shakur2012 but I dont think they really proved their conclusion that CO2 increased first, then temperature. there are some studies one way, others show the reverse. but I am pissed off that they broke the rules of scientific investigation to make their case stronger, knowing that most people wouldnt catch on or be able to do anything about it.

Silly you.. Didn't you know that paleodendrology (whatever?) only works up until the Industrial age? Those newer tree rings are retarded by changes in atmo comp that they never seen before.. Never -- I say..

What you do when the data stops short is to pull YAD061 off the bench and send the boy in.

"I think that I shall never see
A thermometer as bad as a tree"

 

[Old Rocks]

another interesting article dealing with the uncertainties of Shakun2012 and the very distinct possibility that there are other explanations rather than CO2.

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper | Watts Up With That?

do any of you warmers ever notice that most or all of these reconstructions of the present interglacial all have warmer temps at the beginning than now?

I see only our present interglacial represented in those graphs.

 

[westwall]

I dont know why I keep expecting you to be reasonable, or even inquisitive. Did you read the articles at WUWT? they melt Shakur's case away to nothing but an unsubstantiated conclusion that at best is just not definitively proven wrong. his proxy data does not have the precision to date whether there is a lag or advance between CO2 and temperature. the long standing common interpretation is that the oceans give up their CO2after they warm up. his equivical data are certainly not strong enough to overturn that.

plus he used Mike's Nature Trick of cutting off inconvenient data which show that for the last 5000 years CO2 has been going up, while temperatures have been going down. not very good science.

I really recommend people to read the articles just so that they get an idea about how weak the correlations of proxy data are.

No, oltrakarfraud, and their ilk have no interest in actually learning something. They are too heavily invested in the fraud of AGW to even attempt to understand reality. Reality is too hard and removes their easy gravy train of government money.

 

[westwall]

another interesting article dealing with the uncertainties of Shakun2012 and the very distinct possibility that there are other explanations rather than CO2.

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper | Watts Up With That?

do any of you warmers ever notice that most or all of these reconstructions of the present interglacial all have warmer temps at the beginning than now?

I see only our present interglacial represented in those graphs.

I see several thousand years of data there. You are the clowns who ignore anything 30 years old or older. To you the past does not matter it is only NOW that concerns you.

 

[bobgnote]

I see only our present interglacial represented in those graphs.

I see several thousand years of data there. You are the clowns who ignore anything 30 years old or older. To you the past does not matter it is only NOW that concerns you.

That's the recent history, of glaciation. Ice ages go back. The last one peaked 20,000 years ago. It would be nice, to see that, for reference.

I still don't see any asshole skeptics admitting, how methane will accelerate warming, which is documented, or how CO2 gathered, since industry issued and humans defoliated, or how carbonic acid is killing, except yesterday, Wienerbitch posted the oyster die-off and then he ran off.

This graph is interesting, for something that is shit, not in the ground. 11,000 years, bunched together. Wow, Wally and Crapforbrains and Suckassbil.

Queen Wally, go back to the Ordovician Ice Age, if you want to. Go back 40 years, if you want the warmest four successive decades, on record. Go back 180 years, if you want industrial maximum review. But go back 20,000 years, if you want to make a point, about glacial maximum. Don't forget to quote like a queen, fuck yourself, for 10 lines, and then issue queenie crap, Wallybitch.

Then fart, and smell the shit, in your own methane. Down go the glaciers and pack-ice. Too bad we might even all be alive, to see the total devastation, which will result.

 

[flacaltenn]

I kinda picture Gilbert Godfrey in a Dallas cheerleader's outfit with pom-poms just whoosing thru the air.

Cute -- but disgusting..

 

[IanC]

another interesting article dealing with the uncertainties of Shakun2012 and the very distinct possibility that there are other explanations rather than CO2.

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper | Watts Up With That?

do any of you warmers ever notice that most or all of these reconstructions of the present interglacial all have warmer temps at the beginning than now?

I see only our present interglacial represented in those graphs.

are those two graphs the only ones shown? hahahaha. I dont know why I bother. I keep thinking people really want to learn more about this stuff but obviously many or most are only looking to find evidence that can be shoehorned into supporting their side.

 

[IanC]

here are the thumbnails of the proxies-

The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising. Yes, they’re all vaguely alike … but that’s about all.
The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming. In some proxies it starts in 25,000 BC, in others it starts in 15,000 BC. Sometimes the warming peaks as early as 14,000 BC, and sometimes around 5,000 BC or later. Sometimes the warming continues right up to the present.

but Shakur will be credited with getting rid of the lag, just like Mann was credited with getting rid of the MWP. it will work until the IPCC report after next year's anyways

 

[flacaltenn]

IanC::

I had a chance to read the OP link tonight.. It's THIS graph (the 450,000 yr record) that caught my attention..

On that scale, the most surprising behaviour is NOT the "which comes first" proposition which I've weakly seen sometimes on other timescales. But more consistently -- it's the "which goes last" proposition that seems to suggest some darn thing. On almost every major FALL in temp -- the temp precedes the "supposed" forcing function. Kinda violates the concept of a forcing function on that principle alone doesn't it?

Either the lags in the proxies are wrong and some axis diddling is required or the current CO2 theory would have to say that the feedbacks somehow go mostly negative at some point in the CO2 rise..

<edited for a 3rd possibility> OR the CO2 ice proxies are somehow "filtered" themselves to add delay. Perhaps liquid mixing? Or limits on the dating resolution when the cores are taken.


Forcing functions should predict BOTH the positive AND negative slopes of temperature.. Eh?