The new, and startling, feature of the Marcott graph was at the very end: Their data showed a remarkable uptick that implied that, during the 20th century, our climate swung from nearly the coldest conditions over the past 11,500 years to nearly the warmest. Specifically, their analysis showed that in under 100 years we’ve had more warming than previously took thousands of years to occur, in the process undoing 5,000 years’ worth of cooling.
Oops.
h/t Glenn
Younger dryas warming is my second favorite item to bring up with warmists. Why did temperature go up 15 degrees? We don’t know.
My favorite is the NOAA’s falsification criteria of “there’s no way 15 years or more of flat temperatures can occur. The models don’t allow for it within the natural range of variation” (paraphrased). It doesn’t matter if the dates are “cherry-picked”, NOAA has to treat CO2 based global warming as falsified now. Not that they will. There’s too much funding at stake.
This work built on a PhD thesis that didn’t have the uptick at the end, but did once it got into the hands of the usual climate change suspects.
Funny thing too — not only did they delete some data, and modify other data, to come at this graph, but they also failed to do the most obvious thing, ie, check the thermometer! You see, in this work, there are only a couple of “core samples” in those latter years, and absolutely no data from actual instruments.
The drama is unfolding, and I’m betting that this article earns a retraction in a few more weeks. That such a retraction won’t be covered by the liberal press is a certainty.
// Readers will be aware of the paper by Shaun Marcott and colleagues, that they published a couple weeks ago in the journal Science. That paper sought to extend the global temperature record back over the entire Holocene period, i.e. just over 11 kyr back time, something that had not really been attempted before. The paper got a fair amount of media coverage (see e.g. this article by Justin Gillis in the New York Times). Since then, a number of accusations from the usual suspects have been leveled against the authors and their study, and most of it is characteristically misleading. We are pleased to provide the authors’ response, below. Our view is that the results of the paper will stand the test of time, particularly regarding the small global temperature variations in the Holocene. If anything, early Holocene warmth might be overestimated in this study. //
Authors’ response
“…It was introduced into their proxy reconstruction as an artifact of arbitrarily redating the end points of a few proxy records.”
” artifact of arbitrarily redating” Is that Latin for a $%#@&^g lie?
In the “author’s response”. The answer shows that the uptick represented nothing they wanted to stand behind. So why did they include it?
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A:……….However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Figure 1G), this difference is probably not robust…..the small number of datasets that extend into the 20th century (Figure 1G) is insufficient to reconstruct a statistically robust global signal………..
I think this link gives all the analysis needed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/02/why-the-marcott-et-al-faq-was-published-on-easter-sunday/#more-83340
One last comment, (although possibly misattributed to Mark Twain) “A gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar on top.” I wonder how he would describe the current crop of “Climate Models”?
“Specifically, their analysis showed that in under 100 years we’ve had more warming than previously took thousands of years to occur, in the process undoing 5,000 years’ worth of cooling.”
Yeah, but overall the earth has been cooling from the point that it once was a molten ball of mostly iron floating around in space.
(claims agreeing with Warmists by some on this site citing ‘global warming since the Little Ice Age’* notwithstanding)
*cherry picking a starting point in
But, but, but. If you drill down deep enough you will encounter a molten ball of mostly iron.
(a scientist told me so)
The sound you hear is the death rattle of a promising career.