Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

Expand Messages
  • Robert Maginnis
      I ve been too busy to participate lately, but here is something interesting:   Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years Posted
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      I've been too busy to participate lately, but here is something interesting:
       

      Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

      Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

      Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.
      Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick
      Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

      Building a hockey stick

      Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 
      When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  ........................more
       
       
      bob
    • famstaff@hal-pc.org
      Another way to interpret the graph would be to say: Thus it can be shown that proxies are unreliable. There are no good data before satellite measurements
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 1, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Another way to interpret the graph would be to say:

        "Thus it can be shown that proxies are unreliable."

        There are no good data before satellite measurements started.

        Greg


        Quoting Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...>:

        >  
        > I've been too busy to participate lately, but here is something interesting:
        >  
        > Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
        > Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting
        > Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and
        > their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate
        > scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that
        > current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so.
        > In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was
        > likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any
        > as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural
        > phenomenon.
        > Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper
        > more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since
        > then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming
        > is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due
        > to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey
        > stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an
        > Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey
        > stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier
        > length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic
        > hockey stick. 
        > Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published
        > scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea
        > ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of
        > melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years.
        > See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in
        > this reconstruction).
        >
        > Building a hockey stick
        > Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water
        > temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice
        > core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions
        > over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy
        > reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the
        > reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due
        > to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past
        > 1,450 years ago. 
        > When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it
        > was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant
        > temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction
        > also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea
        > ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was
        > a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).
        >  ........................more
        >  
        > http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick-melt-unprecedented-in-last-1450-years.html
        >  
        > bob



        ----------------------------------------------------------------
        This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
      • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
        Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 1, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don’t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting two totally different types of data together like that is legitimate. 

          I would like to see the proxy data brought up to date as a way to validate the proxy data. If the proxy data agrees with the instrumental data up to present, then it would suggest that the proxy data before 1850 might be correct as well. Truncating the “reconstruction” as they did rendered their chart useless. The fact that they would release this suggests strongly that it was released for its propaganda value rather than its scientific value.

          There were other hockey sticks mentioned.  Here is one of those charts:



          All of them appear to be nosing down long before 1980. That would be consistent with warming after the Little Ice Age or after the “mini-minimum” around 1900. 

          I wonder if the other “hockey sticks” that they listed suffer from the same grafting affliction. 

           

          Another point, they said “Mann’s work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.” According to HadCRUT 3 temperature data, the most recent warming from around 1980 until around 2001 was of a similar rate and magnitude as the previous warming from around 1915 until around 1945.  Was the first warming cause by a yet-unidentified or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon? I have not heard anyone attempt to credibly argue that the first warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Perhaps the second warming period and the first warming period were caused by the same “yet-unidentified” and “yet-to-be-discovered natural phenomenon.” Perhaps they ought to explain the cause of the first warming period before they jump to the CO2 conclusion.

          Bottom line is that this appears to be just another “polar bear story.” 

          Bruce

          C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

          Houston , Texas

           


          From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
          Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
          To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

           

           

           

          I've been too busy to participate lately, but here is something interesting:

           

          Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

          Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

          Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.

          Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick

          Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

          Building a hockey stick

          Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 

          When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  ........................more

           

           

          bob

        • Robert Maginnis
          Bruce,   It is yet another vindication of Mann, even if you want to claim the post 1980 warming isn t anthropogenic.  I would have appreciated the link for
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 2, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

            Bruce,
             
            It is yet another vindication of Mann, even if you want to claim the post 1980 warming isn't anthropogenic.  I would have appreciated the link for your ice loss graph, even if it wasn't about Arctic sea ice.
             
            bob
            --- On Thu, 12/1/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

            From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...>
            Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
            To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 3:10 PM

             

            Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don’t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting two totally different types of data together like that is legitimate. 

            I would like to see the proxy data brought up to date as a way to validate the proxy data. If the proxy data agrees with the instrumental data up to present, then it would suggest that the proxy data before 1850 might be correct as well. Truncating the “reconstruction” as they did rendered their chart useless. The fact that they would release this suggests strongly that it was released for its propaganda value rather than its scientific value.

            There were other hockey sticks mentioned.  Here is one of those charts:



            All of them appear to be nosing down long before 1980. That would be consistent with warming after the Little Ice Age or after the “mini-minimum” around 1900. 

            I wonder if the other “hockey sticks” that they listed suffer from the same grafting affliction. 

             

            Another point, they said “Mann’s work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.” According to HadCRUT 3 temperature data, the most recent warming from around 1980 until around 2001 was of a similar rate and magnitude as the previous warming from around 1915 until around 1945.  Was the first warming cause by a yet-unidentified or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon? I have not heard anyone attempt to credibly argue that the first warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Perhaps the second warming period and the first warming period were caused by the same “yet-unidentified” and “yet-to-be-discovered natural phenomenon.” Perhaps they ought to explain the cause of the first warming period before they jump to the CO2 conclusion.

            Bottom line is that this appears to be just another “polar bear story.” 

            Bruce

            C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

            Houston , Texas

             


            From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
            Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
            To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

             

             

            Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

            Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

            Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.
            Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick
            Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

            Building a hockey stick

            Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 
            When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  
            Clearly there are periods in the reconstruction where rapid rates of ice loss occurred, but what stands out is that the length and rate of present day melt is unprecedented in the entire 1,450 year-long reconstruction. This is consistent with the Arctic summer temperature hockey stick (Kaufman [2009]) and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick (Spielhagen [2011]).

            Arctic summer sea ice: going, going............ 

            2011 saw the 2nd lowest summer sea ice extent on record (after 2007), and even more dramatically,  this year saw the lowest ever recorded volume of Arctic summer sea ice. 
            This latest 'hockey stick' not only reinforces that current conditions in the Arctic are much warmer than the so-called Medieval Warm Period, but that sea ice is currently disappearing at a sustained speed that is unmatched in the last 1,450 years...........
             
             
             
            bob
          • Dick Kahle
            Bob, I don t have access to Nature. Poor explanation in climate skeptics. Ice minimum during LIA only raises questions. Need more info. Dick ... Bob, I don t
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 2, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment

              Bob,

              I don't have access to Nature. Poor explanation in "climate skeptics." Ice minimum during LIA only raises questions. Need more info.

              Dick

              On Dec 2, 2011 7:11 AM, "Robert Maginnis" <bobmagi@...> wrote:

              Bruce,
               
              It is yet another vindication of Mann, even if you want to claim the post 1980 warming isn't anthropogenic.  I would have appreciated the link for your ice loss graph, even if it wasn't about Arctic sea ice.
               
              bob
              --- On Thu, 12/1/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

              From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...>
              Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
              To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 3:10 PM

               

              Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don’t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting two totally different types of data together like that is legitimate. 

              I would like to see the proxy data brought up to date as a way to validate the proxy data. If the proxy data agrees with the instrumental data up to present, then it would suggest that the proxy data before 1850 might be correct as well. Truncating the “reconstruction” as they did rendered their chart useless. The fact that they would release this suggests strongly that it was released for its propaganda value rather than its scientific value.

              There were other hockey sticks mentioned.  Here is one of those charts:



              All of them appear to be nosing down long before 1980. That would be consistent with warming after the Little Ice Age or after the “mini-minimum” around 1900. 

              I wonder if the other “hockey sticks” that they listed suffer from the same grafting affliction. 

               

              Another point, they said “Mann’s work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.” According to HadCRUT 3 temperature data, the most recent warming from around 1980 until around 2001 was of a similar rate and magnitude as the previous warming from around 1915 until around 1945.  Was the first warming cause by a yet-unidentified or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon? I have not heard anyone attempt to credibly argue that the first warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Perhaps the second warming period and the first warming period were caused by the same “yet-unidentified” and “yet-to-be-discovered natural phenomenon.” Perhaps they ought to explain the cause of the first warming period before they jump to the CO2 conclusion.

              Bottom line is that this appears to be just another “polar bear story.” 

              Bruce

              C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

              Houston , Texas

               


              From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
              Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
              To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

               

               

              Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

              Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

              Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.
              Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick
              Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

              Building a hockey stick

              Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 
              When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  
              Clearly there are periods in the reconstruction where rapid rates of ice loss occurred, but what stands out is that the length and rate of present day melt is unprecedented in the entire 1,450 year-long reconstruction. This is consistent with the Arctic summer temperature hockey stick (Kaufman [2009]) and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick (Spielhagen [2011]).

              Arctic summer sea ice: going, going............ 

              2011 saw the 2nd lowest summer sea ice extent on record (after 2007), and even more dramatically,  this year saw the lowest ever recorded volume of Arctic summer sea ice. 
              This latest 'hockey stick' not only reinforces that current conditions in the Arctic are much warmer than the so-called Medieval Warm Period, but that sea ice is currently disappearing at a sustained speed that is unmatched in the last 1,450 years...........
               
               
               
              bob
            • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
              Bob, they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data which is what Mann did. Low and behold they gat a hockey stick. Doing the same dubious thing that
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 2, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment

                Bob, they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data which is what Mann did.  Low and behold they gat a hockey stick. Doing the same dubious thing that Mann did to get the same dubious result is hardly vindication. Why didn’t they just show us proxy data all the way across? We cannot legitimately graft two fundamentally different sorts of data together like that. If I, as an optician, know that; why shouldn’t we expect these climate “scientists” to know that as well?

                Some of the post 1980 warming in the HadCRUT3 record might be anthropogenic but it seems unlikely that any significant portion of it was.

                What caused the first warming period in the HadCRUT3 temperature record? According to the HadCRUT3 data, it was comparable in rate and magnitude to the second warming (1980-2001~). If they cannot explain the first warming then they cannot claim with any certainty to know the cause of the second. If the first was caused by certain natural forces moving into a warming phase, is it “denial” to suggest that those same natural forces moving again into a warming phase could be responsible for most of the second warming period?

                I’m sorry, the chart was from here: 

                http://www.springerlink.com/content/2j461434h61t9108/fulltext.html

                That is the “Glacier length hockey stick” mentioned in your original paper below. I followed that link because it seemed to me that it would have to be one continuous data set rather than two disparate data sets grafted together. If it was one continuous data set, I couldn’t understand how it could possibly have a “hockey stick” blade that started around the middle of the 20th century. I expected that it would have to start either around 1900 or around 1850.  Around 1900 we were in a “mini-solar minimum” followed by the recent warming period.  Around 1850 is considered by many to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciers that had advanced during the Little Ice Age should have started to retreat when it ended.  According to the “glacier length hockey stick,” that’s what happened. That does not support the Mann “hockey stick.”  It tends to refute it. 

                Bruce

                C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

                Houston , Texas



                From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:11 AM
                To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                 


                Bruce,

                 

                It is yet another vindication of Mann, even if you want to claim the post 1980 warming isn't anthropogenic.  I would have appreciated the link for your ice loss graph, even if it wasn't about Arctic sea ice.

                 

                bob
                --- On Thu, 12/1/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:


                From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...>
                Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 3:10 PM

                 

                Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don’t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting two totally different types of data together like that is legitimate. 

                I would like to see the proxy data brought up to date as a way to validate the proxy data. If the proxy data agrees with the instrumental data up to present, then it would suggest that the proxy data before 1850 might be correct as well. Truncating the “reconstruction” as they did rendered their chart useless. The fact that they would release this suggests strongly that it was released for its propaganda value rather than its scientific value.

                There were other hockey sticks mentioned.  Here is one of those charts:



                All of them appear to be nosing down long before 1980. That would be consistent with warming after the Little Ice Age or after the “mini-minimum” around 1900. 

                I wonder if the other “hockey sticks” that they listed suffer from the same grafting affliction. 

                 

                Another point, they said “Mann’s work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.” According to HadCRUT 3 temperature data, the most recent warming from around 1980 until around 2001 was of a similar rate and magnitude as the previous warming from around 1915 until around 1945.  Was the first warming cause by a yet-unidentified or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon? I have not heard anyone attempt to credibly argue that the first warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Perhaps the second warming period and the first warming period were caused by the same “yet-unidentified” and “yet-to-be-discovered natural phenomenon.” Perhaps they ought to explain the cause of the first warming period before they jump to the CO2 conclusion.

                Bottom line is that this appears to be just another “polar bear story.” 

                Bruce

                C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                Houston , Texas

                 


                From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
                To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                 

                 

                Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

                Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.

                Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick

                Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

                Building a hockey stick

                Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 

                When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  

                Clearly there are periods in the reconstruction where rapid rates of ice loss occurred, but what stands out is that the length and rate of present day melt is unprecedented in the entire 1,450 year-long reconstruction. This is consistent with the Arctic summer temperature hockey stick (Kaufman [2009]) and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick (Spielhagen [2011]).

                Arctic summer sea ice: going, going............ 

                2011 saw the 2nd lowest summer sea ice extent on record (after 2007), and even more dramatically,  this year saw the lowest ever recorded volume of Arctic summer sea ice. 

                This latest 'hockey stick' not only reinforces that current conditions in the Arctic are much warmer than the so-called Medieval Warm Period, but that sea ice is currently disappearing at a sustained speed that is unmatched in the last 1,450 years...........

                 

                 

                 

                bob

                 

              • Robert Maginnis
                Bruce,   You say they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data,       and I don t know what you expect them to do, but your land glacier data
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 2, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bruce,
                   
                  You say 'they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data,'
                   
                   
                   
                  and I don't know what you expect them to do, but your land glacier data appears to agree with whatever they did, even if you want to claim that humans had little to do with the 20th century warming,  It is still a hockey stick.
                   
                  bob

                  --- On Fri, 12/2/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...> wrote:

                  From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...>
                  Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                  To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Friday, December 2, 2011, 10:23 AM

                   

                  Bob, they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data which is what Mann did.  Low and behold they gat a hockey stick. Doing the same dubious thing that Mann did to get the same dubious result is hardly vindication. Why didn’t they just show us proxy data all the way across? We cannot legitimately graft two fundamentally different sorts of data together like that. If I, as an optician, know that; why shouldn’t we expect these climate “scientists” to know that as well?

                  Some of the post 1980 warming in the HadCRUT3 record might be anthropogenic but it seems unlikely that any significant portion of it was.

                  What caused the first warming period in the HadCRUT3 temperature record? According to the HadCRUT3 data, it was comparable in rate and magnitude to the second warming (1980-2001~). If they cannot explain the first warming then they cannot claim with any certainty to know the cause of the second. If the first was caused by certain natural forces moving into a warming phase, is it “denial” to suggest that those same natural forces moving again into a warming phase could be responsible for most of the second warming period?

                  I’m sorry, the chart was from here: 

                  http://www.springerlink.com/content/2j461434h61t9108/fulltext.html

                  That is the “Glacier length hockey stick” mentioned in your original paper below. I followed that link because it seemed to me that it would have to be one continuous data set rather than two disparate data sets grafted together. If it was one continuous data set, I couldn’t understand how it could possibly have a “hockey stick” blade that started around the middle of the 20th century. I expected that it would have to start either around 1900 or around 1850.  Around 1900 we were in a “mini-solar minimum” followed by the recent warming period.  Around 1850 is considered by many to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciers that had advanced during the Little Ice Age should have started to retreat when it ended.  According to the “glacier length hockey stick,” that’s what happened. That does not support the Mann “hockey stick.”  It tends to refute it. 

                  Bruce

                  C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

                  Houston , Texas



                  From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                  Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:11 AM
                  To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                   

                   

                  It is yet another vindication of Mann, even if you want to claim the post 1980 warming isn't anthropogenic.  I would have appreciated the link for your ice loss graph, even if it wasn't about Arctic sea ice.

                   

                  bob
                  --- On Thu, 12/1/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:


                  From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...>
                  Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                  To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 3:10 PM

                   

                  Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don’t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting two totally different types of data together like that is legitimate. 

                  I would like to see the proxy data brought up to date as a way to validate the proxy data. If the proxy data agrees with the instrumental data up to present, then it would suggest that the proxy data before 1850 might be correct as well. Truncating the “reconstruction” as they did rendered their chart useless. The fact that they would release this suggests strongly that it was released for its propaganda value rather than its scientific value.

                  There were other hockey sticks mentioned.  Here is one of those charts:



                  All of them appear to be nosing down long before 1980. That would be consistent with warming after the Little Ice Age or after the “mini-minimum” around 1900. 

                  I wonder if the other “hockey sticks” that they listed suffer from the same grafting affliction. 

                   

                  Another point, they said “Mann’s work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.” According to HadCRUT 3 temperature data, the most recent warming from around 1980 until around 2001 was of a similar rate and magnitude as the previous warming from around 1915 until around 1945.  Was the first warming cause by a yet-unidentified or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon? I have not heard anyone attempt to credibly argue that the first warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Perhaps the second warming period and the first warming period were caused by the same “yet-unidentified” and “yet-to-be-discovered natural phenomenon.” Perhaps they ought to explain the cause of the first warming period before they jump to the CO2 conclusion.

                  Bottom line is that this appears to be just another “polar bear story.” 

                  Bruce

                  C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                  Houston , Texas

                   


                  From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                  Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
                  To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                   

                   

                  Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                  Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

                  Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.

                  Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick

                  Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

                  Building a hockey stick

                  Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 

                  When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  

                  Clearly there are periods in the reconstruction where rapid rates of ice loss occurred, but what stands out is that the length and rate of present day melt is unprecedented in the entire 1,450 year-long reconstruction. This is consistent with the Arctic summer temperature hockey stick (Kaufman [2009]) and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick (Spielhagen [2011]).

                  Arctic summer sea ice: going, going............ 

                  2011 saw the 2nd lowest summer sea ice extent on record (after 2007), and even more dramatically,  this year saw the lowest ever recorded volume of Arctic summer sea ice. 

                  This latest 'hockey stick' not only reinforces that current conditions in the Arctic are much warmer than the so-called Medieval Warm Period, but that sea ice is currently disappearing at a sustained speed that is unmatched in the last 1,450 years...........

                   

                   

                   

                  bob


                  Bruce,

                   

                • Staff Family
                  Robert, I for one would expect them to continue with the proxy data - it s still there after all - and see where the graph goes all the way to the present
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 2, 2011
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Robert, I for one would expect them to continue with the proxy data - it's still there after all - and see where the graph goes all the way to the present time.
                     
                    Greg

                    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 9:12 PM
                    Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                    Bruce,
                     
                    You say 'they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data,'
                     
                     
                     
                    and I don't know what you expect them to do, but your land glacier data appears to agree with whatever they did, even if you want to claim that humans had little to do with the 20th century warming,  It is still a hockey stick.
                     
                    bob

                    --- On Fri, 12/2/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...> wrote:

                    From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...>
                    Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                    To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Friday, December 2, 2011, 10:23 AM

                     

                    Bob, they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data which is what Mann did.  Low and behold they gat a hockey stick. Doing the same dubious thing that Mann did to get the same dubious result is hardly vindication. Why didn’t they just show us proxy data all the way across? We cannot legitimately graft two fundamentally different sorts of data together like that. If I, as an optician, know that; why shouldn’t we expect these climate “scientists” to know that as well?

                    Some of the post 1980 warming in the HadCRUT3 record might be anthropogenic but it seems unlikely that any significant portion of it was.

                    What caused the first warming period in the HadCRUT3 temperature record? According to the HadCRUT3 data, it was comparable in rate and magnitude to the second warming (1980-2001~). If they cannot explain the first warming then they cannot claim with any certainty to know the cause of the second. If the first was caused by certain natural forces moving into a warming phase, is it “denial” to suggest that those same natural forces moving again into a warming phase could be responsible for most of the second warming period?

                    I’m sorry, the chart was from here: 

                    http://www.springerlink.com/content/2j461434h61t9108/fulltext.html

                    That is the “Glacier length hockey stick” mentioned in your original paper below. I followed that link because it seemed to me that it would have to be one continuous data set rather than two disparate data sets grafted together. If it was one continuous data set, I couldn’t understand how it could possibly have a “hockey stick” blade that started around the middle of the 20th century. I expected that it would have to start either around 1900 or around 1850.  Around 1900 we were in a “mini-solar minimum” followed by the recent warming period.  Around 1850 is considered by many to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciers that had advanced during the Little Ice Age should have started to retreat when it ended.  According to the “glacier length hockey stick,” that’s what happened. That does not support the Mann “hockey stick.”  It tends to refute it. 

                    Bruce

                    C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

                    Houston , Texas



                    From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:11 AM
                    To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                     


                    Bruce,

                     

                    It is yet another vindication of Mann, even if you want to claim the post 1980 warming isn't anthropogenic.  I would have appreciated the link for your ice loss graph, even if it wasn't about Arctic sea ice.

                     

                    bob
                    --- On Thu, 12/1/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:


                    From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...>
                    Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                    To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 3:10 PM

                     

                    Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don’t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting two totally different types of data together like that is legitimate. 

                    I would like to see the proxy data brought up to date as a way to validate the proxy data. If the proxy data agrees with the instrumental data up to present, then it would suggest that the proxy data before 1850 might be correct as well. Truncating the “reconstruction” as they did rendered their chart useless. The fact that they would release this suggests strongly that it was released for its propaganda value rather than its scientific value.

                    There were other hockey sticks mentioned.  Here is one of those charts:



                    All of them appear to be nosing down long before 1980. That would be consistent with warming after the Little Ice Age or after the “mini-minimum” around 1900. 

                    I wonder if the other “hockey sticks” that they listed suffer from the same grafting affliction. 

                     

                    Another point, they said “Mann’s work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.” According to HadCRUT 3 temperature data, the most recent warming from around 1980 until around 2001 was of a similar rate and magnitude as the previous warming from around 1915 until around 1945.  Was the first warming cause by a yet-unidentified or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon? I have not heard anyone attempt to credibly argue that the first warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Perhaps the second warming period and the first warming period were caused by the same “yet-unidentified” and “yet-to-be-discovered natural phenomenon.” Perhaps they ought to explain the cause of the first warming period before they jump to the CO2 conclusion.

                    Bottom line is that this appears to be just another “polar bear story.” 

                    Bruce

                    C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                    Houston , Texas


                    From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                    Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
                    To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                     

                    Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                    Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

                    Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.

                    Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick

                    Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

                    Building a hockey stick

                    Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 

                    When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  

                    Clearly there are periods in the reconstruction where rapid rates of ice loss occurred, but what stands out is that the length and rate of present day melt is unprecedented in the entire 1,450 year-long reconstruction. This is consistent with the Arctic summer temperature hockey stick (Kaufman [2009]) and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick (Spielhagen [2011]).

                    Arctic summer sea ice: going, going............ 

                    2011 saw the 2nd lowest summer sea ice extent on record (after 2007), and even more dramatically,  this year saw the lowest ever recorded volume of Arctic summer sea ice. 

                    This latest 'hockey stick' not only reinforces that current conditions in the Arctic are much warmer than the so-called Medieval Warm Period, but that sea ice is currently disappearing at a sustained speed that is unmatched in the last 1,450 years...........

                     

                     

                     

                    bob

                     

                  • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                    Bob, if they are going to use proxy for some of it, they should use it for all of it. They can take tree rings from modern trees. They can examine modern
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 2, 2011
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Bob, if they are going to use proxy for some of it, they should use it for all of it. They can take tree rings from modern trees.  They can examine modern shells, etc. They should not stop their proxy data and change to instrumental data. If the proxy data is reliable then it should match the instrumental data when taken up to present.  If it does, then show us that it does.  If it doesn’t, then they should show that as well. Right?

                      There has likely been warming on average since around 1900. There should have been because around 1900 was a mini solar minimum. Solar activity started to increase and peaked around 1960.  But it remained well above the 20th century average until Cycle 23 ended and Cycle 24 failed to begin on time. For now solar activity remains low.

                      Glaciers should have receded during the 20th century. According to the glacier data, they did. The second warming period is the one that the IPCC blames on anthropogenic CO2. That started around 1980. The glacier data suggests warming starting around 1900 mostly. It doesn’t show a sudden acceleration in melting around 1980. It may be a “hockey stick” but I cannot see in what way it validates Mann’s hockey stick. They should really give up on rescuing the Mann hockey stick. They are hitching their wagon to a falling star with Mann.

                      I don’t believe that it is possible to use proxy data to gauge Arctic ice extent. I suspect that much of the result is modeling rather than empirical evidence. 

                      Ocean currents have a lot to do with the longer term variation in summer ice extent. There appears to be some correlation between the North Atlantic SST and Arctic temperatures. The last Arctic warm period occurred when the North Atlantic SST was in a warm phase as did the current Arctic warm period.  I think that the radical downturn at the end of the original chart is the result of grafting instrumental data to the end of the proxy data just as it was with Mann’s hockey stick. It is very likely an artifact resulting from grafting two disparate data sources.  I doubt very seriously that bringing the proxy data up to day would yield the same sort of “blade.” 

                      BTW, is the actual study available?  Is their data and methodology available?  It might be behind a pay wall.

                      Bruce

                      C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                      Houston , Texas


                      From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                      Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 9:12 PM
                      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                       

                      Bruce,

                       

                      You say 'they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data,'

                       

                       

                       

                      and I don't know what you expect them to do, but your land glacier data appears to agree with whatever they did, even if you want to claim that humans had little to do with the 20th century warming,  It is still a hockey stick.

                       

                      bob

                      --- On Fri, 12/2/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...> wrote:


                      From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...>
                      Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Friday, December 2, 2011, 10:23 AM

                       

                      Bob, they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data which is what Mann did.  Low and behold they gat a hockey stick. Doing the same dubious thing that Mann did to get the same dubious result is hardly vindication. Why didn’t they just show us proxy data all the way across? We cannot legitimately graft two fundamentally different sorts of data together like that. If I, as an optician, know that; why shouldn’t we expect these climate “scientists” to know that as well?

                      Some of the post 1980 warming in the HadCRUT3 record might be anthropogenic but it seems unlikely that any significant portion of it was.

                      What caused the first warming period in the HadCRUT3 temperature record? According to the HadCRUT3 data, it was comparable in rate and magnitude to the second warming (1980-2001~). If they cannot explain the first warming then they cannot claim with any certainty to know the cause of the second. If the first was caused by certain natural forces moving into a warming phase, is it “denial” to suggest that those same natural forces moving again into a warming phase could be responsible for most of the second warming period?

                      I’m sorry, the chart was from here: 

                      http://www.springerlink.com/content/2j461434h61t9108/fulltext.html

                      That is the “Glacier length hockey stick” mentioned in your original paper below. I followed that link because it seemed to me that it would have to be one continuous data set rather than two disparate data sets grafted together. If it was one continuous data set, I couldn’t understand how it could possibly have a “hockey stick” blade that started around the middle of the 20th century. I expected that it would have to start either around 1900 or around 1850.  Around 1900 we were in a “mini-solar minimum” followed by the recent warming period.  Around 1850 is considered by many to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciers that had advanced during the Little Ice Age should have started to retreat when it ended.  According to the “glacier length hockey stick,” that’s what happened. That does not support the Mann “hockey stick.”  It tends to refute it. 

                      Bruce

                      C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                      Houston , Texas


                      From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                      Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:11 AM
                      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                       


                      Bruce,

                       

                      It is yet another vindication of Mann, even if you want to claim the post 1980 warming isn't anthropogenic.  I would have appreciated the link for your ice loss graph, even if it wasn't about Arctic sea ice.

                       

                      bob
                      --- On Thu, 12/1/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:


                      From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...>
                      Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 3:10 PM

                       

                      Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don’t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting two totally different types of data together like that is legitimate. 

                      I would like to see the proxy data brought up to date as a way to validate the proxy data. If the proxy data agrees with the instrumental data up to present, then it would suggest that the proxy data before 1850 might be correct as well. Truncating the “reconstruction” as they did rendered their chart useless. The fact that they would release this suggests strongly that it was released for its propaganda value rather than its scientific value.

                      There were other hockey sticks mentioned.  Here is one of those charts:



                      All of them appear to be nosing down long before 1980. That would be consistent with warming after the Little Ice Age or after the “mini-minimum” around 1900. 

                      I wonder if the other “hockey sticks” that they listed suffer from the same grafting affliction. 

                       

                      Another point, they said “Mann’s work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.” According to HadCRUT 3 temperature data, the most recent warming from around 1980 until around 2001 was of a similar rate and magnitude as the previous warming from around 1915 until around 1945.  Was the first warming cause by a yet-unidentified or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon? I have not heard anyone attempt to credibly argue that the first warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Perhaps the second warming period and the first warming period were caused by the same “yet-unidentified” and “yet-to-be-discovered natural phenomenon.” Perhaps they ought to explain the cause of the first warming period before they jump to the CO2 conclusion.

                      Bottom line is that this appears to be just another “polar bear story.” 

                      Bruce

                      C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                      Houston , Texas

                       


                      From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                      Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
                      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                       

                       

                      Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                      Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

                      Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.

                      Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick

                      Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

                      Building a hockey stick

                      Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 

                      When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  

                      Clearly there are periods in the reconstruction where rapid rates of ice loss occurred, but what stands out is that the length and rate of present day melt is unprecedented in the entire 1,450 year-long reconstruction. This is consistent with the Arctic summer temperature hockey stick (Kaufman [2009]) and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick (Spielhagen [2011]).

                      Arctic summer sea ice: going, going............ 

                      2011 saw the 2nd lowest summer sea ice extent on record (after 2007), and even more dramatically,  this year saw the lowest ever recorded volume of Arctic summer sea ice. 

                      This latest 'hockey stick' not only reinforces that current conditions in the Arctic are much warmer than the so-called Medieval Warm Period, but that sea ice is currently disappearing at a sustained speed that is unmatched in the last 1,450 years...........

                       

                       

                       

                      bob

                       

                       

                    • Robert Maginnis
                      Bruce,   You can get some info about their proxies by clicking on the graphs and map at  
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 3, 2011
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bruce,
                         
                        You can get some info about their proxies by clicking on the graphs and map at
                         
                         
                        It seems that you connected the proxies with modern times with your glacier graphs, even if it is land instead of sea.  Looks like hockey stick to me, and there are these hockey sticks too:
                         
                         
                        although I'm sure you will find something wrong with most of them.
                         
                        Bob
                         


                        --- On Fri, 12/2/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...> wrote:

                        From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...>
                        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Friday, December 2, 2011, 8:24 PM

                         

                        Bob, if they are going to use proxy for some of it, they should use it for all of it. They can take tree rings from modern trees.  They can examine modern shells, etc. They should not stop their proxy data and change to instrumental data. If the proxy data is reliable then it should match the instrumental data when taken up to present.  If it does, then show us that it does.  If it doesn’t, then they should show that as well. Right?

                        There has likely been warming on average since around 1900. There should have been because around 1900 was a mini solar minimum. Solar activity started to increase and peaked around 1960.  But it remained well above the 20th century average until Cycle 23 ended and Cycle 24 failed to begin on time. For now solar activity remains low.

                        Glaciers should have receded during the 20th century. According to the glacier data, they did. The second warming period is the one that the IPCC blames on anthropogenic CO2. That started around 1980. The glacier data suggests warming starting around 1900 mostly. It doesn’t show a sudden acceleration in melting around 1980. It may be a “hockey stick” but I cannot see in what way it validates Mann’s hockey stick. They should really give up on rescuing the Mann hockey stick. They are hitching their wagon to a falling star with Mann.

                        I don’t believe that it is possible to use proxy data to gauge Arctic ice extent. I suspect that much of the result is modeling rather than empirical evidence. 

                        Ocean currents have a lot to do with the longer term variation in summer ice extent. There appears to be some correlation between the North Atlantic SST and Arctic temperatures. The last Arctic warm period occurred when the North Atlantic SST was in a warm phase as did the current Arctic warm period.  I think that the radical downturn at the end of the original chart is the result of grafting instrumental data to the end of the proxy data just as it was with Mann’s hockey stick. It is very likely an artifact resulting from grafting two disparate data sources.  I doubt very seriously that bringing the proxy data up to day would yield the same sort of “blade.” 

                        BTW, is the actual study available?  Is their data and methodology available?  It might be behind a pay wall.

                        Bruce

                        C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                        Houston , Texas


                        From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                        Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 9:12 PM
                        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                         

                         

                        You say 'they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data,'

                         

                         

                         

                        and I don't know what you expect them to do, but your land glacier data appears to agree with whatever they did, even if you want to claim that humans had little to do with the 20th century warming,  It is still a hockey stick.

                         

                        bob

                        --- On Fri, 12/2/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...> wrote:


                        From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...>
                        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Friday, December 2, 2011, 10:23 AM

                         

                        Bob, they grafted modern data on to the end of proxy data which is what Mann did.  Low and behold they gat a hockey stick. Doing the same dubious thing that Mann did to get the same dubious result is hardly vindication. Why didn’t they just show us proxy data all the way across? We cannot legitimately graft two fundamentally different sorts of data together like that. If I, as an optician, know that; why shouldn’t we expect these climate “scientists” to know that as well?

                        Some of the post 1980 warming in the HadCRUT3 record might be anthropogenic but it seems unlikely that any significant portion of it was.

                        What caused the first warming period in the HadCRUT3 temperature record? According to the HadCRUT3 data, it was comparable in rate and magnitude to the second warming (1980-2001~). If they cannot explain the first warming then they cannot claim with any certainty to know the cause of the second. If the first was caused by certain natural forces moving into a warming phase, is it “denial” to suggest that those same natural forces moving again into a warming phase could be responsible for most of the second warming period?

                        I’m sorry, the chart was from here: 

                        http://www.springerlink.com/content/2j461434h61t9108/fulltext.html

                        That is the “Glacier length hockey stick” mentioned in your original paper below. I followed that link because it seemed to me that it would have to be one continuous data set rather than two disparate data sets grafted together. If it was one continuous data set, I couldn’t understand how it could possibly have a “hockey stick” blade that started around the middle of the 20th century. I expected that it would have to start either around 1900 or around 1850.  Around 1900 we were in a “mini-solar minimum” followed by the recent warming period.  Around 1850 is considered by many to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciers that had advanced during the Little Ice Age should have started to retreat when it ended.  According to the “glacier length hockey stick,” that’s what happened. That does not support the Mann “hockey stick.”  It tends to refute it. 

                        Bruce

                        C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                        Houston , Texas


                        From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                        Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:11 AM
                        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                         

                        Bruce,


                        Bruce,

                         

                        It is yet another vindication of Mann, even if you want to claim the post 1980 warming isn't anthropogenic.  I would have appreciated the link for your ice loss graph, even if it wasn't about Arctic sea ice.

                         

                        bob
                        --- On Thu, 12/1/11, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:


                        From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...>
                        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
                        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 3:10 PM

                         

                        Bob, why did they stop the proxy data around 1850 and graft instrumental data on to the end? I don’t see how they could seriously think that crudely grafting two totally different types of data together like that is legitimate. 

                        I would like to see the proxy data brought up to date as a way to validate the proxy data. If the proxy data agrees with the instrumental data up to present, then it would suggest that the proxy data before 1850 might be correct as well. Truncating the “reconstruction” as they did rendered their chart useless. The fact that they would release this suggests strongly that it was released for its propaganda value rather than its scientific value.

                        There were other hockey sticks mentioned.  Here is one of those charts:



                        All of them appear to be nosing down long before 1980. That would be consistent with warming after the Little Ice Age or after the “mini-minimum” around 1900. 

                        I wonder if the other “hockey sticks” that they listed suffer from the same grafting affliction. 

                         

                        Another point, they said “Mann’s work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.” According to HadCRUT 3 temperature data, the most recent warming from around 1980 until around 2001 was of a similar rate and magnitude as the previous warming from around 1915 until around 1945.  Was the first warming cause by a yet-unidentified or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon? I have not heard anyone attempt to credibly argue that the first warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Perhaps the second warming period and the first warming period were caused by the same “yet-unidentified” and “yet-to-be-discovered natural phenomenon.” Perhaps they ought to explain the cause of the first warming period before they jump to the CO2 conclusion.

                        Bottom line is that this appears to be just another “polar bear story.” 

                        Bruce

                        C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                        Houston , Texas

                         


                        From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                        Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
                        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                         

                         

                        Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                        Posted on 24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

                        Many climate change "skeptics" obsess over the 'hockey stick', and their discussion inevitably leads back to 1998, when climate scientist Michael Mann first published his paper indicating that current global warming was anomalous in the last 1000 years or so. In plain language, Mann's work suggested that current warming was likely due to mankind's carbon dioxide pollution, not any as-yet-unidentified, or yet-to-be-discovered or observed natural phenomenon.

                        Despite the "skeptics" cherry-picked focus on a  peer-reviewed paper more than a decade old, the science has moved on considerably since then. Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick

                        Into this league of hockey sticks, we have a just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]), which shows that the Arctic sea ice retreat is also a hockey stick, and that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. See figure 1. (Note that the hockey stick blade is facing down in this reconstruction).

                        Building a hockey stick

                        Because Arctic sea ice is influenced by both air and water temperatures, the study authors use a combination of Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments to reconstruct Arctic conditions over the last 2,000 years. As is often the case with these proxy reconstructions, the authors found the error bars in the reconstruction (the uncertainty) increased further back in time, due to a decreasing number of proxy records, and was not useful past 1,450 years ago. 

                        When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature-related signal, but that the proxy-based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).  

                        Clearly there are periods in the reconstruction where rapid rates of ice loss occurred, but what stands out is that the length and rate of present day melt is unprecedented in the entire 1,450 year-long reconstruction. This is consistent with the Arctic summer temperature hockey stick (Kaufman [2009]) and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick (Spielhagen [2011]).

                        Arctic summer sea ice: going, going............ 

                        2011 saw the 2nd lowest summer sea ice extent on record (after 2007), and even more dramatically,  this year saw the lowest ever recorded volume of Arctic summer sea ice. 

                        This latest 'hockey stick' not only reinforces that current conditions in the Arctic are much warmer than the so-called Medieval Warm Period, but that sea ice is currently disappearing at a sustained speed that is unmatched in the last 1,450 years...........

                         

                         

                         

                        bob

                         

                         

                      • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                        Bob, my problem was with splicing modern instrumental data on to the end of proxy data. They should have just plotted the proxy data all the way across and
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 3, 2011
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Bob, my problem was with splicing modern instrumental data on to the end of proxy data. They should have just plotted the proxy data all the way across and then let the chips fall where they may. Why didn’t they do that?

                          I don’t know that I would find something “wrong” with most of them. I don’t have a problem with the glacier length hockey stick. I don’t understand why they would think that it would add credence to Mann’s hockey stick though. It shows the glaciers retreating starting around either the end of the Little Ice Age or around 1900. Wouldn’t we have expected that?

                          Bruce

                          C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

                          Houston, Texas


                          From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                          Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 8:11 AM
                          To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years

                           

                          Bruce,

                           

                          You can get some info about their proxies by clicking on the graphs and map at

                           

                           

                          It seems that you connected the proxies with modern times with your glacier graphs, even if it is land instead of sea.  Looks like hockey stick to me, and there are these hockey sticks too:

                           

                           

                          although I'm sure you will find something wrong with most of them.

                           

                          Bob

                           

                           

                           

                        • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.