https://climateaudit.org/2014/11/07/gergis-and-the-pages2k-regional-average/

Gergis and the PAGES2K Regional Average

"The calculation of the PAGES2K regional average contains a very odd procedure that thus far has escaped commentary. ....... "

"Here is information about the latest PAGES2k dataset."

Bringing together and in partnership with existing programmes on global environmental change*, Future Earth is an international platform to coordinate new, interdisciplinary approaches to research on three themes: Dynamic Planet, Global Sustainable Development and Transformations towards Sustainability. It will also be a platform for international engagement to ensure that knowledge is generated in partnership with society and users of science. It is open to scientists of all disciplines, natural and social, as well as engineering, the humanities and law.

About

However, the data are all public, and so is the code, so unless you want to make a staggering display of bad faith, you can’t complain about obfuscation. I’m sure that you’ll find plenty to complain about, however. If it well-reasoned and backed by evidence, we’ll do our best to correct mistakes that might have slipped through. But please spare us the lecturing from the mountaintop – you need to crawl out from that puddle of paleoclimate ignorance first. However, while you’re there, please play with the data and tell us if you can find something that’s not a hockey stick!

(spoiler alert: using a completely independent approach using ALL tree-ring chronologies we can get our hands on, and a bivariate proxy model that takes moisture and temperature sensitivity into account, we also get a hockey stick. You’ll break your knee on it before the hockey stick breaks).

PAGES 2K author Julien Emile-Geay responds to McIntyre's latest. Bad faith? McIntyre? Surely some mistake.

Odd, though, that just as nobody has produced a credible climate model with low sensitivity, nobody has produced a paleo-temperature reconstruction that does not look stickish.

Effectively Identical?

Phil. Couldn't say. Tell us who are so graphically challenged what it all means.

Clipe reads significance into the fact that the 39 year trend starting 1965 resembles the 35 year trend starting 1907.

Except the earlier warming trend was followed by a reversal to a cooling trend, while the planet kept on warming after 2004. The earlier 35 year trend had a slope of .11C/decade, the slope since 1965, almost half a century, is .17c/decade.

As predicted by the IPCC.

Odd, though, that just as nobody has produced a credible climate model with low sensitivity, nobody has produced a paleo-temperature reconstruction that does not look stickish.

Jul 14, 2017 at 10:24 AM | Phil Clarke

Even odder that Gergis 2016 has not been retracted, and that no one else has produced a credible paleo-temperature-reconstruction with a stickisk look. It could be linked to the lack of Global Warming being noticed all over the world, and the missing MWP and LIA.

Phil. Interesting. Also strange. In one of my lectures I used a slide with two temperature graphs, one from the early part of the 20th century, the other for the later part, neither with any correlation lines. The question was to identify which was strongly influenced by man made CO2 emissions. Guess what, few could distinguish between them. Looks like I must have been using the wrong slide, because now you can do so so easily. Very, very strange. Climate science is like totalitarianism. The past is so malleable.

 clicking on any of the little balloon-shaped icons on the world map gives you information on a particular paper on research particular to that global location, 

Taking one at random, remembering they define the MWP as 900-1200AD …

RESULTS: Wet phase 800-1100 AD, followed by dry phase 1100-1800 AD. […] Cold temperatures 1000-1250 AD. This MWP cooling is related to stronger MWP upwelling / stronger monsoon at Indian SW coast.

Tiwari et al. 2015: Core SN-6, offshore W India

Clicking through on a study of Scottish tree rings reveals that the "full period of the presented reconstruction is 1200–2010". Not even in the already wide period claimed.

Hmmm. There's good evidence of a MWP in Europe and surrounding regions, but elsewhere it seems to have occurred at different times, that is, when it was warm in in Europe during these 300 years, it was cooler somewhere else, notably the North Atlantic and Central Pacific, unlike the current situation of pretty much everywhere warming up at the same time. As the PAGES 2k project found, "There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age"

For examples see here and here

Guess what, few could distinguish between them. Looks like I must have been using the wrong slide, because now you can do so so easily.

One stopped, the other didn't. Not difficult.

Jul 14, 2017 at 2:09 PM | Supertroll

As a country bumpkin, I have not noticed it getting any warmer. It may be due to better insulation used in buildings, cars, clothing etc, but I don't think it gets as cold in winter.

We have not had repeats of the winters of 1947, 1962/3 nor the summer of 1976. I am old enough to remember 1976, the long drought AND the autumn flooding.

As I am also old enough to remember the 1970s Ice Age Scare, it interests me that the evidence used to justify the concern does not seem to exist in modern Climate Science.

Phil. Don't be stupid!

Phil. Don't be stupid!

Jul 14, 2017 at 3:12 PM | Supertroll

I think Phil is trying to establish Heathrow Airport as a valid location for UK temperature records since before the onset of the MWP.

To be fair, the Magna Carta was signed 15th June 1215 at Runnymede about 10 miles away, and it was generally reckoned to be quite a nice day. Whether the Knights wore their Shining Armour for its solar reflective properties, or to cover up their thermal underwear is not clear.

Supertroll,
Too late!

Jul 14, 2017 at 4:55 PM | Radical Rodent

That trend over the last 20 years must be very scary for alarmists. It doesn't seem to matter what happens to CO2 levels, the Earth's temperature won't react as predicted.

Except at Heathrow Airport.

Mann's priapismic Hockey Stick seems to have wilted due to lack of warmth, despite all the enthusiastic cheerleaders. All these claims to have replicated it, must have required a surplus of imagination, and/or pharmaceutical assistance.

RR- HADCRUT3 was deprecated in 2012, thus you exclude, by accident or design, the recent record breaking warm years.

Try doing the charts using HADCRUT4.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/deprecated.html

RR- HADCRUT3 was deprecated in 2012, thus you exclude, by accident or design, the recent record breaking warm years.

Try doing the charts using HADCRUT4.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/deprecated.html

Jul 14, 2017 at 9:07 PM | Phil Clarke

Is "deprecated" some form of Climate Science Euphemism? Amazing that after they were deprecated new records were produced that no one had noticed before deprecation.

Supertroll explained it
"Very, very strange. Climate science is like totalitarianism. The past is so malleable" Jul 14, 2017 at 2:09 PM | Supertroll

The adjective "plastic" is rarely used, as it became a noun, but describing Climate Science as Plastic seems reasonable.

Julian, thanks for commenting.

Because I wrote first about North American tree ring proxies, please do not assume that this is the only issue that I noticed. There are many other issues, but each one takes time to write up.

As to the issue of choosing series ex post, this has been a longstanding concern, originating with my first encounter with Jacoby and D’Arrigo, discussed in one of the earliest Climate Audit posts in Feb 2005 here https://climateaudit.org/2005/02/06/jacoby-1-a-few-good-series/. Jacoby and D’Arrigo had collected data from 36 northern sites, from which they selected the 10 “most temperature sensitive”. They purported to test for statistical significance but did not test the effect of selecting 10 of 36 series.

Jacoby and D’Arrigo archived data for the 10 series that they used, but refused to provide me with data for the other 26 series when I requested it.

In 2004, Climatic Change had asked me to review a submission by Mann. In my capacity as a reviewer, I asked for the data which Mann had refused to provide me as a critic. Schneider said that no reviewer had ever asked for data in 28 years of running the journal. I was unimpressed with this precedent and re-iterated my request. Schneider said that he’d have to consult with his editorial board to establish a policy; I said fine. Ulitmately they agreed that authors would have to provide data. Mann continued to refuse and abandoned the article.

Under the new policy, I requested data for the other 26 series for JAcoby and D’Arrigo, which had been published in Climatic Change. Schneider made a halfhearted effort to get data from Jacoby, who sent the remarkable refusal letter replicated in the CA post linked above.

From a statistical perspective, you’re doing exactly the same thing as Jacoby and D’Arrigo in your tree ring data – perhaps even worse. If you’re screening series, you need to keep track of how many series you tested and rejected. Unfortunately, with JAcoby and D’Arrigo, who are important contributors to your project, we do not know how many series were thrown out because they didn’t have the “Jacoby signal”.

If you use biased statistical methods, your results become untrustworthy. It seems quite possible to me that the modern warm period is somewhat warmer than the medieval warm period, but you cannot demonstrate this with ex post screening.

https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/11/pages2017-new-cherry-pie/#comment-773164

Mann continued to refuse and abandoned the article.

Hey Pierre, a friend of mine forwarded this article you wrote about me. I want to thank you for it and let you know that I agree with most of what you said in the article. That video you found on me is pretty old. I have changed my views a lot in the last number of years. I am very pro free market and also think man made climate change is BS! Anyways, thanks for the article. I had a good laugh reading it. I can’t believe how much I’ve changed since then.

Best.
Curtis Stone.

Mann continued to refuse and abandoned the article.

Even if this self-serving tosh were true, so what? A single pulled article.

I guess Dr Mann's self-esteem will have to depend purely on his 200 peer-reviewed articles, his listing by Scientific American as 'one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology', his winning of the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award, his Hans Oeschger medal his
status as distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, his winning of the National Wildlife Federation's National Conservation Achievement Award for Science, his Fellowships of the  American Association for the Advancement of Science and the AMS and his Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.

Et Alia.

Stephen McIntyre lies on his blog.

My advice: exercise wisdom when choosing your heroes.

Westerners are sick and tired of transferring vast wealth to the rest of Canada, while having to fight to preserve the industry that fills Ottawa’s coffers

Stephen McIntyre lies on his blog.

My advice: exercise wisdom when choosing your heroes.

Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it