• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A new look at the Law Dome proxy series provides some decidedly non-PC data on Antarctic temperatures.

[h=2]New Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction[/h]Nov 20, 2017 – 11:24 PM
Stenni et al (2017), Antarctic climate variability on regional and continental scales over the last 2000 years, was published pdf this week by Climate of the Past. It includes (multiple variations) of a new Antarctic temperature reconstruction, in which 112 d18O and dD isotope series are combined into regional and continental reconstructions. Its abstract warns that “projected warming of the Antarctic continent during the 21st century may soon see significant and unusual warming develop across other parts of the Antarctic continent [besides the peninsula]”, but no Steigian red spots of supposedly unprecedented warming.
Long-time CA readers will be aware of my long-standing interest in Antarctic ice core proxies, in particular, the highly resolved Law Dome d18O series. One of my first appearances in Climategate emails was a request for Law Dome data to Tas van Ommen in Australia, who immediately notified Phil Jones in Sauron’s Tower of this disturbance in the equilibrium of Middleearth. Jones promptly consulted the fiercest of his orcs, who urged that the data be withheld as follows: ” HI Phil, Personally, I wouldn’t send him [McIntyre] anything. I have no idea what he’s up to, but you can be sure it falls into the “no good” category.” I’ve discussed incidents involving Law Dome data on several occasions in the past. This is what the data looked like as of 2004: elevated values in the early first millennium, declining up to and including the 20th century.
lawdome_ommen-2006.png


Law Dome – Holocene Perspective
Recently, I’ve commented on many occasions on the benefits of looking at proxy data in a Holocene (10000 year context) rather than just the last 2000 years. A longer perspective permits one to see Milankovitch factors at work and this is true for Law Dome d18O as well. Although Law Dome d18O analyses were carried out nearly 20 years ago, results have been archived only for the deglacial period (~20000-9000 BP) and for the last 2000 years – shown in the graphic below. The inset shows (unarchived) Law Dome dD values over the Holocene, available only in a panel in a 2000 survey of Antarctic cores (Masson et al 2000). Though the data is frustratingly (and pointlessly) incomplete, the story is clear: d18O values were very low in the Last Glacial Maximum, then increased fairly steadily for 10000 years reaching a maximum ~9-10000 BP (in the early Holocene), then declined in the past 9000 years. Modern values are neither as high as in the early Holocene, nor as low as the Last Glacial Maximum. Variation over the past two millennia is relatively modest. . . .
 
This is a bit difficult to interpret lol... I have to get back to it when my attention span is better lol.
 
[h=2]Antarctica cooling since Roman Times, climate models wrong (again)[/h]
A new study suggests temperatures across Antarctica have been falling for the last 1,600 years. This natural climate change would have been a threat to baby penguins, forcing them to walk much further across sea-ice for food. The cooling trend would have threatened inland lakes, shortened summer breeding periods, affected seal behaviour, extended glaciers over important habitats, and destroyed rare tundra. It may have contributed to the death of a man called Scott. If man-made climate change warmed Antarctica we need to burn more oil.
Any recent weak “man-made” warming trend would have slightly reversed this destructive slide — restoring the continent back to levels last seen in 1400AD. Though, given that the models are wrong about everything, including Antarctic warming, maybe not.


These trends are not what the Climate Models predicted for Antarctica. The slight recent warming trend is too small. (Polar Amplification, anyone?)
The Daily Caller:
However, Stenni admits the “absence of significant continent-scale warming of Antarctica over the last 100 years is in clear contrast with the significant industrial-era warming trends that are evident in reconstructions for all other continents (except Africa) and the tropical oceans.”
This lack of warming “is not in agreement with climate model simulations, which consistently produce a 20th century warming trend over Antarctica in response to greenhouse gas forcing,” Stenni wrote.
From Stenni, et al (2017)
We produce both unweighted and weighted isotopic (δ[SUP]18[/SUP]O) composites and temperature reconstructions since 0 CE, binned at 5- and 10-year resolution, for seven climatically distinct regions covering the Antarctic continent
Our new reconstructions confirm a significant cooling trend from 0 to 1900 CE across all Antarctic regions where records extend back into the 1st millennium, with the exception of the Wilkes Land coast and Weddell Sea coast regions. Within this long-term cooling trend from 0 to 1900 CE, we find that the warmest period occurs between 300 and 1000 CE, and the coldest interval occurs from 1200 to 1900 CE. Since 1900 CE, significant warming trends are identified for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions…

For anyone who doesn’t know, as I’ve been saying for years, the parts of West Antarctica that have warmed lately seem to have big volcano’s under them, coincidence?:

h/t GWPF
[h=4]REFERENCE[/h]Stenni, B., Curran, M. A. J., Abram, N. J., Orsi, A., Goursaud, S., Masson-Delmotte, V., Neukom, R., Goosse, H., Divine, D., van Ommen, T., Steig, E. J., Dixon, D. A., Thomas, E. R., Bertler, N. A. N., Isaksson, E., Ekaykin, A., Werner, M., and Frezzotti, M.: Antarctic climate variability on regional and continental scales over the last 2000 years, Clim. Past, 13, 1609-1634, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1609-2017, 2017.

 
A new look at the Law Dome proxy series provides some decidedly non-PC data on Antarctic temperatures.

[h=2]New Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction[/h]Nov 20, 2017 – 11:24 PM
Stenni et al (2017), Antarctic climate variability on regional and continental scales over the last 2000 years, was published pdf this week by Climate of the Past. It includes (multiple variations) of a new Antarctic temperature reconstruction, in which 112 d18O and dD isotope series are combined into regional and continental reconstructions. Its abstract warns that “projected warming of the Antarctic continent during the 21st century may soon see significant and unusual warming develop across other parts of the Antarctic continent [besides the peninsula]”, but no Steigian red spots of supposedly unprecedented warming.
Long-time CA readers will be aware of my long-standing interest in Antarctic ice core proxies, in particular, the highly resolved Law Dome d18O series. One of my first appearances in Climategate emails was a request for Law Dome data to Tas van Ommen in Australia, who immediately notified Phil Jones in Sauron’s Tower of this disturbance in the equilibrium of Middleearth. Jones promptly consulted the fiercest of his orcs, who urged that the data be withheld as follows: ” HI Phil, Personally, I wouldn’t send him [McIntyre] anything. I have no idea what he’s up to, but you can be sure it falls into the “no good” category.” I’ve discussed incidents involving Law Dome data on several occasions in the past. This is what the data looked like as of 2004: elevated values in the early first millennium, declining up to and including the 20th century.
lawdome_ommen-2006.png


Law Dome – Holocene Perspective
Recently, I’ve commented on many occasions on the benefits of looking at proxy data in a Holocene (10000 year context) rather than just the last 2000 years. A longer perspective permits one to see Milankovitch factors at work and this is true for Law Dome d18O as well. Although Law Dome d18O analyses were carried out nearly 20 years ago, results have been archived only for the deglacial period (~20000-9000 BP) and for the last 2000 years – shown in the graphic below. The inset shows (unarchived) Law Dome dD values over the Holocene, available only in a panel in a 2000 survey of Antarctic cores (Masson et al 2000). Though the data is frustratingly (and pointlessly) incomplete, the story is clear: d18O values were very low in the Last Glacial Maximum, then increased fairly steadily for 10000 years reaching a maximum ~9-10000 BP (in the early Holocene), then declined in the past 9000 years. Modern values are neither as high as in the early Holocene, nor as low as the Last Glacial Maximum. Variation over the past two millennia is relatively modest. . . .

What is the source of that graph? It's not from Stenni et al.
 
What is the source of that graph? It's not from Stenni et al.

It's Law Dome proxy series data.

. . . I’ve discussed incidents involving Law Dome data on several occasions in the past. This is what the data looked like as of 2004: elevated values in the early first millennium, declining up to and including the 20th century.
lawdome_ommen-2006.png
 
It's Law Dome proxy series data.

. . . I’ve discussed incidents involving Law Dome data on several occasions in the past. This is what the data looked like as of 2004: elevated values in the early first millennium, declining up to and including the 20th century.
lawdome_ommen-2006.png

Sorry, but Steve McIntyre's blog does not count as an original source. Where is the published paper or data on which the graph is based? I'd like to know, for example, how the error range was calculated - it seems strange that it doesn't vary much. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
 
Sorry, but Steve McIntyre's blog does not count as an original source. Where is the published paper or data on which the graph is based? I'd like to know, for example, how the error range was calculated - it seems strange that it doesn't vary much. Doesn't that seem odd to you?


The Law Dome series is archived and publicly available. There's no reason to doubt McIntyre's presentation. If you don't like it, don't participate.
 
The Law Dome series is archived and publicly available. There's no reason to doubt McIntyre's presentation. If you don't like it, don't participate.

Sorry, but science doesn't rely on trust; it relies on evidence. If you cannot or will not give information as to how the graph was obtained, then there is no reason that I or anybody else should take it seriously. I'm not saying that it is necessarily false, but a proper sceptical approach requires evidence!

Perhaps you could start by giving a link to the Law Dome series on which the graph is based since you, presumably, have already located it.
 
Sorry, but science doesn't rely on trust; it relies on evidence. If you cannot or will not give information as to how the graph was obtained, then there is no reason that I or anybody else should take it seriously. I'm not saying that it is necessarily false, but a proper sceptical approach requires evidence!

Perhaps you could start by giving a link to the Law Dome series on which the graph is based since you, presumably, have already located it.

Google is easy, and McIntyre has posted repeatedly on this topic over the years. Those posts are linked in this one. Participate or don't, I don't care. I'm tired of catering to the whims of bad faith orthodox warmists.
 
Google is easy, and McIntyre has posted repeatedly on this topic over the years. Those posts are linked in this one. Participate or don't, I don't care. I'm tired of catering to the whims of bad faith orthodox warmists.

Translation: "OK, I don't actually have any evidence that this guy is telling the truth, but I like what he's saying so I believe him."

And you call yourself a sceptic, Jack. :roll:
 
Translation: "OK, I don't actually have any evidence that this guy is telling the truth, but I like what he's saying so I believe him."

And you call yourself a sceptic, Jack. :roll:

His record and reputation speak for themselves. I am skeptical of unfounded claims; I trust those who have earned my trust. Your cowardice is showing and I'm not surprised.
 
His record and reputation speak for themselves. I am skeptical of unfounded claims; I trust those who have earned my trust. Your cowardice is showing and I'm not surprised.

You don't appear to understand the concept of scepticism. A sceptic, as any scientist should be, trusts nobody, regardless of reputation; he or she demands evidence. If you showed a little real scepticism, you wouldn't keep making such a fool of yourself.
 
You don't appear to understand the concept of scepticism. A sceptic, as any scientist should be, trusts nobody, regardless of reputation; he or she demands evidence. If you showed a little real scepticism, you wouldn't keep making such a fool of yourself.

As you wish. I understand you fear the data.
 
You don't appear to understand the concept of scepticism. A sceptic, as any scientist should be, trusts nobody, regardless of reputation; he or she demands evidence. If you showed a little real scepticism, you wouldn't keep making such a fool of yourself.

Why are you so afraid of the data? The Law Dome series is publicly available. It is beyond laughable to try to claim there is something untoward with the presentation, especially since there is a long (and also publicly available) record of McIntyre's previous work with this series. So address the data or don't, but if not don't try to claim your motive is anything other than cowardice.
 
From the OP link:

. . . As noted above, Law Dome has been a long-standing issue at Climate Audit.
It astonishes me that there is no technical journal article on Law Dome d18O data either for the Holocene or for the past 2000 years. Van Ommen planned to publish the data according to my earliest correspondence with him (2004). It’s disquieting that longer Holocene data for such an important site remains unpublished.
The characterization of Antarctic ice cores in the 2006 NAS report (discussed at CA here, especially at the press conference) was integral to their attempt to distinguish past warming from modern warming:
This [additional] evidence [of the unique nature of recent warmth in the context of the last one or two millennia] includes …the fact that ice cores from both Greenland and coastal Antarctica show evidence of 20th century warming (whereas only Greenland shows warming during medieval times).
However, this assertion in respect to Antarctica was not supported by their data or analysis. I tried unsuccessfully at the time to obtain a source. The Law Dome series, which was in circulation at the time, showed opposite results: warmth in the late first and very early second millennia and which didn’t show evidence of 20th century warming.
Drafts of IPCC AR4 showed a panel diagram of Southern Hemisphere proxies, but conspicuously omitted the Law Dome series. As an AR4 reviewer, I asked that it be included in the diagram (knowing of course that it showed a result that was opposite to what they were claiming.) The IPCC AR4 lead authors knew this as well and refused to show it in their diagram, concocting a ludicrous excuse. There was a revealing discussion in Climategate emails (discussed at CA here).
The Law Dome proxy series was important in the Gergis reconstruction as well. It met ex ante criteria for inclusion in her reconstruction. It was one of only three Gergis proxies with values in the Medieval period; if it were included in the network, medieval values would have been raised significantly. Rather than let this happen, Gergis concocted ex post screening criteria which excluded Law Dome from her network – see CA discussion here.
 
Why are you so afraid of the data? The Law Dome series is publicly available. It is beyond laughable to try to claim there is something untoward with the presentation, especially since there is a long (and also publicly available) record of McIntyre's previous work with this series. So address the data or don't, but if not don't try to claim your motive is anything other than cowardice.

Why the stupid cat-and-mouse games and ridiculous insults? I'm more than happy to address data, but you haven't presented any! An unsourced graph on someone's blog is not data. You say the Law Dome series is publicly available. Where? You can end this very easily by simply posting a link to the data in question. How is that a problem for you?
 
Why the stupid cat-and-mouse games and ridiculous insults? I'm more than happy to address data, but you haven't presented any! An unsourced graph on someone's blog is not data. You say the Law Dome series is publicly available. Where? You can end this very easily by simply posting a link to the data in question. How is that a problem for you?



Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ...

cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html


by DM Etheridge - ‎Cited by 214 - ‎Related articles
The Law Dome site satisfies many of the desirable characteristics of an ideal ice core site for .... In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon ...




Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ...

cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-data.html


Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores. Data (ASCII files). DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice core records plus smoothed data ...



High Resolution ice core 10Be records from Law Dome, Antarctica: 10 ...

https://gcmd.nasa.gov/.../Metadata.do?...OrigMetadataNode...Law-Dome...MetadataVi...


High Resolution ice core 10Be records from Law Dome, Antarctica: 10-year composite (revised dating) ... This data set description is a member of a collection.




Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2 ... - NASA

https://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/.../Metadata.do?...LAWDOME&MetadataView...Metadata...


The Law Dom site satisfies many of the desirable characteristics of an ideal ice core site for atmospheric CO2 ... Dataset Title: Law Dome Atmospheric CO2 Data.











 
Why the stupid cat-and-mouse games and ridiculous insults? I'm more than happy to address data, but you haven't presented any! An unsourced graph on someone's blog is not data. You say the Law Dome series is publicly available. Where? You can end this very easily by simply posting a link to the data in question. How is that a problem for you?

Because I know bad faith posting when I see it.

Law Dome Ice Core - NOAA

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt


2010. Law Dome Ice Core 2000-Year CO2, CH4, and N2O Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2010-070.




An Unpublished Law Dome Series « Climate Audit

https://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/


Jun 12, 2012 - I'd followed Law Dome fairly closely but was unaware of any archived deuterium (delD) or deuterium excess data for Law Dome. Re-examining ...

 
Why the stupid cat-and-mouse games and ridiculous insults? I'm more than happy to address data, but you haven't presented any! An unsourced graph on someone's blog is not data. You say the Law Dome series is publicly available. Where? You can end this very easily by simply posting a link to the data in question. How is that a problem for you?

[h=3]Gergis and Law Dome[/h]Aug 3, 2016 – 9:52 AM
In today’s post, I’m going to examine Gergis’ dubious screening out of the Law Dome d18O series, a series that has been of long-standing interest at Climate Audit (tag). Gergis et al 2016 stated that they screened proxies according to significance of the correlation to local gridcell temperature. Law Dome d18O not only had a significant […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged gergis, lawdome, van ommen | Comments (163)

[h=3]An Unpublished Law Dome Series[/h]Jun 12, 2012 – 5:23 PM
Oxygen isotope series are the backbone of deep-time paleoclimate. The canonical 800,000 year comparison of CO2 and temperature uses O18 values from Vostok, Antarctica to estimate temperature. In deep time, O18 values are a real success story: they clearly show changes from the LGM to the Holocene that cohere with glacial moraines. On its face, […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged delmotte, law, law dome, lawdome, masson-delmotte, van ommen |Comments (128)

[h=3]Law Dome in Mann et al 2008[/h]Jun 4, 2012 – 12:54 PM
As mentioned yesterday, the Law Dome series has been used from time to time in IPCC multiproxy studies, with the most remarkable use occurring, needless to say, in Mann et al 2008. As noted yesterday, despite Law Dome being very high resolution (indeed, as far as I know, the highest resolution available ice core) and […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Mann et al 2008, Uncategorized | Tagged law, lawdome, mann 2008 | Comments (32)

 
Why the stupid cat-and-mouse games and ridiculous insults? I'm more than happy to address data, but you haven't presented any! An unsourced graph on someone's blog is not data. You say the Law Dome series is publicly available. Where? You can end this very easily by simply posting a link to the data in question. How is that a problem for you?

[h=3]IPCC and the Law Dome Graphic[/h]Apr 5, 2010 – 12:38 PM
Re-reading Climategate and AR4 Review Comments, I noticed an interesting discussion about handling the Law Dome O18 record – a series used in Mann and Jones (2003) and Jones and Mann (2004) with a very elevated MWP.

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in climategate, IPCC | Tagged borehole, IPCC, law dome, lawdome, overpeck | Comments (44)

[h=3]Jones and Mann: Lawdome, Antarctica[/h]Feb 22, 2005 – 2:26 PM
I’ve been working through Jones and Mann [2004] and Mann and Jones [2003] and the following graphic caught my eye. I quickly compare it here to the version used in Jones et al. [1998] and the Mann and Jones [2003] SH reconstruction (shown in Jones and Mann [2004]). Figure 1. Replication of Figure 4 (bottom […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Multiproxy Studies | Comments (1)

[h=3]The Mysterious Taylor Dome Borehole[/h]May 24, 2007 – 7:03 AM
Last year, one of the first things that puzzled me about the NAS panel report was the basis for their conclusion that there was no MWP in Antarctica. At the press conference, at about minute 60, North said: there is evidence of warmth in the record in the MWP. But as Bradley and Diaz a […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Antarctica, Archiving, NAS Panel | Tagged borehole, clow, cuffey, taylor dome | Comments (68)

 
Why the stupid cat-and-mouse games and ridiculous insults? I'm more than happy to address data, but you haven't presented any! An unsourced graph on someone's blog is not data. You say the Law Dome series is publicly available. Where? You can end this very easily by simply posting a link to the data in question. How is that a problem for you?

[h=3]Re-examining Cook’s Mt Read (Tasmania) Chronology[/h]Aug 16, 2016 – 11:13 PM
In today’s post, I’m going to re-examine (or more accurately, examine de novo) Ed Cook’s Mt Read (Tasmania) chronology, a chronology recently used in Gergis et al 2016, Esper et al 2016, as well as numerous multiproxy reconstructions over the past 20 years. Gergis et al 2016 said that they used freshly-calculated “signal-free” RCS chronologies […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged cook, Esper, gergis, mt read, tasmania | Comments (236)

[h=3]Joelle Gergis, Data Torturer[/h]Jul 21, 2016 – 5:05 PM
In 2012, the then much ballyhoo-ed Australian temperature reconstruction of Gergis et al 2012 mysteriously disappeared from Journal of Climate after being criticized at Climate Audit. Now, more than four years later, a successor article has finally been published. Gergis says that the only problem with the original article was a “typo” in a single […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged aus2k, gergis, karoly, neukom | Comments (307)

[h=3]Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti[/h]Mar 31, 2014 – 10:23 AM
Neukom, Gergis and Karoly, accompanied by a phalanx of protective specialists, have served up a plate of cold screened spaghetti in today’s Nature (announced by Gergis here). Gergis et al 2012 (presently in a sort of zombie withdrawal) had foundered on ex post screening. Neukom, Gergis and Karoly + 2014 take ex post screening to […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged gergis, neukom, SH | Comments (106)
 
[h=3]Re-examining Cook’s Mt Read (Tasmania) Chronology[/h]Aug 16, 2016 – 11:13 PM
In today’s post, I’m going to re-examine (or more accurately, examine de novo) Ed Cook’s Mt Read (Tasmania) chronology, a chronology recently used in Gergis et al 2016, Esper et al 2016, as well as numerous multiproxy reconstructions over the past 20 years. Gergis et al 2016 said that they used freshly-calculated “signal-free” RCS chronologies […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged cook, Esper, gergis, mt read, tasmania | Comments (236)

[h=3]Joelle Gergis, Data Torturer[/h]Jul 21, 2016 – 5:05 PM
In 2012, the then much ballyhoo-ed Australian temperature reconstruction of Gergis et al 2012 mysteriously disappeared from Journal of Climate after being criticized at Climate Audit. Now, more than four years later, a successor article has finally been published. Gergis says that the only problem with the original article was a “typo” in a single […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged aus2k, gergis, karoly, neukom | Comments (307)

[h=3]Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti[/h]Mar 31, 2014 – 10:23 AM
Neukom, Gergis and Karoly, accompanied by a phalanx of protective specialists, have served up a plate of cold screened spaghetti in today’s Nature (announced by Gergis here). Gergis et al 2012 (presently in a sort of zombie withdrawal) had foundered on ex post screening. Neukom, Gergis and Karoly + 2014 take ex post screening to […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged gergis, neukom, SH | Comments (106)

I asked for a link to the data or paper used for the graph you showed in your opening post for this thread. You still haven't given it. Instead, you've posted a load of completely unrelated links. Why the obfuscation? Why are you unable to link to the data underlying the graph? What are you afraid of?
 
I asked for a link to the data or paper used for the graph you showed in your opening post for this thread. You still haven't given it. Instead, you've posted a load of completely unrelated links. Why the obfuscation? Why are you unable to link to the data underlying the graph? What are you afraid of?

There is no paper because, as McIntyre explains, the data has remained unpublished. The data is presented in several of the links provided, and the narrative of McIntyre's tracking of the non-publication is also covered. Your only impediment is your own prejudice.
 
Back
Top Bottom