Continuing Problems with Paleoclimate Proxies

Yet this unverifiable paper was used by the NAS and the IPCC which means they were NOT up to standard on what makes a published paper worthwhile.

Why would anyone still take the politically charged government run IPCC seriously anymore?

LOL

 

IPCC is becoming laughable puppet of the One-world hierarchy

 

McIntyre really has his teeth in them now.
Four Twelve, Alaska: A Jacoby Series
Dec 13, 2023 – 1:25 PM
Four Twelve (Alaska) was one of the 11 Jacoby and D’Arrigo series used in MBH98. In our original 2003 article, we observed that the MBH98 version of this chronology differed substantially from the chronology officially archived at NOAA, and, in our sensitivity study, used the archived version (after using the MBH version for benchmarking.) Among other things, Mann objected vehemently to the very idea of the sensitivity analysis that we had carried out:

An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick (“MM03”) have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Their effort has no bearing on the validity of the conclusions reported in MBH98, and is no way a “correction” of that study as they claim. On the contrary, their analysis seriously misrepresents MBH98.

However, the different Jacoby versions were a secondary issue in the contemporary debate and the inconsistency between MBH98 and Jacoby versions wasn’t pursued further at the time.

Analysis was further frustrated by peculiar inconsistencies in the Jacoby archive itself. For Four Twelve (and several other sites), the archived chronology ended in 1990, whereas archived measurement data ended in 1977. The period of the archived measurement data was consistent with the period of the MBH98 version of Four Twelve (treeline1.dat), but there was no measurement archive corresponding to the archived chronology. It was the sort of dog’s breakfast that was all too typical. Jacoby’s death-bed archive once again provides an answer (as discussed below).

First, here is a comparison of the MBH98 chronology (treeline1.dat) versus the chronology calculated from the ak031.rwl measurement data (covering exactly the same period) using Bunn’s ModNegExp option (which corresponds to contemporary Jacoby methodology). The two chronologies are highly correlated and cover the same period, but the elevated mid-20th century values of the MBH98 version were not replicated. I presume that the MBH98 version came from Jacoby and/or D’Arrigo and that this version was used in Jacoby and D’Arrigo 1989 as well. Mann’s composite of Jacoby and D’Arrigo treeline series was also used for the MBH99 bodge of the North American PC1 (to shave down the blade to “get” a passing RE – as Jean S showed long ago). . . . .

 

It just keeps getting worse for Mann.
Sheenjek, Alaska: A Jacoby-MBH Series
Dec 13, 2023 – 3:44 PM
MBH98 used three Jacoby tree ring chronologies from Alaska: Four Twelve (ak031) – discussed here, Arrigetch (ak032) and Sheenjek (ak033). Sheenjek will be discussed in this article.

In our compilation of MBH98 in 2003, we observed that the Sheenjek chronology archived at NOAA Paleo was not the same as the “grey” version used in MBH98. While we used the MBH98 version to benchmark our emulation of the MBH98 algorithm, we used the version archived at NOAA in our sensitivity analysis, both in our 2003 article and in our early 2004 submission to Nature. In his reply to our submission, Mann vehemently protested that the “introduc[tion of] an extended version of another Northern Treeline series not available prior to AD 1500 at the time of MBH98” “introduce[d] problems into the important Northern Treeline dataset used by MBH98”:

Finally, MM04 introduce problems into the important Northern Treeline dataset used by MBH98. Aside from incorrectly substituting shorter versions of the “Kuujuag” and TTHH Northern Treeline series for those used by MBH98, and introducing an extended version of another Northern Treeline series not available prior to AD 1500 at the time of MBH98, they censored from the analysis the only Northern Treeline series in the MBH98 network available over the AD 1400-1500 interval, on the technicality that it begins only in AD 1404 (MBH98 accommodated this detail by setting the values for AD 1400-1404 equal)

The other “Northern Treeline series” referred to here was Sheenjek chronology ak033.crn. I checked Mann’s assertion alleging that the data was “not available prior to AD1500 at the time of MBH98”. This was contradicted by NOAA, who confirmed that the chronology that we had used had been available since the early 1990s. . . . .

 

The case for retractions is getting stronger.
D’arrigo et al 2006: NWNA Alaska
Dec 14, 2023 – 5:04 PM
Today’s article is about one of the D’Arrigo et al 2006 datasets.

D’Arrigo et al 2006, then under submission, had been cited in drafts of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. I had been accepted as an IPCC reviewer and, as an IPCC reviewer, I asked IPCC to make the data available to me or to ask the lead author to make the data available. That prompted a vehement refusal that I documented in March 2007 (link). Readers unfamiliar with the severity of data obfuscation by climate science community should read that exchange. (Some further light on the campaign emerged later in the Climategate emails.

D’Arrigo et al 2006 calculated more than a dozen new regional chronologies, but refused to archive or provide the digital chronologies until April 2012, more than six years later (by which time the paleo field purported to have “moved on”. Also, in April 2012, more than six years later, D’Arrigo et al provided information (somewhat sketchy) on which sites had been used in the various reconstructions, but measurement data for many of the sites was unavailable, including (and especially) the sites that had been sampled by D’Arrigo, Jacoby and their associates. Much of this data was archived in April 2014, a few months before Jacoby’s death. But even this archive was incomplete.

By then, D’Arrigo et al 2006 was well in the rear view mirror of the paleo community and there has been little, if any, commentary on the relationship of the belated and long delayed 2014 data archive to the 2006 article.

In several recent posts, I’ve discussed components of D’Arrigo’s Northwest Alaska (NWNA) regional chronology, which, prior to 2012, had only been available in the muddy form shown below.



The NWNA series goes from AD1297 to AD2000 and closes on a high note – as shown more clearly in the top panel below, which re-plots the post-1800 period of the NWNA chronology (RCS version; STD version is very similar.) Also shown in this figure (bottom panel) is the post-1800 period of the chronology (ModNegExp ) for the Dalton Highway (ak104) site, the only component of the NWNA composite with values in the 1992-2000 period (shown to right of red dashed line.)



Look at the difference right of the dashed line at AD1990. In the underlying Dalton Highway data, the series ends at almost exactly the long-term average, whereas the same data incorporated into D’Arrigo’s NWNA regional composite closes at record or near-record highs for the post-1800 period.

If the 1992-2000 Dalton Highway data doesn’t show record highs for the site chronology, then it is implausible to claim that it shows record highs for the regional chronology. So what’s going on here?

My guess is that the regional chronology has mixed sites with different average widths and that their rudimentary statistical technique didn’t accommodate those differences. If so, this would be the same sort of error that we saw previously with Marcott et al 2013, in which there was a huge 20th jump without any increase in component series (simply by a low value series ending earlier.) Needless to say, these errors always go in a hockey stick direction.

 

The paleoclimatologists continue to get it wrong.
Sorry, the Little Ice Age Does Exist
Andy May
By Andy May Renee Hannon (@hannon_renee) pointed out that Raphael Neukom, et al. (2019) compares the modern instrumental temperature record to the Pages2K proxy temperature record and declares that: “……

 

"It's not the CO2, stupid."
PETM Caused by Passing Star?
David Middleton
Could a passing rogue star have caused the PETM? Could other astrophysical phenomena been primary drivers of paleoclimate change? . . .


SPACE 19 February 2024

By MICHELLE STARR

A grazing encounter between the Solar System and a passing star could once have changed Earth’s orbit enough to wreak havoc on the climate, new research has found.

Around 56 million years ago, at the boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene, Earth’s temperature warmed by up to 8 °C (14.4 °F).

This has always been a bit of a puzzle – but planetary scientist Nathan Kaib of the Planetary Science Institute and astrophysicist Sean Raymond of the Laboratory of Astrophysics of Bordeaux suggest a chance encounter may have been the culprit.

Their simulations show that a star passing by the Solar System could have introduced enough disruption to planetary orbits to nudge Earth slightly off course.

“One reason this is important is because the geologic record shows that changes in the Earth’s orbital eccentricity accompany fluctuations in the Earth’s climate,” Kaib says.

“If we want to best search for the causes of ancient climate anomalies, it is important to have an idea of what Earth’s orbit looked like during those episodes.”

[…]

Kaib and Raymond wanted to know if a passing star could have a similar effect, even from a significant distance. Their work focused on a single known event. Some 2.8 million years ago, a Sun-like star called HD 7977 passed the Solar System, potentially so closely that it flew inside the Oort Cloud.

[…]

HD 7977 is one star, and the only flyby we can confidently identify. But scientists have estimated that a star passes by within 50,000 astronomical units every million years or so, and within 10,000 astronomical units every 20 million years or so.

This means that it’s entirely possible that a passing star has affected Earth’s climate in the past – and may even have played a role in the thermal maximum.

[…]

Science Alert
The full text of their paper is available and worth reading.

 

The "consensus" gang continue to produce problematical results regarding paleoclimate proxies.
IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph
Posted on March 1, 2024 by haakonsk
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published their latest assessment report (AR6) in 2021. In 2023, the Clintel Foundation published a report which criticizes AR6.

Continue reading →

 

The alarmists keep trying to fiddle with the paleoclimate record to shoehorn the data into their narrative. Of course they fail.
The Holocene Climatic Optimum and the “pre-industrial”

By Andy May
The “pre-industrial” according to the IPCC in a footnote on page 43 of AR6 WGI is prior to 1750 for radiative forcings and before 1850 for temperature.…

 

But it is in any case a blatantly dishonest way to characterize the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.The purpose of calling it "pre-industrial" instead of "Holocene temperature minimum" is to falsely and dishonestly attribute the natural warming since the LIA to industrial activity, specifically CO2 emissions.

 

The debate is about the climate impact of an industrial economy, so I have no problem with the term "pre-industrial."

 

No, the debate is about the extent to which climate is governed specifically by CO2. The rest of the industrial economy is irrelevant. Without the campaign to whip up fear and hatred of fossil fuels, the climate debate would be rather innocuous.

Calling it "pre-industrial" dishonestly erases the fact that the industrial era coincidentally began near the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, which accompanied the lowest sustained solar activity in several thousand years, and dishonestly attributes to CO2 emissions the natural recovery to more normal Holocene temperatures caused by the highest sustained solar activity in several thousand years, which occurred in the 20th century.

 

Here's more silliness from the risible field of paleoclimatology.
Scientists Selectively Reject CO2 Measurements That Do Not Align With The Human-Caused Narrative
By Kenneth Richard on 8. April 2024

Reconstructions of paleo CO2 levels openly rely on data derived from plant stomata. But when modern (1800s-present) CO2 measurements from stomata conflict with the narrative that humans drive CO2 levels, they are patently rejected.
Scientists readily acknowledge plant stomata evidence from one location are “widely used as an effective tool for paleoenvironmental reconstructions” of global atmospheric CO2 from 1 to 150 million years ago (Badihagh et al., 2024).

For example, in a new study, 100-150 million-year-old stomata samples from Iran are shown to re-confirm global atmospheric CO2 levels hit 1,100 to 1,700 ppm during the Jurassic period. The authors proudly showcase how consistently their stomata-derived CO2 measurements compare to several other reconstructions reaching the same conclusion about past CO2 concentrations.



Image Source: Badihagh et al., 2024
But that’s where the stomata-are-an-effective-paleo-CO2-measuring-tool perspective stops.

Whereas millions of years ago CO2 data derived from stomata were thought to be accurate, direct stomata measurements recorded in scientific papers from only a century ago – even the 1940s and 1950s – are regarded as not accurate. They must be rejected.

Dr. Ernst-Georg Beck’s compiled research with plant stomata-derived CO2 measurements was posthumously published in 2022. It’s an exhaustively-referenced paper detailing 97,404 direct near-ground measurement from 901 stations situated across the world, in both hemispheres. (This is very much unlike the ice core CO2 record in which only one continental location, Antarctica, is used; and yet this local record – contradicted by Greenland ice cores – is regarded as “global”.)

The research was recorded in 292 scientific papers (77 authors) covering stomata-derived direct CO2 measurements for the industrial era, 1800-1960.

These database compilations – ~60,000 global-scale measurements between the 1930s and 1950s alone – consistently show CO2 hit 380 ppm in 1943 and 372 ppm in 1950, with very small error margins after about 1870.

The currently accepted CO2 values for 1943 and 1950 are instead recorded as 310 ppm, and the 372 to 380 ppm values are not assumed to have been achieved until the mid-2000s. A data-driven portrayal of a decadal-scale decline in CO2 after the 1940s peak (shown in Fig. 24) contradicts the viewpoint that sharply rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions after 1945 led to tandemly increasing CO2 concentrations. Consequently, these direct CO2 measurements – tens of thousands of them from across the world – are rejected by the gatekeepers of the humans-did-it narrative.

Further, the stomata-derived CO2 values also indicate the temperature is the leading factor determining the CO2 concentration, with the CO2 changes correlationally (r = 0.67) lagging the temperature changes by about a year. This once again conflicts with the conclusion that CO2 levels are determined by anthropogenic emissions.



Image Source: Beck, 2022
Another stomatal CO2 study published nearly 20 years ago also documents ±100 ppm CO2 changes over the last few centuries, with a peak of about 380 ppm in the 1940s. Like Beck’s work, this too must be rejected, as it doesn’t align with the human-caused angle.



Image Source: Kouwenberg et al., 2005

 

Here's another expose of the falsehoods of the paleoclimateers.

Comprehensive Russian Temperature Reconstruction Shows Warmer Temperatures 1000 Years Ago!
By P Gosselin on 14. April 2024

Dr. Michael E. Mann and the IPCC claims of a hockey stick temperature trend are challenged.

A paper published by a team of scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences led by В. V. Klimenko presents a quantitative reconstruction of the mean annual temperatures of northeastern Europe for the last two millennia. The study was done in cooperation with the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany).

Result: it was modestly warmer 1000 years ago than it is today.

The reconstruction of the mean annual temperatures is based on dendrochronological, palynological and historical information, and shows the comparative chronology of climatic and historical events over a large region of Northeast Europe:



Figure 1. Map of the study region showing locations for which indirect climatic data are available.
Yellow circles indicate palynological data, green circles indicate dendrochronological data, and black circles indicate the most important historical evidence. Triangles indicate the location of long-row weather stations in and around the study region: Haparanda (1), Vardø (2), Arkhangelsk (3), Kem (4), Petrozavodsk (5), Malye Karmakuly (6), Salekhard (7), Tobolsk (, Syktyvkar (9), Turukhansk (10), Tomsk (11), Yeniseysk (12). Source: here.

Warmer in the years 981-990 and in mid 20th century

Unlike what papers authored by scientists close to the IPCC like to suggest (a flat temperature mean over the past 1000 years followed by a 20th century hockey stick blade warming),the Russian reconstruction of decadal mean annual temperature values shows major climatic events manifested both on the scale of the entire Northern Hemisphere and in its separate regions.



Figure 4. Final reconstruction of decadal mean annual temperatures for Northeast Europe (blue line)
and instrumental data (red line). The instrumental period is enlarged in the inset. Source: here.

According to the paper’s abstract:

In the pre-industrial era, the maximum annual mean temperatures in 981-990 were 1°C higher and minimum temperatures in 1811-1820 were 1.3°C lower than on average for 1951-1980. The constructed chronology has a noticeably larger amplitude of variability compared to hemispheric and pan-Arctic reconstructions.”

The paper concludes that the results of the reconstruction point to “major climatic events” such as the Roman Optimum, the cold epoch of the Great Migration of Peoples in the 5th and 6th centuries, the Medieval Climatic Optimum of the 10th-12th centuries, and the Little Ice Age (13th-19th centuries).

These were manifested both on the scale of the entire Northern Hemisphere, and its individual regions.

Hat-tip: inderwahrheitliegtdiekraft at X.

 

The paleoclimateers continue to get it wrong.
Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill Revisited
Apr 18, 2024 – 7:29 AM
Recently, while re-examining PAGES2K, the current paleoclimate darling, I noticed that PAGES2K(2019) reverted to a variation of the Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill (Yukon) [TTHH] tree ring chronology that we had already criticized in 2003 as being obsolete when used by Mann et al 1998. PAGES2K was supposed to be an improvement on Mann et al 1998 data, but, in many ways, it’s even worse. So it’s It was very strange to observe the 2019 re-cycling of a TTHH version, previously criticized in 2003 as being already obsolete in 1998. . . . .