tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3610117000605645917..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Marohasy Mess UpEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25019087411714223252017-08-26T11:01:34.658-04:002017-08-26T11:01:34.658-04:00Not a problem Jörg. You are always welcome at Rab...Not a problem Jörg. You are always welcome at Rabett Run, but that Icelandic proxy raises an interesting question about how many proxys one needs for a reliable record.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2155182299100443122017-08-25T01:36:19.815-04:002017-08-25T01:36:19.815-04:00Ok, it looks like I have got it wrong here. I will...Ok, it looks like I have got it wrong here. I will order the paper by Geirsdóttir et al and find out about it.J. Zimmermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16880423024219145955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18620063486033571392017-08-24T19:01:43.495-04:002017-08-24T19:01:43.495-04:00Jörg Zimmermann -- you are correct that the refere...Jörg Zimmermann -- you are correct that the reference given by Abbot and Marohasy for the Northern Hemisphere reconstruction [33] is Á. Geirsdóttir, G.H. Miller, T. Thordarson, K.B. Ólafsdóttir; A 2000 year record of climate variations 747 reconstructed from Haukadalsvatn, West Iceland; J Paleolimnol, 41 (2009).<br /><br />But if you eventually find that paper you'll see that it is NOT a multi-proxy reconstruction. It is a lake sediment measure of Total Organic Content (TOC) and Biogenic Silica (BSi). No attempt is made to reconstruct temperatures from these measurements.<br /><br />Figure 13 shows 5 panels: BSi/TOC, TOC, BSi, Mann & Jones (2003) and Moberg et al (2005). The only one of these panels that has the appropriate date range (50 - 2000 AD) is Moberg et al (2005).<br /><br />Perhaps Marohasy and Abbot just completely screwed up the proxy description; it's not northern Hemisphere, it's not a temperature reconstruction, has nothing to do with stalagmites or boreholes, and isn't from 50-2000 AD - all of which they claim. <br /><br />Or they could have used Moberg et al; (2005) which I believe meets all those criteria and is cited by Geirsdóttir et al.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54660918787011563712017-08-24T13:51:28.161-04:002017-08-24T13:51:28.161-04:00Maharosy's paper has led Breitbart to declare...Maharosy's paper has led Breitbart to declare:<br /><br />"GLOBAL WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY NATURAL, STUDY CONFIRMS:<br /><br />Its publisher not so much- <a href="https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-curse-of-delingpole.html" rel="nofollow">Elsevier has pulled the plug on GeoResJ, which </a><br />"will be discontinued from January 2018 and is closed to new submissions..."<br /><br />https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-curse-of-delingpole.html<br /><br />THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86941912240389803602017-08-24T13:07:33.291-04:002017-08-24T13:07:33.291-04:00One correction: the data from Island are from 50 t...One correction: the data from Island are from 50 to 2000, not 50 to 1980, according to table 1.J. Zimmermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16880423024219145955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68470371209732448862017-08-24T13:02:23.465-04:002017-08-24T13:02:23.465-04:00I believe, that an error is made here. According t...I believe, that an error is made here. According to the text in table 1 the so called northern hemisphere composite actually is an Islandic reconstruction given as reference 33. Unfortunately the article is in the Journal of Paleolimnology, which my institution doesn't have, so it would take a few days to get a look into the paper. But the reconstruction shows a few differences to Moberg et al 2005. Since Abbot&Marohasy didn't use original data, but scanned the curves, I rather doubt, that they used Moberg et al 2005 for this. It is perfectly plausible, that the islandic reconstruction resembles the northern hemispheric reconstruction, but with a higher amplitude. And since the islandic reconstruction goes from 50 - 1980, this explains perhaps the perception of a shift, when they are interpreted as the Moberg et al 2005 reconstruction. From the method it doesn't make sense to use Moberg et al 2005 - they use 6 perhaps well selected single sites, which give a desired result. Or which were just the most convenient to get and put into a scanner. Moberg et al 2005 (reference 66) is used only in one place - to show, that the temperature curve is bumpier than the hockey stick according to Mann et al. 1998, which is a never ending complaint of deniers.<br /><br />On the other hand, quite some possibility for critic was left out, when it comes to the allegation that the ECS is 0.6. This is taken from the assumption, that the residual temperature increase in the data from 1880 to the end after subtracting the temperature prediction from the neuronal network is 0.2 degrees C. But what they actually calculated was the mean deviation. If one looks at the table 12, the only relevant data are from Switzerland and from New Zealand. If you look at the Swiss data, the match between prediction and reconstruction is very poor. Now what difference does one want to take here? By coincidence the curves meet each other at the end (which is in 1950). Difference zero. If you calculate the trends (I didn't do that, because I don't have the data; they are not provided), I guess the projection has a trend twice as high as the reconstruction. That means, the anthropogenic signal would be negative - a ridiculous result. For the New Zealand data it is worse. They don't show a trend difference between projection and reconstruction. But in the end, the projected temperature is higher. Again, the anthropogenic signal is negative. Greenhouse gases lower the temperature. It is complete nonsense. The trouble is, the average deviation has no meaning at all for the question about the amount of residual temperature rise in the data. Considered, the trend in the prediction is zero and in the reconstruction is x, the mean deviation is x/2. On the other hand, if both curves are trendless, but are noisy, they could easily have a mean deviation of x (whatever x is), but no real residual temperature rise. Therefore they can't calculate ECS this way - they have used a random number, which by coincidence had the desired value.J. Zimmermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16880423024219145955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2049037976510184222017-08-24T02:30:25.810-04:002017-08-24T02:30:25.810-04:00Marohasy should stick with accusing the Australian...Marohasy should stick with accusing the Australian BOM of professional misconduct and other such Conspiracy Theories.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872802685104293884noreply@blogger.com