Chart of the Day

Watts up with That

This important dataset was left out of climate analysis because if you want the Medieval Warm Period to disappear, and you want a hockey stick at the end showing “unprcedented” warming…then you can;t possibly have data like this included.

Climate Audit explains:

[T]he Law Dome series was discussed by IPCC authors in the preparation of AR4. Their Southern Hemisphere graphic showed two proxies: Cook’s Tasmanian and Oroko Swamp NZ tree ring chronologies. As noted a few days ago, these two proxies are the only two proxies in the medieval portion of the Gergis et al network. So despite its claims to novelty, there is nothing new in its medieval portion.

A Climategate email shows that Phil Jones asked about the omission of the Law Dome series from the IPCC illustration in the AR4 First Draft. I asked the same question about the AR4 Second Draft. They realized that the Law Dome graphic had an elevated medieval period and thus, including it in the graphic would – to borrow a phrase from the preparation of AR3 – would “dilute the message” and perhaps provide “fodder to skeptics”. CRU’s Tim Osborn, expert in such matters, proposed that they discuss Law Dome in the running text (thus providing themselves deniability), but not illustrate Law Dome in the graphic (since a picture was worth a thousand words.) CLA Overpeck endorsed Osborn’s sly ‘solution”, sneering at the supposed lack of expertise at even raising the “ambiguity” in the first place:

Hi Tim, Ricardo and friends – your suggestion to leave the figure unchanged makes sense to me. Of course, we need to discuss the Law Dome ambiguity clearly and BRIEFLY in the text, and also in the response to “expert” review comments (sometimes, it is hard to use that term “expert”…). Ricardo, Tim and Keith – can you take care of this please. Nice resolution, thanks.

In making this proposal, Osborn observed (CG2 3092. 2006-07-18)

(2) Goosse et al. showed Deuterium excess [for Law Dome] as an indicator of Southern Ocean SST (rather than local temperature). Goosse et al. also showed a composite of 4 Antarctic ice core records (3 deuterium, 1 O18). Neither of these comes up to the 20th century making plotting on the same scale as observed temperature rather tricky!


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • TCrwdb

    AGW – without a doubt the greatest scientific and political fraud in living memory.

  • Mr Sackunkrack

    But, err, mmm, but, the …. climate change is real you see.

    • Motorizer

      yeah. i had the Hawaiian shirt out today.

  • Agent BallSack

    I like how you can prove anything as long as you lie through your teeth.

  • parorchestia

    Even the language they use shows their position. Calling  the Law Dome data series an ambiguity shows they are not dispassionate scientists but are proselyters; pushing a belief, not a conclusion drawn from rational and reliable evidence.  How do they explain the wave-cut  platforms in northern Greenland beaches that are now permanently frozen?  Or how’s about the presence of driftwood in now frozen areas of the Arctic?  The written historical records showing how mild the climate was during the Medieval warm period.  Even their own data was incorrectly analysed as shown by a couple of independent people. ……  Here in ChCh we are suffering coldest weather ever recorded. Perth is experiencing the same, and Sydney is “wet, cold and miserable” according to my friends.  I have just returned from Europe where the weather was “unseasonally” cold.  Is it a case of “lies, lies and climate scientists”?
    I am not a “denier”, but I do demand good quality work and high ethical standards before I make up my mind.  We could wreck the world’s economy if we get this wrong. And today (The Press, p B2) it was reported  that as we gather more modeling expertise and data there are more possible projections, not fewer.  Change predictions are increasingly fuzzy.  Colder, hotter or the same, it is all global warming – sorry, climate change.  Yeah, right.  Reminds me of the hero who “mounted his horse and galloped off madly in all directions.”

  • Ross


     Did you see in the same article ( I presume its the same as in the Dom Post) the comment at the bottom  ” Between 2002 and 2011 the UK consumer has shelled out 7.3 billion pounds in income support for renewable electricity “

  • Sheppy

    Ain’t it funny how they can only prove this stuff by leaving out such minor things like:
    The Medieval Warm Period
    The Miniature Ice Age
    and that really inconvenient one – the change in output of the sun

  • Johnbronkhorst

    So looking a these figures, putting in a best fit curve, we have actually had planetary cooling over  the past 1000-1500years. But the way I see it, even over this period, it is irrelevant as planetary heating and cooling should be looked at over at least 50 000years to 250 000years. Then perhaps we can seen the beginnings of a trend!!