Replies

You are using the same logic to attack Daly as he uses to obliterate the mythical 'hockey stick', i.e., a data point disproves it. Nevermind that there are cases where global temperature goes one way and a local area goes another (consider the Sahara since 6000BC), so you have to look at the data in totality ... Daly has over a dozen data points to 'disprove' the hockey stick. Another one not mentioned by Daly is referenced below.

Try this out ...

Reference: Demezhko, D.Yu. and Shchapov, V.A. 2001. 80,000 years ground surface temperature history inferred from the temperature-depth log measured in the superdeep hole SG-4 (the Urals, Russia). Global and Planetary Change 29: 167-178.

What was done Whereas most boreholes do not exceed 1 km depth, which limits the length of the ground surface temperature history reconstruction by this method to only the last few centuries, the authors studied a borehole extending to more than 5 km depth, allowing them to reconstruct an 80,000-year history of ground surface temperature. This borehole was located in the Middle Urals within the western rim of the Tagil subsidence (58°24' N, 59°44'E).

What was learned The reconstructed temperature history revealed the existence of a number of climatic excursions, including the "Holocene Optimum 4000-6000 years ago, Medieval Warm Period with a culmination about 1000 years ago and Little Ice Age 200-500 years ago." Furthermore, the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period was determined to be more elevated above the mean tempera-ture of the past century than the mean temperature of the Little Ice Age was reduced below that of the past century.

What it means Once again, we have real-world evidence for the reality of the Medieval Warm Period, as well as its dominance over the past century in terms of its much greater warmth, which flies in the face of the contrary claims of climate alarmists who strive desperately to make current temperatures appear "un-precedented" over the past millennium.

OK, I have the papers in front of me and I’m prepared to dig in.

To begin with I want to review the papers the Daly used and you presented as proof of warming and cooling. The first reports on the temperature of the Sargasso Sea. While this paper is used a great deal (Soon used it in the OISM Petition Project) there are a number of details in it that seem to get overlooked. TO begin with let me quote from the paper. This is in reference to Figure 3 in the text which shows sea surface temperature. Keigwin (the author) states: “Although, as discussed in the text, about one-third of SST variability calculated from 18O values (before stacking) may actually reflect salinity change in the Sargasso Sea, it is clear that on centennial and millennial time scales, SST variability has been greater than has been measured over the past four decades at Station "S."” So, the SST levels are significantly affected by salinity. I didn’t see this referenced by Daly and I bet that it is not discussed in CO2 Science. Also, note that it says that the variability (not temperature) has been greater in the past.

Moving on to look at Keigwin’s next paper we see that he is not looking at Bermuda but has moved north to the Laurentian fan where he finds that water temperature increased during the little ice age. I pointed this out in an earlier post, not to counter Daly facts, but to counter his methodology. From this information Keigwin has deduced that temperature changes in the Atlantic are due to changes in circulation patterns of the Gulf Stream (the SWC is a offshoot of the Gulf Stream). To quote Keigwin from the paper “Lowered SST over the Bermuda Rise during the LIA and the Dark Ages has been likened to the climatic response expected during a minimum phase of the NAO (9). Our evidence that the slope water current seems to have moved northward during the LIA, causing a local warming over the Laurentian Fan, is thus consistent with the notion that the slope water system oscillates on shorter (interannual to decadal) time scales in phase with the NAO”.

Moving on the second paper you used from Daly’s selection. In it, the paper shows a decrease in SST of 3 – 4 degrees as you state. However if you read the paper (instead of assuming that it means a decrease in global temperature) you find that it also is related to current patterns. To quote from the paper “The faunal assemblage variations at Hole 658C indicate that the Holocene cold events reflect the dual influences of increased southward advection of colder subpolar waters and enhanced regional upwelling.” Nothing about an actual cooling of temperatures over the globe but simply the addition of cold waters to that part of the world. I find it a little ironic that this paper is so clear in what it says yet it is the one that caused to question my reading comprehension!

Finally, you quote from a paper by Demezhko and Shchapov. I don’t have that one in front of me so I will need to rely on you to provide some of the following details. They recorded elevated temperatures, what were the temperatures, what reconstruction method did they use and what were the statistics on the data?

However I am very glad to see that you regard their study as good work. I am interested if just this one is good work or do they generally produce good work. I ask because I have read the following paper Surface temperature trends in Russia over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures which has Demezhko (Primary author of the paper you cite) and Shchapov (the other author) both as authors of this report. The abstract to this paper says: “The results show that over the past 500 years, the investigated areas have on average warmed 1 K, with more than half of the warming occurring in the 20th century alone, and 70–80% in the 19th and 20th centuries taken together.” That sounds pretty clear to me and it would see that the borehole reconstruction in Russia does not support your claim that they put “Mann's work and his easy-to-munge-into-your-preconceived-conclusions-PCA to shame.” (your words)

Anyway, that is a quick analysis of the papers we have been looking at. In summary, they do not show what either Daly or CO2 Science claim they do. As always, refer to the initial papers and see what they have to say, don’t depend on someone else’s interpretation of them. As you can see, that leads you into trouble.

Regards,

Yelling