backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 112 comment(s) - last by Jim28.. on Sep 5 at 12:57 AM


  (Source: USGS)

The new study uses a variety of evidence including ice cores, the result of painstaking data collection by NOAA and other research organizations. These data points provide a far more accurate picture than previous efforts derived from tree ring data.  (Source: NOAA)
More research supporting a warming climate continues to pile on

Despite record lows in solar magnetic activity, thought to influence the climate, trends continue to point to a clear rise in temperatures worldwide.  This is reflected by increased melting and other significant changes.

Now one of the more cohesive studies to date, published by
Penn State's Earth System Science Center, has offered up a factual analysis of exactly how much warming is occurring.  Rather than focus on creative modeling often considered a refuge of global warming skeptics and alarmists alike, Penn state instead analyzed historic and contemporary data.

It found that the last 10 years for the Northern Hemisphere were the hottest in 1,300 years.  They also asserted that if more controversial tree ring data were used, this range could be extended to 1,700 years, but the tree ring data is for the first time unnecessary, eliminating much controversy. 

Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center, states, "Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study.  Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record."

Among the extensive information used in the analysis were marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, and coral cores.

The research is available in the Sept. 2 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).  Mr. Mann describes, "We looked at a much expanded database and our methods are more sophisticated than those used previously.  Conclusions are less definitive for the Southern Hemisphere and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere."

Part of the paper's strength derives from its veritable who's who of climatologists and leading scientists -- Mann; Ray Bradley, university distinguished professor, geosciences and director, Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts; Malcolm Hughes, regents' professor, and Fenbiao Ni, research associate, the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona; Zhihua Zhang and Sonya Miller, research associates, meteorology, Penn State; and Scott Rutherford, assistant professor, environmental sciences, Roger Williams University

The study took place based on a National Research Council paper, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years", which called for a fresh analysis using new techniques and verified climate record from Mann's influential 1990s paper on the topic.  In the 1990s using the most advanced techniques, the climate record could be traced back 1,000 years using the most advanced techniques, and farther using the contested tree ring data.  Today, the climate record can be traced back over 1,300 years to 700 A.D. thanks to more advanced techniques.  If the debated tree ring approach was brought in, scientists could detail global temperatures all the way back to 300 A.D.

One of the key reason why the study is avoiding the primary use of tree ring data was because of the so-called "segment length curse".  As trees age, their rings, typically dependent on temperature, experience a general shrinking.  This shrinking must be adjusted to accurately read temperatures, thus tree ring data is expected to be less accurate than other methods.  Fortunately, climatologists are doing fine without it.

Mr. Mann details, "Ten years ago, we could not simply eliminate all the tree-ring data from our network because we did not have enough other proxy climate records to piece together a reliable global record.  With the considerably expanded networks of data now available, we can indeed obtain a reliable long-term record without using tree rings."

The study provides perhaps the most conclusive proof to date that the world has been experiencing anomalous warming.  With sun activity thought to be on the decline, this leaves human influence and other remaining potential causes as likely candidates for the affecting agent.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By robaustin on 9/3/2008 11:24:54 AM , Rating: 4
I will wait until I see what Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit has to say on this. McIntyre and McKitrick were responsible for putting a stake through the heart of Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph of climate history. This famous (being featured in Al Gore's presentation and IPCC reports) graph was based on "climate proxies". I it will be interesting to see what proxies were added and how the data was processed in producing the latest climate reconstruction. Will it be something new and scientifically robust or will it be just the "same old" repackaged?




By 2Sun on 9/3/2008 11:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
McIntyre has posted 33 proxies at: <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3512">Mann 2008 Non-Dendro MWP Proxies</a> with preliminary comments on the Mann's novel statistical methods.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By CatfishKhan on 9/3/2008 11:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
Steve has already posted about this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3512


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 3
The largest problem seems to be Mann has (yet again) chosen to use data that he knows (and even admits) is corrupted by influences other than climate -- Lake sediment in Finland, for instance. Rather than tossing out the spurious data, he "adjusts" it, by a novel statistical method he invents himself, and one that doesn't remove the signal at all.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/3/2008 1:43:10 PM , Rating: 3
Again, Michael, if you disagree with Mann's findings, why don't you take them up in the scientific community like a respectable scientist by writing letters pointing out flaws in the study to PNAS or other publications or preferably publishing peer reviewed papers in the field suggesting alternative interpretations of the data yourself???

Its easy to be an armchair critic, but if you want to debate an extensive scientific study performed by a number of top researchers (not just Mann -- you don't seem to criticize the others), comments on an online news site, or post blogs on the topic are a rather poor way to do it.

I don't mean this to be mean at all, just that if you truly believe you have superior insight, your talents are being poorly applied.


By littlebitstrouds on 9/3/2008 2:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. I'd love to read one of these such papers, instead of the usual post debasing stuff he usually puts out.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 2:34:47 PM , Rating: 3
> "if you disagree with Mann's findings, why don't you take them up in the scientific community like a respectable scientist "

Because respectable scientists have already done so, and roundly condemned Mann's originally study as being inaccurate and biased. To help you understand the context, that is, in fact, why Mann devotes such much verbiage in *this* study to his reduction of reliance on dendrochronology. He's attempting to answer his critics.

However, it's already become apparent than Mann has again made many of the same mistakes he did in his original paper.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/3/2008 3:19:09 PM , Rating: 3
Again, you're singling Mann, out but he did not write this paper himself.

Ray Bradley, university distinguished professor, geosciences and director, Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts; Malcolm Hughes, regents' professor, and Fenbiao Ni, research associate, the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona; Zhihua Zhang and Sonya Miller, research associates, meteorology, Penn State; and Scott Rutherford, assistant professor, environmental sciences, Roger Williams University all wrote it, in addition to Mann.

If you've ever published, you know that just because someone is the lead author does not mean they were the primary writer or conductor of a study. Often it means quite the opposite -- the junior researchers do much of the work.

My point is here is a team of 7 top climatologists, whose work was reviewed by many others. If you disagree with their findings, my suggestion is to write a formal response not attack it in blog comments. Sure other people may attack it, but if you believe you have the logical basis to contradict it, why not try to see how your theories fare in the face of peer review.

I would have much more respect for that.


By ipay on 9/3/2008 4:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, Jason. Of course, some of us know exactly why Asher only puts forward his 'science' in blogs and comments....


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By borismkv on 9/3/2008 5:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
7 "top" climatologists? What? I see one actual professor and 6 assistant professors and research associates. This seems to me to be an explanation of *why* these guys are at the bottom of the ladder. As for peer review, I think that's actually suspect in this case. Just because a scientific study has been published does not mean that it has been scrutinized in any way by scientists. More often than not, the publishers of the journal will go over the data and make sure that the scientists are actually working right. It doesn't mean that their data is accurate or that their findings are concrete. It just means that someone thought it looked good and decided to publish it. Once the work is published, it is then scrutinized much more thoroughly by the scientific community. Just like what is happening in the articles linked higher up in this chain. The truth of the matter is that this study is already falling flat under the face of serious scrutiny. But hey, it gets published because it's a hot topic and we all know that hot topics improve circulation (right Mick?).

But let's look at this. Data gathered by NOAA, the most inefficient government association in the nation. They have too much money, no oversight, and are never held responsible for lapses in their data collection processes. People who work close with the organization (and many people who work for it) often reword the acronym to be No Organization At All. The data is put through a statistical method that is not widely accepted as accurate and was invented by the lead researcher of the study. In short, this study is horribly compromised by potentially suspicious data collection and extremely suspicious statistical modeling.

But then wait a second. Mick, how exactly would you know anything about the Journal publishing process anyway? I mean, 90% of the stuff you publish on here is reworded work written by someone else, anyway. In all honesty, you're not a person whose respect I'd actually *want* to earn.


By quickk on 9/4/2008 1:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because a scientific study has been published does not mean that it has been scrutinized in any way by scientists.


Have you ever published anything in a peer-reviewed journal? Peer-review means that the manuscript has been reviewed by other scientists with expertise in the relevant field (i.e. peers), and that they have deemed it worthy to be published.


By quickk on 9/4/2008 1:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
And one more thing: being an assistant professor does not in any way mean that you are somehow a crappy scientist. It just means that they are at the start of their career. Often it is the assistant professors that work the hardest and have the best ideas because they are fresh and need to prove themselves before getting full tenure (which is a long process).


By Jim28 on 9/5/2008 12:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
You touched on one of the many problems of the peer review process in general.

It is tough to ensure any quality/integrity from a peer reviewed paper as the peer review process is a "best effort" endeavor by people who are busy doing there own thing or whose interests closely align with the submitting author.

It is not the end-all be-all (or even a good) process many say it is. It is better described as merely the best we have at the time. If it were all that good, how did such a pletora of papers that had techinical or methodolgy errors make it through the vetting process of peer review?


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By rsmech on 9/4/2008 1:43:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Its easy to be an armchair critic,

quote:
why don't you take them up in the scientific community


So why are you here? It's hard to take your criticism seriously when your own arguments can also be placed squarely on you.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By quickk on 9/4/2008 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
Jason is not criticizing the paper. He is responding to masher's criticisms. Masher has not published anything in a scientific journal (as far as I can tell).


By rsmech on 9/4/2008 7:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
So as long as you agree you have a right to comment/ blog? If you disagree you must be an expert or you have no right. You sound hypocritical.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By jiminmpls on 9/3/2008 12:14:50 PM , Rating: 1
Steve McIntyre is a retired minerals specialist with ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor. He has absolutely no credintials in climate science and has never published a peer-reviewed article.