Ohh look its sunday morning and sock puppet Ajax is already hard at work cutting and pasting deceitful propaganda for his fossil fuel corporate masters. Well, you know what they say "No rest for the wicked".

[... continued]

Rosenthal’s assertion that recent OHC trends are unprecedented are derived from their Table S4, which consists of three panels, the first of which is shown below.


In my annotation of their Figure 3B shown above, I’ve shown two trend lines, each of which more or less corresponds to the trends reported on lines 2 and 3 of Table S3: a trend of -0.15 deg C/century from 1100-1700 and a trend of 0.09 deg C/century from 1600-1950. The “money” trend in Table S3 is that shown on the fourth line: the value of 0.032 deg C/century is presumably an error. This is not the only error in the table: in the first column, the observed delta-T in the third line (0.25) is greater than that in the fourth line (0.11), but the delta-HC (5.6) is less than that in the fourth line (8.4) – something that seems to be an error. In passing, I wonder whether the “15 times” claim somehow originates in the seemingly unrelated bolded value of “15″ in the fourth column fourth line. (The derivation of “15 times” is not explained anywhere and is not obviously supported by the data.)


Rosenthal’s Holocene Figure
Rosenthal’s Figure 2 shows their temperature reconstruction over the past 10000 years (the version in their Figure 2C is shown below.) I’ve overlaid my digitization of their two-millennium reconstruction shown above (cyan). (Unfortunately, Rosenthal and coauthors didn’t archive anything: neither reconstruction nor underlying data, though, in response to my email, Rosenthal has undertaken to do so.) Once again, I’ve shown the temperature anomaly (as I’ve calculated it from instrumental ocean heat content) in red. At a Holocene scale, it is a very small squiggle – which I’ve accordingly highlighted by a circle around the squiggle). On the right is a blow-up of the graph in the left panel for the past 500 years.


Figure 2. From Rosenthal et al 2013 Figure 2C. Red- temperature anomaly converted from NOAA Pacific Ocean 0-700m ocean heat content. Cyan – Rosenthal Figure 3B reconstruction (my digitization). Orange trend line shows third comparison from Rosenthal SI, taken from first row in Table S3.

As with the two-millennium figure, there are many fluctuations within the reconstruction with much greater rates of change over a century than calculated from the modern instrumental OHC record.

Although spin by Mann and others has focused on the modern portion, Rosenthal and coauthors observe that their reconstruction differs on important points from that of Marcott et al 2013,

Quote:


They showed the Marcott et al 2013 reconstruction in their Figure 2, apparently unaware that its 20th century uptick is (at best) an artifact. It is regrettable that Marcott and coauthors have not issued a corrigendum conceding that the uptick cannot be relied on.

Although IPCC recently reported much confidence in the non-globalness of the MWP, Rosenthal et al took the opposite view:

Quote:

Given all the publicity about the supposed unprecedentedness of the recent increase in Rosenthal et al 2013, the data in the article offers little support for the assertion that the modern rate of increase is 15 times greater than any previous increase – or, indeed, for the weaker proposition that the modern increase is unprecedented. Moreover, it stands against claims that modern temperatures are themselves unprecedented, not only within the Holocene, but within the last two millennia.

liar

Hard to believe it's the same study:

Where’s the heat? Warming of Pacific Ocean fastest seen in 10,000 years

Skeptics have made much of the so called 15 year “pause” in warming for land surface temperatures, while conveniently overlooking the warming oceans.

A study just released this week in Science indicates the Pacific Ocean may be warming at a rate faster than it has in the last 10,0000 years [pay wall]:

Quote:

This study was also reported in the LA Times, where some (genuine) climate scientists expressed scepticism about the rate of warming. Still it is very clear the oceans have been acting as a “buffer” in absorbing additional heat. However we can’t bank on the oceans performing this role in future centuries:

Quote:

Still persisting with the crystal ball......!!!!!!!!

So what instruments where used to measure the temperature of the lower layers of the ocean (3000 metres and deeper)........????

How do we know what these temperatures where hundreds, thousands or millions of years and how where they measured................???

The deep ocean that is.............!!!!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/rough-estimate-of-the-annual-changes-in-oc...

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:18pm:


Tell me how where the temperatures of the deep ocean layers taken hundreds thousands and millions of years ago....????

Then tell me how the temperatures of the deep oceans are acutually taken today................????

I'm all ears..................!!!!!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:25pm:



Tell me how where the temperatures of the deep ocean layers taken hundreds thousands and millions of years ago....????

Then tell me how the temperatures of the deep oceans are acutually taken today................????

I'm all ears..................!!!!!

Well it's in the semantics. From the hundreds of papers dealing with paleotemperatures, it's obvious that there was a prounced Medieval Warming in North America, Greenland and Norway.  In some areas, the effect was less pronounced, and in some areas, there was a pronounced cooling.

The overall effect was probably a slight global warming for this period, however the only regions to show temperatures similar to the late 90s was Northern Norway and Greenland.

That is apparent from looking at the "spaghetti" graph that shows the various studies superimposed. 

Was there an increase in Total Solar Irradiance for this period? Yes. Proxy data show this quite clearly.

Has there been an increase in Total Solar Irradiance in the past 60 years? No. I don't think anybody can dispute that.

So what's the fuss about anyway? Error in determination for this period is considerable.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 2:45pm:


!!
I was just taking the p*ss........why you so mad? 

Seriously though? Got about 700oz, I'm hoping to graduate to gold pieces after I do enough votes on internet polls 

Ajax wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Ajax, are you capable of understanding? Are you willing to understand?

muso wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 2:15pm:

From what little I understand, the denyosphere has latched on to a small part of a study that can be misinterpreted to bolster their perverse world view.

Lol Chimp are you still on the conspiracy stuff.
Do you really think Ajax, Muso, # and myself are all the same people?

# wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 6:51pm:


The Medieval Warm period is not part of any argument. It's a red herring. The fact that Monckton's cheer squad latches on to it is totally perplexing.

The Lord Monckton moves in mysterious ways.

Ozpolitics is not exactly a commercial site. It is owned by Freediver.  From my experience with Internet Ads, I doubt if they cover his expenses. As usual, you have the wrong end of the stick.

All the moderators on here are volunteers. Nobody gets paid.  You have an obsession with corporations. It's  just a pastime.

Vuk and Ajax think they are so 1950s hardcore business is business types 

muso wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:22pm:
That's a relief. I was worried that my inability to see any relevance might be the Alzheimer's kicking in. 

muso wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Thanks Muso,I'll take yor comments on board but cant say I accept them since I understand that the programs they have developed to avoid sock detection are becoming more sophisticated every day. but I will continue to observe the situation and in any event none of that has any bearing on weather Ajax and Vuk are astroturfing for corporate fossil fuel interests which for the reasons I have given I believe they are.

I do. And yes there is $$$$$ in it.  People spend all day writing glowing reviews for products they've never used before and its a big problem now because you cant trust internet reviews anymore. Go on Whirlpool, where they encounter it alot and also wikipedia have an article on it worth reading.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Numbers have recently been given by, i think wendy harmer believe it or not, on the economics of trolling and fake accounts et al/etc..... 

If I accepted money for telling lies about global warming, I doubt if I could live with that lie. Joanne Nova and David Evans obviously have no such moral qualms.