This video comes from the "watts up with that" story.
Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data
Which is excerpting from:
"..the Foresight Institute, J. Storrs Hall had some interesting graphs made from NOAA ice core data (Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.)
Where the blogger says:
Except that, the actual NOAA dataset definition clearly says:
GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
and
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: PLEASE CITE ORIGINAL REFERENCE WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!
NAME OF DATA SET: GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data
LAST UPDATE: 3/2004 (Original Receipt by WDC Paleo)
CONTRIBUTOR: Richard Alley, Pennsylvania State University.
IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2004-013
SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Alley, R.B.. 2004.
GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2004-013.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Alley, R.B. 2000.
The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.
Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE:
Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow. 1997. Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet
elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition.
Journal of Geophysical Research 102:26383-26396.
GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Greenland
PERIOD OF RECORD: 49 KYrBP - present
DESCRIPTION:
Temperature interpretation based on stable isotope analysis, and
ice accumulation data, from the GISP2 ice core, central Greenland.
Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).
ABSTRACT:
Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of
many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those
associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here.
Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only 1%
errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas 11,500 years before
present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation
rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty.
Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes
with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation.
Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations
using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios.
Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local,
regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much
of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with
Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes
have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these
paleoclimatic changes.
DATA:
1. Temperature in central Greenland
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
Age Temperature (C)
0.0951409 -31.5913
0.10713 -31.622
0.113149 -31.6026
.
.
.
Which is a huge amount of posting about going back to a very simple and obvious observation: the data here are indeed merely another proxy model for past temperature estimates, based on various assumptions and ice composition models, and are obviously "massaged" in multiple ways in order to get to a dataset which has Degrees C vs x-thousand years ago.
I mean, none of this detracts from the games played by Mann and the CRU from their end, but can we at least refrain from doing the same oversimplification that Monckton berates the Greenpeace Warmists for doing? What this blog post is, as striking and clear as it seems, is an "appeal to authority" to the "Foresight Institute" based on data, massaged and derived from one particular set of raw data in one geographic location, using several specific numerical filters and smoothing and scaling.
And this dataset stops "0.0951409" thousand years ago (beginning of the 20th century). And part of what the IPCC "tricks" involved extrpolating conclusions by grafting on current temperatures to these proxy temperatures----the same type thing we're doing here in the reverse!
The scaling from ice properties of trapped gas concentration etc etc is an entire developing discipline of earth science. We can obviously say that the Medieval Warm Period was not caused by factories, but we also shouldn't jump on the bandwagon of assigning tenths of a degree C to the difference between vineyards in England and the cold front in Iowa next week.
I'm a total AGW skeptic, heretic. But I see us rapidly tilting over to the gorezaloonies methods and madness if we're not careful here and place the same skepticism on reports that seem to support our instincts as well as those that oppose.
That is why I think the video I posted is good use to fight GW.
Because whether you dealing with a very precise person who pulls out charts, graphs, whatever, to prove his case whether for or against GW; the video shows how ridiculous the conclusions derived from bad data are.
It also demonstrate show often the headline “Scientists have discovered”, “scientists say”, “science shows” has been misused to promote something that is not science at all.
As the Marxists themselves say, the most potent weapon is ridicule.
I'm a total AGW skeptic, heretic. But I see us rapidly tilting over to the gorezaloonies methods and madness if we're not careful here and place the same skepticism on reports that seem to support our instincts as well as those that oppose.
You'll notice that Monckton says that he does believe in "Global Warming". He says he does not dispute that the climate is warming up. At least that's what he makes sure that his audience knows. He is not in disagreement with those who say there is Global Warming.
What he is disagreeing with is that it is "Anthropogenic Global Warming" -- or -- man-caused, that is.
So, he says the earth's climate is definitely warming up, but mankind is not the cause of it.
I thought that people should be aware of that point...