It's all over but for the sweating?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Except they redated a load of cores, this is what happens if the original dates are used:

Humm... So if one translates your "redating" of cores to a more likely "have now got more accurate measurements", the logical conclusion would be that the new graph is more accurate. But if you don't like what the presumably more accurate meaurements show...

[Arragonis]

The redating was done by Marcot et al vs. the original data of the cores, not me

[Arragonis]

The decline in panic,

Poll Finds Americans Less Concerned About The Environment Now Than When Earth Day Began

[NeilBlanchard]

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

[Arragonis]

Bet still open.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The redating was done by Marcot et al vs. the original data of the cores, not me

Yes, I understand that. The point I was trying to make is that their redating is (presumably, the original paper is behind a paywall) a matter of having obtained more accurate data. You imply that they simply juggle dates to get the desired results.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Yes, I understand that. The point I was trying to make is that their redating is (presumably, the original paper is behind a paywall) a matter of having obtained more accurate data. You imply that they simply juggle dates to get the desired results.

Apologies I misread it. The redating was explored here

Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates

which goes on to look at the reasons and validity of the redating over several detailed posts. Some commenters there disagree with the negative analysis.

But even if the redating is valid the paper's conclusions are not those promoted by Climate Progress, something which several scientists have questioned.

For example original press release :

What that [temperature reconstruction] history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.

But this is what the authors put out in their FAQ

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

So the 20th century scary uptick is not robust, and this graph :



should really look like this



which is a lot less scary. It was also the point I was trying to make about the resolution of reconstructions vs. instruments.

But as that would not follow the Think Progress narrative (doomed, we're doomed) they don't report that part or indeed any uncertainties of the science, and continue to push the original line.

I don't think the scientists involved did anything wrong, or at least not intentionally wrong, the PR was allowed to take over.

[NeilBlanchard]

If it is scary, that is because it is very serious. The climate temperature is increasing, very quickly, and we know the main cause.

But being scary doesn't make it wrong.

Ice is a reality check - it melts and freezes all by itself. Arctic ice and virtually every glacier on earth is melting much more quickly than they have any time in recorded human history.

Ocean acidity and frozen tundra are also reality checks.

We are living in extraordinary times. And we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

But being scary doesn't make it wrong.

Not being supported by the paper it purports to represent makes it wrong.

[NeilBlanchard]

There are many papers on this, not just one - and reality confirms it. Melting ice doesn't lie.

Bird flu is scary, too. That means we need to reduce the risk.