Comments on: New Millennial Warm Pool Foraminifera Study

By: The MWP in the Warm Pool « Climate Audit

The MWP in the Warm Pool « Climate Audit — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:57:33 +0000

[...] SST proxy ending in 4320 BP based on a partially dissolved core.’ A couple of months ago, I mentioned a new paper by Newton et al (including L Stott) with a high Warm Pool MWP and briefly discussed [...]

By: The Trouet Ocean Proxies « Climate Audit

The Trouet Ocean Proxies « Climate Audit — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:34:31 +0000

[...] The data set was also used in the discussion of a warm Warm Pool MWP by Newton et al 2006 (See CA here). I’ll discuss whether there is a relevant difference between the viewpoint of Newton et al [...]

By: TCO

TCO — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:18:45 +0000

You know, looking at Rob’s paper’s preamble and some of Cobb’s work…I get this suspicious on El Nino research. I start to wonder that people are essentially producing proxy climate studies, that have direct relevance to the AGW debate (via assessing variability), but that they don’t want to openly say this and let things sink or swim on there own. So the call them El Nino research.

On a more light note, I was going to accuse Rob of chasing after Polyenisian hotties…now I think he likes Kim.

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 04:05:21 +0000

Re #21

I didn’t mean to suggest that the core loss was necessarily slipshod pactice. HOwever to characterize a core with the last 150 years missing as an “ideal” core for millennial commentary does seem implausible. Why wouldn’t they report on a core with no missing core at the top?

Its the fast sedimentation rate that makes it useful for high resolution studies. Typically 1 cm slices are processed, so in this core there would be fewer years represented in a slice than for a mid-ocean core with sed rates closer to 1 cm per 1000 years. The wording of the sentence implies the lost years are only a minor flaw in an otherwise “good” core. I surmise that this was the best one they had and, at least in their judgement, suitable for drawing their conclusions. 850 out of a thousand years isn’t too bad, even if not perfect.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:47:16 +0000

On a substantive point, I really doubt that Rob’s study can “fill in the 150 year gap well”. All of these proxies have different behaviors and splices are very much not to be trusted in this business. You want to see the record all the way up through instrumental time, so that you can even tell if the proxy is a proxy. That’s why the recent sediment is needed, Rob.

P.s. I’m reading Rob’s paper now, Steve.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:42:10 +0000

#29. D’Arrigo and Jacoby have been working the PAcific for years, including Indonesia. ONe may have other criticisms, but not these particular ones. TCO, please look at their paper before mouthing off about it. That’s why I deleted your original comment – aside from being rude, it was ignorant in the literal sense of the word. I was hoping to save this pointless exchange.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:26:22 +0000

1. The Nature comment was towards Visser.

2. Glad to see you on tree rings still. My bad there. Just out of curiosity, why going to pacific? Seems like some fadiness still. And I love corals as a proxy, but what do you know of them?

3. Still worried about the aside comment on volcanism. I think I pegged that right.

By: Rob Wilson

Rob Wilson — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:21:50 +0000

I am not sure what TCO is talking about now. I was not reporting on foraminifera.
My study with Rosanne D’Arrigo is a multi-proxy study utilising tree-rings and corals to reconstruct SSTs in the Warm Pool region. It is not in Nature (nor is the Newton study for that matter).
I only mentioned the volcanic signatures as we see evidence for multiple volcanic events in the 19th century.
You have obviously not read the paper TCO.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:05:18 +0000

I sorta wonder what Rob’s comments on “volcanic signature” are supposed to mean. It sure sounds like he doesn’t like the low temp rise and wants to blame volcanos. I wonder if he had the same exact ash content, but the floramins had played along better, if he would say there was “volcanic signature”.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:00:05 +0000

Oh…and if this is just jotting down an interesting result, why is it in Nature? I know…Nature lubs dat climatology. And individuals love getting Nature pub cred…rather than actually loving solving problems.