The PAGES 2k consortium

The Past Global Changes (PAGES) project has released a progress article that has just appeared in Nature Geoscience. The article’s title is Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia (this article is paywalled unfortunately). Watts Up With That (WUWT) has had a couple of posts about this already, but noone of them have said anything particularly controversial. If Marcott et al. (2013) is anything to go by, however, there are likely to be a number of other posts to follow in the coming days.

Why is this study so interesting? Well, it uses proxies from many different locations around the world to determine the temperature history of the Earth for the last 2000 years. As can be seen in the figure below (which I took from Skeptical Science), it largely reproduces the “Hockey Stick” shape first presented in a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999). The curves in the figure are from previous studies, while the data points (with errors) are from the PAGES study. The name Hockey Stick refers to the uptick in the temperature anomalies starting in the late 1800s and has been extremely controversial, with many skeptics claiming that there is a major problem with this work (often making accusations of fraud and deceit). Despite this, it has been reproduced in many studies including in the work presented by the PAGES project. One of the conclusions of this study was that the 20th century was the warmest or nearly the warmest in all regions except Antarctica.

Temperature anomalies for the last 2000 years determined by the PAGES project (Ahmed et al. 2013).

Temperature anomalies for the last 2000 years determined by the PAGES project (Ahmed et al. 2013).

Another interesting conclusion was that although the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are clearly present in the temperature constructions, these appear not to have been global events. For example, the Northern Hemisphere had a sustained warm period from about 830 AD to 1100 CE, while Australasia and South American had a warm period from 1160 to 1300 CE. This is fairly evident from the figure below which shows 30-year mean temperatures for the 7 continental scale regions with red being warmer and blue being cooler.

30-year temperature means for the 7 continental-scale regions in the PAGES study (Ahmed et al. 2013).

30-year temperature means for the 7 continental-scale regions in the PAGES study (Ahmed et al. 2013).

I think the study is very interesting, but there has already been some criticism on the WUWT site and there are a few posts by Steven McIntyre on his Climate Audit site. Let me make a few basic comments. The PAGES project consists of 78 researchers from 24 different countries and from 60 different institutions. It uses 511 different time series, most of which were tree rings, but does include glacier ice, speleothems, and sediment from ocean and lake bottoms. It also considers all 7 continental-scale regions on the planet. According to their FAQ, 360 of their 511 records were not used in the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) study, so it has some independence.

Admittedly, I’m getting most of my information about this study from their own FAQ. I’m therefore assuming here that they’re being honest, but I have no reason to suspect otherwise. I also think that their website is a great example of how to present this kind of work to the public. It seems very thorough and contains lots of information that attempts to explain what they did and the significant of the work, and includes discussion of the uncertainties. Essentially this seems to be a very large project with numerous researchers from around the world who have produced one of the most detailed temperature reconstructions ever and that appears to be largely consistent with much of the work that has been done in the last 14 years or so. That doesn’t make it correct, but science does require some judgement of the strength of the evidence. There seem to be – in some sense – two options. Evidence provided by a large group of professional scientists (plus all the previous work that seems consistent with this study) against evidence provided by a group of people who may or may not have any scientific training lead by a mathematician who (according to my Google search) is a semi-retired mining consultant. Admittedly, there hasn’t been all that much criticism of this particular study from those who are typically skeptical, so maybe they are starting to give some credence to the published science. On the other hand, if they do ratchet up their criticism (as has been the norm so far) it’s going to have to be pretty convincing to persuade me that they somehow know more about temperature reconstructions than a large (and global) group of climate scientists.

This entry was posted in Anthony Watts, Climate change, Global warming, Michael Mann, PAGES 2k, Steven McIntyre, Watts Up With That and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The PAGES 2k consortium

  1. Something that I didn’t mention in my post was that this study also highlighted (again) that there appears to have been a long-term cooling trend that ended in the late 1800s and has been followed by period of warming leading to temperatures of about 0.8oC degrees warmer today than they were in the late 19th century.

  2. Rachel says:

    It really is very curious to watch a group of people dismiss a mountain of research from experts in their field, while simultaneously accepting the views of someone with no academic qualifications in the area beyond undergraduate. I have an analogy for this – it’s like listening to your doctor tell you that you have cancer and then listening to him/her recommend a course of treatment on the basis of numerous tests, an expanse of scholarly literature and the expert views of their colleagues – but then dismiss all of that because you read the blog of someone with no relevant background or experience but who does have a conflict of interest and decide that your cancer is benign and you don’t require any treatment. Normally I would just shrug them off as lunatics, but in this case, these people are causing enormous harm to future generations by applying the breaks to collective action.

  3. Rachel says:

    Also, the more I read about that famous Mann paper, the more I think it was actually a seminal paper, rather than some fraudulent piece of research.

  4. There’s a very good video of Paul Nurse meeting James Delingpole. In case you don’t know, Paul Nurse is the ex-President of the Royal Society while James Delingpole (who you probably have heard of) writes a column in the Telegraph that typically dismisses AGW. Paul Nurse makes almost the analogy that you make, and it’s quite amusing to watch Delingpole squirm.

  5. Absolutely. It’s an original piece of work, the results from which still stand up despite an immense amount of scrutiny.

  6. Rachel says:

    That’s good, thanks. I don’t understand how some of Delingpole’s stuff makes it into the newspaper. His recent death penalty articles were really pushing the boundary.

  7. Pingback: The irrational optimist | Wotts Up With That Blog

Comments are closed.