Reading the paper carefully on Friday I was struggling to see how they reached some of their conclusions, so I put it aside to have a look at again.
But first, it's a 2013 paper, so we are not talking about anything particularly new here.
Secondly the paper has had a reasonable amount of discussion, including the authors being interviewed for the New York Times Dot Earth blog, and Michael Mann providing a review of the paper via the Huffington Post.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/10000-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/pacific-ocean-warming-at-_b_4179583.html
When I look at those comments, combined with my own reading from yesterday and today, it's pretty clear that the study that you and WUWT referenced only shows temps from the start of the Holocene into the Little Ice Age, and not much out of it. It's pretty clear the study is missing all the modern industrial greenhouse gas warming.
it's also pretty clearly suggested that the paper authors' claim that the Indonesian waters proxy study they do is evidence of global conditions is one heck of a rational stretch, and contradicted by other studies.---
After reading the paper a few times on Friday, in more and more detail, I ended up with two queries in my mind.
1. They talk about the top of their sediment cores giving them results up to between 1650 and 1850. Yet their charts and comments seemed to be presented as if their findings included recent temperature rises.
[They refer to "at the core top (~100 years B.P.)" and "at the core top (~100 to 300 years B.P.)", for two different sites, with B.P. being Before Present, and "Present" set at 1950. Hence the latest data they have is for ~1850 and much of their data only gets up to 1650].
That seemed a major issue when they were making claims about temperatures now versus the earlier Holocene temps. As far as I could see, their charts couldn't be showing temperatures now. So I couldn't see how they were making their comments about now versus the past.
2. They claim that the Indonesian sea areas that they took sediment cores from were representative of both the Atlantic and Pacific. They went further to state that this indication of Pacific and Atlantic temperatures supported evidence of "global" Medieval conditions.
it seemed to me that extrapolating Indonesian ocean sediment to the Pacific and Atlantic seemed a big call. The paper discussion supporting their argument on this was based on ocean currents.
So while all that seemed pretty flimsy to me, they referred to other papers I did not have the time or inclination to review in detail. And as I said in my first post, I took them at their word.
----
It's worth reading Mann's review.
He points to problems in the paper's broader findings for both the reasons I had identified. He also points to other studies that contradict the findings of this paper. Those other studies indicate both that their temps are not indicative of the Pacific and Atlantic, and that their temps do not include the recent industrial age temperature rise, so are inconsistent with other studies comparing now with the Medieval period.
Kacy, If you read Mann's review you'll find that he points out everything you have stated in your last post is contradicted by other studies, or not supported by the paper you are referring to.
Including your ideas about how fast it's warming now, and temperatures now compared to the Medieval period.
Every single time the denial blog sites point to a bonafide science paper it always turns out to be the exception, with flaws, and contradicted by other studies. And the denial blog sites look straight past those flaws. So that makes this just another form of cherry picking.
What we're looking at here is the process of science, with some papers not passing the test of time and being rebutted by other work. Just the denial camp doesn't learn from that. It's a pity that the denial camp are constantly promoting this sort of baloney.
