Another Bust: PAGES 2k ‘Global’ Reconstruction Fails To Confirm The ‘Hockey Stick’

A Deconstruction Of The

PAGES 2k ‘Hockey Stick’

Image adapted from PAGES 2k, 2015

Five years ago, the release of the PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) “global” temperature data set was accompanied by a great deal of fanfare.

Advocates deemed the conglomeration of proxy temperature data from 7 land regions as scientific confirmation of the notorious hockey-stick-shaped temperature reconstruction popularized by Michael Mann and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, TAR) in the early 2000s.

The New York Times featured interviews with the lead authors of the study upon its release.  While emphasizing the exceptionality of modern warmth, the authors acknowledged that “temperatures in some regions were higher in the past then they were during the late 20th century.”

“In Europe, slightly higher reconstructed temperatures were registered in A.D. 741–770, and the interval from A.D. 21–80 was substantially warmer than 1971–2000.”
Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971–2000 for a time period as recent as A.D. 1671–1700, and the entire period from 141–1250 was warmer than 1971–2000.”

After corrections to “several errors” (more on this below) in the Arctic reconstruction, the 1971-2000 decades were only deemed the third warmest in the record, with the 3 decades around 400 AD the warmest.

“Following these corrections, the period from 1941–1970 emerges as the second warmest 30-year period in the Arctic record, and 1971–2000 the third warmest, rather than the first and second warmest as reported in the original version. The ranked order of the best estimate of temperature indicates that the warmest 30-year period is centred on AD 395(PAGES 2k, 2015).

When viewing the supplemental data and comparing the PAGES 2k reconstructions to other Basic Composites, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of unusual or exceptional characteristics about the 20th century’s temperatures relative to the beginning of the 2nd millennium and earlier (for the few records that extend back that far).

Images: PAGES 2k ConsortiumSupplementary

Is This Really A Global, 2,000-Year Reconstruction?

The PAGES 2k temperature reconstruction utilizes proxy data from 7 land regions, but excludes the entire continent of Africa. (Oceans, covering 71% of the Earth’s surface, are also excluded from this “global” record.)

Despite being hailed as a global-scale, 2,000-year reconstruction, just 2 of the 7 regions, the Arctic and Europe, analyzed temperatures from the entire 0 AD to 2000 period.

Antarctica was represented beginning in 167 AD.  Asia begins in 800 AD.  South America begins in 857 AD.  North America proxy data begins in 1204 AD and ends in 1974 (tree rings) and 480 to 1950 (pollen).  Australasia begins in 1001 AD.

Steve McIntyre Spots ‘Several Errors’ Corrupting Arctic 2k; Some Are Corrected In 2014

Steve McIntyre, known for his evisceration of the questionable data-collection processes in the construction of “hockey stick” graphs, identified several suspicious “errors” corrupting the Arctic data set.   He wrote about them on his blog.

“Kaufman’s proxies are fraught with defects. Kaufman has already acknowledged that one of his supersticks (Igaliku) was contaminated by modern agriculture; and that another non-H13 series (Hvitarvatn) was used upside down.
Several series, thought to be temperature proxies as recently as 2013, were removed in August [2014] as no longer ‘temperature proxies’.  For inexplicable reasons, Kaufman failed to remove all the contamination from the Igaliku series and his inversion of the Hvitarvatn points to major inconsistencies with other series.”

The PAGES 2k authors reported that these “several errors” were “discovered” following publication.  A list of 5 of these errors were mentioned in a “correction” paper.

“Here we present an Arctic regional temperature reconstruction that revises the one published recently by the PAGES 2k Consortium.  The revisions include updating records using more recent published studies from three sites, and correcting several errors discovered following publication of the PAGES 2k Consortium article. … 1. Three records were removed because of insufficient evidence that they are sensitive to temperature.  2. Sections of five records that were interpreted by the authors to violate criterion 5 were removed.  3. The interpreted temperature relation of the series from Hvítárvatn was corrected from positive to negative [warming to cooling].  4. A 50-year offset in the ages of the record from Lone Spruce Pond was corrected.  5. The coordinates of the Copper River tree-ring reconstruction were corrected” (McKay and Kaufman, 2014).

Curiously, the corrupt and error-ridden data contributing to Arctic 2k dataset seemed to go in one direction and one direction only: they cooled the past and warmed the present.

The odds of a large series of unforced mistakes consistently occurring with one sign (cooling) for one period (the 1st millennium) and the opposite sign (warming) for another period (the 20th century) are extremely low.  And yet it happened.

Image adapted from McKay and Kaufman, 2014

After corrections to the originally erroneous and corrupted PAGES 2K reconstruction, much of the entire 0-1,000 AD period turned out to be just as warm (if not warmer in some decades) as the 20th century.  Here’s what the corrected (red) Arctic reconstruction looked like as of 2014, with the corrupted (black) data removed.

Notice that all or nearly all the Arctic warming occurred from the late 1800s to the 1940s, with no net change (even cooling) from the 1940s through 2000.  This is consistent with the instrumental record (Hanhijarvi et al., 2013; HadCRUT4 via  Climate4You).

A Corrigendum Is Published, But 2 ½ Years Later

It took until late 2015 for the PAGES 2k authors to finally issue a corrigendum to their error-riddled “global” reconstruction graph released in 2013.   Dr. Steve McIntyre was acknowledged for “discovering” their “several errors”.

The blogosphere that favors hockey-stick-shaped graphs uniformly ignored the corrected depiction of “global” temperatures in the corrigendum, preferring the erroneous 2013 graph that shows more warming in recent decades and less warming during the 1st millennium.

As before, the obligatory “hockey stick” blade was tendentiously inserted at the end of the record to make the 20th century appear exceptional.

Image: PAGES 2k, 2015

Visual Paradigm Shift: The Cooling Is Anomalous – Modern Warmth A Return To Normal

As suggested, the reason why the “hockey stick” blade was added to the partially corrected “global” PAGES 2k record was to visually persuade readers that  the modern period is anomalous and unusual.

But if we look at the presented data from all 7 regions in PAGES 2k from another angle, a distinct pattern emerges that identifies the modern temperatures as the norm, and the mid-1300s to early 1900s cooling period as the exception.   The 20th century warmth is merely a return to the normal temperatures that characterized most of the Late Holocene.

Image adapted from PAGES 2k, 2015

The anomalously cool years can be viewed even more conspicuously when adding simulated temperatures to the post-2000 record.

This same pattern can be identified in the regional reconstructions as well.  The Arctic’s 1880s to 1940s abrupt warming trend (and subsequent non-warming) reached amplitudes compatible with past Holocene periods.

In sum, nothing climatically unusual has happened in the last 150 years relative to the last two millennia.

The Late Holocene’s normal temperatures have (fortunately) returned.

90 responses to “Another Bust: PAGES 2k ‘Global’ Reconstruction Fails To Confirm The ‘Hockey Stick’”

  1. yonason (from my cell phone)

    No fool like an April fool.
    https://climateaudit.org/2009/04/12/ammanns-april-fools-joke-part-2/

    Hockey Stick has been garbage for a while now. But maybe if it can hang on long enough, it will morph into something beautiful? Yeah, no.

  2. AndyG55

    Great Article, K ! 🙂

    The REALITY of the “Modern Slightly Warm Period” brought to front stage.

    And let’s not forget that the MWP was actually COOLER than either of the previous pleasantly warm periods.

    Basically toward the end of the “neoglaciation” period, just before the LIA.

    Again, I ask the question

    What SHOULD the world temperature be?

    Should it be down in the cold depths of the LIA when famine and plague was rife?

    Or should it be warmer than now, as during the RWP and MWP?

    Personally, all the science I have seen says that we could do with a bit more warming than the current MSWP, …

    …and CERTAINLY the world could use further enhancement of the atmospheric CO2 level. Its been at plant subsistence level for way too long !

    This tiny bump in aCO2 has been a blessing to ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

    And I like to think humans have had some small part in it.

    1. P Gosselin

      Global mean temp is about 15°C, up from about 14°C 100 years ago. Already 17°C can lead to hypothermia, and so we have quite a ways to go before the planet reaches a comfortable temperature. Little wonder most people live between 45°N and 45°S.

      1. AndyG55

        “Little wonder most people live between 45°N and 45°S.”

        Certainly true for the SH.

        Pockets of high population in Europe above 45°N, but mostly in countries that have modern energy technology for heating in winter or are warmed somewhat by the oceans.

        Make it 60°N – 45°S and you probably cover at least 97% of the world’s population.

        Strange that the areas outside that aren’t heavily populated by climate worriers avoiding the warmth. 😉

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      “What SHOILD the [avg] world temperature be?”

      By now we’re all familiar with this data plot..
      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

      According to it, the highest temp ever reached on earth (with a couple of possible brief exceptions) is 25 Deg C (some say 22). And, whichever it was, that has been the most prevalent condition on earth for its entire history.

      I’m guessing that a return to that will, despite requiring some coping issues in some locations, be on balance a good thing.

      1. SebastianH

        I’m guessing that a return to that will, despite requiring some coping issues in some locations, be on balance a good thing.

        You can easily do a back of the envelope calculation of sea level rise caused just by the thermal expansion.

        “coping issues in some locations” …

        Life is comfortable in a very narrow temperature band. +5 K and the coastal regions are all underwater, -5K and they are mostly covered with ice (at least European and North American cities). So a change by less than 2% in either direction will come with a little bit more than “coping issues in some locations”.

  3. yonason (from my cell phone)

    Michael Mann – sloppy AND arrogant?
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/point-resolved-in-hockey-stick-wars.html?m=1

    And they wonder why we don’t trust them!

  4. Philip Clarke

    “In sum, nothing climatically unusual has happened in the last 150 years relative to the last two millennia.

    The Late Holocene’s normal temperatures have (fortunately) returned.”
    Not really. The PAGES 2K data is organised into 30 year bins, so the last data point represents the 30 years ending 2000. Since the midpoint of that period, global temperatures have increased by c0.6C.The data is expressed as an anomaly from a 1961–1990 reference baseline, the same as HADCRUT4. Eyeballing the graph, the maximum is around +0.15C and minimum around -0.45C. HADCRUT4 reached +1.1C in 2016 and the mean of the last 12 months was +0.68C.

    So PAGES2k found global temperatures varied in a range covering about 0.6C, and we are now about 0.5C above the max of that range. ‘Nothing climatically unusual’?

    Not really.

    1. AndyG55

      “The Late Holocene’s normal temperatures have (fortunately) returned.”…..Not really.”

      Nope, we are still quite a bit below the MWP and RWP.

    2. AndyG55

      “HADCRUT4 reached +1.1C in 2016 “

      ROFLMAO

      Are you SERIOUSLY using the top of a 3 year El Nino spike.??

      And in highly dubious AGW agenda driven data???

      DUMB !!

    3. AndyG55

      UAH for February 2018 is 0.2C NOTHING UNUSUAL

      Are you NH or SH, Phlop?

      Bet you choose somewhere warmer to live, not Iceland or Siberia.. right 🙂

      Plenty of fossil fuel derived heating in winter as well?

      1. SebastianH

        UAH is virtually identical to Hadruct4:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.305

        The difference is a few more pronounced extremes. Despite not measuring the temperature in the same height, they match up pretty well.

        His critique on Kenneth “nothing unusual to see here” is valid. I don’t get that either since viewing even the corrected graph makes a highly unusual increase of temperature very visible. You can claim that in those proxy records past temperatures can be found that were warmer as late 20th century temperatures, but it sure looks like a hockey stick to me.

        1. AndyG55

          “UAH is virtually identical to Hadruct4”

          So seb, there must be two NON-warming periods in HadCrud4 like there is in RSS and UAH, correct?

          You can see the one from 2001-2015 in Hadcrud4,

          No warming.. how inconvenient.

          But the NON-WARMING from 1980 to 1997 seems to have be hiding.

          Perhaps you could find it for me, between looking for that elusive paper giving measured scientific proof that enhanced CO2 has ANY effect apart from enhanced plant growth.

          We are STILL WAITING, its been a long time you know, and you are still TOTALLY EMPTY . !!

          You do know that one or two year El Ninos anomalies would be highly unlikely to show up in a proxy data set with 30 year boxes.. or are you IGNORANT of that, as well.

          But I do understand that NON-CO2 El Ninos are the ONLY warming you have, so you just gotta keep using them.

          BTW, Hadcrud4 also shows an tiny anomaly of around 0.2ºC in February 2018.

          Tanks for pointing that out, I hope your foot is tasty. 🙂

          NOTHING TO SEE AT ALL !!

          1. SebastianH

            You do know that one or two year El Ninos anomalies would be highly unlikely to show up in a proxy data set with 30 year boxes.. or are you IGNORANT of that, as well.

            I just downloaded the proxy data from the Pages2K correction … there are 30 year bins and there is yearly data.

            But I do understand that NON-CO2 El Ninos are the ONLY warming you have, so you just gotta keep using them.

            I don’t get it, first you argue that El Ninos (and La Ninas) are smoothed out in proxy bins and then you want to exclude those events in the instrumental record? Acting like they don’t have anything to do with increasing heat content? Weird.

            NOTHING TO SEE AT ALL !!

            You are getting weired with each week that passes …

          2. AndyG55

            Poor empty seb

            You really are deranged by cognitive non-functionality, and a distinct LACK of basic education and understanding.!

            You still haven’t got a clue about any of this, have you petal !!

            Mixing proxies with instrumental data.. OOPS. !!

            And you don’t even see the problem.. that is what is SO HILARIOUS. !

      2. Philip Clarke

        “AndyG55 29. March 2018 at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Reply
        UAH for February 2018 is 0.2C NOTHING UNUSUAL”

        You make my point extremely well. The last 30 year period in PAGES 2K was centred in 1985. In that year, UAH was circa -0.4C. A rise equal to the entire 2,000 year range in just three decades.

        1. AndyG55

          There was NO warming in UAH from 1980-1997.

          The rise was purely from a TOTALLY NATURAL El Nino event. Its all the AGW scammers have to con illiterate fools into mindless “belief”.

          And there was no data in UAH before 1979 (the tail end of a previous El Nino)

          Are you so mathematically challenged that you can’t see a problem with a 1985 centre box .?? DOH !!!

          You have been CONNED, because you refuse to think for yourself.

        2. AndyG55

          And of course, just by chance, 1985 is in a deep dip in UAH temperatures.

          How “convenient” is that, hey! 😉

          Yes, there was an EL Nino forced step change.

          Absolutely NOTHING to do with human emissions or CO2, so NOT under the “climate change™” banner.

          Just part of the TOTALLY NATURAL and HIGHLY BENFICIAL warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

  5. Philip Clarke

    Here’s a challenge for you. Plot the PAGES 2K reconstruction then add HADCRUT4 up to the present day.

    If you really think recent temperatures are nothing unusual, what better way to demonstrate it?

    1. AndyG55

      Phlop, you just should how mathematically ILLITERATE you are.

      (and you probably don’t even know how.)

      Keep digging.. its funny. 🙂

      1. AndyG55

        typo correction

        should => showed

      2. Bitter&twisted

        DNFTT
        As you can see, it breeds (PC)

    2. SebastianH

      Psst, skeptics don’t like mixing instrumental records with proxy data. They argue that proxy data is smoothed, so you can’t do that even though the proxy data gets calibrated using the instrumental record and thus usually matches it for the last few decades.

      Don’t be intimidated by that Andgy55 troll who likes to insult people just for the fun of it.

      1. AndyG55

        Your mathematical INEPTITUDE shines through your mindless ranting, seb.

      2. McLovin'

        I think you meant to write: “Scientists don’t like mixing instrumental records with proxy data…”

      3. AndyG55

        Proxies will VERY OFTEN miss the wide swings that would appear in modern data.

        That is the nature of proxies.

        It doesn’t matter if you smooth the instrumental data, that wide swing was detected and influences the smoothing.

        Its basic mathematics.. ie WAY beyond you, seb.

  6. AndyG55

    One thing that the PAGES2K work does is show very clearly that the bottom of the final up-tick in temperature is at about 1920.

    Let’s look at the GISP ice core data…

    Remember, the BOTTOM of the final little up-tick is about 1920, as per PAGES2K

    That puts the top of that final up-tick as the peak around 1940….

    We know the 1940s temperature is similar to current temperatures in the NH.

    So the current temperatures would be close to the green line on this graph.

    https://redneckusa.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/f12.jpg

    1. SebastianH

      We know the 1940s temperature is similar to current temperatures in the NH.

      “We” actually know it better …

      https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dorothy-behind-the-curtain-part-2/

      https://www.dmi.dk/en/climate/climate-changes-over-time/greenland/

      1. AndyG55
        1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

          The LONG view…
          https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/3500years.png

          …shows all the stuff that Mann said wasn’t there.

          And, as the author writes about modern temps “The DMI points out that its data is unadjusted, so there may be some Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect at work, particularly with regard to the Nuuk station.”

          1. SebastianH

            That’s funny, now you call for adjustments? 😉

          2. AndyG55

            UHI and El Ninos.

            Only the warming in the world.

            CO2.. NOT A SKERRICK

  7. AndyG55

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PAGES-2k-2015-Anomalous-Cooling.jpg

    Interesting that their future “simulation” shown very little extra warming out to 2080 (or where-ever the graph ends)

    That matches well with the 5 CHIMPS….. NOT !

  8. SebastianH

    The odds of a large series of unforced mistakes consistently occurring with one sign (cooling) for one period (the 1st millennium) and the opposite sign (warming) for another period (the 20th century) are extremely low. And yet it happened.

    Smells like someone fishing for conspiracies …

    1. AndyG55

      Again with the word “conspiracy”, hey seb.

      You are the ONLY one using it.

      Do you have “insider information” ??????

    2. McLovin'

      I think you meant to write: “Scientists don’t like mixing instrumental records with proxy data…”

  9. AndyG55

    K, Thanks for showing that even a specifically set-up propaganda AGW groups STILL agrees with this comment I made on 26th March

    The REAL anomaly for the Holocene, was the 500 years or so of the Little Ice Age.

    Thank goodness for the very slight warming out of that nasty, cold, spiteful period.”

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/25/alarmism-takes-a-big-hit-flood-of-new-scientific-findings-show-nothing-unusual-happening-climatically/comment-page-1/#comment-1256208

  10. Christopher Hanley

    The global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era (PAGES2k Consortium) Abstract states inter alia :
    “… Nearly half of the proxy time series are significantly correlated with HadCRUT4.2 surface temperature over the period 1850–2014 …” and the Summary refers a few times to correlation with the HadCRUT instrumental record.
    Wasn’t that a problem with Mann’s effort? Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
    Screening samples, excluding or devaluing samples that don’t look like good ‘thermometers’ almost inevitably gets you a ‘hockey stick’, how do they know that the proxy samples that chronologically overlap and happen to correlate with the instrumental record do so over the whole period i.e. the 2000 year “Common Era”?

    1. Christopher Hanley

      … instrumental record, had it existed over the whole period …

    2. SebastianH

      how do they know that the proxy samples that chronologically overlap and happen to correlate with the instrumental record do so over the whole period i.e. the 2000 year “Common Era”?

      They don’t. It’s an assumption being made. As the divergence problem of the tree ring proxies shows, those might not necessarily be reliable in all situations.

      1. AndyG55

        “It’s an assumption being made”

        ROFLMAO. !!!

        ASS-umption.

        AGW anti-science to a ‘T’

        It really is a fabricated little fantasy world, isn’t it seb.

  11. Philip Clarke

    “I literally have hundreds more papers like these. See if you can “debunk” these first few first before I post the next batch.”

    Everyone needs a hobby 😉 When did I ever claim the planet has NEVER been this warm? Heck I even cited Marcott.

    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

    And it is not just debunking that is needed, it is restoring the selective quotation. Eg

    “The Holocene Climate Optimum was a period of global climate warming that occurred between six to nine thousand years ago. At that time, the global average temperatures were somewhere between four to six degrees Celsius higher than they are today. ”

    Is followed by

    “That is the range of warming that climatologists are predicting due to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activity.”

    It’s the naughty step for you …

  12. Philip Clarke

    “Let’s look at the GISP ice core data…”

    The graph is wrong. The GISP2 data terminates in 1855.

    1. AndyG55

      So you admit that Mann and Pages2K are WRONG in their reconstruction.

      The up-tick at the end of the LIA is in the wrong place

      Well done.

      You finally figured it out. 🙂

  13. PAGES 2K 'Hockey Stick' Graph Validation Exposed as 'Corrupt' | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at notrickszone.com […]

  14. Philip Clarke

    ….. or why wine vineyards flourished in Scotland.

    Like Dalrossach (Aberdeenshire), Momentum (Fife) or Poly Croft (Outer Hebrides)?

    http://www.gbvg.uk/vineyard/dalrossach-vineyard
    http://www.gbvg.uk/vineyard/momentum-vineyard
    http://www.gbvg.uk/vineyard/poly-croft-vineyard

    “The reconstructed MCA pattern is characterized by warmth over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America, which appears to substantially exceed that of the modern late–20th century (1961–1990) baseline and is comparable to or exceeds that of the past one-to-two decades in some regions. This finding is consistent with that of a recent tree-ring–based study of high-latitude Eurasian temperatures. Relative warmth in the central North Pacific MCA is consistent with the expected extratropical signature of the strong observed La Niña–like pattern in the tropical Pacific (strong cooling in the east and warming in the west). Certain regions, such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and (with less confidence) parts of the South Atlantic, exhibit anomalous coolness ”

    Mann et al 2009.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1256.full

    1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

      From one of the screwball chatbot’s links…

      Dalrossach (dale of roses) is a research vineyard in the River Don valley of west Aberdeenshire at latitude 57N and altitude of 800 ft. No fields of shoulder high rows of vines here. Rather than push the standard UK vineyard model ever northwards, the approach has been to use short-season Baltic varieties for outdoor grapes. To cope with severe Spring frosts, these are grown in shallow trenches which can be covered with plastic or canvas if necessary while the vines are budding. This also allows utilisation of relatively warm near-ground temperatures throughout the rest of the growing season. Vines are also grown in polytunnels and greenhouses.

      lolololol

      Phlop Clarke plops again.

      1. AndyG55

        And the second one

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3424009/Best-stick-Bucky-Scotland-s-vineyard-didn-t-make-wine-year-area-s-rainy.html

        “Christopher Trotter claims to be the first vintner to make wine from grapes grown in the open air in Scotland since the Romans. (other than the one in the 12th century)

        The Polycroft on Lewes also have some indoor vines, ….however they are selling the fruit rather than making wine”

        A very hilarious FACE-PHLOP from the mindless parrot ! 🙂

        1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

          I’d be embarrassed for them, except they bring it on themselves. Such gluttons for punishment. So sad.

    2. tom0mason

      ….. or why wine vineyards flourished in Scotland.

      Like Dalrossach (Aberdeenshire), Momentum (Fife) or Poly Croft (Outer Hebrides)?

      You mean the ones currently covered in snow and have been for most of the last 2 months?

  15. Another Bust: PAGES 2k ‘Global’ Reconstruction Fails To Confirm The ‘Hockey Stick’ – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Ref.: http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/29/another-bust-pages-2k-global-reconstruction-fails-to-confirm-the-… […]

  16. Arctic warming seen in perspective | meteoLCD Weblog

    […] which were corrected in a second corrigendum published in 2015 (see a more complete discussion here). The relevant data for the Arctic are available at the NOAA website here; using the published […]

  17. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #310
  18. Nächste Pleite: ,Globale‘ Rekon­struktion PAGES 2K kann den ,Hockey­schläger‘ nicht bestätigen – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  19. Eric

    I keep being told the 2017 PAGES 2K paper matches Mann’s Hickey Stick. I can’t see where it does. Anyone else?