Although temperature reconstructions are needed to study the Earth's energy balance, freshwater fluxes are arguably more immediately meaningful for ecosystem services and societal needs and will support detection and attribution exercises.
Although temperature reconstructions from proxy data help us understand the character of natural climate variability, attribution of recent climate change relies on a broad range of methodologies in addition to the proxy reconstructions.
Not exact matches
Although the primary driver of glacial — interglacial cycles lies in the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of incoming solar energy driven by changes in the geometry of the Earth's orbit around the Sun («orbital forcing»),
reconstructions and simulations together show that the full magnitude of glacial — interglacial
temperature and ice volume changes can not be explained without accounting for changes in atmospheric CO2 content and the associated climate feedbacks.
Although the HadCRUT4 forced Otto - style
reconstruction suggests 2014
temperatures were less than the 25th percentile of the CMIP5 distribution, following the same procedure with GISTEMP yields 2014
temperatures of 1.08 K — corresponding to the 58th percentile of the CMIP5 distribution.
As I demonstrated in my previous article, CET is considered by many to be some sort of reasonable indicator for global
temperatures,
although as Hubert Lamb remarked on
temperatures derived from trends and
reconstructions in general;
Although each of the
temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of
temperature change over the last several centuries.
In discussing previous models, they note (p. 150) that, «
Although most of these
temperature: d18O relationships appear to be similar,
temperature reconstructions can differ by as much as 2 C when ambient
temperature varies from 15 to 25 C.»
This type of Monte Carlo test is often used to benchmark
temperature reconstructions,
although McIntyre's method of creating «random» null proxies was unusual and highly questionable, as we shall see.
The
reconstruction is using part of the
temperature record (
although the ENSO part is three months prior).
Although he de-selected the Sargasso Sea
temperature reconstruction, he used Moberg's Arabian Sea -LSB-...]
Keigwin's Sargasso Sea
temperature reconstruction, used in Moberg et al 2005, was de-selected by Juckes in what he represented to be the Moberg CVM composite and in making the Union composite (
although he managed to use Tornetrask twice?!? under different names).
Furthermore, from the latest emails, it appears that
although earlier
temperature records were available, they were not used because they did not contain a «
temperature signal» presumably meaning that the match with the
reconstruction was not particularly good.
But it was cold this winter and C02 is plant food and only a trace gas and the greenhouse effect has been disproved anyway and even if the greenhouse effect does exist, C02 has negligible impact compared to water vapour and our only source of heat is the sun so it must be the sun, unless it is due to the C02 from volcanoes, but C02 follows warming so it can't be the C02 and the medieval warm period was warmer anyway and all the
temperature reconstructions that show this not to be true are produced by corrupt scientists being paid by corrupt governments that have colluded to create an excuse to form a one world unelected social - ist government and even if the scientists are not that corrupt,
although the e-mails prove they are, they have still got it wrong as the climate sensitivity is not as high as they think it is because it is basically the planets orbits and cosmic rays so we can say for a fact that the warming that probably does not exist is definatley not due to humans and even if it was the evidence is not sufficient to make drastic changes to the economy and increase taxes so that the politicians and scientists and business leaders get rich and leave us all poor — do they think we are stupid or something?
The report noted that
although these
temperature record
reconstructions «are not the primary evidence for the widely accepted views that global warming is occurring, [and] that human activities are contributing, at least in part, to this warming,» they «are consistent with other evidence of global climate change and can be considered as additional supporting evidence.»
This
reconstruction displays the warmest
temperatures of any
reconstruction during the 10th and early 11th centuries,
although still below the level of warmth observed since 1980.
Although the existence of an upside down quadratic response to
temperature has been known for a long time (e.g., Fritts 1976), current tree ring - based
reconstructions universally assume that a linear approximation is not problematic, which is equivalent to the assumption that past climates do not deviate far from those in the calibration period, as will be shown.