Not exact matches
In fact, the true test of climate models is
paleoclimate reconstruction, in
which they have been rather successful.
Firstly
paleoclimate is not driven in any way by CO2 but by the proximity of planet Earth to supernova
which Svensmark has helpfully converted into a nice graph that is a remarkable fit to global temperature
reconstructions.
Paleoclimate reconstructions are an application of multivariate calibration,
which provides a theoretical basis for confidence interval calculation (e.g., refs.
In this study,
which was led by Oregan State University, funded by the US National Science Foundation's
Paleoclimate Program and just published in Science, researchers used «extensive sea and land surface temperature
reconstructions» of around 21,000 years ago — in stead of the (late) Holocene temperature record that is mostly used.
More recently two of the authors published Viau et al (2012)
which surely supports the contention of this SkS OP as it kicks off its conclusions stating «The pollen - based
paleoclimate reconstructions show that warmer conditions during the MWP and cooler in the LIA were all nevertheless cooler than the 1961 — 1990 base period, and this result emerges even without comparing the results to the instrumental record.»
One of the longest standing Climate Audit issues with
paleoclimate reconstructions is ex post decisions on inclusion / exclusion of data, of
which ex post decisions on inclusion / exclusion of sites / data in «regional [treering] chronologies» is one important family.
Such potential changes in variability are in agreement with instrumental records and
paleoclimate reconstructions,
which show that the magnitude and trend of hydroclimatic variability has not been constant in the Southwest during the Common Era (C.E.).
New
reconstructions of
paleoclimates differ on precisely when and where the warmer and colder conditions occurred, including
which seasons were particularly warm or cool.