Small changes in trend can swing earlier proxy reconstructions rather wildly and lead to
even larger error bars as we go back in time.
Not exact matches
But you would not end up with a very different picture except that the
error bars would be
larger and the resolved variance smaller —
even if it validated... - gavin]
This actually widens the
error bars so much that for
large aerosol forcings, you can not rule out
even zero climate sensitivity.
I would like to see a graph with
larger error bars (0.1 or
even 0.02 degrees) along with the data and the trend lines to get a better feel for it.
Unfortunately the
error bars on human aerosols are so
large that
even TCR can't be reasonably constrained.
Because if you don't believe the instrumental temperature record, then why
even bother to attempt a very much less accurate method of reconstruction, where the
error bars are most likely
larger than the reconstructed time series itself?
Without the decline, as a non-specialist, I had no particular reason to doubt the usefulness of the proxy, it makes sense that the growth of trees is influenced by temperature,
even if as a gardener, I also have strong suspicion it is not the only parameter so I expect quite
large error bars