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.
Indeed, increasing variability at longer scales actually ties in better
with paleoclimate reconstructions than the assumption of averaging out.
Not exact matches
«Our study has found evidence to the contrary, suggesting that in fact, the future long - term trend based on
paleoclimate reconstructions is likely towards diminishing precipitation,
with no relief in the form of increased Mediterranean storms, the primary source of annual precipitation to the region, in the foreseeable future.»
The committee has prepared a report that, in my view, provides policy makers and the scientific community
with a critical view of surface temperature
reconstructions and how they are evolving over time, as well as a good sense of how important our understanding of the
paleoclimate temperature record is within the overall state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.
As changes in temperature and light can be excluded as reasons for the decline in magnesium concentrations, the researchers interpret it as a clear reaction to ocean acidification —
with implications for
paleoclimate reconstructions.
1)
paleoclimate reconstructions are reasonably robust 2)
paleoclimate reconstructions are in their early days and the conclusions are still a bit tentative 3)
paleoclimate reconstructions are nonsense, and 4)
paleoclimate reconstructions are the products of a corrupt system engaged in corrupt practices (implictly
with corrupt people).
Well the take away message seems that given the large range of
paleoclimate reconstructions, you can cherry pick them to agree ok
with your model simulations.
This will facilitate the creation of targeted observational networks, provide test beds for
reconstruction methods, and enable comparisons
with paleoclimate model simulations.
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.).
In contrast, all
paleoclimate reconstructions seem to be consistent
with the simple HK (Hurst Kolmomgorov) model.
Another approach would be to comment at Jeff Id's «the Air Vent,» a lower - traffic blog where the host is a layperson
with statistical training who is engaged in understanding dendro's contributions to
paleoclimate reconstructions.
Perhaps surprisingly, some of the social and statistical issues that this field struggled
with may be quite relevant to
paleoclimate reconstruction.
Finally, why fool
with tree rings when ice core d18O is a far, far superior proxy for
paleoclimate reconstructions?
Raymond S. Bradley provides his readers
with a comprehensive and up - to - date review of all of the important methods used in paleoclimatic
reconstruction, dating and
paleoclimate modeling.
For the further comparison
with other
paleoclimate data, therefore, the MXD
reconstruction is used; although the reader should take note that the relatively low sample replication in the MXD data generally gives a wider error band (Fig. 5).
The MBH98 and MBH99 papers are focused on
paleoclimate temperature
reconstruction and conclusions therein focus on what appear to be a rapid rise in global temperature during the 1990s when compared
with temperatures of the previous millennium.