[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
4568
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: How climate science should NOT be done
|
From ClimateAudit A question for readers: which of the following proxies are used to reconstruct past Southern Hemisphere temperature in the IPCC’s graphic (Figure 5.7b) showing SH reconstructions: 1. Graybill’s California strip-bark bristlecone chronologies 2. upside down and contaminated Finnish lake sediments 3. European instrumental temperature data 4. Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period The answer, rather remarkably, is that IPCC’s SH temperature reconstructions in their signature spaghetti graph (Figure 5.7b) used California bristlecone chronologies, upside down Tiljander and European instrumental temperature data, but did not use Antarctic isotope data covering the medieval period. Isn't that amazing? Climate science gets really weird sometimes, especially when the paleoclimate reconstructions are done. In this case Southern Hemisphere temperature for the past 2,000 years was reconstructed from more Northern Hemisphere proxies than Southern Hemisphere proxies. Bristecone pines from the American west which the National Academy of Science said should not be used at all (especially for the Southern Hemisphere!). Finnish lake sediments are are used upside down from the original author/creator of the dataset. And European instrumental temperature. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Cheers Jim |
4572
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: do you have a degree in climatology?
| or a degree in any field of science? |
Responses:
[4592]
4592
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: i'll construe your lack of an answer as a "NO" to both questions (NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]