All of the proxy records have wide error bounds - which increase the further you go back. Adopting one or other as a gold standard is misguided. Instead of Kuhn and Popper we have a post modernist attitude where anything that can be rationalised in scientific jargon must be true.
'A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals are added. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the bimillennial average during most of the period 820 – 1040 AD. The Little Ice Age was significantly cooler than the average during most of 1440 – 1740 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.' Loehle and McCulloch 2008 - Correction to: A 2000 year... Just because it is in print doesn't mean it is true. As someone who didn't even who Wegman was (and I don't thank you for it)- I see no major discrepancies between the Wegman and the NAS report. One said Mann didn't have the evidence. One said it was 'plausible' with grounds for dou On Feb 26, 10:42 am, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, my point was that I did actually try to understand both papers > and wrote a reply which was published in E&E, not just a rant posted > on some blog to be forever lost in the shuffle. Perhaps you noticed > the note at the end of Loehle's second paper, thanking me and others > for our contribution in finding his errors. Have you taken the time > to read my comments or Gavin Schmidt's RealClimate post? > > E. S. > ------------------------------- > > Robert I Ellison wrote: > > Both the original and correction are in the Sunday School link? > > I don't know what you're point is? > > On Feb 25, 6:45 am, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Robert, > > > > Well then, where's the reference to the RealClimate post about > > > Loehle's 2007 paper? > > > And where's the reference to my commentary in E&E regarding Loehle's > > > 2008 "correction", a paper which was actually a new analysis??? > > > > Comments on Loehle, "Correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature > > > Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies", E&E, 18 (7 and 8), > > > 2007, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, September 2008, pp. > > > 771-773(3) > > > DOI: 10.1260/095830508784815964 > > > > E. S. > > --- > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
