M
Mephistopheles
Guest
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=767
Yes Roger, once the tree rings are excluded, the MWP reappears, even in the proxy studies....
It's not even the tree rings - poor proxies though they are - it's how the model treats them. Simply put, tree rings do not just continue to expand with temperature - at some point no matter how hotter it gets, next year's tree rings will not be wider than this year's tree rings. Thus, if the tree rings get only so wide, that doesn't mean it stopped warming.
Dana the whole is nothing but the sum of its parts. There is only one part of the world from which we have evidence that is known to have been cooler - the central Pacific, which is also cooler today.
You cannot bypass this. For the globe to have been cooler, the parts of the globe from which there is no evidence either way must have been significantly cooler. That would require the climate to have worked differently than it works today.
Yes Roger, once the tree rings are excluded, the MWP reappears, even in the proxy studies....
It's not even the tree rings - poor proxies though they are - it's how the model treats them. Simply put, tree rings do not just continue to expand with temperature - at some point no matter how hotter it gets, next year's tree rings will not be wider than this year's tree rings. Thus, if the tree rings get only so wide, that doesn't mean it stopped warming.
Dana the whole is nothing but the sum of its parts. There is only one part of the world from which we have evidence that is known to have been cooler - the central Pacific, which is also cooler today.
You cannot bypass this. For the globe to have been cooler, the parts of the globe from which there is no evidence either way must have been significantly cooler. That would require the climate to have worked differently than it works today.