Muller's premature ejaculation last week really got me thinking about how confident we should be in our observations and proxy implied reconstructions.
Raw temp data would be very good but conditions change, sites move, populations increase, thermometres change, land use changes, and a host of other factors change. The adjustments we make (or dont make) are a significant fraction of the change in trends. We will never have total agreement over how those adjustments should be made but at least the BEST group will have open access to the data and (hopefully) transparent methodologies to show how the data is manipulated. Other groups will be able to construct their own methodologies and argue why their figures are more representative. This is a good thing and will do away with scandals like in New Zealand where the govt agency just quit rather than defend their methods.
Proxy reconstructions of past climate are in much worse shape. I dont know how many of you have looked at proxy data but typically they are almost all noise with a very weak signal that has to be teased out by complicated methodologies that are extremely sensitive to start and stop dates, averaging, smoothing and especially cherry picking. C'mon now, Mann has been caught several times using proxies UPSIDE DOWN! And it gets through pal review. I could point to reconstructions like Loehle 2007 that show strong MWP and LIA but really I dont trust any of them as anything more than sugguestions of what might have happened.
Other measurements like sea level rise have problems too. Satellite measurements may (or may not) be accurate but they are calibrated to tide gauges. I am not saying we shouldnt measure thing because we cant do it perfectly, I am saying that we are being told things with unrealistic estimations of uncertainty. Our knowledge of the climate is rapidly expanding but it would progress even faster without being contorted to fit the AGW scenario at every turn. There are numerous topics that need to be explored but dont get the funding that CO2 siphons off. Clouds, thermal time lags, solar effects, multidecadal ocean currents, ENSO, etc,etc.
Rant off....
Raw temp data would be very good but conditions change, sites move, populations increase, thermometres change, land use changes, and a host of other factors change. The adjustments we make (or dont make) are a significant fraction of the change in trends. We will never have total agreement over how those adjustments should be made but at least the BEST group will have open access to the data and (hopefully) transparent methodologies to show how the data is manipulated. Other groups will be able to construct their own methodologies and argue why their figures are more representative. This is a good thing and will do away with scandals like in New Zealand where the govt agency just quit rather than defend their methods.
Proxy reconstructions of past climate are in much worse shape. I dont know how many of you have looked at proxy data but typically they are almost all noise with a very weak signal that has to be teased out by complicated methodologies that are extremely sensitive to start and stop dates, averaging, smoothing and especially cherry picking. C'mon now, Mann has been caught several times using proxies UPSIDE DOWN! And it gets through pal review. I could point to reconstructions like Loehle 2007 that show strong MWP and LIA but really I dont trust any of them as anything more than sugguestions of what might have happened.
Other measurements like sea level rise have problems too. Satellite measurements may (or may not) be accurate but they are calibrated to tide gauges. I am not saying we shouldnt measure thing because we cant do it perfectly, I am saying that we are being told things with unrealistic estimations of uncertainty. Our knowledge of the climate is rapidly expanding but it would progress even faster without being contorted to fit the AGW scenario at every turn. There are numerous topics that need to be explored but dont get the funding that CO2 siphons off. Clouds, thermal time lags, solar effects, multidecadal ocean currents, ENSO, etc,etc.
Rant off....
