[Vision2020] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: "Proxy-based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations Over the Past Two Millennia"

[Ted Moffett]

Which institution is a more credible source of well peer reviewed
professional science, Anthony Watts' "Wattsupwiththat" blog, or the National
Academy of Sciences?

Given the recent and widespread critical attacks against the professional
competence of certain climate scientists regarding their published peer
reviewed work on temperature analysis, coming from blogs of rather
questionable scientific integrity, it's appropriate to read the actual
published work of these scientists in question, for balance.

Content below at first website offers critical discussion of "Mike's Nature
trick," a reference to a phrase in an e-mail from recently stolen possibly
altered hacked e-mails of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia
University in the UK.  The e-mail in question was allegedly sent by CRU
scientist Phil Jones, to climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley
and Malcolm Hughes, dealing with the climate science of temperature
analysis:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

This e-mail under discussion also includes the phrase "hide the decline"
which is also discussed critically on the "Wattsupwiththat" blog at this
website:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/
-------------
At website below is a peer reviewed published article in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, authored in part by Michael Mann, Raymond
Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, dealing with some of the same temperature
analysis issues as are critiqued in the "Wattsupwiththat" blog discussions
above.  If this paper contained seriously flawed science, then the peer
review process at the National Academy of Sciences is in question.  However,
I suspect the peer review process is exemplary at the NAS, and that the
science in this paper is highly competent.

I'm not an expert on these complex climate science questions.  But I think
climate scientists Mann, Bradley and Hughes in their peer reviewed work as
monitored by the National Academy of Sciences, are more credible than
Anthony Watts' "Wattsupwiththat" blog as a source of competent credible
science.

Article in full:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full.pdf+html

Abstract:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract
 Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature
variations over the past two millennia

   1. Michael E.
Mann<http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Michael+E.++Mann&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   *<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#aff-1>
   ,†<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#corresp-1>,

   2. Zhihua Zhang<http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Zhihua++Zhang&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   *<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#aff-1>,

   3. Malcolm K.
Hughes<http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Malcolm+K.++Hughes&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   ‡<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#aff-2>,

   4. Raymond S.
Bradley<http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Raymond+S.++Bradley&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   §<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#aff-3>,

   5. Sonya K. Miller<http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Sonya+K.++Miller&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   *<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#aff-1>,

   6. Scott Rutherford<http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Scott++Rutherford&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   ¶<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#aff-4>,
   and
   7. Fenbiao Ni<http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Fenbiao++Ni&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   ‡<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#aff-2>

+ <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract#> Author
Affiliations

   1. *Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems
   Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
   2. ‡Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
   85721;
   3. §Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
   01003-9298; and
   4. ¶Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University,
   Bristol, RI 02809


   1.

   Communicated by Lonnie G. Thompson, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH,
   June 26, 2008 (received for review November 20, 2007)

 Abstract

Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC
(National Research Council) (2006) *Surface Temperature Reconstructions for
the Last 2,000 Years* (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct
surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last
2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for
decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data,
and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated
with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions
that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely
anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at
least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If
tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past
1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude
of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with
somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still
not reaching recent levels.

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091213/dcb0377e/attachment.html