2010-09-29 00:51:23Rapid blog post on Ljungqvist . Loehle
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
129.170.23.6

There's a new Northern Hemisphere reconstruction out, by Ljungqvist.  WUWT has a post by Loehle claiming that it vindicates his 2008 reconstruction, which it really doesn't.

I'm trying to rather hurriedly pull together a blog post about this, showing how closely Ljungqvist 2010 matches both Mann 2008 and Moberg 2005 (and what a poor match it is for Loehle).  I think this needs to be done fast, because WUWT is getting all triumphalist about this (and others are starting to put their oars in, too ... e.g., Tamino).

2010-09-29 01:27:37comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.10.124
It also matches Viau et al 2006 too....

I posted over there about it but we shall see what they say...
2010-09-29 01:46:49comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.10.124
How do you plot the data when it is in decades? like the decades go from 1-200 but how do I put on the titles 0 to 2000...

Im not working on the post, just for curiosity's sake more or less..
2010-09-29 03:10:42
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
129.170.23.6
How do you plot the data when it is in decades?  Center it on the middle of the decade (1905, 1915, 1925, etc....)
2010-09-29 03:19:56to my non-trained eye
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.30.233

all the wiggly curves in Fig. 2 look kind of alike.

My take-away would be, "Loehle's stuff looks about as good as anyone else's."

If that's not your message, it would be helpful to express it more clearly.

2010-09-29 03:40:59
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
129.170.23.6

Well, they are kind of alike.  The differences in the curves are relatively subtle, compared to the level of noise among them.  As I discuss in the post, Loehle seems to be a bit high in the MWP and a bit low in the LIA, especially for a "global" reconstruction (in contrast to Ljungqvist 2010, which is NH only).

A lot of people's impression of Loehle's reconstruction was based on the serious flaws in L2007.  The corrected version (2008) is methodologically unsound but the results are not all that far from anybody else's reconstruction.  Oh, yes, and skeptics like to pretend that the end of Loehle 2008 is "current" temperatures, when it's actually 1930ish.  Thus the importance of including instrumental temps.

2010-09-29 04:14:25comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.10.124
You know, I never thought of centering on 1905 ...etc... never even crossed my mind. Good post though. I saw you were saying you might have a look at MW 2010.

If you do, wait to see what Mcintyres comments will be also (he submitted a comment also)


Anyways. I think you did a good job here. Personally I was kinda mad over the centering issue that Tamino brought up cause I thought it was pretty "convenient" the way it made things appear. Either way you really do show pretty good that we aren't talking about THAT much difference between the different reconstructions and that people should chill out a bit. Different methods and relatively all the same conclusions...