Talk:Temperature record of the last 2,000 years

Reference 2

Reference 2 points... to this article !!! And I can't find the paper, if you know the reference, please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the missing Frank et al, 2010 paper to the list of references. Clicking on citation #2 now brings you to the paper. M.boli (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Snowfall/isotope.

Hmm well, DF edited to:

as is the amount of snowfall over many glacial sites. Further, the isotopic composition of snow, corals, and stalactites can also record temperature changes.

Snowfall *is* related to T, but its not a very good proxy and isn't really used much, AFAIK. If anything, I rather suspect that the deep timescales for Vostok etc are based on the reverse: T used to calibrate acc rate. Anyway, *all* the wiki graphs of ice cores T show the O18 T proxy; none show the snowfall proxy; so why give prominence to snowfall? William M. Connolley 08:57:41, 2005-07-24 (UTC).

Tree-rings etc...

Is Mann et al. same as Jones & Mann from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig4c.txt ?

I have verified (by other documentary series and by the model) some low peeks in file 4c "Annual unsmoothed ...", 3rd serie - documentary serie from Europe. But other series in this file differ from this serie significantly.

The tree-rings show not only global temperature, but also overall humidity and solar input to this tree. The less trees stand beside the measured one, the more sunlight is received and rings grow better. I`ve tried to analyse ITRDB database, but the spread is almost 100% - some trees show bigger rings in colder years and vice versa - rather depending on that-tree neighbourhood... Just as a conclusion - any temperature reconstruction based on tree-rings is anything but precise...

And the global temperature increase is not caused by greenhouse gasses (see also global dimming, but rather by continuously decreasing tree coverage. The bare ground is reflecing much more heat than the forest!

Semi 06/04/14.

the effect was very small

In 2004 Hans von Storch criticised its statistical techniques, but later accepted that the effect was very small

What does this mean? What effect? I checked the source but that did not help. Is it the effect Mc and Mc found? Then it should be "but later accepted that the effect existed, though it was very small". At the moment, it sounds as if Mc and Mc found that the effect Mann found was very small and von Storch agreed.

WikiBlame identified the place when this was introduced in 2013: [1], by User:Dave souza. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Much better now, thanks to Dave. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Blame accepted! I'd originally tried to summarise from Wegman Report#Critiques of MBH98 and MBH99 by McIntyre and McKitrick that von Storch testified that the "biased centering" ... "effect is very minor. It does not mean that it is not a glitch but it really doesn’t matter here, at least to the extent we could test it." Bit out of sequence and needed source, so have gone with Weart's overview. . dave souza, talk 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Move without discussion?

I came here because of this discussion at WikiProject Climate Change. User:Treetoes023 please revert your name change and rather have a discussion first, like it was done 4 years ago (scroll up a little). For example, the usage of "1 AD" strikes me as very odd and uncommon. Consensus should be reached first. EMsmile (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the 7 Nov 24 move should definitely have been discussed in advance. Scientifically, it's unduly specific (1 AD is a single year), and I agree it's clumsy in its language and choice of "AD" (rather than CE), with AD seeming to be deprecated in recent years for reasons of religious neutrality. Temperature record in the Common Era would have been both more appropriate and more graceful. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we now go ahead and change this to Temperature record in the Common Era? Personally, I don't think that "Common Era" is all that commonly used yet. So I would also be fine with "last 2,000 years" as it's perhaps easier to understand for the layperson. But I would not stand in the way of a page move. EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I cannot believe a typical school leaver in the UK, for example, would have any idea what “Common Era” means. And re non-native speakers “Common Era” is definitely C2(advanced) level vocab. So I oppose “Common Era”. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I only mentioned Temperature record in the Common Era as preferable to the short-lived Temperature record (1 AD – present). I am not advocating for a move/rename at this point. "2,000 years" is a good summary/estimate. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)