cancel2 2022
Canceled
.
Nature Communications by Buentgen et al reported on the results of a double-blind experiment of 15 different groups that yielded 15 different Northern Hemisphere summer temperature reconstructions.
Each group used the same network of regional tree-ring width datasets.
What’s fascinating is that all groups, though using the same data network, came up with a different result.
When it comes to deriving temperatures from tree rings, it has much to do with individual approach and interpretation. Sure we can follow the science, but whose results? Maybe people can niw see why climate aiarmists are so terrified to allow their results to be criticized?
The 15 groups (referred to as R1–R15) were challenged with the same task of developing the most reliable NH summer temperature reconstruction for the Common Era
Published: 07 June 2021
The influence of decision-making in tree ring-based climate reconstructions
Ulf Büntgen, Kathy Allen, …Jan Esper
Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 3411 (2021) Cite this article
Abstract
Tree-ring chronologies underpin the majority of annually-resolved reconstructions of Common Era climate. However, they are derived using different datasets and techniques, the ramifications of which have hitherto been little explored. Here, we report the results of a double-blind experiment that yielded 15 Northern Hemisphere summer temperature reconstructions from a common network of regional tree-ring width datasets. Taken together as an ensemble, the Common Era reconstruction mean correlates with instrumental temperatures from 1794–2016 CE at 0.79 (p < 0.001), reveals summer cooling in the years following large volcanic eruptions, and exhibits strong warming since the 1980s. Differing in their mean, variance, amplitude, sensitivity, and persistence, the ensemble members demonstrate the influence of subjectivity in the reconstruction process. We therefore recommend the routine use of ensemble reconstruction approaches to provide a more consensual picture of past climate variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23627-6
Nature Communications by Buentgen et al reported on the results of a double-blind experiment of 15 different groups that yielded 15 different Northern Hemisphere summer temperature reconstructions.
Each group used the same network of regional tree-ring width datasets.
What’s fascinating is that all groups, though using the same data network, came up with a different result.
When it comes to deriving temperatures from tree rings, it has much to do with individual approach and interpretation. Sure we can follow the science, but whose results? Maybe people can niw see why climate aiarmists are so terrified to allow their results to be criticized?
The 15 groups (referred to as R1–R15) were challenged with the same task of developing the most reliable NH summer temperature reconstruction for the Common Era
Published: 07 June 2021
The influence of decision-making in tree ring-based climate reconstructions
Ulf Büntgen, Kathy Allen, …Jan Esper
Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 3411 (2021) Cite this article
Abstract
Tree-ring chronologies underpin the majority of annually-resolved reconstructions of Common Era climate. However, they are derived using different datasets and techniques, the ramifications of which have hitherto been little explored. Here, we report the results of a double-blind experiment that yielded 15 Northern Hemisphere summer temperature reconstructions from a common network of regional tree-ring width datasets. Taken together as an ensemble, the Common Era reconstruction mean correlates with instrumental temperatures from 1794–2016 CE at 0.79 (p < 0.001), reveals summer cooling in the years following large volcanic eruptions, and exhibits strong warming since the 1980s. Differing in their mean, variance, amplitude, sensitivity, and persistence, the ensemble members demonstrate the influence of subjectivity in the reconstruction process. We therefore recommend the routine use of ensemble reconstruction approaches to provide a more consensual picture of past climate variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23627-6
