National Academies advisory: Past surface temperatures and climate
change

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, a new
congressionally requested report from the National Academies’ National
Research Council, assesses efforts to estimate historical temperature
variations based on tree rings, boreholes, and other “proxy” evidence.
The report also evaluates researchers’ conclusions about the planet’s
recent warming compared to temperature trends in past centuries. It
will be released at a one-hour public briefing.
BRIEFING DETAILS:
Thursday, June 22, at 11 a.m. EDT in the Lecture Room of the National
Academies building, 2100 C St., N.W., Washington, D.C. Those who cannot
attend may listen to a live audio webcast and submit questions by
e-mail at http://nationalacademies.org.

###
REPORTERS: Register to attend the briefing or obtain an advance copy of
the report by contacting the Office of News and Public Information;
tel. 202-334-2138 or e-mail n…@nas.edu. Advance copies will be
available to reporters only beginning at 3 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, June
21. THE REPORT IS EMBARGOED AND NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 11 A.M.
EDT ON JUNE 22.

What started my own cycle of doubt were the following:
* Referring to the James book, 1990 arrived, and it looked like in 7 years, “it” would not happen (alluding to “It Will Happen In 1997″ – James’ subtitle).
* As I aged, my formal education really started to kick in. I took a more data driven approach. I learned via hard knocks about noise, measurement system errors, selective data mining, and other problems.
* 1997 came and went, and still “it” had not happened.
* In the big picture, the sea ice continued to cycle as expected and the dramatic “evidence that the ice caps (sic) were melting” turned out to look more and more like observations taken in years that were in the lower range of extent. Got variation?
* I listed out all the potential sources of bias in surface readings and could not really convince myself that a single one of them ought to be discounted. Then, I tried to imagine how I might correct for such biases and quickly got way beyond my own math capabilities. That was telling.
* I ran into M&M’s 2003 paper and that pretty much sewed it up.
* Since then, I drilled down on (pun intended?) the Bristlecone Studies orthogonal to my own personal knowledge of the White Mountains and Eastern Sierra, and concluded that no one in their right mind would want to use Bristlecones as temperature proxies. Later, I began to question using any tree rings as proxies.

No agenda aforethough, only personal development at work for me.

There is a map at: http://thelostsquadron.com/p-38-pages/p-38-lightning-history.htm

The question arises as to whether they sank through the ice or were buried. The best argument I have read is that their centre of gravity is forward of their centre of lift and if sinking through air water or ice they would tend to go nose down but they were found horizontal. The other argument is that they exert insufficient pressure on the ice to melt it at the low temperatures where they landed.

This seems to be another bit of history (more recent than others) that is inconvenient for certain theories.

…always nice to see people upholding association with the IPCC as the Gold Standard…

Hercules was associated with the Augean stables …

Jae sez “I’ll bet the Hockey Team is going to lose, big time.”

So… exactly how much are you prepared to bet? Or are these just empty words?

#72 “I am a peer reviewer for IPCC 4AR” – always nice to see people upholding association with the IPCC as the Gold Standard. But could you clarify: you mean you are an “expert reviewer”?

I don’t have the dates on he MWP but watching Father Ted now I was reminded that the Ice age (Not the little one) ended on July the 19th.