<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Eli Rabett Explains Why RealClimate Scientists Can&#039;t Update the Proxies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/</link>
	<description>by Steve McIntyre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 05:07:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: D. Patterson</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113401</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[D. Patterson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113401</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: #99

Yes, Steve, I understood it was a different area. I just wanted to highlight two notable exceptions to any assumptions that precipitation patterns on the western slopes of the mountain ranges of the Pacific region are going to be uniformly wet. Rain shadows can affect a number of measurements ranging from precipitation quantities to radioisotopic identification of the sources of the precipitation. Investigators who may assume the historical precipitation patterns were dominated by current prevailing wind patterns may inadvertently produce false conclusions whenever and wherever past changes in prevailing winds and precipitaton sources also changed rain shadow footprints. I believe it is incumbent upon the invesitgators to first establish evidence of the rainfall patterns, rain shadows, and so forth before they can attempt to postulate any reasonable conclusions regarding precipation characteristics and sources.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: #99</p>
<p>Yes, Steve, I understood it was a different area. I just wanted to highlight two notable exceptions to any assumptions that precipitation patterns on the western slopes of the mountain ranges of the Pacific region are going to be uniformly wet. Rain shadows can affect a number of measurements ranging from precipitation quantities to radioisotopic identification of the sources of the precipitation. Investigators who may assume the historical precipitation patterns were dominated by current prevailing wind patterns may inadvertently produce false conclusions whenever and wherever past changes in prevailing winds and precipitaton sources also changed rain shadow footprints. I believe it is incumbent upon the invesitgators to first establish evidence of the rainfall patterns, rain shadows, and so forth before they can attempt to postulate any reasonable conclusions regarding precipation characteristics and sources.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveSadlov</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113400</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SteveSadlov]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113400</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The study area is not in the Cascades. It is in the Coast Range, only a few miles inland from the Pacific.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The study area is not in the Cascades. It is in the Coast Range, only a few miles inland from the Pacific.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D. Patterson</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113399</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[D. Patterson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: #96, #97

Readers should note it is important to recognize there are areas of substantial precipitation along the West slopes of the Cascade Mountain Range which are subject to reduced rainfall because they fall within the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains on the Olympic Peninsula. At present, the rain shadow mostly affects Island County and western portion of Skagit County. However, historical changes in the prevailing winds may have shifted the direction of the rain shadow to other adjacent areas in the past. At present, the rain shadow tends to reduce the precipitation at a rate of about ten inches for each ten miles as you go westward. Around the seacoast the average annual precipitation can be about 25 inches per year. Moving eastwards towards the Cascade Mountains, the rainfaill around Burlington - Mt. Vernon can be ten to twenty inches greater at around 35 to 45 inches per year. This increases further as you move into the Skagit River Valley until you reach nearly 100 inches of rain per year near the crest of the mountain range. Adiabatic heating of the winds on the eastern slopes of the mountains then dessicates the environments on that side of the mountains.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: #96, #97</p>
<p>Readers should note it is important to recognize there are areas of substantial precipitation along the West slopes of the Cascade Mountain Range which are subject to reduced rainfall because they fall within the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains on the Olympic Peninsula. At present, the rain shadow mostly affects Island County and western portion of Skagit County. However, historical changes in the prevailing winds may have shifted the direction of the rain shadow to other adjacent areas in the past. At present, the rain shadow tends to reduce the precipitation at a rate of about ten inches for each ten miles as you go westward. Around the seacoast the average annual precipitation can be about 25 inches per year. Moving eastwards towards the Cascade Mountains, the rainfaill around Burlington &#8211; Mt. Vernon can be ten to twenty inches greater at around 35 to 45 inches per year. This increases further as you move into the Skagit River Valley until you reach nearly 100 inches of rain per year near the crest of the mountain range. Adiabatic heating of the winds on the eastern slopes of the mountains then dessicates the environments on that side of the mountains.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveSadlov</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113398</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SteveSadlov]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113398</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RE: #96 - the study area is on the west facing, coastal slope, of the Oregon Coast Ranges. I&#039;d imagine that annual rainfall is 60 - 80 inches, with only a minimal &quot;dry&quot; season in summer. During summer, being close to the coast, fog and drizzle give some moisture even when it&#039;s not properly raining. Now here is a case where one might successfully argue that a tree &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be a reasonable temperature proxy. Doug Firs here on the Pacific Coast actually grow in the late winter through mid fall. In fact, it&#039;s easier to talk about when they are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; growing, since they grow like weeds here. As good of a treemometer as you are likely to find, certainly massively better than BCPs. Still not perfect though, for all the usual reasons.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: #96 &#8211; the study area is on the west facing, coastal slope, of the Oregon Coast Ranges. I&#8217;d imagine that annual rainfall is 60 &#8211; 80 inches, with only a minimal &#8220;dry&#8221; season in summer. During summer, being close to the coast, fog and drizzle give some moisture even when it&#8217;s not properly raining. Now here is a case where one might successfully argue that a tree <em>could</em> be a reasonable temperature proxy. Doug Firs here on the Pacific Coast actually grow in the late winter through mid fall. In fact, it&#8217;s easier to talk about when they are <em>not</em> growing, since they grow like weeds here. As good of a treemometer as you are likely to find, certainly massively better than BCPs. Still not perfect though, for all the usual reasons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113397</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113397</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[92, 95, Before we start saying that Washington trees aren&#039;t moisture limited, do we know exactly where these trees are? Probably 1/3 of the state is desert. The east slopes of the Cascades and even the Olympics have dry spots.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>92, 95, Before we start saying that Washington trees aren&#8217;t moisture limited, do we know exactly where these trees are? Probably 1/3 of the state is desert. The east slopes of the Cascades and even the Olympics have dry spots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveSadlov</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113396</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SteveSadlov]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RE: #92 - Definitely not moisture limited in that location. Incidentially, I took down one at my place, eye balled the rings, no trend of any kind.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: #92 &#8211; Definitely not moisture limited in that location. Incidentially, I took down one at my place, eye balled the rings, no trend of any kind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: windansea</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113395</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[windansea]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eli&#039;s newest post

Where is the European Warm Period in the Bristlecone Record?

http://rabett.blogspot.com/

:)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eli&#8217;s newest post</p>
<p>Where is the European Warm Period in the Bristlecone Record?</p>
<p><a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://rabett.blogspot.com/</a><br />
 <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve McIntyre</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113394</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve McIntyre]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:13:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#91. All of the Washington chronologies were archived at ITRDB and as far as I can tell there was nothing odd about the standardization method. No plausible explanation has ever been provided for Mann&#039;s deletion of these chronologies. Although there is evidence of considerable attention to detail in the deletion of chronologies as witness the notorious Hughes email.

Graumlich did not archive her foxtail chronologies in the same time timely fashion. A number of her ffoxtail chronologies, including the ones in Graumlich 1991 cited in IPCC Review Comments, remain unarchived as are her  Cirque Peak measurements which may not have been &quot;temperature sensitive&quot;.  She archived some sites inMay 2007 this year, only after a long campaign by ne.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#91. All of the Washington chronologies were archived at ITRDB and as far as I can tell there was nothing odd about the standardization method. No plausible explanation has ever been provided for Mann&#8217;s deletion of these chronologies. Although there is evidence of considerable attention to detail in the deletion of chronologies as witness the notorious Hughes email.</p>
<p>Graumlich did not archive her foxtail chronologies in the same time timely fashion. A number of her ffoxtail chronologies, including the ones in Graumlich 1991 cited in IPCC Review Comments, remain unarchived as are her  Cirque Peak measurements which may not have been &#8220;temperature sensitive&#8221;.  She archived some sites inMay 2007 this year, only after a long campaign by ne.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EW</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113393</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EW]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From &lt;a href=&quot;http://dendrolab.indstate.edu/nadef/Reports/2006_MannPresentation.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;another Mann&lt;/a&gt; (D.) - about Douglas firs in Oregon, apparently not drought-limited. And no &lt;em&gt;unprecedennnnted&lt;/em&gt; trends.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From <a href="http://dendrolab.indstate.edu/nadef/Reports/2006_MannPresentation.pdf" rel="nofollow">another Mann</a> (D.) &#8211; about Douglas firs in Oregon, apparently not drought-limited. And no <em>unprecedennnnted</em> trends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EW</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/26/eli-rabett-explains-why-realclimate-scientists-cant-update-the-proxies/#comment-113392</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EW]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2273#comment-113392</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#74
Thanks, SteveM. I suppose that Graumlich&#039;s dendrochronologies aren&#039;t archived?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#74<br />
Thanks, SteveM. I suppose that Graumlich&#8217;s dendrochronologies aren&#8217;t archived?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
