The histogram shows that the range and distribution was similar to that presented previously for approximately 1/3 of the stations. A chi square goodness of fit test indicated that the distribution would not fit a normal distribution, and therefore in the following analysis I used median, quartiles and range to specify some sub groups in the sample.

I deemed further analysis necessary since the TRW measurements come more frequently from higher elevations. To this end I divided the station sample of summer maximum trend – annual mean trend into somewhat equal parts by elevation. Those results are presented in the table below and are given again in degrees centigrade per century. While at the extremes of elevations one might discern a difference, that difference is small.

The first histogram below was constructed using the correlation of summer maximum to annual mean temperatures for the approximate period 1894-2006 for approximately 1/3 of the USCHN stations. There are missing data and particularly in the earlier part of period. The correlation function ignores data where one or both of the summer maximum and annual mean temperatures were missing. Note that the frequency of occurrence is given for r^2 (and not r). The station to station spread in correlations somewhat surprised me.

The second histogram compared the differences in station temperature trends for the summer maximum and annual mean and is reported in degrees C per century for the period 1920-2006. I used only stations with complete data for this period and as a consequence reduced the number of stations compared to the number used in the first histogram by 15%. The spread in the trend differences probably surprised me more than the R^2 spreads.

Would you clarify where data for your “update” prior to 1240′s comes from? I was not aware you had any cores going back to the 900′s.

Is it a “fresh” manipulation of Graybill or LaMarche?

I do not want someone of JEG’s climate science persuasion avoiding the pertinent question, which for our purposes is not explaining teleconnections in climates past and present, as he has done in peer reviewed papers, but rather how does one explain the use a prior of a teleconnected temperature that can be separated from the local temperature. And do it with an example or two by showing how this was validly applied to temperature reconstructions.

In JEG’s case we have reason to believe from reading at his blog that he is a very politically sensitive climate scientist who has stated he wants to educate and change the world. Combine that with his personality and we have a climate scientist whose little grey cells can impart some insights on the science (or at least give us a glimpse into what they actually contain on this matter) or digress into quips about denialists’ behavior.

If JEG does return to discuss teleconnections in temperature proxies I would defer to an initial one on one conversation between Bender and JEG that could be opened to general discussion later. We might learn something from Steve M’s visit to GT and how they handle what could be a politically charged environment if their preconceptions of Steve M are as a political enemy and not the retired mathematician/statistician/puzzle solver with an in depth knowledge of a variety of areas of climate science that we are more familiar with.

I am bending backward to accommodate the use of a teleconnective proxy response correlation in lieu of a local proxy response correlation

And you seemed like such a nice young boy.

Mark

Do you find it plausible that teleconnections justify use of California (strip-bark) BCPs as valid global temperature proxies?

No. (Remove “strip-bark”, and the answer is still “no”.) The principle is valid. However, in practice, the strength of apparent teleconnection correlation may not be indicative of the true local proxy response to temperature.

Bender is really bending backwards to be accommodative of the princple.

Tempted to reply: ‘that’s what benders do: bend things’. But I’m not bending backward to accommodate the principle of teleconnection. I am bending backward to accommodate the use of a teleconnective proxy response correlation in lieu of a local proxy response correlation. In the absence of a better explanation by a JEG or a Rob Wilson, I am trying to provide the best reasonable argument a dendro could give in defense of the practise. I clearly distinguish between the immature phase of hunting for correlative patterns, vs. the mature phases of proxy research where you know what the causal relationship is betwen proxy object and its environment.

One would hope that trillion dollar global policies would not be based on weak preliminary guesses. But that’s not always how the push-pull science-policy interface works.