Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 29
th, 2016 at 11:12pm:
Your web site for 1997 shows +0.42C above 20th century average.
Note the NCDC/NOAA disclaimer: "Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time."
And of course you didn't see the claim of 62.45ºF?
The global baseline temperature differed. So that makes your anomalies different.
Then again Jones uses a lot of the "data" of Briffa and Mann. Mann's work has been seriously debunked.
Briffa? A new paper 'Uncertainties in tree-ring-based climate reconstructions probed'
Authors - ' Dr Matthew Schofield of Otago's Department of Mathematics and Statistics. His co-authors on the paper are departmental colleague Professor Richard Barker, Professor Andrew Gelman of Columbia University, Director of the Tree Ring Lab at Columbia Professor Ed Cook, and
Emeritus Professor Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia, UK.'
Conclusions - 'They found that competing models fit the Scots Pine data equally well but still led to substantially different predictions of historical temperature due to the differing assumptions underlying each model.
While the periods of relatively warmer and cooler temperatures were robust between models, the magnitude of the resulting temperatures was highly dependent on the model being used.
This suggests that there is less certainty than implied by a reconstruction developed using any one set of assumptions.'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160127101524.htmThe question then becomes how certain are we of the conclusions reached by Jones?
Forum
Pages: 
