Sorry, but we all understand that these reconstructions are only approximations, and some are fairly crude. And the author made that clear.
First: no need to apologise. We all make mistakes. Some of us try to learn from them, though.
Secondly: he didn't say they were "fairly crude". He pointed out there was evidence of systematic bias and that some of them must be flat wrong. Again, your spin will doubtless endear you to believers, but try reading the text.
However, his principle finding was that in order for the measured warming to be within the bounds of natural variability, ALL of the reconstructions must be SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERESTIMATING the variability in the climate record.
And he made it quite clear in his paper that there is a scientific basis for believing they all do just that, and that until those questions are answered the conclusions that you want to draw cannot be drawn.
You know what I was thinking? Right. You must have ESP.
No, I pointed out that the inference you made required you to entirely miss what Halley described as "obvious". I'm not using ESP, but this thing called logic and reasoning. It may seem like ESP to you if logic and reasoning is alien to your way of thinking.
The author discussed the limitations of the data. I am aware of that.
Yes, the author discussed the limitations of the data, and observed that the conclusions you want to draw were not yet possible. But keep spinning
I even included a mention of it in the snippet of his paper that I posted. If you didn't catch, maybe you might want to consider a remedial reading class.
No, your quote mine was not an honest admission of the problems with the data.
Believe it or not, all data are flawed; otherwise, doing research would be trivial.
Thank you for the meaningless platitude. And no, even if data were not flawed, research would still be needed. It would just be easier.
It just so happens that all of the reconstructions are on one side: the side of having variances too small to support the conclusion that the recent warming falls within natural variability. And that is all that I've said about what the paper claims.
And it is the statement "falls within natural variability" that cannot be drawn, because there is another possible conclusion: that the variance in the reconstructions are biased.
You see, this is how science works. When there are two possible conclusions that can be drawn, both of which are supported by the literature, you can't just ignore the one you don't like very much. You have to acknowledge either could be right (and, likewise, either can be wrong).
Bias noise is a "flaw" (in your terminology) which can result in all the reconstructions being on one side. This is not hard to understand, which is why Halley mentions it in his paper and states that it is "obvious". Until you can rule out this conclusion, you cannot rule out the very real possibility that this is the cause of the discrepency.
And that ignores the fact that just changing the instrumental version halves the magnitude of the measured effect. Any decent physicist would be concerned if just changing the version of the data had such a profound impact on their results. Of course, if you are seeking confirmation, then you just ignore this problem.
Remember, I only brought up Halley as a counter to Cohn and Lins. (it's amusing that you don't want to acknowledge problems with Cohn and Lins).
I can't help it if you don't understand what Cohn and Lins were pointing out. They acknowledge the limits of their analysis in their paper. Just like Halley does. These are all good papers; but as with all advocates, you want to create a ludicrous polemic out of it.
This sub-thread is rather academic, and not very interesting.
Funny how things become "not very interesting" when you ignore the content of the papers so clearly. You ignore the nuances and caveats in both the Cohn and Lins paper and the Halley paper. Having ignored all of the nuance, you use this to claim one is wrong and one is right. The nuance is critical to understanding the papers. When you eliminate it, you are engaging in pointless advocacy and polemics, not science.
Within the range of natural variability does not necessarily imply that the warming is a natural cycle. Since the mass of the atmosphere is not changing (in any significant way), changes in temperature can only when the heat content changes. Natural variability has natural causes (redistribution of heat) and these sometimes are self-reinforcing, which leads to "memory".
More pointless hand waving demonstrating you don't understand the topic at hand. The hydro cycle is well known to exhibit LTP, and has a profound affect on that redistribution of heat (not just around the globe, but to and from space). This behaviour does not require a memory (self-similar chaotic attractors, for example, exhibit LTP with no memory whatsoever).
If you understood the topic, you wouldn't make these mistakes. If you understood the topic, you wouldn't misrepresent papers because you don't get the nuance.
