Talk:Temperature record of the last 2,000 years

Reference 2
Reference 2 points... to this article !!! And I can't find the paper, if you know the reference, please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the missing Frank et al, 2010 paper to the list of references. Clicking on citation #2 now brings you to the paper. M.boli (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Snowfall/isotope.
Hmm well, DF edited to:


 * as is the amount of snowfall over many glacial sites. Further, the isotopic composition of snow, corals, and stalactites can also record temperature changes.

Snowfall *is* related to T, but its not a very good proxy and isn't really used much, AFAIK. If anything, I rather suspect that the deep timescales for Vostok etc are based on the reverse: T used to calibrate acc rate. Anyway, *all* the wiki graphs of ice cores T show the O18 T proxy; none show the snowfall proxy; so why give prominence to snowfall? William M. Connolley 08:57:41, 2005-07-24 (UTC).

Tree-rings etc...
Is Mann et al. same as Jones & Mann from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig4c.txt ?

I have verified (by other documentary series and by the model) some low peeks in file 4c "Annual unsmoothed ...", 3rd serie - documentary serie from Europe. But other series in this file differ from this serie significantly.

The tree-rings show not only global temperature, but also overall humidity and solar input to this tree. The less trees stand beside the measured one, the more sunlight is received and rings grow better. I`ve tried to analyse ITRDB database, but the spread is almost 100% - some trees show bigger rings in colder years and vice versa - rather depending on that-tree neighbourhood... Just as a conclusion - any temperature reconstruction based on tree-rings is anything but precise...

And the global temperature increase is not caused by greenhouse gasses (see also global dimming, but rather by continuously decreasing tree coverage. The bare ground is reflecing much more heat than the forest!

Semi 06/04/14.

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Temperature record of the past 1000 years. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604072514/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2F069.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2F069.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006231234/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014045518/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/04-sun.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/04-sun.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124033049/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf to http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover)  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Temperature record of the past 1000 years → Temperature record of the last 2,000 years – The focus of this article is on the current consensus in science. List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2,000 years shows that research since 2010 has covered the longer period, so the "1000 years" title is superseded. The history and political controversy is fully covered in the hockey stick graph article, so no need to replicate these topics in this article: a brief pointer summary style will be ample. . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support obviously more is now known Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looking at this article and the hockey stick article, I generally agree. But I think keeping the relatively brief scientific history that is here would be useful to readers. M.boli (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As finder and uploader of the lead's image, my impression is that 2,000 years are examined in literature more than 1,000 years per se. I would defer to subject matter experts if the opposite is in fact true, however. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to Temperature record of the last 2000 years. Style guides as varied as Chicago, the MHRA and IEEE 802 recommend thousands separators from 5 digits on. Using such delimiters in four-digit numbers does not enhance legibility (and may lead to confusion). Wikipedia follows these guidelines: 9999 (number) vs 10,000. See WP:DIGITS. Neodop (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

the effect was very small
In 2004 Hans von Storch criticised its statistical techniques, but later accepted that the effect was very small

What does this mean? What effect? I checked the source but that did not help. Is it the effect Mc and Mc found? Then it should be "but later accepted that the effect existed, though it was very small". At the moment, it sounds as if Mc and Mc found that the effect Mann found was very small and von Storch agreed.

WikiBlame identified the place when this was introduced in 2013:, by User:Dave souza. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Much better now, thanks to Dave. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Blame accepted! I'd originally tried to summarise from Wegman Report that von Storch testified that the "biased centering" ... "effect is very minor. It does not mean that it is not a glitch but it really doesn’t matter here, at least to the extent we could test it." Bit out of sequence and needed source, so have gone with Weart's overview. . dave souza, talk 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)