I will guess all but D.
It looks like it is AB&C, but I see no evidence for E.
The only Antarctic ice proxy used by Mann goes back only to the 13th century.
A) European instrumental temperature data.
This is real data so they won't have used that.
B) Graybill’s California strip-bark bristlecone chronologies.
Think teleconnections. If the Californian trees talked to some older trees that were in the southern hemisphere then they would know what the temperature was. This is a possibility.
C) Finnish lake sediments, upside down and contaminated.
Upside down to give the southern hemisphere numbers was a masterstroke. Contamination will make them look older than they are. So this is a possibility as well.
D) Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period
This obviously does not go back far enough.
E) Dow Jones Industrial Average index from 1910
The Dow Jones reflects the rise of fossil fuel use. This is smart thinking on the part of the IPCC.
I think I am going to have to leave this one to the experts.
I can only do the questions where the answers are:
A) Would you be sensible and agree with the scientists or
B) Be very silly and make up your own mind.
I am a catastrophic AGW skeptic and I think that it appears that Antarctic ice core data is a Gospel in the AGW religion. Without ice core data, their CO2 house of cards collapses. Even though plant stomata proxies contradict the ice core data, the ice core data is taken without any doubt as fact. Firn which is compacted snow and ice takes from 150 or more years to form in the Antarctic. During the formation, obviously different gases are exchanged with the atmosphere. Differential rates of absorption and movement of CO2 in the ice and water trapped in the ice make interpretation difficult and not precise (certainly less than 150 year intervals). I think it is probably a useful tool for determining long term trends of CO2 concentrations but there is no recently formed firn that can be used to calibrate the CO2 trapped in the ice for the obvious reason that it takes a long time to form, longer than we have measured CO2 in the atmosphere.
I seem to remember New Zealand having a pretty poor record of honestly reconstructing its paleoclimate but I don't know if that played any role in the IPCC report
D) Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period
That is the only proxy from the Southern hemisphere. B and C are from the Northern hemisphere. A is not a proxy.
D) though I've seen more then a few alarmist correlate climate with the Dow, tobacco, and the Jewish holocaust. Probably the sole reason I'm a skeptic. I just don't deal with fanaticism very well.
D) can also be misleading if your not completely analytical.
We suggest making use of http://www.vpnpower.net to help unblock web-sites. I've been with them since 4 years.
This is really a trick question. I want to expose the Flunky-style questions for how silly they are.
I will try my own Flunky-style question.
IPCC Figure 5.7b of AR5 is labeled as a Southern Hemisphere reconstruction graph, showing 5 reconstructions from as far back as the year 200. One of the reconstructions goes from .7C below baseline of 1881-1980 in 1850, while the others are about .3C below baseline. Current temperatures are about .5-.6C above baseline while the reconstructions go to .4 above.
Please respond whether you are a skeptic or alarmist or whatever term you prefer, and
Which of the following proxies are used in this chart:
A) European instrumental temperature data
B) Graybill’s California strip-bark bristlecone chronologies
C) Finnish lake sediments, upside down and contaminated
D) Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period
E) Dow Jones Industrial Average index from 1910
