Reply to DOI:10.1029/2003EO440007
Response “[to Comment on ‘On past temperatures and anomalous late-20th-century warmth’”]
Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
©2003. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume 84, Issue 44, page 473, 4 November 2003
How to Cite
2003), Response “[to Comment on ‘On past temperatures and anomalous late-20th-century warmth’”], Eos Trans. AGU, 84(44), 473–473, doi:10.1029/2003EO440008., et al. (
- Issue published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
Soon and his colleagues (‘S03’) fail to address any of the three specific issues we raised in our Eos criticism (‘M03’) of their previous work (‘SB03’). These were the need for critical evaluation of proxy data to be used; consistent assimilation of widespread, well-dated, and resolved records; and the objective, quantitative calibration of these records [see also Bradley et al., 2003]. S03, instead, start with the implausible claim that we agree with their assertion, “knowledge of past climatic changes does not have a direct bearing on the climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.…” Reconstructions of past temperature histories do, indeed, have such a bearing. They provide one of several independent lines of evidence supporting the consensus scientific conclusion, expressed in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that anomalous, hemispheric, late-20th-century warmth cannot be explained by natural factors. S03 follow with an equally puzzling assertion that “M03 relies mainly on a northern hemisphere reconstruction of average annual temperature by Mann et al. .” Our article, quite to the contrary demonstrated that nearly a dozen different published estimates based on proxy data and model simulations give the same picture—anomalous, late-20th-century warmth that is unprecedented in a millennial or longer context.