Crowdsourcing the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
and
http://climate4you.com/
Are a couple excellent sources …

I is interesting to note that the data ends in 1855. Just a wee bit before today. (the chart here is labeled before present (BP) the P in this is 1950. So the last data point is at 95 years before present, 1855.

A couple of suggestions (might have been made already, have only skimmed the comments.)
It would be helpful to emphasise the distinction between global paleo temperature reconstructions and local paleo temperature reconstructions. I think some people are confusing local sets with global sets.
For example the top chart is for the ice core site in Greenland only and doesn’t apply globally, and this could be made more clear.
With the ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, different indicators of temperature are used for local (site specific) than for global (world-wide) and IMO it’s important to distinguish the two.
Other global reconstructions (recent times) are derived from proxies all around the world, with some reconstructions using more data from more sites and others drawing on less proxies from fewer sites. It would be useful to indicate how many different proxy sets were used in each and how large the spread of sites around the world. Individual reconstructions are of less value where data is from limited latitudes or a very small number of localities or are ‘weighted’ in a way that is less representative of the globe. Having said that, looks as if there isn’t a huge difference between the reconstructions to date though some would have larger error bars than others.
Older paleo (hundreds of millions of years) is based on geological data etc and of much coarser resolution.

I have found this to be a good paleo-climate site: http://www.scotese.com/
It has geological changes too.

This looks a good project. My only worry is that alarmists will mis-use it to support their CAGW argument. (eg by tacking on the temperatures of the last hundred years or so.)

justthefactswuwt;
“What if I create a section of graphs at the bottom under a header like Disputed Graphs, Suspect Graphs, etc.?”
If you put a separate section you’d have to say who disputes them and on what grounds.
It would leave you wide open to criticism if, for example, you said a graph constructed by X using Y’s data was good, but Y’s own construction/interpretation was ‘suspect’ unless you gave a very good reason.
This is especially the case given that virtually all the base data is from climate scientists, even though a number of the charts above look to have been re-interpreted by different skeptics. For example, older data being up-dated/replaced after new findings would be a valid reason; or refutations/rebuttals that have been shown to stand up in the literature (with no counter-rebuttals).
Just saying it was disputed on a skeptic blog somewhere would have less validity in the eyes of the general public. (Though you might get away with it here I suppose.)
I guess it depends on why you are collecting the material in the first place.

@ur momisugly David L Hagen
Thanks a million for that link to the presentation by Demetris Koutsoyiannis. That is easily the best summary of his thought I have found anywhere. Invaluable, and essential reading for anyone who really wants to understand climate.

Thanks again D. B. for the great trove of links. I wanted to report back the charts etc that I found the most helpful, but I’m still going through them. Your comment alone would be worthy of linking to in our comments elsewhere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/23/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page/#comment-1231508

justthefactswuwt says:
February 23, 2013 at 6:50 pm
“Richard Alley used “2000″ as present on his graph;”
To follow up further – I went to your linked source for the Alley Younger Dryas paper (2000) which has a link to data (presumably the source for the chart on that same page). The source temperature data for Central Greenland starts 95 years (0.095k years) ‘before present’.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
You might be confusing the year of publication with the data in the chart?

Julian in Wales says:
February 23, 2013 at 4:22 pm
The Greenland ice core data make the last 1-2000 years look very cold. Were the Roman and Minoan warming periods so much warmer than the MWP? And the CO2 levels seem to have little relationship to the changing temperatures in Greenland!……..”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I am of the view that the Greeenland temps for the MWP are under-assessed since they suggest that Greenland was only about 1 to 1.5degC warmer today.
Since Viking Settlements are still being revealed as the glacier retreats, and more significantly with the primative tools, feeds, crops, farming technology etc available, there is no way the Vikings could have farmed Greenland for a couple of hundred years if it was only about 1 to 1.5degC warmer than today.
Given the primative farming technology and knowledge, Greenland needed to probably be at least 3 degC warmer than today. Crops must have been bountiful in Viking times if not, had farming and life been on such a subsistence level one bad winter would have killed off a settlement.
It is inevitable that even had the climate been warmer than today there would have been periods when there were 2 or more consecutive bad winters and poor summer growing conditions, and this suggests that more generally the temperature must have been significantly warmer than today so that food could be grown in surplus and stored to meet the demands of 2 or more bad consecutive winter/growing seasons.
It would be interesting to have the views of an agricultural expert on what farming conditions were required to grow food and animal husbandry given Viking technology and knowledge for the Vikings to have maintained settlements at the high Northern latitudes for several hundred years..