"Since around 1960, for mysterious reasons, trees have stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries. If plotted on a chart, tree rings from 1960 forward appear to show declining temperatures, something that scientists know from thermometer readings is not accurate.
Most scientific papers have dealt with this problem by ending their charts in 1960 or by grafting modern thermometer measurements onto the historical reconstructions."
From the NYT via American Thinker.
americanthinker.com
What "hide the decline" was all about. Does anyone really believe that in 1960 trees "stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries"? That's rubbish and it shows the whole business of determining past temperatures by tree rings as Mann, Briffa, etc did is wrong.
Dale G Jul 09, 11:38 AM
Exactly three possibilities:
1) The proxy calculations are wrong and the temperature readings are right—then the picture of the past painted by the proxy data is wrong (but the picture of the present is right).
2) The proxy calculations are right and the temperature readings are wrong—then the picture of the present is wrong (but the picture of the past is right).
3) Both are wrong.
Take your pick, but for a scientist with any integrity at all to splice the proxy-past to the thermometer-present and claim it is consistent is anathema, and to self-proclaim otherwise is fraud.
.........
Bubba's BBQ Jul 09, 01:00 PM
Any Arborist will tell you that a tree's ring growth is only partially tied to temperature. you also have to add in rainfall, nutrients and even competition (other trees growing in close proximity). That is why global warming data is all crap.
..........
Randy Fardal Jul 09, 04:15 PM
Other commenters mentioned that rainfall, soil nutrients, and plant density also affect tree growth, and those variables are not highly correlated to ambient temperature. Sunlight and carbon dioxide levels affect plant growth as well.
Surprisingly, sun-blocking cloud formation is affected somewhat by solar activity. Carbon dioxide levels appear to lag global temperatures by about a millennium, so the Medieval Warm Period probably caused today’s gradual CO2 rise -- if there really is one.
In other words, there are lots of independent variables not included in any leftist climate model. Furthermore, the con artists are vainly attempting to prove that temperature is dependent on CO2 levels, when it almost certainly is the other way around.
Finally, as the author and others have shown, the modern temperature records almost certainly are fraudulent, since at least 90 percent of the measuring stations were rigged and 100 percent of the sophisticated modeling “fudge factors” were rigged. In light of such widespread corruption, even the CO2 measurements should be treated as suspect, since they are taken from highly inaccessible leftist “religious shrines” on mountaintops in remote places like Hawaii.
.........
TonyM Jul 09, 09:46 PM
What I want to know is : Who decided that selected tree ring data from no more than a handful of trees in a single geographic area can be representative of average global temperatures? I think the answer is Dr. Keith Briffa , who has been trying to defend his tree ring results from an onslaught of statistical analyses that have revealed the flaws in his data and methodology. It is obvious that the IPCC climate modelers have made the most fundamental of scientific mistakes ( in my opinion, a deliberate mistake): Assuming a conclusion and then trying to fit whatever data they can find to their conclusions. Tree ring size is probably more representative of the composition of the soil and precipitation that feeds the tree than it is of temperature. |
