Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.
Let me rewrite this slightly :
Recent tree ring proxies don’t match our upwards adjusted thermometer readings, so we made up a bunch of ridiculous gibberish about how tree ring proxies suck now – but they used to compare very well to our non-existent thermometer records from the past.
lol, Tree ring proxies———-one of the ultimate relative truisms.
Funny though, I do seem to recall on CA, that it was pointed out that they did indeed use the wrong species of trees according to real dendro-chronologists. That said, I agree, how in the heck would they know about how well stuff fit pre-thermometer? Well, they don’t. They come up with this wonderful computation, find tree rings that fit their criteria, throw out the rest and voila! Now we can look at a ring and emphatically state, what temperature it was on a given year within a tenth of a degree.
And people bought it!!!! It never ceases to amaze me. Most warmists will deride creationists, but just look at the stuff they’re willing to believe!
We should cal the them deniers and Moon landing misbelieving, because if all the history of the Medieval warming is ignored, then the Moon landing did not happen either.
There is so much historical evidence of the Medieval warming, their stupid one tree outlier played with in the computer to remove it from the chart is just a travesty!
I will wait for the PUPPETS to enter into the conversation. Anyone who has read CA and WUWT should have a good understanding of Treemometers especially those manufactured from Strip Bark Bristle Cone Pines and Siberian Larch from Yamal.
The Starbucks Expedition provided evidence of the reliability of BCP and consistency of same ring widths from the same tree.
It was from the Dedro Community I learned this about Climate Science: “You have to pick the best Cherries to make the best Cherry Pie”.
Sorry, but simply stating that it’s “ridiculous gibberish” is pretty weak and really isn’t very convincing to anyone other than your PUPPETS (see how that works?), who don’t require evidence to support anything they already believe.
How about some actual science?
As usual Chris gets everything back to front.
When he can provide some EVIDENCE as to why tree rings declined in recent years when temps were rising + how he can be totally certain that this did not happen in earlier centuries, then I might be prepared to look again at the issue.
If a scientist proposes a new theory, it is upto him to prove it, not upto everybody else to disprove it.
The point, Paul, has nothing to do with whether or not the dendro record is viable. It’s that Steve has simply claimed that it isn’t without even the most modest attempt to back it up. “Because I say so” doesn’t cut it.
There are reams of information available as to why scientists believe the tree ring record to be useful and why the recent divergence problem doesn’t change that. If Steve wants to make the point that this is wrong, he should summarize what the scientists say and then explain where they screwed up. That’s how science works. You state the opposing viewpoint and then you rebut it. Simply stating that it’s “ridiculous gibberish” doesn’t do that. It’s just noise.
Chris,
You have me confused with Michael Mann. He was the one who said that the tree ring record is broken.
Remember Mann’s hockey stick?
And, by the way, Paul, this:
is completely wrong. That is exactly how it works. A scientist states his hypothesis (not theory) and provides his evidence. Then the ones who think he’s wrong try to disprove it. If no one can disprove it, eventually the hypothesis gains general acceptance. That’s the scientific method. Hypotheses can never pe proved, only disproved.
You’ve got it completely backwards.
Blah .. blah … blah …..
You have me confused with Michael Mann. He was the one who said that the tree ring record is broken.
Missed the point again, I see. Read the comment right above yours one more time.
Blah .. blah … blah …..
Nice summary of what I’m trying to say about your post!
ChrisD:
All current evidence points to the problems with trees being used as Treemometers. One and only one item automatically destroys any validity in the use of tree rings.
If a tree ring is not consistent during a given years growth that tree is discredited. As a Tree Farmer (according to the state and county where I live) I have had the opportunity to observe the growth patterns shown by tree rings. Secondly the use of prior damaged trees, called strip bark, and the growth characteristics after the damage, when the trees is trying to heal the damage, Would exclude those trees automatically from consideration by any reputable scientist that understands tree growth.
I was into woodworking as a hobby, which also gave me a familiarity of wood grains / tree rings. Having lived in a region that has a grove of Bristle Cone Pine trees and visiting the site would give a bit of knowledge of those trees.
All current evidence points to the problems with trees being used as Treemometers.
You too have completely missed the point. My comment isn’t about “treemometers,” it’s that the post completely lacks foundational statements to support its conclusion. The post has no substance. There’s no “there” there.
I already said this once.
ChrisD:
All the reams of so called scientific information you refer to are worthless garbage for temperature reconstructions.
There is useful information to be found in tree rings that provide a history record of natural climate variations but all information needs to be considered and variations in individual ring widths in the same tree need to be examined to determine if that record has any value. Which it probably does not. You need to look for consistent patterns in a grove of trees because significant differences between trees show other influences have degraded the value of the rings for historical records.
Cherry Picking those trees that provide the desired results removes the entire field from science and enters it into the field of propaganda.
Mike, you still aren’t getting it. My comment was not about tree rings. It was about the lack of substance in this post.
Mike,
it isn’t tree ring widths, it is densities
TonyD:
Depending on who was the researcher and which of rings were being studied it could be either ring widths or densities!
Either way the issue of scar tissue on trees with damaged bark should be ruled out.
The width of the ring determines the density of the ring depending on the type of tree. The amount of nutrients and moisture reaching the growth cells control the ring width and density.
OH wait! I am only a TREE FARMER! So I must not know anything about trees!
You have already told me you are a tree farmer. I have just read that there is a significance to the difference between width and density. That is all.
I think you should stop talking with Chris, it is really making you testy towards me for no apparent reason, and I don’t want to get resentful towards him
ChrisD:
Thank you for stepping up to acknowledge your position and showing your strings.
As usual, not a single comment posted thus far by either the blog owner or any of you “skeptics” even attempts to address what I said. Par for the course, unfortunately.
This post contains no information.
ChrisD:
From your postings it is obvious the only solution is for you to undergo a Cranialanalectomy to correct your illness.
Being a Puppet I thought you would at least have an understanding of the properties of wood!
Ad homs are neither mature nor effective. Trying to actually address what I actually said would be the first and could be the second.
Actually Chris, you and I are the only ones that use pejoratives,
can;t you get that through your thick neanderthal Skull.
Oops , see proved my point!
Yep. Turns out that pejoratives are only pejorative if they’re false. Who knew? The morons at Merriam-Webster obviously don’t. (And, see, “morons” isn’t pejorative, since, by pointing out that they don’t know the correct definition of “pejorative,” I’ve proved that they’re morons.)
Chris, isn’t this akin to asking someone to substantially refute the thought that the moon is made of cheese?
Dendro-climatology is about as far fetched as aliens coming to abduct us. It only takes remedial knowledge of how tree rings are formed to know there is absolutely know way to know what the temperature was 500 years ago. Now the fact that Mann’s all the other dendro studies ran contrary to every bit of anecdotal evidence known to man re. the MWP, should have ended the conversation and supposition, but it didn’t and then when it ran contrary to recent empirical evidence, that should have absolutely ended the conversation. It had been falsified. But our dendro-scientists continued. Upon inspection, it seems they were very selective as to which samplings made their study and which didn’t. Its fairly well documented. And so, while my original post wasn’t as detailed as this one, it says essentially the same thing.
Consider, we’re told tree rings can be proxies for thermometers up to 1000 years in the past. Only they are contrary to evidence of the distant past and contrary of the near past. They only align with mechanical observations for a period of about 150 years out of the millennium. And that, is only because they selected tree rings to represent their supposition. If I were to say a tree ring of a species of tree, in its 5 th year would have a diameter of x to represent a local annual temperature, I would find the tree rings that did just that and disregard all others. Which is, in essence, the methods our dendro friends pursued. Please don’t take my word for this, read the studies. Go to CA. Check out M&M. You may find it illuminating.
For those that may not know, tree rings in all species of trees have greater influences on their growth than just temp. Humidity, soil content, proximity and species of surrounding flora, wind speed and direction, species of fauna and proximity of the fauna, etc, etc. One would have better luck reading tea leaves than trying to discern a temperature from an ancient tree.
Chris, isn’t this akin to asking someone to substantially refute the thought that the moon is made of cheese?
No. I am simply asking for some actual information in the post. “This is bullshit” all by itself is useless. That’s not an argument; it contains no information; it’s just fluff. It’s Splenda; it tastes sweet but has no nutritional value whatsoever.
A real blog post would list what the scientists say about why dendrochronology is useful and then explain exactly how it’s all bogus and why the scientists are all morons.
You included far, far more information in your comment than Steve did in his post (not hard, since it had no information at all). I don’t understand why you hold youself to a higher standard then you do him. He’s the blog owner, and you’re just commenting. Seems weird.
Sometimes you pretend to have an interest in the science. When convenient.
Yeah, when it’s not what I’m talking about.
Chris,
Not to worry, when Steve and I get Inhofe elected as president in 2014, Mike will be the new climate change Czar. He will personally go over every scientific article and fix all their stupid mistakes in every area of climate science. He knows so much more than all of them in every field and understands every element of every argument perfectly. He will guide us into the new era of tax-free carbon-rich prosperity.
But I am started to get irritated with you Chris. If you keep insisting that people on this site respond reasonably, you are going to give yourself a heart attack, and then I wouldn’t get to read the funny pointless back and forth between you and them.
ChrisD says:
November 14, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Well, you prove again you are an idiot. NO, it is not up to anyone to DISPROVE an hypothesis. It is up to the originator to test the hypothesis for validity. Once the tests are successful (all of them, not just one), then the hypothesis moves to the theory stage (and almost never the fact stage). However, once the testing of the hypothesis has been done successfully, ANYONE can then provide another test that would disprove it, thus sending it back to the get go, or discarding it entirely.
At this point, AGW is not even to the hypothesis stage as it has never been successfully tested ONCE, much less rigorously. Nor has it withstood any challenges. it is simply an idea.
Idiot (yea, I guess I called you a fact first).
Jesus. OF COURSE the person who proposes the hypothesis tests it, as does anyone who thinks it’s wrong and wants to try to disprove it. My comment responded to the incorrect claim that it is the proposer’s responsibility to prove the hypothesis. It is not, as you yourself appear to be dimly aware, since proof is almost never possible.
Can you even read?
PaulHIf a scientist proposes a new theory, it is upto him to prove it, not upto everybody else to disprove it.
ChrisDYou’ve got it completely backwards.
ChrisDOF COURSE the person who proposes the hypothesis tests
Now you are just a liar. I know you have problems reading (and following links) so I posted all the relevant comments for you. You said Paul had it completely backwards. He said the orginator had to prove it (he actually has to try, but that is beside the point). So you are saying no, He does not, the ones questioning him DO. So your last statement is an attempt to CYA and a very bad one since all the statements are there.
You are an idiot and a liar.
ChrisD:
You have been told repeatedly to become a theory an idea MUST be Based on a TESTABLE hypothesis. The idea is that AGW accounts for recent climate changes and Human induced gasses related to the use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change must show that Natural changes are not valid, Falsified, Then provide testable evidence that GHE from burning fossil fuels became the driver by some mysterious unknown mechanism.
No one is asking to prove the Hypothesis because there is no testable hypothesis to prove.
I do not have to show you the theory behind using trees as a proxy for temperatures if I can show why they are not a reliable proxy for temperatures. Strip Bark or any tree with scar tissue automatically becomes worthless. Any tree with variations in growth in a single ring becomes worthless. Trees within the same grove with drastic differences in growth patterns are worthless as temperature proxies. Trees that do not continue to track temperatures at any time are worthless for temperature proxies. ALL of the above have been found in the trees that were used for temperature proxies.
A statement that they can not find any natural contributors that account for recent temperatures only means they have not looked because what drove past temperatures are still driving recent temperatures. Failure on the part of modelers to do a proper job is not evidence of AGW it is evidence of sloppy work on the part of modelers.
There need to be test results that are reproducible. None exist! No theory! not even a hypothesis!
He said the orginator had to prove it (he actually has to try, but that is beside the point). So you are saying no, He does not, the ones questioning him DO.
So, my suspicion was correct, you can’t read. I said that “A scientist states his hypothesis (not theory) and provides his evidence.” What do you think that means, exactly? It means the results of his own testing, you [pejorative].
It is certainly interesting that you’re bitching about my post but remain silent about Paul’s obviously incorrect one, which claimed that the scientist who proposes it has to prove his “new theory”.
That means you’re not just a [pejorative], you’re a hypocritical [pejorative].
You have been told repeatedly to become a theory an idea MUST be Based on a TESTABLE hypothesis.
Uh, golly, Mike, I’ve actually known this since about 1960. And it has nothing at all to do with my comment. I was pointing out that the idea that scientists have to “prove” their hypotheses is wrong. You have some bone to pick with that?
Well Gee ChrisD:
If you know that then you should be able to see that ACC is NOT based on a TESTABLE Hypothesis!
So you should probably grab your ears and pull your head out of your!
Well, I’ve checked, and, even though you’ve repeated it, sure enough this still doesn’t have anything to do with my comment.
In fact, I’m pretty sure that it won’t have anything to do with my comment no matter how many times you repeat it.
Mike,
You are confusing theories regarding things like chemistry and physics. where you can have an experiment in front of you and do things and see what happens and repeat it.
Things like evolution, ACC, Cosmology do not have that luxury, since, they are time and historically based.
No theory about climate can be falsifible by your standards. I can just say God did everything that you say your natural cycles do. ACC is a valid theory because there have ben predictions and many of those predictions have been born out. You and Steve and most of the others here find fault with every single prediction or observation, and you set this bizarre standard that as long as an observation is within historical parameters it can mean that your cycle theory is totally adequate.
That is not science. The idea that natural cycles is what causes most climate change for 99.999% of earths history is not questioned by all but the most extreme scientist. Your theory is quite well accepted.
The idea that the tiny percentage of GHG’s being added to earths atmosphere NOW is also influencing climate is clearly more than a hypothesis. Every physicist that i know, certainly every climate scientist, including the deniers believe CO2 is capable of at least somewhat changing the energy balance of the planet. there are numerous predictions about what should result form them, One being the temp increase that has occurred. There are many others. Steve and others crow when they think they have found one that is inaccurate, saying that this is another thing that disproves ACC.
I just read a paper that Scarlet posted that gave detailed “predictions” about sea level rise. It showed that sea level rise was consistant with what ACC predicted, and gave projections of future predictions. It actually contradicted what Steve wrote on his blog (excuse me, collection of blogs). it was a UN publication, and sicne Steve MUST be right, it is a great opportunity to show how corrupt the UN is and show another inconsistancy with the “Theory” of ACC.
Also on another note. it is NOT the responsibility of the scientist who proposes a hypothesis to test it. It is the responsibility of all scientists in a field to consider any hypothesis that might be more accurate than current theory or might be valuable to current theory. It is not a game where anyone in particular has to do anything. If someone is a scientist and has the means to test their hypothesis it is kind of silly not to, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the theory. I don’t think Einstein tested any element of relativity.
ChrisD:
I am sorry It slipped my mind that it is obvious your are suffering from ACD. (Acquired Cognitive Dissonance)
Now repeat after me: I live in the real world and climate change is natural.
now THIS is pejorative satire. In this case not very funny, but i do enjoy employing it on occasion
TonyD:
That is based on a testable hypothesis and the test can be easily reproduced. That makes Chris’ and your ACD a reliable theory. It is a simple matter of cause and effect!
TontD:
November 17, 2010 at 5:08 am
I was going to copy and paste a response to that but it is not worth the hassle to continue to explain how a Wild ass Guess is not a theory or a hypothesis. There is no science to back up ACC. It is not falsifiable and every thing it attempts to explain can be explained better by natural causes which are discussed at length elsewhere. You claim something about predictions that are so convoluted that any current or future climate or weather pattern will be consistent. To be valid you need a signature for your pet WAG and that does not exist.
ACC is not one issue but a variety of issues. There are certain things that would prove ACC to be real and valid but all research to find those signatures have failed to find ACC signatures. The Paleo records used to describe historic climate are corrupted beyond use and there are plenty of other records showing variable climate throughout the history of the world.
The models as they sit are worthless because they are based on garbage.
TonyD:
Maybe you should find some real scientists to talk to. You seem confused about what science is!
Why do I need a scientist? I have you. You know more than all the scientists who believe that ACC is a theory, with testable predictions, some of which have been born out.
Your “theory” is not a theory because you don’t make testable predictions that can be contrasted to the predictions of ACC theory.
You seem to say that your theory is valid because it explains anything that happens as long as the parameter is within the range of past variation.
I have and do talk to scientists in a very wide range of fields, and none of them have ever thought I did not understand what a theory was.
In fact I had a long conversation with Ernst Myer before he died, where I thought he had lost it (being 99 it was not a stretch) because he said all the new scientists did not understand evolution because they did not understand cladistics. Me being a stark amateur, I did not have the balls to question him. But I finally realized he was joking to make a point. When he realized I understood what he was saying, and was not an idiot, he opened up in spectacular fashion, and became interested in my unorthodox ideas. Maybe that is what you are doing with me. Testing me to see if I will agree to something ridiculous if I get pounded over the head with it enough times
What you claim regarding ACC having predicted any thing unique is false. Predictions that may have made in the name of ACC were better explained by natural weather patterns.
Natural weather conditions. What does that entail?
All factors in the biosphere that have contributed to global weather patterns throughout the planets history. Natural Forcings and feed backs.
That does not include your Human provided extra GHGs that are introduced into the system by burning Fossil Fuels or making Concrete.
Your predictions are out of the picture. What else have you got?
Well, I am waiting to see as more and more climate scientists, especially younger ones, look at the actual data and this reasonable alternative, and start defecting. Being as I am not an expert, I will want responses to all your claims from actual climate scientists, since I do not make up my mind about anything based on authority.
ChrisD says:
November 16, 2010 at 11:35 pm
it just proves you cannot read since I QUOTED all the necessary statements. You are an illiterate idiot. GO BACK AND READ WHAT YOU WROTE! Jeez, do you think before you speak? can you speak? or is your oral presentations as gibberish as your writen ones?
Oh, and go ahead and keep writing stupid statements. We all need a laugh at your expense.
I QUOTED all the necessary statements
I know you can quote. I’m just not convinced you can read.
I hope you enjoy life in your fantasy uinverse, where each post on a blog is “a blog” and “the scientist provides his evidence” means that he doesn’t need to test his own ideas.
My comment is not a blog. But it is a post. It is a post on a blog. (WEB LOG). I live in reality – where science is not a religion that requires concensus and death to non-believers. How is your fantasy Torquemada?
My comment is not a blog. But it is a post.
Oy, still with the reading problem. I said each post on a blog, not each comment on a post.
Phil, what is a blog? This page, the page you are looking at, is it a blog? Does Real Science consist of a whole bunch of blogs? Isn’t that what you think?
I live in reality – where science is not a religion that requires concensus and death to non-believers. How is your fantasy Torquemada?
Seriously, get therapy.
ChrisD says:
November 16, 2010 at 11:39 pm
YOU SAY you know it, yet you wrote the complete opposite. So you like to contradict yourself?
ChrisD says:
November 14, 2010 at 3:16 pm
You’ve got it completely backwards.
ChrisD says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:47 pm
You should. You cannot read, write or comprehend. As demonstrated by your lack of reading comprehension of your own links.
This is getting really amusing, Phil.
First, the link did exactly what I intended and exactly what you asked for. You asked, “You might want to point out where the perjoratives were used.” I linked to a comment on a different post–a different article–on the Real Science blog. That is precisely what you asked for, and it is precisely what I provided.
Then you started foaming at the mouth and said, “This blog has NO perjoratives before Tony used them.” It is utterly clear from this that you think a POST is a BLOG. It is not. A blog is a collection of posts, not a single post. Real Science is a blog. This page is a post ON the Real Science blog. A link to a different post on Real Science is NOT a link to a different blog.
Then you became totally incoherent and said, “I asked for examples on THIS blog, not the blog about baked australia,” apparently in blissful ignorance of the simple fact that the Australia post IS “on THIS blog.” Again it is painfully obvious that you don’t know the difference between a blog and a post ON a blog.
It’s just sad.
Answer my question, Phil. What is a blog? Is this page a blog?
Chris,
Why didn’t you mention anything about the pejorative comments I reluctantly supplied him with? The ones which he skillfully managed to unpejoratize. Really Chris this is NOT all about you, OK?
I can only do so much, Tony. 🙂 I’m busy trying to get him to understand that the meaning of “blog” isn’t the same in our universe as it is in Phil World. You ask him to write to the OED (and every other English-language reference work) and point out that they’ve all got the definition of “pejorative” wrong.