This is for entertainment only. Given the week we’ve had, I thought it might be interesting to gauge some opinion about dendroclimatology. While we can certainly argue the merits of “who said what” etc. the question on my mind is what do people think of the technique of using tree rings for determining past climatic history?
Readers, please invite others at non skeptical blogs to participate, use the “share this” link. I’ll extend a blanket invitation to anyone to participate, no matter what your view might be.
Since this is a highly polarized issue, I’ll note that the poll code is setup (by WordPress.com) to minimize the possibility of vote stuffing and encourage one vote per person. You’ll know you’ve hit that security feature if certain messages are displayed.
Here’s the poll question:
Of course I should add that no online poll is scientific, it is only an interesting and entertaining exercise in gauging the opinion of people who visit here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Regular readers of sane science sites may have already seen my perspective:
Dendrochronology is an excellent dating technique for archeological and anthropological projects. Matched rings from a known area can tell when logs were felled for a shelter, boat, crib, crypt, etc.
However, the size of rings in a single tree, a grove, or forest may be affected by temperature, sunlight, water, nutrient s, and/or ambient CO2. These and other factors are variable from year-to-year. I have stumbled across studies where the broader rings in the same isolated grove are seen as evidence in Study A of increased rainfall, and in Study B of increased temperature.
Dendrochronology has a solid foundation. Dendrothermometry and dendrohydrometry are highly questionable. Looking back a hundred years, who has the ability to track windfalls, lightning strikes, beaver dams, dead carcasses within the drip line, or migrating herds leaving more or less fertilizer? There are far too many variables for the certainty that is asserted in these learned and subtle reports. I take them all with a grain (or more) of salt.
Steffenville, MO virtual survey augmented with on-the-ground pics today. Upload later in the week (target of opportunity my wife happened to be passing by). I see one Glenn Block has been “gettin’ busy” in MO recently –nice! It surely needed it.
Boy, an updated SS progress thread would sure be nice. . . .
Oh, btw, if someone is going to do an updated .kml of what’s left to do (and in my opinion, it is about time for one), might I suggest that different map markers be used for sites on the map known to be no longer in service? That’s a very relevant point for most volunteers, as it is almost always a very different kind of experience and investment in time to get those. Not always, but often. It would be very handy if those were marked in a different way on the .kml map from ones thought to still be active.
As a layman, I’m puzzled. I thought that temperature proxies were to be used when direct measurements weren’t possible, such as before thermometers were invented. Why then do Mann, Griffa, the IPCC, and others use tree ring proxies for temperatures in the 20th century (the blade of the hockey stick), when direct measurements, however flawed, are available?
Jolyon Hallows (18:03:06) :
As a laymen to a laymen.. i would say its to validate the historical data, by showing an excellent correlation with the instrumental record…..