With apologies to the Geico caveman, paleoclimatology isn’t just for grant enabled scientists anymore.
Priceless Climategate email 682: Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that his son did a tree ring science fair project (using trees behind NCAR) that invalidated the centerpiece of Mann’s work:
‘A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation’
From email 682.txt
h/t to Tom Nelson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“A general comment:
The paper has two main parts: 1) clarifying the importance of the step in 1945 and 2)
providing new insight into the climatic impacts of volcanic eruptions.”
The holy story since 2007.”
*******************************************’
Caution, if you copy/paste, text is an active HTML document!
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0010.txt
And some tree, on stage.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=anna+puu+c%27est+la+vie&oq=anna+puu&aq=2&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=3985l7469l0l11594l8l8l0l0l0l0l344l2001l0.1.5.2l8l0
I’ll bet someone within the email treasure trove ratpack wants to beat that little kid up.
Lazyteenager, depending on the tree and where it is planted, roots can grow wide, more restricted, shallow, and/or deep. I say and/or because slope will affect root characteristics. Underground bedrock and soil characteristics are also very important in terms of bringing ground water to roots. In temperate forests (where things can get pretty dry or pretty soggy depending on weather whims), trees can withstand quite a bit of weather related ups and downs if ground water is available, which boils down to snowpack. So things are not as simple as you might think.
NK, Rocky Road,
Indeed, I agree; and that makes two of us.
Didn’t Cleese, Idol, et.al. have this discussion about 30 years ago?
I got all important & hudden FOIA emails.
“> 5) How will we make the chosen SCM suitable for use by the
> policy-making community. At the very least IPCC would have to pay for
> someone to design a user-interface and guidance material so that the model
> is easy to use.
>
> 6) How will IPCC disseminate the model, presumably it could be put on a
> web site and distributed on CD-ROM.
>
> If we are able to overcome any difficulties it would certainly be another
> way in which IPCC could be of use to the Convention process. I would be
> grateful for your views on how we might implement this proposal,
> particularly 1 ñ 4 as 5 and 6 would come after the TAR has been accepted.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> ——————————————————
> Dr David Griggs
> IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit
> Hadley Centre
> Met Office
> London Road
> Bracknell
> Berks, RG12 2SY
>
Simplicity escapes us.
Isn’t Tom/Eirik here saying that width *can* be used as a temp proxy, though width really depends on precipitation, because precip can act as a proxy for temp? I.e. much precipitation means warm weather.
I suppose the validity of temp/precip correlation depends on the local climate/geography. There’s surely a such correlation here in Scandinavia. Warm, wet air usually comes from the south, cold, dry air comes from the north, though the correlation seems higher during the winter.
But, but, but…
I thought that warming causes droughts and desertification….
So how to the trees grow more when it is warmer but the area turns into a desert? I thought deserts were places where it was really warm but nothing grows?
I was really confused about this until I read an article about water. Seems the darn stuff is reusable. Seriously. For example, one bucket of water can, in theory, be used to drown everyone on earth.
‘splains everything!
TREE FELLERS NEEDED Said the sign the sign in the shop window, thats no good to us Paddy theirs only two of us.
When the people opposed to anything are in high spirits and humour is the prevailing conversation, the end is nigh for the opposition. Satire and humiliation is the best option to combat BS.
“My daughter even corresponded with the Idzo’s of the CO2Science website (where we got the idea for the experiment.)”
I assume you meant Idso’s The important point is your child learned about experiments and that she can talk to scientists if she wants to and nice scientists reply. What a wonderful lesson! IPPC enabling scientists gave up teaching for their advocacy. When the internet arrived and email was easier and faster than comments to journals, they only thought about how easier it was for them to gatekeep and never realized it was now open to all to participate. With FOI laws, some eventually learned where their paycheck comes from and who owns their work. Some scientists still don’t understand that the ground shifted while they were snarking a paper in peer review with their buddies.
Some scientists and educators do understand and communicate here, I thank you. Some want to put the genie back in the elite bottle (for their eyes only). Ironically, that’s the last thing needs and the least likely to occur.
“I’ll bet someone within the email treasure trove ratpack wants to beat that little kid up.”
$1000 says they don’t.
Lazyteenager – I think you’ll find that the first thing people tend to do after a divorce is to try to regain some self respect. In my humble experience, many folks do this by trying to lose weight, get fit so as to generally increase their attractiveness as they search for another partner. My next paper intends to show how this leads to an increase in healthy eating and clearly the correlation with apple sales, demonstrates irrefutable evidence of my theory. I have discussed this in depth with a number of my mates and we have reached a consensus – this is settled science.
Dendrochronology tells us only one thing with any precision – how old the tree is.
When I was a child we had two silver birch trees in our front yard about 4m apart. They were planted on the same day, received the same water and sun. After 20 years one tree was around twice the diameter of the other. Go figure.
The more I am seeing posted from the emails the more it looks like SB03 was good paper that was right on target.
FOIA unreadable data is not crypted, its´only MIME format, and is easily converted back
to TXT mode.
i´took a sample, where Mike Hulme writes that only reason is to curb emissions,
politics as usual.
http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp
My pc systems are under firing, i cant´ send visual description
Anthony, what’s the significance of using mixed ponderosa and scrubland at an elevation of about 6,000 feet from the Front Range conifer forest belt? People are wondering.
Sigh… where have you been getting the dope you’ve been smoking Lazy?
Inferred from statistics, yes, but never empirically determined. This is where circular reasoning is applied.
Assumed, yes, but known not to be true.
Logically it is not fine. You started with three false premises. None of the relationships can be assumed linear (correlated and linear are not the same, either) without some form of justification, and the last relationship is known NOT to be linear. And, in fact, the correlation of the latter is poor since, well, 1940 as we now know.
Mark
bananabender says:
When I was a child we had two silver birch trees in our front yard about 4m apart. They were planted on the same day, received the same water and sun. After 20 years one tree was around twice the diameter of the other. Go figure.
The main driver of tree growth between trees of identical species planted together in a stand is sunlight. I’m betting that the smaller tree grew in the shade of the larger one initially, and that this disadvantage increased over time as the one tree became dominant.
In a stand of trees, the stems per acre start out extremely high (thousands of stems – trees – per acre.) By the time they are mature trees, the dominant trees in an unmanaged stand will have killed off hundreds of trees, literally, by depriving them of sunlight. A forester, managing a stand of planted trees, will examine the growth rings of trees in the stand, and will order a thinning of the stand when the growth rings begin to show slower growth. Following the thinning, the trees left in the stand have less competition for sunlight and the growth rings will increase in size for several years after which the process will repeat itself.
A tree can survive for decades in the shade of a dominant tree, and if that dominant tree is removed, usually by a storm or just toppling with age, the growth rings of the smaller, surviving, tree will often increase in size and the tree will eventually become a dominant tree, assuming it managed to maintain decent health while overtopped.
This is why the growth ring business always bothered me. It’s sunlight, not precipitation nor temperature, that determines growth rings in individual trees in a stand of trees, and how do we know what the condition of the stand was hundreds of years ago. Was it a lone tree, a dominant tree, a tree in an even-growth stand, an overtopped tree for a decade that was then released by removal of a dominant one? I can see the case if the “stand” generally consisted of single, isolated, trees on a mountaintop, but even then, what was the case 200 or 400 years ago?
And on top of all this, we have the absurdity that the tree growth record didn’t fit the known instrumentally-measured record? This is approximately equivalent to claiming cigarettes were good for you 200 years ago (based on the same sort of evidence, i.e., none) but discarding recent data because it doesn’t fit the “modern record” where we have statistically, and medically, determined that cigarettes shorten, not lengthen, lifespans. Put another way, the kid was right; Mann was wrong. Unfortunately, Mann had better funding for getting his “ideas” across.
Young Eirik has illuminated much more than she realises.
I believe that it is very likely that rainfall controls the temperature.
And that rainfall is a good proxy for the percentage of cloud cover.
And cloud cover is controlled by ——— (fill in at your taste).
Andrew,
We need a seperate post for Illka and Jim and the encripted emails translated into English.
@Rod,
the trees didn’t shade each other at any stage.
I should add that in any wild plant or animal population there is a considerable amount of genetic diversity. This will effect the growth rate of individuals.
Modern tree plantations normally consist of tissue cultured clones. One of the reasons is to eliminate variations in growth rates.
Criticism by proxy.
How convenient!
LOL
“… in a buddy-peer review journal…”
I would like to see that phrase employed every time someone pontificates about “peer-reviewed science”. As in, “Wait, was it peer-reviewed, or buddy-peer reviewed?”
Sometimes the acorn does fall far from the tree.