Tom Nelson has another Climategate 2 email well worth reading
Dendrochronologists get spanked by guy with expertise in tree physiology and wood anatomy
“However, there are bounds to dendrochronology, as there are to every field of investigation, and the discipline has spilled over way outside of those bounds, to the point of absurdity.”
“What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological estimates is how much absolute nonsense — really nothing but imaginative speculation — about the environment of the past is being deduced from tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals.”
“…but dendrochronology has persistently rejected walking the hard road, that of understanding the fundamental genetic and environmental factors controlling wood formation. As I see it, the peer review process in dendrochronology must be fundamentally flawed to allow such publications. Physiologist remain to build any real confidence in their ideas of how environmental factors influence tree ring formation, and dendrochronologists therefore are not at all justified in pretending that they do.
The bounds of dendrochronology will be extended, as will confidence in dendrochronological reports, when your group stops pretending that it knows the answers before it has done the needed research. Again, I am troubled by your group that it shows little humility, no genuine desire to discover the truth.”
The writer of this email:
UNB | Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management | Rod Savidge
Areas of expertise
Tree physiology
Wood anatomy
Plant
cell biology
==================================================
This, IMHO, is why Mann’s rendition of the hockey stick is unsupportable, its all speculation based. Anyone who knows Liebig’s Law understands this.
Mann’s tree reconstructions are known to be statistically crap, and even if they weren’t, the assumption that these trees primarily measure temperature is an absurd speculation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That the professor argues that statistics overcomes all (not to mention that he has to save the earth) reveals the flaw – one has to have a fundamental basis for making such assertions. And ‘hide the decline’ revealed all of that nonsense. Statistics may be necessary – but are not sufficient to their argument
As I have said on this site many times, the whole concept of dendrochronology is flawed to the core.
How can you compare a ship’s timber to a control sample, when the rings on that ship’s timber were more influenced by a local pest and an overbearing neighbour tree, than they were by either global or local climate?
The whole idea of dendrochronology working – is farcical.
.
>>D Johnson says: January 3, 2012 at 8:33 am
>>Doesn’t this thread contain a lot of confusion between the science
>>of dendrochronology and that of dendroclimatology?
The one is dependent on the other.
Dendroclimatology says that world climate effects tree rings through average temperatures, and that this can be measured at almost anypoint on the Earth’s surface. And that[ ]one sample can be compared to another, with no local effects acting.
But dendrochronology depends on the above being true, for it to work. If tree ring widths depend more on local climate, then you cannot compare a ship’s timber with a control sample that may have grown many hundreds of miles away. And if tree ring widths depend more upon micro conditions, like a large neighbour and a local tree-eating moth, then again you cannot compare a ship’s timber with a control sample that does not have the same micro conditions.
Dendrochronology is pure pseudo science, to be favourably equated with homeopathy.
.
Theo Goodwin says:
“‘Climate Science’ exists apart from the hard sciences or any science. This is not something new in academia though it is the first time that it happened so close to the hard sciences.”
________________________________________________
The Climategate emails expose climate science as China Town as compared to the hard sciences – -if you recall the meaning given China Town by the movie of the same name.
This response by Hal is simply priceless…
>You perceive them to be present today because you refuse to recognize
>the checks and balances used by dendrochronologist to assure that false
>rings and missing rings are located and identified. They are not
>located by their anatomical nature as you might think they should be but
>by a procedure of replication and further replication until there is
>sufficiently small uncertainty to call it true. This particular point is
>a statistical point that I realize you cannot appreciate or accept. All
>science is based on likelihood and probability. That is why it is so
>important that things be replicated by other scientists. But you can’t
>replicate our experiment because you really do not understand what
>procedure and checks we use.
Anyone know how far the Yamal trees grew in relation to the closest river? If within a couple of hundred meters the growth could be influenced by salmon cycles which in turn are often linked to ocean cycles. The spawning salmon carry the marine derived nutrients (MDN) into freshwater spawning areas. The salmon are then predated/scavenged upon by bears, fox etc and the nutrients deposited inland with the scat.
REPLY: Yamal trees were gathered on a river boat expedition, see this WUWT story and photo taken by the expedition:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/more-yamal-tree-ring-temperature-data-this-data-is-flat-as-roadkill/
– Anthony
Commenting simply on the structure and general content of the Hal Fritts response, I must say that I am astonished (truly amazed) that Hal Fritts can be a prominent, accomplished scientist. Going simply from all the ad hominem comments and near-total lack of rigor in his response, it is a mystery to me that he could be a major figure in the field. But then I have have the same reaction to reading a lot of the emails of “The Team” etc. These slovenly minds are supposed to be leading scientists dictating worldwide policies involving billions of humans and trillions and trillions of dollars?
Richdo says:
January 3, 2012 at 6:09 pm
This response by Hal is simply priceless…
Yeah, it’s statistics all the way. Never a thought to how the events are described or whether they can be described consistently.
APACHEWHOKNOWS says: “They need to study rocks.”
I’m sure they already have rocks in their heads.
“Ken Hall says:
January 3, 2012 at 4:33 am
That is the central reason why the Hockey Stick Theory is utterly unsupportable. Trees != thermometers from the past. Additionally trees from one small location != representation of global conditions of climate.”
Nothing explains the logic more to me than the 80 cypress pines saps I planted on a spare patch, I used to have to mow, near Bundaberg in Queensland, 8 years ago. On a slight slope, they were all planted in the same method.
Looking out a window right now I recon they now stand between 3m – 6m high with widths between 100cm – 250cm.
Aristotle could have suggested the only way you can get a truth in that instance is to measure every tree.
Theo Goodwin says:
January 3, 2012 at 10:14 am
This is the same Ed Cook that, in the original CRU email batch, said we know f*** all about climate variability >100 years. He’s as dishonest as the rest.
Theo Goodwin says:
January 3, 2012 at 8:54 am
David says:
January 3, 2012 at 8:09 am
DCA says:
January 3, 2012 at 7:37 am
“I agree with almost all of these comments, but what about the response that reconstructions done using other proxies and excluding tree rings give similar results? Is that really the case, or
just more obfuscation?”
===========
“Good question. Can anyone answer that?”
Yes, and the answer is clear as crystal. All studies that use proxies are subject to the same criticisms that have been raised against using tree ring width as a proxy for temperature.
A million proxy studies that are as weak as the Hockey Stick are as valuable as the Hockey Stick; that is, worthless. A million flawed studies equals one flawed study.
There might be some good scientific studies that use proxies. But those studies will show the necessary empirical research as part of the study. At this time, no tree ring studies contain the necessary empirical research to support the claim that the proxy in question is a valid proxy.
———————————————————
Theo, I agree, and the point I was attempting to illustrate is that all the better studies, those using disparate proxies, with more samples, with their methods and data revealed, they all point to a warmer MWP, and combined, they shatter the hockey stick. It is just that the media is unaware of these other studies, and purposely so. IMV
Don Keiller, Thank you for our reply. his comment,
“I do feel strongly about academics moving outside their area of expertise.”
Does not agree with his feelings about other academics, scientists, philosophers, politicians, media pundits or even poets, IF they happen to agree with him though, does it? Then they are all experts supporting the consensus I suppose!
Anthony,
Thanks for your reply. Trees in far northern climes are generally limited by nitrogen and soil drainage. The rivers in these regions also radically change course over time- changing the supply of salmon marine served nitrogen and changing soil drainage to any given set of trees. We would also expect to see a drastic decline in marine derived nutrients (MDN) in the second half of the 20th century as a result of the rise in the industrial scale high seas salmon fishery. Loss of MDN can explain why there is a disconnect with the paleo temp. record. Isotope analysis might show any changes in N supply between terrestrial and MDN sources.
I’m going to try and find some time to see if the specifics of the Yamal series fit with any of the generalities I’ve outlined.
Here is a brief overview on salmon MDN influence on tree growth– it is significant.
http://www.fish.washington.edu/people/naiman/Salmon_Bear/salmon_veg.html
Two weeks ago in the US a network televised a program reporting on the results of new extra deep drilling of core samples in the Antarctic. The lead-in implied that scientists came from the perspective that a total meltdown of the ice sheet had never happened…but would under current atmospheric conditions.
Surprise! The new core samples showed that the ice shelf has melted and reformed at least 60 times due to temperature swings as great as +5 degrees C from today’s mean temperature. New discoveries of non-fossilized tropical vegetation remains reinforced the fact that major climate change has been the norm for eons.
But, by the end of the program we were treated to the admonition that man’s continued green house gas emissions of CO2 will cause catastrophic rises in sea level beyond anything ever recorded. NYC will be inundated under 120 feet of ocean, Florida will largely disappear, etc. It was within man’s power to stop the coming catastrophe if we just banded together to save mother earth. Sigh.
Ken, Phil Jones’s comment is deeply ironic- bearing in mind that I have a PhD in plant physiology!
And he thinks I am stepping out of my area of expertise
Don Keiller I know its amazing , is Phil Jones ‘expertise’ , providing scientific ‘cover ‘ for political goals ?
But its not surprising in one way , under the ‘great’ Mann one thing climate scientists are not short off is ‘ego’ and ‘arrogance’ , which ironically in the end may be their downfall. And frankly when they fail I think a lot of people will be lining up to kick them on the way down , and whom some of these are, I think these are will surprise people.
Maybe this is why hockey sticks are no longer made of wood?
jorgekafkazar says:
January 3, 2012 at 8:50 pm
APACHEWHOKNOWS says: “They need to study rocks.”
I’m sure they already have rocks in their heads.
Take it for granite that they’re wacke and may be full of schist. (Ouch. That wasn’t a gneiss thing for me to say.)
I agree, in this context, that the word “dendrochronology” or ‘tree-time-science’ technically should have been replaced by something like “dendrothermology,” ‘tree-heat-science’ or perhaps “dendrothermography,” ‘tree-heat-writing.’ Of course linguists say we are free to redefine words at any time. The word ‘prevent’ originally meant ‘come before’ as in “The Spartans prevented the Persians at Thermopylae.”
I don’t have a PhD in plant physiology and even I know that wood grows best in the presence of alcohol and pretty ladies. So I conclude that alcohol and sex had something to do with that explosive hockey stick growth.
LoL @ur momisugly Crusty etc
Great, great finish to a good thread, Crusty, bravo, & from me, a respectful golf clap for an appropriate interval, a real classic. Thanks.