A new paper in GRL published Sep 6th Secular temperature trends for the southern Rocky Mountains over the last five centuries makes use of some tree core sample data gathered by Steve McIntyre and Mr. Pete. Readers of WUWT and Climate Audit may recall that in the summer of 2007, Steve left CA in my attendance for a couple of weeks while he went to Colorado to visit his sister, and to prove or disprove his ‘Starbucks hypothesis’ which asks:
…could a climate scientist have a Starbucks in the morning, collect tree rings through the day and still be home for dinner?
This came about because apparently RealClimateScientists™ don’t have the funds or time to get out of the office and gather new tree core samples, such as cores that would fill in the last 25 years that seems to be part of that “tricky” divergence problem. In A Little Secret (Oct 2007) Steve wrote:
Don’t you think that someone on the Team might have been a little curious as to what bristlecone ring widths have done during the past 25 years? For this, we have the classic excuse of Michael Mann and the Team for not updating bristlecone and proxy records is that it’s not practical within the limited climate budgets:
While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar sites). For historical reasons, many of the important records were obtained in the 1970s and 1980s and have yet to be updated.
This new paper proves that you can do field science on vacation, while visiting Starbucks, and in a single day. It also has a thing or two to tell us about the accuracy of tree ring width and wood density records and their value as a temperature proxy.
First, the calibration of the d18Oc data with instrumental temperature data from the nearby Cheesman USHCN station.

Abstract:
Pre-instrumental surface temperature variability in the Southwestern United States has traditionally been reconstructed using variations in the annual ring widths of high altitude trees that live near a growth-limiting isotherm. A number of studies have suggested that the response of some trees to temperature variations is non-stationary, warranting the development of alternative approaches towards reconstructing past regional temperature variability. Here we present a five-century temperature reconstruction for a high altitude site in the Rocky Mountains derived from the oxygen isotopic composition of cellulose (d18Oc) from Bristlecone Pine trees. The record is independent of the co-located growth-based reconstruction while providing the same temporal resolution and absolute age constraints. The empirical correlation between d18Oc and instrumental temperatures is used to produce a temperature transfer function. A forward-model for cellulose isotope variations, driven by meteorological data and output from an isotope-enabled General Circulation Model, is used to evaluate the processes that propagate the temperature signal to the proxy. The cellulose record documents persistent multidecadal variations in d18Oc that are attributable to temperature shifts on the order of 1C but no sustained monotonic rise in temperature or a step-like increase since the late 19th century. The isotope-based temperature history is consistent with both regional wood density-based temperature estimates and some sparse early instrumental records.
Berkelhammer, M.,and L. D. Stott (2012), Secular temperature trends for the southern Rocky Mountains over the last five centuries, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L17701, doi:10.1029/2012GL052447.

During the 20th century, the summer surface temperatures in this region are characterized by a broadly parabolic trend, with minima during the 1930s and early 1980s
and a period of relative warmth during the late 1940s to early 1960s (Figure 1). The temperature reconstruction based on d18Oc suggests that in terms of mean temperature and multidecadal variance, the 20th century is largely comparable to
the preceding 4 centuries (Figure 3).
Despite the seemingly good correspondence between tree ring width (Figures 3 and S5) and d18Oc proxies during the instrumental period, over much of the previous 400 years
the two records exhibit very different climate histories (Figure 3). Prior to the mid 19th century the width-based reconstruction indicates temperatures at this site were
approximately 0.7C cooler than during the instrumental era while the d18Oc reconstruction suggests that temperatures have remained stable. The residual between these two reconstructions (Figure 3) is sufficiently large and sustained to suggest the existence of a significant bias in one or both of these two proxies that cannot likely be explained as arising simply from random errors in the linear transfer function.
Daux et al. [2011] also note an apparent divergence between width and isotope based temperature reconstructions in Larix decidua from France. They attribute the divergence
possibly to changes in the soil hydrology (i.e., plant utilization of soil water enriched by evaporation) or moisture stress. At this site, soils are thin and the trees are characteristically shallow-rooted and it is thus unlikely that deeper, low-residence time water would be available. Further no indication of anomalous 20th water stress or abundance is seen in either d13C from pinyon pine trees across the region [Leavitt et al., 2007] or widths from lower elevation drought-stressed trees [Cook et al., 1999].
To help resolve this enigma, an additional temperature proxy that is based on a regional composite of wood density measurements is considered [Briffa et al., 1992] (Figures 3 and S5). This temperature proxy is independent of both tree growth rate and the isotopic composition of cellulose and is shown to have high skill as a growing season temperature proxy in this region (Figure S5). To test the consistency between density and isotope-derived temperatures we look at the cross-wavelet [Grinsted et al., 2004] between the records (Figure S6). In the multi-decadal window, the density and isotope reconstructions are consistently in-phase with one another through the last 400 years, implying that the two proxies are likely being influenced by a common climate parameter, which we assume to be growing season surface temperature variations. With respect to the cross-wavelet between widths and isotopes, the two appear to only be commonly forced during the 20th century (Figure S6).
Further confirmation of this is garnered by looking at early instrumental data from the region (not shown), which indicate that surface temperatures between 1850–1870 were, on average, as warm as those of the 1930s–1960s [Wahl and Lawson, 1970], which is consistent with the relative thermal stability implied by the isotopic and
density reconstructions. Taken together, the d18Oc and wood density records provide a fairly consistent perspective on multidecadal temperature variations, which suggest a cool bias in the width-based temperatures prior to the mid 19th century.
Conclusions
The isotope temperature record from this site indicates relatively stable summer season temperatures amidst decadal to multidecadal temperature fluctuations. Although
the isotope reconstruction is associated with several significant sources of uncertainty that arise from the transfer function and tree-to-tree heterogeneity, the results highlight the need for, 1) additional efforts to extend a processbased network of temperature reconstructions across the region and 2) develop pre-instrumental forward model simulations (for both widths and isotopes) that could be used to test the assumptions of linearity that underlie the proxy reconstructions.
The main points of the paper are:
- Temp. trends in the SW US can be reconstructed using isotopes in tree rings
- A process model of the proxy can be used to characterize uncertainty in proxy
- Temperature trends in SW US have been relatively stable over last 5 centuries
Acknowledgments. The authors thank M. Zhu, G. Kleber and
M. Rincon for invaluable assistance in sample preparation and analysis;
Z. Gedalof and J. Franks for cross dating the samples used in this analysis;
V. Bommarito, L. Holzmann, P. Holzmann, R. Lee, N. McIntyre S.
McIntyre, L. Thomas for sample collection; A. Ballantyne for feedback
on an earlier version of the paper; K. Yoshimura for providing outputs
from the IsoGSM simulations; 2 anonymous reviewers for suggestions
on improving the manuscript and the ITRDB for tree ring data. Funding
was provided by NOAA Award NA10OAR4310129 to LDS.

This effort, peer reviewed paper, and results just goes to show that citizen science can do what RealClimateScientists™ can’t or won’t, and do it just as effectively. For those who worry about such things, it should be noted that Steve applied for, and got permission for the core sampling of the Bristlecone pines in Colorado.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard who has the full paper on his website: http://www.leif.org//EOS/2012GL052447.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:46 am
No sign of Maunder and Dalton minima…
———-
Are you saying that it did not happen?
The “heavy equipment” needed in collecting tree ring samples Mann refers to, I’m guessing, is his feedbag.
John W says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:05 am
Are you saying that it did not happen?
Not necessarily, just introducing some caution in interpreting proxies. Of course, when the proxies confirm one’s pet theory they are good, right? And when not, they are bad [or other effects corrupt the data], right?
But this work is only representative of one small location.
It cannot and does not have relevance/teleconnect to the global situation.
Unlike Yamal.
RC (sarc)
While reading this:
It brought back memories of this:
I now understand why the climate guys are moving to Colorado. It would seem from the graphs that this area is immune to any climate change! Guess this begs the question is the science really settled? Just another pin in the hat of the more we learn the less we really understand.
Comma missing (from the original paper).
Don Keiller says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:13 am
But this work is only representative of one small location.
It cannot and does not have relevance/teleconnect to the global situation.
Yet people are falling all over each other to trumpet the relevance of this series. If it is not relevant, then why laud it?
Why not update Yamal? Because the science is settled, don’t you know that! /sarc
Maybe WUWT needs to launch a Yamal expedition.
Forgive me, but I thought the 1930’s were way hotter than the 1950’s?
“Not necessarily, just introducing some caution in interpreting proxies. Of course, when the proxies confirm one’s pet theory they are good, right? And when not, they are bad [or other effects corrupt the data], right?’
amen to that Leif. Sometimes proxies are an inkblot test.
Notice the following: X cannot warm the planet because lts cool here and there. Or one could say that X cannot cool the planet because its warm here or there. Same basic argumentative structure.
A lowering of solar activity cannot cool the planet, because during the LIA summers were just as hot. C02 cannot warm the planet because its cold in my neighborhood.
MiCro says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:58 am
“I planted about a dozen saplings in my yard in 2000, most are about the same size now, but the largest is 20 feet away from the smallest which is about 60-70% of the size of the larger one. I can explain why they are different, but if the wood was harvested in 50-100 years no one else would be able to.”
Agreed. When I purchased my house in 2001 there was a terribly neglected tangerine tree in the front yard. I have nursed it back to health, it has grown into a beautiful tree that produces lots of excellent fruit. If someone wanted to use that tree to support AGW they might have a very good proxy for their point of view but would not really know the reason why there was increased growth since 2001. Unless one knows the nutritional history of a tree, it doesn’t seem logical to use it solely for a temperature proxy.
I would donate to such an expedition.
The charting doesn’t go back far enough to tell us much of anything about the Maunder Minimum other than its tail end. The Dalton Minimum seems to have some presence, but the wood density suggests there would have been other confounding factos such as moisture and cloud cover which would tend to make the trees not so good as temperature recording instruments.
If a Yamal expedition is launched, tthey should look for this tree. It’s influence is astounding!
This is clearly all wrong. First of all, the deniers who wrote this are not members of the Climate Seance Club (TM). Secondly, they did not use the right trees, only certain magic trees work as proxies, and you have to be a member of the Climate Seance Club (TM) to get the secret decoder ring which allows one to pick the right trees. The PROPER research for a paper like this requires large amounts of money, and ours is all being spent on Climate Seance Communications to ensure the public is aware of the truthiness of Climate Seance. Clearly you have never been to a Climate Sceance or you would know all of this.
(sarc)
Anthony Watts says: September 11, 2012 at 10:39 am
Maybe WUWT needs to launch a Yamal expedition.
Shedloads of sponsorship money available if you know the right people.
http://www.yamaloilandgas.com/en
I say, do it.
To me that indicates the uselesness of treating trees as proxies for temperatures.
Anthony Watts said:
September 11, 2012 at 10:39 am
Maybe WUWT needs to launch a Yamal expedition.
————————————–
Are you going to row there? 😉
Just curious Did this year’s huge fire near Colo Springs affect this site?
Anthony Watts says: September 11, 2012 at 10:39 am
“Maybe WUWT needs to launch a Yamal expedition.”
Maybe you can get some grant money for that!
…sarc.
Steven Mosher says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:49 am
A lowering of solar activity cannot cool the planet, because during the LIA summers were just as hot.
Yes and no.
I’ve been pointing that for some years now.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
– Yes, because the TSI doesn’t vary much and the N. Hemisphere gets most of it in summer and least in the winter, and yes the winters are that have the 300 year uptrend.
– No, because temperature natural variability is caused by geomagnetic activity, which lasts longer during the night, and the winter nights are much longer than the summer nights.
See you. 🙂
Was this area affected by the huge fires near Colorado Springs this year?
Not the Starbucks, the pines.
Matthew W says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:39 am
“this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity”
Sheesh !!
What are under grads for????
And what are the GRANTS for? I assumed the grant was to pay the cost of the research, not just to put into the pocket of the “researcher.”
So, you say collecting this kind of data is cheap. On the other hand, it does not support computational climate model ensemble projections. While running such models is extremely expensive, for they need supercomputers and development of several million lines of code.
Therefore cheap datasets like this are useless, they should be thrown out ASAP, on purely economic grounds. Let real scientist conduct their costly, labor-intensive activity instead, with expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (like Starbucks), until those few lucky trees are found, whose record is consistent with the models, that is, they lend support to science, amply demonstrating their worth.
/sarc (needless, but required)