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
Gary Hladik says (September 11, 2012 at 2:54 pm): “I seem to recall a paper discussed here on WUWT claiming that plants tend to maintain an internal temperature that varies less than their external environment.”
Hah! I think this is it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/13/surprise-leaves-maintain-temperature-new-findings-may-put-dendroclimatology-as-metric-of-past-temperature-into-question/
“4) That even though the LIA was global it wasn’t evenly distributed throughout all locales, in other words, some places wouldn’t have had a temperature drop even if most places did.”
It’s important to remember that even during our current century-long warming, 1/3 of all temperature stations have recorded either no change, or a drop in temperatures. So it’s hardly unprecedented that a period of global warming would include many areas of the earth that do not experience warming, for whatever reasons. Another reason to suggest that “average global mean temperature” is a fairly meaningless statistic.
David Ross says:
September 11, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Tree-rings aren’t great proxies for temperature. They’re not worthless, but relying on a small sample for any geographical area or time period, is almost worthless.
Using the 18O isotope as the indicator is independent of the material being wood. The isotope method works with any material containing oxygen: chalk, wood, ice, whatever. So [and that is the main point of the paper], the first graph should be fine.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:28 am
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?
For exactly the same reason as Mann, the IPCC, and alarmists everywhere trumpet the relevance of Bristle Cone Pines and “The ONE Tree” from Yamal as having Global significance.
Leif Svalgaard says-
“Using the 18O isotope as the indicator is independent of the material being wood. The isotope method woks with any material containing oxygen: chalk, wood, ice, whatever.”
Can you explain how the 18O isotope measurement (is it ratio or absolute amount) in tree wood can be used as a proxy for air temperature? I have seen descriptions for d18O wikipedia, but the interpretation seems to be very dependent on the substrate, biochemistry, precipitation and other interfering influences.
Thanks.
Thanks for the Increment Borer videos and explaining that the 18O isotope measurement has nothing to do with the growth of tree rings, but with the temperature.
Wait, but Leif, at what temp (altitude) was the water condensed? Is that always the same as the bristlecone pine? I’m confused.
(Former plant physiology PhD candidate)
“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.”
What a strange comment. According to Mann, the world hangs in the balance. Depending on what policies governments adopted, trillions of dollars are at stake, and don’t even get started on the humanitarian aspects. Multimillionaires traipse around the world, charging $100,000 speaking fees, to bloviate on our impending doom.
And yet Mann can’t access better information because taking a few core samples would break his budget.
chris y says:
September 11, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Can you explain how the 18O isotope measurement (is it ratio or absolute amount) in tree wood can be used as a proxy for air temperature?
The principle is very simple: 18O is heavier than 16O, so a water molecule having an 18O atom instead of 16O is heavier than one with 16O. It therefore takes a higher temperature to evaporate that molecule into water vapor. The ratio between the number of 18O atoms to 16O atoms is therefore a measure of the temperature when the water evaporated. That vapor now goes into clouds and is perhaps moved around a bit, say within 1000 miles, before condensing into rain that falls down to water the tree [so the tree does sample a rather large area, not just a few feet around it]. If most of the water that the tree sucks up is surface water [and for bristlecones that is certainly the case as they grow just on top of the rocks and don’t have deep roots into a subsurface reservoir] the wood that forms will contain some of that recent 18O that is in the rain that just fell and we can thus estimate the temperature of the water that evaporated to form the clouds that gave the rain that watered the tree.
Leif Svalgaard wrote:
Point taken.
My
criticismrant was really addressed at Michael Mann’s use and abuse of tree rings. Just couldn’t help myself : )I’m a scientific layman. But I’m familiar with Dansgaard’s method of measuring Oxygen-18 or deuterium (heavy water) in polar ice cores. Which I understand is the basis of ice core temperature proxies used by the IPCC. I wasn’t familiar with the notation “d18Oc”. I did a quick Google search of “d18Oc isotope” and got “carbonate oxygen isotope.” But no reference to ice cores. Is the above “d18Oc” isotope method related to, similar or the same as Dansgaard’s method?
The Wikipedia article you link to seems to suggest that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_isotope_ratio_cycle
Not making a point here, just looking for answers.
Alex Avery says:
September 11, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Wait, but Leif, at what temp (altitude) was the water condensed? Is that always the same as the bristlecone pine? I’m confused.
It is the temperature where the water evaporated that is important, so most of it comes from the oceans or some warm and wet place, but the paper has details [go read it…].
I’ve written an article along these lines on the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum called Looking at the mind of the believer.
For a quick summary, the article says that warmists find the fact that sceptics talk sensibly to be a threat to their world view which requires us to be wrong. So they invent a mythical “bogeyman” to explain to themselves how sensible people can be sceptics.
But the real problem them becomes how they can justify this “Bogeyman” … which is usually fossil fuel.
This is absolutely great stuff. Not only a first rate paper but lots of cogent and informative comments. Thank You all.
David Ross says:
September 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm
But no reference to ice cores. Is the above “d18Oc” isotope method related to, similar or the same as Dansgaard’s method?
It makes no difference if the 18O is stored in ice, wood, seashells, or calcite rocks. The method is fundamentally the same [the details will always differ a bit]. The ice, wood, etc are just archival mediums that are solid enough that the atoms don’t move after deposition.
Thanks Leif. Wilco
David Ross says:
September 11, 2012 at 2:54 pm
yet they can’t send a few guys out with a simple tool costing at most $350 to do a basic task any carpenter, handyman or indeed anyone could do after a morning’s training.
===================================================================
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!
I see a citizen’s brigade running around like the Surface Stations project !!!!
Interesting article! Are you missing a ” century” after “20th”, second paragraph of the discussion?
Here’s a video clip of a tree core being sampled. I wonder how many people it took to carry that core sampling tool to the location?
Here’s the only place I found that sells Increment Borers. They don’t give prices nor do they appear to sell online. On another website it stated that they were $300 and up.
I have an oak tree that’s is 56 inches in diameter and this website gives a basic method of determining tree age. According to this method the tree is 280 years old. Does that sound accurate? The tree isn’t in the forest and the site states that this is for determining trees growing in the forest. Which, I assume, a non-forest grown tree would grow at a faster rate and that would mean the age would actually be less.
Yamal or Bust!
That all depends on whether or not the calibration of the ratios were consistent with the environmental variability of the collection site versus standardd assumptions used in other calibrations.
Some of the results of such isotopic studies for the Antarctic ice cores are suspect, because the assumptions used to formulate the calibrations failed to account for differing oceanic sources and varying seawater temperatures for the precipitation incorporated into the glacial ice.
Has anyone ever attempted to determine by experimentation the sources of the precipitation for this site, and did they determine to what extent those sources varied over the period under study?
I ran the numbers on the temperature/d18O conversion formula they used. It is very consistent with the formula one would use for mid-latitude, mid-continent scenario. The authors built their own formula based on the local temperature/local dO18 measurements but it turns out to be basically the same as other places in the world with similar conditions.
The formula changes depending on latitude, altitude and proximity to an ocean (something that climate scientists usually have no concept of based on the formula that has been used in other settings/climate science studies).
I happen to be a big believer in the d18O isotope as long as it is used properly. It is by far the best proxy there is.
Leif Svalgaard wrote:
Eh…that’s not really helpful for those of us who aren’t members of the AGU.
But you’re explanation at 3:53 pm helped clarify. As I understand it, they’re using the same method as that used to derive temperature proxies from polar ice cores, which should be independent of tree ring width or density.
The notation “d18Oc” threw me, but it’s just a typographical limitation of WordPress. The abstract, at the link provided, makes it clear we’re talking about the ratio of two isotopes oxygen-18 (heavy) and oxygen-16 (regular).
Leif Svalgaard wrote:
Got it.
On a bit of a side note, I perused your website and note your interest in sunspots, cosmic rays, etc. Would you not be more interested to see measurements of carbon isotope ratios taken from tree rings and compared with the temperature record?
D. Patterson wrote:
But those problems are acknowledged by the ice-scientists together with problems with air bubbles migrating and not matching the date of the ice that entraps it. So they are not appropriate for yearly or probably decadal temperature variations.
I have only read the abstract, so I don’t know to what extent the authors of this paper have addressed the issue of resolution.
Still only a summer season indicator. Only summer data leaves a lot of speculation. So, not a good proxy.
Regarding the wood incorperating O16 vs O18: I imagine if the trees were watered by summer rains from a sub-tropical jet they’d have more O18, but if they were watered by melting snowpack lingering above the roots, and the snowpack was delivered by a winter’s polar jet, you’d have less O18. If this were true than the amount of O18 would have little to do with the world’s temperature, and everything to do with the sourse of the precipitation.
Leif Svalgaard-
you say “The principle is very simple: 18O is heavier than 16O, so…”
Thanks. The location and number of reference temperatures used in the calibration segment seems to be quite important. Choosing temperature records within a 1000 mile radius could provide plenty of opportunities for picking a path to a desired result. Are there any standards set by paleo researchers to avoid cherry picking pitfalls?
Has the resulting 18O concentration measured in the wood been shown by laboratory experiment to accurately reflect the 18O concentration in the water supply?