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
What, McIntyre’s trees are skeptics too?
@Gary Young Hladik
>“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/
There are many plants that operate/live at a temperature higher than the surrounding environment and one of them is the Delicious Monster Plant (with the big leaves and twisted thick stems that one often sees in offices). They are Arums. Some arums can maintain their growing fruit tips about 10 Deg F above the ambient air be mixing oils together. Just before a DMP flowers the pod rises rapidly in temperature after sunset and bursts open the following day with thousands of tiny flowers on what will become the delicious fruit.
Arum lilies that push through the snow in spring literally melt their way upwards. I believe it has always been assumed that plants are ‘cold blooded’ and that basically no one checked what their temperatures actually are. It does not surprise me at all that the hardiest trees are capable of changing their internal temperature, and recording it, maybe. This may apply to all trees that have a growth limited by temperature. Why not? Makes evolutionary sense. A common element would be oils and resins that can be stored and mixed to generate heat. Sounds a lot like pines to me!
David Ross says:
September 11, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“but the paper has details [go read it…].”
Eh…that’s not really helpful for those of us who aren’t members of the AGU.
At the beginning of this thread Anthony has a link to the full paper.
There’s too much to read every comment in detail. I noticed a mention of a cold bias in the bore record. Could that be due to the weight of the tree tending to crush the inner layers of wood perhaps involving a process that removes water from the inner wood, shrinking the rings? In that case, density and isotope data together might describe the system pretty well. I wonder whether the density correction also corrected out the LIA signal. After shrinking the rings at age, maybe there is little temperature signal left.
I’ll say. In fact I’ve said it often.
This AGW psychosis does serve one good purpose and that is as a kind of Rorschach test. Just consider Sea-Ice minimum extents, temperature trends, hot days in July as the proxy ink-blots. If someone looks at these and always sees something creepy or fatalistic you might want to keep an eye on them. Normal people would do well to identify these kooks in their day-to-day lives, when you interview someone to hire as an employee, a babysitter, to shovel your driveway, to fix your car, be your doctor or pediatrician, etc. You can’t put a price tag on rationality and common sense and these kooks fail at both.
But that’s probably not what you meant anyway. 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 11, 2012 at 2:57 pm
The 18O isotope method has nothing to do with the growth of tree rings, but with the temperature of the water that produced the water vapor that condensed to rain which watered the tree.
Thanks. Stalactite rings would be a good proxy for a long term temperature records.
On unrelated matter and irrelevant to tree rings:
‘geomagnetic activity, lasts longer and is often stronger at night time’ (re: electric current induction in electricity grid) ?
Correct or wrong?
@- Blade says:
“This AGW psychosis does serve one good purpose and that is as a kind of Rorschach test. Just consider Sea-Ice minimum extents, temperature trends, hot days in July as the proxy ink-blots. If someone looks at these and always sees something creepy or fatalistic you might want to keep an eye on them. ”
And in like manner someone who looks at sea-ice minimum extents, temperature trends and hot days and does not suspect something beyond natural variation, you may want to send them for remedial classes in apprehending reality.
The trouble with the d18O measure of temperature is that it is usually a measure of regional sea surface temperature. That does not show much variation over the last few thousand years as indicated from the static sea level over this time.
The recent {last century} rise in sea level indicates that this stasis is no longer in operation.
vukcevic says:
September 12, 2012 at 12:07 am
‘geomagnetic activity, lasts longer and is often stronger at night time’ (re: electric current induction in electricity grid) ? Correct or wrong?
Generally correct as GA is mostly due to release of energy stored in the geomagnetic tail that stretches out in the anti-sun direction, although the ‘electricity grid’ bit is a bit odd here.
izen:
At September 12, 2012 at 3:02 am you say
I offer some help.
People who apprehend reality know that sea-ice minimum extents, temperature trends and hot days are all observed to be within natural variability. So people who “suspect” otherwise need to seek help in case their delusions start to affect important parts of their lives.
Richard
Tree rings may be the best metric at all.
According to the cosmic-ray hypothesis (i.e., solar activity shields the earth from cloud-causing cosmic rays) periods of low solar activity, such as the Little Ice Age, would have more clouds. Since clouds both reflect sunlight back into space and also produce rain, they produce colder and wetter climate at the same time.
If so, then Michael Mann’s tree-ring data missed the Little Ice Age because that period’s high-cosmic-ray induced climate change was colder and wetter than normal. And Michael Mann ignored the 1975-2000 tree ring data because that’s period’s low-cosmic-ray induced climate change was warmer and dryer than normal.
Thus tree rings may be the best metric whenever the goal is to examine that climate change not caused by variations in solar activity.
Anyway, the wrong temperature reconstruction is the isotope reconstruction. For a more detailed analysis, look here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4069785
Andre
@Howard Sanborn Richman
>Tree rings may be the best metric at all.
>…
>If so, then Michael Mann’s tree-ring data missed the Little Ice Age because that period’s high-cosmic-ray induced climate change was colder and wetter than normal.
This statement accepts that Michael Mann presented the result of his investigation, i.e. the results as shown in the data. This is not true. He did not ‘miss it’. When all the data he had available is included, it clearly indicates there was a LIA so he did what is called in mathematics ‘cheating’ (which is, believe or not, a technical term) and left out data that produced the LIA dip in temperatures. He then used multipliers for tree ring sets that were more to his liking, different multipliers for different data sets to such an extent that some trees counted more than 300 times the ‘weight’ of others. The result pleased him and his sponsors so it was (eventually) published as MBH98. It is wise to recall that the IPCC accepted the paper before it was published. This is both extraordinary and in breach of their own rules, casting some considerable doubt on their intentions.
His misrepresentation of the data does not undermine your argument, however. It would be helpful if you were to clearly separate anything to do with the Mann publications and what is generally considered ‘normal scientific work’. The cosmic ray hypothesis is still a work in progress and is receiving a lot of attention, which it deserves because the physics are sound and no one is suppressing the data and methods.
****
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.
****
I believe that’s the leaf temp that stays relatively constant (~70F?). Makes sense since the leaf is the evaporation “machine” that regulates the evaporation (and thus temp) by the size of the stomata openings. The wood and stems do not evaporate significantly and so are roughly at ambient temp.
Regarding “warm blooded plants.” In New England, Skunk Cabbage blooms melt their way up through solid ice in swamps. I always wondered how the heck they knew it was spring.
****
zefal says:
September 11, 2012 at 4:46 pm
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.
****
Offhand, it sounds in the ballpark. Where I grew up a Q. alba (white oak) in good soil nearby was about 90″ dia at breast height. Coring determined it was ~320 yrs old (that was 40 yrs ago). It’s still in good shape. The deceased Wye oak in MD was well over 10 ft dia & around 600 yrs old.
@Beng
Good point, however there are good reasons as well to assume that trunks, which contain different types of resins as you go deeper into them, may be able to regulate the temperature to some extent, for example warming in spring to give that species a competitive advantage. The resins (which form amber) are very high energy compounds which is why pine wood has more heat in it than other trees (per dry kg). Resins are energetically expensive – why make them? Mixing oils or washing one oil over a stored resin can generate heat as it released stored energy at the beginning of the growing season. Given the environment in which the bristelcone pines grow, it is worth checking with a ‘treemometer’, to borrow a term!
@Caleb says:
>Regarding “warm blooded plants.” In New England, Skunk Cabbage blooms melt their way up through solid ice in swamps. I always wondered how the heck they knew it was spring.
The length of the daylight (a gene switches on). The heat is produced by mixing stored oils which also protect it from freezing. It is easy to check the temperature difference with a thin thermocouple probe.
If we send an away team to Yamal, who wears the red shirt?
What labs would do the analysis?
What are the lab costs for the dO18 analysis of (multiple) cores?
How many cores would be required to provide a chronology acceptable to the dark side… er climatologists?
What standards for documentation would be observed?
What permission needs to be obtained.
These are irritating questions, but they need to be considered beforehand. Some of the oldest trees may be protected. Several years ago, I tried to get permission from the relevant forest service offices to take cores from a “preserve” – it was peremptorily denied, and I was threatened with a substantial fine. The ranger went on to ‘splain how I’d need to initiate an environmental impact study at my own expense, costs that could run into the multiple thousands, etc, etc. Universities and researchers harvest cores from this site routinely, publishing their studies online, so it helps to be “affiliated”. It seems to me that Steve McIntyre did request permission for his Starbucks expedition – and received it uneventfully, but I don’t think he was in a sanctuary.
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. 🙂
#############
Vuk I think you miss the point of my comment.
I am focusing on the structure of argumentation. Nothing else.
So for example, you will see people argue that more ice in the antartic is inconsistent with global warming when it is clearly not.
David Ball says:
September 11, 2012 at 1:33 pm (Edit)
Leif and Steven, you have to admit that tree rings as a temperature proxy are a fail. This has been known for decades. Steve Mc has spent his vacation showing the lunacy of tree rings as a temperature proxy. This he did in spades. Why would it show the LIA if it did not show a hockey stick? Your point is moot.
For supposedly learned men, you both seem rather obtuse sometimes.
###############
just WHO exactly do you think coined the term TREEMOMETER !!!
Now, to get to specifics about tree rings it would depend upon which measure you use
1. TRW
2. late wood max density
3. isotopes.
when I coined the term treemometer it was with respect to ring width. late wood max density and isotopes.. I keep a SKEPTICAL mind. which by definition is an OPEN MIND, not a mind that is made up.
For those who do not live in the US could someone please advise;
1. the distance between the pines used in this stufy and those used by Mann from Sheep Mountain, ie that gave him the great uptick in his hockey stick.?
2. Is there any significant difference in climate between the two sites ?
From Steven Mosher on September 12, 2012 at 1:41 pm:
Andrew Orlowski of The Register, first time I ever heard that term.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
No “Mosher” given credit for it, nor mentioned at all.
Orlowski referenced a Bishop Hill piece:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
But search function gives up at “treem” thus treemometer isn’t there.
Andre says- “Anyway, the wrong temperature reconstruction is the isotope reconstruction. For a more detailed analysis, look here: ”
Thanks for this link. The book chapter looks very interesting.
As usual, every proxy has issues.
Further searching for origin of “treemometer”:
Note this is the word in the tree ring-thermometer sense. I found previous uses referring to a tree outdoors with a thermometer mounted on it.
It was used by Anthony Watts on October 27, 2007. Mousing over the posting date reveals 8:14 AM, which would be Pacific Time, the posting time of record.
Helio, La Niña, and bad winters, awww nuts!!
There is a Climate Audit post by Steven McIntyre on that date:
Gerry North Lecture in Boulder, Nov 2, 2007
The first use of “treemometer” was in the comments by Mr Pete, at 5:48 PM blog time. Steven Mosher used the term later, on 10/28.
Thus by the available evidence, the term “treemometer” (as applied to “tree ring thermometers”) was first coined by Anthony Watts and dateable to October 27, 2007 at 8:14 AM PT, earliest known usage.