Climate alarmists tell us that the Earth has never been warmer, and that we can tell by looking at tree rings, treelines, and other proxy indicators of climate.
Climate scientists claim the warmth is unprecedented.
We’ve been told it is warming so fast, we have only 12 years left!
Yet nature seems to not be paying attention to such pronouncements, as this discovery shows.
This photo shows a tree stump of White Spruce that was radiocarbon dated at 5000 years old. It was located 100 km north of the current tree line in extreme Northwest Canada.
The area is now frozen tundra, but it was once warm enough to support significant tree growth like this.
If climate was this warm in the past, how did that happen before we started using the fossil fuels that supposedly made our current climate unprecedentedly warm?
I’ve used this argument a lot and never get an answer other than “that’s what scientists say”!
Follow-up question: Why would scientists say something obviously untrue?
Could it be they don’t know about it? Just plant the doubt. Minds change slowly.
It’s easy to see that 12 years is the number they’ve got to have to implement Agenda 21/30, albeit maybe it was renamed because Agenda 21 was a bit too ambitious as people are becoming aware of the scam. They need more time to brainwash people, such as our school-striking children who will grow up to vote United Nations for President.
With large sample noise, surrogate data, and very sparse data, there are no reasonable or probably accurate conclusions you can reach, so a wide range of conclusions is possible. Pick one. One that makes you happy.
Why would scientists say something obviously untrue?
Since you ask, this question was answered by Goethe over 200 years ago:
“I could never have known so well how paltry men are, and how little they care for really high aims, if I had not tested them by my scientific researches. Thus I saw that most men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.”
Man for man, scientists are no more moral than the rest of us.
But, but ……. some scientists say it correctly, to wit:
Have any scientists tried to use treeline history as a temperature proxy?
Historians have identified temperatures from the southern limit of salmon dispersal and the northern birch border for all of Eurasia.
And thus could identify pre modern wandering to late bronce time migration periods.
Ask which particular scientists say it, and what exactly do they say.
Either that or they proclaim that all of the respected “scientific” organizations have come out in support of CAGW.
Prof. Gernot Patzelt: Gletscher- und Waldentwicklung in alpinen Hochlagen
https://youtu.be/glplSyZM7uE
https://notrickszone.com/2012/05/24/multiple-glacier-studies-show-wide-holocene-climate-variations-in-asia-and-europe/
In a normal, functioning, scientific subculture this tree trunk wouldn’t represent a problem at all.
Tree exists outside where model predicts => model falsified => scientists work to improve model.
What I don’t get is, why don’t CAGW scientists use the extensive flaws and counter-evidence to their theoretical models to demand a larger share of the Climate Fawning $$$ trough? Massive resources are taken away from CAGW research and eaten by their advocacy / policy thinktank “friends”. Why aren’t they all like: “Hey, we need more funding to make our models better so we have the best chance of saving the planet. Shut those talking-head corruptocrats up and give us their paycheck”.
“Why aren’t they all like: “Hey, we need more funding to make our models better so we have the best chance of saving the planet.”
Because you can’t be a hero and “save the planet” without imminent, catastrophic danger.
Lots of things can influence the climate and the earth’s surface temperature. In our time, the burning of fossil fuels is the biggest thing, and that’s what we will have to live with.
These bureaucrats and that is really what they are, just make this shite up as they go along.
Well…..this is just INCONVIENT!!! I’m stumped!
The whole story runs against the grain.
Yes, reality is a birch.
I pine for the day when AGW scientists wood follow the science.
Then they’d really kick Ash!
I tear up and balsam, when I realize ancient tree stumps run rings around Climate Change fraud. I hew to Natural Cyclic Climate Change theory. Axe me why….
Oakay.
I accept that this is a fact.
AGW ‘scientists’ want to be poplar.
Perhaps we’re Pecan at the future demise of CAGW?
The stump is in Canada, so while that stump is still there before Michael Mann burns it down ; we can claim that that is the reason why we Canadians have always been known as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Yes, and oak makes a joke.
Oaks has been found from swamps in north Finland (Lappland). Maybe we need a real mann to explain this inconvenient truth.
Well, I used to think climate science was all bark and no byte, but that stump says otherwise.
Da troof hurts.
Well, maybe they might think of another pitch? What is really funny about that picture is that warmers can’t see the forest for the “tree”. Not to worry though. Mann would exclude that “tree” fer sure!
I’m stumped!
I see what you did there.
I cedar what you are trying to do.
I wood hope so . . . seems to be the poplar trend at present.
You guys all rock!!!!!!! LMAO.
Not according to poplar myth
That comment is ace. Err….
JF
An inconvenient spruce?
An inconvenient spruce?
That may be the best one there…..
It is. But all is fir in love and war.
A picture really does say a thousand words. Thank Anthony.
In 2005 the Canadian Journal of Forest Research published a paper on Arctic tree lines from the Eastern slope of the Ural mountains that claims that a large number of well-preserved tree remains can be found up to 60 – 80 meters above the current tree line and that the earliest distinct maximum in stand density occurred in the 11th to 13th centuries, coincident with Medieval climate warming. The paper was based on work done by the same Russian scientists, S.G. Shiyatov and R. M. Hantemirov that were providing tree ring data to Keith Briffa of the Univ. of East Anglia’s CRU. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x05-111#.WXn71ojyuM8
Ah, ha, so it was the Russians after all – But this time colluding with the Canadians – the mystery grows deeper…
Perhaps more to the point, if if was that much warmer 5000 years ago and nothing catastrophic happened then how can people now say 1.5C increase will be catastrophic?
Something really big did happen about 5000 years ago, not sure if we would regard it as a catastrophe but the COGS think it was. It was the beginning of civilisation.
Maybe they only had 12 years to sort themselves out? What we need is someone like Harold Camping to provide accurate predictions for the end of the world. Oh wait….
Nothing catastrophic happened? Are you kidding? Are any of those people from 5000 years ago still alive? Enough said.
Tonyb
Tonyb – very good, you almost got me there.
And their civilizations are dead too.
But it’s only a catastrophe if you’re in it.
Now the warming is caused by the evil gas CO2, which makes all things worse. Even 0.5 celcius higher temperature than now will get the weather to go berzerk, so that weather forecasts will be impossible.
You can then wonder why the weather is more calm in the summertime than in the wintertime, but what do a layman know about climate and weather.
There never was any science behind the claim. If you examine the history of the claim, the first scientists merely made the claim that 1.5C would get us to the warmest period of the Medieval Warm Period, and anything above that was “uncharted territory”. So to speak.
It didn’t take long for the activists to take “uncharted territory” and convert it into, “known dangerous territory”.
Beyond here There Be Dragons. Many of the ancient map-makers weren’t so much making a map, they were telling story. And so it goes today.
A few Billion tax dollars in carbon taxes says so .
That’s what this is really about .
Todays snowflakes are very sensitive. And consensus says it´s going to be the end.
We have only twelve years, like they said in 70´s. Iceage is coming.
It looks like an outlier to me.
Why?
As well as tree fossils, a variety of other evidence, especially pollens, indicates that the tree line was farther north during the holocene temperature maximum. link
This is not to say that the stump couldn’t be an outlier but the wider width of its rings seems to indicate reasonable growing conditions and makes it more likely that it was within the treeline.
I was trying to be amusing, as the stump was described it is a one off.outside of the the current distribution of trees (therefore an outlier to the present distribution in location and age). I have seen a paper describing beach ridges on the northernmost coast of Greenland, indicating that there was open ocean between the north pole and Greenland during the Holocene temperature maximum. There is not open water there now year round. In addition half of the substantial ice thickness in Greenland is post-glacial (less than 12k old). This makes sense, when you realize that the arctic is a desert during glaciations and open water is necessary to provide the moisture to create the current (young and thick) ice sheet. By the way, the polar bears did not die out during the Holocene temperature maximum.
I recall in Peter Fitzsimons book, “Mawson’, he describes Scott’s attempt to reach the south pole and found, diarised and retrieved samples of fossilised trees from a couple hundred miles from the South pole. The samples were retrieved when they found their bodies.
It looks like an outlier to me.
Surely you jest . . . 🙂
For mann it is an out-and-out liar.
If the artifacts in this story were found under melting glaciers, it is obvious that it was much warmer 1000 or so years ago.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/2000-artifacts-pulled-edge-norways-melting-glaciers-180967949/
They also found medieval house under those melting glaciers. Those Vikings were tough guys. They lived under ice.
Circular confirmation bias
Remarkable that Michael Mann gets away with presumed expertise in plant physiology when he trained in physics.
What area of physics teaches that the modest infrared radiative ability of CO2 is strong enough to overcome gravitational rules that govern the movements of planets and solar systems, the magnetic fields of large astronomical bodies, galactic cosmic radiation, solar cycles, the massive heat shifts and sinks of ocean basins, the formidable heat pumps of evaporation/convection/cloud formation/precipitation/atmospheric circulation, and the much more substantial radiative ability of the far more abundant atmospheric water vapour.
Misdirection and evasion, of course.
The only physics course that some students are able to pass.
That theres a lot of variables. The typical drone can’t deal with more than 3.
CO2, as a single variable, keeps the brain out of gridlock & allows the drones a false sense of clarity (and comfort through unity).
It´s United Nations physics, with a little help from professor Goebbels.
Gary: Exactly. Nowhere in his now infamous paper does he discuss what factors affect tree ring width – nothing for example about plant biochemistry, genetics, effects of ageing – no evidence that he’s considered or tried to find out about such matters.
Perhaps there’s a botanist or someone from a related discipline out there who might like to comment?
Must be an invasive species.
I would be interested to know how Mann, or any other climate scientist, distinguishes between temperature and CO2 fertilization in tree ring width. Maybe that’s in his proprietary method that he refuses to disclose.
More relevant, how does he separate temperature and moisture. Trees are much more often moisture than temperature limited.
Clue: which state has more and bigger trees, Washington or Arizona?
It could easily be argued that moisture has a natural variability around a mean. Tree rings at higher elevations or Arctic tree lines are used because it’s believed that shorter growing seasons make tree growth in those places more sensitive to the length of the growing season and less sensitive to soil moisture or soil nutrients. But where ADJUSTED temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations show steady increases it’s a different story.
“I would be interested to know how Mann, or any other climate scientist, distinguishes between temperature and CO2 fertilization in tree ring width. ”
Hence “hide the decline” if tree rings narrow during current warming and have to be replaced by thermometer readings; then the recent fit is purely coincidental and the earlier hindcasting is worthless
Here is a paper that shows that the treeline was 600-700 m (2000+ ft) higher in Scandinavia 7,000-10,000 years ago. That means about 3,5 C warmer summer climate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324991910_Further_Details_on_Holocene_Treeline_GlacierIce_Patch_and_Climate_History_in_Swedish_Lapland
The author, Leif Kullman, has done extensive research on the climate/vegetation history of Northern Scandinavia and several papers are available on ResearchGate. Here is one that shows that the treeline was about 100 meters higher than now (0.7 C) during the MWP:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277943965_Higher-than-present_Medieval_pine_Pinus_sylvestris_treeline_along_the_Swedish_Scandes
Karg – Thag help me plant this tree up there…
Thag- why would we do that…
Karg – So in five thousand years when somebody finds it,(punch line…)
5000 years ago was about the time the Sahara ceased to be habitable when it had lakes, rivers and abundant wildlife and humans.
Context is everything.
So the habitable Sahara is pretty much accepted fact, but can any of the research reveal how fast it changed? Did the crops just keep getting smaller and smaller (for an agrarian society) or the hunter had to look farther and farther for a prize (which could have been the same clues that the current location was overhunted and it was time to move on, so any overall climate shift went unnoticed)? Or was everything fine one summer and by the end of the next summer the skinny farmer and his much skinnier wife were fleeing before a dust storm? I would bet more on the former, but can we tell at all?
According to the Viking Museum in Oslo, Norway, the onset of the little ice age was fairly rapid. Spring thaw started later and fall freeze earlier. This meant the Vikings could not go as far on their plundering trips. Eventually their ships were stuck in frozen fjords. Thus, ending the Viking era.
But the Viking Era ended just ~1,000 years before present, and even that description is not “…fleeing before the storm…” but more of limited opportunity, turning the exciting into the difficult into the nearly impossible into the deadly. Coming out of the most recent glaciation 10,000 years ago, I have seen proxy reconstructions that seem to indicate the Earth went from a glaciation to an interstadial (though it took considerable time for the ice to melt) in as little as a decade, so we can get at least that fine of granularity out of (some) proxies). The Sahara desertification was ~4,000 years before present, and while it was clearly a shift in rainfall patterns, was it accompanied by rising, falling, or steady temperatures? I think the short answer is, we can’t tell.
The 4.2 KA event when the Sahara finally became extreme desert was fairly abrupt, probably on the order of a few decades. It was certainly quite noticeable on a human timescale as proven by contemporary historical sources in Egypt.
According to Stefan Kröpelin, the change was very slow. It took many thousands years for the climate in Sahara to get where it is now :
Yes, the change started about 6-7,000 years ago and accelerated after c. 5,000 years ago, but the final aridification event at 4,200 BP was surprisingly abrupt, and caused virtually simultaneous collapse of societies all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The trees grew much further north before the Flood of Naoh’s day since the earth had a canopy around it and made the climate more tropical. It did not rain before the Flood. Also this explains all the Wooly Mammoths frozen so quickly with green vegetation found in their mouths. This occurred 2370 BCE..
The Bible record is True!
To determine the time of the Flood, we need to start with a pivotal date. That is, we must begin with a date that is accepted in secular history and that corresponds to a particular event recorded in the Bible. From such a fixed point, we can make calculations and assign to the Flood a date based on the Gregorian calendar now in common use.
One pivotal date is 539 B.C.E., the year when Persian King Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Secular sources for the time of his reign include Babylonian tablets and documents of Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy. Because of a decree issued by Cyrus, a Jewish remnant left Babylon and arrived in their homeland in 537 B.C.E. That marked the end of Judah’s 70-year desolation, which according to the Biblical record had begun in 607 B.C.E. By taking into account the period of the judges and the reigns of Israel’s kings, we can determine that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt occurred in 1513 B.C.E. Bible-based chronology takes us back another 430 years to the making of the covenant with Abraham in 1943 B.C.E. Next we must take into account the births and life spans of Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, and Shelah, as well as Arpachshad, who was born “two years after the deluge.” (Genesis 11:10-32) We can thus place the beginning of the Flood in the year 2370 B.C.E. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20030515/Noahs-Log-Does-It-Have-Meaning-for-Us/#?insight%5Bsearch_id%5D=5444db89-4cd3-4d47-b035-7b9a2900726b&insight%5Bsearch_result_index%5D=0
Wrong website, this one deals in science.
Yes, it probably is a bit off-topic or at least extremely tangential. However, it is an historical document (regardless of how one might feel about the validity of its contents) that has figured prominently though out the centuries of human civilization, as such I see nothing wrong with a small tangential discussion as long as the discussion remains civil. (of course it’s not up to you or me as to whether that’s allowed or not, as neither of us have our names on the marque).
The Bible touches on scientific facts too, true science.
It’s as least as compelling – evidence-wise – as the IPCC models.
That flood is common in folklore all over this planet.
“Also this explains all the Wooly Mammoths frozen so quickly with green vegetation found in their mouths. This occurred 2370 BCE.”
There must have been some mighty odd things going on with radiocarbon production about then since the mammoths come out as at least 12,000 years old.
By the way the quick-frozen mammoths are as mythical as the flood.
So there really were quick-frozen mammoths. Got it, thanks!
IQF like shrimp?
Admiral Byrd found some that Clarence Birdseye had experimented on
By the way the quick-frozen mammoths are as mythical as the flood.
The beauty of that sentence is, it can be seen as true regardless of which side you fall on. 😉
Except on Wrangel Island, where mammoths survived until about 4000 years ago.
However, there are no mammoths with soft-part preservation there, only skeletons.
Mammoths with soft part preservation are only known from glacial age deposits of northeastern Siberia and Alaska, typically 20-40,000 years old.
They occur only in permafrost areas where carcasses that had not yet decayed completely were covered by soil (gelifluction) that subsequently froze.
Yup. The Wrangel refugium of course lacked those conditions, being in the Holocene interglacial rather than the glacial Pleistocene Epoch.
There were also some Pygmy Mammoths on Santa Rosa island.
But they went extinct about the same time as their large mainland kin, probably due to human hunters.
You might give this a gander.. goes into detail about the flood, the canopy of waters above the earth and the tropical climate.. right up everyones ally here..
This is some of the things we have available to us..
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968520?q=canopy&p=par
quick-frozen mammoths are as mythical as the flood.
=============
There is evidence for a major extinction event around the Younger Dryas boundary. It would not be surprising that a history of this survived in human oral traditions. Were such an event to happen today, it would no doubt put the fear of god into a large percentage of the survivors.
Unfortunately much of this debate gets caught up in extremes of gradualism, catastrophism, creationism , anthropomorphism, etc., which makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction. Very much like we find for global warming, climate change, catastrophic global annihilation.
There are variations found in over 140 historical cultures of the account of the flood… All have the same thing in common though the details differ, that a flood caused a great devastation to the earth but there were some survivors.
The Bible has the correct account. The probable only arrises in those who misinterpret it.
God had it written, so He will also let those he desires to have the correct understanding.
This website is available in 975 Languages! https://www.jw.org/en/
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching,p for reproving, for setting things straight,* for disciplining in righteousness,q 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
John 17:3 This means everlasting life,e their coming to know you, the only true God,f and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.g
Even a very cursory look-around is enough to show that there was no universal flood 4400 hundred years ago.
For one thing there are trees older than that. And there are historical accounts older than that. There are glaciers with annual growth layers older than that, and various annual rhythmites. And so on, endlessly.
Following on from tty’s comment, I recall reading – many years ago – a book suggesting that the “Flood Story”, common in many cultures, was a ‘folk memory’ of the opening of the Bosphorus, and the filling of the Black Sea, from the Mediterranean.
IIRC this was “7500” years – either ago or BC! I read that many years ago, and it is not in my remaining library.
Auto
There is another, perhaps more likely origin to the flood story, i e the flooding of the Persian Gulf about 8,000 years ago. This happened in the right area, and the people affected (‘Ubaid culture) were probably ancestral to the Sumerians that wrote down the “original” Flood story:
https://www.academia.edu/386944/New_Light_on_Human_Prehistory_in_the_Arabo-Persian_Gulf_Oasis
That similar stories can be found world-wide is not surprising. Large areas of coastal plains were flooded all over the world at the end of the Pleistocene and the Early Holocene (e. g. Doggerland in the North Sea)
When I was at school discussing the ages of people such as Noah and Methuselah one teacher held the view that the creeat ages were a result containing harrvests rather than years. He reckoned you could get 2 or 3 harvests a year in the holy land.
I think taking the old testament as awritten down version of an older oral history then I tend to agree that you counld work back in time. There is no reson to suppose ancient peoples couldn’t maintain an oral history. I think God creating the universe in 6 days a bit unbelievable as it implies a steady state universe, and the big bang took more than 6 days for things to settle diw.
This teacher also assigned the Exodus story of the guide by a pillar oof cloud by day and column fire by night to a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean.
I had a teacher like that, too. Unfortunately for baseless theory, that would make some biblical men fathers at age 10. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+11:14&version=KJV
age 10 If you go by the ages according to the Hebrew Masoretic (which the KJV was translated from), 40 something if you go by the ages according to Greek Septuagint and/or Samaritan Pentatuch which has Salah at 130 when he begat Eber.
Steady state universe?
In a few places, the Bible says that God spreads the heavens out like a tent.
That sounds like the expanding universe. Well before Hubble.
That would have been one hell of a volcanic explosion, lasting for forty years or so the way it did. The pillar of cloud and fire has puzzled the exigetes for centuries, and probably will continue to do so for some time into the future. There might be some clues as to its true nature in the hockey stick graph, a highly scientific work regarded my many to have great stores of untapped utility applicalbe to such historical problems.
Next we must take into account the births and life spans of Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, and Shelah, as well as Arpachshad, who was born “two years after the deluge.” (Genesis 11:10-32)
What figures are you using for the ages of Arphaxad thru Serug when they had their children? apparently there is some contradiction between sources. Greek Septuagint (from approx. 270 BC) and Samaritan Pentatuch (about 122 BC) lists them as each being 100 years older than the Hebrew Masoretic (oldest copy from approx. 10th century AD, which most modern translations were translated from). Also Nahor is listed as 29 in the Hebrew Masoertic but 79 in the other two.
to illustrate what I mean:
Hebrew Masoretic : When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah
vs
Greek Septuagint & Samaritan Pentatuch : When Arphaxad had lived 135 years, he became the father of Shelah
which would shift your date by 650 years depending on which version you go with.
Here ya go.. have fun… The Bible is not a book of myths! The same people who push this are pushing Climate Change.
How accurate is Bible chronology?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990130?q=Bible+chronology&p=par
According to you JW’s, I shouldn’t be alive. My mom was with the JW when she had me – and because I had an RH factor issue and needed a full-blood transfusion (prohibited in the JW cult), she chose to keep me and leave your cult.
You don’t carry much weight around here, at least with me – knowing that your beliefs would mean I should be dead.
. . . she chose to keep me and leave your cult.
And a cult it is. Good for you both.
The Bible is not a book of myths!
Then why deny it’s most fundamental claim?
The hypocrisy of coming here to proclaim the truth of the Bible when at the most critical turn the JW cult denies it ironic.
One point in favor of the Biblical version of the ages, if any of those men had become fathers at a “normal” age, it would not have been worth recording because it was “normal”. It was recorded because it was already considered unusual even at the time that text was recorded. Just an opinion, mind you.
“the earth had a canopy around it and made the climate more tropical. It did not rain before the Flood. Also this explains all the Wooly Mammoths frozen so quickly with green vegetation found in their mouths.”
How does the collapse of a water canopy quick-freeze polar mammoths? A heavy rainfall is a warming event (heat of condensation).
Those frozen mammoths had sand in their lungs. That suggests they suffocated during a sandstorm within an ice age.
SR
How long will it take for this whole paradigm to up and die? I’d like it to go before I do, but I’m all out of hope for that at this point and I fully expect to live long enough to see if we get a return of brown velour wall paneling in the 70s.
Considering that the left now views goofy horn-rimmed glasses as a sign of intelligence, I guess anything’s possible.
Related question I’ve asked it not gotten an answer – what happened to the “divergence problem” – decoupling of tree ring proxy temperatures from instrument record. Was big for five years after 2006. Then slowly faded.
We’ve been told it is warming so fast, we have only 12 years left!
If I may, I don’t recall the exact date that prediction was made, but it was a few months ago. May I suggest that as editorial policy, all references to that prediction be altered to the current time left. In this case it would be 11 years and X months.
Hey! Why not put it as a count down ticker on the WUWT sidebar? That way anyone making a comment or writing an article has an easy place to reference the current time left.
We could treat it like the last time the spaceship was supposed to land – give away all your assets, the end is nigh.
People did it for the spaceship.
I have found two reports from Mon 8 Oct 2018. On thst basis it’s 11years 6months. I’ve made s note in my diary for 7th October 2020 that a Last Day on Earth party needs to be organised, with snother psrty on 8th October 2020 to celebrate survival.
Don’t forget to order your “I survived the End Of The World” t-shirt, Ben.
Just be sure that the bill is payable on the 8th. If the world does end, you won’t be stuck paying for a worthless t-shirt ;o)
Sorry thst should be 2030
‘Inconvenient stump’ – I thought the headline was referring to Michael Mann…
If it was, I can think of many other words to use instead of Inconvenient (of course, if I used them I’d soon be hearing from Mikey’s lawyers 😉 )
A well developed beach with ancient driftwood, dated at ~5000yrs ago, which would have required a large expanse of open ocean permitting strong wave developmemt, occurs on the north coast of currently ice-locked Greenland. Because of global warming propaganda, I believe that the range of temperatures during the Holocene are double or more the temperature difference of 1.5-2C usually reported in the literature.
http://wermenh.com/climate/6000.html
A study of the latitudes and elevations of former treelines are the most unequivocal temperature proxies available. The reason for boring holes in sea sediments and other arcane proxies would seem to be because they leave so much leeway for subjective interpretation. Uncertainty, once the bugbear of climate science is pressed into service to yield “data” that has already been determined beforehand and puts restraints on past temperatures to make today’s scary.
I’m sure this has been covered here before but…..medieval warm period.
An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.
Stumps and logs have been popping out from under southern Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier
https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
You can see and touch stumps of Bristlecone Pines that grew in the Roman Warm period at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Park in E. California, in the Mammoth Lakes Area. You have to walk up the hill a bit though, while trying to hold back the laughter ….
………and what were the polar bears wearing in warm weather. I read Captain J. E. Bernier’s book “Master Mariner and Arctic Explorer”. On page 338 talking about some of his crew members that had gone inland…..
“But luckily on May 3rd they found an uprooted red spruce tree in a block of ice. It was 30 feet long and 14 inches in diameter.” That was in 1908 on Banks island.
It the warmest ever (2M years) -> trees grows faster (thicker rings) -> the world will be overrun with trees -> lets chop down some trees?
There was this, too, a few years ago…
Melting glacier in Alaska reveals ancient remains of forest – evidence of warm periods
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/melting-glacier-in-alaska-reveals-ancient-remains-of-forest-evidence-of-warm-periods/
There has also been research published in New Zealand on the elevation of Podocarpus Totara in Westlands forests that shows the climate is cooler than it was around 500 years ago.
Stumpy
April 12, 2019 at 12:30 pm
That’s very interesting…do you know just where that was and do you have a reference? Were other South Island trees involved? Very interesting because 500 years is not all that long ago!
Scientist i Norway have recently concluded that temperatures during the Holocene Optimum, some 5-9000 years ago, were 3-6 degrees Celsius higher than present in the norwegian mainland and further north. Logs from that period can still be found i marshes much higher than the present tree line…
STOP WITH THE FAKE NEWS. That tree grew in an Ojibwe sweat lodge with elevated levels of CO2 due to heavy consumption of cannabis! 😉
Please comment on this for me….I was looking for information on Allan Villiers and clipper ships and got this (includes Judith Curry references). Climate change in a Full and By periodical, please !
https://www.shf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FullBy_Feb06.pdf
It could easily be argued that moisture has a natural variability around a mean. Tree rings at higher elevations or Arctic tree lines are used because it’s believed that shorter growing seasons make tree growth in those places more sensitive to the length of the growing season and less sensitive to soil moisture or soil nutrients. But where ADJUSTED temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations show steady increases it’s a different story.
There are several issues mixed in this article.
The Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than the present, and ended about 5000 years ago. Then the Neoglacial period started and has been interrupted by Modern Global Warming.
To that we must add the change in Milankovitch insolation that has been huge. After the ice sheets melted completely ~7000 years ago, summer insolation was much higher than it is now at northern high latitudes, and summer temperatures 4 °C warmer than now have been recorded by proxies from Scandinavia. Under those conditions trees had it much easier.
One has to be very careful and don’t extrapolate from local or regional conditions to global conditions.
For the sake of argument… How many years did this tree live? Was its life brutal and short? Was its lifespan long and luxurious?
This kills the Hockeysticks: http://www2.nau.edu/ScottAnderson/docs/131.pdf
Anyway, they don`t exist without the Bristlecones from nearly the same area as the study above.
This photograph looks to be “spruced” up and doesn’t “ring” true, it “stumps” me why anyone would accept physical data over data made up in a model. It just doesn’t “resin-ate”. We need to get to the “root” of this problem. “Wood” someone “Mann” up and explain it to me? 🙂
6000 years old arolla pine stump, about 8m lenght and 1,7 metric tonnes found at austrians biggest glacier the ‘Pasterze’ in 2014:
https://kaernten.orf.at/news/stories/2718069/
So what to think of Steig’s latest faithfully reported here in Canada?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-warmest-in-10000-years-1.5094392
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09622-y
You just have to read a few earlier posts here. There is plenty of proof that the Arctic was warmer during the Early Holocene. A short summary:
– Beach ridges in places where there is never open water now
– Tree stumps well above and far north of the northernmost trees today
– Tree stumps revealed by retreating glaciers
– Whale skeletons and driftwood on coasts where there is never open water today
These are all much more reliable proxies than isotope measurements on pore water of uncertain age and even more uncertain provenance (isotope ratios are strongly affected by the temperature of the ocean where the water evaporated, probably thousands of kilometers away).
At they didn’t show a polar bear that was skin and bones..
What bugs me is the way the so called scientists throw around numbers/dates.. They all agree with mutual hypocrisy
There’s the problem, right there. The “warming” he detected was from local land-use changes.
Its obvious that stump was placed there … and they didn’t even bother to hide the shovel!
Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline HARVEY NICHOLS
This is an older document, about 1970 +
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf
ABSTRACT From palynological studies it appears that northernmost dwarf spruces of the tundra and parts of the forest-tundra boundary may be relicts from times of prior warmth, and if felled might not regenerate. This disequilibrium may help explain the partial incongruence of modern climatic limits with the present forest edge. Seedlings established as a result of recent warming should therefore be found within the northernmost woodlands rather than in the southern tundra.
Given that Herr Doktor Professor Mann’s hockey stick only goes back 1,000 years, this article doesn’t provide a good reason how a 5,000 year old tree stump factors into the analysis. It might be more relevant to speak about the Marcot et al cartoon featured in XKCD.
If we took a slice through Michael Mann do you think we could find rings of varying thickness based on the amount of grants awarded over time?
[humor. not malice.].
“Climate alarmists tell us that the Earth has never been warmer”
SNIP do better than a strawman in the first sentence SNIP
The unprecedented claim is apparently limited to the last 2000 years only – an arbitrary and brief interval in the glaciation – interglacial time scales such that the known much warmer conditions in the prior interglacial does not count. But even that doesn’t work.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/30/arcticwarming/
Magic!
And here’s another example from the Arctic…
https://www.watoday.com.au/environment/as-the-ice-gives-way-a-great-arctic-mystery-may-be-solved-20080803-3pa9.html
Is Mann in jail or is he still trusted by some?
It is obvious to me that he is a false prophet.
Is he trusted buy 97% of the science community?
The World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder and NOAA Paleoclimatology Program archive dozens of ice core reconstructions of past temperatures. Many of these are Arctic reconstructions and, from what I can see anyway, they pretty much all indicate that there were periods of warmer than ‘present’ (where ‘present’ usually means 1950) temperatures in the Arctic in the past, including ~ 5,000 years ago: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/?dataTypeId=7
I would imagine that those who made these reconstructions and wrote the many associated papers could loosely be called ‘climate scientists’, as opposed to “climate alarmists”.
The ncdc link on paleo climate data is temporarily unavailable. They must be making more adjustments to the data.
“The area is now frozen tundra, but it was once warm enough to support significant tree growth like this.”
Stop with the logic and science. You’ll make their heads explode. They BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE and you are messing with that.
I live on the shore of a lake that expanded somewhat in the 50s when a dam was built on the next downstream lake. The lake expansion was enhanced by wave damage from boats, causing my wooded shoreline to slowly cede itself into the lake. I recently removed the trees that fell into the lake. At least two had over 100 rings. The rings on these were quite odd. The first several decades had nice round bull’s eyes. However, after that, the side of the trees on the lake side had rings that kept getting smaller and smaller until individual years could not even be distinguished. On the land side, the ‘rings’ kept up a seemingly normal growth – at least until the tree fell into the lake.
I guess the tree ring shamans would declare that the trees had a climate on one side that was different from the climate on the other side.
Tilted conifers have broader rings on the “low” side. Were the trees possibly affected more by stronger winds off the lake and bent as they grew taller?
Perhaps as tty suggested, the wind off the lake is trying to bend the trees (they were more subject to the wind as they got taller) and they responded by building up on the lee side to resist the bending & remain straight.
It is entirely correct to point out some of the puzzles and inconsistencies in the CAGW meme and its ‘unprecedented warming’. This cliche bears repeating:
“There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
How are tree rings affected by an increase in CO2? If CO2 increases but temperature and moisture do not, do rings get wider?
Yes.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27525/
Here in the Colorado mountains, above 8200 ft, the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument contains the petrified fossils of large redwood trees—tress that required a much warmer, more humid environment than exists today.
They’ve been preserved because of volcanic activity in the area. It’s pretty obvious that any exculpatory evidence that refutes the broad and unsubstantiated claims of the alarmists are ignored by the majority of the media. After all, truth and facts do not matter.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/#more-23964
https://climateaudit.org/2006/03/31/a-new-spaghetti-graph/
You can see quite easily how by enhancing the weight of the bristlecones and reducing the weight of all the other proxies, you can “get” a hockey stick. You have to work pretty hard to “find” the bristlecones out of this pig’s breakfast of noise; that was Mann’s “new” statistical method. If you take the bristlecones out of this system, there is no HS.
At the equator you can test all climate zones by simply driving 500 meters further.
Kilimanjaro has it all – from sea level to summit glacier.
___________________________________________________
Mann supposedly never was on holiday in Africa.