Three new tree ring reconstructions (spanning 1320-2021, 1720-2014, and 1657-2020 CE) document the dominance of natural variability in the paleoclimate record.
In the last 300 to 700 years, no precipitation pattern has emerged in Scandinavia, Asia, or Central Greece which can be linked to anthropogenic impacts or post-1950 CO2 increases (Stridbeck et al., 2026, Cai et al., 2026, Sakalis and Kastridis, 2025).
Extreme precipitation deficits (droughts) were much more common and pronounced across sub-Arctic Sweden and the Tibetan Plateau (TP) before 1950 than since.
For example, there were three TP megadroughts from 1865-1950, whereas only one occurred from 1950-2014 (Cai et al., 2026). TP severe drought years were worse in 1735 and 1914 than in 2009.
Image Source: Stridbeck et al., 2026
Image Source: Cai et al., 2026
True to form, Big Clime and its mindless True Believers will dismiss this as “Denier Science”.
When the stupid models disagree with reality, they’ll point to the models as if they produce “data” or “evidence.”
When the models disagree with the data, adjust the data.
Or ignore the data.
“— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.“
Cite one scientist who claims models are “evidence’
So, things are getting better, not worse.
The more we learn, the worse the Human-caused Climate Change meme looks.
A few Climate Alarmist Charlatans got the world off on the wrong track, but things are slowly correcting themselves.
There was never any evidence for Human-caused Climate Change, and there is still no evidence for it.
I don’t think History is going to be kind to the Climate Alarmists.
I am sorry, but Wyner and McLean made a very strong point in their rejoinder about any paleo-reconstruction and what they call a potential selection bias.
While I have no doubt the numbers as found here calculate to the trend presented in the paper, there is the open question how much would this trend vary, if different data series would be used.
=> This results in additional uncertainty not discussed in any of the hundreds of thousands of paleo-reconstruction articles.
In the end it is quite simple, like many things in climate science:
Any article ignoring a significant source of uncertainty is worthless, doing so knowingly, is fraud.
One cannot extrapolated micro climate data to define a global climate.
There is no global climate.
Averages hide the details.
If Antarctica is -20 C and Sahara is +40 C, is the global temperature +10 C?
Climate is more than just temperatures.
Climate is more than just rainfall.
I was laying in bed last night and had somewhat the same thought. Does -20 in the Arctic and – 20 in Antarctica mean equatorial location are at -20 also? If averages of intensive properties work at all, that should be true.
So treemometers are affected by rainfall, it seems significantly…whodathunkit ?
Water, sunlight, CO2, soil nutrients, fire, all of the above influence tree ring size.
Don’t forget overcrowding. Close neighbors also effect tree ring width and show up in the cores based on where around the circumference the sample was taken. :<)
I learned something new. Thank you.
I really hate the new PC term “common era”. CE/BCE.
What’s common about it?
Every culture has it’s own “year zero” and none of them are the same.
By declaring our dating scheme as the “common” one, we are in effect trying to unilaterally write all the other dating schemes out of existence.
If you want to create a new Year Zero and try to get people to adopt that, go for it.
The author H. Beam Piper in his novels, used AE (Atomic Era) and year zero was the year the first atomic reactor was activated.
As far as my research has gone, all calendars start with year 1, month 1, week 1, day 1, just like counting. Years 0 and BCE and CE were created to make computer software simpler.
This is confirmed by the US Naval Observatory.
So now Deniers accept Tree Ring Proxies as valid science? Who’d a thunk it?
I am not sure who denies what, but once all sources of uncertainty are fully characterized, any significant trend is valid!
Unfortunately, it seems that any published proxy series ignores the potential problem of “selection bias” or as Sparta4 put it:
“One cannot extrapolated micro climate data to define a global climate.”
=> Actually you could, if you find a way to show mathematically somehow how the local measurements represent the global behavior. Like is said any of the many many proxy studies not doing that underrepresents uncertainty, which is a huge problem.
*Sparta Nova 4, sorry about the typo
You simply can’t when using temperatures. Too many different station types (LIG, MMTS, ASOS, CRN) just in the U.S. alone. Too many shelter types. You would have to normalize all the differences somehow. That is even beyond the fact of attempting to average intensive values globally into a single valid measurement. They really need to converted to extensive values by calculating enthalpy.
Weather 1694-1697, pages 508-518:
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf