Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I forgot the AGWCult only gets their news from approved AGW sites.
"A mummified mammoth found in the Siberian Arctic has injuries consistent with human hunting – even though the mammoth died 10,000 years before humans were thought to have reached the Arctic. A study on the hunted carcass, published Thursday in Science, pushes human occupation of the Arctic back to at least 45,000 years ago."
Ancient mammoth hunt discovery puts humans in the Arctic much earlier than we’d thought
It got odder when I analyzed the authorship of the temperature records reconstructed from the 53 proxies. In 48 of the proxy, the original lead author is also an author on this paper. It is true that they said this study is the result of a consortium of dendroclimatologists. However, I had expected them to look at more tree ring temperature reconstructions from other authors. So when they say they depend on the expert judgement of the authors of the proxies, in more than 90% of the proxies studied, they are merely saying they trust their own judgment.
And indeed, they think quite highly of their own judgement. rating it “expert”.
I can see how you can use tree rings to correlate major climatic events, such as the slowdown in growth caused by a major eruption, like a Krakatoa magnitude eruption.
However, to try and define temperatures from tree rings on an annual basis is just plain voodoo, because of:
1. Rainfall variations.
2. Shade variations from other trees.
3. Fertilisation from nearby forest fires.
4. Fertilisation from the occasional animal dump.
5. Nitrate boost from lightning storms.
6. Variations in growth depending on the side of trunk.
7. Occasional insect infestations on leaves.
8. Variations in competition from roots of nearby trees for water and nutrients.
9. Variation in ring widths depending on the age of the trees.
10. Variation in soil temperatures depending on slope direction.
I have seen much more comprehensive lists, but the bottom line is this: the only place you can magically transform BS readings into ‘hard facts’ is in climate science, where the use of voodoo statistical techniques is considered both acceptable and normal.
Michael Mann’s infamous ‘hockey stick chart’, even if badly constructed, is a CO2 concentration plot more than it is a temperature chart, particularly in the modern era. If the effect of CO2 fertilization is subtracted from the ring widths, the ‘temperature blade’ is truncated. Similarly if the upturn in this study’s ‘temperature chart’ at the end is first corrected for CO2 fertilization (using available records) there is a ‘temperature’ deduction throughout the modern age.
Whether wonky statistical techniques are used or not, a tree ring width has to be corrected for CO2 availability before the temperature signal can be extracted. Once the CO2 hockey stick growth is subtracted from the tree ring width hockey stick, the remaining basically flat line proves that tree rings provide a poor record of temperature.
I can see how you can use tree rings to correlate major climatic events, such as the slowdown in growth caused by a major eruption, like a Krakatoa magnitude eruption.
However, to try and define temperatures from tree rings on an annual basis is just plain voodoo, because of:
1. Rainfall variations.
2. Shade variations from other trees.
3. Fertilisation from nearby forest fires.
4. Fertilisation from the occasional animal dump.
5. Nitrate boost from lightning storms.
6. Variations in growth depending on the side of trunk.
7. Occasional insect infestations on leaves.
8. Variations in competition from roots of nearby trees for water and nutrients.
9. Variation in ring widths depending on the age of the trees.
10. Variation in soil temperatures depending on slope direction.
