3 ms·

If anything, I would expect the relatively recent divergence of correlation between tree-ring measurements and other climate measurements to bolster claims of a

If anything, I would expect the relatively recent divergence of correlation between tree-ring measurements and other climate measurements to bolster claims of an unstable climate, rather than suggest cooling. Here we have a situation where plant behavior closely follows other measurements of the climate for a very long time, and then recently ... they don't. The most likely explanation here -- still being studied, mind you -- is that there has been a significant change in the interaction between trees and environment in certain areas.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
robotrout 17y ago
Which "other measurements of the climate" are you referring to exactly? CO2 level is not a measurement of climate, of course. It seems to be correlated, but it's unknown if its phase is leading or lagging. So, what measurements are you referring to?
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  > CO2 level is not a measurement of climate, of course. LOL. Well, that's it. I'm done. Have a nice weekend, folks.
  - robotrout 17y ago
    If you honestly think that CO2 is the one and only cause of climate, ignoring solar cycles, and other effects, and furthermore, if you believe with certainty, that the CO2 cycle is phase shifted ahead in time, compared to temperature, when it's just as likely that it's lagging, than you're right, we really have no point in talking. Also based on your response, I think we now know what "other climate measurements" you were referring to.
InclinedPlane 17y ago
More accurately, it draws into question the accuracy of tree-ring measurements as a proxy for temperature. We do not have a situation "where plant behavior closely follows other measurements of the climate for a very long time". Instead we have a situation where one of the principle components of a small subset of tree-ring data generally follows other measurements of the climate for a very short time. And where even with all of that we still have "divergence" problems. These problems draw into question the validity of such measurements as a proxy for historical climate. If they do not track global temperature even a little accurately today how can we have any confidence that they do so in times long past when we don't have temperature records to check their accuracy? The answer is that we don't. And every indication seems to be that many of these proxy reconstructions from the CRU are wholly inaccurate representations of historical climate.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
By your logic, any noise in measurement is evidence of instability in the system being measured. Sorry, but that's nonsense. A simple thought experiment: use a blind man to visually measure the location of a rock. Does the fact that his answers are noisy provide evidence the rock is moving around in an unstable manner?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

robotrout 17y ago

Which "other measurements of the climate" are you referring to exactly? CO2 level is not a measurement of climate, of course. It seems to be correlated, but it's unknown if its phase is leading or lagging. So, what measurements are you referring to?

thaumaturgy 17y ago
> CO2 level is not a measurement of climate, of course. LOL. Well, that's it. I'm done. Have a nice weekend, folks.
- robotrout 17y ago
  If you honestly think that CO2 is the one and only cause of climate, ignoring solar cycles, and other effects, and furthermore, if you believe with certainty, that the CO2 cycle is phase shifted ahead in time, compared to temperature, when it's just as likely that it's lagging, than you're right, we really have no point in talking. Also based on your response, I think we now know what "other climate measurements" you were referring to.

InclinedPlane 17y ago

More accurately, it draws into question the accuracy of tree-ring measurements as a proxy for temperature. We do not have a situation "where plant behavior closely follows other measurements of the climate for a very long time". Instead we have a situation where one of the principle components of a small subset of tree-ring data generally follows other measurements of the climate for a very short time. And where even with all of that we still have "divergence" problems. These problems draw into question the validity of such measurements as a proxy for historical climate. If they do not track global temperature even a little accurately today how can we have any confidence that they do so in times long past when we don't have temperature records to check their accuracy? The answer is that we don't. And every indication seems to be that many of these proxy reconstructions from the CRU are wholly inaccurate representations of historical climate.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

By your logic, any noise in measurement is evidence of instability in the system being measured. Sorry, but that's nonsense. A simple thought experiment: use a blind man to visually measure the location of a rock. Does the fact that his answers are noisy provide evidence the rock is moving around in an unstable manner?