3 ms·
We're being asked to believe that starting around 1960 tree rings "suddenly" no longer reflected local temperatures, so we shouldn't rely on them after 1960. D
by BearOfNH 17y ago
We're being asked to believe that starting around 1960 tree rings "suddenly" no longer reflected local temperatures, so we shouldn't rely on them after 1960.
Doesn't this also imply that looking backward tree rings might be untrustworthy any earlier than some starting date? That in fact tree rings might work for a while, then vary for a while, then work again? How can anybody honestly claim that SOME tree ring evidence is usable and SOME is not -- and they know exactly which is which?
My bet would be the thermometers are wrong and the tree rings right. See, e.g.,
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831 http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoThe only way such an arbitrary cut-off date could be justified would be by explaining what caused the sudden divergence.
- Tichy 17y agoI would assume that if thermometer data is available, it is being used. As for trusting tree ring data, this is an entirely different issue from this "Climate Gate" affair. That was, btw., an internal email, so nobody was supposed to trust anything. It was scientists exchanging some data. Surely it is allowed to LOOK at tree ring data.