And this was said by whom? Manning? As in "Michael Manning" who is famous for "Hide the decline"? If only we could believe him, but, answering the lib
above, I assume liberals will believe him without bothering to check the data. LAST TIME he made these claims it turns out his "tree ring data" was
largely useless. A little background, then the story.
Tree ring data is often used as a so-called "proxy" for temperature records because we didn't have any accurate thermometers thousands of years ago.
Tree-rings are convenient substitutes--when they work. The way tree-rings are confirmed as accurate proxies is by comparing tree-rings from the near
present with thermometer readings for the same period. If the tree-ring thickness follows the thermometer readings, you know they are accurate FOR
THAT PERIOD. The next step is to use tree-ring data from long ago and use the same kind of correlations to extrapolate previous temperature records.
That's how Manning and others have "proven" climate change over time.
The controversies arise over 1) what trees they used, 2) where they are, 3) how many trees they used, 4) How they took samples, and 5) whether the
tree-ring data is accurate in terms of 'predicting' past temperature. ALL these things are controversial, and if you care to look into it in depth,
you'll see why. But basically the tree-ring data is 'rather thin' (no pun intended) and basing a world-wide theory on just tree-rings is highly
But it gets worse. It turns out the tree-ring data gathered to support the idea of global warming was not cooperating with the theory. In modern
times, when they had accurate thermometers along side tree ring data for the same year, the data showed a decline in temperatures. This was obviously
untrue because we had accurate thermometers showing the temperature really was rising, albeit nowhere near as fast as the computer models predicted
(yet another problem with the overall theory). So what did our erstwhile expert climate scientists do about this unfortunate data?
They hid it:
Folks, that's fraud, pure and simple. These guys didn't want to explain the issue, so they "hid the decline" from all of us BECAUSE it contradicted
their theory. Now WHY is this important? Because if the tree ring data is inaccurate for years when we have correlative data that absolutely proves
without a doubt that it is inaccurate, HOW can we rely on tree ring data when it is the only data we have? Wouldn't you think that if they had
iron-clad data that showed the tree ring data was inaccurate for the near present, that they would find some other way to figure out past
temperatures? But no, they did it anyway and tried to hide it from us.
Now tree ring data by itself is highly suspect anyway. here are a couple of reasons:
+ First, thick and thin tree rings, which is basically all you have to go on, can be the result of moisture, not temperature. Lots of water yields
thick rings. Drought conditions yield thin rings. Those two conditions do not correlate well with temperature.
+ Tree-rings are very 'gross' measurements. You have two rings per year, one for the growth season of the tree, one for the 'dormant' season for the
tree. By reading this you can't really tell if high temperatures spiked over, say, a few weeks of time, or whether it wasn't quite as warm over a
longer period of time. The "degree days" would be exactly the same so that the area experienced the same overall temperature in a vastly different set
+ Tree-rings are highly individual and localized. A set of tree-ring data taken from one mountain is going to be vastly different than a set of data
taken from another valley or the mountain next door. The presence or absence of water is an obvious point here. Trees growing by a stream are going to
have thicker rings than trees a mile inland and today, with the stream entirely gone, you may not be able to tell the difference, but so is the
individual micro-climate. In my area, for example, moving 10 miles north is the difference between 25 inches of rain a year and 50 inches of rain a
year. The biggest cause for this is a mountain range that creates a "rain shadow" over the north part of the region. Where I am it rains a lot. Even
further 50 miles north the climate is arid and dry requiring irrigation. It's a great retirement community.
So the point is when "they" go out and gather tree ring data they don't really gather a lot over a wide area. Budgets being what they are, they gather
a small amount of data over a small area. Some of the tree-ring data used as part of the UN IPCC report last time were based on six trees from one
mountainside in Siberia.
So here we have, once again, some very specialized scientists into tree-rings making vast pronouncements about the rise and fall of empires based on
their narrow view of the world. But they really aren't qualified to do that. Life is more complex than staring at tree rings that have been proven to
be unreliable proxies for climate in the first place. Making grandiose claims on such thin data would not be tolerated anywhere else, but since this
is all politically correct, we all swallow it as gospel truth.
There are a lot better ways to determine climate change over time. Ice core data is one. The following is a graph that shows the long term trend. It
was done NOT for the current debate on climate change, but as research for trying to explain the "Younger Dryas" cooling phase thousands of years ago.
As the Earth was warming (shock!) recovering from the last Ice Age, the temperature suddenly dropped for a thousand years. The result was the
extinction of mammoths, not to mention the tribes hunting them. There is controversy over whether this was the result of an asteroid strike,
increasing vulcanism, or whatever. (Very recent studies claim it was NOT an asteroid, but the debate continues.) In any case, observe:
This shows a bit of recent warming, it sure does, but nothing particularly alarming compared to the overall record. What it DOES show is an overall
cooling trend. Does this indicate the coming of another Ice Age? After all, we're right on schedule for the end of the current "inter-glacial" stage.
Perhaps you all might want to pay attention to that phrase: "inter-glacial." What do you think another Ice Age will do to global civilization? Would
you rather see it warm up a bit so you can grow grapes and produce wine in Scotland (like you could during the "Medieval Warming period") Or would you
rather see a glacier cover Puget Sound a mile thick and scrape the top of the Olympics and the Cascades? The Thames freezing over in Winter (as it did
during the "Little Ice Age" during the 1700s) would be the least of your worries.
But you won't do that, of course. Instead the sheeple will tow the party line and believe whatever the NWO says about climate change because they're
"scientists" and "scientists" are always right. And even if the next Ice Age sweeps down upon us, you'll find a way to blame us for it anyway.
edit on 5/15/2014 by schuyler because: typos, as usual. Whaddya expect with three fingers?