The 1990 IPCC report contained the inconvenient graph above, which didn’t look anything like a hockey stick. Briffa’s trees didn’t look anything like a hockey stick either. Mikey had to get rid of the MWP, but this was going to require some hard work. How did he do it?
- Trashed all the post 1960 tree ring data
- Replaced the post-1960 tree ring data with Hansen’s altered Northern Hemisphere temperature data.
- When you have seen one tree, you have seen Yamal
- Declared the MWP to be local to Northern Europe and Greenland.
The first three were heinous enough to have automatically obtained an honorary football coaching position at PSU, but the third one is the topic for this post.
Climate models don’t produce localized warming – particularly not at high latitudes. The most fundamental tenet of “global warming” is polar amplification. Whatever the world is doing, the poles do it even more. Greenland is the canary in the coal mine. If Greenland is warming, so is the rest of the planet.
Hansen’s models predict consistent warming along land areas of equal latitude, and nearly symmetrical warming on opposite sides of the equator. The idea of a large magnitude localized warming in Greenland, which lasted for several centuries and missed most of the rest of the planet – is stupid beyond comprehension.
I can’t believe anyone falls for the tree ring temp thing……
Trees can not tell you what the temp was
All trees can tell you is how long their growing season was……
Too hot or cold they don’t grow…only in the middle….like the three bears….
Say a tree grows between 50 and 80 degrees….it doesn’t tell you if it was an ice age (-10 – 80)….or warming (50 – 110) only that it had a short or long growing season………..
and odds are…the longest growing season would be at the extremes…not in the middle
The only real temperature measurement that can be obtained from a tree ring, is 450F+. 😉
Where would all that red be on this picture ?
http://policlimate.com/weather/current/gfs_water_art.html
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Look, junk science gets published every day. What’s interesting is how a certain brand of junk science has been ruthless defended by advocates who have had to jettison all intelligent thought in the process. Rebuttals to sceptical deconstructions largely consist of citing the original authors of these papers, who provide either only partly relevant excuses or fire off ad hominems, as if that constitutes a defence of their work.