Dozens of media outlets such as ABC News, The BBC, The New York Times, and many more hyped a study that claims summer temperatures in 2023 were unprecedented over the past 2,000 years. [emphasis, links added]
This claim can’t be verified by tree-ring data, which isn’t that precise. Researchers are falsely assuming tree rings are reliable temperature indicators when in fact tree rings can indicate a multitude of different conditions, not just temperature.
Further, the study by Esper, J. et al., Nature 2024, is using an old trick, pioneered by Michael Mann, Ph.D. in his controversial hockey stick graph:
Estimated temperatures from select tree rings and other proxies far into the past are grafted onto more reliable temperatures measured in the present and presented as one unified dataset, when in fact they are radically different.
For example, the BBC’s article about the study presented this graph, which is highly reminiscent of Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph.
That graph is highly misleading if not a flat-out fabrication.
It suffers from the same issues in Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph, such as the fact that tree-ring data from other trees show no such trend.
We know from other studies that the Roman Warm Period (from 1–250 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 to c. 1250 AD) existed. Still, they have been erased from this graph presented to the public as accurately representing past temperatures, when it is dishonest fiction based on a biased analysis of selected proxy data.
The fact that these well-known, documented, and scientifically certified climate events have been removed from the graph touted by the media indicates that this is more likely propaganda in pursuit of a political goal, rather than a scientific search for understanding based on honest use of the scientific method.
Another issue with the study is the well-known fact that annual tree-ring growth is not tied solely to temperatures, much less the made-up metric of “global average temperature,” as Liebig’s law of the minimum explains.
Often simply called Liebig’s law, or the law of the minimum, is a principle developed in agricultural science by Carl Sprengel (1840) and later popularized by Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is dictated not by total resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor).
In other words, plant-growth factors from year to year such as sunlight, available water as rainfall, available nutrients in the soil, and temperatures, among other factors, combine to determine the growth of a tree, not just temperature alone.
It is impossible to distinguish and disentangle the various factors that contribute to tree growth in any given year, much less thousands of years in the past.
It is impossible to distinguish and disentangle the various factors that contribute to tree growth in any given year, much less thousands of years in the past.
As a result, one can’t honestly claim that tree-growth rings necessarily reflect temperatures alone at a particular time or location, much less that tree rings from one or a few sampled areas show anything about global temperatures or conditions. Making such claims is simply dishonest.
Also, that present temperatures may or may not be warmer than any in the last 2,000 years says nothing about whether that is necessarily a bad thing.
Historical evidence, in fact, strongly indicates that warmer periods are better for life and human civilization than cooler periods. The authors of this study, assume, without evidence, that just the opposite is the case.
The lead author Jan Esper confirms in the interview he gave the BBC that he is using this study as a vehicle to elicit policy action:
The authors say the key conclusion from their work is the need for rapid reductions in emissions of planet-warming gases.
“The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be and the more difficult it will be to mitigate or even stop that process and reverse it,” said lead author, Prof Jan Esper from Johannes Gutenberg University, in Germany.
“That is just so obvious,” he said. “We should do as much as possible, as soon as possible.
This admission strongly suggests that the study is more about climate advocacy than science, and the media fell for it. This sort of journalistic malfeasance has become increasingly common.
The study’s authors are acting as advocates, not scientists, a path the editors and fact checkers that media outlets employ followed as well in publicizing the report’s unverifiable claims and its authors’ calls for action.
If they were actually doing their jobs as journalists to report the truth, the findings of this study never would have been promoted so widely, or if it had been, the writers would have balanced the story with the views of analysts critical of the study, citing scientific evidence.
Top image via Ulf Büntgen/University of Cambridge
Read more at Climate Realism
Since its from the BBC its not relabel since the BBC is just more leftists Propaganda like CNN is
All Jan Esper should illicit is much ridicule and contemptuous mockery.
Tree ring data from Bristle Cone Pines on the west coast of North America was held as gospel for years until someone looked at Bristle Cone Pine tree rings on the eastern side of the coastal ranges and found they were completely different.
What is wrong with these climate nu-cases? Don’t they look out the window?
Here at my place, we haven’t had a normal hot summer since 2018-19. And, the cool months fiinish later…