On Oct 22, 10:24 am, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Expert: Warming Climate Fuels Mega-Fires
Scott Pelley Reports From The American West's Fire Lines On The Rising
Number Of Mega-Fires
Oct 21, 2007 CBS News

[ . . . ]

The severity of the burning and size of the fires caught the eye of
Tom Swetnam, one of the world's leading fire ecologists. He wanted to
know what's touched off this annual inferno and whether it's truly a
historic change.

At the University of Arizona, Swetnam keeps a remarkable woodpile,
comprised of the largest collection of tree rings in the world. His
rings go back 9,000 years, and each one of those rings captures one
year of climate history.

Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years...

Were tree rings used to determine the temperature for the past 1,000
years? If so, how is that done?

Read the article, please.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 22, 10:24 am, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Expert: Warming Climate Fuels Mega-Fires
Scott Pelley Reports From The American West's Fire Lines On The Rising
Number Of Mega-Fires
Oct 21, 2007 CBS News
[ . . . ]
The severity of the burning and size of the fires caught the eye of
Tom Swetnam, one of the world's leading fire ecologists. He wanted to
know what's touched off this annual inferno and whether it's truly a
historic change.
At the University of Arizona, Swetnam keeps a remarkable woodpile,
comprised of the largest collection of tree rings in the world. His
rings go back 9,000 years, and each one of those rings captures one
year of climate history.
Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years...
Were tree rings used to determine the temperature for the past 1,000
years? If so, how is that done?

Read the article, please.

I did, please.

Now point out the part that answers my question, please.

Thank you.

Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
"Peter Franks" wrote in message
...
Roger Coppock wrote:
Expert: Warming Climate Fuels Mega-Fires
Scott Pelley Reports From The American West's Fire Lines On The Rising
Number Of Mega-Fires
Oct 21, 2007 CBS News

[ . . . ]

The severity of the burning and size of the fires caught the eye of
Tom Swetnam, one of the world's leading fire ecologists. He wanted to
know what's touched off this annual inferno and whether it's truly a
historic change.

At the University of Arizona, Swetnam keeps a remarkable woodpile,
comprised of the largest collection of tree rings in the world. His
rings go back 9,000 years, and each one of those rings captures one
year of climate history.

Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years...
Were tree rings used to determine the temperature for the past 1,000
years? If so, how is that done?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&btnG =Search

That doesn't answer my question.

Let me rephrase it so that there is less of a chance for confusion:

How did "Swetnam [find that] recent decades have been the hottest in
1,000 years"?

"Peter Franks" wrote in message
...
Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
"Peter Franks" wrote in message
...
Roger Coppock wrote:
Expert: Warming Climate Fuels Mega-Fires
Scott Pelley Reports From The American West's Fire Lines On The Rising
Number Of Mega-Fires
Oct 21, 2007 CBS News

[ . . . ]

The severity of the burning and size of the fires caught the eye of
Tom Swetnam, one of the world's leading fire ecologists. He wanted to
know what's touched off this annual inferno and whether it's truly a
historic change.

At the University of Arizona, Swetnam keeps a remarkable woodpile,
comprised of the largest collection of tree rings in the world. His
rings go back 9,000 years, and each one of those rings captures one
year of climate history.

Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years...
Were tree rings used to determine the temperature for the past 1,000
years? If so, how is that done?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&btnG =Search

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it does.

"Peter Franks" wrote in message
...
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 22, 10:24 am, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Expert: Warming Climate Fuels Mega-Fires
Scott Pelley Reports From The American West's Fire Lines On The Rising
Number Of Mega-Fires
Oct 21, 2007 CBS News
[ . . . ]
The severity of the burning and size of the fires caught the eye of
Tom Swetnam, one of the world's leading fire ecologists. He wanted to
know what's touched off this annual inferno and whether it's truly a
historic change.
At the University of Arizona, Swetnam keeps a remarkable woodpile,
comprised of the largest collection of tree rings in the world. His
rings go back 9,000 years, and each one of those rings captures one
year of climate history.
Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years...
Were tree rings used to determine the temperature for the past 1,000
years? If so, how is that done?

Read the article, please.

I did, please.

Now point out the part that answers my question, please.

Why would anyone bother?

O wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
.. .
But that false impression about warming has reached
a point where more rise is not likely, the silly averaging should
show a slow cooling back toward the baseline.

And the global warmers will gradually fade away,
hearing the chuckles of those who were not so gullible.

The Whatafool statistical expectation of a warming
aberration seems to parallel the IPCC predictions;

Warming, most evident in areas that go above and
below zero C,

A rapid rise over 30 or 40 years, then a slow decline,

Little or no effect in the tropics,

Not evident in all time record highs, few if any recently,

just a big global illusion interpreted by dummies as
a meaningful global change,

Maybe your son can explain it to you.

You sure do make up some funny stuff! lol

Sorry, it would be funny if the end of the global warming
fad wouldn't be so traumatic for all the gullible believers.

Only in winter, only where it freezes, few record lows,
the latent heat of fusion makes water freezing more difficult.
Note that it is only the moist surface, mostly solid
surface that is moist that causes the aberration, and that
should make it very easy to check the theory against the
data set.

Climate statisticians should first look for things that
can cause errors or faults in the charts, even before they
make any conclusions.

And please learn to say "Satana Winds" instead
of Santa Ana Winds because the early Californians would
not have named bad winds after popular person.

"Bawana" wrote Nothing of Consequence.

Meanwhile as the Globe continues to warm...


CO2 in air grows fast: study Mon Oct 22, 5:22 PM ET


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Economic growth has made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
increase much faster than expected, as trees and oceans struggle to absorb
the
greenhouse gas, scientists said in a study published Monday.

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35 percent faster than
expected
since 2000," said a statement from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), one
of
the bodies involved in the research.

Inefficient use of fuels increased CO2 by 17 percent, while the other 18
percent
was due to a decline in the efficiency of natural "sinks," the forests and
seas
that soak up the gas from the atmosphere, it said.

"Fifty years ago, for every tonne of CO2 emitted, 600 kilograms (1,300
pounds)
were removed by natural sinks. In 2006 only 550 kilograms were removed per
tonne
and that amount is falling," said the study's lead author, Pep Canadell of
the
Global Carbon Project, in a statement.

"The proportion of carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere after
vegetation
and the oceans absorb what they can has escalated over the past 50 years,
showing a decrease in the planet's ability to absorb anthropogenic
(human-made)
emissions."

Almost 10 billion tons of carbon were emitted worldwide in 2006 -- 35
percent
more than in 1990, the study found. The landmark Kyoto Protocol agreement
committed countries to cut world greenhouse gas emissions five percent below
the
1990 level by 2012.

"Improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy have stalled
since
2000 after improving for 30 years, leading to the unexpected growth of
atmospheric CO2," the BAS said.

"The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilization of
atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought,"
said
one of the study's authors, Corinne Le Quere, in the BAS statement.

The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences in the United States.

Most of the authors are members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations body which has made key
reports
on climate change for world leaders.

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"

"The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilization of
atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously
thought," said
one of the study's authors, Corinne Le Quere, in the BAS statement.

Plants needs ALL (not only CO2) elements necessary to growth. The SO2 and
fly ash are also necessary. Unfortunately they are removed from the
combustion products.
S*

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
O wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
. ..
But that false impression about warming has reached
a point where more rise is not likely, the silly averaging should
show a slow cooling back toward the baseline.

And the global warmers will gradually fade away,
hearing the chuckles of those who were not so gullible.

The Whatafool statistical expectation of a warming
aberration seems to parallel the IPCC predictions;

Warming, most evident in areas that go above and
below zero C,

A rapid rise over 30 or 40 years, then a slow decline,

Little or no effect in the tropics,

Not evident in all time record highs, few if any recently,

just a big global illusion interpreted by dummies as
a meaningful global change,

Maybe your son can explain it to you.

You sure do make up some funny stuff! lol

Sorry, it would be funny if the end of the global warming
fad wouldn't be so traumatic for all the gullible believers.

Only in winter, only where it freezes, few record lows,
the latent heat of fusion makes water freezing more difficult.
Note that it is only the moist surface, mostly solid
surface that is moist that causes the aberration, and that
should make it very easy to check the theory against the
data set.

Climate statisticians should first look for things that
can cause errors or faults in the charts, even before they
make any conclusions.

And your claim is that none of this was taken into account, is it?
roflmao

O wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
Climate statisticians should first look for things that
can cause errors or faults in the charts, even before they
make any conclusions.

And your claim is that none of this was taken into account, is it?
roflmao

Then it should be in the literature. Stop laughing long
enough to post some urls that discuss statistical error due to
latent heats.