It is very funny. You have not been to this place for on-site monitoring. Why are you still so adamant about it? It is funny, funny and funny! Science is based on evidence, not your allegation. It does not mean it just because you are so insistent on it. If you want to confirm something, I suggest you should go for fieldwork and make a experiment monitoring, and only in this case, I can believe what you said. Otherwise, I am afraid that some misinformation produce.

The southern Canadian Cordillera (i.e. southern British Columbia) has TWO tree-lines:

Lower tree-line – moisture stressed tree-line – tree-species are Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir.

Upper tree-line – temperature controlled environment – Engelmann spruce, larch, whitebark pine etc.

so – completely different environments and completely different species.

I don’t see that anything in the above post states otherwise. Upper and lower treelines have been discussed at this site previously in connection with bristlecones. For greater clarity, I’ve added a couple of sentences to the above post referring to Rob Wilson’s temperature reconstructions as follows. (I’ve discussed data archiving as data archiving was one of the stated objectives of the program and I’d spent much of the post reporting on that issue.

The review also notes that:

“Luckman and Wilson (2005) have also developed a millennial length (950-1994) maximum summer temperature reconstruction from the Columbia Icefield area in the Canadian Rockies that appears to reflect broad Northern Hemisphere trends.”

Although the reconstruction and chronology are archived, the underlying measurement data is not archived, nor is the data for other treeline sites reported in Wilson and Luckman 2003, a reconstruction of maximum summer temperature from upper treeline sites.

I didn’t mean to neglect Rob Wilson’s work on temperature reconstructions in this summary. My attention was really directed towards work less familiar to me and noting the very low return of archived results from this program. I will endeavor to re-read Rob’s work.

Rob, one of the underlying problems here is that IPCC 4AR failed to do an assessment of recent dendro work, by and large limiting itself to reporting on the multiproxy reconstructions. I’ve spent quite a bit of time recently trying to see what up-to-data proxy information actually looks like and welcome any suggestions on series or studies that you think I should look at it.

To date, every U.S. treeline site discussed by Woodhouse in a publication has been for a drought/precipitation reconstruction; chronologies as far north as British Columbia were used for precipitation reconstructions:

Yup, that is what tree ring studies are good for.