Besides e-mails, the climategate files include data files, obscurely labled, that might or might not be related to published results. Steve McIntyre has performed some impressive detective work in identifying files relating to the Yamal chronology. The published work based on the Yamal chronology shows a recent six standard deviation movement in temperature upwards from the long run fluctuations about the average. The climategate files, that he suggests underlies the published Yamal chronology, are dramatically different and taken together show a decline in recent years.

Graphs of the comparisons can be found at:

http://climateaudit.org/

McIntyre is asking for an explanation for the discrepency which he thinks the Oxburgh inquirey could have also demanded.

The problem, of course, is that you can not do physiological experiments with long-lived trees.”

I must respectfully disagree, the experiments have been done.
In Parks and Arboretums all around the world are tress that were placed there some decades ago; where they were moved from and when is known. There are many hundreds of transplanted tress in Central Park NY alone.
It would be quite easy to look at the tree rings of moved tress at Kew Gardens, outside London.

love the analysis and comments (‘losing weight by eating donuts’ ha ha ha! ). Of course all you’re doing is merely indicting an entire wing of ‘science’ that has kind of gotten away from reality.

Honestly can’t expect the dendrochronologists to face such difficult questions, they’re human after all. Best for them to ignore the elephant in the room (la la la la). That’s why they’ve been forced to resort to elaborate and unscientific tricks to keep the edifice in place:
a) ‘hiding the decline’,
b) forcing the densities to match, or
c) selecting the “well-behaved” trees to get around the ‘divergence’ issue.

Otherwise – they would have to squarely address the fact that their chosen field isn’t really science.

Irreproducible.

I cultivate thousands of flower bulbs, and I fully agree with you. It is not possible to analyze the combinations of temperature and moisture that you list because the data is not available for the actual locations of the trees (microclimates), and another important aspect is the occurrence of a brief late significant freeze in spring (I have no fruit on my trees this year because of such a late freeze).

Another very important contribution that is not evaluated: nutrients, in particular the crowding together of individual trees — too much competition from crowding and growth is stunted, but the degree of crowding versus stunting is not a linear relationship. I can tell you from personal observations, that when stunting occurs, the overall effects upon individual growing parts are definitely not uniform (at least in flower bulbs); some parts show more pronounced effects than other parts.

However, certain types of plant adapt to their environment more readily than others. It appears from the fossil record that trees may adapt more slowly than for instance legumes and that this could be down to the fertilisation process, perhaps, or longevity. What we can say for certain, as vegetable growers is that warm and averagely damp is best. Warm and too damp is bad, cold and dry is bad, cold and wet is bad; cold and dry is hopeless as is warm and dry. Put this into an equation and what do get? You get that temperature is NOT mutually exclusive. It virtually has to be impossible to separate the warm signal from the precipitation signal even with stats, unless you have a suitable calibration parametre which will allow you to isolate the precipitation. I don’t see one back to the year dot.