CRU proxy was tree rings
They measured the rings and then translated this proxy into temperatures.
They would pick out a tree, drill a plug out of the tree and then measure the rings. They looked at the two layers of each ring to measure precisely how think they were etc.. They also estimated the age of the tree if it was dead and petrified.
For some reason they think it worked from 1900 to 1960 but afterwards it didn’t.
I think it is more likely, since they lost their co-efficients they couldn’t reproduce old research. Or even better yet, it just plumb doesn’t work.
If you search the emails, there is a good explanation of this. Please note that trees only cover 10% of the earth so it never represented global temperatures in the first place even if it did work. Likely explains this was the most radical of the proxies.
They tried to counter this my mixing in other proxies with real temperature data.
Did your ma ever teach you what happens when you mix crap with anything, you just get a smelly mess.
Yet, this is what they were using.
Science, not. I think they were too proud to yank their tree ring data because of all the years spent gathering it.
If you through out the ring data, you get much more tame global warming predictions. But see, that is where uncertainty comes in.
If the increase isn’t severe enough, it isn’t outside the error bands and therefore you may have nothing at all.
FRAUD.
Thanks again.
OK, another question. Why do we have one set of temperature readings (not tree ring measurements) that say it’s getting warmer since 1998, and another that says it’s not getting warmer?