The now disgraced global warming alarmists’ much discussed “hockey stick curve,” indicating that global mean atmospheric temperatures have supposedly risen dramatically at historically unprecedented rates since the early 1960’s, is largely based upon tree ring data from Yamal, Siberia, measured by scandal ridden Keith Briffa of the CRU in East Anglia, who took results from only three trees to conclude that global warming has increased greatly since the 1960’s (when correlative temperature measures were begun to be taken in Siberia), which obviously is bad sampling, only three trees, made worse by his failure to report the results from many other tree core samples in the area which contradict his purpose-driven global warming alarmist conclusions to facilitate, through global government regulation, our purported collective ability to stop most all global warming, ostensibly manmade, which hasn’t occurred for the last decade anyway (because only increased solar activity actually causes global warming).
So then why did other trees in the region there in Siberia not have thicker growth rings from the 1960’s onward as did Keith Briffa’s narrowly selected (and I do mean selected) sampling of three lonely tree cores? Atmospheric temperature is only one factor affecting tree growth, the greatest factor however is the rate of nutrient delivery to the root system by groundwater percolation, and that increased by greater precipitation, so obviously, the other watersheds in the area had varying rates of nutrient delivery, accounting for the variation in the growth rates of trees in the same general vicinity, with Briffa’s three trees having benefitted from greater relative nutrient delivery, compared to sampled trees not far distant there in Yamal.
The greatest “annual” seasonal growth rates for trees, due to warm temperatures and maximized rainfall, generally occur in spring and early summer (in the northern hemisphere), now confirmed by accurate worldwide temperature and rainfall readings, but what about ancient history before such measurements were taken, how can we know that the thicker rings were always grown during the spring or summer? For during the Ice Age, when the world was affected by much more cloudcover, summers were no doubt cooler, and winters warmer, blurring the lines (so to speak) between the now mostly regular seasons back then, rendering likely that some greater growth periods were not in just the spring or summer, with perhaps a greater growth period in the spring, reduced greatly then that summer, followed by much more growth again in the fall, making it appear that two years had elapsed in the tree ring record when in reality it was six months.
Only one paradoxically heated source could have been the engine for the formation of the prodigious global cloudcover for the Ice Age, and that source was a warmer ocean, which resulted in much greater evaporation off it, having formed the dense cloudcover for the Ice Age, it’s just hydrology 101, so what could have caused the ocean to have been significatly warmer for all that cloudcover? It was the heat from the earth’s interior when the biblical fountains of the deep burst forth steam-rich magma through what now are the midoceanic ridges when the supercontinent Pangea broke apart during Noah’s Flood, confirmed by the deposits and orogenies of the geologic record, as you’ll see when you read the free ebook download of my first book, Old Earth? Why Not!, and see that almost all the biblical timeline, contrary to popular advertising, was written by eyewitnesses in article #13 at http://GenesisVeracity.com, where Noah recorded the global flood episode according to the evidence.