|
No it hasn't. The original MBH98/99 papers showed a clear hockey stick effect pointing to highly anomalous recent warming.
This was contested in later papers by McIntyre, McKitrick and others, whose results (the Reconstructed Graph) tended to show a dip over the past millennium, followed again by a recent rise. This was interpreted as indicating that the hockey stick rise is not anomalous.
The net result of all the controversy is that two highly authoritative studies, by the American National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences, supported the original MBH findings. On the other hand, another study by the Committee on Energy and Commerce (the Wegman report) supported the reconstruction. However, whilst all other relevant papers were peer-reviewed, the Wegman was not, and there are severe doubts. And whatever interpretation of the MBH data you use, they unequivocally show that the last few decades have been the warmest on record.
I can find no mention of dendrochronology being used to interpret the data of the past 150 years. From then, as I have said, meteorological data has been used to provide instrumental measurements. Before then, proxy measurements were taken, that is secondary inferences made as a result of other observations, such as tree rings, reports of harvest yields, contemporary if subjective writings, etc.
The seemingly-anomalous recent tree ring data were not part of the MBH paper, nor its reconstruction. Unfortunately, they are in the not-uncommon situation of seeming to both rebut and support recent climate change. Until the matter clarifies, it is safest to exclude them from the debate. |
|