Warmth Limits For Tree Growth Affirm Austria Was 4-7°C Warmer Than Today 2000 Years Ago

Share this...

Robust evidence from bison remains recovered from the Austrian Alps in 2020 and 2021 invalidate claims modern Alpine temperatures are unusually warm. 

new study suggests that from about 6000 to 1200 years ago European bison fed on deciduous tree/vegetation that grew at Alpine altitudes reaching around 800 m higher than they do today.

Known beech and oak tree growth warmth thresholds – the required number of days per year above a minimum temperature limit – thus affirm Austria needed to be 4-7°C warmer than now during this period (~2000 years ago).

“[T]he beech limit but also the forest line during the »wisent time« (6,000 to 1,200 years before today) was much higher and the average summer temperature had to be at least 3 to 6 °C higher than today. Remarkable is a palynological record (Ressl, 1980) from the shaft cave Stainzerkogelschaft near Lunz am See. Remains of wisent were found in the shaft (1,463 m, see Tab. 3). The clay with a skull fragment with horncores inside was examined palynologically. The dominating pollen were from alder (Alnus), oak (Quercus) and linden tree (Tilia). The oak boundary (boundary between colline and montane vegetation stages) today lies between 400 and 800 metres in the Northern Alpine Alps (Grabherr et al., 2004). Oaks (Quercus) at an altitude of 1,450 metres around 2,000 years ago also indicate a climate approximately 4 to 7 °C warmer than today.”

Image Source: Schaer et al., 2022

A 4-7°C warmer regional Holocene temperature is warmer than other estimates of an Austrian summer temperatures “3.0 to 4.5°C above the modern value” (Ilyashuk et al., 2011).

Image Source: Ilyashuk et al., 2011
Share this...

7 responses to “Warmth Limits For Tree Growth Affirm Austria Was 4-7°C Warmer Than Today 2000 Years Ago”

  1. Michael Peinsipp

    A few ‘Men’ have convinced a few ‘humans’ that Mankind controls the Earths temps…pitiful.

  2. John Hultquist

    The warmer temperatures of the past have become well known in the community of scholars – reports such as these provide better information. The response of the Climate Cult™ (CC™) has been that the rate of warming was unprecedented and therefore existential.
    However, the “rate of warming” isn’t cooperating and the CC™ has changed the narrative to weirding, or some such. This practice is difficult to combat. Every weather event becomes proof of the danger. Every day some place in the world will have notable weather.
    That’s the rub.

  3. Davos: ‘deranged, hypocritical and elitist farce’ – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Related: Warmth Limits For Tree Growth Affirm Austria Was 4-7°C Warmer Than Today 2000 Years Ago […]

  4. Warmth Limits For Tree Growth Affirm Austria Was 4-7°C Warmer Than Today 2000 Years Ago - Climate- Science.press

    […] From NoTricksZone […]

  5. C. Paul Barreira

    The title of this article is confusing. The final term “2000 Years Ago” should come before “than Today”.

  6. Krzysztof Ciuba

    A perfect Info but there is a more Perfect Argument contra the truthfulness of IPCC’s 10…0s pages! A plain …logic, semiotics! In IPCC official reports the DEscription of likelihood:
    “Likelihood refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well-defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future and may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views.(Climat,e Change 2007, Cambridge Univ.Press, Contr. of Work. Group II for the Fourth Assess.Report for the IPCC, Summary for Policymakers,p..21)
    1)”well-defined” means for example the quantity 1/6 of getting a number (one of six:1,2,3,4,5,6) in one dice’s throw or the number attached to some measured physical quantity, A (units)+/-(dA-standard deviation) like 100,55+/-0.1(any unit)
    In all IPCC reports the Terminology “very likely or very unlikely or …virtually certain” is ONLY used without any ONE specific number and of course any provided calculation of how they got such an outcome “very likely” defined as “90-99%” probability and “likely” as 66-90%- they are just a ‘modified”(how?) numbers for the normal/probability distribution of a continuous random variable(s)!!! In order to use this plain primary school math at first one must know what they (at IPCC) look for, for example, the number of hurricanes, floods, any disasters -if they had a perfect model they would perfectly calculate it (like the likelihood of winning Weekend Lottery) if as they assume all depends on just one parameter, the co2 amount (still if properly measured and calculated). The funniest is the argument “about as likely as not” that refers to “33 to 66%” probability and it simply means: “tomorrow will be hot or not hot”- i.e. a plain tautological formula of plain (divine) logic says nothing about the physical world: any physical parameter is not “p” or “not-p”(p-any sentence” but a concrete number value (like “1/6” in the dice’s experiment or the number of winning a Lottery: 1/(N!/n!(N-n)! =1/22,957,480(Pick 6:for N=53,n=6 ..have a good luck!) and not just saying: we will get “nr 1” or we will not get “this nr 1″. ps. a similar case is with Laplace formula of calculating the probability of the Sun’s rising tomorrow – like the counting of the probability of probability (total nonsense as the definition of probability refers to all the sample space universe” of events and it is perfectly known and not changing from one element to the other and that is contra the main principle of natural science activity, the principle of induction-the assumption or the belief that Nature’s law if it is true in n-case,then it is true in (n+1) case! If an experiment invalidates a law, one must correct such law (K.Popper). Concluding: All IPCC UN reports are toilet paper according to the plain (primary school) semiotics!

  7. Krzysztof Ciuba

    ps. I forgot to add the mentioned Laplace’s rule of succession(1814) was immediately ridiculed by G.Boole in Studies in Logic and Probability,1857 and others: Venn, Bertrand, and Keynes- E.T.Jaynes, Probability Theory, Camb.Univ.Press,ch.18 still does not see this absurdity,med.mcgillca)

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy