Sorry. We were neighbors of Professor Douglass. We grew up in the shadow of his tree slices.
What makes you think there is no causal correlation between teperature and moisture? Have you not been reading about Patricia?
And I sent the authors of a tree ring study of redwood and giant sequoia that blew them out of the water by their own metrics.
What makes you think there is no causal correlation between teperature and moisture? Have you not been reading about Patricia?
I didn't say there were none, I said they were conflated, particularly in a coastal environment. Warmer air carries more moisture that promotes growth. Cold air condenses onshore moisture that promotes growth. Hot temperatures close stomata and dries the landscape that retards growth. Warm soil temperatures promote growth.
It's complicated, and it gets a LOT more complicated when you throw anthropogenic fire into the picture, particularly as regards albedo. Charred surfaces absorb more infra red. There is a recovery period for trees of up to two years to restore greenery. Burning releases nutrient that promotes growth in subsequent years. Accumulated charcoal literally pulls moisture into topsoil and holds it there... And frequent fires won't show scars on trees. Even the distribution and range of trees can reflect the practices of an anthropogenic fire regimen. I have yet to see a dendrochronological study that can extract a climate signal from the noise of anthropogenic burning except on a very long time scale, and even then it produces questionable conclusions in more coastal regions.