The Alternative View Skeptic Site - Reason over Hype

Tibet Tree Rings Reveal Natural Climate Cycles

By Lewis Loflin | Published May 27, 2025

Human CO2 emissions contribute to climate warming, but alarmist claims of unprecedented catastrophe exaggerate the threat. A tree ring study from Tibet shows significant warming in the 1820s, predating industrial emissions, highlighting natural climate cycles. Compared to the Miocene epoch’s warm, thriving ecosystems, modern changes are modest. A 2022 Nature study (Carl et al., 2022) reveals scientists’ progressive bias, fueling a science-industrial complex that amplifies hype. Equal funding for natural cycle research could promote transparent, evidence-based science.

Natural Climate Variability in Tibet

Li et al. (2018) reconstructed summer temperatures (August–September) on the southeastern Tibetan Plateau from 1820 to 2008, using tree ring density from 34 Abies georgei trees on Sygera Mountain. Published in Global and Planetary Change, the study correlated tree ring density with instrumental records to create a climate proxy. The data show warming around 1820, marking the end of the Little Ice Age (1300–1850), driven by natural cycles, not human activity. This mirrors the Miocene (23–5 million years ago), when CO2 levels (400–600 ppm) and warm climates supported lush forests without crisis.

Key Findings from the Tree Ring Record

The Tibet reconstruction reveals warm and cold periods, with no clear CO2-driven trend. Key findings:

Modern warming aligns with these natural cycles, not solely CO2.

Climate’s Inherent Variability

Climate varies naturally due to solar activity, volcanism, and ocean cycles like the PDO. The Medieval Warm Period (900–1300) and Little Ice Age show this, with no industrial influence. The Miocene’s warm climate, with CO2 levels similar to or higher than today’s 420 ppm, supported thriving ecosystems, not catastrophe. The Tibet study’s 1820 warming, predating significant CO2 emissions, underscores natural drivers. Yet, alarmists exaggerate human impact, ignoring geological context and variability.

Science-Industrial Complex and Alarmist Hype

Eisenhower’s 1961 warning of a military-industrial complex applies to today’s science-industrial complex, where progressive-leaning scientists (60–70% liberal, Gross & Simmons, 2014) amplify CO2-driven fear for funding—$190 billion in federal R&D in 2023. The Nature study’s bias downplays natural cycles, as seen in Tibet’s data. Progressives reject nuclear power (safe, low-CO2) and GMOs (NAS-approved), while conservatives question warming’s severity. Selective science rejection erodes trust, with only 30% of Americans highly trusting scientists for policy (Pew, 2020).

Climate Narrative Tree Ring Evidence
Modern warming is unprecedented 1820s warming matches modern trends (Li et al., 2018).
CO2 solely drives warming Natural cycles (35.1, 51.0, 84.7 years) tied to PDO, not just CO2.

Equal Funding for Balanced Science

One-sided funding rewards alarmism, not inquiry. Equal funding for research into natural cycles, adaptation, and solutions like nuclear power could counter hype. Scientists would need to:

Poor science education (36% 8th graders proficient, NAEP, 2020) fuels vulnerability to fear. Transparent funding could rebuild trust.

Graph of Tibet summer temperature reconstruction from 1820 to 2008 based on tree ring density.

Conclusion

Tibet’s tree rings show natural climate cycles, with 1820s warming rivaling today’s, suggesting human CO2’s impact, while real, is overhyped compared to geological precedents like the Miocene. The science-industrial complex, driven by progressive bias, amplifies fear over evidence. Equal funding for balanced research could restore reason, ensuring science informs, not alarms, through transparent, data-driven insights.

Paper Reviewed: Li, M., Duan, J., Wang, L., and Zhu, H. 2018. Late summer temperature reconstruction based on tree-ring density for Sygera Mountain, southeastern Tibetan Plateau. Global and Planetary Change 163: 10–17.