Yet another study that shows that Earth is cooling, not warming - Does Al Gore know yet?

By Charles Riggs Published:

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years

Tree ring study gives first accurate climate reading back to 138BC

World has been slowly cooling for 2,000 years

World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now

Study of semi-fossilised trees in Finland

By Rob Waugh

PUBLISHED: 07:22 EST, 11 July 2012 | UPDATED: 07:22 EST, 11 July 2012

Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - with measurements dating back to 138BC

Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.

Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.

It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.

Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.

Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.

'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’

The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland.

Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.

In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.

‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’

The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.

Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.

Global cooling: It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia

The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were

The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.

The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.

In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.

For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years.

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • UKfan-You are absolutely right. Chaz is what is known as a "chicken-hawk; talks big about being a patriot and war, but has never put his own life on the line to defend this country. I know this because a true veteran or patriot would never accuse another vet of the things he has said. Reminds me of one who is likely his hero, ted nugent, an infamous "chicken-hawk" and draft dodger. He continues his personal attacks, because he has no real scientific facts on his side. Pitiful. As a debater, miserable failure.

  • I do not answer to you (Riggs). And we all know your background already. And if you think I am afraid of you well....wait a minute ...never mind I can't quit laughing.

  • Typical left wing tactics - challenge the abilities and knowledge of others while offering no bona fides of your own. To date, neither ukfan nor waterdog have dared to submit their background (or more likely the lack thereof) to public scrutiny while they bleat about others. So they remain frauds and charlatans, hiding behind screen names like the cowards that they are and will be.

  • probably are right about ignoring him. It's just hard to do sometimes.

  • ukfan-I have no intention of letting chaz get under my skin. I owe him no proof or explanation of anything. An apology from him is meaningless to me and would not change his hate-filled, anti-science troll rhetoric. I think that ignoring his rants is the best course.

  • Don't let Riggs make you do anything for an apology. He is the one that needs to apologize to a vast number of people that he has called liars and called nasty names on these forums. He is ****** because everyone knows who he is. Show us "your" qualifications other than being a pistol-packing know it all.

  • Waterdog - all you have to do to get an apology from me is to name yourself and prove that you actually possess the qualifications that you claimed. Unless and until you do that, I'll continue to call you a fraud. It's just that easy

  • The point of bringing up the Medieval Warming Period is that there is no explanation for it in the global warming hysteria 'science', and it was a time when the Earth was warmer than it is now. Yet humanity couldn't have caused it, and the oceans weren't eight feet higher than they are now, and NONE of those things that the alarmists are warning about occurred then despite the much higher temps. Polar bears didn't drown and they still exist. The problem for waterdog is that OTHERS have actually proposed that explanation for the Medieval period, that burning forests for land clearing caused it along with other deforestation and tilling techniques. And that is what I was referring to when I said that it had been debunked. The global warming ninnies have thrown out cause after cause for changes that have happened or that they've predicted, and when those were debunked they just moved on to the next and pretended that they never said anything - just like waterdog. So now we have waterdog and anonymous teaming up to show their mutual ignorance and spite. Waterdog is so typical of those who claim to have expertise and experience (but strangely doesn't know how to spell 'desert' - one 's', twit, only one) but refuses to substantiate it. That's what internet trolls do, and that's when you know that they're lying. They claim to know all kinds of stuff, but clam up when challenged, or make even more outrageous claims. As for anonymous_1713 - when you actually DO know or contribute something, instead of admitting that you're in over your head and throwing out the kind of sophomoric slurs you have, then you might be worth responding to. I never claim to know it all, but I'm not going to pretend to be as witless as you are just to make you feel better about yourself. You throw out crap, but you don't answer the question. Are you sure that you and waterdog aren't sisters?

  • Funny how chazrigz is fixated on the Medieval period, as if he never met a feudal society that he didn't like. The kicker is that he is not of nobility, or a even a cleric, but a mere serf like the rest of us. When he is carrying the corporate message from the big house, he is therefore lobbying against his own economic self-interest and personal well being. Is that a classic example of the Stockholm Syndrome or what?

  • Yeah, Exxxon is kissing my fanny by telling me "Yeah, we know what we are doing is causing this, but tough nookies...ADAPT peasant! Yep, sounds like the multinational energy consortium is really "knuckling under". chazrigs and his ilk are so blinded by their hate of government that they cannot see that it is the only thing between them and all of the abuses of corporate greed. These people obviously do not know history, or for that matter, current events. By parroting the corporate message, chazrigs is unwittingly fulfilling someone else's prophesy. “The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  • Chaz, You are either a fool or an idiot; probably both. I couldn't care less what you believe about me. Fortunately, I do know the truth about you and what kind of person you are. I threw the medieval warming thing in there to see if you would bite. And like a dumb carp, you swallowed hook line and sinker; and real science is making a mockery of climate change deniers. You have become a bore and until you can come up with something real and substantial, I don't plan on responding to your nonsense or personal demons anymore. Try to stay cool as the earth warms up and the desserts overtake you.

  • can not argue with Riggs he thinks he is an expert on everything. If you don't agree with him you are an idiot or some other derogatory name he can think up to call you. You see he doesn't even believe you when you say you are a ranger. How in the he!! would he know. He just copy and paste things that fit into his little world of denial.

  • If they could get any two climate models to AGREE, maybe then they'd be good for something besides scaring witless lemmings and little children, but they CAN'T. I'm betting that any Exxon exec who touts conformance with global warming ninnery is doing so for public relations and damage control. But the whole time that they're kissing the fannies of the greenies they're only buying time and playing a game with them. And that's ridiculous. They do it to keep the loons off their backs, when they should be aggressively refusing to knuckle under, and to push for CHEAPER ENERGY, which we'd have if the greenies weren't so intent on making the market insane. You think that the energy companies aren't looking for ways to be the FIRST to market cheap, useful alternative energy sources? You think that they're not spending MILLIONS on research every year? They don't have their heads in the sand. But the greenies believe, in the face of all history, that the government is going to save us. Right. Just like they did with Solyndra, and half a dozen other 'green' industries. GREEN means "let's waste a ton of money on things that don't work". GREEN means "hey, it's okay for US to kill a bunch of eagles and hawks and migratory birds with our windmills, but not for YOU to allow even one drop of oil to fall on the ground while searching for cheap energy". GREEN means "we don't care about noise or intrusiveness with windmills, or your quality of life, or the fact that the expense is MONSTROUS and INEFFICIENT, it's what we want and we're going to do it to you no matter what!". That's what the green industry is giving us, in the name of a fraud.

  • Yup, I'm being paid a fortune to shill for Exxon, that's why I live in Beverly Hills in this mansion. Uh, not. Waterdog, that hackneyed explanation for the Medieval Warming Period has been discounted and laughed out of serious consideration long, long ago. Unless and until you share your real name with the world, I will have to call you a liar and a fraud who has no real knowledge of this subject. And a Ranger? It is to laugh. You're making all that up, that's the icing on the cake. SCIENCE is making a mockery of the global warming hysteria, more so every day, which is why I post in opposition to the global warming hystericals. No amount of denial on your part can or will change that.

  • I guess ExxonMobil chief executive, Rex Tillerson, hasn't read the article about the tree ring study, huh? Or, is it you, as one of his lackeys, that hasn't got the memo yet about the change in strategy that now admits the existence of acknowledges anthropogenic climate change (human caused)? How are you going to adapt to the changing climate? Are you going to move to Canada? Do you think that it is a mere coincidence that your position is the same as the energy corporations? NOT! I saw the actual video of Tillerson today and this is the actual text of that part of his speech that the article paraphrased. Here it is: "I am not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have na impact. It will have a warming impact, but how large it is is what is very hard to predict. And depending on how large it is then projects how dire the consequneces are. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK, so we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around, we will adapt to that. it's an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions." My question is who is WE? Are the multinational energy conglomerate going to adapt its engineering practices, or is it going to be the rest of us? WE have already been adapting to the record droughts, heat waves, floods and unsettled weather patterns and the temp has only gone up one degree on average. What is it going to be like at 3 degrees? Who is going to tell the farmers of the midwest that they are going to have to adapt by not growing crops anymore? Where is the engineering solutions to the desertification of our grain belt? We are going to be back in Medieval Times in no time.

  • On June 27, 2012, ExxonMobil chief executive, Rex Tillerson, acknowledged during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations that man-made global warming is quite real, but says society will adapt to climate change. In the speech Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said. In his speech and during a question-and-answer session afterwards, he addressed three major energy issues: climate change, oil and gas drilling pollution, and energy dependence. Tillerson, in a break with predecessor Lee Raymond, acknowledged that global temperatures are rising. "Clearly there is going to be an impact," he said. But he questioned the ability of climate models to predict the magnitude of the impact. He said that people would be able to adapt to rising sea levels and changing climates that may force agricultural production to shift. "We have spent our entire existence adapting. We'll adapt," he said. "It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution." Andrew Weaver, the chairman of climate modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria in Canada, disagreed with Tillerson's characterisation of climate modelling. Weaver said modelling can give a very good sense of the type of climate changes that are likely, and that adapting to those changes will be much more difficult and disruptive than Tillerson seems to be acknowledging. Steve Coll, author of Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power, said he was surprised Exxon would already be talking about ways society could adapt to climate change when there is still time to try to avoid its worst effects. Also, he said, research suggests that adapting to climate change could be far more expensive than reducing emissions now. "Moving entire cities would be very expensive," he said. Legislation or regulation that would help slow emissions of global warming gases would likely lead to lower demand for oil and gasoline, and could reduce Exxon's profit. So, I guess Tillerson is one of those "ninnies" who just doesn't understand the science when he acknowledges anthropogenic climate change, huh?

  • It seems that chazrigz has recurring lobal orning.

  • Chaz doesn't deal in facts that don't fit his preconceived ideas. It is nearly impossible to discuss a science topic with people who have no idea how science works. That is why he tries to bully and intimidate anyone who disagrees with him.

  • you were in VietNam and a Rangers at that. I knew I liked your postings for some reason. Thank you for your service by the way. I think Chaz is mostly all bark anyway and no bite.

  • Oh, and a final thought: You don't need to be a scientific expert to accept the scientific consensus. If you choose to reject the scientific consensus and expect any *real* scientific skeptic to take you seriously, however, you need to have a substantive and deep understanding of what you are talking about. And with respect to climate science that means you have to have a deep and substantive education in the field. (And no, reading and parroting climate science denier blogs does not qualify as a "deep and substantive education in the field.")

  • BTW, chaz, I have two M.S. degrees in science and 30+ years experience with Environmental Protection. I also had three years as an officer in the US Army, with a tour in Vietnam with the Army Rangers. I would be careful who I called a coward. So much for your "mud slinging"!

  • Chaz, once again you resort to personal attacks instead of reasonable debate, because you have no facts on your side. Any half-educated fool knows the Medieval warming period was caused by the deforestation of Europe for building material and fuel. All of the smoke and particulates caused a warming similar to the present only on a smaller scale (mostly limited to Europe and western Asia. Secondly, I haven't attacked you, only your fallacious ideas. What I don't understand is why you want to so vehemently deny what is obvious to most people. Is it mere stubbornness or are you getting some benefit from it. You obviously care nothing about the world population or earth in general who will suffer the coming catastrophe if we don't make some changes. Better to be prepared for the eventuality than to ignore the situation and hope it goes away. You can call me all the names you want, but it really doesn't bother me. I have been called such by better people than you. You only reveal your own unwillingness to see what's in front of you. I think we have played this subject out for now. Until you can provide real scientific data or studies, confine yourself to selling guns. At least I have heard you know something about that.

  • waterdog...I told ya...he will eat you up alive because he thinks he knows it all.

  • waterdog...I told ya...he will eat you up alive because he thinks he knows it all.

  • waterdog, you're a complete fool. You don't have any idea what or who I listen to, you only are able to leap to false conclusions based on your personal prejudices. But that's typical of you and your allies. The reality is that despite the best efforts of the anti-oil greenie leftist kooks, the world's scientists are taking a hard look at the 'consensus' the UN tried to foist on us in collusion with Michael Mann, et al, and are increasingly REJECTING their findings. Dozens of those who signed onto it ABANDONED it when they realized it was being misrepresented and that they had been USED to promote a political agenda with which they did not agree. YOU can't see that, REFUSE to see that because you're completely sold on that fraud. So you have to attack me, and AVOID replying to the questions raised. If climate science was so good in the past, why was it WRONG? And why did so many people like YOU go over the cliff promoting the Ice Age idea? Because it suited their anti-capitalist, anti-oil dogma, just as global warming does now. You claim to have all this scientific background but have never once offered up your bona fides, which means that you're probably just as much a fraud as Mann and the rest. You hide behind a screen name while serving up slurs, the mark of a coward, afraid to have yourself submitted to scrutiny. The bottom line is that no matter how much mud you sling at me, science is increasingly showing that you and yours are WRONG, and that the politically motivated 'scientists' who promoted this are being revealed as being in collusion with each other to inflict this scheme on the world without regard for the social and economic damage that it could do. The good news is that the world has rejected Kyoto, and will continue to reject you buffoons. You're losing, and you know it, and it hurts. So what about that Medieval Warming period? How did big oil cause that, waterdog? Going to duck that one again?

  • I have never said the science is "settled"; science is dynamic. The growing consensus of legitimate working climate scientists is that major climate change is occurring and having an effect on the weather. Obviously you don't see the connections. And it doesn't necessarily get hot everywhere at once. All of your gobbledygook is meaningless. You have been listening to Beck, Limbaugh and Fox too much. Why don't you try some real news for a change? Beck was right about one thing ( and only one): you can't argue with idiots, especially those who make up their own facts. Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't make it so. I say again: you do not understand how real science works.

  • Science is NEVER settled, waterdog, which is what YOU don't understand -

  • Cool summers in Britain caused by global warming? Good God, you people are desperate for ANYTHING that you can name and then try to link to your putrid theories. Sad, sad, sad and tired. You don't know the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE, but that won't stop you from spouting bad science and trying to hobble the world with your Luddite fears.

  • Because I have an excellent understanding of how science works I have said for years that the notion that the science is 'settled' as you and Al Gore and your ilk would love to believe is what's insane, and completely scientific. The more study that's done, the more this global warming crap is debunked, which is what's got you shook up. NONE of you have dared to take on the issue of the Medieval Warming Period anomaly, for instance, because it shows your premise is a fraud. And NONE of you have dared even to acknowledge that only a few decades ago all of your type were crying about the coming Ice Age. YOUR science was wrong then, and it's wrong now, and just as then you run around trying to browbeat those who refuse to knuckle under to your foolishness. Obviously YOU don't understand science when you insist on the rule of consensus. That's not how science works, that's how a church or faith tries to whip heretics into line. You do your best to try to shout down the disbelievers, but we refuse to kowtow to your hysterical attempts to destroy the world's economy. Get used to it. Skeptics are growing in numbers, as the world sees just how fraudulent your pseudo-science and your mad 'church of the carbon credit' really are.

  • are exactly right. But watch out he will be coming after ya..

  • Chaz, If you had the slightest understanding of how science works, you would know that there are always dissenters to any established theory. For whatever reasons, some "scientists" are still trying to overturn evolution theory. It takes more than one or two articles in obscure journals to make inroads into climate change. The overwhelming consensus of legitimate scientists confirms that climate change is occurring and that humans have some significant effects on the phenomena. You and some others posting here showcase the sorry state of science education in Kentucky specifically and the U.S. in general. No wonder we are ranked 17th in the world in science and math now. If we keep slipping, we soon will be only another third world country. And a number of idiots in this country are calling for cuts in public education. Really!!! So we can have what? A huge military, a richer 1%, rampant pollution?

  • People won't try to rebut you because when they do and you don't agree with them (which is ALL the time) because you think it's your way or it's wrong. You also can not seem to post anything without resorting to calling people names. All you want to do is argue with someone and put them down. Before you have made fun of a person reporting from a news media that was liberal. But it's okay for you to believe in an acticle from a tabloid. Really?

  • Incredible. Don't try to rebut the article, point out that it was REPORTED in a tabloid. But then forget that it was also REPORTED in other major publications around the world and that it wasn't DONE by a tabloid. You global warming ninnies will go to any length to avoid having to answer for failed and flawed methodology, and bad, bad results. You'll do ANYTHING to avoid admitting that you don't have an answer for studies such as this one. The depths of your denial, your inability to face reality, are stunning. But what else to expect from people who follow Al Gore like lemmings? And what about that Medieval Warming Period, and the Ice Age that NEVER HAPPENED in the 1990s the way that your lot said it would? Ah, yet more that you can't answer, have to hide from and will resort to slurs against the messenger, hoping you can wriggle out of the light of day. Back under your rocks, twits. You lose again.

  • Yet another study show that Riggs has completely lost touch with reality and scientific reasoning. Let's all have a moment of silence. To quote a not so famous person, "It's a terrible thing to lose your mind". So Long, Charlie! ;-)

  • The following info on global warming is from Watchdog Earth, by James Bruggers w/Louisville Courier Journal and references Lexington Herald-Leader's recent publication on the subject. INFO INCLUDED FROM UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY SCIENTISTS! Ask a weatherman about climate, and … Posted on July 11, 2012 by James Bruggers Credit: NOAA: Thirteen University of Kentucky scientists are standing up for mainstream climate science, taking issue with a Lexington Herald-Leader’s extreme weather/global warming summary that left the impression that nobody really knows what’s causing the climate to heat up. It’s in response to “Fast facts: Kentucky weather going to extremes,” published July 8, where the newspaper’s explanation of what may be going could easily leave the impression that nobody has a clue. For example, it quoted University of Kentucky meteorologist Tom Priddy this way: Everybody realizes we’re in a trend; we don’t know how long it’s going to last; nobody really has the evidence to blame it on anything. Climate has continued to evolve as the Earth has evolved. And the newspaper also relied on another meteorologist, quoting WKYT chief meteorologist Chris Bailey as saying: People can argue all day about why we are warming, but we certainly are warming, and our climate is ­becoming more extreme. This is the pattern we’re going to have to live with, at least for a while. Today, on the newspaper’s website, comes the response, from the 13 scientists, which includes: The following fundamentals are widely recognized among scientists: Atmospheric CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” have increased steadily since the mid-nineteenth century. That increase is well-correlated with fossil fuel consumption and changes in land use. These trace gases trap increasingly more heat, so Earth’s surface, oceans and lower atmosphere are warming. The response also includes a concise summary of “how we know this,” such as: Multiple surveys of credentialed climate scientists show at least 96-98 percent agreement with these fundamentals. And: The prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a position statement affirming the fundamentals of human-induced climate change, as have over 100 other scientific societies, including the academies of all major democracies and the American Meteorological Society. And: An international, interdisciplinary collection of thousands of expert scientists has summarized the evidence for the central role of human activities in causing climate change, in reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The issue is a familiar one — relying on meteorologists to explain climate — that was explored in depth in Forecast Cloudy by Christy George of Oregon Public Broadcasting: The single most important reason people watch local TV news is to see the weather forecast. But when the subject of climate change comes up, most of us will experience it as weather. This program examines what the public is hearing from TV meteorologists and state climatologists in the Northwest and across the nation, and how these frontline players are reacting to the latest conclusions about climate change. Part of the confusion could stem from the complexities of attempting to pin any single weather event on global climate change. That takes some sleuthing after the fact. Still … To that end, there’s a new study out today that examines whether the extremes of 2011 can be pinned on climate change. The conclusion: some yes, some no. Just out in Nature, is this summary: Global warming did made the 2011 Texan spring and summer heatwave 20 times more likely than a similar event would have been half a century ago. Likewise, the mild weather last November in the UK was almost certainly influenced by global warming, according to an analysis by a group of scientists who study how climate change might impact weather extremes world-wide. However, an analysis of the atmospheric and hydrological conditions which favoured the devastating monsoon floods last summer in Thailand found no fingerprint of climate change in that event. By the way, the Herald-Leader identified the 13 scientists as signing the response as the following: Paul Vincelli, Department of Plant Pathology; Mary A. Arthur and Thomas G. Barnes, Department of Foresty; Paul M. Bertsch, Tom Mueller and George J. Wagner, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences: Ricardo T. Bessin and Richardo T. Bessin, Department of Entomology: Jeffrey M. Bewley, Department of Animal Sciences; Dewayne L. Ingram, Department of Horticulture, A. Lee Meyer, Department of Agricultural Economics; Joseph L Taraba, Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering: Alice Turkington, Department of Geography.

  • Tell it to the farmers who no longer can grow crops in Kentucky because of the record killer droughts. Tell it to those who have been victims of the record number of violent tornadoes. Tell it to those who have been in the record floods. Tell it to those who have been in the hurricanes on steroids. Anybody with a pulse over then last 30+ years knows that our climate is dramatically changing, and it has all been because of an increase in the average temp of about 1 degree. It doesn't take much of an increase to cause unsettled weather patterns. We live in a very narrow band of climatic conditions, and any significant deviation could be disaster. We do not adapt quickly. The projected increase in temperature could have dire effects on life as we know it. We are conducting a grand experiment with our climate by burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow, and we have absolutely no idea of how it is going to turn out. Any body with a brain knows this.

  • Your "scientific" proof is a UK tabloid paper? Even a confirmed truth denier should be ashamed for posting this one. Dogwood