New Chinese study in GRL disputes the hockey stick conclusions

China’s 2,000 Year Temperature History

The Chinese world temperature and anomaly - from the Beijing Climate Center - click to enlarge

While Mann claims his hockey stick science to be “vindicated”, we have this from World Climate Report, a new peer reviewed study that illustrates that the current warm period we live in is neither unique nor unprecedented. They also manage to point out the key issue, the uncertainty of proxies such as used by Mann et al. – Anthony

We constantly hear that the warmest years on record have all occurred in the most recent decades, and of course, we are led to believe this must be a result of the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases. In most places, we have approximately 100 years of reliable temperature records, and we wonder if the warmth of the most recent decades is unusual, part of some cyclical behavior of the climate system, or a warm-up on the heels of a cold period at the beginning of the record. A recent article in Geophysical Research Letters has an intriguing title suggesting a 2,000 year temperature record now exists for China – we definitely wanted to see these results of this one.

The article was authored by six scientists with the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, the State University of New York at Albany, and Germany’s Justus-Liebig University in Giessen; the research was funded by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the United States Department of Energy. In their abstract, Ge et al. tell us “The analysis also indicates that the warming during the 10–14th centuries in some regions might be comparable in magnitude to the warming of the last few decades of the 20th century.” From the outset, we knew we would welcome the results from any long-term reconstruction of regional temperatures.

The authors begin noting that “The knowledge of past climate can improve our understanding of natural climate variability and also help address the question of whether modern climate change is unprecedented in a long-term context.” We agree! Ge et al. explain that:

“Over the recent past, regional proxy temperature series with lengths of 500–2000 years from China have been reconstructed using tree rings with 1–3 year temporal resolution, annually resolved stalagmites, decadally resolved ice-core information, historical documents with temporal resolution of 10–30 years, and lake sediments resolving decadal to century time scales.”

However, the authors caution “these published proxy-based reconstructions are subject to uncertainties mainly due to dating, proxy interpretation to climatic parameters, spatial representation, calibration of proxy data during the reconstruction procedure, and available sample numbers.”

Ge et al. used a series of multivariate statistical techniques to combine information from the various proxy methods, and the results included the reconstruction of regional temperatures and an estimate of uncertainty for any given year. They also analyzed temperature records from throughout China over the 1961 to 2007 period and established five major climate divisions in the country (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Types, lengths, and locations of proxy temperature series and observation used in the Ge et al. study. The five climate regions were based on a “factor analysis” of the 1961–2007 instrumental measurements. Grey shading indicates elevation (from Ge et al., 2010).

The bottom line for this one can be found in our Figure 2 that shows the centennially-smoothed temperature reconstruction for the five regions of China. With respect to the Northeast, Ge et al. comment “During the last 500 years, apparent climate fluctuations were experienced, including two cold phases from the 1470s to the 1710s and the 1790s to the 1860s, two warm phases from the 1720s to the 1780s, and after the 1870s. The temperature variations prior to the 1500s show two anomalous warm peaks, around 300 and between approximately 1100 and 1200, that exceed the warm level of the last decades of the 20th century.” The plot for the Northeast shows warming in the 20th century, but it appears largely to be somewhat of a recovery from an unusually cold period from 1800 to 1870. Furthermore, the plot shows that the recent warming is less than warming that has occurred in the past.

Figure 2. Five regionally coherent temperature reconstructions with 100-year resolution; the dashed line is the part with fewer series used; and the solid line is the mean value. The shaded areas are the two coldest periods, during the 1620s–1710s and 1800s–1860s (from Ge et al., 2010).

The Central East region also has a 2,000 year reconstruction and Ge et al. state “The 500-year regional coherent temperature series shows temperature amplitude between the coldest and warmest decade of 1.8°C. Three extended warm periods were prevalent in 1470s–1610s, 1700s–1780s, and after 1900s. It is evident that the late 20th century warming stands out during the past 500 years. Considering the past 2000 years, the winter half-year temperature series indicate that the three warm peaks (690s–710s, 1080s–1100s and 1230s–1250s), have comparable high temperatures to the last decades of the 20th century.” No kidding – the plot for the Central East region shows that the warmth of the late 20th century was exceeded several times in the past.

Commenting on the Tibet reconstruction, Ge et al. state “The warming period of twenty decadal time steps between the 600s and 800s is comparable to the late 20th century.” In the Northwest, they note “Comparable warm conditions in the late of 20th century are also found around the decade 1100s.” Unfortunately, no long-term reconstruction was possible for the Southeast region.

In summarizing their work, Ge et al. report :

From Figure 3 [our Figure 2 –eds.] , the warming level in the last decades of the 20th century is

unprecedented compared with the recent 500 years. However, comparing with the temperature variation over the past 2000 years, the warming during the last decades of the 20th century is only apparent in the TB region, where no other comparable warming peak occurred. For the regions of NE and CE, the warming peaks during 900s–1300s are higher than that of the late 20th century, though connected with relatively large uncertainties.

We get the message – the recent warming in at least several regions in China has likely been exceeded in the past millennium or two, the rate of recent warming was not unusual, and the observed warming of the 20th century comes after an exceptionally cold period in the 1800s.

Declaring that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have pushed modern temperature beyond their historical counterparts disregards the lessons of 2,000 years of Chinese temperatures.

Reference:

Ge, Q.-S., J.Y. Zheng, Z.-X. Hao, X.-M. Shao, W.-C. Wang, and J. Luterbacher. 2010. Temperature variation through 2000 years in China: An uncertainty analysis of reconstruction and regional difference. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03703, doi:10.1029/2009GL041281.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

85 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pat
July 4, 2010 6:11 pm

hmmm! tgus article may be ‘a game-changer’!
4 June: UK Guardian: Fred Pearce: Climategate was ‘a game-changer’ in science reporting, say climatologistsAfter the hacked emails scandal scientists became ‘more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties’
The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as “self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters”. The outside world now sees that “the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe”.
Some IPCC scientists are in denial on this issue, she said, arguing that they would like to see the CRU incident as “an irrelevant blip” and to blame their problems on “a monolithic denial machine”, but that won’t wash…
The veteran Oxford science philosopher Jerome Ravetz says the role of the blogosphere in revealing the important issues buried in the emails means it will assume an increasing role in scientific discourse. “The radical implications of the blogosphere need to be better understood.” Curry too applauds the rise of the “citizen scientist” triggered by climategate, and urges scientists to embrace them.
But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. “This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell

Ben
July 4, 2010 6:22 pm

To think on this Fourth of July where we in the USA celebrate our freedom that a Chinese study puts to question our scientific and media bias…
Kind of ironic and sad.

July 4, 2010 6:24 pm

The Chinese temperature records looks like a pretty close match to the 14C/10Be solar proxy records.
There is another record that also tracks this trend.

P.F.
July 4, 2010 6:42 pm

I wonder what happens when studies like this are time-scale calibrated to known geophysical events. Something that jumped out at me in Fig 2 was the dip around 500AD. The Sunda pyroclastic event is roughly dated to 535AD. Is a correlation close enough to warrant a look at the precision of the dating of either event?
Rhodes Fairbridge had a detailed look at Late Holocene climate using changing sea levels (published 1976 in Science). When I overlaid Fairbridge’s Curve over a political history time line, the correlations were quite interesting. Overlaying [good] tree-ring data over cultural/political history might be similarly revealing.

sHx
July 4, 2010 6:52 pm

I’d just offered the following quote in response to a CAGW cultist who asked whether I used telepathy to figure out what was in Keith Briffa’s mind regarding the recent warmth. Anyway, here it is again:

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136

latitude
July 4, 2010 6:54 pm

At the very least we now know that China also had the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age…………
Aren’t these the guys that wouldn’t talk to our President? They obviously had something up their sleeve.

Jimbo
July 4, 2010 7:06 pm

OT – They are getting there slowly but surely.
“The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as “self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters“. The outside world now sees that “the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe”.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell

etudiant
July 4, 2010 7:15 pm

Wonderful! A fine paper.
This is more what science looks like, lots of hard work condensed into a few simple charts,
with the uncertainties highlighted without prejudice to a robust conclusion.
The stability of the temperature, with the anomaly within basically + or – 1 degree Centigrade,
is very impressive.

Jimbo
July 4, 2010 7:21 pm
Kari Konkola
July 4, 2010 7:23 pm

Why did they not look at tree lines? How far north/ high up trees grow provides a very reliable proxy of past temperatures. Furthermore, old tree lines are easy to investigate, and the research produces solid, unequivocal evidence. For much of the world, changes in tree lines have been documented long ago — see for example Reid Bryson’s work — and the results totally demolish the hockey stick.

DonS
July 4, 2010 7:35 pm

Loving this juxtaposition of the world’s oldest civilization, if we count bureaucracy as a mark of civilization, with the relatively primitive records of the northern Europeans who were still, by and large, painting themselves blue and wearing various animal antlers and horns in the forlorn hope of influencing destiny, while the Chinese were making astute and accurately recorded observations. Mann, I believe, is a surname derived during the dark ages from some Germanic custom, now obscure, at a time when the Chinese already had some 3,00o years of climatic observations at their disposal. Who are we to believe?

Morley Sutter
July 4, 2010 7:44 pm

Just for the record, World Climate Report blog (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/06/30/china%E2%80%99s-2000-year-temperature-history/#more-436) reported this on June 30th.
Morley
REPLY: Which is attributed and linked in the first paragraph. -A

Morley Sutter
July 4, 2010 8:09 pm

Anthony
My apologies; I missed your early mention of World Climate Report as your source.
Morley

D. King
July 4, 2010 8:10 pm

The desired number of coal fired power plants
fits both results and would make an excellent
temperature proxy.

Dave Wendt
July 4, 2010 8:11 pm

“However, the authors caution “these published proxy-based reconstructions are subject to uncertainties mainly due to dating, proxy interpretation to climatic parameters, spatial representation, calibration of proxy data during the reconstruction procedure, and available sample numbers.””
Gee, it only took 3 or 4 decades for someone in “climate science’ to admit what has been intuitively obvious from the beginning.

rbateman
July 4, 2010 8:15 pm

There is data mining, and then there is mining data to pick your pockets.
Of course there was a Medieval Warm Period in China, along with the Maunder and Dalton Minimums Cold Periods.
Previous literary references have stated as much. Just got drowned in the sea of hysteria.

Tsk Tsk
July 4, 2010 8:21 pm

What a shoddy paper. Clearly they couldn’t afford the computational power to properly model the regional Chinese climate so they had to resort to (proxy) measurements. 😉
Happy 4th everyone.

Chris in OZ
July 4, 2010 8:24 pm

Was that sound I just heard of the CAGW / Propaganda machines engines firing up ??
In the next few milliseconds we will be told the Chinese Study was expected as the Chinese still want to burn that dirty coal.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 4, 2010 8:26 pm

the plot for the Central East region shows that the warmth of the late 20th century was exceeded several times in the past.
More evidence that the Medieval Warm Period happened in places other than Western Europe, Greenland, and the Eastern United States as has been claimed by some.

July 4, 2010 8:35 pm

Is anyone else getting tired of hockey sticks and the IPCC and the CRU?
Anyone got any good fishing stories yet this year? I hope I get a job before August because I’m dying to hook into a nice big fat Chinook or Silver this fall. I haven’t been in two years and i’m literally shaking with withdrawls.

rbateman
July 4, 2010 9:00 pm

Brad aka 1personofdifference says:
July 4, 2010 at 8:35 pm
With all the money that is being thrown away on global warming hysteria, you could put 100,000 persons of difference to work, and actually accomplish something worthwhile.

Stop Global Dumbing Now
July 4, 2010 9:00 pm

This is very interesting. It will be hard for the warmers to come up with arguments against this. It appears that they used several sources (tree rings, sediments, stalagmites) and more than 1 sample of each. It was a large, diverse collaboration of scientists without pressure from NGOs, and was peer reviewed. Most importantly they stated the uncertainties and didn’t imply some sort of doomsday scenario – in other words it appears to be a proper scientific paper.
The bonus is that it was “made in China” and the Chinese are set up to profit the most from foolish Western nations destroying their economies and the earth while trying to to save it.

Gail Combs
July 4, 2010 9:11 pm

P.F. says:
July 4, 2010 at 6:42 pm
I wonder what happens when studies like this are time-scale calibrated to known geophysical events. Something that jumped out at me in Fig 2 was the dip around 500AD. The Sunda pyroclastic event is roughly dated to 535AD. Is a correlation close enough to warrant a look at the precision of the dating of either event?
Rhodes Fairbridge had a detailed look at Late Holocene climate using changing sea levels (published 1976 in Science). When I overlaid Fairbridge’s Curve over a political history time line, the correlations were quite interesting. Overlaying [good] tree-ring data over cultural/political history might be similarly revealing.
___________________________________________________________
I was thinking the same thing. When I read the title I thought the proxies were going to be tied to the Chinese historical record like William Herschel correlated sunspots and wheat prices in 1801.
I hope that is the next step.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 4, 2010 9:46 pm

P.F. says:
July 4, 2010 at 6:42 pm
I wonder what happens when studies like this are time-scale calibrated to known geophysical events. Something that jumped out at me in Fig 2 was the dip around 500AD. The Sunda pyroclastic event is roughly dated to 535AD. Is a correlation close enough to warrant a look at the precision of the dating of either event?
Rhodes Fairbridge had a detailed look at Late Holocene climate using changing sea levels (published 1976 in Science). When I overlaid Fairbridge’s Curve over a political history time line, the correlations were quite interesting. Overlaying [good] tree-ring data over cultural/political history might be similarly revealing.

Would you do the work and submit it for publication?

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 4, 2010 9:50 pm

latitude says:
July 4, 2010 at 6:54 pm
At the very least we now know that China also had the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age…………
Aren’t these the guys that wouldn’t talk to our President? They obviously had something up their sleeve.

I don’t think climate was in that sleeve. I think it was their recognition of his weak leadership skills and Americas debt for buying things beyond its means.

1 2 3 4