compare to this:
I had mentioned this new dendro paper to Steve McIntyre, who wrote a short note about it while pointing out that:
A news release on a new tree ring study here (h/t Anthony Watts) reported a reconstruction maxing out in the mid-20th century, with the characteristic late 20th century divergence problem. Their results contrast with CRU’s notorious Yamal chronology:
Following the summer temperature reconstruction on the Kola Peninsula, the researchers compared their results with similar tree-ring studies from Swedish Lapland and from the Yamal and Taimyr Peninsulas in Russian Siberia, which had been published in Holocene in 2002. The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees. Only the data series from the Yamal Peninsula differed, reaching its peak later, around 1990. What stands out in the data from the Kola Peninsula is that the highest temperatures were found in the period around 1935 and 1955, and that by 1990 the curve had fallen to the 1870 level, which corresponds to the start of the Industrial Age. Since 1990, however, temperatures have increased again evidently.
Although the reconstruction declined since mid-20th century, the sub-headline reads: “New data indicate rapid temperature rise in the coldest region of mainland Europe”.
I had hoped Steve would do a more in depth look at it, but Pierre Gosselin has already taken a crack at it with this essay, which is worth repeating here.
From Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone:
Kola Temperature Reconstruction Shows Solar Correlation – Refutes The Hockey Stick
Last week I wrote about a Russian-German temperature reconstruction from 1600 to 2000 derived from tree rings from the Kola Peninsula in northwest Russia . The paper appeared in the journal Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 460–468, by Kononov, Friedrich and Boettger.
In response, German media outlets all hollered “RAPIDLY RISING ARCTIC TEMPERATURES!”, focussing solely on one statement that temperatures have been rising since 1990.
It’s a classic example of how a scientific study comes up with Result A, but the public ends up understanding Result Z, all thanks to sloppy and incompetent communication that exists between the two.
The press release here provides the following Kola temperature reconstruction graph for summertime temperatures:
Kola Peninsula tree-ring temperature reconstruction. Source: Stephan Boehme/UFZ
Here it’s plain to see that the temperature reconstruction shows that Arctic temperatures in the Kola Peninsula have been rising since about 1670. This corresponds exceptionally well with Loehle’s 2007 reconstruction using 18 non-tree-ring proxies for the last 2000 years shown as follows:
Both graphics show the Little Ice Age from 1650 to 1750, at which point a warming event ensues. Then it was generally flat from 1750 to about 1920, and then followed by another rise that took place until 1950. Then Kola tree-ring proxies show a cooling up to 1990. Since 1990 warming has occurred again, but it’s a warming that is completely within the natural range of variation.
The Kola reconstruction (1) agreed with an earlier reconstruction (2) done in the area, see map below. What’s more, the Kola reconstruction (1) was compared with tree-ring reconstructions from other Arctic regions: Swedish Lapland (3), Yamal (4), and Taimyr (5).
Proxy locations used for Kola comparison. Source: Journal Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 460–468
The result of the comparison:
The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees.
Only the Yamal reconstruction differed completely, resembling the shape of a hockey stick with the blade beginning at 1900. The hockey stick is becoming an artefact of activism.
Except for the Yamal reconstruction, all tree-ring and non-tree ring reconstructions appear to agree, and so indicate no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration.
So what could be driving temperatures then? The authors compared the tree-ring based reconstructions with historical records of sunspots (Lean et al, 1995; Lean, 2000), and say:
We found that over the whole investigated period fluctuations of summer air temperature reconstructed for the Khibiny Mountains in the central part of the Kola Peninsula have a good consistency (r >0.50) with changes of solar radiation (Fig. 10), especially for the low-frequency signal.
In the paper’s conclusion we read:
The broad similarity between this temperature construction and solar radiation indicates that solar activity is an important driver of centennial to multi-decadal trends in summer temperatures of the Kola Peninsula.
So why did all media reports holler “RAPID TEMPERATURE INCREASE IN THE ARCTIC”. Call it complete communication incompetence by the media players between science and the public.
The Kola reconstructions show no link to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It all started with a solid scientific paper, and but then was distorted (purposely?) by a vague press release that culminated in alarmist media headlines.
Let’s call that press release incompetence-gate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If I say the average of ten numbers is 8, and you say that can’t be true since one of the numbers is a 5, then all we know is that you don’t know what an average is.
Yes, there is a great example. The warming started in 1700 as the sun came back to life, activity-wise that is.
Honestly, this looks more evidence that the UHI effect is actually making surface temp records (the supposed non-proxy) the *least* accurate measure of GW, especially when satellite measurements are factored into the analysis.
Well, I see nothing in the paper to indicate teleconnections, so this one is just measuring weather, not climate…. Duh! Everyone can just move along now.
Yeah 50s and 60s must have been hotter that’s why the piece from Greenland broke of then, and there were not satellites then so the piece must have been even bigger for them to notice.
Warming is good, we should be celebrating!
“The Kola reconstructions show no link to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It all started with a solid scientific paper, and but then was distorted (purposely?) by a vague press release that culminated in alarmist media headlines.”
Well, half the scientists wouldn’t want to be caught reading it, if it doesn’t contain any PC Kool-Aid.
In other news, I’ve just read that the BBC has apologised to the CRU for some of the things it said during the ClimateGate scandal. When I read the article I thought it was April 1st.
I thought the “Global” has been cooling since the 90’s. ??
It´s refreshing to see real data. No Hansen´s comrades over there…..
Michael Mann’s bogus chart has to be the most repeatedly debunked piece of pseudo-science since Scientology was invented by another science fiction writer.
For those who wonder about Mann’s devious shenanigans, I heartily recommend A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. It’s a real page-turner that exposes the anti-science behind a small clique of scientists conspiring with the crooked IPCC to keep their climate gravy train from being derailed by McIntyre & McKittrick’s thorough debunking of Mann’s fake Hokey Stick chart.
[Montford is “Bishop Hill.” For a taste of what his book is like, read his blog post Caspar and the Jesus Paper.]
Two comments.
First, Loehle updated his 2007 data. Pretty much the same story, but apparently there were flaws that were corrected.
Second, it’s too bad the Kola Peninsula data is not available before 1600 so we can see what what it indicated for the Medieval Warm Period. (Offhand, I’d put the LIA start date at the Spoerer minimum rather than the Mauder.)
“Arctic temperatures in the Kola Peninsula have been rising since about 1670”
If you start at the beginning of the graph -1600- there has been no warming at all.
Maybe this explains it.
—————
This is a recipe for (anthropogenic climate) disaster.
I too have read, and re-read (several times – but then again, I’m a fast reader) the Hockey-Stick Illusion … And cannot recommend it strongly enough.
—…—…—
From above “Both graphics show the Little Ice Age from 1650 to 1750, at which point a warming event ensues. Then it was generally flat from 1750 to about 1920, and then followed by another rise that took place until 1950. Then Kola tree-ring proxies show a cooling up to 1990. Since 1990 warming has occurred again, but it’s a warming that is completely within the natural range of variation.”
—…—…—…—…
So, including this latest 2000 year graph, what is the “consensus” of accepted values for the long-term climate cycle?
Period of the last three cycles?
Max/min values of the “average” temperature for earth the 2000+ years?
Change (and rate of change) of the maximum and points points (are we sliding towards the next ice age?)
Date of the current/upcoming/just past (?) “peak” of the Modern Warming Period?
Name of this Modern Warming Period?
Affect of the 60/66/68/71 year short-term cycle on the 800 year/900 year/950 year plots – when they properly added together?
Accepted value (period and amplitude) of the short term climate cycle?
I do believe that Mann’s chart represents an ANNUAL anomaly.
The referenced study ( like many) reconstruct a Seasonal temp first.
So you might be comparing apples and oranges.
Second. We complain about the reconstructions because of the sparseness of the data. The study doesnt show that Mann’s chart is wrong, what it shows is the the variability is greater than he portrays.
Third: Nobody should go off trumpting a paper that hasnt recieved a complete BEATING first. That means going through the data collection protocal, methods, code. etc.
This has nothing to do with C02. C02 warms the atmosphere. The science of tree ring ology is so new and uncertain that not much can depend upon its findings.
Steve, in paleodendro, tree ring width can only be added during the growing season of the tree. In the Kola paper they cite 60-80 days of growing season. Yamal is similar. So how would Briffa, Mann, or anyone for that matter, get an annual temperature anomaly from a 60-80 day period? There’s just not enough data for an entire year.
Never mind overlaying the annual instrumental data in MBH.
I suppose you could argue that tree ring data is “annual”, since it represents one year’s growth, but it only represents the annual growth season, not the annual mean of min/max temperatures.
Or are you saying MBH ice cores, corals etc made up the rest?
In the Kola graph there appears to be a 100 year upward blip from 1660 through to the 1960s, which suggests an oscillation of some sort.
I expect a massive amount of trading to hit the CCE on monday as Maurice & Al clear out. BO will declare a State of Climate Emergency & shut down the Internet. CU’s later.
regards
poor AL. First of all he misses out on the Presidency, then his wife abandons ship now he is on a slow train, coal fired, ride to the Hague. AAW shucks…..
Tree ring proxies, temp vs CO2 correlation.
I have the simple question to any Climatologist. Explain to me why El Nino forms and predict it perfectly. Then I’ll believe their IPCC report.
The longer term graph should be shown too, not just the last 1000 years, as just before that coming out of the ice age was a massively steep incline which has zero relation to CO2
Re: BBC has apologized to the CRU for some of the things it said during the ClimateGate scandal!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301256/BBC-says-sorry-Climategate-unit-grilling-John-Humphrys.html
Robinson says:
August 7, 2010 at 6:03 pm
In other news, I’ve just read that the BBC has apologised to the CRU for some of the things it said during the ClimateGate scandal. When I read the article I thought it was April 1st.
Neither the BBC nor John Humphrys owes CRU any apologies. Its the CRU crowd and the white wash panels are the ones that should and WILL apologize one day to the staff of the BBC for causing them to lose billions of pounds from the misguided green BBC pension funds and the British public for the billions of pounds spent by governments on green fantasy projects that are suspect and bound for the rust heaps. Cheer up its the same story around the world in Canada it’s the CBC in Australia its ABC etc.. People need to stop funding these dooms day pushers that run public broadcasting and end the financing of the climate change mongers. Climategate is real and well proven and the majority of the world’s population now see through the CRU and its sister organizations, fellow data cruchers and manipulators.
I would recommend anybody search for the truth about climate start with Watts Up With That? http://wp.me/p7y4l-611. Facts first and then we will know the real problem is not CO2.
I’ve never seen a worse case of apples to oranges. The first graph is actual temperature, and the second is anomaly data. In fact, at a glance, it appears to exactly confirm the 19th century hockey stick graph!
What, never?
It makes no material difference whether it is anomaly vs. actual temperatures or not. The graph will be exactly the same size and shape and scale either way. It would only matter if one were going to overlay the graphs.
In fact, at a glance, it appears to exactly confirm the 19th century hockey stick graph!
I recommend you take a second glance.
Great article. Thanks.
O/T, but the scale of the scorching heat wave at least in the region of Moscow is pretty remarkable.
Can anyone point me to a good meteorological analysis as to what caused this?
Have been searching online for a good analysis, but could not find one.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The 1930’s were definitely the warmest decade in North America …. as GISTEMP used to show before all the adjustments. Of course I think dendrochronology is related to phrenology.