Reading the headline and first paragraph of this press release from FECYT – Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology one might think they are making a case for natural cycles. Sadly, no, not so much.
Man, volcanoes and the sun have influenced Europe’s climate over recent centuries
An International research team has discovered that seasonal temperatures in Europe, above all in winter, have been affected over the past 500 years by natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity, and by human activities such as the emission of greenhouse gases. The study, with Spanish involvement, could help us to better understand the dynamics of climate change.
Up until now, it was thought that Europe’s climate prior to 1900 was barely affected by external factors, but now a group of scientists has shown that natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions or solar radiation, as well as human emissions of aerosols and greenhouse gases, have had an impact on the evolution of Europe’s climate over the past five centuries.
“The influence of the increase in levels of greenhouse gases, in particular, can be clearly seen since the end of the 17th Century”, Jesús Fidel González Rouco, a physicist at the Complutense University of Madrid and co-author of the study, which has recently been published online in the journal Nature Geoscience, tells SINC.
The researchers studied how natural and human factors affected temperatures across Europe throughout the seasons in the years from 1500 to 2000. The results show that winter is the season in which changes in levels of greenhouse gases and aerosols from manmade sources can be seen to have the clearest influence.
As reliable temperature records do not go back any further than 150 years, the team carried out simulations using three climate models and reconstructed past climate scenarios based on old instrumental observations, information recorded in historical documents and by studying tree rings.
Lessons for climate change
“For the first time we are able to attribute causes to how the climate has evolved over several centuries, working at continental and seasonal scale”, says González Rouco. “And the relevance of this approach is based on the fact that the impact of any possible climate change can be greater for societies and ecosystems within the range of these spatial and time-based scales”.
Scientists say that Europe’s climate “has in the past been sensitive to variations in radiative forcing from natural and human sources (changes in the energy received from the Sun, in volcanic activity, or in levels of greenhouse gases), so it is to be expected that the intense current and future variations in these forcings will play a significant role in the future evolution of Europe’s climate”.
This study was led by the University of Edinburgh (United Kingdom) with the participation of the Complutense University, the Justus-Liebig University (Giessen, Germany) and the University of Berne (Switzerland).
References:
Gabriele Hegerl, Juerg Luterbacher, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, Thomas Crowley y Elena Xoplaki. “Influence of human and natural forcing on European seasonal temperaturas”. Nature Geoscience, 16 de enero de 2011 (avance on line). DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1057.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Up until now, it was thought that Europe’s climate prior to 1900 was barely affected by external factors”
Who thought that?
The purpose of this seems to be to get rid of the LIA by proposing that the recovery from it is significantly caused by human activity.
Thus it is an attempt to deal with the common proposition that all the warming observed up to 2000 could be due to that recovery.
The trouble is though that from the depths of the LIA to 2000 there was a substantial change in the meridionality/ zonality of the jet streams and a shift from a very equatorward position around 1600 (if ships logs are anything to go by) to a very much more zonal/poleward position in the late 20th century.
That is all very well up to 2000 even if it does involve AGW claiming to significantly affect jet stream behaviour and positioning.
However since 2000 the jets have been becoming more meridional and shifting equatorward again but CO2 continues to increase.
So this report is already falsified.
The spin on this being that NO massive volcanic activity nor the same regarding solar means Winter’s wrath can only be attributed to C02. Who would care to wager that’s NOT the next play here? Anyone?
“The influence of the increase in levels of greenhouse gases, in particular, can be clearly seen since the end of the 17th Century”
I knew it, the Little Ice Age was ended by evil man’s emissions of CO2!
Oh, I forgot there wasn’t a Little Ice Age.
As reliable temperature records do not go back any further than 150 years
=====================================================
How convenient……
Start measuring at the end of the LIA.
You could only hope that temperatures would have increased since then.
Now, they’re trying to antedate “human emissions of aerosols and greenhouse gases” by four centuries, huh? Unfortunately for them, it still doesn’t mean the recent warming was anomalous compared to, say, the Older Peron era.
Well, as the old Meatloaf song goes “Two out of three ain’t bad”.
At least they got it 2/3rd’s correct . . . .
I also ran across this today and thought about the post a little while back on the Missing Heat . . .
Breakthrough in converting heat waste to electricity
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-breakthrough-electricity.html
Lightning . . . . . It’s a thought . . . . .
http://climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
There is some gradual linear increase in winter CET since the LIA bottom, but no sign of HS. I would like to see the model outputs, compared to CET record.
Up until now, it was thought that Europe’s climate prior to 1900 was barely affected by external factors . . .
And then they insert a comma and contradict themselves. Maybe this is an automatic translation from Spanish. I hope so. The word that comes to mind is “vaporware” – as in, ‘we don’t really have anything but we want you to pay attention to us’.
As I look out my window at accumulated N.E. snow, with more expected on Friday, I wonder how many square miles * days of roadways and driveways have been cleared. All these now dark surfaces have much lower albedo than snow, so in addition to allowing us to travel & transport, we probably are causing some measure of temperature rise.
Does anyone have an idea how much snow removal affects global temperatures? Did this Spanish study consider this land use effect in its 500 year study? (Yeah, right!)
“Up until now, it was thought that Europe’s climate prior to 1900 was barely affected by external factors, but now a group of scientists has shown that natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions or solar radiation, as well as human emissions of aerosols and greenhouse gases, have had an impact on the evolution of Europe’s climate over the past five centuries.”
Err… what?? Why would volcanoes or the sun only effect the climate after 1900? Has something been lost in translation here?
“The influence of the increase in levels of greenhouse gases, in particular, can be clearly seen since the end of the 17th Century.”
How could this possibly be true? What greenhouse gasses did we start pumping out in significant amounts in the late 1600s? CO2? Methane? What? Do these guys need someone to lend them a history book?
“Up until now, it was thought that Europe’s climate prior to 1900 was barely affected by external factors”
Complete Strawman argument. Absolutely NO ONE thought that…
The results show that winter is the season in which changes in levels of greenhouse gases and aerosols from manmade sources can be seen to have the clearest influence.
I’m assuming they mean trend to warmer winter.
Winter of 1898 / 1899 A.D. In the United States, the Mississippi River froze its entire length down to the Gulf of Mexico. Some ice even flowed into the Gulf. In places like Cairo, Illinois the thickness of the ice was 13 inches (33 centimeters). The ice in New Orleans was two inches (5 centimeters) thick and one inch (2.5 centimeters) thick at the mouth of the Mississippi River. During four consecutive days the cold weather was so severe that the event was referred to as “The Great Cold Wave”. On February 10, a strong storm came down from Canada. Logan, Montana recorded a low temperatures of -61° F (-52° C). On February 11, at Quantico, Virginia recorded temperatures of -30° F (-34° C). Pittsburg, Pennsylvania saw a temperature of -20° F (-29° C). In Chicago, the ground froze to a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters). The storm traveled up the East Coast depositing 2 feet (0.6 meters) of snow in Washington D.C. and 4 feet (1.2 meters) of snow in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston and 10 feet (3 meters) of snow in the Chesapeake Bay area. On February 14, Tallahassee, Florida saw temperatures as cold as -2° F (-19° C). Other locations that saw rare low temperatures include Dallas, Texas at -10° F (-23° C), Kansas City, Missouri at -22° F (-30° C), and Scottsbluff, Nebraska at -45° F (-43° C).
1899: When the Mississippi River Entirely Froze, URL: http://www.sciencefacts.us/1899-when-the-mississippi-riverentirely-froze/ [cited 11 June 2010]
February 1899: The Worst Cold Snap in North American History, URL: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/february-1899-the-worst-cold-snap-in-north-american-history/ [cited 11 June 2010]
Anthony,
Funny, when I put the sea surface temperture map over top the satelite map, I get a evaporation making machine in effect.
“The influence of the increase in levels of greenhouse gases, in particular, can be clearly seen since the end of the 17th Century”
And then winter temperatures dropped from the 1730`s for over 100yrs;
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
“Robert says:
January 19, 2011 at 8:34 am
“Up until now, it was thought that Europe’s climate prior to 1900 was barely affected by external factors”
Who thought that?”
People who believe in AGW are believers in the “Hockey Stick”
They think the Climate was stable until people started putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
I think this is something many skeptics do not appreciate.
The believers see Climate as something that does not change unless acted upon by a “forcing”. eg. CO2 or volcanoes. This paradigm means that any change can be seen as evidence humans are causing it.
The alternative world view is that Climate is chaotic and constantly changing and so evidence that change happens is not evidence of AGW.
I can’t take credit for this observation. I learnt it reading things on WUWT.
“the team carried out simulations using three climate models and reconstructed past climate scenarios based on old instrumental observations, information recorded in historical documents and by studying tree rings.”
In plain English, an exercise in speculation and tea leaves reading.
Ulric Lyons says:
January 19, 2011 at 9:32 am
“The influence of the increase in levels of greenhouse gases, in particular, can be clearly seen since the end of the 17th Century”
And then winter temperatures dropped from the 1730`s for over 100yrs;
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
Furthermore, both (simultaneously) the summer and winter temperatures of 1730s were exceeded for the first time more than 250 years later in 1990s.
Not much of the AGW arround in 1730.
Pay-walled but a good deal of information on what has been done (including graphs) in the supplemental information (995KB PDF). By the looks of it, numerology at its finest 🙂
Here’s the biggest whopper found in this purely political nonsense:
“As reliable temperature records do not go back any further than 150 years [blah, blah, blah]”
As Anthony knows all too well, the truth is that the temperature record of the last 150 years is arguably the LEAST reliable temperature data of ALL (and, we have at least two examples of peer reviewed science to substantiate that fact).
Well, okay…
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick is even less reliable. But, that was just out and out fraud. And, climate models — such as were used in this “study” — are just plain fantasy.
The most reliable temperature data are found in the ice core studies done in the Arctic and the Antarctic combined with contemporary instrument measurements from those locations. But, for obvious reasons, the climate alarm charlatans never want us to look at that data.
…human emissions of aerosols and greenhouse gases, have had an impact on the evolution of Europe’s climate over the past five centuries.
I’m no historian, but I don’t think aerosols have been around for five centuries.
It all started when man discovered fire. I can remember when that was taught as a good thing.
To eliminate confusion it might be better to first prove there is catastrophic climate change that is man made before they predict the damages.
Ever since some bright sparks in the cAGW community claimed that neolithic man started global warming by deforestation (can’t remember where and when I saw that), nothing coming from those people surprises me any longer.
Only by climate pscientists and other ignorant folk.
D’oh!
[Obligatory genuflection]
Nature Geoscience must have had a lot of empty space to fill…