Yet another paper demonstrates warmer temperatures 1000 years ago and even 2000 years ago.

Yesterday I highlighted the paper The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability, by B Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University which showed that using a multitude of proxy samples in the norther hemisphere, that:

“The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions.”

Now another paper, by Esper et al published in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change, shows that not only was the summers of the  MWP equal or greater than our current warmth, but that the summers of the Roman Warm Period of 2000 years ago were significantly warmer than today.

Fig. 4. Northern Scandinavian JJA temperatures back to 138 BC. The annually resolved N-Scan record (blue curve) shown together with 100-year filters of the reconstruction (red curve) and uncertainty estimates integrating standard and bootstrap errors (dashed curves). Light and dark grey bars indicate exceptionally warm and cold 30-year periods during the Roman, Migration, Medieval Warm, Little Ice Age, and Modern Warm Periods. Temperatures are expressed as anomalies with respect to the 1951–1980 mean.

Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia

Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank

Abstract

Palaeoclimatic evidence revealed synchronous temperature variations among Northern Hemisphere regions over the past millennium. The range of these variations (in degrees Celsius) is, however, largely unknown. We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland.

The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.

The first century AD was the warmest 100-year period (+0.60 °C on average relative to the 1951–1980 mean) of the Common Era, more than 1 °C warmer than the coldest 14th century AD (−0.51 °C). The warmest and coldest reconstructed 30-year periods (AD 21–50=+1.05 °C, and AD 1451–80=−1.19 °C) differ by more than 2 °C, and the range between the five warmest and coldest reconstructed summers in the context of the past 2000 years is estimated to exceed 5 °C. Comparison of the new timeseries with five existing tree-ring based reconstructions from northern Scandinavia revealed synchronized climate fluctuations but substantially different absolute temperatures. Level offset among the various reconstructions in extremely cold and warm years (up to 3 °C) and cold and warm 30-year periods (up to 1.5 °C) are in the order of the total temperature variance of each individual reconstruction over the past 1500 to 2000 years. These findings demonstrate our poor understanding of the absolute temperature variance in a region where high-resolution proxy coverage is denser than in any other area of the world.

[…]

Discussion and Conclusions

The MXD-based summer temperature reconstruction presented here sets a new standard in high-resolution palaeoclimatology. The record explains about 60% of the variance of regional temperature data, and is based on more high-precision density series than any

other previous reconstruction. Importantly, MXD sample replication prior to the Little Ice Age, during Medieval times and throughout the first millennium AD, is much better than in any other record, and we demonstrated – based on calibration trials using reduced

datasets – that these early sections of the N-Scan record likely still contain useful climate information. This persistent climate signal allowed an estimation of temperature variability throughout the Common Era, revealing warmth during Roman and Medieval times were larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century conditions.

According to this new record, summer temperatures varied by 1.1 °C among the 14th and 1st centuries, the coldest and warmest 100-year periods of the past two millennia. Temperatures ranged by more than 5 °C among the five coldest and warmest summers of the past 2000 years. These estimates are, however, related to the approach used for proxy transfer, i.e. figures would change, if the calibration method, period, and/or target were modified (Frank et al.,2010b). For example, variance among the 30 coldest and warmest N-Scan summers (Table 3) increases from 3.92 °C to 5.79 °C, if scaling (i.e. adjustment of the mean and variance) instead of OLS regression is used for proxy transfer. These differences between scaling- and regression-based approaches are proportional to the unexplained variance of the calibration model (Esper et al., 2005), and we suggest

smoothing the proxy and instrumental timeseries prior to calibration, as this procedure decreases the unexplained variance in all Scandinavian tree-ring records and thus minimizes the differences between various calibration methods (Cook et al., 2004).

Our results, however, also showed that these methodological uncertainties are dwarfed by the variance among the individual reconstructions.

Differences among six northern Scandinavian tree-ring records are>1.5° in 30-year extreme periods and up to 3 °C in single extreme years, a finding we didn’t expect, as the proxy records: (i) all calibrate well against regional instrumental data, (ii) partly share the same measurement series (or use differing parameters – TRW and MXD – from the same trees), and (iii) originate from a confined region in northern Scandinavia that is characterized by a homogeneous temperature pattern. Since we here calibrated all reconstructions using the same method, between-record differences are likely related to varying data treatment and chronology development methods, measurement techniques, and/or sampling strategies, as well as the remaining uncertainty typical to such proxy data. For example, splicing of MXD data on recent TRW trends as done in Briffa92 might have caused this reconstruction to appear at the lower (colder) end of the ensemble, whereas the combination (and adjustment) of novel digital MXD measurements with traditional X-ray based MXD data as done in Grudd08 might have caused this reconstruction to appear at the upper (warmer) end of the ensemble. Other differences are likely related to the combination of sub-fossil material from trees that grew in wet conditions at the lakeshores with material from living trees growing in dryer ‘inland’ sites. Also varying variance stabilization (Frank et al., 2007) and detrending techniques (Esper et al., 2003) in association with temporally changing sample replications and age distributions of the underlying data (Melvin, 2004) likely impacted the variance structure of the long-term records and consequently the absolute levels of reconstructed temperatures.

Between-reconstruction variance as revealed here represents a pending challenge for the integration of proxy records over larger regions and the development of a single timeseries that represents the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Mann et al., 2008), for example. The composition of such records commonly relies on the calibration statistics derived from fitting regional proxy records against instrumental data (D’Arrigo et al., 2006). However, the records analyzed here would all easily pass conventional calibration-based screening procedures. Yet our analysis revealed that choosing one Scandinavian record instead of another one can alter reconstructed temperatures by 1.5-3 °C during Medieval times, for example. On the other hand, consideration of all records presented here would likely promote a less variable climate history, as the combination of diverging records tends to reduce variance in the mean timeseries (Frank et al., 2007). If such a mean is then combined with instrumental data covering the past 100–150 years, this approach might facilitate hockey stick-shaped reconstructions (Frank et al., 2010a). This seems to be a tricky situation in which expert teams including the developers of proxy records might need to be involved to help assessing timeseries beyond the typical ranking based on calibration statistics.

Our results showed that introducing an improved temperature reconstruction does not automatically clarify climate history in a given region. In northern Scandinavia, we now arrive at a situation where a number of high-resolution proxy records – all passing classical calibration and verification tests – are available within a confined region that is characterized by homogeneous temperature patterns. These records, however, differ by several degrees Celsius over the past two millennia, which appears huge if compared with the 20th Century warming signal in Scandinavia or elsewhere. We conclude that the temperature history of the last millennium is much less understood than often suggested, and that the regional and particularly the hemispheric scale pre-1400 temperature variance is largely unknown. Expert teams are needed to assess existing records, and to reduce uncertainties associated with millennium-length temperature reconstructions, before we can usefully constrain future climate scenarios.

Full paper here (PDF -link fixed)

h/t to WUWT reader Gordon Pye and Tory Aardvarrk

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

182 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kurt in Switzerland
October 18, 2012 12:48 am

I wonder if this will make it to the IPCC’s AR5 next year.
Taking any bets?
Kurt in Switzerland

ob
October 18, 2012 1:01 am

Just a note. As far as I understand it, the reconstruction is the same as used in Esper et al. 2012 in Nature Climate Change
I think Figure 6 is interesting.

Peter Miller
October 18, 2012 1:08 am

Clearly, the following applies here:
1. The data has not been subjected to interpretation by Mannian mathematics.
2. It will be ignored by the alarmist community, especially the IPCC, and/or
3. It will be condemned by the alarmist community as being not representative – northern Scandinavia only.
There are some river banks in southern Iceland, where I have seen the remains of huge tree trunks, clear evidence of much warmer conditions than today.
Icelandic joke: “What do you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest?” Answer: “Stand up.”

jim
October 18, 2012 1:26 am

Your link to the PDF of the paper is broken.
Thanks
JK

October 18, 2012 1:30 am

Between-reconstruction variance as revealed here represents a pending challenge for the integration of proxy records over larger regions and the development of a single timeseries that represents the Northern Hemisphere
There is a single proxy for whole of the northern hemisphere: geo-solar oscillations or interaction between changes in the solar activity and the Earth’s interior periodic undulation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

October 18, 2012 1:35 am

No doubt these findings advocate that we need to research more on the causes of global warming i.e. is it human or naturally induced?. However, which ever side your bread is buttered with regards to climate change, there are increases in global temperatures and burning fossil fuel is only adding to the problem. The problem is that there is competition amongst the economies of the world, and it is compromising the world of the future generations. I seriously think we need to start acting and as soon as possible to prevent further damage.

philemon
October 18, 2012 1:43 am

The link to the paper isn’t working

pat
October 18, 2012 1:49 am

what’s 1,000 or 2,000 years when climate models for mars prove CAGW climate models for earth are valid?
18 Oct: MSNBC: Reuters: Deborah Zabarenko: Models of Earth’s climate change confirmed on Mars
Astronomers find that computer calculations match up with traces of ancient snowfall
Astronomers say computer models have accurately forecast conditions on Mars and are valid predictors of climate change on Earth.
These computer programs predicted Martian glaciers and other features on Earth’s planetary neighbor, a U.S.-French team of scientists found.
“Some public figures imply that modeling of global climate change on Earth is ‘junk science,’ but if climate models can explain features observed on other planets, then the models must have at least some validity,” lead researcher William Hartmann of the Planetary Science Institute said Tuesday in a statement.
The team’s findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s planetary sciences division in Reno, Nev…
***”We do have a lot of public figures, in our country particularly, saying that the global climate modeling studies have very little value,” Hartmann said. “If the global climate modeling people can run these models on Mars and we actually see things that come out of the model on another planet, then the climate modeling people must be doing something right.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49456341/ns/technology_and_science-space/

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 18, 2012 1:50 am

Thankfully the Great Climate Wall at the equator prevented these brief regional warming periods from being global events.
The hottest July in the contiguous US (after adjustments) is proof of anthropogenic global warming. A single inconveniently-located hurricane is proof of anthropogenic global warming. But the Northern Hemisphere being far warmer than today cannot be an example of historical global warming greater than today’s global warming, because local cannot be global unless humans are to blame.

Brian H
October 18, 2012 1:52 am

The signal is so strong it’s fudge-proof. Another disaster for CAGW. Even lukewarmism, as both those periods were manifestly better for all species concerned, including ours. And CO2 was waaaaayyy lower.
Edit: “the summers of the Roman Warm Period of 2000 years ago was ” //were//

Kurt in Switzerland
October 18, 2012 1:55 am

Link to .pdf of full paper doesn’t work.
Kurt in Switzerland

October 18, 2012 2:12 am

The Romans produced red wine from locally grown grapes north of York, UK. A similar grape now grows south of Dijon in France over 350 miles south of York. So warmer back then.

SteveW
October 18, 2012 2:42 am

If you follow the H/T to Tory Aardvark, the link from there works fine, it’s here:
http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC

ob
October 18, 2012 2:44 am

working link to paper to be found on Esper’s homepage

Espen
October 18, 2012 2:45 am

I remain skeptical that it’s possible to tease a sensible “temperature signal” out of tree rings at all, and the large error span (see dashed lines) support my position. However, it’s so refreshing to read “We conclude that the temperature history of the last millennium is much less understood than often suggested, and that the regional and particularly the hemispheric scale pre-1400 temperature variance is largely unknown.” Applause!

schnurrp
October 18, 2012 2:47 am

Uchiha says:
October 18, 2012 at 1:35 am
No doubt these findings advocate that we need to research more on the causes of global warming i.e. is it human or naturally induced?. However, which ever side your bread is buttered with regards to climate change, there are increases in global temperatures and burning fossil fuel is only adding to the problem. The problem is that there is competition amongst the economies of the world, and it is compromising the world of the future generations. I seriously think we need to start acting and as soon as possible to prevent further damage.
Are you implying that we need to stop competing in the world economy? Why wait for AGW? Let’s just commit suicide now and get it over with!

AB
October 18, 2012 2:54 am
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 18, 2012 2:55 am
luval
October 18, 2012 3:02 am

Earth has gone through cycles of cooling and warming throughout its history but this does not imply that what we are experiencing the same situation. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact and studies show that this increase represents the best fit to the increase in temperatures as it correspond in terms of trend and magnitude. Prediction for climate changes in the next 30 years are quite accurate and the intensifying of events as storms and drought should encourage not only further studies but also adaptation measures as, even if naturally caused, climate changes are going to affect food production, water availability etc. Moreover fossil fuels production is not sustainable anymore since not only pollution levels are increasing and so health is endangered, but also as resources are becoming scarcer and scarcer the price is increasing and so it is becoming not economically feasible to continue this sort of production.

richardscourtney
October 18, 2012 3:07 am

Uchiha:
At October 18, 2012 at 1:35 am you say

No doubt these findings advocate that we need to research more on the causes of global warming i.e. is it human or naturally induced?. However, which ever side your bread is buttered with regards to climate change, there are increases in global temperatures and burning fossil fuel is only adding to the problem.

Please explain what you think is a “problem” in longer growing seasons and cheap energy.
Richard

mwhite
October 18, 2012 3:19 am

I wonder what would happen if Mikes “NATURE TRICK” was applied to the graph????

October 18, 2012 4:06 am

Uchiha (01:35 am) writes “there are increases in global temperatures and burning fossil fuel is only adding to the problem”
If you had written “temperature are varying entierely within the historical range, and there is no problem” I’d have agreed with you.

Marcel Terblanche
October 18, 2012 4:17 am

This article puts and interesting spin on our current fixation with human induced climate change. If we look back into ‘deep time’ the geological climate is ever changing and highly variable. Even though this article isn’t necessarily representative of global climate change, it points to some very valid and worthwhile ideas regarding climate change over much longer periods of time. What about a million years ago? What kind of change have we experienced over that period? As humans we tend to live in a very self centered, short term reality and it is important to step back and analyse climate change from a longer time period, as this can point to the extent to which we are actually changing the climate and thus the environment. It is inarguable that we have had an effect on the increased temperatures in the past century, but these kinds of papers help us realise that we may not be the climate ‘hell spawn’ that the media likes to imply.
Marcel Terblanche
Cape Town

Paul Matthews
October 18, 2012 4:47 am

Memo to people saying the link doesnt work – it might be more helpful to google the paper and post the correct link
http://www.geo.uni-mainz.de/Dateien/Esper_2012_GPC.pdf

1 2 3 8