China’s 2,000 Year Temperature History

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tree rings with 1–3 year temporal resolution, annually resolved stalagmites, decadally resolved ice-core information, historical documents with temporal resolution of 10–30 years, and lake sediments resolving decadal to century time scales.”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.
Wren says in reply to Richard Sharpe,
“Scientists who are proponents of AGW claim that current warming is unprecedented in the history of the world?
That’s news to me. Can you quote some of them?”
==================
Richard actually said: “, perhaps most, proponents of AGW claim that the current warming is unprecedented, ”
He did NOT say “unprecendented in the history of the world.”
By putting words into Richards mouth which he did not utter, in order to try and belittle his argument you are either dishonest or haven’t even bothered to read the post.
@ur momisugly tim O’Brien
I am British and I am not very young. In World War I American participation was on a far smaller scale than that of France and the British Empire and Commonwealth. The invention of tank (by the British) and its effective deployment transformed the military situation. American participation was important primarily because it caused the Germans to realise that they simply would not have the manpower to win if they continued fighting.
Further to my original comments about World War II and the Battle of Britain, radar, code breaking, penicillin, early work on the atom bomb, and the jet engine, none of which you disputed, the tide in the west changed at the Battle of Alamein, before any American soldiers were in action against the Germans. The naval forces which won the Battle of the Atlantic (without which no American armies could have engaged the Germans) were predominantly British and Canadian.
For the Normandy campaign, although the supreme commander was an American, the commanders of the land forces, the naval forces and the air forces were all British. The bulk of the naval forces were supplied by the UK. The landings on 3 of the 5 beaches on D-Day were by British and Canadian forces and from D-Day until some time after the American breakout the great majority of the German panzer divisions, were deployed against the British and Canadian forces which made the eventual US breakout possible.
None of this is intended to disparage the American contribution to winning the war but your comments, which also totally ignored the massive contribution of the Soviet Union, show how the false Hollywood version of history has spread far outside America.
However, as this blog is supposed to be about the world’s climate and not military history I had better resist the temptation to give more examples.
Interesting that graphs (a), (b) and (e) all show declining temperatures from the mid 1900’s … just like Briffa … the “hide the decline” stuff …
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
Roy says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:54 pm
OT
Roy,
I applaud the courage, tenacity and ingenuity of th British in WWII.
However, I think
i) you should give some recognition to the (pivotal?) part played by Ameirca at El Alamein.
ii) you should recognise the main cause of Battle of the Atlantic (to prevent, mainly American aid to her allies and Russia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939%E2%80%931945)
iii) while acknowledging the great suffering of the Soviet people we should recognise that Stalin had a pact with the Axis powers and had no intention to be any help to the Allies
iv) apart from the substantial material aid given to Russia by the US, the entry of the US into the war greatly facilitated Stalin by reducing pressure to defend to the East.
v) while US was fighting a brutal war in the Pacific it made massive commitment to the war in Europe
vi) the US made a massive reconstruction commitment to Europe after the war
vii) Winston Churchill, were he alive, would be disappointed in you
Sorry for going off topic but i thought it would be very unfair to let such a post go unchallenged.
BACK ON TOPIC
tim
As you all know very well…
Dr Mann has “always been very open about the uncertainties in his work”
and
Dr Mann was “surprised at the high profile his work was given”.
😛
@ur momisugly Tim,
I agree with much of what you wrote. (A few minor quibbles; the defeat of the U-boats in the Atlantic was of vital importance to Britain in both world wars. Although the great bulk of Allied aid to the Soviet Union came from the United States most of what actually reached them during the first winter came from Britain and Canada as Pearl Harbor temporarily caused the Americans to concentrate on making sure their own forces had the equipment they needed. Britain tied down and eventually defeated significant Japanese forces in Burma).
As I said, my posts were in no way meant to disparage America’s contribution to victory. M4 Sherman tanks, which the US went on to produce in enormous numbers were indeed first used at Alamein. My father who served in the British army in North Africa, Italy and northwest Europe from Normandy to Denmark was very proud of the British contribution, but freely admitted that we would not have won without the Americans.
I emphasised the British contribution because I was responding to people who gave the credit almost exclusively to the United States. In fact the British, the Americans, and the Russians can all legitimately claim that it is probable that the war would either have been lost or would have ended in some sort of costly stalemate without them. (In that case it is quite likely that a third world war have broken out later). The Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans and Indians etc. can also claim that the British owe them an enormous debt for their contributions in both world wars, and therefore the rest of the world also benefited from the sacrifices of people from those countries.
RETURNING TO THE WEATHER:
The role of the weather in military history is quite fascinating. The British Meteorological Office has, quite justifiably, had a lot of criticism in recent years, but it had its “finest hour” with the accurate forecast for D-Day when the Germans were expecting the bad weather (which, although they did not know it, had already caused the invasion to be postponed by 24 hours) to continue.
However, as this thread was really meant to be about the climate over the last 1,000 years or so and not particular examples of weather I had better not continue!
Lucy, thanks for the link. It doesn’t really attach to my post you referenced. I pointed to Hemispheric (and global) studies when someone said that the Hemispheric mean had not been attempted. I’m not sure a chart really qualifies as a “study”, and the mean certainly hasn’t been assessed there.
You may not have noticed that I already posted upthread the well-known skeptical chart that appears on that webpage, pointing out that it actually corroborates that different regions show warming at different times. These are the circumstances described in Mann’s and proceeding reconstructions. The author of that post apparently failed to scrutinise his own source, referring to it as a graphic that “shows that the MWP is a worldwide event.”
There are about 47 proxies in that “worldwide chart”, IIRC. Mann’s first studies used more, and more recent studies use hundreds. One must wonder about the selection process here. What about all the other proxies?
Regardless, the ones that appear on that chart are not uniform in their warm/cool periods, though there is some confluence around 1000AD. Some graphs show cooler temps around 1000AD. Some of the peaks occur 500 years apart for some regions. I doubt anyone has crunched the numbers to see what the combined offsets produce.
I’ll post that link again for you and you can check to see if I’m correct.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
You can hover over the graphs and they’ll expand, or click on them for a larger picture.
Discussing (aka ‘arguing’) WW1 or WW2, or anywhen or anywhat else, is a lot like discussing the weather or global climate change. Everyone has an opinion, no one is a true expert. But…. chances are that the more we discuss anything the greater the likelihood someone will say something truly intelligent and memorable. (I seriously doubt many of us are going to live that long however; or recognize it when it happens.)
None of this is important now, given the fact that NASA’s new mission is outreach to Islamic nations. James Hansen is on-board with that and so is Prof. Mann.
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Barry (July 5, 2010 at 12:25 am)
Nice try. Now match this one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
And btw, I looked at that website’s page of “anti-AGW papers debunked” and apart from Gerlich & Tscheuschner (which appears to be suspect), …..
I publish an abstract of this paper in http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm and would be very interested in learning how G&T got it wrong (I think they did not).
Thanks