A regional approach to the medieval warm period and the little ice age

Nicola Scafetta sends this along, I found this figure quite interesting, but there are many more in the full PDF available below.

 

A regional approach to the medieval warm period and the little ice age

Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist

Stockholm University

Sweden

1. Introduction

In order to gain knowledge of the temperature variability prior to the establishment of a widespread network of instrumental measurements c. AD 1850, we have to draw information from proxy data sensitive to temperature variations. Such data can be extracted from various natural recorders of climate variability, such as corals, fossil pollen, ice-cores, lake and marine sediments, speleothems, and tree-ring width and density, as well as from historical records (for a review, see IPCC 2007; Jones et al. 2009; NRC 2006). Considerable effort has been made during the last decade to reconstruct global or northern hemispheric temperatures for the past 1000 to 2000 years in order to place the observed 20th century warming in a long-term perspective (e.g., Briffa, 2000; Cook et al., 2004; Crowley and Lowery, 2000; D’Arrigo, 2006; Esper et al., 2002; Hegerl et al., 2007; Jones et al., 1998; Jones and Mann, 2004; Juckes et al., 2007; Ljungqvist, 2010; Loehle, 2007; Mann et al., 1999; Mann et al., 2008; Mann et al., 2009; Mann and Jones, 2003; Moberg et al., 2005; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).

Less effort has been put into investigating the key question of to what extent earlier warm periods have been as homogeneous in timing and amplitude in different geographical regions as the present warming.

It has been suggested that late-Holocene long-term temperature variations, such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA), have been restricted to the circum-North Atlantic region (including Europe) and have not occurred synchronic in time with warm and cold periods respectively in other regions (Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Mann et al., 1999; Mann and Jones, 2003). This view has, however, been increasingly challenged through the ever growing amount of evidence of a global (or at least northern hemispheric) extent of the MWP and the LIA that have become available (see, for example, Esper and Frank, 2009; Ljungqvist, 2009, 2010; Moberg et al., 2005; Wanner et al., 2008).

A main obstacle in large-scale temperature reconstructions continues to be the limited and unevenly distributed number of quantitative palaeotemperature records extending back a millennium or more. The limited number of records have rendered it impossible to be very

selective in the choice of data. Palaeotemperature records used in a large-scale temperature reconstruction should preferably be accurately dated, have a high sample resolution and have a high correlation with the local instrumental temperature record in the calibration period (see the discussion in Jones et al., 2009).

The number of long quantitative palaeotemperature records from across the globe, of which a majority are well suited for being used in large-scale temperature reconstructions, have been rapidly increasing in recent years (Ljungqvist, 2009). Thus, it has now become possible to make regional temperature reconstructions for many regions that can help us to assess the spatio-temporal pattern and the MWP and LIA. Only by a regional approach can we truly gain an understanding of the temperature variability in the past 1–2 millennia and assess the possible occurrence of globally coherent warm and cold periods. Presently, only four regional multi-proxy temperature reconstructions exist: two for eastern Asia (Yang et al., 2002; Ge et al., 2010), one for the Arctic (Kaufman et al., 2009), and one for South America (Neukom et al., 2010). Six new quantitative regional multi-proxy temperature reconstructions will here be presented in order to improve our understanding of the regional patterns of past temperature variability.

4. Conclusion

The presently available palaeotemperature proxy data records do not support the

assumption that late 20th century temperatures exceeded those of the MWP in most regions, although it is clear that the temperatures of the last few decades exceed those of any multidecadal period in the last 700–800 years. Previous conclusions (e.g., IPCC, 2007) in the opposite direction have either been based on too few proxy records or been based on instrumental temperatures spliced to the proxy reconstructions. It is also clear that temperature changes, on centennial time-scales, occurred rather coherently in all the investigated regions – Scandinavia, Siberia, Greenland, Central Europe, China, and North

America – with data coverage to enable regional reconstructions. Large-scale patterns as the MWP, the LIA and the 20th century warming occur quite coherently in all the regional reconstructions presented here but both their relative and absolute amplitude are not always the same. Exceptional warming in the 10th century is seen in all six regional reconstructions.

Assumptions that, in particular, the MWP was restricted to the North Atlantic region can be rejected. Generally, temperature changes during the past 12 centuries in the high latitudes are larger than those in the lower latitudes and changes in annual temperatures also seem to be larger than those of warm season temperatures. In order to truly assess the possible global or hemispheric significance of the observed pattern, we need much more data. The

unevenly distributed palaeotemperature data coverage still seriously restricts our possibility to set the observed 20th century warming in a global long-term perspective and investigate the relative importance of natural and anthropogenic forcings behind the modern warming.

 

Full report here (PDF)

a_regional_approach_to_the_medieval_warm_period_and_the_little_ice_age

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

94 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gary Pearse
November 24, 2010 2:18 pm

Yes it seems that if one rejects the global nature of the various warming and cooling periods of the past, then there is no basis for predicting, as has been the CAGW hypothesis that a global scale warming catastrophe is assuredly in our future.

John Hekman
November 24, 2010 2:24 pm

Very interesting. Although the report says that the last few decades have been the warmest in the last 700-800 years, it is also relevant that this warmth did not suddenly appear in the last few decades at the time when CO2 emissions were greatest, but rather developed slowly over the last two centuries. This argues against a large role for human influence.

November 24, 2010 2:37 pm

Now, the critical question:
Could every one of those observed regional climate changes be accounted for by a simple latitudinal shift of the air circulation systems above the regions concerned ?

Pat
November 24, 2010 2:41 pm

Well Nick. Maybe you should shit can those proxies. Because I guaranty you that Greenland was pasture and grapes grew in Labrador during the MWP.

tonyb
Editor
November 24, 2010 2:41 pm

I placed this sarcastic post over at the Bradley thread but it seems even more relevant here as the graph at the top of this thread confirms the point I was making. Look at the year 1700 in the graph then read the charts in my post;
(Sorry for reinflicting it on everyone)
“Anthony
A very interesting post.
Did you realise that you must have accidentally transposed the image, as the second half of the temperature record on the Hockey stick is upside down? Our instrumental and anecdotal records show a slow steady temperature rise (with advances and set backs ) from around 1700, long before Dr Hansens Giss figures kicked them into the stratosphere.
12 of the oldest instrumental records shown graphically in next two links.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2zgt4ly.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg
Scores of old instrumental records collected on my site here.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
Anthony, to prevent embarassment to Dr Mann can you correct your inadvertent mistake and readjust the graph so it shows this steady increase instead of the decline?”
tonyb

geo
November 24, 2010 2:47 pm

I’ve always wondered just how confident we are in the timing of regional proxies. Yeah, there appear to be some regional differences on timing across those proxies, but how much of that is due to observational error and/or overlapping error bars?
It makes less sense to me that there was a warm period that marched from region to region over a couple hundred years than that we’ve just screwed up the timing of individual regional proxies, artificially creating sine waves that cancel each other out rather than reinforce.

November 24, 2010 2:53 pm

Large-scale patterns as the MWP, the LIA and the 20th century warming occur quite coherently in all the regional reconstructions presented here but both their relative and absolute amplitude are not always the same.

Let’s be clear on this, the MWP is here pre-millennial, 900 to 1000. Lamb’s central England graph (which morphed global in IPCC 1990) gives a peak a couple of centuries later, and many have followed putting the MWP peaking around 1200 (high middle ages with time of gothic cathedral boom etc).
The early work of Bruckner (1880s and 1890s) and Huntington (1910s to 30s) examined temp and rainfall together, talking of climate optimum and minimum and tell a much more complex story. ‘Optimums’ were easier to find in the proxies (Huntington pioneering tree ring analysis), but they were operating on assumptions (first in Bruckner) of cycles from warm-dry to cool-wet in high lats. Huntington was looking at the way the polar-circling storm belts advance more or less into the desert zones, and so what was optimal for wheat belt was not for irish potato farmers etc.
See some of the early graphs here:
http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/global-temperature-graphs/
The recent fixation on temperature, and on global temp, is a curious development when we know so much more about the nature of cyclic climate variation. As this fixation seem have arisen as an essential element in the AGW scare, I do wonder, as an observer, why sceptics dont try more to shift the debate away from this fixation with temperature. One place to start would be avoid using the IPCC 1990 graph, but perhaps we should try to give a proxy global temp at all – I’m with Lindzen on that.

ZT
November 24, 2010 2:55 pm

One less person on Gavin’s Christmas list.

November 24, 2010 2:59 pm

Very challenging and interesting paper. Another slam dunk on the hockey-stick graph of Mann.

eadler
November 24, 2010 3:15 pm

I never heard of Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, so I tried to find out using Google. It seems he is a graduate student in the department of history at Stockholm U.
http://su-se.academia.edu/FredrikCharpentierLjungqvist
It was published in the Journal of the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography.
http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist_temperature_reconstructions_2009.pdf
I wonder if any climate scientists peer reviewed it. It will be interested to see it deconstructed.
REPLY:Good point! We’ve never heard of you until you appeared here one day. Where are you from and what have you published? – Anthony

keith at hastings uk
November 24, 2010 3:47 pm

At the very least this confirms that the issues aren’t clear cut and are probably (my take on what I understood) much more complex than the Alarmists make out.
So, do we once more get back to what often gets lost in the detail: if what is happening now isn’t unique, then we don’t need to look for a historically unique cause e.g. industrial CO2 emissions, that were fingered because (IMO) of general anti – industrial bias plus couldn’t think of anything else so obviously not present before…
My view, shouldn’t this kind of work have been done and argued about before all the alarms were sounded?

Pamela Gray
November 24, 2010 3:49 pm

Regional climate analysis is the only way to make sense of what is going on. The following temperatures would get buried in an average across the US.
Record Report
000
SXUS76 KPDT 241814
RERPDT
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PENDLETON OR
1013 AM PST WED NOV 24 2010
…NEW DAILY RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES FOR NOVEMBER 24TH…
NOTE: STATIONS MARKED WITH * INDICATE THAT THE STATION REPORTS ONCE
PER DAY. FOR CONSISTENCY…THESE VALUES ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE
OCCURRED ON THE DAY THE OBSERVATION WAS TAKEN BUT MAY HAVE ACTUALLY
OCCURRED (ESPECIALLY FOR MAX TEMPERATURE) ON THE PREVIOUS DAY.
STATION PREVIOUS NEW RECORDS
RECORD/YEAR RECORD BEGAN
*JOSEPH, OR 9 / 2007 -9 1893
*LONG CREEK, OR -10 / 1993 -10 (TIED) 1957
MEACHAM, OR 2 / 2007 -24 1948
*PENDLETON(CITY), OR 0 / 1993 -7 1890
*BICKLETON, WA -5 / 1985 -12 1931
*GOLDENDALE, WA 14 / 1929 -3 1931

Athlete
November 24, 2010 3:54 pm

eadler says:
I never heard of Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, so I tried to find out using Google. It seems he is a graduate student in the department of history at Stockholm U.
I’m sure if you keep googling you can find some connection between Ljungqvist and “Big Oil”. Maybe his grandfather had greasy hair.

Alan Simpson not from Friends of the Earth
November 24, 2010 3:58 pm

So you have; tonyb, ( payed alarmist ) and “eadler” anonymous troll. This is on the eve of the warmists’ biggest (I”ll try my luck ) wankfests? they can only marshal one poster and his glove puppet?
A bit like the EURO they are boned.

Editor
November 24, 2010 4:01 pm

A very nice follow up to ljungqvist’s extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere 2kya reconstruction.

RexAlan
November 24, 2010 4:03 pm

The MWP was world wide!
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html
Click on any of the graphs for more detail.

timetochooseagain
November 24, 2010 4:04 pm

Ljungqvist (Professor, Doctor, what is his title?) is clearly a very level headed guy. This is a good paper, carefully examining the details of the data, and letting it lead to whatever conclusions are justified. That is science. Budding researchers please take notes.

November 24, 2010 4:04 pm

no bristlecones.
but yamal is in the mix.
progress

Editor
November 24, 2010 4:06 pm

eadler on November 24, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Nice use of an ad hominem and an appeal to authority in one failed argument.

Pamela Gray
November 24, 2010 4:11 pm

A day in the life of a mini-me ice age:
I’ve been cleaning house at the ranch in frigid Wallowa County. I mopped the linoleum landing inside the back porch that leads into the attached wood house. Before it could dry it froze. I tried unfreezing it with hot water but I couldn’t mop up the water to dry the floor fast enough before it froze again. So I threw rock salt on it.

EW
November 24, 2010 4:15 pm

A nice review of the published but, what’s more interesting, also unpublished and non-archived proxies.
And the comment at the page 17, that Briffa’s (2000) Yamal trees show too much of an increase in 20th century compared to other circum-Arctic trees nearby mentioned in Esper et al. (2002) is quite an understatement 😉

RexAlan
November 24, 2010 4:30 pm

I think the MWP was worldwide.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html
Click on the graphs for more detail.

Athelstan.
November 24, 2010 4:48 pm

I know where you are ‘coming from’ Anthony, however “where are you from?”
and, “what have you published?”
Are moot questions in reality.
If I was back at University, made the right noises in a few places, twisted some arms to get a grant and…………….. if I said, I want to “prove AGW!”
Then I’d be virtually guaranteed (even in these straitened times) a grant, irrespective of my expertise or field, so to me, questions (such as the above) are completely irrelevant.
Lets face it, the IPCC will publish aught (even undergrad’ dissertations and other more dubious sources) if it says the right thing, what’s needed is a new approach to the whole damnable process and we need to start with ‘peer review’.
Some good ideas here:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/how-a-scientific-integrity-act-could-shift-the-global-warming-debate/#more-10878

P.F.
November 24, 2010 5:25 pm

So how many studies exist now from a variety of disciplines over several decades that consistently show the MWP was warmer than present? Sea floor sediments, coral, ice cores, entomology, archaeology, geology, botany, literature, even the Norse Sagas. All go against MBH98 and the closed-system papers that attempted to support MBH in the subsequent nine years.
But to remind everyone — according to the IPCC Working Group III co-chair, it’s no longer about protecting the environment, but rather the “equitable” redistribution of the world’s resources under the perverted notion of Social Justice.

1 2 3 4
Verified by MonsterInsights