Roman Period "megadrought" found in the USA southwest

From the University of Arizona, one wonders how such a thing could happen when CO2 was at “safe” levels. They are using bristlecone pines again, which may very well be a better proxy for rainfall than for temperature. At least there was no competition bias from sheep ranching then. It seems they also confirmed a drought in the medieval warm period in the 12th century.

UA scientists find evidence of Roman period megadrought

A new study at the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research has revealed a previously unknown multi-decade drought period in the second century A.D.

IMAGE: Dendrochronologists extract a small, pencil-shaped sample of wood from a tree with a tool called an increment borer. The tiny hole left in the tree’s trunk quickly heals as the…Click here for more information.

Almost nine hundred years ago, in the mid-12th century, the southwestern U.S. was in the middle of a multi-decade megadrought. It was the most recent extended period of severe drought known for this region. But it was not the first.

The second century A.D. saw an extended dry period of more than 100 years characterized by a multi-decade drought lasting nearly 50 years, says a new study from scientists at the University of Arizona.

UA geoscientists Cody Routson, Connie Woodhouse and Jonathan Overpeck conducted a study of the southern San Juan Mountains in south-central Colorado. The region serves as a primary drainage site for the Rio Grande and San Juan rivers.

“These mountains are very important for both the San Juan River and the Rio Grande River,” said Routson, a doctoral candidate in the environmental studies laboratory of the UA’s department of geosciences and the primary author of the study, which is upcoming in Geophysical Research Letters.

The San Juan River is a tributary for the Colorado River, meaning any climate changes that affect the San Juan drainage also likely would affect the Colorado River and its watershed. Said Routson: “We wanted to develop as long a record as possible for that region.”

Dendrochronology is a precise science of using annual growth rings of trees to understand climate in the past. Because trees add a normally clearly defined growth ring around their trunk each year, counting the rings backwards from a tree’s bark allows scientists to determine not only the age of the tree, but which years were good for growth and which years were more difficult.

IMAGE: A cross section of wood shows the annual growth rings trees add with each growing season. Dark bands of latewood form the boundary between each ring and the next. Counting…Click here for more information.

“If it’s a wet year, they grow a wide ring, and if it’s a dry year, they grow a narrow ring,” said Routson. “If you average that pattern across trees in a region you can develop a chronology that shows what years were drier or wetter for that particular region.”

Darker wood, referred to as latewood because it develops in the latter part of the year at the end of the growing season, forms a usually distinct boundary between one ring and the next. The latewood is darker because growth at the end of the growing season has slowed and the cells are more compact.

To develop their chronology, the researchers looked for indications of climate in the past in the growth rings of the oldest trees in the southern San Juan region. “We drove around and looked for old trees,” said Routson.

Literally nothing is older than a bristlecone pine tree: The oldest and longest-living species on the planet, these pine trees normally are found clinging to bare rocky landscapes of alpine or near-alpine mountain slopes. The trees, the oldest of which are more than 4,000 years old, are capable of withstanding extreme drought conditions.

“We did a lot of hiking and found a couple of sites of bristlecone pines, and one in particular that we honed in on,” said Routson.

To sample the trees without damaging them, the dendrochronologists used a tool like a metal screw that bores a tiny hole in the trunk of the tree and allows them to extract a sample, called a core. “We take a piece of wood about the size and shape of a pencil from the tree,” explained Routson.

“We also sampled dead wood that was lying about the land. We took our samples back to the lab where we used a visual, graphic technique to match where the annual growth patterns of the living trees overlap with the patterns in the dead wood. Once we have the pattern matched we measure the rings and average these values to generate a site chronology.”

“In our chronology for the south San Juan mountains we created a record that extends back 2,200 years,” said Routson. “It was pretty profound that we were able to get back that far.”

IMAGE: Doctoral candidate Cody Routson of the environmental studies laboratory at the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences scrambles up a mountain slope to sample a bristlecone pine tree. Click here for more information.

The chronology extends many years earlier than the medieval period, during which two major drought events in that region already were known from previous chronologies.

“The medieval period extends roughly from 800 to 1300 A.D.,” said Routson. “During that period there was a lot of evidence from previous studies for increased aridity, in particular two major droughts: one in the middle of the 12th century, and one at the end of the 13th century.”

“Very few records are long enough to assess the global conditions associated with these two periods of Southwestern aridity,” said Routson. “And the available records have uncertainties.”

But the chronology from the San Juan bristlecone pines showed something completely new:

“There was another period of increased aridity even earlier,” said Routson. “This new record shows that in addition to known droughts from the medieval period, there is also evidence for an earlier megadrought during the second century A.D.”

“What we can see from our record is that it was a period of basically 50 consecutive years of below-average growth,” said Routson. “And that’s within a much broader period that extends from around 124 A.D. to 210 A.D. – about a 100-year-long period of dry conditions.”

“We’re showing that there are multiple extreme drought events that happened during our past in this region,” said Routson. “These megadroughts lasted for decades, which is much longer than our current drought. And the climatic events behind these previous dry periods are really similar to what we’re experiencing today.”

The prolonged drought in the 12th century and the newly discovered event in the second century A.D. may both have been influenced by warmer-than-average Northern Hemisphere temperatures, Routson said: “The limited records indicate there may have been similar La Nina-like background conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean, which are known to influence modern drought, during the two periods.”

Although natural climate variation has led to extended dry periods in the southwestern U.S. in the past, there is reason to believe that human-driven climate change will increase the frequency of extreme droughts in the future, said Routson. In other words, we should expect similar multi-decade droughts in a future predicted to be even warmer than the past.

###

Routson’s research is funded by fellowships from the National Science Foundation and the Science Foundation Arizona. His advisors, Woodhouse of the School of Geography and Development and Overpeck of the department of geosciences and co-director of the UA’s Institute of the Environment, are co-authors of the study.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

193 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
D. Patterson
November 12, 2011 4:37 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 12, 2011 at 2:46 pm
[….]
During the Holocene? Those were Smokey’s terms of reference. If so, post a link for these multi-proxy studies.

We’re still waiting for you to produce the sources for your “multi-proxy studies” to substantiate your fantastic chart. Perhaps you would care to produce that information and precisely define what you are claiming constitutes acceptable forms of “multi-proxy studies”, so we can avoid having you move the goalposts afterwards.

D. Patterson
November 12, 2011 4:55 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 12, 2011 at 2:46 pm
During the Holocene? Those were Smokey’s terms of reference. If so, post a link for these multi-proxy studies.

Since I expect you are not debating in good faith and will never really attempt to substantiate your chart nor acknowledge any of the multi-proxy studies supportive of the HTM (Higher Than Modern) temperatures in the Holocene, I’ll go ahead and provide for the sake of other readers one of the many sources reporting such HTM levels.

A large majority of the here investigated temperature reconstructions indicate that temperatures were warmer at the mid-Holocene (6000 BP±500 yrs) compared to the preindustrial period (1500AD±500 yrs), both in summer, winter and the annual mean. By taking simple arithmetic averages over the available data, the reconstructions indicate that the northern high latitudes were 0.9 #C warmer in summer, 0.5 #C in winter and 1.7 #C warmer in the annual mean temperature at the mid-Holocene (6 ka) compared to the recent pre-industrial.
[….]
Fig. 1. Map of the sites from which quantitative temperature and precipitation reconstructions from proxy data have been collected.
[….]
Fig. 3. Map of the estimated difference in temperature (annual, July, January) between 6 ka and 0.5 ka at the different proxy sites over the northern high latitudes.
Sundqvist, H. S.; Zhang, Q.; Moberg, A.; Holmgren, K.; Kornich, H.; Nilsson, J.; and Brattstrom, G. Climate change between the mid and late Holocene in northern high latitudes – Part 1: Survey of temperature and precipitation proxy data. Received: 31 May 2009 – Published in Clim. Past Discuss.: 6 July 2009; Revised: 27 August 2010 – Accepted: 6 September 2010 – Published: 17 September. Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

Kevin MacDonald
November 13, 2011 1:24 am

I linked to all the papers used to construct the graph earlier in this thread, that should clear up any ad hom’s about my good faith, and since I’m not arguing that there was no point during the Holocene warmer than the recent pre-industrial you can dispense with your latest straw man too.

D. Patterson
November 13, 2011 6:34 am

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 13, 2011 at 1:24 am
I linked to all the papers used to construct the graph earlier in this thread, that should clear up any ad hom’s about my good faith, and since I’m not arguing that there was no point during the Holocene warmer than the recent pre-industrial you can dispense with your latest straw man too.

Like I said, you are not getting away with trollish forms of handwaving here. Identify the source of the graph you chose to use. If you are going to use someone else’s work and cite it as an authority, the least you can do is have the integrity to cite the author of the graph, the title of the work in which the graph appears, and the location in the work where it is to be found. We, of course, already know there are a number of different versions of the graphs you posted appearing at OSS Foundation, Wikipedia, and other alarmist websites. You still need to do the right thing and properly cite the author and work from whom you obtained each graph. Then you need to identify each graph line and cite the source/s for each graph line, one again citing the author, title, and location in the work/s.
You are once again trying to foist another strawman argument by pretending the data is only about “recent pre-industrial”, when it is in fact about the Present and Now. The source I cited was for the readers, so don’t waste your time trying to spin the wording of that source to mean something else.
And, no, you are still not debating in good faith at all. Given your obvious mistakes, we have evry reason to doubt you even know or understand who compiled your graph/s, what the graph lines mean, or understand the error ranges in the graph/s.

Kevin MacDonald
November 13, 2011 10:07 am

The graph I posted had multiple sources and I’ve already submitted links to them all. The abstract you posted makes no reference to temperatures after the recent pre-industrial.

D. Patterson
November 13, 2011 12:12 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 13, 2011 at 10:07 am
The graph I posted had multiple sources and I’ve already submitted links to them all.

Is that so? To eliminate any potential for an unfortunate misunderstanding of your intent and opportunity for you to switch graphs on us in mid-debate, show us exactly which graph for which you claim to “already submitted links to them all”?

Kevin MacDonald
November 13, 2011 1:01 pm

I’ve only posted one graph of Holocene temperature anomalies.

D. Patterson
November 13, 2011 2:04 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I’ve only posted one graph of Holocene temperature anomalies.

If so, then you should not have any trouble courteously repeating it here and now, or you can reference the date and time of your post for the benefit of all readers of this thread.

D. Patterson
November 13, 2011 4:08 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I’ve only posted one graph of Holocene temperature anomalies.

Since you are dragging your feet, we’ll just have to give you a hand. Is this your “one graph of Holocene temperature anomalies” in your following post?
“blockquote>Kevin MacDonald says:
November 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Smokey says:
“If one or more of the parameters of the Holocene were exceeded, then the null hypothesis would be falsified.”
Brian H says:
November 7, 2011 at 10:57 p
“What you said, Smokey.”

D. Patterson
November 13, 2011 5:25 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I’ve only posted one graph of Holocene temperature anomalies.

Name the author of the “graph of Holocene temperature anomalies”

November 13, 2011 8:35 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
“…post a link for these multi-proxy studies.”
I have, repeatedly. Here is a reference to eighteen NON-TREE RING PROXIES clearly showing a strong global MWP. They are not Dr Loehle’s peer reviewed papers; they are the peer reviewed papers of 18 independent scientists, compiled by Dr Loehle. You are simply rejecting out of hand all evidence that doesn’t conform to your belief system.

D. Patterson
November 13, 2011 8:51 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I’ve only posted one graph of Holocene temperature anomalies.

You posted “one graph of Holocene temperature anomalies” which indicates higher temperatures than Present ealier in the Holocene. It is no wonder that you are being evasive about answering questions about your sources.

D. Patterson
November 13, 2011 11:53 pm

Smokey says:
November 13, 2011 at 8:35 pm

It looks like Kevin MacDonald may be down in South America searching to find Greenland and GISP2. Perhpas he’ll stumble upon the lost civilization of Chile and report in to Steve McIntyre.
It’s a pity we haven’t found some thermoscope records in a Greek or Roman monestary circa 3rd or 4th Centuries and earlier.

Kevin MacDonald
November 14, 2011 5:38 am

The graph was created by Robert A Rohde, using studies I have already linked to, at no point on the graph does it show global anomalies higher than today and Loehle stops in 1935, looks like this if you add the missing years and clearly isn’t showing a MWP warmer than today.

D. Patterson
November 14, 2011 9:39 am

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:38 am
The graph was created by Robert A Rohde, using studies I have already linked to, at no point on the graph does it show global anomalies higher than today and Loehle stops in 1935, looks like this if you add the missing years and clearly isn’t showing a MWP warmer than today.

You are evidently as incompetent at reading your own graph and the article accompanying it from Wikipedia as you were incompetent at locating the Vostok project and Antarctica. The Wikipedia article starts in the Northern Hemisphere with:

Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3C warmer than present.[5] Research indicates that the Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this period compared to present.[6]

Wikipedia goes on to the Southern Hemisphere and found:

In the far southern hemisphere (e.g. New Zealand and Antarctica), the warmest period during the Holocene appears to have been roughly 8,000 to 10,500 years ago, immediately following the end of the last ice age.[9][10] By 6,000 years ago, the time normally associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum in the Northern Hemisphere, these regions had reached temperatures similar to those existing in the modern era, and did not participate in the temperature changes of the North. However, some authors have used the term “Holocene Climatic Optimum” to describe this earlier southern warm period as well.

Although the Wikipedia article goes to great pains in an effort to characterize or mischaracterize the HTM (Higher Than Modern) temperatures as asynchronous regional warmings, it simply won’t work when the time periods overlap and when sources they omiitted are considered. Even the IPCC has acknowledged the HTM temperatures in the Holocene.

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis; Chapter 2. Observed Climate Variability and Change. 2.4.2 How Stable was the Holocene Climate? […] The early Holocene was generally warmer than the 20th century but the period of maximum warmth depends on the region considered.

So you may as well abandon your fantasy, because even your own sources and the IPC, the fountainhead of the AGW fraud say “The early Holocene was generally warmer than the 20th century[….]

Kevin MacDonald
November 15, 2011 9:46 am

The wikipedia article is consistent with AR4, which says; “Due to different regional temperature responses from the tropics to high latitudes, as well as between hemispheres, commonly used concepts such as ‘mid-Holocene thermal optimum’, ‘altithermal’, etc. are not globally relevant and should only be applied in a well-articulated regional context.”
The warming periods are not globally synchronous, no matter how you try to spin it.

Joachim Seifert
Reply to  Kevin MacDonald
November 15, 2011 10:01 am

Kevin,
the AR4 is knowledge until 2006 (published 2007) and ever since many new
studies in different locations have been made showing the syncronous climate
in the NH and the SH. Concerning Wikipedia: The warmists are highly influencial expressing their view……thus a very doubtful source……
On an general view: It started out in the ’80 with the so-called see-saw theory, with NH and SH warming and cooling alternately….. then, in the ’90, warmists went back a step, postulating: No more see-saw but its all regional, in any case: No syncronous temp. movement and…soon,.in a couple of years until 2020 they have to go further back (having lost, but wont concede yet today) and acknoledging the syncronous temps….. in NH and SH

Kevin MacDonald
November 15, 2011 1:50 pm

Then you’ll have no problem linking to them.

November 15, 2011 2:43 pm

Joachim Seifert says:
“Concerning Wikipedia: The warmists are highly influencial expressing their view……thus a very doubtful source…”
On climate matters Wikipedia has no more credibility tha DeSmogBlog, Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, tamino, Romm, etc. IMHO the despicable censoring propagandist William Connolley has no credibility whatever, but he still manages to censor comments he doesn’t agree with. That is not science, and anyone who appeals to Wikipedia’s incredible authority will certainly end up with a wrong-headed belief in catastrophic AGW.

Kevin MacDonald
November 15, 2011 4:06 pm

Yes, we know you dismiss, out of hand, any source that challenges your dogma, have you found one supporting it yet; a peer reviewed paper showing current temperatures are within the norm for the Holocene?

November 15, 2011 5:03 pm

Pure psychological projection, MacDonald. It is you who always dismisses out of hand every chart, graph, and link that I post. Furthermore, as usual you have the scientific method completely backward. The onus is on you to provide testable, falsifiable evidence showing that CAGW [or AGW for that matter] even exists. It may. But as of now, AGW is simply an evidence-free conjecture.
I do not need a peer reviewed paper to falsify your claims, even though I’ve linked to plenty of them that do exactly that. And what is better than a peer reviewed paper? Glad you asked: empirical evidence is better. Ice cores are empirical, testable evidence. And ice cores from both hemispheres falsify your true belief system that current temperatures are ‘the hottest evah!’
Once again I challenge you to try and falsify my testable hypothesis:
At current and projected global concentrations, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.

Kevin MacDonald
November 15, 2011 5:50 pm

We’re testing your hypothesis that current temperatures fall within the parameters of the Holocene and you’ve been utterly unable to prove that, this is just you shifting the goal posts to try and hide that failure.

November 15, 2011 6:12 pm

MacDonald, you’re ‘testing’ nothing. You’re only putting words in a post that are nothing but your misinformed and provably wrong opinion. Time for you to run along back to Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science for some new talking points and moral support.
There is ample evidence that there were warmer episodes throughout the Holocene. Abrupt warming of up to 27°F is recorded, when CO2 levels were very low; contrast that with the minuscule warming of 0.8° over a century and a half as the planet continues to emerge from the LIA.
Your lame post is a simple strawman argument, which I destroyed with evidence-based facts. My own hypothesis is that more CO2 is harmless and beneficial. And as usual, you avoided taking my challenge.

Kevin MacDonald
November 15, 2011 7:08 pm

Those are all regional reconstructions, you are yet to provide a global one that supports your case and “global” is quite central to the global warming debate.

D. Patterson
November 16, 2011 11:22 am

Kevin MacDonald says:
November 15, 2011 at 9:46 am
“The warming periods are not globally synchronous, no matter how you try to spin it.”

So, the IPCC says “The early Holocene was generally warmer than the 20th century”, and you acknowledge their statement is true?

Kevin MacDonald
November 16, 2011 1:42 pm

In AR3, because that was the best evidence at the time, that is no longer the case, hence my quoting from the IPCC’s current report.

Verified by MonsterInsights