New study shows temperature in Greenland significantly warmer than present several times in the last 4000 years

Kobashi et al 2011 was just published in GRL, and it looks like it will be upsetting the paleoclimate apple cart. The conclusions of Kaufman et al 2009 look to be minimized in comparison to this much more complete study. Questions over the split methodology for the last 60 years of data might be an issue, due to the change in methods of temperature reconstruction before and after the 1950 breakpoint. The amount of recent instrumental data is pretty low, and using it to calibrate the forward model might be a bit dodgy.

Figure 1. (top) Reconstructed Greenland snow surface temperatures for the past 4000 years and air temperature over the past 170 years (1840–2010) from three records. The thick blue line and blue band represents the reconstructed Greenland temperature and 1s error, respectively (this study). The reconstruction was made by two different methods before and after 1950. The “gas method” is as described in section 2, and the “forward model” is described by Kobashi et al. [2010]. Thick and thin black lines are the inversion‐adjusted reconstructed Summit annual air temperatures and 10‐year moving average temperatures, respectively [Box et al., 2009]. Thin and thick red lines are the inversion adjusted annual and 10‐year moving average AWS temperature records, respectively [Stearns and Weidner, 1991; Shuman et al., 2001; Steffen and Box, 2001; Vaarby‐Laursen, 2010]. (middle) Past 1000 years of Greenland temperature. Thick blue line and band are the same as above. Black and red lines are the Summit [Box et al., 2009] and AWS [Stearns and Weidner, 1991; Shuman et al., 2001; Steffen and Box, 2001; Vaarby‐Laursen, 2010] decadal average temperatures as above. (bottom) Past 4000 years of Greenland temperature. Thick blue line and band are the same as above. Thick green line represents 100‐year moving averages. Black and red lines are the Summit [Box et al., 2009] and AWS [Stearns and Weidner, 1991; Shuman et al., 2001; Steffen and Box, 2001; Vaarby‐Laursen, 2010] decadal average temperature, respectively. Blue and pink rectangles are the periods of 1000–2010 C.E. (Figure 1, middle) and 1840–2010 C.E. (Figure 1, top), respectively. Present temperature is calculated from the inversion adjusted AWS decadal average temperature (2001–2010) as −29.9°C (Figure 1, top). Present temperature and ±2s are illustrated by lines in the plots. Green circles are the current decadal average temperature as above (−29.9°C, 2001–2010).

Abstract: Greenland recently incurred record high temperatures and ice loss by melting, adding to concerns that anthropogenic warming is impacting the Greenland ice sheet and in turn accelerating global sea‐level rise. Yet, it remains imprecisely known for Greenland how much warming is caused by increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases versus natural variability. To address this need, we reconstruct Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4000 years at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet; hereafter referred to as Greenland temperature) with a new method that utilises argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles.

The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was −30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited a long‐term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century‐long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001– 2010).

Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100.

Figure 3. Greenland temperature and oxygen isotopes (GISP2, GRIP, and NGRIP) for the past 4000 years. From the top, the Greenland temperatures from this study are presented as a 100‐year running mean (red), with the GRIP borehole temperature inversion (blue dashes) [Dahl‐ Jensen et al., 1998] and the GISP2 elevation change (green) [Vinther et al., 2009]. d18Oice of GISP2 (blue) [Stuiver et al., 1995], NGRIP (green) [Vinther et al., 2006], and GRIP (black) [Vinther et al., 2006] are 100‐year running means with GISP2 additionally smoothed by a 20‐year running mean.

Discussion:

5.3. Present Temperature in the Context of the Past 4000 Years [15] The current decadal surface temperature at Summit (2001–2010) is calculated to be −29.9 ± 0.6°C from the inversion‐ adjusted AWS record (Figure 1), and is illustrated in the 4000 year context (Figure 1). The current decadal average surface temperature at the summit is as warm as in the 1930s–1940s (Figure 1, top), and there was another similarly warm period (−29.7 ± 0.6°C) in the 1140s (Figure 1, middle) (Medieval Warm Period), indicating that the present decade is not outside the envelope of variability of the last 1000 years. Excluding the last millennium, there were72 decades warmer than the present one, in which mean temperatures were 1.0 to 1.5°C warmer, especially in the earlier part of the past 4000 years [Dahl‐Jensen et al., 1998; Wanner et al., 2008]. During two intervals (∼1300 B.P. and ∼3360 B.P.) centennial average temperatures were nearly 1.0°C warmer (−28.9°C, the 97 percentile) than the present decade (Figure 1, bottom).

From the above observations, we conclude that the current decadal mean snow temperature in central Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability of the past 4000 years. [16] This conclusion differs somewhat from the result of a recent reconstruction of Arctic summer air temperature over the past 2000 years, which indicates that a long cooling trend over the last 2000 years ended with a pronounced warming during the twentieth century [Kaufman et al., 2009].

Possible reasons for the differences are numerous, and include at a minimum 1) our record is a mean‐annual temperature, not a summer temperature, and variability is minimal in summer but highest in winter [Box, 2002]; 2) differences between air and snow temperature may be influenced by changes in cloud cover and wind speed, which affect the strength of the near‐surface inversion; and 3) our site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations.

Citation: Kobashi, T., K. Kawamura, J. P. Severinghaus, J.‐M. Barnola, T. Nakaegawa, B. M. Vinther, S. J. Johnsen, and J. E. Box (2011), High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21501, doi:10.1029/2011GL049444.

Full paper (PDF) is here  and a h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

80 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 10, 2011 9:02 am

“Greenland recently incurred record high temperatures (RECORD HIGH?) and ice loss (REALLY, WITH ICE MASS WAS INCREASING?) by melting, adding to concerns that anthropogenic warming (BIG ASSUMPTION) is impacting the Greenland ice sheet and in turn accelerating global sea‐level rise (SEA LEVEL IS DECLINING?).
….and the sky is falling. 🙂

November 10, 2011 9:04 am

ferd berple says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:13 am
Forgot to add /sarc. I just quoted usual warmists pseudoarguments.

Ed Scott
November 10, 2011 9:12 am

The “Wolf cry” of wannabe despots who wish to exercise control over everything on planet Earth, including Nature. Arrogance and conceit on display.
World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns
If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change/print
The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be “lost for ever”, according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.
—————–
“The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. “I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever.”
————————–
“The US can’t move (owing to Republican opposition) and there’s no upside for China domestically in doing so. At least China is moving up the learning curve with its deployment of renewables, but it’s doing so in parallel to the hugely damaging coal-fired assets that it is unlikely to ever want (to turn off in order to) to meet climate targets in years to come.”

Editor
November 10, 2011 9:13 am

Richard Verney
‘The Viking world’ goes into considerable detail of the number and type of farms in Greenland during the period; It is a first class read.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Viking-World-Routledge-Worlds/dp/0415333156.
It is very expensive but I borrowed my copy from the local library
Tonyb

November 10, 2011 9:18 am

Ken Hall says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:12 am
“… I blame the perversion of peer review at the hands of pseudo-scientific advocates of a climate-change-religion.
Peer review works, when it is not bastardised and corrupted into bully-review (Hockey stick, Spencer & Braswell2011), or omitted entirely (BEST).”

Yes, peer review can work, but climate science is hardly the only field in which it quite often takes the shape of buddy or bully review.

Editor
November 10, 2011 9:40 am

Max Hugoson says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:01 am
> So, if the temperature is almost ALWAYS below 0 C, for most of the ice sea, whence the change(s)?
The only references to melting are in the comments, and then refer either to coastal regions or snark. The ice core was drilled in the high terrain inland. It’s colder there.
Now, you might have something if you compared air temp with the surface altitude over time….

vboring
November 10, 2011 9:55 am

Didn’t you hear?
In all non-hockey stick studies, global temperatures cannot be measured based on single sites.
Even if Greenland was warmer, the southern hemisphere (or somewhere else with no accurate data) must have been colder so the global mean was still lower than present.

Ged
November 10, 2011 10:07 am

@Mosher,
They aren’t applying it to the world, as far as I see, just the record for that one site in and of itself. But your caution is completely right: we can say nothing about the globe from this, just this one site has not exceeded natural variability for its geography, or even come close, according to their analysis. People will probably try to apply this to the whole globe though…

Nick Shaw
November 10, 2011 10:07 am

Charles Nelson
I beg to differ, this is, in the historical records of Rome, a stone carving that says, in Latin of course translated here, “Claudius Firtivus took his family to Gaul for the weekend. No trouble with the Lincoln Navigator. Better than the Suburban.” Look it up! 😉
Otherwise, if I were a 4000 year old Greenlander I’d be saying, “Thank God! It’s getting warmer again!”

November 10, 2011 10:07 am

While its pleasing that studies like this are getting though the Hockey Team blockade, I think its worth pointing out that just because it confirms something that a lot of people here believe does not mean that its good science.
In particular
1. Its been peer reviewed and printed in a prestigious journal – but so has Mann, Jones, Schmidt et al
2. It contains methodology that has yet to demonstrate a close empirical relationship with temperature.
3. It has been smoothed
4. We don’t know what sort of quality control has been applied to the data
5. We don’t know that the statistical model used is valid
6. We should all beware of seeing in the graphs or data patterns which are barely distinguishable from noise. Red noise, with similar properties can easily do what this graph can do.
7. I’ll bet good money that the error bars applied are much too small.
8. I’d wait to see what replication would throw up as issues.

jerry
November 10, 2011 10:11 am

Why does it end at 2000? Is it too much work to include the most recent data?

Mark
November 10, 2011 10:55 am

richard verney says:
It is also extremely likely that Greenland was even warmer in the RWP. It would appear that Northern Europe was warmer in the RWP than in the MWP and that being the case there is no reason to consider that Greenland would in some way have been an exception.
The thing is that “warmists” will tend to dismiss the RWP, MWP and LIA as “local”.
Whereas the CWP is “global”.

Laurence Crossen
November 10, 2011 11:24 am

The argument is that it shows the current warming to be “unprecedented” during the
past thousand years. Therefore, it must be anthropogenic. This argument logically can never demonstrate this. If it is unprecedented over one period then it must be compared with a time when it is not unprecedented. (By the way, this is a good example of what is called the pseudo-scientific mode of arguing in splendid isolation.) This is because a causative factor in operation long ago may again be in operation recently. Even if the present warming
were by far the hottest in the whole Holocene, this would not demonstrate human causation. This is because there have been previous interglacials much warmer than the present one and entirely caused by natural factors. On average, the last five interglacials were two degrees centigrade warmer than our Present Warm Period.

David Larsen
November 10, 2011 12:11 pm

Snow was green back then. Why argue with stupidity.

SteveSadlov
November 10, 2011 12:13 pm

State change imminent?
Look at the “pre transition ringing” we are now in!
There is only one way any such transition can now go and it ain’t up!

Dr A Burns
November 10, 2011 1:06 pm

>>David Schofield says:
>>November 10, 2011 at 2:09 am
>>How can they say in the abstract that ‘Greenland recently incurred record high temperatures’ >>when their own graphs show higher temperatures previously??
It is important in any paper to first justify the grant money with whatever nonsense is necessary, before getting on with the facts.

November 10, 2011 1:13 pm

I’ve read with great interest many posts here at WUWT calling into question the reliability of temperature proxies to do paleo-climate reconstructions. Specifically asking how reliable tree ring and ice core data are in that regard. Is there any particular reason why this reconstruction is any different?
I find the archeological evidence of past farmsteads much more persuasive.

phlogiston
November 10, 2011 1:13 pm

How does dating with nitrogen and argon isotopes work?

Christopher Hanley
November 10, 2011 1:37 pm

charles nelson (3:09 am).
It’s a similar story for Dartmoor: “…..During the Bronze Age, from about 1000BC the climate began to cool. It is thought that before this time temperatures in southern England were warmer by one degree in summer and two degrees in winter….”
http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Dartmoor.htm

November 10, 2011 2:30 pm

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts
”The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was −30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited a long‐term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century‐long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001– 2010).”
Q: ‘What does it mean, if on the bottom of a melting glacier in the Alps above the timber line of trees a broken tree can be dated to ~ 7000 BC?’
A: ‘Well, it seems that the climate conditions 9000 years ago were different as today, there must be temperatures in that height that trees could grow and there weren’t a glacier on that place of the tree.’
Q: ‘How is it possible? 9000 years ago there were no such industry putting more CO2 into the sky than today, to heat up the Earth.’
A: ‘Well, global warming is fact. That proves that your question has no value. Do you think all the climate scientists in TV are biased? Science is not a conspiracy. Science is controlled by the government.’
Q: ‘Sorry, my daughters question. She is still young and do not know much about science.’
Prof. G. Patzelt has reconstructed the declining summer temperatures in the Alps some 7000 years back in history (I have added my solar function GHI):
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi4_vs_patzelt_dsh1.jpg
See his images.
V.

November 10, 2011 8:08 pm

Ged.
I’m aware that they are not applying it to the whole globe. I’m suggesting that people remain diligent in their skepticism of all claims ESPECIALLY claims that confirm what you believe.
The only way I know to avoid fooling myself is to demand the same kinds of things from all papers
1. code and data archived please
2. try to find the errors, assumptions, limitations, uncertainties.
The same goes for documentary records, anecdotes, imprecise proxies.

November 10, 2011 8:10 pm

Juraj V.
BCP are to be avoided. Didnt you read the NAS? In general I’d be highly skeptical of any tree ring from a species that was prone to mechanical issues: like stripbark.. Yamal as well.
Learn something from the mistakes.

November 10, 2011 8:12 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:05 am
“Possible reasons for the differences are numerous, and include at a minimum 1) our record is a mean‐annual temperature, not a summer temperature, and variability is minimal in summer but highest in winter […] 3) our site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations.”
Remarkable spatiotemporal awareness.
######################################
Yup.. you up for Lunch when you get here for AGU?

christopher Hanley
November 10, 2011 11:46 pm

steven mosher:
“…The same goes for documentary records, anecdotes, imprecise proxies….”
As a non-scientist, I venture to suggest that all paleoclimate evidence is inescapably imprecise.

richard verney
November 11, 2011 4:13 am

christopher Hanley says:
November 10, 2011 at 11:46 pm
steven mosher:
“…The same goes for documentary records, anecdotes, imprecise proxies….”
As a non-scientist, I venture to suggest that all paleoclimate evidence is inescapably imprecise.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Absolutely, but unfortunately the same applies to almost all the data in the climate science field.
There is a general failure to admit uncertainties. Proxy evidence is at best a ball park figure for order of magnitude and nothing more. It could be out by many many degress or in the case of CO2 by 100s of ppms.
The bottom line is that we lack quality data such that no one knows whether it is today warmer than it was in the late 1800s or 1930s (I think that probably it is warmer today but the quality of data is such that one cannot be 100 percent certain of that) and we have no real idea as to the temperature profiles going back say the past 5000 years (there is reason to believe that it was warmer in the MWP and RWP but by how much and over what periods no one knows). Ditto the CO2 record. There is a lot of evidence to sugggest that the IPCC’s pre-industrlal figure is wrong. Ice core data cannot really be relied upon since we know insufficient about how CO2 behaves on entrapment and long term in ice.
The only data that stands scientific scrutiny is the satellite data and even that has issues. I cannot see how any scientist could be sufficiently confident in the data to draw any firm conclussions. If realistic error/uncertainty bars were to accompany all data, it would soon be apparent that there is too much uncetainty to draw any firm conclussion. .