Mann's 'hockey stick' claims of the MWP and LIA being local were refuted years before it was published

IPCC TAR WG1 (2001) summary, “Figure 5: Millennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction (blue – tree rings, corals, ice cores, and historical records) and instrumental data (red) from AD 1000 to 1999. Smoother version of NH series (black), and two standard error limits (gray shaded) are shown. [Based on Figure 2.20]”. Adapted from the MBH99 graph which Jerry Mahlman nicknamed the “hockey stick”. Image: Wikipedia
Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone reports:

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt found a Japanese tree-ring temperature reconstruction from 1995, one that should have been heeded by the IPCC and Michael Mann before they took the world on a 10-year joyride in the stolen car of “climate science”.

Here’s the Google translation of their article, with some fixes of my own to help it along written in [brackets]. I don’t vouch for total accuracy in the translation, but it is the best I can do.

UPDATE: 2:45PM PST Pierre Gosselin has graciously agreed to allow his translation to be posted here, so I’m eliminating the Google translate version – Anthony

Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as a local, North Atlantic phenomenon: Since when is Japan located in the North Atlantic?

By Sebastian Lüning & Fritz Vahrenholt

(Translated and reposted here at WUWT with permission, copyright English text NoTricksZone)

Leading representatives of the IPCC tried for years to have policymakers and citizens believe the pre-industrial temperature history was more or less uneventful and was the ideal climate ondition that we should all strive to maintain. The warming of the 20th century, on the other hand, was completely unusual, something dangerous. However, as we now know, the page turned a few years ago and the notorious Hockey Stick chapter ended. The flawed curve was taken off the market and the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age reappeared. 

As is often the case in history, it is in retrospect difficult to comprehend how this historical joyride could have happened to begin with. It started at the end of the 1990s with a doctoral thesis by Michael Mann, and did not end until about 10 years later – thanks to the discovery of the scientific scandal by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (see the book The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford). Today it is difficult to fathom how the main players and proponents of the Hockey Sticks are still able to act as experts and public opinion shapers.

One of the main excuses used back then was that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Europe and North America were local phenomena. At other locations on the planet the temperature anomalies were more than evened out (e.g. Stefan Rahmstorf, Gerald Haug). For years we had to listen to their tales and we had to trust these “specialists” for better or for worse. Moreover, we paid them with our tax money so that they could deal exclusively with the climate and carry out the tedious work all this entails.

However, anyone who knew a little something about the scientific literature soon began to wonder. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as a local North Atlantic phenomenon? A nutty claim. Naturally these characteristic temperature fluctuations had been described for other parts of the world. Here we report on a case study from Japan which had appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters already in 1995, in other words, in the years before the Hockey Stick episode.

In the early 1990s, Japanese scientists Hiroyuki Kitagawa and Eiji Matsumoto extracted eleven tree ring cores from cedars on the South Pacific southern Japanese island of Yakushima. The cores contained tree-rings going back some 2000 years. The researchers determined the carbon 13 isotope values and found the delta-13-C values fluctuated in a characteristic manner (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Temperature reconstruction for the island of Yakushima in southern Japan on the basis of carbon-13 isotopes. Note: Temperature axis is mirrored: cold temperatures upwards, with warm temperatures down. Figure supplemented by Kitagawa & Matsumoto (1995) .

What did these fluctuations mean? Carbon-13 amount is influenced by a number of factors, among them temperature. The Japanese scientists calibrated the isotope development on trees of different elevations (and thereby temperature level) above sea level. Using this method they were able to come up with a formula that could be used for computing the temperature value using the isotope change. The results showed that temperatures over the previous 2000 years in South Japan fluctuated over a range of 5°C. The course of the temperature fluctuations takes on a shape that is very well known to us (see Figure 2). A clear millennium cycle is depicted. The cold period of the Migration Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Modern Warm Period are clearly recognisable. Moreover, this climate development is well documented in Japanese historical records.

Therefore, it is incomprehensible that with the clear Japanese data from the year 1995, the talk of a “local North Atlantic phenomenon” would go on for years after the data’s publication.

Figure 2: The same curve as in Figure 1, but mirrored (up hot, cold at bottom) and marked with the historically known warm and cold periods.

The two Japanese scientists even took it a step further. They carried out a detailed frequency analysis of their data and found characteristic cycles with periods in the range of several decades and centuries. Among others, they discovered a period of 187 years, which coincides with the known Suess/de Vries solar activity cycle. In a similar manner the 70 and 89-year Gleissberg-cycle was identified. In their results the authors saw a clear sign that the climate of the last 2000 years in southern Japan was predominantly influenced by solar activity fluctuations. The IPCC appears not to have been at all interested in the study. Indeed it did not fit with their climate catastrophe picture.

==========================================================

NOTE: Commenter Peter Gulutzam made this observation in comments. The original Google translation correctly noted “…the southern Japanese island of Yakushima…” but Gosselin’s version incorrectly identifies it as a South Pacific Island. I’ve made the correction and notified Mr. Gosselin – Anthony


Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SilverBear
June 18, 2012 7:32 pm

Just an update on the wikipedia entry folks have mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
As a junior wikipedia editor I looked into this, and found it had already been changed by another editor. Most wikipedia articles of any length are the work of more than one or two people, and at some point one person put in the “lack of global warming” nonsense. The paragraph in question now reads:
“A number of contemporary historical references worldwide refer to an extended period of extreme weather during 535–536. Evidence of this cold period is also found in dendrochronology and ice cores. The consequences of this cold period are debated.”
The original, as of 2012-06-07 read:
“A number of contemporary historical references worldwide refer to an extended period of [[Extreme weather events of 535-536|extreme weather during 535–536]]. Evidence of this cold period is also found in [[dendrochronology]] and ice cores. The causes and consequences of this cold period are debated.”
on the 17th of June, another editor changed it to:
“A number of contemporary historical references worldwide refer to an extended period of [[Extreme weather events of 535-536|extreme weather during 535–536]]. Evidence of this cold period is also found in [[dendrochronology]] and ice cores. The cause of this cold period are debated, but are generally attributed to the lack of global warming.”
With absolutely no attribution to the claim, it didn’t last long and was modified twice over the next 24 hours until it –as of now– reads as a more reasonable statement.

June 18, 2012 7:46 pm

Junior Wikipedia editor Silver Bear says:
“The cause of this cold period are (sic) debated, but are generally attributed to the lack of global warming.”
Well, isn’t that a news flash. It’s colder because it isn’t warmer!
No wonder Wikipedia has zero credibility on anything remotely related to weather, climate or temperatures.

SilverBear
June 19, 2012 9:52 am

Well, Smokey, I don’t unequivocally support everything that appears on Wikipedia pages, in _any_ controversial area. The entries _always_ reflect the intellectual biases of the editors, despite editorial policy to present unbiased information. The editorial guidelines state that every key point in any article is supposed to have a published reference link to support it.
In this case, there was no reference given to support the added “global warming” statement. So that nonsense _did_ get tossed out fairly quickly –before I even had a chance to get to it.
Just as a personal observation: what irritates me at times is that some people’s judgment about what is and isn’t “controversial” is VERY different from mine. None of us is free from our upbringing and milieu. As we climate “skeptics” are well aware, there are many people whose social milieu disposes them to believe that “Science” is what “Scientists” do, not that it’s a rational process of investigation and analysis! Just as those of us without Holy Orders cannot perform Transubstantiation, those of us who are not Climate Scientists with government funding cannot “do Climate Science!”
To them, that’s self-evident, uncontroversial and unbiased
Sigh. . .

SilverBear
June 19, 2012 9:56 am

Ummm, let me amend that sentence to:
“Just as those of us without Holy Orders cannot perform Transubstantiation, those of us who are not Climate Scientists with government funding cannot “do Climate Science,” and are wrong/evil to question anything the Hierarchy says!”

June 19, 2012 3:48 pm

SilverBear… gosh I seem to remember seeing when you first came to Wikipedia… faint memory bells ringing. The problem with WP attributions is that they give more credit to a sensationalist and uncomprehending newspaper account than to the original researcher’s work direct. It’s a serious systemic fault of NOR which works well for most of WP but creates cr*p in controversial areas.