Yet another paper demonstrates warmer temperatures 1000 years ago and even 2000 years ago.

Yesterday I highlighted the paper The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability, by B Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University which showed that using a multitude of proxy samples in the norther hemisphere, that:

“The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions.”

Now another paper, by Esper et al published in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change, shows that not only was the summers of the  MWP equal or greater than our current warmth, but that the summers of the Roman Warm Period of 2000 years ago were significantly warmer than today.

Fig. 4. Northern Scandinavian JJA temperatures back to 138 BC. The annually resolved N-Scan record (blue curve) shown together with 100-year filters of the reconstruction (red curve) and uncertainty estimates integrating standard and bootstrap errors (dashed curves). Light and dark grey bars indicate exceptionally warm and cold 30-year periods during the Roman, Migration, Medieval Warm, Little Ice Age, and Modern Warm Periods. Temperatures are expressed as anomalies with respect to the 1951–1980 mean.

Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia

Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank

Abstract

Palaeoclimatic evidence revealed synchronous temperature variations among Northern Hemisphere regions over the past millennium. The range of these variations (in degrees Celsius) is, however, largely unknown. We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland.

The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.

The first century AD was the warmest 100-year period (+0.60 °C on average relative to the 1951–1980 mean) of the Common Era, more than 1 °C warmer than the coldest 14th century AD (−0.51 °C). The warmest and coldest reconstructed 30-year periods (AD 21–50=+1.05 °C, and AD 1451–80=−1.19 °C) differ by more than 2 °C, and the range between the five warmest and coldest reconstructed summers in the context of the past 2000 years is estimated to exceed 5 °C. Comparison of the new timeseries with five existing tree-ring based reconstructions from northern Scandinavia revealed synchronized climate fluctuations but substantially different absolute temperatures. Level offset among the various reconstructions in extremely cold and warm years (up to 3 °C) and cold and warm 30-year periods (up to 1.5 °C) are in the order of the total temperature variance of each individual reconstruction over the past 1500 to 2000 years. These findings demonstrate our poor understanding of the absolute temperature variance in a region where high-resolution proxy coverage is denser than in any other area of the world.

[…]

Discussion and Conclusions

The MXD-based summer temperature reconstruction presented here sets a new standard in high-resolution palaeoclimatology. The record explains about 60% of the variance of regional temperature data, and is based on more high-precision density series than any

other previous reconstruction. Importantly, MXD sample replication prior to the Little Ice Age, during Medieval times and throughout the first millennium AD, is much better than in any other record, and we demonstrated – based on calibration trials using reduced

datasets – that these early sections of the N-Scan record likely still contain useful climate information. This persistent climate signal allowed an estimation of temperature variability throughout the Common Era, revealing warmth during Roman and Medieval times were larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century conditions.

According to this new record, summer temperatures varied by 1.1 °C among the 14th and 1st centuries, the coldest and warmest 100-year periods of the past two millennia. Temperatures ranged by more than 5 °C among the five coldest and warmest summers of the past 2000 years. These estimates are, however, related to the approach used for proxy transfer, i.e. figures would change, if the calibration method, period, and/or target were modified (Frank et al.,2010b). For example, variance among the 30 coldest and warmest N-Scan summers (Table 3) increases from 3.92 °C to 5.79 °C, if scaling (i.e. adjustment of the mean and variance) instead of OLS regression is used for proxy transfer. These differences between scaling- and regression-based approaches are proportional to the unexplained variance of the calibration model (Esper et al., 2005), and we suggest

smoothing the proxy and instrumental timeseries prior to calibration, as this procedure decreases the unexplained variance in all Scandinavian tree-ring records and thus minimizes the differences between various calibration methods (Cook et al., 2004).

Our results, however, also showed that these methodological uncertainties are dwarfed by the variance among the individual reconstructions.

Differences among six northern Scandinavian tree-ring records are>1.5° in 30-year extreme periods and up to 3 °C in single extreme years, a finding we didn’t expect, as the proxy records: (i) all calibrate well against regional instrumental data, (ii) partly share the same measurement series (or use differing parameters – TRW and MXD – from the same trees), and (iii) originate from a confined region in northern Scandinavia that is characterized by a homogeneous temperature pattern. Since we here calibrated all reconstructions using the same method, between-record differences are likely related to varying data treatment and chronology development methods, measurement techniques, and/or sampling strategies, as well as the remaining uncertainty typical to such proxy data. For example, splicing of MXD data on recent TRW trends as done in Briffa92 might have caused this reconstruction to appear at the lower (colder) end of the ensemble, whereas the combination (and adjustment) of novel digital MXD measurements with traditional X-ray based MXD data as done in Grudd08 might have caused this reconstruction to appear at the upper (warmer) end of the ensemble. Other differences are likely related to the combination of sub-fossil material from trees that grew in wet conditions at the lakeshores with material from living trees growing in dryer ‘inland’ sites. Also varying variance stabilization (Frank et al., 2007) and detrending techniques (Esper et al., 2003) in association with temporally changing sample replications and age distributions of the underlying data (Melvin, 2004) likely impacted the variance structure of the long-term records and consequently the absolute levels of reconstructed temperatures.

Between-reconstruction variance as revealed here represents a pending challenge for the integration of proxy records over larger regions and the development of a single timeseries that represents the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Mann et al., 2008), for example. The composition of such records commonly relies on the calibration statistics derived from fitting regional proxy records against instrumental data (D’Arrigo et al., 2006). However, the records analyzed here would all easily pass conventional calibration-based screening procedures. Yet our analysis revealed that choosing one Scandinavian record instead of another one can alter reconstructed temperatures by 1.5-3 °C during Medieval times, for example. On the other hand, consideration of all records presented here would likely promote a less variable climate history, as the combination of diverging records tends to reduce variance in the mean timeseries (Frank et al., 2007). If such a mean is then combined with instrumental data covering the past 100–150 years, this approach might facilitate hockey stick-shaped reconstructions (Frank et al., 2010a). This seems to be a tricky situation in which expert teams including the developers of proxy records might need to be involved to help assessing timeseries beyond the typical ranking based on calibration statistics.

Our results showed that introducing an improved temperature reconstruction does not automatically clarify climate history in a given region. In northern Scandinavia, we now arrive at a situation where a number of high-resolution proxy records – all passing classical calibration and verification tests – are available within a confined region that is characterized by homogeneous temperature patterns. These records, however, differ by several degrees Celsius over the past two millennia, which appears huge if compared with the 20th Century warming signal in Scandinavia or elsewhere. We conclude that the temperature history of the last millennium is much less understood than often suggested, and that the regional and particularly the hemispheric scale pre-1400 temperature variance is largely unknown. Expert teams are needed to assess existing records, and to reduce uncertainties associated with millennium-length temperature reconstructions, before we can usefully constrain future climate scenarios.

Full paper here (PDF -link fixed)

h/t to WUWT reader Gordon Pye and Tory Aardvarrk

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
182 Comments
October 18, 2012 8:31 am

The tone of the paper’s conclusions dovetails with the assertion that we obtain better “absolute” constraints on MWP T from pre-LIA maps that show the Arctic coastline of Eurasia. And yes, AGW would be a good thing if there is such a thing.
Blaming weather catastrophe on Deity has an advantage over blaming CO2 in that it remains possible to reconcile natural cause and effect with divine fiat, while blaming every disaster on CO2 puts the weathermen and their science out of business. –AGF

Don
October 18, 2012 8:34 am

Characterizing the above pro-CAGW commentors as trolls is an insult to the intelligence of respectable trolls like Lazy Teenager and (the late?) R Gates. Zombies more like. I wonder where they got their feeble boilerplate talking points from? Makes me think of the last days of the Third Reich when the Germans were sending to the collapsing front any male who could functionally differentiate between the two ends of a gun. (If they post intelligent replies to Richard’s counters, consider my comment happily retracted; give it a try or concede, zombies!)
Meanwhiile, enjoy the anticipation of the inevitable collapse of the CAGW “House of Pain”, which might look something like this:

john robertson
October 18, 2012 8:38 am

The error bar is +or- 2 degrees C? So tree ring proxies are as accurate as mercury thermometers being eyeballed by individuals of varying height and hence various parallax error? What happened to the glacial lake sediment proxies ? Are none available in Northern Scandinavia?I remain extremely sceptical of the temperature information one can glean from tree rings.

Jim G
October 18, 2012 8:52 am

We have been cooling for the past 65 million years. A little warming would be beneficial. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

Jim G
October 18, 2012 9:23 am

ferd berple says:
October 18, 2012 at 8:00 am
“On that basis I would rather keep the $150,000 in my pocket.
==========
Invested that $150,000 will bring an income of $500+ a month. About what I spend on fossil fuel energy each month. So, if I don’t put up solar panels, my energy is free.”
I just want to know where you can get that good of a return. Las Vegas or Wall Street? But then they are about the same. Never mind.

markx
October 18, 2012 9:26 am

I’m just pleased to see such papers getting published. At least this adds to the topic of AGW getting further scientific discussion instead of just being continually presented as “an ironclad truth”.
I’m still surprised by those coming in here and saying (paraphrased) “Thats all well and good, it may have been warmer then, but it is an inescapable fact that the reason we have warming now is because of anthropogenic release of CO2… And this can be proven by the fact there are more people around now.” ( Zinzi:October 18, 2012 at 7:51 am)
Bit of a lapse in logic right there.

October 18, 2012 9:27 am

TeddySlayerZA says:
October 18, 2012 at 6:22 am
“Entire countries can’t simply migrate their agricultural sectors to higher latitudes at will. ”
==========================================================================
Of course they can and do and did, as during the MWP. But of course the US wheat belt labors under the opposite trend of a decreasing temperature, however minor. If this trend ever reversed, Canadian grain growers would be happy to make up the difference.
Everything you believe is nonsense. –AGF

October 18, 2012 9:48 am

Unfortunate equivocation over:
Summer vs. annual temps;
Regional vs. global temps;
Mid-20th Century temps vs. “today” (60 years & 0.6C or so difference).

October 18, 2012 10:15 am

Zinzi:
In your post at October 18, 2012 at 7:51 am you begins saying

The paper seems well researched and points out some valid points; however the paper appears as though they are against the whole idea that the world’s warming periods have been increasing drasticaly in the 21st century and the scarry part is the after effects of this increase in temperatures in the next decade/century. The increase in these temperatures is partially anthropogenetic and also natural variabilities, but anthropogenetic activities are the main drivers of warming in this 21st century, and that is not a factor that one can be ignorant of.

There has been NO global warming in the 21st century. All the available data sets (HadCRUT, GISS, GHCN, RSS, UAH) show no global warming for the last 16 years.
And you keep talking about “anthropogenetic”. Once could be a misprint, but more than once?
So what does “anthropogenetic” mean?
Richard

October 18, 2012 10:22 am

nominki:
At October 18, 2012 at 7:52 am you assert

Whether we like it or not the symptoms of what seems to be global warming are out there and affecting each and every one of us at different scales, social or economic aspects of life.

Bollocks!
Whether you like it or not, there is no evidence of man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.
And there is much evidence that refutes the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW); e.g.
Trenberth’s “missing heat” is not down the back of my sofa nor anywhere else anybody has looked
Global temperature has not risen over the last 16 years while GHG emissions continue to riseThe ‘hot spot’ is missing.
Accelerated polar cooling is not happening in Antarctica
The “committed warming” has vanished
etc.
Richard

Jeff D.
October 18, 2012 10:23 am

I don’t mind the troll’s showing up here. I am willing to bet that most of the Skeptics that frequent this blog at one time were a believer of CAGW to one degree or another. If Muller can become a believer then a troll can become a Skeptic! Seriously these guys have to start seeing a pattern if they have any common sense at all. But then again it could just be they are somehow on the climate money train and are fearful of the train coming to an assured abrupt stop.

October 18, 2012 11:22 am

There is a lot baloney written about CO2 effect on the temperatures since 1880s. The CO2 concentration is affected by temperature, and temperature to some degree may or may not be affected by CO2.
However there are variables which can affect temperature change, but reverse is not possible. Here is an example:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-SST.htm
Most geologists are familiar with the data marked ‘N. Atlantic precursor’, which here it is shown in integrated form. Not much room left for the anthropogenic.

Matt
October 18, 2012 11:31 am

@richardscourtney
Actually, the Null Hypothesis is a creature of statistics, not science. It comes into play in science only because so much of modern science is dependent on statistical testing.

ConTrari
October 18, 2012 11:33 am

RobW said:
“Who knew chariots produced so much CO2. ;)”
-Chariots of Fire 🙂

H.R.
October 18, 2012 11:57 am

richardscourtney says:
October 18, 2012 at 10:15 am
Replying to Zinzi:
[in part]
“And you keep talking about “anthropogenetic”. Once could be a misprint, but more than once?
So what does “anthropogenetic” mean?”

================================================================
I didn’t check Wikipedia, but I think it’s a mutation of anthropomorphic, neither of which is sustainable at current high levels of carbon ;o)
Ya got me chuckling after those great catches, Richard. Thanks.

October 18, 2012 12:11 pm

Matt:
At October 18, 2012 at 11:31 am you say to me

Actually, the Null Hypothesis is a creature of statistics, not science. It comes into play in science only because so much of modern science is dependent on statistical testing.

That is so wrong it is gobsmacking!
Where did you get such a wrong idea; some anti-science warmist web site such as SkS?
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate sensitivity is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard

atthemurph
October 18, 2012 12:42 pm

In human terms warm seems to mean wealth and extended lifespans and better health. Cold seems to correlate to death, starvation ,disease and the backsliding of culture and knowledge. So maybe warm means good and cold means bad in human terms?

Icarus62
October 18, 2012 12:48 pm

It’s true that in history, warmer summers have generally been embraced as beneficial to agriculture etc., but that is probably a perspective which comes largely from northern temperate climates. The very hot summer combined with drought conditions over much of the US hasn’t been keenly welcomed, especially by farmers. With the current very rapid anthropogenic warming there are bound to be winners as well as losers, and perhaps Northern Europe will enjoy the longer growing season for a while – provided it’s not accompanied by drought. However, given that we’re pumping out greenhouse gases faster than ever, and AGW looks set to continue for many decades at least, the losers are going to greatly outnumber the winners overall. We will of course adapt and cope to some extent but there is inevitably going to be a huge financial and human cost.

October 18, 2012 1:00 pm

Icarus62:
At October 18, 2012 at 12:48 pm you write in total

It’s true that in history, warmer summers have generally been embraced as beneficial to agriculture etc., but that is probably a perspective which comes largely from northern temperate climates. The very hot summer combined with drought conditions over much of the US hasn’t been keenly welcomed, especially by farmers. With the current very rapid anthropogenic warming there are bound to be winners as well as losers, and perhaps Northern Europe will enjoy the longer growing season for a while – provided it’s not accompanied by drought. However, given that we’re pumping out greenhouse gases faster than ever, and AGW looks set to continue for many decades at least, the losers are going to greatly outnumber the winners overall. We will of course adapt and cope to some extent but there is inevitably going to be a huge financial and human cost.

Meanwhile, here on planet Earth global warming stopped 16 years ago. There is NO “current very rapid anthropogenic warming”. In fact there is no global warming and recent very slight cooling.
Of course, this situation of flat-lining global temperature will end. Either warming will resume towards the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or cooling will set in towards the temperatures of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
Hope for warming because it benefits almost everybody but cooling harms everybody. And there is nothing we can do to avoid whichever happens.
Richard

October 18, 2012 1:16 pm

Icarus62 says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:48 pm
“…the losers are going to greatly outnumber the winners overall.”
===========================================================
Or so goes the dogma, but is there any science behind it?
1) Low latitude is more water; high latitude is more land; hence, more agriculture.
2) Hotter means more evaporation and more rain, hence more agriculture.
3) This matters little: CO2 IR measures 1-2 W/m^2; insolation varies 100W/m^2 TOA at temperate latitudes and barely manages to end an ice age. Everything you believe is a fairy tale. –AGF

October 18, 2012 1:53 pm

Richard: We know that anthropogenic global warming is accelerating, as are many of its consequences such as disappearing Arctic sea ice and melting glaciers and ice caps worldwide, validating many decades of predictions by climate scientists. The big question is not so much whether this rapid warming will continue – that’s inevitable barring an immediate and enormous rise in volcanism – but what the impacts are going to be and how we will cope with them. We cannot expect human civilisation to suddenly give up fossil fuel use without massive loss of life, so the big money needs to go on adaption to the growing climate chaos, disaster management, population control and so on.

Jimbo
October 18, 2012 2:21 pm

Prediction for climate changes in the next 30 years are quite accurate and the intensifying of events as storms and drought should encourage not only further studies but also adaptation measures as, even if naturally caused, climate changes are going to affect food production, water availability etc.

[my bold]
REPLY:
Can I take a ride on your time machine?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/27/another-paper-shows-that-severe-weatherextreme-weather-has-no-trend-related-to-global-warming/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-shows-warming-causes.html

geo
October 18, 2012 2:28 pm

I hope Steve at Climate Audit takes a look at this. In the end it is another “treemometer” effort, so I’d like his take on what was done with the data.

Mooloo
October 18, 2012 2:53 pm

TeddySlayerZA says:
Nobody claims that climate change is purely anthropogenic,

Teddy, there are people out there who state that over 100% of the warming is due to AGW! That is they believe that if it were not for CO2, that we would be cooling. So you are wrong. There are people who effectively attribute all recent climate change to “greenhouse” gasses.
In the world of extreme warming phobia, nothing is too stupid to be believed.
If you believe that the world has recently been as warm as it is now – as this paper suggests – you find it hard to believe we are in a crisis. Which is why the most alarmist scientists try desperately to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. They know that it is, easily, the strongest argument against the CO2 theory.

October 18, 2012 2:59 pm

agfosterjr: If the climate is as insensitive to forcings as you suggest then why do ‘skeptics’ like to suggest that a few tenths of a Watt reduction in insolation will plunge us into a new mini ice age?