“In Europe, for example, the average temperature between AD 21 and 80 was warmer than during AD 1971-2000.”
From Northern Arizona University
Regional insights set latest study of climate history apart
As climate studies saturate scientific journals and mainstream media, with opposing viewpoints quickly squaring off in reaction and debate, new findings can easily be lost in the noise.
But in the case of Northern Arizona University Regents’ professor Darrell Kaufman and a study appearing in Nature Geoscience, obscurity is an unlikely fate.
What Kaufman—the lead co-author of “Continental-scale temperature variability during the last two millennia”—and 78 experts from 24 countries have done is to assemble the most comprehensive study to date of temperature change of Earth’s continents over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years.
By looking regionally, the researchers found considerable complexity hidden within a global average.
“We wanted a new and ambitious effort to reconstruct past climate,” Kaufman said of the PAGES 2k network of researchers. “One of the strongest aspects of the consortium study is that it relies on regional expertise.”
Members of the consortium represent eight continental-scale regions. They lent their insights about the best proxy records—such as tree-ring measurements—to use for a particular region, and how to interpret the data based on regional climatology.
While the study does not attempt to attribute temperature changes to natural or human-caused factors, Kaufman said the finding of a long-term global cooling trend that ended late in the 19th century is further evidence that increased greenhouse gasses have had an influence in later years.
“The pre-industrial trend was likely caused by natural factors that continued to operate through the 20th century, making 20th century warming more difficult to explain if not for the likely impact of increased greenhouse gasses,” Kaufman said.
While that sounds like a familiar theme, the study’s findings of regional variations are less well known. Because of extensive participation by scientists working in the Southern Hemisphere, Kaufman said, data from those regions broadened what had been a view previously centered on Europe.
“We know the most about the long-term temperature history in Europe, but we find that not every region conforms with that pattern,” Kaufman said. He noted that temperatures varied by region against the backdrop of the long-term cooling identified by the study.
The regional focus on the past 2,000 years is significant for two reasons, Kaufman said. First, climate change at that scale is more relevant to societies and ecosystems than global averages. And second, “regional scale differences help us to understand how the climate system works, and that information helps to improve the models used to project future climate.”
Kaufman’s own research team added to the strong regional input. His research in Alaska and elsewhere formed part of the dataset.
“The questions that my team hopes to address involve the larger climate system, and our research contributes one piece of the global puzzle,” he said.
Kaufman’s role as lead co-author came about partly from good timing—he was on sabbatical as a visiting scientist at the Bern, Switzerland, headquarters of Past Global Changes (PAGES) organization, as the data were being assembled, so he took the lead in writing the manuscript.
Later, as the paper underwent a substantial reworking to address the scrutiny of peer review, co-author Nick McKay, a post-doctoral researcher at NAU, “did the heavy lifting,” Kaufman said. “He analyzed the data from each of the regions to uncover the most important similarities and differences, which we needed for the synthesis.”
In another of the study’s major contributions, the entire database on which it was based has been tabulated and will be made available publicly for further analysis. Kaufman and his co-authors have posted the data along with frequently asked questions about the study on the PAGES project website.
“My co-authors and I look forward to seeing the data used by others in future analyses because science moves forward with well-informed alternative interpretations,” Kaufman said.
==============================================================
Andrew Revkin has an interview with the author.
I found this part very interesting:
We also found that temperatures in some regions were higher in the past then they were during the late 20th century and that, the longer the individual site record, the more likely it was to show prior warm intervals, which is consistent with the long-term cooling trend. In Europe, for example, the average temperature between AD 21 and 80 was warmer than during AD 1971-2000. But temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions at multi-decadal to centennial scales. For example, the transition to colder regional climates between AD 1200 and 1500 is evident earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere.
More here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/study-charts-2000-years-of-continental-climate-changes/
To fredd:
You’re not looking at the bigger picture. Yes, there may have been a global
cooling trend, but the point is that it was warmer, possibly by 1-2 deg. C., in
the past, with NO APPARENT ILL EFFECTS. That is, there was no catastrophic
“tipping point” passed when heating caused a massive release of methane
from the Arctic, carbon dioxide from the oceans, etc. A number of climate
scientists, James Hansen prominent among them, have argued that such
a “tipping point” is near. These proxies illustrate that that fear, at least, is
overblown.
Chris R.
Correct! there have been cool periods in the past.
Chris R. says:
You’re not looking at the bigger picture. Yes, there may have been a global
cooling trend, but the point is that it was warmer, possibly by 1-2 deg. C., in
the past, with NO APPARENT ILL EFFECTS. That is, there was no catastrophic
“tipping point” passed when heating caused a massive release of methane
from the Arctic, carbon dioxide from the oceans, etc. A number of climate
scientists, James Hansen prominent among them, have argued that such
a “tipping point” is near. These proxies illustrate that that fear, at least, is
overblown.
No, I was trying to look at the bigger picture and distinguish local or regional from hemispheric or global. The latter being what many scientists are worried about, but the former being what many posts above mention.
As for tipping points, methane etc., isn’t that a concern about what could happen if warming (or CO2) goes to higher levels than today? So noting that 1400 years ago it was as warm as 1970-2000, without a big methane release, is arguing against a point I don’t think Hansen has made.
Where is your 1-2 deg C warmer estimate from? I didn’t see that in any of the recent global or hemispheric reconstructions. Longer ago there were much warmer times, of course, and some of those apparently did have methane release, even extinction events.
Is a tipping point between a cold period and a warm period?
Quite apart from its merits, an alternative media reporting of the Kaufman et al. findings could be: “Likely human activity arrests Earth’s drifting into next Ice Age”
But only bad news sells.
But he doesn’t. You confuse ‘factors’ with ‘variability’.
Kaufman is talking about natural drivers, not weather. In this case, I believe he is referring to orbital mechanics (and possibly related slow feedbacks). Milankovitch cycles have been in a cooling phase for the last 10,000 years, with at least another 20,000 years of this phase to go.
The NOAA NODC Solanki report on solar activity is very interesting and the abstract states Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades. but doesn’t say what evidence they use to come to this conclusion. The simple fact of the correlation with known global temperatures was enough. They didn’t need to assuage themselves from the climate mafia..or did they? Is this what peer review means? You have to correct for ideological errors?
h/t to Eric Worrall
WUWT’s Paleoclimate sub-page is at http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/paleoclimate/ . In it, the graph by Ljungqvist et al. shows a warming since about 1675, as do the next six graphs or so. These are presumably what dgfl had in mind.
I think there is at least one chart that shows a lower temperature in the late 19th century than in 1675, but the difference is small, and it wouldn’t be really accurate to say, based on it, that the period between 1675 and it was a continuation of a cooling trend of prior centuries. Rather, those 200-odd years were essentially flat, so dgfl was correct to say that the industrial period didn’t interrupt and reverse a long-term cooling trend. The interruption occurred earlier.
He would say that, wouldn’t he?
WUWT’s charts should add the word “Global” to their captions, since that is what the absence of a regional identifier seems to imply, based on its presence in regional graphs.
I cited dfcl’s 4:00 AM quote, below–it didn’t contain a mention of a glacier. He wasn’t relying on measurement of a glacier for his estimate of the date of the end of the LIA, as you imply.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/more-on-the-recent-pages2k-paper/#comment-1284737
That glacier-mention was in his next quote:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/more-on-the-recent-pages2k-paper/#comment-1284876
“This study owes more to agriculture than science – picking cherries.” [Peter Azlac 4/23/13, 0812]
Yes, as Darrell Kaufman makes quite clear: “… the paper underwent a substantial reworking to address the scrutiny of peer review, co-author Nick McKay, a post-doctoral researcher at NAU, ‘did the heavy lifting,’ Kaufman said. ‘He ANALYZED THE DATA from each of the regions TO UNCOVER the MOST IMPORTANT similarities and differences, WHICH WE NEEDED for the synthesis [a.k.a. distortion of the already highly dubious data, jm].'”
[Emphasis mine]
*******************************************************************************
Re: Cult of Climatology members attempting to refute the WUWT scientists above:
Most of them are obviously (by their blatant disregard for engaging in genuine debate) posting here only for damage control to keep any of their cult members who might be reading from defecting. THIS IS A GOOD THING! It indicates that this site is read widely enough by the Cult that it just may do what its leaders fear most: prove that the Cult of Climatology is WRONG.
Hurrah! Having enemies of the desperately-earnest-yet-hopelessly-specious ilk that some of the above pro-AGW posters are is always a good sign. Their minds sense how dangerously close they are to having to acknowledge that their beliefs are wrong. Their desperate tone shows that they are feeling threatened. (Remember how angry Gregory Peck gets in “Snowbound” whenever psychiatrist Ingrid Bergman gets close to the truth — the movie’s script was based on classic psychiatrist’s data from observation of many clients)
And, no, I did not mean you, R. Eschhaus (not yet, anyway!) and, likely some others whose names I have not memorized.
[DISCLAIMER: I am a non-scientist. Many of the other posters may consider my post to be a “wacky” post. The quality of this post is not representative.]
Well, I tried. They’ll likely just quote something wacky I said out of context… DO LET ME KNOW, you wonderful WUWT science people, if my posts are doing more harm than good. I don’t want to do anything to hamper the battle for truth being fought so brilliantly here.
Roger Knights says:
WUWT’s Paleoclimate sub-page is at http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/paleoclimate/ …
WUWT’s charts should add the word “Global” to their captions, since that is what the absence of a regional identifier seems to imply, based on its presence in regional graphs.
I agree, captions should be clear about geography, also end dates and most importantly, link to the original scientific source (and original graphics). Few of those graphs are based on global reconstructions — most are one-site ice cores, some northern hemisphere, central England (in one case mis-labeled as global) etc. Also, few reach the late 20th century. Many end in mid-19th, leaving a visual impression they compare modern temperatures with ancient.
The reconstructions compared in PAGES 2k (Moberg, Ljungqvist, Hegerl, and Mann 2008) are all northern hemisphere. Marcott data cover continents except Africa, and compare they compare their results with Mann 2008 global.
@fredd:
I suggest that you post that comment at WUWT’s Reference Pages –> Global Temperature–Climatic –> Paleoclimate Pages. Maybe some corrections and/or elucidations will result.
Roger Knights says:
I suggest that you post that comment at WUWT’s Reference Pages –> Global Temperature–Climatic –> Paleoclimate Pages. Maybe some corrections and/or elucidations will result.
I saw where corrections have been done with a few, keep the bad graph but add a note about an error. Others are not corrected, though, and the sourcing, dates and geography are unclear for many.
Instead of adding notes, a cleaner solution would be to present only good graphs, direct and unedited along with captions from the original research articles (linked).
Or keep some bad ones only if they have a particularly interesting story of how they got to be that way.