100-Year Russian Arctic Temperature Reconstruction Shows 1930s Just As Warm As Today!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
128Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
75Email this to someone
email

Russian Arctic in 1920-1940 was warmer than today

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

The topic today is the temperature trend in the Arctic. Of special interest are the hard facts. At Climate4You we find the satellite measured temperature development (UAH) of the Arctic:

 Figure 1: Temperature chart of the Arctic over the past 40 years (satellite measurement). Data: UAH. Chart: Climate4You

Arctic temperatures today “similar” to 1980

We do see a warming over the past 4 decades. Since the El Nino-induced peak of 2016, the temperature has fallen gradually. The coldest temperatures were recorded at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s.

At around 1980 similar temperatures as those of today were measured. Unfortunately there is no satellite data for the time before 1979, and so not even a full 60-year ocean cycle is covered, and thus this makes it really difficult to assign warming to man or to natural causes over the recent decades.

Russian Arctic just as warm in the 1930s as today!

But of course there were weather stations before 1979, and these showed a warming phase in the Arctic already in the 1930s and 1940s, a time when it was just as warm as it is today. Example: Opel et al. 2009 reconstructed the temperature history in the Russian Arctic for the last 100 years using ice cores. The warm maximum occurred in the 1930s and not today:

115 year ice-core data from Akademii Nauk ice cap, Severnaya Zemlya: high-resolution record of Eurasian Arctic climate change
From 1999 to 2001 a 724 m deep ice core was drilled on Akademii Nauk ice cap, Severnaya Zemlya, to gain high-resolution proxy data from the central Russian Arctic. Despite strong summertime meltwater percolation, this ice core provides valuable information on the regional climate and environmental history. We present data of stable water isotopes, melt-layer content and major ions from the uppermost 57 m of this core, covering the period 1883–1998. Dating was achieved by counting seasonal isotopic cycles and using reference horizons. Multi-annual δ18O values reflect Eurasian sub-Arctic and Arctic surface air-temperature variations. We found strong correlations to instrumental temperature data from some stations (e.g. r = 0.62 for Vardø, northern Norway). The δ18O values show pronounced 20th-century temperature changes, with a strong rise about 1920 and the absolute temperature maximum in the 1930s. A recent decrease in the deuterium-excess time series indicates an increasing role of the Kara Sea as a regional moisture source. From the multi-annual ion variations we deduced decreasing sea-salt aerosol trends in the 20th century, as reflected by sodium and chloride, whereas sulphate and nitrate are strongly affected by anthropogenic pollution.”

Figure 2: Temperature chart Severnaya Zemlya (Russian Arctic) over the past 130 years. Upper peaks = warm. Source: Opel et al. 2009

A part of the warming by the way, has to do with measures that keep the air clean in Europe. The anthropogenic sulfate particle kept the Arctic cool for many years, so reports that University of Stockholm (via Science Daily). Should we get back to being dirty for reasons of climate change?

European clean air policies unmask Arctic warming by greenhouse gases

[…] The drastic cut in sulfate particle emissions in Europe partly explains the amplified Arctic warming since the 1980s, shows a new study published in Nature Geoscience. The team, which consists of scientists from Stockholm University and the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, say that their surprising finding highlights an even more urgent need for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate Arctic climate change. Human activities, such as industrial production, transport, power generation, and wood burning emit large amounts of tiny pollutant particles containing, for example, soot and sulfate, into the atmosphere. High airborne amounts of these particles, also known as aerosol particles, cause about 400,000 premature deaths every year in Europe and can be transported over long distances. Aerosol particles have different sizes, as well as chemical and physical properties, all of which determine their climate effects.

“Soot particles absorb solar radiation and warm the climate, in a similar way as greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, do. Sulfate particles, on the other hand, reflect solar radiation and act as seeds for cloud droplet formation, cooling the climate as a result,” says Juan Acosta Navarro, PhD student at the Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry (ACES) and the Bolin Center for Climate Research, Stockholm University, and co-author of the study. He continues: “The overall effect of aerosol particles of human origin on climate has been a cooling one during the last century, which has partially masked the warming caused by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.” […]

J. C. Acosta Navarro, V. Varma, I. Riipinen, Ø. Seland, A. Kirkevåg, H. Struthers, T. Iversen, H.-C. Hansson, A. M. L. Ekman. Amplification of Arctic warming by past air pollution reductions in Europe. Nature Geoscience, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2673

But also later alterations to the measurement data make the Arctic look warmer today than it actually is (see here and here). A nice summary of climate change in the Arctic can be found at Judith Curry’s site.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
128Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
75Email this to someone
email

33 responses to “100-Year Russian Arctic Temperature Reconstruction Shows 1930s Just As Warm As Today!”

  1. SebastianH

    Hmm, why no Kowatsch Germany is getting colder posts anymore? Well at least those Kalte Sonne guys keep up the act so you can repeat whatever they say here 😉

    P.S.: Any change that the cookie issue will be fixed? The comment form still doesn’t remember the name and email address.

    1. sunsettommy

      Your comment didn’t address the science of this post.

      You came empty handed, you leave emptyhanded.

      There is a clear cycle.

      1. SebastianH

        Good one sunsettommy. Did your reply address the science in my comment? Is Germany getting colder? Did it at least address the content of my comment? Nope. Clear cycle …

        1. AndyG55

          You are EMPTY as usual seb.

          You use a mindless distraction to try to pull the comments away from the actual topic because you KNOW you cannot argue the topic.

          It is CHILDISH and IDIOTIC

          Topic is that new Russian data AGAIN shows that the 1930s, 40s was as warm or warmer than current

        2. Bitter&twisted

          DNFTT

  2. Ice Age 2050 The ClimateGuy

    Great find.

  3. Ed Caryl

    Seb and his ilk are not just confirmation biased, they are confirmation blind.

  4. Norway Dating Fosnavag

    […] 100-Year Russian Arctic Temperature Reconstruction Shows 1930s Just As Warm As Today! – Dating was achieved by counting seasonal isotopic cycles and. […]

  5. tom0mason

    Yep, temperature variations in the Arctic just like in Greenland are appear to be just natural. The ‘fingerprint’ of CO2 mediated ‘global warming’ is missing in the Arctic (and just about everywhere else you care to look too).

  6. tom0mason

    Interesting that the 1930s was the recent temperature spike evident in the Arctic, for that was when, Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch identified recurring changes in Earth’s orbital pattern. These Milankovitch Cycles can influence the amount of sunlight the planet receives, which in turn can influence climate.

    Also of note is the lunar cycle affect on the Arctic Ocean.
    This ocean is a substantial energy sink for the northern hemisphere. Fluctuations in its energy will have a major influence on the Arctic climate. Researchers over the years have found an 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle in the Arctic energy variations, with harmonics in the energy spectrum that have complex relationships. A sub-harmonic cycle of about 74 years may introduce a phase reversal of the 18.6-year cycles, during which there appears to be stationary periods in Arctic activity.

    What is just as evident is that atmospheric CO2 levels have no identifiable ‘fingerprint’ on Arctic ice levels. 😉

    1. SebastianH

      You claim the current multidecade ice decrease is part of a cycle? Nothing to do with global warming?

      1. AndyG55

        Yes its part of a cycle !!

        That cycle was evidence even during the anomalous cold of the LIA.

        Its called the AMO

        Arctic sea ice is STILL in the top 10% of Holocene

        There is NO PROVABLE warming from human CO2

        PERIOD. !!

      2. Newminster

        You have irrefutable empirical evidence that it isn’t?

        If so we would like you to share it. If not we would like you to …

      3. Bitter&twisted

        DNFTT

      4. tom0mason

        “You claim the current multidecade ice decrease is part of a cycle? “

        Which part of the first introductory line didn’t you get? (“Also of note is the lunar cycle affect on the Arctic Ocean.”)
        What a stupid, crazy interpretation of what was written. What’s wrong with you, cognitive failure or what? Of course I don’t, all I’ve said is that research indicates that Arctic ice variation is affected (in a complex way) by lunar cycles. It is also affected by oceanic (which is, seb, affected by the moon) and solar cycle variations, as well as local weather patterns.
        So as usual you’ve misunderstood the situation but that is all I should have expected.
        Some people only believe in a powerful yet flawed theoretical (aka a guess) answer, where only one climate parameter (atmospheric CO2 level) governs all climate variations. The problem is that this supposition, and its supporting models, have never been scientifically verified with observations. What a dumb idea to believe in, wouldn’t you agree seb?

        As you should have realize by now, the Arctic ice is remarkably resilient to predictions of its obliteration over the last few decades, as modeled outcome after modeled outcome failed predicted its disappearance. All this failure from the soothsayers of modeled predication/projection, all based on the mythical CO2 warming supposition.
        Warms my heart just thinking about it. 😉

        As shown here the amount of the Arctic region’s ice have more than one dependency here’s 2 real ones the Ocean And Solar Cycles.
        Add to that this recent paper on weather patterns HERE where the authors propose that a substantial amount of the recently observed summer decline in Arctic region’s ice has been driven by natural variation in air circulation.

        “The Arctic has seen rapid sea-ice decline in the past three decades, whilst warming at about twice the global average rate. Yet the relationship between Arctic warming and sea-ice loss is not well understood. Here, we present evidence that trends in summertime atmospheric circulation may have contributed as much as 60% to the September sea-ice extent decline since 1979. A tendency towards a stronger anticyclonic circulation over Greenland and the Arctic Ocean with a barotropic structure in the troposphere increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by warming and moistening the lower troposphere. Model experiments, with reanalysis data constraining atmospheric circulation, replicate the observed thermodynamic response and indicate that the near-surface changes are dominated by circulation changes rather than feedbacks from the changing sea-ice cover. Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979.”

        [my bold]
        Though I do not wholly subscribe to such modeled machinations with reference to ‘downwelling longwave radiation’ BS, however their outcome may yet prove to be a little nearer to the truth.
        Also of note is solar cycles as seen HERE, The lunar cycle variation just another factor when looking at ocean and solar cyclic variations and their effects on the Arctic.
        I know this is difficult for you seb but all these cycles are in operation to vary many climate conditions, they are interlinked in complex ways. As well as during any year, or group of years, the prevailing weather (wind, SSW, etc.) condition can drastically affect the amount of ice measured. So is it really illogical that lunar effects would affect the Arctic? That must surely be what you think, seb, no?

        I do note that as the CO2 levels climb, Arctic ice variation show no correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels (also the same happens in the Antarctic).

        Of course you always appear to try and make the case that indications of some mysterious CO2 warming (for which there is no observation) is some how correlated to the variation in Arctic ice. Many anti-science folk try that but without proof of CO2 mediated warming they, like you, have nothing scientific to offer. 😉 And without verifiable observations of unusual warming, all that that’s evident is the planet is warming up from the last LIA quite unremarkably, quite naturally, and the Arctic ice variation (its gradual reduction) is also quite natural, quite unremarkable.

        1. SebastianH

          What a stupid, crazy interpretation of what was written.

          I didn’t interpret anything, I asked you a question to clarify what your point was.

          So as usual you’ve misunderstood the situation but that is all I should have expected.

          Nope, the misunderstanding is entirely on your side. You seem to be easily triggered and have a wild fantasy of what others might think.

          Like:

          Some people only believe in a powerful yet flawed theoretical (aka a guess) answer, where only one climate parameter (atmospheric CO2 level) governs all climate variations.

          Nobody is saying that. I don’t know why anyone could get the impression that climate science says CO2 is the only parameter. Again, your fantasy gone wild …

          As you should have realize by now, the Arctic ice is remarkably resilient to predictions of its obliteration over the last few decades

          I still don’t get why you like to argue against extreme scenario model result and paint this as what climate science is predicting. Should I list you some skeptics who thought we would be in a new ice age today? There are enough fringe skeptics whos claims have been “obliterated” and yet you still believe in their side of the argument … why?

          The Arctic ice is decreasing, sea ice extent today is the second lowest in recorded history:
          http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

          So is it really illogical that lunar effects would affect the Arctic? That must surely be what you think, seb, no?

          So it’s cycles after all? Everywhere cycles, downwelling LW radiation bad, etc … anything so that CO2 forcing can be painted unreal 😉

          I do note that as the CO2 levels climb, Arctic ice variation show no correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels (also the same happens in the Antarctic).

          You just quoted a paper about circulation patterns. Showing that the energy that causes the warming does come from elsewhere … latitudes at which the CO2 effect is far higher than at the poles.

          I also don’t understand how it always has to be a direct (preferably linear) correlation in the skeptic belief system or else there is no connection. Not even a hint of trying to understand the mechanisms …

          And without verifiable observations of unusual warming, all that that’s evident is the planet is warming up from the last LIA quite unremarkably, quite naturally, and the Arctic ice variation (its gradual reduction) is also quite natural, quite unremarkable.

          I see … the good old “it was warm, etc before” skeptic argument.

          Nevermind. You are stuck in your belief system and don’t accept anything that could challenge it. It’s ok, but this makes you a member of the d-group.

          Have a nice day.

          1. tom0mason

            I understand seb,

            It’s easy to waste a blogger’s or commenter’s time.

            seb tactics:

            1. Post comments, where most of the sentences are written in condescending smug bombastic terms, often copying/paraphasing arguments from htŧp://www·skepticalscience·com, mainly because he has niether the wit, nor logic to invent his own arguments pertainent to the blog topic.

            2. Goes way off topic at the eariest post, or any other time he realizes he’s losing the argument again (see most of his repeatedly debunked claims and assertions with Kenneth).

            3. Often posts ridiculaous illogical, and incoherent analogies that are far from the blog topic, seb then pontificates about logic, when he’s just being distracting and irrelavent.

            4. Demands everyone justify minor points of their comments repeatedly but will never do the same for others. His comments reveal that seb never actually fully understands what he criticises, or just doesn’t fully read people comments.

            5. Invents strawmen. eg “So you believe XXX as this is evidence of whatever.” when it is patently not the case.

            6. React with faux indignation at non-points, i.e. defending his insults.

            7. Posts links to papers he doesn’t properly understand and can’t explain or discuss. But then claims unscientifically, that they must be correct, as they are peer reviewed, and from an expert. This then guarantees no real scientific dialogue is possible.

            8. Repeat steps 1 – 8 ad nauseum.

          2. AndyG55

            Well, that was a particularly EMPTY zero-science rant from little seb.

            The best the poor mindless one could come up with in the whole yapping triade was a tiny period of Arctic sea ice recovery from the largest extent since the LI, ignor=ing the fact that Arctic sea ice extent is still WAY above most of the last 10,000 years.

            Still ABSOLUTLEY ZERO EMPIRICAL PROOF that human atmospheric CO2 cause warming of anything, anywhere, anytime.

            Its a weird sort of science that relies totally on ZERO EVIDENCE.

            One might even call it a RELIGION, a CULT..

            A FAILING one that can no longer stand on it fallacies and has to try to enlist the help of another failing religion.

            They will bring each other down into the murky depths of despite, where they will be happy together.

          3. AndyG55

            ” latitudes at which the CO2 effect is far higher “

            Which latitudes would they be, seb

            Back up your answer with empirical scientific proof of that CO2 warming effect..

            .. OR

            .. stop making idiotic anti-science statements.

            Except we all know the latter is ALL you are capable of.

          4. SebastianH

            It’s easy to waste a blogger’s or commenter’s time.

            It is … just look in the mirror.

            to invent his own arguments pertainent to the blog topic.

            Oh, is that what you are doing? Invent arguments?

            Goes way off topic at the eariest post

            Umm, if replying that your (or Kenneth’s) interpretations are wrong is going off topic … sure. I perceive it the other way around, Kenneth often just shoveling his quotes at his opponents in a desperate attempt to bury whatever was written.

            Often posts ridiculaous illogical, and incoherent analogies that are far from the blog topic

            The point of an analogy is that it uses a different set of variables. It’s pretty telling that you find this to be illogical and incoherent and not on topic 😉

            Demands everyone justify minor points of their comments repeatedly but will never do the same for others. His comments reveal that seb never actually fully understands what he criticises, or just doesn’t fully read people comments.

            That is pretty much always the case when Kenneth replies. He is pretty picky about words, but when someone does the same thing to him, he tries to get on the “you are dishonest” path. AndyG55 on the other hand regularly misreads what was written, but I guess that is on purpose in an effort to get a reaction. The way of the troll …

            Invents strawmen. eg “So you believe XXX as this is evidence of whatever.” when it is patently not the case.

            Also a hallmark pseudoskeptic move. I’ll try to phrase it in a way that makes sure that I am seeking clarification in the future. I am not an English native speaker and that can be a problem.

            Posts links to papers he doesn’t properly understand and can’t explain or discuss. But then claims unscientifically, that they must be correct, as they are peer reviewed, and from an expert. This then guarantees no real scientific dialogue is possible.

            Exactly what Kenneth does.

            I don’t know what is going on with you tomOmason. You seem to think that you are a know-it-all sitting on a pretty high horse. You try to characterize me, but the result is a near perfect description of the skeptic way to comment. And you seem to be totally unaware that you are projecting this on me. Because … well, I am the “enemy”.

            P.S.: I take it that I got something right with my reply? Since you didn’t directly reply to it, but instead posted this list?

          5. SebastianH

            ” latitudes at which the CO2 effect is far higher “

            Which latitudes would they be, seb

            Not common knowledge?

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749 Figure 4. Something like that.

            Well, that was a particularly EMPTY zero-science rant from little seb.

            If you find my replies so empty of science, why do you keep replying with zero science yourself? Don’t you see what you are doing here? It’s like complaing about insults … with more insults (yeah, “incoherent” analogy!)

          6. AndyG55

            “Not common knowledge?”

            and seb produces ZERO scientific evidence to back up warming, just a paper with an unsupported comment.

            Lower altitudes warm because of the sun. you have ZERO EVIDENCE of any CO2 warming effect.

            I repeat.

            Which latitudes would they be, seb?

            ” Back up your answer with empirical scientific PROOF of that CO2 warming effect..

            .. OR

            .. stop making idiotic anti-science statements.”

            Why do you always choose the latter

            Could it be you have ZERO CLUE what empirical scientific proof is.. or that you KNOW you don’t have any ??

            Stop making idiotic anti-science statements that YOU CANNOT SUPPORT with science.

          7. SebastianH

            Why do you ignore everything scientific and then demand “empirical scientific proof”? Makes no sense …

            Lower altitudes warm because of the sun. you have ZERO EVIDENCE of any CO2 warming effect.

            I repeat.

            Which latitudes would they be, seb?

            Are you confusing latitudes with altitudes?

          8. AndyG55

            Yep, lower LATITUDES. ! (see I admit my errors, something you seem incapable of)

            Good to see you ADMITTING you don’t have any empirical scientific proof.

            You have not present any relevant science

            Point out where the paper you cite has any empirical proof of CO2 warming anything.

            Or just remain EMPTY.

            Mainly its a paper trying to give excuses why the Antarctic HAS NOT WARMED.

          9. tom0mason

            “P.S.: I take it that I got something right with my reply? Since you didn’t directly reply to it, but instead posted this list?”

            In your dream world you probably really believe that. Unfortunately in the real world you’re very ver far off! 🙂

            The list is for others. It must be right on target as your witless reply shows 🙂

            “So it’s cycles after all? Everywhere cycles, downwelling LW radiation bad, etc … anything so that CO2 forcing can be painted unreal”
            Yep, you got it! The whole universe is all cycles, well done you understand something 🙂
            The sun powers and natural cycles are what dominate the regulation of the climate of this planet. CO2 is a bit part player, and it too is governed by these cycles.

            When your team have verified observed quantified evidence for CO2 warming in the atmosphere, and verified observed quantified evidence for LW backradiation you may, just may, have something to offer.
            However you are empty, your version of science is empty.
            All your team has is a theory and that is rapidly deflating.

            Observations and measurements are all that matters, not unverified theory and models.
            Nations are wasting €$£billion on the supposition that has no truth in observed science. And that is your problem — trying to convince others that the UN-IPCC’s presumptions have merit and that people should waste more money on it. With me and many other here you fail but understandably for you, that hasn’t stopped your anti-science rants.

            Have a good day 🙂

  7. tom0mason

    Pierre,

    I note that the figure 1 from the Climate4You site has a caption on it (and may provide important information for some), basically it is a plot of UAH data up to 4 June 2018. The Climate4You caption for this plot reads —

    Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 for the North Pole and South Pole regions, based on satellite observations (University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA). This graph uses data obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) TIROS-N satellite, interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, both at Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. Thick lines are the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Click here to read about data smoothing. Click here to download the entire series of UAH MSU global monthly lower troposphere temperatures since December 1978. Reference period 1981-2010. Last month shown: May 2018. Last diagram update: 4 June 2018.

    [my bold]
    And may have been worth leaving on the graphic.

  8. BoyfromTottenham

    “Warm the climate”??? How scientific is that? /sarc

  9. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

    Just a reminder.

    Note that Figure 1., at the top of the post, is NOT “temperature” as it claims to be in the legend below the figure, but “temperature anomaly.”

    Here’s what’s wrong with that.
    http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

    It’s a whole lot less intimidating when seen in context.

  10. Norway Dating I Fagernes

    […] 100-Year Russian Arctic Temperature Reconstruction Shows 1930s Just As Warm As Today! – Dating was achieved by counting seasonal isotopic cycles and. […]

  11. Dating Norway Vardo

    […] 100-Year Russian Arctic Temperature Reconstruction Shows 1930s Just As Warm As Today! – Dating was achieved by counting seasonal isotopic cycles and. […]

  12. Dating In Norway I Kongsvinger

    […] 100-Year Russian Arctic Temperature Reconstruction Shows 1930s Just As Warm As Today! – Dating was achieved by counting seasonal isotopic cycles and. […]

  13. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #319 | Watts Up With That?
  14. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #319

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close