Average temperature in Finland has risen by more than two degrees

December 22, 2014, University of Eastern Finland

Over the past 166 years, the average temperature in Finland has risen by more than two degrees. During the observation period, the average increase was 0.14 degrees per decade, which is nearly twice as much as the global average.

According to a recent University of Eastern Finland and Finnish Meteorological Institute study, the rise in the has been especially fast over the past 40 years, with the temperature rising by more than 0.2 degrees per decade. "The biggest temperature rise has coincided with November, December and January. Temperatures have also risen faster than the annual average in the spring months, i.e., March, April and May. In the summer months, however, the temperature rise has not been as significant," says Professor Ari Laaksonen of the University of Eastern Finland and the Finnish Meteorological Institute. As a result of the temperature rising, lakes in Finland get their ice cover later than before, and the ice cover also melts away earlier in the spring. Although the temperature rise in the actual growth season has been moderate, observations of Finnish trees beginning to blossom earlier than before have been made.

Temperature has risen in leaps

The annual has risen in two phases, the first being from the beginning of the observation period to the late 1930s, and the second from the late 1960s to present. Since the 1960s, the temperature has risen faster than ever before, with the rise varying between 0.2 and 0.4 degrees per decade. Between the late 1930s and late 1960s, the temperature remained nearly steady. "The stop in the can be explained by several factors, including long-term changes in solar activity and post-World War II growth of human-derived aerosols in the atmosphere. When looking at recent years' observations from Finland, it seems that the temperature rising is not slowing down," University of Eastern Finland researcher Santtu Mikkonen explains.

The temperature time series was created by averaging the data produced by all Finnish weather stations across the country. Furthermore, as the Finnish weather station network wasn't comprehensive nation-wide in the early years, data obtained from measurement stations in Finland's neighbouring countries was also used.

Finland is located between the Atlantic Ocean and the continental Eurasia, which causes great variability in the country's weather. In the time series of the average temperature, this is visible in the form of strong noise, which makes it very challenging to detect statistically significant trends. The temperature time series for Finland was analysed by using a dynamic regression model. The method allows the division of the time series into sections indicating mean changes, i.e. trends, periodic variation, observation inter-dependence and noise. The method makes it possible to take into consideration the seasonal changes typical of Nordic conditions, as well as significant annual variation.

Explore further: Considerable risk of blue-green algal blooms in some of Finland's sea areas

More information: "Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment," Online First, 17 Dec 2014 DOI: 10.1007/s00477-014-0992-2 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-0992-2

Related Stories

Chesapeake Bay region streams are warming

December 8, 2014

The majority of streams in the Chesapeake Bay region are warming, and that increase appears to be driven largely by rising air temperatures. These findings are based on new U.S. Geological Survey research published in the ...

Recommended for you

25 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rhsthjnty
5 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2014
Units would be nice. The article headline quotes a rise of "two degrees" but is that C or F? It's Finland which would make me think C but Phys.org is very US centric so maybe it's F. A rookie mistake for a science website to make.


The article linked to this story states 2deg C.

http://link.sprin...4-0992-2
JamesG
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2014
Units would be nice. The article headline quotes a rise of "two degrees" but is that C or F? It's Finland which would make me think C but Phys.org is very US centric so maybe it's F. A rookie mistake for a science website to make.


The article linked to this story states 2deg C.

That's 0.2 deg C. BIG difference.

http://link.sprin...4-0992-2

malapropism
5 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2014
Units would be nice. The article headline quotes a rise of "two degrees" but is that C or F? It's Finland which would make me think C but Phys.org is very US centric so maybe it's F. A rookie mistake for a science website to make.


The article linked to this story states 2deg C.

That's 0.2 deg C. BIG difference.

http://link.sprin...4-0992-2


From the Abstract linked to: "The mean temperature has risen very likely over 2 °C in the years 1847–2013, which amounts to 0.14 °C/decade."
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2014
Not really a surprise, again.
The waterways all around Finland are open. The effect get worse the more ice recedes, and the longer it is away in time.

It also means different current flow or at least heat changes. Something similar has been happening in the Aleutians and its straight. That is worth looking into, though nobody's writing papers about it.

Like I've been saying a while, now is the time in Climatic change where "warming" becomes more real. As soon as the ice receded, it's all rather PREDICTABLE.
rgw
1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2014
Where were these temperatures taken? How often? How many locations in the late dark ages of marginally inhabited Finland compared to now? Who took the measurements utilizing what type of equipment? What were the variations in accuracy range in the 19th Century? The list of potential variables concerning temperature could go on for a while.

The biggest concern would be the human variations of the data-gatherers. For instance, how many dedicated Finnish weathermen actually wandered into the arctic blizzard to take every temperature? How many decided a guess before the fire ala Vodka would suffice? With the installation of automatic devices maybe 30 years ago, the process may have achieved some reliability. Prior to that reliability depended on things that had to be fed, imbued with a fondness for how cold their locale was compared to those slackers in the next valley. Interesting note that temps in mild weather do not seem to have changed. ;>)
rockwolf1000
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2014
Where were these temperatures taken?

In Finland - Try reading the article.
How often?
Frequently.
How many locations in the late dark ages of marginally inhabited Finland compared to now?
Several.
Who took the measurements utilizing what type of equipment?
Scientists using sciency type stuff.
What were the variations in accuracy range in the 19th Century?
Small.
The list of potential variables concerning temperature could go on for a while.

As does your silliness.

rgw
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2014
Merry Christmas Rockdog 0!

I was not trying to prove anything. As to where, I have to add that since the article was about Finland, I meant where in Finland. As for silliness, I will be the first to admit to lack of knowledge about most things and almost everything concerning Finland. That is why I asked these 'silly' questions. I do know that if you check the histories of record keeping in severe climates, many of these 'statisticians' were military and/or government bureaucrats who gleefully admit to fudging their records in the face of near death weather extremes on minimum wage. Add in malfunctioning equipment, a general wink to human nature and the inevitable 'silliness' of human misunderstanding of even simple concepts. Oh well, you're probably a Mooslem and will declare Jihad on me for bringing up non-believer holidays.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2014
Where were these temperatures taken? How often? How many locations in the late dark ages of marginally inhabited Finland compared to now? Who took the measurements utilizing what type of equipment? What were the variations in accuracy range in the 19th Century? The list of potential variables concerning temperature could go on for a while.

http://www.corecl...shop.pdf
rgw
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2014
Thank you runrig, and Merry Christmas! This article verifies that not much was certain in Finland weather reporting circa 1860.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2014
Thank you runrig, and Merry Christmas! This article verifies that not much was certain in Finland weather reporting circa 1860.

Neither should it - the science was patchy anywhere at that date.
Even the standard enclosure for thermometers was not yet developed.
http://en.wikiped...n_screen

That does not disqualify any data over the last ~150 years - the period that AGW has taken hold
rgw
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2014
I am not arguing the validity of the AGW concept, just the accuracy of 'data' from the pre-Sherlock Holmes era.
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2014
Merry Christmas Rockdog 0!

I was not trying to prove anything. As to where, I have to add that since the article was about Finland, I meant where in Finland. As for silliness, I will be the first to admit to lack of knowledge about most things and almost everything concerning Finland. That is why I asked these 'silly' questions. I do know that if you check the histories of record keeping in severe climates, many of these 'statisticians' were military and/or government bureaucrats who gleefully admit to fudging their records in the face of near death weather extremes on minimum wage. Add in malfunctioning equipment, a general wink to human nature and the inevitable 'silliness' of human misunderstanding of even simple concepts. Oh well, you're probably a Mooslem and will declare Jihad on me for bringing up non-believer holidays.


I thought you should know that I absolutely could not be bothered reading your response as it would be a monumental waste of time.

GFY
rgw
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2014
Ignorance is bliss.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2014
Ignorance is bliss.


Only for those who choose to be ignorant.
mooster75
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2014
Ignorance is bliss.

So it appears, but I think I'll pass.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet expounded by showing us example of Hypocrisy
The biggest problem is from pretenders or people with no education who spout their opinions out, which is fine, but then deny even when they do not know, and of course are uninterested in learning or even considering a fact that contradicts their opinion
Agree fully with that pattern.

Your opinion Water_Prophet that CO2 is not significant re TSI is correct, agree with U :-)

People who graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC) of which Water_Prophet claims, should KNOW energy flows in 3D, so Y do U completely IGNORE Earth's emissions which any person with intelligence & Physics training easily determine it MUST be overwhelmingly Long Wave (LW) ie. Plain to "see" Short Wave (SW) from Earth is negligible !

Why do U ignore LW, where CO2's absorbance/re-radiation is the HIGHEST ?

Water_Prophet muttered
..having only a fork's understanding of how the food tastes
What does this even mean?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2014
I can tell you one thing about those with a degree in any physical science, you understand terms like chaos, applications of Green's Therum, we won't ignore simple math demonstrating that the heat released at ground level by fossil fuels is closely equal to the difference in the 11 solar power output cycle.

Now, the charlatans, especially for thermodynamics, are those who are educated by five-minute google searches, and what is popular in the press. They mouth things like integrations and thermodynamic temperature distributions, without knowing they do not apply to the topic they're on, but they sound like they're important! They could not have an original idea or opinion if you gave it to them.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2014
Where were these temperatures taken? How often? How many locations in the late dark ages of marginally inhabited Finland compared to now? Who took the measurements utilizing what type of equipment? What were the variations in accuracy range in the 19th Century? The list of potential variables concerning temperature could go on for a while.
@rgw
http://download.s...ext=.pdf
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2014
Now, the charlatans, especially for thermodynamics, are those who are educated by five-minute google searches, and what is popular in the press
you mean like idiots who say something like this
like desperate papers try to prove weak effects by CO2
actually calling published peer reviewed reputable papers in journals "desperate papers" whereas you've never been published
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

you have plenty of "claims" but you've never been able to supply PROOF of said claims, especially your historical predictions

Tell us all, ALCHE... what EXACTLY is wrong with the following paper: http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf

Please be specific so that i can forward your comments on to the reviewers and the authors for their rebuttal and comments
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2014
@Water_Prophet
AKA ALCHE

here is one paper that you continually ignore as well as vilify with your comments RE- CO2:
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf

Since you obviously think you know far better than the scientists... please provide a very detailed specific rebuttal of the said published paper so that i can forward it to the reviewers/authors so that they may have their say as well

This will solve your credibility problem as well as establish you at the forefront of modern climate science

it is a simple request: give me all the failures of the paper
detailed
expounded upon
and especially include your revelations regarding their inability to work the maths of CO2

I am collecting your previous posts so that i can forward them to the authors, but specifics have been requested as to what you are referring to

THANKS

OZGuy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2014
CD
Has Wang Jing called you yet? His company has some serious excavation coming up and you could show them how to do it EU style and save them lots of time.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet claimed
How can you say I ignore longwave radiations?
By evidence U ignored long wave (LW) radiation re CO2's interference to space, U only saw TSI.

U write fossil fuel (FF) proportion of TSI, yet U IGNORE FACT Earth converts short wave (SW) to LW & CO2 interferes with emission to Space. Nobody is disagreeing FF adds heat & CO2. But, U, as a claimed Physical Chemist (PC) haven't acknowledged CO2's interference U even claimed "CO2 is a red herring", which is obviously completely WRONG !

Water_Prophet claimed
..1998 was a very hot year; Industry was booming and the Sun was at/near a max
Huh? U claim Sun TSI was at max ? Not according to
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Water_Prophet claimed to be a PC but, doesn't write like one, does Water_Prophet accept:-

1. TSI mainly SW
2. Earth converts SW to LW
3. LW to space interfered by CO2

Simple Water_Prophet I asked U before, WHY do u continue evading it ?
4salerlease
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
To account for the rapid rise and then levelling dams must be the cause, the increased area exposed to evaporation. The water held back on the land is also energy held back from the ocean. The time frame and development of dams globally does coincide..
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2014
4salerlease claimed, who just joined less than 24hrs ago
To account for the rapid rise and then levelling dams must be the cause, the increased area exposed to evaporation. The water held back on the land is also energy held back from the ocean. The time frame and development of dams globally does coincide.
Please post substantive evidence, then your offering will enter into discussion, anything less looks like an attempt at obfuscation.

Where is your evidence, ie

- What "leveling" of dams ?
- What is the increased area of evaporation ?
- Is it comparable to existing water which is >70% of Earth's coverage ?
- What 'energy' does this water "hold back" - how many Joules & over what period ?
- What time frame ?
- What global development & in respect of what regions etc ?

Can U see making idle claims does U NO credit, it makes U look like feeble & "not cultured".

Evidence is the only way forward & evidence connected with a hypothesis, can U do that ?

Good luck :-)
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2015
Elsewhere Water_Prophet made idle claims:-
What is the basis of your claim that CO2 to space is negligible when u r ONLY focused on incoming Total Solar Insolation (TSI) ?

Evidence is abundantly clear, u ignore CO2's increased thermal resistivity of IR to space !

Why Would U Water_Prophet ignore something so vitally important ?
==========================================================

its as if you have some serious mental block to even THINK of that issue ?

Did U look at Mars as I urged:-
- Less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere
- Farther away from sun
- High CO2 of ~95%
yet can reach a balmy 20 to 30C in the shade...!

As a claimed Physical Chemist, why can't u even find any link to support your claim, let alone an educated opinion based upon your university training ?

Look forward to integrity & mature dialectic here Water_Prophet - can you please communicate well, just like a trained uni graduate ?

Can U be smarter please Water_Prophet - Physics ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.