From the :
Research by three New Zealand scientists may have solved the mystery of why glaciers behave differently in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
Geologist David Barrell of GNS Science, Victoria University geomorphologist Andrew Mackintosh and glaciologist Trevor Chinn of the Alpine and Polar Processes Consultancy have helped provide definitive dating for changes in glacier behaviour.
They were part of a team of nine scientists, led by Joerg Schaefer of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, who used an isotope-dating technique to get very precise ages for glacial deposits near Mt Cook.
They measured the build-up of beryllium-10 isotopes in surface rocks bombarded by cosmic rays to pinpoint dates when glaciers in the Southern Alps started to recede. The technology is expected to be widely applied to precisely date other glaciers around the world.
Glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate changes, usually advancing when it cools and retreating when it warms.
The first direct confirmation of differences in glacier behaviour between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the new work topples theories based on climate in the Northern Hemisphere changing in tandem with the climate in the Southern Hemisphere.
The research argues that at times the climate in both hemispheres evolved in sync and at other times it evolved differently in different parts of the world.
Dr Barrell said their research presented “new data of novel high precision”, though the team has so far chosen not to roll out wider interpretations too quickly.
He said much of it reinforced work done 30 years ago by Canterbury University researcher Professor Colin Burrows, who used NZ glacier data to highlight some of the similarities and differences between northern and southern records over the past 12,000 years.
The paper published in Science magazine yesterday showed the Mt Cook glaciers advanced to their maximum length 6500 years ago, and have been smaller ever since.
But glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced to their maximum only in the past 700 years – during the Northern Hemisphere’s “Little Ice Age”, which ended about 1860.
During some warm periods in Europe, glaciers were advancing in New Zealand. At other times, glaciers were well advanced in both areas.
In a commentary which accompanied the research, Greg Balco, from the Berkeley Geochronology Centre in California, said the conclusion that glacier advances in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres were not synchronised was “unexpected”.
Dr Barrell said the paper presented only the first instalment of the dating work, and more would be revealed at an international workshop on past climates to be held at Te Papa on May 15.
“The New Zealand findings point to the importance of regional shifts in wind directions and sea surface temperatures,” he said.
Regional weather patterns such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation were superimposed on the global climate trends reflected in the behaviour of glaciers.
– NZPA
(h/t to Leon Broznya)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Strange. I wouldn’t have expected short-term phenomena like ENSO to show up in glacial records.
Whoops – it’s not so easy, this climate thingee, is it? Bet the models haven’t considered that small detail; sometimes the hemispheres are in sync and sometimes one’s in a warm period while the other’s having a bit of an ice age. Guess it’s back to the drawing board for those models.
This was also noticed and briefly covered at American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/another_part_of_global_warming.html
A little gem in that piece is how, as an aside, they refer to Al Gore not as a politician or a former vice-president or even an environmental activist, but as “the investor betting big bucks on carbon regulation and trading,”
Touché!
This finding would seem at odds with a recent study reported in WUWT. In it, the analysis of New Zealand cave stalactites purportedly indicated the European medieval warming period had been simultaneously experienced in the southern hemisphere.
Not strange ? I would expect that short term phenom to show up but as a temp +/- to the longer occurring influence based upon that influences ‘polarity’, e.g. the PDO .
What I’m not understanding yet is how the variance of cosmic rays over time is accounted for ? What am I missing ?
1. The Fox glacier is much more sensitive than many others to short-term climate oscillations – a very steep and narrow glacier run-off and a wide source area. It’s a boon both for skeptics and warmers – as it’s snout moves far more rapidly than many others in the world.
2. I’d suspect that you want to look at the following to compare N. and S. hemisphere:
i. Tilt of the earth – as I understand it this affects climate on a longer-term scale.
ii. The drivers of S. Hemisphere snowfalls.
3. New Zealand is a small land mass in a big ocean – wouldn’t a comparison between Argentinian glaciers and the N. hemisphere be more meaningful?
The research sounds very interesting, but are you sure that the deductions should be spread to global theories?
Isn’t the study actually a theory?Isn’t that what science is about?At least when it comes to understanding mother nature,as non scientists call it.A pair of scientists or scientist put forward a theory which is never actually proved.The only thing I’ve learnt about this branch of science,whatever it comes under is the more you know,the less you know.To be honest,being the dumbo I am at science,I was surprised to see that science does not know the suns true effect on Earth.I thought that was nutted out years ago,but now debate is raging on sun spots.In my opinion science is never going to understand mother nature.
Of course, the coriolis effect is implicated in this – and it’s AGW theory down the plughole, one way or another.
Claude Harvey (23:15:45)
You’re probably thinking of this piece from 3 January 2009:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/03/4000-year-o18-histories-of-new-zealands-north-and-south-islands/
While that study seems to confirm a widespread MWP, this glacier study seems to suggest that New Zealand’s climate has been milder for approx 6,500 yrs. or, at least, that it did not experience a Little Ice Age as was experienced in the Northern Hemisphere. In other words, during the MWP the hemispheres were in sync. Then, during the LIA, they weren’t; the Southern Hemisphere remained milder than the North. This climate business isn’t as easy as it looks.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d2-Global-warmingwaiting-to-exhale
The ‘inside baseball’ dirty secret is that both sides in the global warming debate officially ignore each other, but react aggressively and axiously to any major media coverage the other side receives. It’s a ping pong match without end. The skeptics have behaved better, by and large, but only by placing fairly rigid limits on the scientific range of discussion. They are most probably correct in saying that a simple doubling of CO2 will not cause catastrophe, but are intentionally ignoring that another re-doubling and perhaps yet a further re-doubling of CO2, and the effluent that would accompany it, would, as the conventional environmental wisdom has it, carry costs we do not want to bear–or sometimes even contemplate.
And while they bat the ball back and forth–‘Denier!’ ‘Alarmist!’–what we breathe out has been officially classed as pollutant and poison, and the power to regulate how much of it we can produce has been delegated to the most faceless of bureaucracies. The Environmental Protection Agency, created by Richard Nixon, will have… power… that may be difficult to constrain in the future.
President Obama, pragmatic and practical, almost certainly wants to use the EPA’s newly minted power as a bully stick to threaten the Republicans, forcing them to the legislative bargaining table. But, in the same way that Republicans should have reflected while pursuing the expansion of presidential powers that they would not govern forever, so too should President Obama remember that the powers given to the EPA may not always be exercised in strict accordance with presidential wishes.
The most extreme environmentalists have as an ultimate goal the reduction of the human population to such a level as they believe concords with the ‘carrying capacity’ of this planet, and feel that their morality is on a higher plane than those who do not share this desire. And with the help of environmental organisations, they have worked hard at getting to the top of committees, organisations and, yes, governmental bureaucracies. Should President Obama ever feel the need to tell the EPA to back off, he may be surprised at the answer he receives.
Evidence is beginning to accumulate suggesting that this particular doubling of CO2 will not imperil us. Arctic ice is recovering, the lack of sunspots calls to memory the cold periods that accompanied previous minimums of sunspot activity, temperatures are declining of late. But even if this trend persists, environmentalists will rightly bear in mind that the energy consumption and resultant pollution of 6 billion now, 9 billion in the future, will certainly have effects that include upward pressure on temperatures, and much else besides. They would be fools to abandon their case even if they are made to look like fools in the short term.
So if you think the debate has been mean-spirited and ugly to date, I can tell you now that it may only have been the prelude. The skeptics, if proven right in the first battle, will use their victory to diminish the value of climatology, possibly at just the time climatology matures to such an extent that it would be of service going forward. Those who sounded an alarm that looks now to have been arguably false will have a choice–to either admit error and engage with those they have fought, or to regroup and become even more bitter and accusatory than they are at present.
The tactics to date of the alarmists have been stupid–graceless to the point of thuggishness. But worse than stupid, their tactics have been wrong. Most skeptics have only wanted their objections acknowledged and incorporated into ongoing study of climate and its changes.
But, as someone who is proud to be a liberal, I can hope that other participants in this debate remember the essential utility of liberalism–the tolerance that allows consensus and yes, compromise. President Obama’s energy plan is a good start for this country, and I say that as one who is skeptical about the current range of catastrophic outcomes predicted by alarmists. Let’s use it as a starting point for Round Two of debate on climate change.
Professor Don J. Easterbrook of Western Washington University has interesting data on the correlation between ocean temperature changes and glacier advances/retreats. He focused on glaciers in the Pacific Northwest.
See: http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Don_Easterbrook.ppt
It would be interesting to see how fluctuations in Pacific Northwest glaciers compare to fluctuations in glaciers from other areas of the world.
Claude Harvey (23:15:45): “This finding would seem at odds with a recent study reported in WUWT. In it, the analysis of New Zealand cave stalactites purportedly indicated the European medieval warming period had been simultaneously experienced in the southern hemisphere.”
They may both be correct. The MWP was characterized by a fair amount of climate oscillations during the period. It was not a period of warm stasis. It would require a closer look at high resolution data from both hemispheres, but I suspect one might find the glaciers to be a lagging indicator. Glaciers begin in the snow fields. In Southeast Alaska, it takes 250 to 400 years for the snow deposited in the high elevation fields to reach the face of the tidewater glaciers. If the basis of the study is Beryllium-10 on the rocks, it would take a while for advancing glaciers to cover the rocks, moving the subsequent Beryllium record on exposed rocks down stream, or the opposite during a warm period when it would take a while for the receding glacier to reveal bare rock.
I’m not the expert on this and it’d be interesting for others to weigh in on the notion.
This report enhances the theory of solar activity linked to world temperature change. Both glacier records are set during prolonged grand minima, the north during the LIA and the south during a similar period 6500 years ago. It can be seen easily via this graph. These periods also line up with very high strength J/S line ups.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
Greg Balco, from the Berkeley Geochronology Centre in California, said the conclusion that glacier advances in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres were not synchronised was “unexpected”.
I’d only say that it was “unexpected” by him but not necessarily others…
Since glacier growth is proportional to snowfall, I’d expect it to be driven by water availability and to be idiosyncratic by glacier. I see no reason to expect hemispheric, continental, or even major basin synchrony in glacier growth.
Perhaps some gross proportionality in that an ice epoch would probably cause many glaciers to grow together; but even then, as an area becomes dramatically cold, like the interior of Antarctica, it becomes a frozen desert and glacier growth ought to slow rather than accelerate. I could even see a case where glaciers at the perimeter or on the side near a relatively warmer ocean would be growing while those more interior or downwind of a mountain range (thus having a water deficit) would be shrinking.
It’s all about the mass flow of water at less then the freezing point. Why one would think that all the things driving that process would work in unison over great distances in different geology is beyond me…
And the notion that the glacier growth rate in New Zealand tells you anything about the existence of a LIA globally is also suspect. I could easily see a colder ocean giving less snowfall resulting in less glacier growth… You would have a race condition between the colder air letting snow take longer to melt at the bottom edge of the glacier and colder air being less able to transport water as snow to the glacier root. I don’t see a simple way to determine the winner of that race… (where stalactites don’t have these same issues).
I know Prof Collin Borrows and have done the odd mountaineering trip with him, he has plotted the waxing and waning of NZ glaciers over the last 7000 years, there is no question in the last 70 years glaciers on the eastern side of the southern alps have receded signifigantly and a whole bunch of new lakes are forming. But glaciers on the western side of the alps have receeded much less and are currently growing.
Temperature change is only one factor for the possible reason for the recession, reduced snowfall on the neve because of changes to the westerly wind pattern across the tasman sea and a change in ocean currents and temperature which reduces the ammount of moisture being taken up may in fact have more to do with it.
We do seem however be returning to a pattern of heavier rainfall and snowfall in the Alps in the last few years. Time will tell.
That the hemispheres behave differently is hardly news. After all, the mediaeval warming period and little ice age were largely northern hemisphere phenomena, as was the cooling after Mount Pinatubo. The southern hemisphere is always slower to respond to external forcings.
“At least six people have been killed after an avalanche in Austria, reports say. Several others are missing.” http://twitter.com/BreakingNews
Isn’t it May?
I was trying to incorporate the word ‘hubris’ some where into a comment, but Greg Melleuish beat me to it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25395364-7583,00.html
Re: Claude Harvey (23:15:45) :
I didn’t see the MWP mentioned anywhere in the article. In fact the article says:
The research argues that at times the climate in both hemispheres evolved in sync and at other times it evolved differently in different parts of the world.
Which means that at the time period of the MWP it might or might not have been in sync.
And nothing about the ‘glaciers are retreating because of human-induced global warming’ statement?
So, definitive proof that the LIA wasn’t global.
OT Carbon neutral expidition “Greenland expedition 2009 has been abandoned due to repeated, irreparable storm damage to our sailing vessel Fleur”
http://carbonneutralexpeditions.com/category/greenland-2009-blog/
“The team are now safely and ironically aboard the oil tanker Overseas Yellowstone.”
I wonder if the difference between the north and south halves of the planet are due to an interaction between sunspots driving the weather, and whether the planet’s orbit is closer to the sun during the southern or northern winter.
The idea is that an increase in cloudiness at low altitude will have an overall cooling effect, but this comes as a result of lowering high temperatures more than it raises low temperatures.
Along this line, one would suppose that the damage to the growing season from a new Little Ice Age would be more in the soil temperatures than in the air temperatures or the date of the last killing frost. It appears that planters in the US are again having problems with wet fields, the same as resulted in a late planting last year.
RSS MSU April Anomaly is out!
April : 0.202 degrees Celcius. (0.008 warmer than March 2009)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/05/rss-msu-2nd-coldest-april-since-1999.html
Earth’s magnetic field is, I believe, relatively weak at the moment, particularly in an area to the south of S. Afica, and may even be preparing for a change of polarity (a fairly common occurrence but not known for the last 780,000 years or so). Fluctuations in intensity, be they local or planet-wide happen all the time without leading to a flip and compasses pointing south, of course.
Now, I am just a feeble minded geologist and I have to start cooking lunch but can anyone else consider how variation in the field’s intensity might influence solar wind and cosmic ray effects on hemispherical climate/glaciers, please?
It is an interesting thing that the complexities of a disjointed hemispherical climate may not be in any climate model. It seems the science is trending away from AGW assumptions. Even so, I agree with Mr. Fuller in that the efforts of the radicals will continue. I’m not convinced that the Obama energy policy is a good starting place, as it owes so much to the ideas of those same radicals. As for the Waxman bill in congress, they would take the U.S. to levels of CO2 production that obtained around 1905. Unfortunately, it would only be U.S., not the world. And as Chicago activist Saul Alinsky emphasized, make sure you frame the debate, not your opponent. Along that line there is an interesting NYT (RIP) article about a briefing of government officials on how to do so, key point, stop talking about global warming. ‘1984’ was ahead of its time a bit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1