From the University of Massachusetts at Amherst

AMHERST, Mass. – For more than 30 years, climate scientists have debated whether flood waters from melting of the enormous Laurentide Ice Sheet, which ushered in the last major cold episode on Earth about 12,900 years ago, flowed northwest into the Arctic first, or east via the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to weaken ocean thermohaline circulation and have a frigid effect on global climate.
Now University of Massachusetts Amherst geoscientist Alan Condron, with Peter Winsor at the University of Alaska, using new, high-resolution global ocean circulation models, report the first conclusive evidence that this flood must have flowed north into the Arctic first down the Mackenzie River valley. They also show that if it had flowed east into the St. Lawrence River valley, Earth’s climate would have remained relatively unchanged.
“This episode was the last time the Earth underwent a major cooling, so understanding exactly what caused it is very important for understanding how our modern-day climate might change in the future,” says Condron of UMass Amherst’s Climate System Research Center. Findings appear in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Events leading up to the sharp climate-cooling period known as the Younger Dryas, or more familiarly as the “Big Freeze,” unfolded after glacial Lake Agassiz, at the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet covering Hudson Bay and much of the Canadian Arctic, catastrophically broke through an ice dam and rapidly dumped thousands of cubic kilometers of fresh water into the ocean.
This massive influx of frigid fresh water injected over the surface of the ocean is assumed to have halted the sinking of very dense, saltier, colder water in the North Atlantic that drives the large-scale ocean circulation, the thermohaline circulation, that transports heat to Europe and North America. The weakening of this circulation caused by the flood resulted in the dramatic cooling of North America and Europe.
Using their high resolution, global, ocean-ice circulation model that is 10 to 20 times more powerful than previously attainable, Condron and Winsor compared how meltwater from the two different drainage outlets was delivered to the sinking regions in the North Atlantic. They found the original hypothesis proposed in 1989 by Wally Broecker of Columbia University suggesting that Lake Aggasiz drained into the North Atlantic down the St. Lawrence River would have weakened the thermohaline circulation by less than 15 percent.
Condron and Winsor say this level of weakening is unlikely to have accounted for the 1,000-year cold climate event that followed the meltwater flood. Meltwater from the St. Lawrence River actually ends up almost 1,900 miles (3,000 km) south of the deep water formation regions, too far south to have any significant impact on the sinking of surface waters, which explains why the impact on the thermohaline circulation is so minor.
By contrast, Condron and Winsor’s model shows that when the meltwater first drains into the Arctic Ocean, narrow coastal boundary currents can efficiently deliver it to the deep water formation regions of the sub-polar north Atlantic, weakening the thermohaline circulation by more than 30 percent. They conclude that this scenario, showing meltwater discharged first into the Arctic rather than down the St. Lawrence valley, is “more likely to have triggered the Younger Dryas cooling.”
Condron and Windor’s model runs on one of the world’s top supercomputers at the National Energy Research Science Computing Center in Berkeley, Calif. The authors say, “With this higher resolution modeling, our ability to capture narrow ocean currents dramatically improves our understanding of where the fresh water may be going.”
Condron adds, “The results we obtain are only possible by using a much higher computational power available with faster computers. Older models weren’t powerful enough to model the different pathways because they contained too few data points to capture smaller-scale, faster-moving coastal currents.”
“Our results are particularly relevant for how we model the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets now and in the future. “It is apparent from our results that climate scientists are artificially introducing fresh water into their models over large parts of the ocean that freshwater would never have reached. In addition, our work points to the Arctic as a primary trigger for climate change. This is especially relevant considering the rapid changes that have been occurring in this region in the last 10 years.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Awesome! This is very interesting. Thx for posting Anthony…
If the Antarctic was actually melting.
Uh-huh. And the modern equivalent giant freezing cold melt-lake is where, exactly?
I just wrote a model that proved global cooling happened because the Paul Bunyan blew his icy breath eastward. With all the factors I considered, it’s guaranteed to be 99.9 percent accurate.
This article is one of the major reasons why your readership grows and grows, Anthony. Real meat for those in the know to debate before our very eyes. Excellent peer review. Thank you; thank you. Now, might a “field” of comet strikes have been part of the reason for the extraordinary melting…or was he cause something more intrinsic to Earth systems and cycles?
I take exception to the words “conclusive evidence” when referring to a computer model. A model (even a “high resolution” one) may be very illuminating but conclusive evidence means something else entirely.
“report the first conclusive evidence ….”
The output of a computer model is not evidence, sorry.
Evidence would be actually getting out of the office, going to the Mackenzie river valley and digging up some rocks.
The results of model runs are “proof”? Sorry, but that doesn’t fly. I need fossil evidence of any such drainage of meltwater before buying their claims.
Brian H has the right question:
“And the modern equivalent giant freezing cold melt-lake is where, exactly?”
The article is interesting, but Brian H’s question is exactly pertinent
Interesting read.
Back in June of this year Don Easterbrook made a quest post on WUWT challenging the single origin/North Atlantic origin of the Younger Dryas.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/the-intriguing-problem-of-the-younger-dryaswhat-does-it-mean-and-what-caused-it/#more-65956
I am completely lost here. 13000 years ago was about the time that the last glacial ended and the Holocene inter-glacial started. What is this “big freeze”? The “big melt” I would have thought.
Interesting… I wonder how they explain the rather sizable difference in the deep channel to the continental shelf edge for the two river systems…
http://i50.tinypic.com/29or0ib.png
Very shaky stuff actually.
a) It is only an unproven hypothesis that Younger Dryas was caused by the draining of Lake Agassiz.
b) It is hard to see how fresh water draining down the Mackenzie valley could end up southwest of Greenland, “Narrow coastal boundary currents” seem highly unlikely since the straits through the Parry Archipelago were still blocked by ice (whales could not get through at the time, so it’s hard to imagine massive amounts of water doing it). Even today driftwood on SW Greenland comes from Siberia, not Canada.
c) Just what makes them think that deepwater formation must have occurred in the exact place where it does today? Given that there were still massive icecaps in North America it seems quite likely that it was further south.
I agree with Asmilwho, get out into the Mackenzie valley and find some evidence. This theory should be much easier to prove or disprove than drainage through the St Lawrence valley, where the complex history of the Great Lakes and the Champlain Sea obscures the evidence. The Mackenzie valley has been above sea-level since the Younger Dryas and there has been no major floods or drainage changes. Evidence of a massive flood event should be quite easy to find, perhaps even visible on satellite images.
Mark Luedtke says:
November 5, 2012 at 10:12 pm
I just wrote a model that proved global cooling happened because the Paul Bunyan blew his icy breath eastward. With all the factors I considered, it’s guaranteed to be 99.9 percent accurate.
I just did the same and replicated Prof Mark’s results.
“Mark Luedtke says:
November 5, 2012 at 10:12 pm
I just wrote a model that proved global cooling happened because the Paul Bunyan blew his icy breath eastward. With all the factors I considered, it’s guaranteed to be 99.9 percent accurate.”
You forgot to add: No you can’t V & V my program.
That is so flaky it makes my puff pastry look like shortbread.
They’re preparing the ground for a “look – global warming is causing global cooling” argument. Expect it within the next 1-2 years.
When are we going to see models proving UFO and their visit…. Taking into factor all the crazy people claiming all sort of things…. Signed by Simon, awake by a local earthquake! at 4:06am north of Montreal.
Yet another computer model. I’m guessing most of today’s active scientists grew up playing Sim City. They’ve moved on to more expensive computers and real money.
The modeling was done with much lower sea level and a closed Bering strait ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beringia_land_bridge-noaagov.gif
Bigger faster computers, ‘better’ models …unfortunately same old GIGO (but quicker)
First the melt then the freeze – CAGW is whatever they say it is.
stephen richards says:
November 6, 2012 at 12:43 am
That is so flaky it makes my puff pastry look like shortbread.
_____________________
You get the thread Gold Star, next to your name.
I see what they did here.
Freshwater draining through St Lawrence cannot cause the Younger Dryas, so they’ve gone, “OK, where else can we dump all this freshwater that COULD cause it? AHA! The Mackenzie! That could work!!!” With no qualitative facts to support the hypothesis.
If that’s right, this is science fiction. Not science.
It’ s always the same: they use computer- models and we should believe in them. But if you write down the conservation equations for hydrodynamics for one liquid and these equations are then exrtemely reduced, it is impossible even for small space areas and short time intervals to find numerical solutions.
OK, the model has generated a potential hypothesis – now go out and see if there is any evidence in the real world to support or disprove the model output.
Just remember that models cannot ‘prove’ or ‘show’ anything about what actually happened, at the very most they can produce an output consistent with observations.