Great News from Greenland

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels

I recently returned from a trip to Greenland’s Jokabshavn Glacier, which discharges more ice than any other in the Northern Hemisphere.

Jakobshavn Glacier Image: from NASA

Our route of flight from Reykjavik traversed the ice cap from about fifty miles north of Angmassalik to the airport at Ilulissat, on Disko Bay, about one-third of the way up Greenland’s west coast. In southeastern Greenland, we flew very close to the country’s second-highest peak, Mt. Forel (11,099 feet), and in the near future I will upload a image of a nearby mountain approximately 8,000 feet high completely covered by the ice cap.

It is obvious from the air that there is very little movement over the deepest regions of the ice, and the drift patterns in the lee of some of the submerged peaks are strongly suggestive of at least some regional accumulation. There is virtually no evidence for summer melt in the southeast, while the southwest portion of the ice cap is known to melt and refreeze at the surface on an annual cycle—I saw considerable evidence for multi-year, but small, lakes in that region.

In preparation, I read just about everything I could get my hands on, including a recent very remarkable paper by Dorthe Dahl-Jenson and about 70 coauthors. Dahl-Jensen heads up the Center for Ice and Climate at the University of Copenhagen. Dahl-Jenson’s team drilled to the bottom of the ice in northwestern Greenland, providing us with the first climate history of Greenland that includes the warmest period in the last interglacial period, from about 128,000 to 122,000 years ago, known as the Eemian. That was embedded in the Sangamon Interglacial, which ran from approximately 135,000 to 95,000 years ago.

(For perspective, the last (Wisconsin) glaciation started then and lasted to (nominally) 10,800 years ago—that last date being about a blink of a geologist’s eye ago. Homo sapiens appeared in the ice age, and evidence is that proto-civilization developed while the hemisphere was glaciated.)

One of the reigning myths in climate science is that interglacial temperatures in Greenland were about five degrees (C) above modern, causing a dramatic loss of ice and raising global sea levels about 6 meters (19 feet).  Ice cores from southern Greenland in fact have wood and vegetation at their lowest levels, which are younger than the Eemian.

By measuring the ratio of two isotopes of oxygen (specifically 18O to the much more common 16O) one can infer the air temperature at the time that the snow in each annual layer crystallized.  This technique has been around for decades and is considered quite reliable, and it correlates well with other temperature “proxies” that Dahl-Jensen also used.  Dahl-Jensen found that the average annual temperature peaked at a whopping 8 +/- 4°C (that’s 7 to 22°F!) warmer than the recent millenium in the  ice core during the Eemian maximum.

And still the ice survived. In fact, the top of the ice was only a mere 130 +/- 300 meters “lower” (actually from 557 feet higher to 1411 feet lower) than today. For perspective, her entire ice core was about 8,000 feet in depth.

If, like ex-NASA employee James Hansen, you think that global warming is going to drown us all by melting almost all of Greenland “in a hundred years” (Hansen’s words), perhaps you should try another apocalypse. According to the chart shown in Dahl-Jensen’s paper, the entire 6,000-year period averaged about 6°C warmer than the last 1000 years.

The integrated heating in this region during the Eemian maximum appears therefore to be approximately 36,000 degree-years (temperature change multiplied by time).

Climate models for the future show an annual warming of about 3°C over northwestern Greenland by around 2100, or 300 degree-years. At that rate, it would take 12,000 years to just get rid of about one-eighth of the ice in this core, or about 96,000 years to lose all of it.  (That’s impossible because another ice age will have intervened.)

Evidence suggests that sea levels during the Eemian were about 4-8 meters (13-26 feet) higher than today.

Prior to Dahl-Jensen’s study, it was generally accepted that the vast majority of this rise came from the loss of Greenland’s ice, but now she cautiously writes that:

Although the documentation of ice thickness at one location on the Greenland ice sheet cannot constrain the overall ice-sheet changes during the last interglacial period, the [Eemian core] data can only be reconciled with Greenland ice-sheet simulations that point to a modest contribution (2 m) to the observed 4-8 m Eemian sea level high stand…These findings strongly imply that Antarctica must have contributed significantly to the Eemian sea level rise.

Whew!  Thus does one revolutionary paper shoot pretty much the entire global warming sea-level catastrophe—the one worth being concerned about—through the heart.  Antarctica is so cold that it is projected to gain ice in the coming century, as slightly increased precipitation—which may have recently been detected—falls as more snow, which compacts into more ice.

This puts any sea-level crisis out in the hundreds-of-years realm, at least, and probably far beyond our current era of burning hydrocarbons for energy and heat. In other words, forever.

As for Greenland, I have some bad news about the Jakobshavn Glacier. Its 30 X 6 mile (spectacular) Ilulissat Icefjord is going to be much less spectacular very soon, and I’ll also wager that the quick retreat of the glacier is literally grinding to a halt.

Better go to Ilulissat soon—in the next year or two—to see what was outside my hotel window (live webcam here). The spectacular nature of the fjord is a result of the massive icebergs—some a half-mile wide or so—that break off (calve) from the glacier, float down the fjord for a year or two, and then get stuck in the terminal moraine (laid down during the last glacial maximum, probably from circa 1600, when the Little Ice Age wiped out the Greenland Norse), where the fjord empties out into the ocean.

Unfortunately, the Jakobshavn Glacier has now retreated largely to its grounding line, with the exception of about 20% of the north end of the face—and that part doesn’t have far to go.  In other words, it is largely no longer a calving tidewater glacier, and it is quite obvious from the air that the big bergs are getting much fewer and further between as the glacier moves further onto land. (Don’t forget to buy a helicopter ticket on Air Greenland—it’s worth it!)

When glaciers turn from tidewater to grounded, their recession rates usually slow dramatically (or, in some cases, they stop). This has probably started to happen.

So get your tickets for next summer (or later this summer) now, before the big bergs are gone.

And, before you go, don’t forget to read up—you just might come across some revolutionary good news.

Reference:

Dahl-Jensen, D., et al., 2013.  Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core.  Nature 489, doi: 10.1038/nature11789.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 3, 2013 5:23 pm

Just what are those alarmists gonna do with this tale?

July 3, 2013 5:28 pm

🙂
Can’t wait to hear what the CAGW crowd think about this. They won’t like it! Thanks, Patrick, I love a bit of good news in my day.

Chris @NJSnowFan
July 3, 2013 5:28 pm

Nice read Patrick. Thanks…

milodonharlani
July 3, 2013 5:29 pm

No GIS meltdown, no catastrophe, even at six degrees C hotter than now, which isn’t going to happen. Probably not even the picked out of clear air supposedly scary two degrees, at which elevated temperature it would take over 100K years to melt the whole sheet, during which time of course another ice age would be occurring with much lower temperatures.

July 3, 2013 5:30 pm

Excellent post.
Does anyone have a clue what exactly made the Eemian so much warmer than the holocene?

u.k.(us)
July 3, 2013 5:34 pm

It is obvious from the air that there is very little movement over the deepest regions of the ice, and the drift patterns in the lee of some of the submerged peaks are strongly suggestive of at least some regional accumulation. There is virtually no evidence for summer melt in the southeast, while the southwest portion of the ice cap is known to melt and refreeze at the surface on an annual cycle—I saw considerable evidence for multi-year, but small, lakes in that region.
=====================
Dang it,
Your fly-by tells me nothing.
At best a data point.
How would one tell:
…..” there is very little movement over the deepest regions of the ice, and the drift patterns in the lee of some of the submerged peaks are strongly suggestive of at least some regional accumulation.”
==============
You only flew by.
It takes years or decades to make such a determination, for such poorly understood “plastic” flow.
Dang it.

milodonharlani
July 3, 2013 5:54 pm

Michael Palmer says:
July 3, 2013 at 5:30 pm
——————————
Most interglacials have been warmer.
The usual suspects are insolation, orbital mechanics & albedo, but who knows, really?
At SkS, they also try to implicate rapid change in CO2, since the highest absolute concentration was probably less than today’s c. 400 ppmv.

Janice Moore
July 3, 2013 6:19 pm

Re: “… whopping 8 +/- 4°C (that’s 7 to 22°F!) … ”
Is Fahrenheit conversion correct?
4C = 39.2F
8C = 46.4F
12C = 53.6F

Janice Moore
July 3, 2013 6:25 pm

Great article, Dr. Michaels. Thank you for taking the time to report back. It was a refreshing to have a well-informed eyewitness account and, written in such an engaging, enthusiastic, style, it was a pleasure to read.

Janice Moore
July 3, 2013 6:27 pm

It was a refreshing?!! What? I don’t know. It was refreshing. (aarrgh — my proof reading is terrible!)
Glad you made it back safely!

Owen in GA
July 3, 2013 6:27 pm

Janice Moore says:
July 3, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Re: “… whopping 8 +/- 4°C (that’s 7 to 22°F!) … ”
Is Fahrenheit conversion correct?
4C = 39.2F
8C = 46.4F
12C = 53.6F

He is quoting relative temperatures (warmer than current is the exact language) meaning that the current temp is about 15 degrees F.

Lance Wallace
July 3, 2013 6:49 pm

Janice–
I believe he is talking about a difference (“warmer than”) rather than an absolute temperature. Since a Celsius (or Kelvin) degree is 1.8 times as large as Fahrenheit degree, we have
4 C or K degrees = 4*1.8 =7.2 F degrees.
12 C or K degrees = 12*1.8 = 22 F degrees
Interpreting his statement (“8 +/- 4°C (that’s 7 to 22°F!) warmer than the recent millennium”) to apply to the recent global millenium temperature (used to be 15 C but lately I see people are saying it is now 14 C–WUWT?), he is saying the Eemian global temperature was somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 to 26 degrees C. If we have the dreaded 2 C warming by 2100 we will still be 2-10 C cooler than the Eemian.

Arizona CJ
July 3, 2013 6:55 pm

I’m puzzled; where does the wood in the lowest ice core levels come from, if it’s *younger* than the Eemian (the last interglacial)? Especially if Greenalnd didn’t melt in the Eemian?
The Eemian was so warm that you can find Hippopotomus fossiles on the Thames in the UK, so if Greenald did’t melt then, I see no chance of it doing so now.
Thank you for this report. It was a superb read, and does indeed take the air out of the sea level rise hysteria. I think one of the key points is the issue of the Antarctic increase; seems to me that the water for it has to come from somwhere, so I would not be surprised to see the gradual sea level rise of the last few thousand years diminish or reverse.

Luther Wu
July 3, 2013 7:03 pm

Many thanks.
You and Willis could start a travel magazine.

george e. smith
July 3, 2013 7:04 pm

Well in a related matter, the news says that Jason-1 sea level satellite is dead; but is going to remain as space junk for 1,000 years. Why didn’t they think to put a de-orbit system on these things to reduce the clutter? sooner or later, somebody is going to get hurt.
But as to the Greenland glaciers; nice to know there will be ice for all the polar bears hiking over there.
Incidently. , the Jason news said it recorded sea level rise of 1.6 inches (4cm) during its 11 1/2 year life, with an accuracy of “a few cm”; like maybe 4 cm do you think. so maybe zero to 8 cm

Janice Moore
July 3, 2013 7:24 pm

Dear Owen, Dear Lance Wallace,
Thank you, so much! I almost didn’t post that, for I had a feeling I was missing something… . Thanks for telling me what that was! Sorry to interrupt the otherwise high-level science discussion.
Janice

Storm Giant
July 3, 2013 7:28 pm

Thw CBC did a “news” segment about how climate change and global warming (yes they actually said GW) is going to effect agriculture etc. Not one word about record cold winters the past few years.

July 3, 2013 7:30 pm

Michael Palmer says:
July 3, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Does anyone have a clue what exactly made the Eemian so much warmer than the holocene?
============
no carbon tax

Jon
July 3, 2013 8:25 pm

I have problem with these so called temperature readings of old times in ice cores. Since temperature is affected by elevation, how have they figured out what the elevation was when the snow fell many thousand years ago?

philemon
July 3, 2013 8:42 pm

A small mistake in the citation? What I found was this:
NEEM community members
Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core
Nature 493, 489–494 (24 January 2013) doi:10.1038/nature11789

John F. Hultquist
July 3, 2013 8:52 pm

Thanks Dr. Pat – sounds like a fantastic trip and a well written post.
————————————
Janice,
What you did back up there and others have commented on is commonly done. A purist-type technical editor would print things thusly:
a temperature: 15 degrees Fahrenheit becomes 15° F
a temp. change: 15 Fahrenheit degrees becomes 15 F°
Because almost no one does this the distinction has to be inferred.
Another mistake folks make is to use the temperature scales data as though they are ratio data. For example, say it goes to 60 degrees in the afternoon from a low of 30 in the early morning. If you hear someone say the temperature doubled, there’s the error. Play with the numbers a bit. Convert the 30 & 60 from F. to C. and check whether it has doubled. Use the Kelvin temperatures to make such a calculation.
Background: http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/noir

July 3, 2013 9:22 pm

Janice Wrote:
Janice Moore says:
July 3, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Re: “… whopping 8 +/- 4°C (that’s 7 to 22°F!) … ”
Is Fahrenheit conversion correct?
4C = 39.2F
8C = 46.4F
12C = 53.6F
+++++++
This is a common source of confusion. The writer wrote that it was 8 +/- 4C warmer. Or in other words. 4 to 12C degrees warmer. This is NOT the same a temperature of 4C or 12C, but rather 4 additional C (or Kelvin) to 12 additional C warmer. Stay with me here. So you only need to multiply by the scale of 1.8 and not be concerned with the offset because when you subtract the two numbers, the offset goes away. So 4C*1.8 = 7.2 degrees F. 12C*1.8 = 21.6 degrees F warmer.
Try it. If it went from 100C to to 104C, it would be 7.2F warmer. Or to convert everything to F 100C = 212F and 104C = 219.2F. 219.2-212= 7.2,
Mario

Bill Illis
July 3, 2013 9:49 pm

One should not lecture the Greenland ice core scientists about basic math.
They aren’t going to know what you are talking about.
Back on topic, here is a chart of the new NEEM ice core temperatures reaching into the Eemian at 135 Kya versus the previous longest Greenland ice core temperature series as well as Antarctica.
http://s12.postimg.org/9ctilkusd/NGRIP_NEEM_EDC_Global_135kya.png
The wood and vegetation remnants at the bottom of the ice core from the southern third of Greenland was dated to 4 interglacials ago at 400,000 Kya. This interglacial was the longest one since the ice ages started 2.7 Mya although its temperature maximums were only about 1.0C to 2.0C higher than today. Its just that it lasted for 25,000 years and the southern third of Greenland melted out as a result and small trees even grew there. The current interglacial, by contrast, is forecast to last even longer than the interglacial at 400,000 Kya.

July 3, 2013 10:02 pm

Apparently there is no consideration of the so called SCIENCE of interpreting ice cores being WRONG!!! Keystone Cops staggering from one ridiculous mistake to another.

pat michaels
July 3, 2013 10:05 pm

Comment to U.K. (us)
Motion in ice fields is quite obvious because it creates an uneven surface characterized by waves (similarly to motion in oceans). They are obviously lacking over much of the eastern and central parts of the ice cap on the route lines we flew (100km North of Angmassalik to Ilulissat). When you get further west you can see much more motion, especially as the cap feeds into the icestreams that flow into the Davis Strait.
I hope you will take this phenomenal trip to see for yourself–and before Jokabshavn Glacier completely grounds!
I admit that about 20 minutes into the deep part of the icecap I muttered into the window: “Hansen’s nuts”. The buried mountain kind of says it all, along with Dahl-Jensen.

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights