I love field work. I think any climate scientist that basically becomes a data jockey should be forced to go out and examine real world measurement systems and weather stations once a year so that they don’t lose touch with the source of the data they study. That’s why I’m pleased to see that scientists at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU ) did some good old fashioned field work to look at geologic residues of past climate.
What they found was intriguing. The arctic may have periodically been nearly ice free in recent geologic history, after the last ice age. It is clear from this that we don’t really know as much as some think they do about climatic and ice cycles of our planet.
Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
BEACH RIDGE: The scientists believe that this beach ridge in North Greenland formed by wave activity about 6000-7000 years ago. This implies that there was more open sea in this region than there is today. (Click the picture for a larger image) Photo: Astrid Lyså, NGU
”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
Shore features
ICE COVER: Today, at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGU
Together with her NGU colleague, Eiliv Larsen, she has worked on the north coast of Greenland with a group of scientists from the University of Copenhagen, mapping sea-level changes and studying a number of shore features. She has also collected samples of driftwood that originated from Siberia or Alaska and had these dated, and has collected shells and microfossils from shore sediments.
SETTLEMENT: Astrid Lyså in August 2007 in the ruined settlement left by the Independence I Culture in North Greenland. The first immigrants to these inhospitable regions succumbed to the elements nearly 4000 years ago, when the climate became colder again. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGU
”The architecture of a sandy shore depends partly on whether wave activity or pack ice has influenced its formation. Beach ridges, which are generally distinct, very long, broad features running parallel to the shoreline, form when there is wave activity and occasional storms. This requires periodically open water,” Astrid Lyså tells me.
Pack-ice ridges which form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path, have a completely different character. They are generally shorter, narrower and more irregular in shape.
Open sea
”The beach ridges which we have had dated to about 6000-7000 years ago were shaped by wave activity,” says Astrid Lyså. They are located at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, on an open, flat plain facing directly onto the Arctic Ocean. Today, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land here.
Astrid Lyså says that such old beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time.
”This stands in sharp contrast to the present-day situation where only ridges piled up by pack ice are being formed,” she says.
However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
“Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes.
Inuit immigration
The mapping at 82 degrees North took place in summer 2007 as part of the LongTerm project, a sub-project of the major International Polar Year project, SciencePub. The scientists also studied ruined settlements dating from the first Inuit immigration to these desolate coasts.
The first people from Alaska and Canada, called the Independence I Culture, travelled north-east as far as they could go on land as long ago as 4000-4500 years ago. The scientists have found out that drift ice had formed on the sea again in this period, which was essential for the Inuit in connection with their hunting. No beach ridges have been formed since then.
”Seals and driftwood were absolutely vital if they were to survive. They needed seals for food and clothing, and driftwood for fuel when the temperature crept towards minus 50 degrees. For us, it is inconceivable and extremely impressive,” says Eiliv Larsen, the NGU scientist and geologist.
(hat tip to many commenters and emailers, too numerous to mention, but thanks to all)
Michael C. (21:14:20) :
These variations, in turn, were caused by climatic instability, including warm/cold spells that led to glacial melting and sea level rise, or to ice accumulation and sea level fall.
“During the Early and Middle Holocene, warmer periods led to the gradual submergence of the western Black Sea coast. At the end of the 5th millennium BC, the so-called New Black Sea Transgression caused the water to overflow parts of the mainland. During its second stage (mid-4th millennium BC) a 2-meter drop in sea level occurred.”
I read this as 6000 BP it was warm, but at 5500 BP is was colder
Leif Svalgaard (06:36:35) :
Nick Yates (01:24:05) :
That’s an interesting graph. I wonder if there is a version that just shows the minimums?
Without trying to be facetious, can you not just put a big blob on each of the minima shown on the graph and just look at the blobs? or maybe I didn’t understand your question…
Leif,
Sorry, I’m really not trying to annoy you (honest)!
I was trying to see if the minimums were a closer match to the temperature record than that graph at first appears. It’s just a bit too dense to see easily. Anyway, thanks for providing us lower lifeforms with your insights, it is appreciated. By the way the Spörer minimum seems to be regarded as a period of lower temperatures from what I can find.
Nick Yates (23:07:20) :
By the way the Spörer minimum seems to be regarded as a period of lower temperatures from what I can find.
I have shown several records that indicates a higher temperature, so show us yours. But this is not really my point. My point is that there are conflicting records and that it therefore is not ‘obvious that there is a correlation’.
Leif,
Don’t underestimate Piers Corbyn. Way back in college days at Imperial College I recall he was one of the most brilliant physics students in our year. Rather than follow the traditional PhD route, he went on to do his own (independent) thing in solar research and weather research and forecasting, at which he has proved very successful. The one thing you can say about him is that he is a free thinker and totally independent. Maybe you should get in touch with him and swap ideas. http://co2sceptics.com/contact.php or http://weatheraction.com/id2.html
Regards
F Rasmin (14:57:42) :
Carbon 14 variation is used as a proxie to obtain information concerning sunspots. As carbon 14 is used to date many objects, then is this not now an in-accurate method for dating obects due to sunspot variation?
Whilst carbon-14 production rates vary with cosmic ray flux it remains a very accurate way of dating objects. We have reconstructed carbon-14 production rates as a function of age using suitable material that can be dated by alternative methods. Good examples are tree rings which, for the more recent past can be dated using dendrochronology. By comparing the carbon-14 age with the dendrochronology age, and solving the radiometric decay equation we can estimate the initial carbon-14 in a tree ring sample at the time it grew. Other independent dating methods include, for example Uranium series dating.
There is a rich and wide literature covering corrections for carbon-14 production rates.
Pamela Gray (18:59:23) :
“Meanwhile back at the farm, I wanted to reiterate my question concerning the AIMS data. Are they measuring overall CO2 or just CO2 12 and 13. If they are measuring overall CO2 they must consider that CO214 will increase during minimum. Leif, chime in if you see something I don’t have right. Anthony, you have emailed AIMS. Maybe you could ask? My hunch is that during the next maximum (assuming that the magnetic field strengthens), this AIMS map will show once again shades of green and tan instead of blooms of red.”
I have also been looking at the breathing of CO2 in the AIRS data, particularly the animations: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/.
It is not possible to measure ratios of CA14 to CA12 with the satellites. “What AIRS does is measure the infrared light emitted by carbon dioxide molecules.” Nuclear effects are tiny in the spectra of molecules and not detectable.
The radioactive CA14 is a trace in the total CO2 of the atmosphere, so not to be worried about except for tree rings and such, where measurements are made in laboratories equiped with proper nuclear instrumentation.
From wikipedia : 98.9% 12C is stable with 6 neutrons
13C 1.1% 13C is stable with 7 neutrons
14C trace and produced from Nitrogen
a percentage of a trace is still a trace, even if it increases 100% it will still be a trace.
So as long as the CO2 rises it will get redder.
Leif Svalgaard (23:22:17) :
I have shown several records that indicates a higher temperature, so show us yours. But this is not really my point. My point is that there are conflicting records and that it therefore is not ‘obvious that there is a correlation’.
I agree the Spörer minimum is open to debate, but as there are no direct observations of the sunspots, I guess that’s not surprising. I don’t want to waste our time by playing graph tennis with you 🙂
We obviously have good observatiions from Maunder onwards. I believe that global temperatures show a fairly good correlation with the suns activity since then, and this appears as if it may continue. You’ve pointed out in the pasr how chaotic and unpredicatble the sun is, and that also applies to the earths climate. What is the chance of two independent highly chaotic systems just happening to align like this?
Nick Yates (03:37:25) :
What is the chance of two independent highly chaotic systems just happening to align like this?
Well, it seems to me that they have been out of alignment the last 20 years or so. Or even more, if one accepts my argument that solar activity in the 1850-70s is no different from 1970-present.
Let me explain where I’m coming from. In the early 1970s the only measurements of the ‘solar constant’ was those of Abbot dating back to 1913-1956 [or so]. Abbot claimed a 1-2% solar cycle variation of TSI. When Jack Eddy drew attention to the Maunder minimum [actually discovered by Spoerer, but the two Ms had a nicer ring to it] and linked it to the LIA, that linkage was widely accepted [including by me]. There was a correlation, a mechanism, and the numbers came out right [if you lower TSI by 1%, the temperature should go down by 1.0/4=0.25% of 300K = 0.8K]. Those are the criteria a scientist would ordinarily apply in order to accept a claim as reasonable [acceptance does mean that he thinks it is correct, only that it is a plausible working hypothesis worthy of consideration and further work]. At the time there was considerable doubt that Abbot’s result was correct, but the correlation with the LIA hinted that perhaps Abbot’s data was OK [the beginning of the terrible notion that one judges data by how well they fit one’s ideas]. But even then, many scientists believed that the solar constant was indeed constant, to the point that when the first satellite measurements became available:
Willson, R. C.; Hudson, H. S.; Frohlich, C.; Brusa, R. W.
Science, vol. 234, Nov. 28, 1986, p. 1114-1117:
“The first 5 years (from 1980 to 1985) of total solar irradiance observations by the first Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM I) experiment on board the Solar Maximum Mission spacecraft show a clearly defined downward trend of -0.019 percent/year. […] The trend appears to be due to unpredicted variations of solar luminosity on time scales of years, and it may be related to solar cycle magnetic activity”
it was seen as a surprise that there was a solar cycle variation. In any case, the variation was much smaller that Abbot’s claim by a factor of 10, so the claim that the LIA was caused by the lack of solar activity was clearly refuted observationally, because the numbers were not there anymore. So, as responsible scientists, people jumped ship [even Jack Eddy! who no longer believes that there is any solar influence]. Unfortunately, the cat was out of the bag, and could not be put back where it belonged.
Two thoughts.
I wonder what the CO2 levels were 7000 years ago.
Also, in WWI there generals known as Chateau Generals who lived in splendor, comfortably behind the carnage of front lines. They claimed, or at least one of them did, that they did not want to have their view of things disturbed by the messiness of what they might actually see at the front. Sounds as though some of the scientists who rely solely on the climate models are following the same pattern. Maybe we should call them Chateau Scientists.
Leif Svalgaard (06:39:57) :
[acceptance does not mean that he thinks it is correct, only that it is a plausible working hypothesis worthy of consideration and further work].
From Webster’s:
ob·fus·cate
Pronunciation:
\ˈäb-fə-ˌskāt; äb-ˈfəs-ˌkāt, əb-\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
ob·fus·cat·ed; ob·fus·cat·ing
Etymology:
Late Latin obfuscatus, past participle of obfuscare, from Latin ob- in the way + fuscus dark brown — more at ob-, dusk
Date:
1577
transitive verb
1 a: darken b: to make obscure
2: confuse
intransitive verb
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
I have a question that maybe Lief can answer. Is it possible that solar irradiance is “cumulative”? By that I mean, while it varies by 0.1%, does the Earth “store” more heat in the oceans and on land through the strong sunspot cycles, and it could take a few years to see the effect of low sunspots? I’m sure it can’t be that simple when you also consider the effects of PDO and ENSO (and other ocean changes) as well. I know you can find correlation where there really isn’t any, but:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.02/compress:12/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/from:1900/scale:2/plot/jisao-pdo/compress:12
When PDO is up, and sunspots are high, temperature goes up, when PDO is down and sunspots are low, temperature drops. The sunspot cycles seem to have been pretty strong as well, fitting in to my cumulative hypothesis, but then, CO2 may play a part as well.
It must be tough to be a climate scientist…every theory out there seems to have a flaw somewhere. I suppose the answer will end up somewhere in the middle.
Nick Yates (03:37:25) :
“What is the chance of two independent highly chaotic systems just happening to align like this?”
I have not become aware of such a study, i.e. of taking two independent highly chaotic systems and see whether they align with with some criterion for alignment.
I have seen wave images in cloud formations. If I were in the ocean I could certainly record a sequence of waves ( e.g. hundreth highest) that could match such a cloud with some criterion.
This as an illustration of how two completely independent chaotic systems might align if they have similar periodicity.
On the other hand correlation is not causation. It can be that the chaotic sun behavior drives other variables which in the end influence earth’s climate, as is being attempted with the galactic cosmic ray and the magnetic fields model and experiments, for example.
Phillip Bratby (00:19:57) :
Don’t underestimate Piers Corbyn. […] The one thing you can say about him is that he is a free thinker and totally independent.
I don’t think I do. I only judged his work not the man. I have several good friends that I value, but who are totally wrong [IMHO}, David Hathaway comes to mind.
Leif, Look I’ve done this before on loads of sites its the same old story. You haven’t checked Piers Corbyns forecasts or his results and certainly not his method its never been released. I said at the start you have to study his indexes to see what his percentages are. Now you haven’t done this and yet are sure he is exaggerating without a glance. Why don’t you actually check it out give it serious study and then be honest about what you found. I managed this your supposed to be bright. People here if they are looking for the truth on what really drives climate should check him out with an open mind. Einstein said you shouldn’t condemn without thorough research but of course he was a nice man. Far from giving people accurate and simple to understand explanations you endlessly dismiss scientific discoveries this is dangerous for the future of the openness of this site. Your nearly always the last voice in the room, I hope that by then you are talking to yourself.
Edward Morgan (09:13:58) :
Look I’ve done this before on loads of sites its the same old story.
Perhaps there is a message there…
You haven’t checked Piers Corbyns forecasts or his results and certainly not his method its never been released.
Someone who will not publish his method deserves no scientific attention and has not made a scientific discovery. It would be like if NASA announced that they have incontrovertible proof that AGW is true, but will not show you the proof or how they got to it. Would you believe them?
Why don’t you actually check it out give it serious study and then be honest about what you found.
Studying indices and percentages compiled by the person making them [up?] does not seem to be a worthwhile thing to do, unless the method is explained. Serious study takes time, there are other things to spend that time on. Especially if the few morsels of the method [the ‘linkage’] are wrong [i.e. not the way Nature works]
Far from giving people accurate and simple to understand explanations you endlessly dismiss scientific discoveries
In an earlier post I gave an accurate and simple [I can dumb it down more if needed] explanation of why Corbyn has it backwards:
Edward Morgan (16:09:21) :
Corbyn has this exactly backwards. He says:
“The changes in magnetic connectivity between the sun and the Earth are very important.[..agreed..]
The sun-earth general set up we are now in is Odd to even Cycle (23 to 24) solar minimum transition. In these periods (which go on for a few years every 22 years or so) the Earth is most sensitive to small changes on the sun.”
It is the transition from Even to Odd where the ‘linkage’ is important and creates the extra geomagnetic activity. The reason is that the interplanetary magnetic field as seen by the Earth during such a transition has a small statistical tendency to point southward more often. During an Odd-to-Even transition there is the opposite tendency [i.e. to point northward more often].
When the IMF points south it can connect with the Earth’s magnetic field [which is pointing north where the IMF hits it] and thus transfer energy and particles to the Earth. When the IMF points north it cannot connect [no linkage] and the Earth is effectively closed off from the solar wind and no [or much less] transfer occurs.
What is your problem with this explanation? Is it not simple enough [it is accurate]? Specifically which point(s) is(are) causing you trouble? I would be, as is my wont, glad to elaborate in even simpler terms, if needed, and if it would do any good.
Steve M. (07:47:15) :
I have a question that maybe Leif can answer. Is it possible that solar irradiance is “cumulative”? By that I mean, while it varies by 0.1%, does the Earth “store” more heat in the oceans and on land through the strong sunspot cycles, and it could take a few years to see the effect of low sunspots?
If the 0.1% is cumulative, why is the 7% enhancement we have in January [due to being closer to the Sun], not cumulative, or for that matter the full amount of TSI itself?
The photons that come from the Sun do not carry a little flag that says “hey, I’m one of the 0.1%, please accumulate me and not the others”.
[…] also this story on Watts Up With That on showing the arctic had less ice 6,000-7,000 years ago. See this […]
Steve M. (07:47:15) :
Is it possible that solar irradiance is “cumulative”?
Another interpretation of your “cumulative” might be that is it not possible that when TSI is 0.1% higher, that that extra energy is also stored in the system together with the 99.9% other part?
[for simplicity I ignore that only a fraction of TSI actually reaches the Earth]. The answer is that the 0.1% is indeed stored with the rest and does eventually increase the temperature by 0.1%/4= 0.025% of 300K = 0.08K. The keyword here is ‘eventually’. People are claiming that there are all kinds of lags in the system ranging from 0 to 60 years, take your pick [the one that supports your theory the best, obviously].
Thank Lief, I need all the help I can get 🙂
The more I know, the more I find out I don’t know much!
Leif,
So if you studied the charts and worked out the confidences all indexed and got consistent percentage hits then this would not indicate science?? I thought a top level scientist like you could work out that it did. Remember a lot of these predictions are made six to twelve months in advance.
Piers has said he will release his technique once intellectual property issues have been resolved he’s not avoiding people like you there is really no need.
I don’t believe a word NASA says. Your linkage thing is still missing the point.
What are you going to change your story too next Leif I bet you said it would get warmer 10 years ago. What drives you, what about Africa, heat or eat grandma’s high food prices all based on lies. The green movement came out of the eugenics movement. Your disregard for the people of this planet on mass is disgusting.
‘The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.’
US Weather Bureau report in 1922.
So, what’s new?
I really would like to know why all of the methane stored up in the Arctic, that is supposedly set to be released and doom the planet within the century did’t get released during the HO.
moptop (14:01:51) :
I really would like to know why all of the methane stored up in the Arctic, that is supposedly set to be released and doom the planet within the century did’t get released during the HO.
This looks like a rhetorical question. I think you really do not want to know, because it would upset your beliefs, if there was a good explanation.
One explanation might be that the Arctic was scoured clean by the ice and every is now buried deep under moraines and other debris. The organic stuff now in the Arctic has likely built up since the end of glaciation. Does this do it for you?
Leif,
What’s was your prediction for the last ten years and what is it for the next?