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)
M White (01:56:04) :
Carbon neutral expidition “Greenland expedition 2009 has been abandoned due to repeated, irreparable storm damage to our sailing vessel Fleur”
It’s good to see BIG OIL coming to their rescue hahaha
OT?
“‘Green’ lightbulbs poison workers
Hundreds of factory staff are being made ill by mercury used in bulbs destined for the West
WHEN British consumers are compelled to buy energy-efficient lightbulbs from 2012, they will save up to 5m tons of carbon dioxide a year from being pumped into the atmosphere. In China, however, a heavy environmental price is being paid for the production of “green” lightbulbs in cost-cutting factories.
Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs. A surge in foreign demand, set off by a European Union directive making these bulbs compulsory within three years, has also led to the reopening of mercury mines that have ruined the environment.
Doctors, regulators, lawyers and courts in China – which supplies two thirds of the compact fluorescent bulbs sold in Britain – are increasingly alert to the potential impacts on public health of an industry that promotes itself as a friend of the earth but depends on highly toxic mercury.
Making the bulbs requires workers to handle mercury in either solid or liquid form because a small amount of the metal is put into each bulb to start the chemical reaction that creates light.
Mercury is recognised as a health hazard by authorities worldwide because its accumulation in the body can damage the nervous system, lungs and kidneys, posing a particular threat to babies in the womb and young children.”
urlm.in/cicl (timesUK)
Tom Fuller (23:55:03) :
Very thoughtful and balanced commentary, thanks.
Unfortunately, I think there’s too much money and power in it for the alarmists. They’re not going to give it up just for ethics.
carlbrannen (02:08:21) :
The late rains in California (Yes, they are still crying drought even as relief pours down on thier heads) are ongoing as we speak. Headed straight for the heartland, as usual.
Health officials are worried about panic over the outbreak, but then the public has been primed by the 24/7 barrage of AGW hysteria. What do you expect when they keep yelling fire on a crowded planet? All the credibility of mud.
@ur momisugly Tom Fuller
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.
This is because the effect of CO2 on infrared absorption is not linear, it is logarithmic. Right now, you have X amount of it in the atmosphere, and it absorbs Y=Log_b (X) amount of incoming IR. If you grow to have 2X CO2 in the atmosphere, You do not get 2Y of IR absorption, you get much much less than that. “deniers” ignore multiple redoublings of atmospheric CO2 on solid scientific grounds. While it is unknown exactly what “b” is in that equation, it’s safe to say from past earth history that it’s a value that makes CO2 no threat to us.
The thing is, you can’t “Sustainably” use a Finite Resource.
No, there’s Not enough Fossil Fuels to double the CO2, again. We’ve probably used half of the oil that we’re ever going to recover, and the higher grades of coal are getting pretty scarce, also.
.
>>>What I’m not understanding yet is how the variance of cosmic
>>>rays over time is accounted for ? What am I missing ?
Indeed. Since cosmic ray flux is regulated by Sunspot activity and thus in synch with climate change, you have a right old mix of variabilities.
Michael T (02:29:55) :
Earth’s magnetic field is, I believe, relatively weak at the moment, particularly in an area to the south of S. Africa, and may even be preparing for a change of polarity
I have heard the same, but nobody really seems to know the likely time-scale. I hope I’m wrong, but IIRC, the loss of a magnetic field for the time taken to ‘change ends’ is likely to be catastrophic and would trump any AGW nonsense. Has anyone explored this?
This hasn’t “solved the mystery”, it added to the mystery.
And, Richard, one glacier isn’t definitive proof about the LIA. Maybe it was cold but dry; maybe most of the precipitation was falling on the other side of this mountain range.
@ur momisugly Tom Fuller (23:55:03) :
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d2-Global-warmingwaiting-to-exhale
Tom, very well written comment. Then I discovered that you’re a pro writer. No wonder it was good! But you’re a skeptic liberal. Not a comfortable position in S.F. ( I know…)
At any rate, welcome aboard! The constant chant from the AGW side that “deniers” are all a Republican Big Money Big Oil (yada yada) plot, ignores folks like you, me, and many of the other people here. You will find several liberal, Democrat, and Libertarian folks here; skeptics all.
FWIW, Glen Beck had a show about the recent Tea Party organizers. Had an audience full of participants and organizers of the Tea Parties. A show of hands had them more or less evenly P.O’d at both Dems and Repubs. Another show of hands showed them spread over all sorts of political beliefs (with a fair number of libertarians and democrats).
What “The Powers That Be” need to understand is that the Joe and Jane Six Packs of the world are happy to let them run the world, as long as they don’t screw up the common person’s life too much. But they are generally not particularly partisan. Stray too far from “just leave us alone” and, well, eventually sloth is set aside in favor of action but typically not of the kind the politicians wanted… a big pull to the boring middle!
With the present PDO flip and the sun playing with a grand minimum it is mostly likely to be cold for the next 20 to 30 years. The backlash against the AGW movement, and with it everything green and liberal, has the potential to be very very large. The prudent course would be to do “watchful waiting” for about a decade ( I think we’ll see significant cold in 2 to 5 years ) then make policy. But we, as a world, do not seem very prudent and the AGW movement is positively radical in its motives.
So we will live “in interesting times”… For now, take a look at the New Zealand and Australian snowfall this winter. The early ski resort openings. The rising Antarctic ice. Watch for crop failures in Argentina and snow in southern Brazil (like we had last year – Surprise!) with South Africa being cold and snowy too. And lord help us if a big volcano pops off…
Glaciers are the “posterchild” of the AGW movement — the glaciers’ retreat is about all the AGW movement has left, now that ice seems to be building at both poles.
So, because this ideally is about science and not politics (yes, I know it’s about politics) glaciers need to be studied and understood.
After all, it’s been the science and a somnolent Sun that has swung the polls away from the AGW camp and stalled cap-and-trade legislation in Congress.
While irrationality may get a good head start, ultimately reason and careful observation & measurement will gain the upper hand.
Alex,
0.008 ° C
That’s less than 1/100 of a degree!
Does RSS specify an error margin?
Cold fronts encountering warm moisture laden warm bearing air masses cause the maximum amount of snow fall, and can be quite local. The cattle killing storms in the Panhandle of Texas occurred during the latter part of March and first part of April. High winds force wet snow flakes into their nostrils suffocating them. It marks the onset of the rainy season in that area. When very cold highs cover the area, the old-timers used to say it was “too cold to snow.”
This is an observation from a very small localized area, but so is the glacier in N.Z. In MHO they cannot be depended upon for extrapolating large scale climate factors.
Tom Fuller (23:55:03) : “…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,…”
Correct me if I am wrong – These second and third re-doublings are being ignored because they are not possible – in the sense that humans cannot accomplish that, maybe not even the first doubling that is talked about. Something about Earth – maybe it will crack open – could cause a rise to 760, 1520, 3040 ppm but that’s closer to science fiction than science.
Others have commented before me on this, but I thought I’d stick up the numbers and see if someone can figure a way to get us there.
Richard, “So, definitive proof that the LIA wasn’t global”
Just like modern global warming 1977 onwards.
Molon Labe (00:42:35) :
“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?
Das Unglücksgebiet liegt auf rund 3.000 Meter Seehöhe.
The location of the accident was at 3000 meters above sealevel. They were Czech tourists who went out despite high avalanche danger. They all carried
avalanche rescue beacons, but the avalanche was too enormous to allow a quick rescue.
No climate significance, except for the enormous amount of snow the Austrian Alps received this winter.
Richard (01:53:58) : “So, definitive proof that the LIA wasn’t global.”
No. Definitive proof Earth is complicated. Above comments by several people explain a few of these many things. More will follow – I think.
Michael T (02:29:55) : 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?
Well, I’m just a feeble minded economist who has to go cook breakfast! But I’ll start it: Take a look at the ozone map on any given day. It looks like a Birkland type current is hitting the N. pole and there is a significant asymmetry of ozone distribution. Ozone is rather important to several weather related phenomenon, including blocking the 9-10 micron IR band.
There is a theory that as the planets wobble above / below the plane of the ecliptic that this current from the sun would swap what pole it hits. This ought to cause a significant difference in how weather is distributed between the poles… It might also have some influence upon and /or be influenced by the earth’s magnetic field. Certainly the inflow of charged particles to the atmosphere would be different if we suddenly sprouted a new “North pole” just off Bermuda (which looks like it’s trying to happen… the initial stages of a pole swap are a chaotic outbreak of ‘many poles’ until it reforms as just 2 …)
See:
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap_g.htm
which as I type this is showing both poles low on ozone… though you still get the ‘two yellow eyes’ effect of a Birkland current at the N. Pole.
Geoff Sharp can do more justice to the theory of polar steering via planets than I can, maybe he’ll pitch in here… (HINT!)
The magnetic field dropping low during a reversal also ought to let in more cosmic rays and solar particles that, via the Svensmark theory, would cause more clouds (a theory I’m endorsing much more these days, headed into early May in California with cold, overcast, the heater running, drizzle in the garden, not May at all weather…). I’m not sure exactly how the mag field and the solar & cosmic particle sources would interact, but it’s likely to be complex. See:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
for an idea just how complex the sun / earth / magnetic interaction can be.
OK, I kicked the can, somebody else take it on down the field 😉
I don’t get warm and fuzzies when scientists say things are “unexpected”.
I know they are human and it shouldn’t mean much more than that they had a theory that was thrown a curve ball or an assumption that needs reevaluation, but the word still gives me the feeling that the scientist had some prejudice.
I would rather hear them say right off the bat that this finding does not support assumption A or theory X….
M White (01:56:04) :
First I’ve heard about that boondoggle. Good that the crew is safe. Their home page says “Richard Spink and Raoul Surcouf set up Carbon Neutral Expeditions (CNE) in 2006 to show how journeys to some of the wildest, untouched places on the planet can be undertaken with minimal impact on the environment.”
Their sponsorship page notes “Since a carbon neutral expedition to Greenland has never been tried before, we are confident that we will attract mainstream media attention. We are also planning to sell footage of the trip to a major broadcaster.”
Perhaps there’s a reason such an expedition hasn’t been attempted before.
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.”
Why? I thought they just said they are not always in sync.. . the write up 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.”
carlbrannen (02:08:21) : “…whether the planet’s orbit is closer to the sun during the southern or northern winter.”
Perihelion and Aphelion [peri = near; ap = away]
Perihelion occurs on about January 4; Aphelion on about July 4]
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/physics/mechanics/orbit/perihelion_aphelion.html&edu=high
Claude:
What this finding suggests is that the LIA phenomenon was less severe in the southern hemisphere than the northern one, not that it was entirely absent.
Nope, not even close.
That last quote was by Richardnot Claude. Sorry that I forgot the attribution.
RW (00:41:06) : After all, the mediaeval warming period and little ice age were largely northern hemisphere phenomena,
Baldly stating an mistaken assumption does not make it so. There is evidence for a global impact of LIA and MWP. But Glaciers are the wrong thing to hang your “evidence” upon. They are NOT just cold indicators.
Richard (01:53:58) : So, definitive proof that the LIA wasn’t global.
Not at all. Glaciers, as stated above, are driven by a race condition between supply of water vapor to make snowfall as it rises up slope or into a colder climate zone and the temperature at the lower edge modulating melt rate. To the extent that a LIA cools the water source, you get less vapor so less snowfall so less glacier. To the extent that a LIA causes an extreme cold, you can get the vapor removed from the air long before it reaches the snow field that feeds the glacier. It’s not all about the melt rate at the foot (or toe) of the glacier. Then there is also sublimation in frozen, but dry, conditions…
Each glacier has an idiosyncratic local set of conditions in the water field supply of vapor mass and the snow field accumulator along with the foot melt point. These are very unlikely to be in simple sync with a LIA “average” temperature. Not to mention that shifts of ocean currents and winds could have a dramatic impact on a single little island like N.Z. while still being part of a global cooling.
So I’d advise being much more cautious about attributing conclusions lest your assumptions let you run off a cliff of conclusion… rather like “The CO2 Did It!” is being dramatically falsified by the earth getting colder for the last decade while CO2 rises…