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)
“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.”
So … climate in the two Hemispheres changed in the same way except for periods when they didn’t. Ok, I can buy that … in a Reverend Jim sort of way.
Tom Fuller,
The examiner piece is very good given where this issue has “been”. One statement that nails it for me is this:
“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.”
I have issues with some of the other statements such as;
“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.”
How can he be certain the effects would be upward pressure on temperatures? It seems to me that current knowledge does not have a clear answer. CO2 introduces some warming, aerosols cooling (?), land use (who knows?)….We want to protect the Environment for many very good reasons, but Climate Change/Global Warming is generally at the bottom of the list and clouds all the good reasons that our attentions should be focused on, but aren’t.
“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.”
I disagree. Perhaps that will be what the public and politicians do. But I think that knowledgeable skeptics would do the opposite, recognizing there is value in continuing modeling research (emphasizing research)
I’m having a hard time holding back on the OT statements about Obama being “pragmatic and practical” and “…the essential utility of liberalism–the tolerance that allows consensus and yes, compromise.”…
Adam Soereg (01:45:17) :
“And nothing about the ‘glaciers are retreating because of human-induced global warming’ statement?”
—————————-
The Fox Glacier had retreated by 1,000 feet in December, 1974, during global cooling.
This sentence,
Glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate changes, usually advancing when it cools and retreating when it warms.
appears to be out of place. The article goes on to properly indicate that glaciers in the world are not always in concert and are susceptible to local conditions and events.
Yes glaciers tend to advance when it is cool and retreat when it is warm. However, I do not feel they are ‘sensitive indicators’ of climate change at least not in a global sense.
The Muir Glacier in Alaska has retreated, but, has done so for over 200 years. Glacier Bay did not exist in 1740 and what is now the mouth of the bay was just a wall of ice against the sea. A paper from 1923 speaks of records about Glacier Bay and goes back to 1794 and the glacial retreat.
The bay, which once was nothing but a huge amount of glacial ice, already existed as a bay when Muir visited in the late 1800’s. Over the recent past 60 years the Muir Glacier retreated a distance of 7 miles; (.12 miles per year). It is now almost 60 miles from the mouth of the bay. So 50+ miles of retreat occurred prior to 1940; (.25 miles per year average). That figure is gracious in using 1740 as the start point. The figures; .12 miles per year verses .25 miles per year, illustrate the Muir Glacier retreated more than twice as fast in the past than it has in modern times. Additionally; the greatest volume of Muir Glacier ice, as opposed to glacial length or extent, melted long before the beginning of modern industrial activity.
We have all heard about the catastrophic retreat of glaciers during the 20th century and supposedly increased rates of retreat during the late 1990s. Glaciers don’t just retreat geographically, they also thin. In most cases they, (being three dimensional), also narrow. Glaciers historically pointed to by the AGW crowd retreated at a faster rate in the past, and, lost most of their volume of ice long ago. Long before the use of fossil fuels. Long before the 20th century.
The glaciers which have retreated slightly faster, are reflecting they entered modern times with far less ice volume, and, far thinner than they were in the past. They are not a demonstration of runaway global warming. Glaciers are not a simple gauge which one can use to claim unusual warming or temperatures greater than those of the past.
In the area of the Muir Glacier, the McBride and the Burroughs Glacier have been retreating. But, others have stopped their retreat in recent times and are advancing, they are growing. The John Hopkins Glacier stopped its retreat and began advancing during these modern times of satellite records. It is not an anomaly, a lone rogue. The Grand Pacific, Lamplugh, Margerie, and Reid glaciers are currently advancing. The Brady Glacier has been advancing since 1794 as the Muir retreated.
The greatest amount of warming in recovery from the LIA occurred prior to 1900. The current temperatures are pretty much ideal for man, though cooler than other times during the Holocene. Earth’s glaciers have retreated due to natural variation in climate and conditions. Many glaciers are now advancing due to natural variation in global climate and conditions specific to the region where they exist.
I stated above; Glaciers are not a simple gauge which one can use to claim unusual warming or temperatures greater than those of the past. As you can see from my examples, in the same geographical area some glaciers can be retreating, while others, advance.
As Geoff Sharp indicated above, the effect of LIA in both hemisphere was different. Time ago I referred to an study of the argentinian geologist Miguel Gonzales, where he found at the Salinas del Bebedero (salt lake of Bebedero) were filled with water during little ice ages (Maunder and Dalton´s); and not only that but that salt lake in those times, coincided with drought in the argentinian pampa (plains) around. The water came from increased glaciers on the andes.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m11m129238u61484/
Abstract:
Abstract We present a climatic reconstruction of Holocene lacustrine episodes in the Salinas del Bebedero basin (Argentina), based on geological and diatom information.
Morphological, sedimentological and diatom evidence between 11600 ± 140 yr BP and 325 ± 95 yr BP, allowed us to interpret the paleoenvironments of the basin. Episodes of high energy (sandy levels) are linked to large inflow of meltwater through the Desaguadero River, related to development of glaciers on the Andes. This inflow is characterized by peaks of relative abundance of the brackish water diatom Cyclotella choctawatcheeana Prasad. The values of C. choctawatcheeana decrease in deposits of low energy (clay levels), where it co-dominates with oligohalobous Fragilaria and Epithemia spp.
To the last two peaks of large inflow of meltwater, radiocarbon dates corrected to sidereal ages, are AD 1280/1420 and AD 1443/1656. These ages agree with two cold episodes clearly recorded in dendrological studies from the Patagonian Andes and were correlated to the Little Ice Age. Thus, older Holocene episodes of large inflow of water to the basin were correlated with the Neoglacial Advances defined by Mercer (1976) for the Andes.
Here’s the math on double, re-double and re-double atmospheric CO2 levels:
In round numbers: current atmospheric CO2 levels are around 400 ppm. Double is 800, re-double is 1600, and re-re-double is 3200 ppm–about half of all-time high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
In the industrial age, we have added about 100 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere. We’re probably half way through our oil reserves, figure a quarter through coal and gas (and let’s take de-forestation at zero, which is conservative). So, in a better case, figure we can quadruple atmospheric CO2 from current levels, which would equal 400 ppm in total, and bring total atmospheric CO2 to around 700 ppm (300 natural + 400 man-made). That’s a long way from 3200.
For a ‘worse case’ scenario, let’s assume that the earth can no longer absorb about half our CO2 emissions, which apparently is has over the last century. If you do the math, you top out at 1000 ppm–still a long way from 3200.
Right now, atmospheric CO2 is rising at a pace of 2 ppm per year. So you have a good 50 years to change course if you allow another 100 ppm is not that bad.
Conclusion: Atmospheric CO2 is likely to top out under 600 ppm, and we should have time to monitor changes in the environment meanwhile.
As it is much more than probable that GWrs. will attribute any drought to their favorite cause, drought in the argentinian pampa, already happening, and the filling of those dried salt lakes with water once again, from the andes mountains, as during the LIA, will demonstrate just the opposite.
So, save this data and check it with the news in the years to follow.
What is really interesting in Dr.David Barrell study is that it shows that in an island as New Zealand, surrounded by the biggest sea, this acted as the “warm water bottle” at its feet, which made the Maunder Minimum not to be felt there, while in the southamerican continent it was , as indicated above, where glaciers increased.
Steven Kopits (10:20:41) :You see, nothing of the CO2 accounts but the Sun.
Did you ever try breathing continuosly, without interruption?, what did you feel?, you over oxygenated and felt dizzy…well, that is LACK of CO2. If you and all the bunch of GWrs. could get the CO2 to lower (which it is totally impossible, because you and I, we the human beings, are NOTHING, almost unexistent to nature) it would shorten your precious life lenght, by accelerating your metabolism by speeding up oxydizing processes in your body.
Don´t tell me now that you didn´t think of the consequences on human life of reducing atmospheric CO2. (not considering of course your taxes)
Perhaps some endocrinologist, if reading these lines, could tell us the optimum amount of CO2 for human life.
To Gwrs.experimenters:
Reduction of carbon dioxide causes a reduction in pH (concentration of hydrogen ions) in the blood, and shifts acidity to alkalinity since a solution of carbon dioxide gas is a weak acid. If carbon dioxide decreases, then the environment and organism becomes more alkaline or is shifted in the direction of alkalinity. This causes the following abnormalities:
c) Change in the activity of enzymes and vitamins: some of them increase their activity, while others decrease. And this inevitably leads to:
d) Abnormalities of the metabolism, which is the foundation of life i.e. enzymes (there are about 700 of them which have already been discovered) and vitamins (there are more than 20), all these control units of the metabolism start to work abnormally. The metabolism is abnormal, the foundation of life is abnormal. If carbon dioxide decreases below the limiting norm, then there is a termination of the chemical processes, death of the cells and organism
http://www.normalbreathing.com/book-lecture-content.html
Jim Papsdorf (06:59:24)
Adrian Kerton’s paper is here:
http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Climate_Change.htm
Interesting stuff.
E.M.Smith (08:59:28) :
RW (00:41:06) : After all, the mediaeval warming period and little ice age were largely northern hemisphere phenomena,
These folks started a data base to refute the argument stated by RW. Their main page is here: http://co2science.org/ Where you can read this:
“Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 697 individual scientists from 406 separate research institutions in 40 different countries … and counting!”
The full data base is here.
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
I’ve read the abstracts of about 2 dozen and gone to the on-line papers of a few. Do the same and you can judge for yourself how complex Earth is but their claim that the MWP existed and was world wide is well documented.
Did Thomas Fuller silp his own post here or was that done by someone else? If the latter, maybe he should be aware of this.
OT, Yesterday, the second of May was the 1 year anniversary of the Chaitén Volcano eruption which is a non stop event continuing until today.
http://volcanism.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/chaiten-one-year-on/
Today it was also reported that Indonesia saw yet another volcano erupt
http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2009/05/yet_another_indonesian_volcano.php
Indonesia currently has 4 volcano’s under Orange Alert and another thirteen, yes, you read this correct, thirteen volcano’ under Yellow Alert.
http://volcanism.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/alert-at-indonesias-mt-rinjani/
Michael T:
Re: Earth’s magnetic field – see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm
Also, a Summary of information on glaciers: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm
Tom Fuller (23:55:03) :
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.
I’ve long been fascinated with the liberal perception of compromise.
So, I propose a compromise.
I’m willing to compromise and settle for half of your next paycheck.
Deal??
““The New Zealand findings point to the importance of regional shifts in wind directions and sea surface temperatures,” he said.”
Of course. Oceans and winds. And of course the climate models miss all this because their emphasis is really on the atmosphere rather than the seas…time to revisit this piece….
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/29/real-climate-suffers-from-foggy-perception-by-henk-tennekes/
“A weather model deals with the atmosphere. Slow processes in the oceans, the biosphere, and human activities can be ignored or crudely parameterized. This strategy has been very successful. The dominant fraternity in the meteorological modeling community has appropriated this advantage, and made itself the lead community for climate modeling.”
The climate models were ‘doomed’ from the start.
Maybe this is simplistic, but this story (and others) lead me to the obvious conclusion: there’s no such thing as “global” climate. There is local and regional climate which, added together, produces an artificial global aggregate.
Tom Fuller,
“…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.”
All the fossil fuel we have burned to date is claimed to be responsible for about 110ppm CO2. To finish the first doubling we need to add another 170ppm, more than we have added since the late 1800’s. The next doubling we will need to add 560ppm, 5 times what we have added already. A third doubling envisions burning a totally ridiculous amount of fossil fuels.
Exactly how much fossil fuel do you think is available in the planet???
Dave Middleton,
“Add coal to the equation…And there probably is enough fossil “carbon” left to do that. Before all of that carbon was bound up in fossil fuels, the Earth’s atmosphere had about 4000ppm to 7000ppm CO2.”
Sorry, more CO2 is tied up in soils, “The White Cliffs of Dover”, plants, shells (living and dead)… Please do your homework on that.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html
See table 9r-1.
All that CO2 was NATURALLY sequestered, BUT, the majority didn’t make it to fossil fuels. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH FOSSIL FUEL TO DO THE JOB.
I’d like to thank everyone for their kind thoughts on the article I posted here as a comment. Especially those of you who, being conservative, could have criticized my politics but instead dealt with the topic I raised. I wish that some of my fellow liberals could have been so gracious.
Tom
steptoe fan (23:25:15) (re: comic rays and the methodology of this study)
Your original inquiry, to which several have referred, makes a good point about the inconsistency of such studies. They assume uniformity in some things known NOT to be uniform over time in order to study unique cataclysmic events! There is much about the past that we do not know and all such studies and their methods must constantly be questioned for logical consistency.
Ed Scott
You stated,
The Fox Glacier had retreated by 1,000 feet in December, 1974, during global cooling.
Both Fox & nearby Franz Josef Glaciers have an approx. 5 yr lag between weather conditions at the neve and manifestation at the terminal face. For 1974 look to the conditions in 1969. Both of these west coast glaciers have been advancing rapidly, with occasional retreats, since 1984.
With the recent overflowing of the hydro lakes in the downstream region of the Southern Alps (on the eastern side of the divide) as a result of a steady flow of heavy rain in the headwaters since last September, expect to see more major advances at the terminal faces of F.J. & Fox in 4.5 years.
An announcement on the weather for T.V.N.Z. tonight stated that Mt Hutt Ski Field on the eastern flank of the Southern Alps has a ski base of 45cm (18 inches) with opening day not far away. A great start for ski fans!
Thanks for the comments,
Jim Papsdorf (06:59:24) Try http://www.akk.me.uk/
If you have trouble accessing the website feel free to email me akmagnetic at akk dot me dot uk
Tarpon, I could not find any paper that linked space weather to terrestrial weather, but Svensmark notes that CGRs may cause cloud formation. You write:”Who wants to do the research and then write a paper about how the changing earth’s magnetic field effects the climate with the changing effects of cosmic rays?” I refer you to this paper;
[2] K. Scherer, et al Interstellar-Terrestrial Relations: Variable Cosmic Environments, The Dynamic Heliosphere, And Their Imprints On Terrestrial Archives And Climate. Space Science Reviews (2006) DOI: 10.1007/s11214-006-9126-6 _C
It’s abstract is in my paper which you can download from my website but one of the ideas is that as the Our Galaxy moves through space we hit regions of intense CGR and these tie up with ice ages.
Just a quick comment about me so you know where I am coming from. I am not an academic, I am 61 years old and have been an electronics engineer for all my working life and am partially retired. I gained an MSc in Electronic Engineering in 1992 .The reason I started to look at climate change was purely an interest in learning more about it. Just out of curiosity I decided to look at the position of the north magnetic pole and norther hemisphere temperatures as there was conjecture that the poles were about to reverse and plunge us into an ice age. I originally went back to 1600 but before ~1900 temperature projections vary wildly and the estimates for the magentic pole positions are also variable so I restricted it to the last 100 years. As the pole positions are given in 5 yr intervals the cooling seen recently is not reflected in the graphs. All comments welcome. Cheers Adrian
It’s worth pointing out that the snowfields which feed all NZ West Coast glaciers (all in the South Island) are about 10 miles max from the Tasman Sea. They are at the top of the Southern Alps, max height a modest 12,345 feet (or so it was before the Alps had a leetle hiccup and a few feet fell off the top, right onto the glacier below. Changed it’s albedo, fer sure.
So there’s absolutely no point in comparing continental glaciers anywhere, with these babies. The ocean they face and the prevailing westerly wind, has a clear run right from Africa. That ocean is host to some of the scariest wave trains in the world (100 ft is not unusual, read abaht it in any round-the-world yachting epic), and thus those glaciers are a creature of SST and winds, just as the study rather bleedingly obviously is reported to have, well, reported.
More than a leetle skepticism is warranted here, as Rhys J has pointed out way above.
>>>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
Entirely possible, it is overdue, I think. The South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly is one possible precursor of this change – it is an area of weakening magnetic field that is allowing cosmic rays etc into the atmosphere. And it is growing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/Esautilw/pee04ag.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081125090348.htm
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2002_no/willis.pdf
.
” 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.”
Actually, there is no contradiction. The Lorrey paper says the glaciers grew during the LIA, NOT the MWP. Please reread it more closely.
Furthermore, you should also pay attention to the relative altitudes of the caves and the glaciers.