Inconvenient Ice Study: Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago

Since there is so much worry about the Arctic Sea Ice extent this time of year, it is always good to get some historical perspective. According to this study, our current low Arctic ice extents are not unprecedented.

From a press release of the Geological Survey of Norway:

Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago

Written by: Gudmund Løvø 20. October 2008

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.

Greenland
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 complete story follows.

Greenland
PACK-ICE RIDGE: Pack-ice ridges form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, 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

Greenland
GreenlandICE 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.

Greenland
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.

===========================

h/t to Ecotretas


Sponsored IT training links:

Take advantage of latest 350-001 dumps and 640-802 practice exam to practice and pass your VCP-410 exam on first try.


The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
132 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
savethesharks
September 10, 2010 6:46 am

Ah, so here is the tattletale. I should have known.
Phil, since you like to think that you are a quasi-moderator around here, why don’t you contact me personally at sharkhearted@gmail.com and I will be happy to speak with you.
[Mine was not out of the realm of the invective normally allowed on these posts, and it certainly was not an ad hom. It was a figure of speech.]
Feel free to contact me, Phil. I will be happy to discuss it with you.
Chris
[you may think it is ‘only’ a figure of speech, but it is not acceptable here (jove~mod)]

savethesharks
September 10, 2010 6:49 am

bl57~mod
These have been allowed in the past and I guess I was going along with everyone else and pushing the envelope.
But duly noted from now on.
Thanks and have a good one.
Chris

Tim Clark
September 10, 2010 6:50 am

savethesharks says:
September 10, 2010 at 6:20 am

Calm down, friend. Gates drives me crazy with his writing style also.

savethesharks
September 10, 2010 7:45 am

All right, all right.
Envelope push, off.
Duly noted, fellas.
Chris

R. Gates
September 10, 2010 11:56 am

There is no current scientific dispute about the cause of the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s. It is an solid and established fact that the build-up is from human activities. There are many other valid points of contention that skeptics can hold on to in order to doubt the existence of AGW, but one of those points is not the cause of the build-up of CO2 in the past 250 years. The human signature is well established. (see:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2683/sabi2683.shtml
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/9/3037.abstract
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1984/JD089iD07p11731.shtml
http://www.allisoncully.com/academics/carbon.pdf
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_5/16_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1
Plus dozens of other links…
As the source of CO2 buidup is not in serious dispute, the only even partially credible general points of contention in the CO2/AGW debate are:
1) Is this build-up enough to cause significant global climate change (i.e. just how sensitive is the climate to this increase?)
2) Are there there other equally likely explanations to the 20th and 21st century warming, besides CO2? Solar, PDO, AMO?
Now, related to the Holocene Optimum, where it appears quite likely that Arctic Sea Ice was at a reduced level, this does not appear to be a CO2 related event, and was more likely a Milankovitch cycle derived warming. It is absurd to argue that this proves that the current warming of the Arctic can’t be related to CO2 increases, as one cause (Milankovitch) does not in any way preclude another (CO2 induced).

September 10, 2010 2:13 pm

savethesharks says:
September 10, 2010 at 6:46 am
Ah, so here is the tattletale. I should have known.
Phil, since you like to think that you are a quasi-moderator around here, why don’t you contact me personally at sharkhearted@gmail.com and I will be happy to speak with you.
[Mine was not out of the realm of the invective normally allowed on these posts, and it certainly was not an ad hom. It was a figure of speech.]
Feel free to contact me, Phil. I will be happy to discuss it with you.

If I’d posted using that language I’d probably been banned for 24hrs ( I was recently for using much less offensive language), I just asked for consistency. It was ad hominem by the way, attacking the man rather than the argument.

savethesharks
September 10, 2010 10:29 pm

Oh it very much IS in dispute, R Gates.
I will let you tussle with the likes of Roy Spencer and others…and then we’ll see who wins the debate in the end.
As I have said many many times. Would love to actually see you in a debate with these giants.
The outcome would be predicted faster than any ensemble of models could ever turn out the single strand of spaghetti that would result, no doubt.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

1 4 5 6