While Joe Romm and Mark Serreze bloviate about the current Arctic sea ice being “lowest in history”, science that doesn’t have an agenda (or paying thinktank) attached says otherwise:
“More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.”
From the Hockey Schtck: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years
A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.
Although it seems like a day doesn’t go by without an alarmist headline or blog posting obsessing over the daily Arctic sea ice statistics (and never about Antarctic sea ice extent which reached a record high this year), this paleo-climate perspective takes all the wind out of alarmist sails. Satellite assessment of sea ice conditions is only available beginning in 1979 (around the time the global cooling scare ended), with only sparse data available prior to 1979. The alarmists at the NRDC fraudulently claim in a new video that due to “climate destruction,” Arctic sea ice reached the lowest in history in 2010 (actually the low since 1979 was in 2007 and 2010 was the 3rd or 4th lowest depending on the source). Probably wouldn’t bring in many donations if they mentioned the truth: the 21st century has some of the highest annual Arctic sea ice extents over the past 9000 years.
The figure below comes from the paper, but has been modified with the red notations and rotated clockwise. The number of months the sea ice extent is greater than 50% is shown on the y axis. Time is on the x axis starting over 9000 years ago up to the present. Warming periods are shown in gray with the Roman and Medieval warming periods (RWP/MWP) notated, a spike for the Minoan Warming Period about 5000 years ago, and two other older & unnamed warming periods. The last dot on the graph is the end of the 20th century and represents one of the highest annual sea ice extents.
Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 45: 1377-1397
Authors: J.L. McKay, A. de Vernal, C. Hillaire-Marcel, C. Not, L. Polyak, and D. Darby
Abstract: Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, d13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene. The chronology of the cores was established from 210Pb dating of near- surface sediments and 14C dating of bivalve shells. The sediments span the last 9000 years, possibly more, but with a gap between the base of the trigger core and top of the piston core. Sedimentation rates are very high (*156 cm/ka), allowing analyses with a decadal to centennial resolution. The data suggest a shift from a dominantly terrigenous to marine input from the early to late Holocene. Dinocyst assemblages are characterized by relatively high concentrations (600–7200 cysts/cm3) and high species diversity, allowing the use of the modern analogue technique for the reconstruction of sea-ice cover, summer temperature, and salinity. Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.
 |
|
| Arctic summer sea surface temperatures are also currently lower than much of the past 9000 years |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
etudiant says:
September 23, 2010 at 3:23 pm
30 years isn’t a history….. it’s a snapshot.
Does no one see how Hockey Schtick twisted one of the conclusions of the paper in such a manner that it says the exact opposite (on three points)?
Do none of the people who are responsible for the content on WUWT see that the title from this blog post – that was copied almost verbatim from that twisted Hockey Schtick version of what the paper actually says – is wrong and misleading?
EFS_Junior says:
“…someone will have to come up with a convincing argument that current Arctic sea ice extent/area/volume declines can be fully explained and modeled using natural climate variability alone.”
The primary characteristic of climate alarmists is their universal refusal to follow the scientific method. Skeptics have nothing to prove regarding the Arctic or AGW — and the null hypothesis of natural climate variability has never been falsified.
Next: “I’m waiting desperately for such a paper to be published in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.”
‘Well respected’?? Are you perhaps referring to the pal-reviewed climate science litrachur? Or to something credible? I recommend reading A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion [Montford is Bishop Hill]. You will never again look upon the IPCC/CRU/Penn State fakirs as anything but scientific charlatans trying to control the process for their own status, for their endless taxpayer- and NGO-financed jaunts to fun spots around the world, and for their lucrative financial grants.
Hard to argue with that. I guess that site is representative of the whole arctic. And the warm, ice free conditions thousands of years ago I read about on WUWT just a little while ago seem to be bogus too, according to the graph.
Huh? The exact opposite?? Low T, Günther? 😉
Actually the paper says this:
“Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salin- ity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene.”
“Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations in sea-surface con- ditions marked by periods of minimum sea ice (below modern values) and corresponding maxima in summer SSS and SST (similar to or higher than modern values). These fluctuations appear quasi-cyclic with episodes of reduced sea-ice cover centered at about 7500, 5000, and 2000 years BP, yielding a frequency of *1 every 2500–3000 years.”
“Super- imposed on these long-term changes are millennial-scale variations that appear to be quasi-cyclic, with minima in sea-ice cover and corresponding maxima in summer SSS and SST occurring about every 2500–3000 years. This type of cyclicity may be associated with regional climate changes.”
=====================
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Günther Kirschbaum : “… the paper doesn’t say that. It says the exact opposite. It says there have been times when the Arctic sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century. Not most of the time, but a few times.”
At no point does the paper say “a few times“.
To my eye, Fig.7 on p.1384 in this paper (the chart reproduced in this WUWT post) clearly shows that for most of the time sea-ice (>50%) was less extensive than at end of the 20thC. ie, “most of” is supported by their data.
The paper also says “According to sea-surface temperature estimates, the last few
hundred years have been marked by cooler conditions than most of the Holocene“.
Title of the top post:
Title of the study on which this is based:
Anyone see a discrepancy?
This following from the study has been mentioned a few times, but appears not to have made any impact on alleged ‘skeptics’:
From the paper, we cannot conclude much about Arctic-wide sea ice cover over the Holocene. Why are people here saying otherwise?
Well said, Mike Jonas.
And that chart is seen here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/seaice4.jpg
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Thank you for finding this paper – I hadn’t seen it previously. Dinocysts for sea ice, temperature and salinity are my least favourite proxy. I have published a couple of papers describing some of the statistical problems with them (mainly spatial autocorrelation in the modern training set leading to over optimistic estimates of model performance and encouraging inappropriate model choice), and have shown they have little if any skill, at least for reconstructing salinity, and probably the other variables. Barry Dale at Oslo also has several papers discussing the ecological problems with them.
Smokey says:
September 23, 2010 at 8:51 pm
EFS_Junior says:
“…someone will have to come up with a convincing argument that current Arctic sea ice extent/area/volume declines can be fully explained and modeled using natural climate variability alone.”
I’m going to try to simplify Smokey’s response.
For a theory there should be experiments or predictions, the positive results of which should strengthen that being put forward. When an experiment or prediction does not happen as proposed it is the responsibility of those proposing the theory to change it and try again or withdraw. Others do not have a responsibility to come up with anything.
Why not find and read this booklet to see how this is working out for AGW:
The Skeptics Handbook: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
Oh my goodness, some people really don’t see it. That’s scary.
Mike Jones says: “At no point does the paper say “a few times“.
Mike, this is what the paper says:
“More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.”
Does that sound to you like ‘many times’ or even worse: ‘most of the time’, like it says in the blog post title?
And to remind you: this paper is about a proxy for the eastern Chukchi Sea. Check this map here. The Chukchi Sea is the grey area. You see how big a part of the Arctic that is?
But that’s just one of the other incorrectly portrayed details. I’m focussing on the misleading title of this blog post, which is still up. This is not right.
Günther Kirschbaum says:
September 23, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Does no one see how Hockey Schtick twisted one of the conclusions of the paper in such a manner that it says the exact opposite (on three points)?
Do none of the people who are responsible for the content on WUWT see that the title from this blog post – that was copied almost verbatim from that twisted Hockey Schtick version of what the paper actually says – is wrong and misleading?
Its time you took a deep breath, went outside, and maybe smell some flowers or observe nature in action for a change. You are getting bent over backwards on something that is wrong, I did not see that conclusion from the data in the paper, but sure, in your reality you can assume anything you want.
When you are accusing this article of being incorrect, the burden is on YOU to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are correct. Simply saying that the paper mentions the opposite is not grounds for removing a paper, or even issueing a retraction of any type.
This is the same “reality dysfunction” that believers in CaGW have. They believe that the burden is on everyone else to prove them incorrect when in fact the scientific method says the opposite. Its up to you to prove the null hypothesis false first. This is just like the belief in God. Its not up to a non-believer to prove God does not exist, its up to the church to prove that he does. Since this can not happen, churches nowadays have taken the logical assumption that you must have faith. But I digress..
If you really want us to not see you as an arm-wailing loony, then the best bet is to probably see things from our perspective(s) and then prove us wrong. Until you prove us wrong, you are simply forcing your beliefs onto us and by being offensive, you will just get the “troll” brush by the rest of us.
So there’s nothing at all unusual about the climate today for an interglacial period and the only thing at all that might be unusual is CO2 and methane level in the atmosphere which are elevated but do little if anything to change the climate.
And even the CO2 level is arguable as Beck 2007 survey of historical laboratory measurements of CO2 show 400ppm or higher readings circa 1950 which are actual readings with accurate lab equipment taken in the northern hemisphere not air bubbles trapped in ice in the most extreme isolated place on the earth’s surface.
moderator – Please rescue my last comment from where-ever it ended up.
The paper I mentioned
Limitations of dinoflagellate cyst transfer functions. QSR 25, 1375-1382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.02.012
barry says:
September 23, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Title of the top post:
Surprise: Peer reviewed study says current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years
Title of the study on which this is based:
Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea
Anyone see a discrepancy?
=====================
No.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Ben D, this is the title at Hockey Schtick: “Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years”
This is the title here: “Surprise: Peer reviewed study says current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years”
THE PAPER DOES NOT SAY THAT!
Sorry for the capslock, but I really don’t know how to get this fairly simple and obvious conclusion across. I have explained it several times now.
Can someone who is responsible for the content on this blog react? Or are you waiting for Smokey, savethesharks and Ben D to wear me down and just keep things as they are? The title is clearly very successful at misleading people into thinking something that the quoted paper is NOT saying. If this is what you want, then keep it this way. If it’s not what you want, change it.
Smokey says:
September 23, 2010 at 8:22 pm
No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are the result of natural variability.
_____________________________________________________________
Actually they have proved that natural variability can not explain the recent warming trend.
It’s right there in the IPCC WG1 AR4;
Chapter 9, Figure 9.5, Section 9.4.1.2 “Simulations of the 20th Century” Page 684.
Frequently Asked Question 9.2, Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?
Pages 702-703, see FAQ 9.2, Figure 1, Page 703.
That’s all the proof I’ll ever need.
The Chukchi Sea, the area considered in the study, is 10% of the Arctic ocean. The top post here refers to the entire Arctic ocean. That is an error of 90%.
[snip – part of your email is “watch the deniers”. Take your complaint somewhere else ~mod]
Günther Kirschbaum says:
September 23, 2010 at 10:06 pm
THE PAPER DOES NOT SAY THAT!
================================
The graph from the paper does.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/seaice4.jpg
EFS_Junior says:
September 23, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Actually they have proved that natural variability can not explain the recent warming trend.
It’s right there in the IPCC WG1 AR4;
Chapter 9, Figure 9.5, Section 9.4.1.2 “Simulations of the 20th Century” Page 684.
Frequently Asked Question 9.2, Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?
Pages 702-703, see FAQ 9.2, Figure 1, Page 703.
That’s all the proof I’ll ever need.
====================================
Of course that is all the “proof you will ever need.”
Not a very flattering statement.
You sure you want to reduce that into writing?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Günther Kirschbaum : “Mike Jon[a]s says: “At no point does the paper say “a few times“. / Mike, this is what the paper says: “More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.” / Does that sound to you like ‘many times’ or even worse: ‘most of the time’, like it says in the blog post title?
Günther, you need to see all of my comment, not just a little bit. After the bit you quote, it went on : “To my eye, Fig.7 on p.1384 in this paper (the chart reproduced in this WUWT post) clearly shows that for most of the time sea-ice (>50%) was less extensive than at end of the 20thC. ie, “most of” is supported by their data. / The paper also says “According to sea-surface temperature estimates, the last few
hundred years have been marked by cooler conditions than most of the Holocene“.
So you can see that what I did was first of all to point out that your “a few times” statement was technically incorrect. But I then followed that up by checking the paper to see whether your criticism was supportable anyway, in spite of this technicality. It clearly wasn’t, as the chart showed “most of the time” to be a correct interpretation. On top of that, the reference to the Holocene showed that this tallied with their temperature results.
“Cliff says:
September 23, 2010 at 5:19 pm
And what about the rate of change? Has the climate warmed this fast in the past?”
Definitely yes. Greenland in Arctic:
http://i45.tinypic.com/2uzz32v.jpg
“That faaaast?” See the CET 1690-1730 period and compare with mediocre modern warming 1980-2005.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CentralEnglandTempSince1659%20880pixel.gif
Btw, climate is cooling now..
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut3_gl_1998:2011a.png
Günther,
I would hate to spoil savethesharks’ fun getting you all worked up, but yes, you do have a point. I hope that your frustration with this extrapolation from the Chukchi sea to the whole Arctic and “at times” becoming “most” is something like what I feel about the barrage of impending doom stories your champions come up with.
Cliff says:
September 23, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“I don’t get what’s so comforting about instances when things were warmer millions or thousands of years ago. Why do we want to force a return to those conditions? And what about the rate of change? Has the climate warmed this fast in the past?“
Cliff, I posted this on a previous thread, you must have missed it:-
BBC Q&A (13-Feb-2010): Professor Phil Jones(PJ) questioned by the BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin(RH).
RH Q (a) – “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”
PJ A (a)”…in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:”
Period..Len(y)..C/10y.Significance
1860-80 21 0.163 Yes
1910-40 31 0.15 Yes
1975-98 24 0.166 Yes
1975-09 35 0.161 Yes
Nothing ‘unprecedented’ about what’s happening today. No need to blame yourself and mankind. Our impact on climate is nothing compared to the energies involved in the system. Relax, have a beer and enjoy the weather, it’s the only weather we’ve got.