We all know how much NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze has been touting the idea of the “Arctic death spiral“, and we’ve had predictions of ice free summers in 2008, 2013, 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070, and 2100 to name a few. Other forecasts don’t give specific dates but say things like within 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 100 years, decades, and sooner than expected. Such “all over the road forecast certainty” doesn’t really build any confidence that any of these climate soothsayers have any idea when or even if the Arctic will be “ice free” in the summer in the next 100 years.
Now, inconveniently, we have this new paper via ScienceDirect New insights on Arctic Quaternary climate variability from palaeo-records and numerical modelling which says that their studies show that the early Holocene might very well have had ice free summers. This is interesting, because as this generally well accepted graph shows, temperature was higher then. But there’s more.
From the description for this graphic: The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line). (to 10000 BC-2000CE (from 0 — 12000 BP)) The records are plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature, and the global average temperature in 2004 is indicated. An inset plot compares the most recent two millennia of the average to other recent reconstructions. At the far right of this plot it is possible to observe the emergence of climate from the last glacial period of the current ice age. During the Holocene itself, there is general scientific agreement that temperatures on the average have been quite stable compared to fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The above average curve supports this belief. However, there is a slightly warmer period in the middle which might be identified with the proposed Holocene climatic optimum. The magnitude and nature of this warm event is disputed, and it may have been largely limited to high northern latitudes.
But, the other rub of the early Holocene is CO2 in the atmosphere. We know from ice core records that CO2 concentration has varied with ice ages. Coming out of the last ice age into the Holocene, we know that atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose as CO2 came out of the oceans as they warmed. This graph from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) shows that the early Holocene (~10,000 years before present), had a rise coming out of the ice age and then had CO2 concentrations stabilize lower than that of today, about 260-270 ppm:
Figure 1. Top: One sigma-calibrated age ranges for the 14C control points 1, 2 and 6 as an indicator of the possible age range of the CO2 record reconstructed from stomatal frequency. The labels are the same as in Wagner et al. (1). Center and Bottom: Atmospheric CO2 concentration reconstructed from stomatal index (
) (1) and direct measurements of CO2 concentration of air enclosed in bubbles in the ice cores from Taylor Dome (
) (3, 4) and Vostok (
) (7, 8).
This new paper in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews throws a formidable monkey wrench into the the theory that CO2 induced warming is the cause of current Arctic ice loss. Because if we had ice free summers ten thousand years ago at ~ 260 ppm CO2, and we had warmer temperatures than today, we can’t then conclude that an additional 100 ppm of CO2 since then would be the cause of an ice free summer in the Arctic today. And ice free summer at lower CO2 and higher temperature is an incongruity with today’s theory of the “Arctic Death Spiral”.
Here’s the paper abstract:
New insights on Arctic Quaternary climate variability from palaeo-records and numerical modelling
Abstract
Terrestrial and marine geological archives in the Arctic contain information on environmental change through Quaternary interglacial–glacial cycles. The Arctic Palaeoclimate and its Extremes (APEX) scientific network aims to better understand the magnitude and frequency of past Arctic climate variability, with focus on the “extreme” versus the “normal” conditions of the climate system. One important motivation for studying the amplitude of past natural environmental changes in the Arctic is to better understand the role of this region in a global perspective and provide base-line conditions against which to explore potential future changes in Arctic climate under scenarios of global warming. In this review we identify several areas that are distinct to the present programme and highlight some recent advances presented in this special issue concerning Arctic palaeo-records and natural variability, including spatial and temporal variability of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Arctic Ocean sediment stratigraphy, past ice shelves and marginal marine ice sheets, and the Cenozoic history of Arctic Ocean sea ice in general and Holocene oscillations in sea ice concentrations in particular. The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fig. 1. Map showing the locations of some of the studies included in the papers presented in this special issue. Numbers refer to Table 1, which contains the references to the respective study. Some of the papers on the Arctic Ocean involve sediment cores from a large spatial area; these are only plotted with boxes enclosing the areas of the studied cores. Furthermore, Cronin et al. (2010) analyzed sediment cores from virtually the entire central Arctic Ocean and, therefore, there is no number representing that study on the map. The maximum extensions of the Eurasian Ice Sheet during the late Quaternary compiled by the QUEEN project (Svendsen et al., 2004) are shown. LS: Late Saalian (>140 ka), EW: Early Weichselian (100–80 ka), MW: Middle Weichselian (60–50 ka), LGM: Late Weichselian (25–15 ka). The speculative extent of an MIS 6 ice shelf inferred by Jakobsson et al. (2010) is shown by the hatched area enclosed by a gray stippled line. The approximate spatial minimum cover of sea ice during 2007 is shown with a white shaded area enclosed by a black stippled line as a comparison to the median extension for the period 1979–2005 shown by a blue stippled line (Data is from National Snow and Ice Data Center). MJR: Morris Jesup Rise; YP: Yermak Plateau. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
================================
h/t to WUWT reader “josh”
Addendum: Some follow up graphic from comments, in my response to Richard Telford:
Here’s an interesting plot of solar insolation at 65 degrees north over time. To give readers an idea of this line, here is a map:
(Map from WikiMedia) Fairbanks, AK is at 64.5° N
The plot below shows how insolation varied with the Milankovitch cycles at 65° N. I’ve added the deltas comparing 10KYA to present.
The “Fermi Paradox” blogger who originally made the graph I annotated wrote: The graph shows the insolation in W/m^2 at 65 degrees norther latitude from 20ky before present to 10 ky in the future, calculated with the program insola from J. Laskar et al. The four plots are for the two months after the summer solstice and the two months before. It can be seen that the change in insolation over time is quite significant. Note though that this only applies at high latitudes – the global mean barely changes at all.
Note the magnitude of the change in insolation from 10K years ago to present, from 15 to 40 Watts/m2
Now look at this image from NOAA’ s Environmental Research Laboratory (ESRL):
CO2 accounts for 1.4 Watts/m2 of forcing in the last 150 years, so compared to the forcings of the Milankovitch cycles (at least at 65N) it is an order of magnitude lower. My point is that given the small impact of CO2 in forcings, it is not likely to be the driver of Arctic ice melt in the present, just like it wasn’t much of a significant factor 10K years ago.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your comment makes no sense. Run off and evaporation just move water from one part of the planet to another. The planet doesn’t lose water.
I didn’t read the meat of the article or any of the comments.
I’m happy to bask in the glow of real science starting to peek out of the totalitarian boot heel that describes the last 20 years of academia.
My name is Wright, feel free to call me wrong. I don’t hide from debate.
We all know who does.
The graph comes from Wikipedia which in turn comes from the Global Warming Art project prepared by Robert A. Rohde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
I’m a layman, not a scientist, but some one who is already seeing his electricity bills soar because of this CAGW nonsense. IMO anything on climate from Wikipedia must be taken ‘cum grano salis’.
At the bottom of the Wiki page is a most important caveat: “Though all of this data is published, and the methodology is similar to previously published methodology, and resulting average is similar to previously published interpretations of the Holocene, even so, no peer reviewed scientific publication has ever combined precisely these data in precisely this way. Hence, any interpretation of that average must be regarded with skepticism”.
I’m always suspicious of Wiki’s “thick dark line[s]” — in this case, as in the ‘hockeystick’, it is meaningless.
How can the average of a bunch of arbitrarily chosen proxy curves mean anything when grafted on to an instrumental series or, in this case, with the current (at the time of preparation) instrumental value stuck on?
Bulbhead
Sorry, you are misinformed, the general belief (by climate scientists) is that climate and Co2 has been relatively stable through the ages until we came along, increased CO2 and changed the climate.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
Extract “Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.”
tonyb
” bublhead says:”
?
It doesnt.
It was farting polar bears and walruses, innit?
Sorry I havent read through the comments. But it might pay to save that wikipedia Holocene temp graph for before it meets with a few Wiki edits. One wonders how it has survived intact for so long.
Greenland ice-core dating based on 10Be, the current standard, may be unreliable due to contamination . Even cores from neighbouring boreholes can be vastly different, which may be reason why many of proxies give contradicting results.
I have looked into the recent 10Be data, used by Dr. McCracken for calculating the heliosphere strength, and found that even as recently as Dalton minimum there could be significant errors.
More details available 10Be ? .
Somebody tell the EPA that the polar bears will be fine. Wait, they don’t care.
If there have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean in the early Holocene, I hazard to suggest that there have been other periods of ice-free summers in more recent times:
http://omniclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fig01.gif
” bublhead says:”
So how does this research fundamentally challenge the basic conclusions of Climate Change/Global Warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/might-arctic-warming-lead-to-catastrophic-methane-releases/
Might Arctic Warming Lead to Catastrophic Methane Releases?
Apparently not
If there is less ice isn’t there therefore more water vapour?
Jason F (2010/10/31 at 2:51 am)
You asked about increase in water vapour – I was refered to a paper the other day in commments on another thread:
“The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/full/nature09051.html
The paper measures up to 10% increase in humidity (June-Oct) in the period 1989-2008.
Malaga View says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:56 am
Aha, back to classical old fashion plain science now? Looks so much more familiar!
But, alas, the patients are controlling the asylum now. We were busy slaving away, paying our taxes and supporting our familys.
Sorry.
If the value s of the ice-core data in the graph are correct, than the CO2-concentration 12000 years before present was below 250 ppm. Life would no longer exist on earth, because all plants stop assimilation, when the CO2 concentration falls below that value.
‘TJA says:
October 31, 2010 at 2:12 am
Somebody tell the EPA that the polar bears will be fine. Wait, they don’t care.’
How will those polar bears survive an ice free Arctic? How will they find their there favorite meal, seals? Or will they invade Montreal looking for easier pray?
Could we herd them toward Washington?
nc 12:20 am:
I followed the link you gave about the Piri Reis map. At the bottom of the page there’s a section entitled “Modern analysis of the Piri Reis map – Surprising Conclusions” and shortly afterwards a ‘read more’ link to the rest of the article which quite comprehensively debunks the claims that earlier map-makers had modern knowledge and technology that was subsequently lost.
“At the far right of this plot it is possible to observe the emergence of climate from the last glacial period of the current ice age. ”
Do you mean left?
John M Reynolds
Anthony,
You could definately have warmer temperatures and the trade off would have been less atmospheric pressure. But only to a point. The interesting link with water and salt is that the oceans have been becoming fresherwater over time due to the planetary slowdown and centrifugal force.
Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road, follow, follow, follow, follow, follow the yellow brick road……..to the past.
Global warming scientists say the Arctic has never been ice free but it is going to be ice free because of global warming. Now that a peer reviewed work shows far less ice in the Arctic than now, and it’s not the first to do so, global warning believers say it’s a meaningless paper—it doesn’t (or the won’t let it) change what they believe.
You see, nothing will change religious zealotry. Blind faith is blind.
You can see that nothing will change their mind. Proof of strong negative feedback from H2O didn’t change their mind. ClimateGate didn’t change their mind. If those two things didn’t change their mind then one could conclude they don’t want to change their mind.
“The Americans are not here. We are pushing them back. We are cleaning them out.”
–Baghdad Bob
” and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.”
Ah ha! Must be budget time.
The longest running Ice Core:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/Vostok.JPG
says that we have begun to round down the slope into the next Ice Age.
It was also (from the same graph) very stable at the end of the previous Ice Age as well as during the Holocene.
Ditto for the previous Ice Age and Interglacial. So much so, that it’s a very good probability that we have (as some suggest) already entered the beginning of the end of the Holocene Interglacial.
Each Ice Age is different, and it’s very obvious from spending time with Ice Core runs that there are 2 major waves that, over hundreds of thousands of years, have merged to form the Greater Interglacials, and are now pulling apart to form the Lesser Interglacials.
Looking for a 2nd peak in this Interglacial? Not the best odds, not at all.
@bublhead,
The point is that it was warmer, the Arctic icecap was gone, and the Earth did just fine.
Whatever forced the changes during the study period, loss of the icecap did not trigger, as AGW theory claims, a run away disaster. Polar bears seals whales and walrus all did fine.
And the increased temps did not cause a tipping point of run away positive feedbacks.
The methane did not bubble up from melting permafrost and poison life or cook the planet.
The point is that AGW- the idea that we are facing a global climate disruption due to CO2- is not supported by the history.
Is that something you are willing to deal with or will you seek to avoid the topic?
My quick thoughts based on the post are:
1. The artic in an ice free condition was not a risk, even to polar bears during the early Holocene. Today it would be a benefit to mankind and even polar bears.
2. The rate of the temp increase to the peak temp of the Holocene ~8,000 yrs ago was more dramatic than that of the last 150 yrs. Mankind and biodiversity did not end ~8,000 yrs ago. Ahhhh, quite the contrary, it flourished.
3. We are slowly sliding into the next glacial period, relentlessly but very very slowly. So no catastrophic ‘we are all going to freeze’ headlines, please. We have had enough of the ‘burn’ hype . . . . . ‘freeze’ hype is not an alternative option.
4. The graphic entitled “Holocene Temperature Variations” in the post is an upside down hockey stick with the handle pointing at the future Apparently Mother Nature is a hockey fan. : )
5. The temps at ~8,000 yrs ago were, conservatively, approximately of the order of the last 30 yr. It is hard to tell with that tiny inset when compared to the bigger chart. And the CO2 concentrations were not comparable to today’s higher levels. There was another cause operative in the Holocene. So Milankovic effect in combination with other effects did give natural cycles that were higher than the total of all of the speculations of current mankind effects and . . . . . . the world did not end; it thrived.
My unborn great-great-great grandchildern are smiling at me from my resident DNA.
John
On the same page as references, is the abstract for this supporting paper:
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic Original Research Article
Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 29, Issues 15-16, July 2010, Pages 1679-1715
The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) peaked not, vert, similar21 ka ago, when mean annual temperatures over parts of the Arctic were as much as 20 °C lower than at present. Ice recession was well underway 16 ka ago, and most of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets had melted by 6 ka ago. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) not, vert, similar11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1–3 °C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished.
So the Arctic sea ice extent vaties with temperature and Arctic temperature varies with solar radiation and the ice free period in the early Holocene is due to orbital changes. This says nothing about today except that the fall in sea ice extent is due to an increase in Arctic temperature.
So polar bears survived all this holecene warmth? Even in an ice-free Arctic the polar bears didn’t all drown?
My my how the eco-zealot lies are unraveling.
“Nothing travels faster than light, with the possible exception of man-made climate change, which follows its own rules”.