Easterbrook on the magnitude of Greenland GISP2 ice core data

GISP2 logo
Image via Wikipedia

MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGES

Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook,

Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University

The GISP2 Greenland ice core has proven to be a great source of climatic data from the geologic past. Ancient temperatures can be measured using oxygen isotopes in the ice and ages can be determined from annual dust accumulation layers in the ice. The oxygen isotope ratios of thousands of ice core samples were measured by Minze Stuiver and Peter Grootes at the University of Washington (1993, 1999) and these data have become a world standard.

The ratio of 18O to 16O depends on the temperature at the time snow crystals formed, which were later transformed into glacial ice. Ocean volume may also play a role in δ18O values, but δ18O serves as a good proxy for temperature. The oxygen isotopic composition of a sample is expressed as a departure of the 18O/16O ratio from an arbitrary standard

δ18O =

(18O/16O)sample ‒ (18O/16O) x 103

____________________________________

(18O/16O)standard

where δ18O is the of ratio 18O/16O expressed in per mil (0/00) units.

The age of each sample is accurately known from annual dust layers in the ice core. The top of the core is 1987.

The δ18O data clearly show remarkable swings in climate over the past 100,000 years. In just the past 500 years, Greenland warming/cooling temperatures fluctuated back and forth about 40 times, with changes every 25-30 years (27 years on the average). None of these changes could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they predate the large CO2 emissions that began about 1945. Nor can the warming of 1915 to 1945 be related to CO2, because it pre-dates the soaring emissions after 1945. Thirty years of global cooling (1945 to 1977) occurred during the big post-1945 increase in CO2.

But what about the magnitude and rates of climates change? How do past temperature oscillations compare with recent global warming (1977-1998) or with warming periods over the past millennia. The answer to the question of magnitude and rates of climate change can be found in the δ18O and borehole temperature data.

Temperature changes in the GISP2 core over the past 25,000 years are shown in Figure 1 (from Cuffy and Clow, 1997). The temperature curve in Figure 1 is a portion of their original curve. I’ve added color to make it easier to read. The horizontal axis is time and the vertical axis is temperature based on the ice core δ18O and borehole temperature data. Details are discussed in their paper. Places where the curve becomes nearly vertical signify times of very rapid temperature change. Keep in mind that these are temperatures in Greenland, not global temperatures. However, correlation of the ice core temperatures with world-wide glacial fluctuations and correlation of modern Greenland temperatures with global temperatures confirms that the ice core record does indeed follow global temperature trends and is an excellent proxy for global changes. For example, the portions of the curve from about 25,000 to 15,000 represent the last Ice Age (the Pleistocene) when huge ice sheets thousands of feet thick covered North America, northern Europe, and northern Russia and alpine glaciers readvanced far downvalley.

So let’s see just how the magnitude and rates of change of modern global warming/cooling compare to warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. We can compare the warming and cooling in the past century to approximate 100 year periods in the past 25,000 years. The scale of the curve doesn’t allow enough accuracy to pick out exactly 100 year episodes directly from the curve, but that can be done from the annual dust layers in ice core data. Thus, not all of the periods noted here are exactly 100 years. Some are slightly more, some are slightly less, but they are close enough to allow comparison of magnitude and rates with the past century.

Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.

Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).

Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.

Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.

Magnitude and rate of abrupt climate changes

Some of the more remarkable sudden climatic warming periods are shown listed below (refer also to Figure 1). Numbers correspond to the temperature curves on Figure 5.

1. About 24,000 years ago, while the world was still in the grip of the last Ice Age and huge continental glaciers covered large areas, a sudden warming of about 20°F occurred. Shortly thereafter, temperatures dropped abruptly about 11°F. Temperatures then remained cold for several thousand years but oscillated between about 5°F warmer and cooler.

2. About 15,000 years ago, a sudden, intense, climatic warming of about 21°F (~12° C;) caused dramatic melting of the large ice sheets that covered Canada and the northern U.S., all of Scandinavia, and much of northern Europe and Russia.

3. A few centuries later, temperatures again plummeted about 20° F (~11°C) and glaciers readvanced.

4. About 14,000 years ago, global temperatures once again rose rapidly, about 8° F (~4.5°C), and glaciers receded.

4. About 13,400 years ago, global temperatures plunged again, about 14° F (~8°C) and glaciers readvanced.

5. About 13,200 years ago, global temperatures increased rapidly, 9° F (~5°C), and glaciers receded.

6. 12,700 yrs ago global temperatures plunged sharply, 14° F (~8°C) and a 1300 year cold period, the Younger Dryas, began.

7. After 1300 years of cold climate, global temperatures rose sharply, about 21° F (~12° C), 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cold period and the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

Early Holocene climate changes

8,200 years ago, the post-Ice Age interglacial warm period was interrupted by a sudden global cooling that lasted for a few centuries (Fig. 3). During this time, alpine glaciers advanced and built moraines. The warming that followed the cool period was also abrupt. Neither the abrupt climatic cooling nor the warming that followed was preceded by atmospheric CO2 changes.

Figure 3. The 8200 year B.P. sudden climate change, recorded in oxygen isotope ratios in the GISP2 ice core, lasted about 200 years.

Late Holocene climate changes

750 B.C. to 200 B.C. cool period

Prior to the founding of the Roman Empire, Egyptians records show a cool climatic period from about 750 to 450 B.C. and the Romans wrote that the Tiber River froze and snow remained on the ground for long periods (Singer and Avery, 2007).

The Roman warm period (200 B.C. to 600 A.D.)

After 100 B.C., Romans wrote of grapes and olives growing farther north in Italy than had been previously possible and of little snow or ice (Singer and Avery, 2007).

The Dark Ages cool period (440 A.D. to 900 A.D.)

The Dark Ages were characterized by marked cooling. A particularly puzzling event apparently occurred in 540 A.D. when tree rings suggest greatly retarded growth, the sun appeared dimmed for more than a year, temperatures dropped in Ireland, Great Britain, Siberia, North and South America, fruit didn’t ripen, and snow fell in the summer in southern Europe (Baillie in Singer and Avery, 2007). In 800 A.D., the Black Sea froze and in 829 A.D. the Nile River froze (Oliver, 1973).

The Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D.)

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were particularly evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 meters, but from about 1100 to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 meters, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0 to 1.4° C (Oliver, 1973, Tkachuck, 1983). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about one degree C warmer than present (Fagan, 2007).

The Vikings colonized southern Greenland in 985 AD during the Medieval Warm Period when milder climates allowed favorable open-ocean conditions for navigation and fishing. This was “close to the maximum Medieval warming recorded in the GISP2 ice core at 975 AD (Stuiver et al., 1995).

Elsewhere in the world, prolonged droughts affected the southwestern United States and Alaska warmed. Sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan record warmer temperatures. Sea surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea were approximately 1°C warmer than today and the climate in equatorial east Africa was drier from 10001270 AD. An ice core from the eastern Antarctic Peninsula shows warmer temperatures during this period.

The Little Ice Age (1300 A.D. to the 20th century)

At the end of the Medieval Warm Period, ~1230 AD, temperatures dropped ~4°C (~7° F) in ~20 years and the cold period that followed is known as the Little Ice Age. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating (see e.g., Grove, 1988, 2004; Singer and Avery, 2007; Fagan, 2000). Temperatures of the cold winters and cool, rainy summers were too low for growing of cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. When temperatures declined during the 30–year cool period from the late 1940’s to 1977, some climatologists and meteorologists predicted a return to a new Little Ice Age.

Glaciers expanded worldwide (see e.g., Grove, 1988, 2004; Singer and Avery, 2007). Glaciers in Greenland advanced and pack-ice extended southward in the North Atlantic in the 13th century. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as a food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Three years of torrential rains that began in 1315 led to the Great Famine of 1315-1317. The Thames River in London froze over, the growing season was significantly shortened, crops failed repeatedly, and wine production dropped sharply (Fagan, 2000; Singer and Avery, 2007).

Winters during the Little Ice Age were bitterly cold in many parts of the world. Advance of glaciers in the Swiss Alps in the mid–17th century gradually encroached on farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.

Significance of previous global climate changes

If CO2 is indeed the cause of global warming, then global temperatures should mirror the rise in CO2. For the past 1000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels remained fairly constant at about 280 ppm (parts per million). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations began to rise during the industrial revolution early in the 20th century but did not exceed about 300 ppm. The climatic warming that occurred between about 1915 and 1945 was not accompanied by significant rise in CO2. In 1945, CO2 emission began to rise sharply and by 1980 atmospheric CO2. had risen to just under 340 ppm. During this time, however, global temperatures fell about 0.9°F (0.5° C) in the Northern Hemisphere and about 0.4°F (0.2° C) globally. Global temperatures suddenly reversed during the Great Climate Shift of 1977 when the Pacific Ocean switched from its cool mode to its warm mode with no change in the rate of CO2 increase. The 1977–1998 warm cycle ended in 1999 and a new cool cycle began. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, why did temperatures rise for 30 years (1915-1945) with no significant increase in CO2? Why did temperatures fall for 30 years (1945-1977) while CO2 was sharply accelerating? Logic dictates that this anomalous cooling cycle during accelerating CO2 levels must mean either (1) rising CO2 is not the cause of global warming or (2) some process other than rising CO2 is capable of strongly overriding its effect on global atmospheric warming.

Temperature patterns since the Little Ice Age (~1300 to 1860 A.D.) show a very similar pattern; 25–30 year–long periods of alternating warm and cool temperatures during overall warming from the Little Ice Age low. These temperature fluctuations took place well before any significant effect of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2.

Conclusions

Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet show that the magnitude of global warming experienced during the past century is insignificant compared to the magnitude of the profound natural climate reversals over the past 25,000 years, which preceded any significant rise of atmospheric CO2. If so many much more intense periods of warming occurred naturally in the past without increase in CO2, why should the mere coincidence of a small period of low magnitude warming this century be blamed on CO2?

5 6 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

132 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
don penman
January 24, 2011 12:59 pm

I think that the global climate is beginning to cool because of the ocean cycles and the low solar activity etc. I have never thought that level of co2 in the atmosphere has much to do with global temperature.We were being told last January by warmists that last years El Nino would make 2010 much higher than 1998, this did not happen,yet we are still hearing your claims that world temperatures are on a rising trend,they are not and they are more likely falling.

Editor
January 24, 2011 1:00 pm

GregL says:
January 24, 2011 at 10:26 am
Isn’t it a stretch to present Greenland ice cap temperature as global temperature?

It would be. But that’s not what was done. Dr. Easterbrook wrote that the GISP2 “ice core record does indeed follow global temperature trends and is an excellent proxy for global changes.”
A general “rule of thumb,” when using polar ice core temperature series as global proxies, is to use one-half of the amplitude of the ice core temperature anomaly series.
By atttenuating the GISP2 amplitude, you can tie it into northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions.
GISP2, Ljunqvist and HadCRUT3
The magnitude and rate of warming shown by the instrumental record (HadCRUT3) is not anomalous when compared to the attenuated GISP2 record. Also, bear in mind that the instrumental data have a much higher resolution than the proxy data. The amplitude of lower resolution data will almost always be attenuated relative to higher resolution data.

latitude
January 24, 2011 1:12 pm

Louise has no idea why they call them 100 year floods, 100 year droughts, etc
=====================================
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook thank you!

Malaga View
January 24, 2011 1:12 pm

Vince Causey says: January 24, 2011 at 10:09 am
It is a quirk of history that we are now in a warming period…

Looking at those graphs I think you need to rephrase into the past tense 🙁

UK John
January 24, 2011 1:12 pm

Every human civilisation in human history has believed that its actions can affect the weather, our civilisation is no different.
When our lives as hunter gatherers depended on understanding the weather and the pattern of the seasons, such a superstition was useful, and ensured our species would survive and prosper.
This is who we are. But I haven’t seen many human hunter gatherers lately, so perhaps we should dispose of such beliefs as no longer relevant.

Editor
January 24, 2011 1:12 pm

Juraj V. says:
January 24, 2011 at 12:39 pm
CET, Loehle 2008, GISP2 are the best antidote against any hockey stick.
Keep in mind that GISP2 ends in 1905, but it is a good proxy for North Atlantic/NH.

The recent NGRIP d18O temperatures come up to 1980.
NGRIP

Tony B (another one)
January 24, 2011 1:13 pm

As Louise is quite happy to call Dr Easterbrook names, then I am sure that she will not mind if I call her a Troll.
It is the most polite name I can find for her.
I would add to that name, the adjective gullible.
Funny how weather can become climate in an instant when gullible trolls are involved.

frederik wisse
January 24, 2011 1:13 pm

Following the last news from the Himalayas by the IPCC the amount of stones in the glaciers is disrupting , slowing down the melting of the glaciers ……..This is rockhard proof of global warming , the stones are telling the story here . It is a relief for Mr. Pachauri that he is no longer between a rock and a hard place and the deniers must be stone-deaf not understanding his supernatural logic . Throwing precious stones at his most esteemed and dignified robust papers is a barbaric act showing a lack of compassion for the mind-set of the enlightened part of the population and may only lead to more voodoo and further warming of the climate .

MattN
January 24, 2011 1:14 pm

Easterbrook’s resume is impressive: http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/resume.htm
GregL says:
January 24, 2011 at 10:26 am
Isn’t it a stretch to present Greenland ice cap temperature as global temperature?
Just curious. Is it any more of a stretch than using tree rings from one tree on one mountain as global temperature?

Asim
January 24, 2011 1:15 pm

I’m really sorry to make my post offtopic but I’ve just got back home, turned on BBC 2 and there is a show on called – Horizon, Science under attack by Nobel Peace Prize Winner Sir Paul Nurse.
First 5 minutes, it is a massive hit piece, asking the public to back off from “prosecuting” or questioning the science consensus that is Climate Change! I’m really shocked at the blatant propaganda here, they are assuming that it is the public that are merely skeptical, not experts such as yourself Anthony and many others that post very well written and technical information for a wider audience.
It’s been a while coming but this being on prime time televesion in the uk; I feel it is a massive step at trying to shut down the skeptic movement by marginalising us into the Public (“non-experts”) v The Climate Scientists (“experts”).
If anyone else has a chance to see this it would be really interesting to see your views on this. I’ve just heard another minute of it stating that skeptics are simply cherry picking data, typical from the BBC(!)

Tom W.
January 24, 2011 1:16 pm


10Be concentration is a function of both production rate and snow accumulation rate. The higher Pleistocene values are due to lower accumulation rates. I’m not sure about the Younger Dryas peak but I suspect it is the same reason, if it were caused by solar activity or a geomagnetic excursion then it would be a global signal.

RayG
January 24, 2011 1:17 pm

Prof. Easterbrook, thank you for you clearly written, non-alarmist and jargon free paper.
I would expect that there is a comparable project looking at cores from Antarctica. If so, is there a paper that is comparable to your post that you can recommend to WUWT readers? What kind of comparisons between GISP2 and Antarctic ice cores are there in the archival literature and has anyone published summaries that are aimed at the non-specialist reader?

izen
January 24, 2011 1:22 pm

The first graph has temperature in Centigrade and resolves time to around ~300 years.
The second histogram of rates of temperature change is in Farenheit and seems to be labeled ‘per hundred years’.
Unless my conversion of C to F is way out the maximum change in the top graph (per 300 years) would not give the maximum rate shown in the histogram.
The warming around 11500 years ago after the Younger Dryas that ended the ice age was about 16degCentigrade on the top graph. That occurs over at least 1000 years. The rate of change is given for this period 7 as 24deg Farenheit ~100 years
Perhaps you meant per THOUSAND years ?
There is also evidence that the Younger Dryas was not global, or at least not globaly synchronous. :-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/nature09313.html
Is there evidence the cooling event at ~ 8200years ago is reflected in global records?

Howarth
January 24, 2011 1:27 pm

I had it straight reading the article, but after reading the comment section I am confused. Comments should be sourced. (

Stephen Wilde
January 24, 2011 1:29 pm

An interesting feature of the historical data is that the natural climate swings during interglacials are smaller than those during glacial epochs.
I have attempted to explain that by proposing that the two main climate drivers are solar variability and oceanic variability sometimes acting together and sometimes offsetting one another.
Solar changes appear to operate not by simple changes in TSI which are negligible but rather by changes in the mix of wavelengths and particle types arriving from the sun which then cause amplifying chemical changes in the atmosphere so as to alter the vertical temperature profile and redistribute surface pressure so as to increase or decrease global cloudiness and albedo by making the jetstreams more or less meridional/zonal.
Oceanic changes involve variability in the rate of energy release from oceans to air on multiple timescales. There is ENSO then PDO and I also suspect a further 1000 to 1500 year cycling linked to the thermohaline circulation.
My proposition is that interglacials occur when the solar and oceanic effects are broadly offsetting one another to minimise climate swings. Ice ages occur when the solar and oceanic effects are broadly supplementing each other to maximise climate swings. The long ice ages and short interglacials being a reflection of current landmass distributions.
That is not to deny the effect of Milankovitch’s findings. I merely suggest that those shorter term solar and oceanic effects are superimposed on the longer term astronomical cycles.

crosspatch
January 24, 2011 1:38 pm

And it is the extremely rapid swings in temperature that lead me to believe that orbital mechanics isn’t what is the main factor here. Something else is going one. One doesn’t wake up one morning to discover that the Earth’s orientation in space is completely different than it was the day before. In my other reading, most of the initial jump in temperature of the initial warm pulse coming out of the last glaciation happened within 5 years with the majority of that happening in one year as shown by layers of dust in the ice cores allowing one to see annual ice deposition.
It seems that our slide into glaciation is itself gradual but during that gradual overall slide, there are still extreme variations that occur. Also, looking at Figure 1, it would seem that we are just about ready to slip back into the “blue” zone of the graph for another 100,000 years or so of glacial conditions.
One “Bond Event” and we might tip the balance. If one believes that the LIA was the last such “Bond Event”, we should be due for the next one in about 700 years or so (figuring the last one happened in the early 13th century and the events are roughly 1500 years apart).
Something drastic happens. I don’t think we have a clue what that something is yet.

izen
January 24, 2011 1:39 pm

@-RayG
“What kind of comparisons between GISP2 and Antarctic ice cores are there in the archival literature and has anyone published summaries that are aimed at the non-specialist reader?”
Try :-
http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html

Stephen Wilde
January 24, 2011 2:00 pm

crosspatch said:
“Something drastic happens. I don’t think we have a clue what that something is yet.”
I suggest that what happens is a period of solar and oceanic cycles supplementing each other for a while instead of offsetting one another.
On the basis of my earlier writings elsewhere the relevant combinations are:
i) For extreme cooling of the troposphere – A positive AO allowing faster energy loss from air to space (caused by an active sun) plus a negative PDO. Thus energy being denied to the air from both above and below.
ii) For extreme warming of the troposphere – A negative AO reducing the rate of energy loss to space (caused by an inactive sun) plus a positive PDO. Thus energy being added to the air from both above and below.
During the late 20th century we had an intermediate scenario of modest warming (active sun for a positive AO and a positive PDO) and at present we have an intermediate scenario of modest cooling (inactive sun for a negative AO and a negative PDO).
I do accept that any readers who are unfamiliar with my work will have a problem following the logic of the above but c’est la vie. I’m putting it up here and now for future reference when (or if) my work becomes validated by events.

Editor
January 24, 2011 2:06 pm

crosspatch says:
January 24, 2011 at 1:38 pm
[…]
One “Bond Event” and we might tip the balance. If one believes that the LIA was the last such “Bond Event”, we should be due for the next one in about 700 years or so (figuring the last one happened in the early 13th century and the events are roughly 1500 years apart).
[…]

The nadir of the last Bond Event was ~1600 AD. The Pleistocene Dansgaard-Oeschger events in the Greenland ice cores had a period of ~1,470 yrs (+/-150 yrs). Bond described the Holocene version of the D-O events (Bond events) as having a period of ~1,470 (+/-500 yrs). I think that most of the Bond events in the GISP2 core and in the Moberg and Ljunqvist reconstructions appear to have a period of about 900 to 1,000 yrs. The -500 part of the +/-500 yr variability seems to be the norm. If that’s the case, the peak of the modern warming will occur within the next 100 years and we will start sliding down toward the next Bond event nadir. The secular trend since the Holocene Climatic Optimum has been negative – So the next Bond event will probably be colder than the LIA.

RobW
January 24, 2011 2:16 pm

Louise said:
“Bearing in mind that 2010 has tied for the warmest year on record with 1998 (See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/), can you please explain when you expect this global cooling to begin?”
It would seem you have not been paying attention to the lack of warming for the past nine years. Silly rabbit.

tty
January 24, 2011 2:20 pm

“Sal Minella says:
January 24, 2011 at 12:28 pm
To ask the question in a different way: Is it assumed that there were no periods of melting or no ice formation in Greenland over the period that the ice cores represent?
If there were such periods, would these periods appear as abrupt changes in global temperature? If there was no ice formed during these periods, how do we know how long they were? Doesn’t this cast doubt on the utility of the ice record?
These are not rhetorical questions, I really would like answers. Thanks”
Really old ice cores must be taken at the ice divide at the middle of the Greenland Ice Cap. That means that the snow falls at about 2000-3000 meters altitude where temperatures practically never rises above zero even in summer. The risk that an entire years’ snow-fall would melt is zero.
As for dating the cores, for the last several thousand years one can simply count the annual layers. At greater depth the layers become so compressed that they are not discernible. Here it is no longer possible to measure single layers and the dating becomes more problematic. Volcanic ash layers can be used to correlate and in some cases date the ice. Geomagnetic excursions can be used in the same way (they can be discerned in the ice by the isotopes created by increasing cosmic radiation). However it should be understood that in the lower part of the Greenland ice-cores the dating uncertainty can be as large as a couple of thousand years.
Another uncertainty is due to the fact that the thickness of the icecap has certainly varied over time. This means that at times when the cap is thicker, the snow falls at a higher altitude and will give a colder temperature. The temperature is of course correct, but not quite comparable to results at times when the ice-cap was thinner. This problem can be to some extent corrected for by comparison with the core from the small Renland icecap, that can for topographic reasons not have varied much in altitude.

NoAstronomer
January 24, 2011 2:22 pm

“in 829 A.D. the Nile River froze”
I had to read that three times to make sure I understood . Could you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if that occurred today.
“…as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible…”
Sorry, that’s just not true. There are many vineyards in England. The house I grew up in had a grape vine crawling up the south side when we moved in in 1970. It was many years old and well established.
Mike.

tty
January 24, 2011 2:38 pm

izen says:
January 24, 2011 at 1:22 pm
The first graph has temperature in Centigrade and resolves time to around ~300 years.
The second histogram of rates of temperature change is in Farenheit and seems to be labeled ‘per hundred years’.
Unless my conversion of C to F is way out the maximum change in the top graph (per 300 years) would not give the maximum rate shown in the histogram.
The warming around 11500 years ago after the Younger Dryas that ended the ice age was about 16degCentigrade on the top graph. That occurs over at least 1000 years. The rate of change is given for this period 7 as 24deg Farenheit ~100 years
Perhaps you meant per THOUSAND years ?

No. There has been special studies made of the younger Dryas interval with much denser sampling than the main analysis series. Those big changes in temperature really happened in a few decades. Perhaps even less as they are at the limit of what can be discerned at that time-depth.

There is also evidence that the Younger Dryas was not global, or at least not globaly synchronous. :-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/nature09313.html

The Younger Dryas was synchronous and is easily discernible all over the Northern Hemisphere and into the southern tropics (e. g. Lake Malawi).
It is not discernible at higher southern latitudes, and in Antarctica it was actually a warm period. This seems to be something of a rule – cold intervals in the Greenland cores are often mild in Antarctica.

Is there evidence the cooling event at ~ 8200years ago is reflected in global records?

Again as for Younger Dryas, the “8.2 KA Event” is found all over the northern hemisphere.

January 24, 2011 2:57 pm

Thank you Dr. Don for an article that can only be seen, by me, as confirmation of all that I so far have taken to be facts about climate history. It also adds a lot “extra” to my knowledge.
Your graph showing temperature during “The Holocene interglacial and Last Ice Age” does show quite clearly what I have been seeing, in other similar graphs for a long time, which is that “The Holocene” has gradually and steadily been cooling during the past 8 – 9 thousand years, and that we are now at ”the threshold” of what might very well be the next big freeze.
Hoser says January 24, 2011 at 10:30 am :
“———– Which also suggests the Milankovic cycles are not the whole story.”
Back, when I was a young lad, in the early to mid 1950es, Scandinavian scientist (and probably others too) had increasingly, as the world cooled, got more and more fed up, or disillusioned, with the “late and great” Arrhenius and his idea that a substantial increase in “atmospheric CO2 would/could prevent the advent of another Ice-Age. Instead they started to re-examine the Milankovitch cycles.
My science teacher, at the time told us (or his class): “Scientists are now insisting that Ice Ages are, most likely, being brought on by a change in the Earth’s track around the Sun. However as summers in the Northern Hemisphere take place when the Earth, in it’s track, is as far away from the Sun as it can be, it seems logical to me that if this circuit becomes more elliptical summer in both hemispheres may get cooler yes – but – winters would equally get warmer or to say it in a different way, average energy received from the Sun would stay the same.
I can add many other reasons as to why the Milankovitch cycles are not the end all and be all for the comings and goings of Ice Ages. – What, for example, is it in the Milankovitch theory that decides the length of “Interglacials”?
OHD

tty
January 24, 2011 2:58 pm

If anyone is interested in reading up on the subject Willi Dansgaard has written a good and quite readable book on the history and results of Greenland ice-core research <i<Frozen annals that is available online here:
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/publications/FrozenAnnals.pdf/
Practically all matters that have been raised on this thread are explained there. And, yes, Dansgaard-Oeschger events are named after him.