From the National Science Foundation – Press Release 12-115
Remote Siberian Lake Holds Clues to Arctic–and Antarctic–Climate Change
![]()
|
|
Intense warm climate intervals–warmer than scientists thought possible–have occurred in the Arctic over the past 2.8 million years.
That result comes from the first analyses of the longest sediment cores ever retrieved on land. They were obtained from beneath remote, ice-covered Lake El’gygytgyn (pronounced El’gee-git-gin) (“Lake E”) in the northeastern Russian Arctic.
The journal Science published the findings this week.
They show that the extreme warm periods in the Arctic correspond closely with times when parts of Antarctica were also ice-free and warm, suggesting a strong connection between Northern and Southern Hemisphere climate.
The polar regions are much more vulnerable to climate change than researchers thought, say the National Science Foundation-(NSF) funded Lake E project’s co-chief scientists: Martin Melles of the University of Cologne, Germany; Julie Brigham-Grette of the University of Massachusetts Amherst; and Pavel Minyuk of Russia’s North-East Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Institute in Magadan.
The exceptional climate warming in the Arctic, and the inter-hemispheric interdependencies, weren’t known before the Lake E studies, the scientists say.
Lake E was formed 3.6 million years ago when a huge meteorite hit Earth, leaving an 11-mile-wide crater. It’s been collecting layers of sediment ever since.
The lake is of interest to scientists because it has never been covered by glaciers. That has allowed the uninterrupted build-up of sediment at the bottom of the lake, recording hitherto undiscovered information on climate change.
Cores from Lake E go far back in time, almost 30 times farther than Greenland ice cores covering the past 110,000 years.
The sediment cores from Lake El’gygytgyn reflect the climate and environmental history of the Arctic with great sensitivity, say Brigham-Grette and colleagues.
The physical, chemical and biological properties of Lake E’s sediments match the known global glacial/interglacial pattern of the ice ages.
Some warm phases are exceptional, however, marked by extraordinarily high biological activity in the lake, well above that of “regular” climate cycles.
To quantify the climate differences, the scientists studied four warm phases in detail: the two youngest, called “normal” interglacials, from 12,000 years and 125,000 years ago; and two older phases, called “super” interglacials, from 400,000 and 1.1 million years ago.
According to climate reconstructions based on pollen found in sediment cores, summer temperatures and annual precipitation during the super interglacials were about 4 to 5 degrees C warmer, and about 12 inches wetter, than during normal interglacials.
The super interglacial climates suggest that it’s nearly impossible for Greenland’s ice sheet to have existed in its present form at those times.
Simulations using a state-of-the-art climate model show that the high temperature and precipitation during the super interglacials can’t be explained by Earth’s orbital parameters or variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases alone, which geologists usually see as driving the glacial/interglacial pattern during ice ages.
That suggests that additional climate feedbacks are at work.
“Improving climate models means that they will better match the data that has been collected,” says Paul Filmer, program director in NSF’s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the “Lake E” project along with NSF’s Office of Polar Programs.
“The results of this collaboration among scientists in the U.S., Austria, Germany and Russia are providing a challenge for researchers working on climate models: they now need to match results from Antarctica, Greenland–and Lake El’gygytgyn.”
Adds Simon Stephenson, director of the Division of Arctic Sciences in NSF’s Office of Polar Programs, “This is a significant result from NSF’s investment in frontier research during the recent International Polar Year.
“‘Lake E’ has been a successful partnership in very challenging conditions. These results make a significant contribution to our understanding of how Earth’s climate system works, and improve our understanding of what future climate might be like.”
The scientists suspect the trigger for intense interglacials might lie in Antarctica.
Earlier work by the international ANDRILL program discovered recurring intervals when the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted. (ANDRILL, or the ANtarctic geological DRILLing project, is a collaboration of scientists from five nations–Germany, Italy, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States–to recover geologic records from the Antarctic margin.)
The current Lake E study shows that some of these events match with the super interglacials in the Arctic.
The results are of global significance, they believe, demonstrating strong indications of an ongoing collapse of ice shelves around the Antarctic Peninsula and at the margins of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet–and a potential acceleration in the near future.
The Science paper co-authors discuss two scenarios for future testing that could explain the Northern Hemisphere-Southern Hemisphere climate coupling.
First, they say, reduced glacial ice cover and loss of ice shelves in Antarctica could have limited formation of cold bottom water masses that flow into the North Pacific Ocean and upwell to the surface, resulting in warmer surface waters, higher temperatures and increased precipitation on land.
Alternatively, disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may have led to significant global sea level rise and allowed more warm surface water to reach the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait.
Lake E’s past, say the researchers, could be the key to our global climate future.
The El’gygytgyn Drilling Project also was funded by the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP), the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research, Alfred Wegener Institute, GeoForschungsZentrum-Potsdam, the Russian Academy of Sciences Far East Branch, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the Austrian Ministry for Science and Research.
-NSF-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

“The Science paper co-authors discuss two scenarios for future testing that could explain the Northern Hemisphere-Southern Hemisphere climate coupling.
First, they say, reduced glacial ice cover and loss of ice shelves in Antarctica could have limited formation of cold bottom water masses that flow into the North Pacific Ocean and upwell to the surface, resulting in warmer surface waters, higher temperatures and increased precipitation on land.
Alternatively, disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may have led to significant global sea level rise and allowed more warm surface water to reach the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait.”
Or the factors that influence the climate are global in nature because the entire planet is warmed or cool due to variations in the sun and cosmic rays. So both poles warm at the same time because the cause is external to local conditions.
“Skeptikal says:
June 22, 2012 at 4:13 am
I’m wondering what makes a “state-of-the-art climate model” different to any other climate model?”
The amount of PR.
Every day more and more people become aware of the fact that AGW is a huge scam and our institutions of higher learning have become homes for the idiots. With wack jobs in control of universities and embeded in our government the only hope for this country surviving is in the resiliency and tenacity of the common citizen. But that’s the way it’s always been. It’s time to take their computers away from them and make them get real jobs.
“Improving climate models means that they will better match the data that has been collected,” says Paul Filmer, program director in NSF’s Division of Earth Sciences…
No. Improving climate models mean that they would make accurate and relevant predictions about the future. All that will happen here is that modelers will find some new and more terrible than ever feedback mechanisms that, after being factored into their models, will mean: It’s worse than we thought!!!
Online copy of the paper.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Mellesetalscience2012.pdf
12 km-wide crater from an asteroid impact 3.6 million years ago and which is situated so that ice age glaciers have not scoured it away over time.
Holocene 2.0C warmer, last interglacial 4.5C warmer, interglacial at 400,000 years ago 2.0C warmer but lasted much longer than other interglacials and is most similar to the current orbital forcing scenario.
This is consistent with the numbers from the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores (if one uses the proper numbers). So, an undisturbed 3.6 million year Arctic Lake sediment core is going to provide another valuable source of high resolution paleoclimate data.
How does it get 4.5C warmer 125,000 years ago with CO2 at 280 ppm and methane at half of today’s numbers. hmmm. How does it get 2.0C warmer 410,000 years ago and Greenland’s glaciers melt out completely in the southern third with CO2 at 280 ppm and methane at half of today’s levels. Obviously, there is an answer. Its just that climate science can’t bring themselves to even think about it.
@Skeptikal
“state-of-the-art” i.e. not science
OT But Sunspots at 13! is cycle 24 over?
http://www.solarham.net/trends.htm
Sorry re SSN solar correct link with the numbers here
http://www.solarham.net/
vukcevic says:
June 22, 2012 at 3:16 am
since the Arctic temperature oscillations appear to match those found in the geomagnetics
You still haven’t learned anything.
“state-of-the-art climate model” is a climate model that uses extreme ARTistic license to portray “science” according to what STATE bureaucrats/propagandists have paid researchers to portray.
4 to 5c hotter and 12 Flanneries extra of precipitation and the world did not end, What.
We have been told that 3 to 4c would see a tipping point of Venus like atmosphere and a 100 metre rise in sea levels. Have they been lying to us?
“The polar regions are much more vulnerable to climate change than researchers thought”, say the National Science Foundation-(NSF).”
Vulnerable to ice?
Yes they are!
Just who is ‘vulnerable’ to mild weather?
“The polar regions are much more vulnerable to climate change than researchers thought”
So if the Antartic is gaining ice, it must be getting only a “little” cooler
Several individuals have hinted at the same thing that I am wondering… how did they adjust/account for plate tectonics and the fact that the land mass has slowly moved northward over the last 3.6 million years?
Andrew Greenfield says:
June 22, 2012 at 6:51 am
OT But Sunspots at 13! is cycle 24 over?
No, it is quite normal in weak cycles to have isolated days with very low sunspot count [or none], e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
“state-of-the-art climate model
That means the graphics are much, much prettier…
Jeremy (June 22, 2012 at 6:53 am)
Theodore (June 22, 2012 at 6:15 am)
Hugh K (June 22, 2012 at 5:53 am)
Skeptikal (June 22, 2012 at 4:13 am)
“state-of-the-art climate model”
I always laugh when I read that too.
Looks like Jeremy is proposing they actually mean:
Art-of-the-State Model-Climate
By the way: 1 + 1 = 3 (Art-of-the-State Theorem)
—
@vukcevic
Prikryl, P.; Rusin, V.; & Rybansky, M. (2009). The influence of solar wind on extratropical cyclones – Part 1: Wilcox effect revisited. Annales Geophysicae 27, 1-30. doi:10.5194/angeo-27-1-2009.
http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/1/2009/angeo-27-1-2009.pdf
Paul Vaughan says:
June 22, 2012 at 8:02 am
Part 1: Wilcox effect revisited. Annales Geophysicae 27, 1-30. doi:10.5194/angeo-27-1-2009.
I was a co-discoverer and co-author [actually did most of the work] of the Wilcox Effect. I now think [actually since 30 years] that the finding was spurious.
Grey Lensman says:
June 22, 2012 at 3:44 am
The publishers need to delete the word “vulnerable”, as it is both incorrect and misleading. Substitute the word “subject” which is correct according to their findings.
They used “vulnerable” a-purpose. It fits the meme that the polar regions are too fwagile to withstand much more warming…
“12 inches wetter” probably means 12 inches more precipitation, IMO.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2012 at 8:08 am
Paul Vaughan says:
June 22, 2012 at 8:02 am
Part 1: Wilcox effect revisited. Annales Geophysicae 27, 1-30. doi:10.5194/angeo-27-1-2009.
I was a co-discoverer and co-author [actually did most of the work] of the Wilcox Effect. I now think [actually since 30 years] that the finding was spurious.
______________
I take that statement as a pre- release notice.
Props for getting in there and doing the work. Google Earth does not show a convenience store for at least 500 miles in any direction. The research team posted some interesting pictures on Google Earth – including the drilling platform.
Somewhere, I think, in my some 8,000 papers and abstracts on climate change and evolution (because the two are tied) in my digital library (cybrary) there either is or was a paper where Arctic sediment core researchers presented evidence showing that one feature that was consistent was the complete melting away of the Arctic at the end of each extreme interglacial. I remember the discussion involving the fact that when ice is present this restricts currents from widely distributing sediments entering from the various land masses surrounding the Arctic but when ice-free, fine deposits of characteristic mineral assemblages were distributed more widely across the basins and shelves as the sea surface responding to the wind access produced currents with stronger circulation.
If someone knows which paper I am talking about please post a link or reference.
The interesting thing I remember was that this was indicated as happening at the ends of the extreme interglacials. Given that the Holocene is presently 11,715 years old this year, eerily close to the half-precession cycle age of 5 of the past 6 interglacials (the 6th being MIS-11 400kyrs ago), and that we are at the long end of the precession 19-23kyr variation, 11,500 would be half.
The period referenced as occurring about 1.1 million years ago could be MIS-31, an interglacial which occurred close to the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (MPT) and the Jaramillo magnetic pole reversal, and which from the LR04 age model built from 57 deep ocean sediment cores peaked at close to our present O18 temps.
Probably worth another read of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/ if you want to get a better perspective on the end extreme interglacials.
Tipping points were frequently mentioned above. I asked the following a while back and below is Lord Monckton’s reply.
So while Le Chatelier’s Principle initially just basically applied to simple systems, I believe a much more complicated set of Le Chatelier’s types of Principles could be developed for climate, but we are not there yet. Perhaps 50 variables may be changing at any given time.
Lord Monckton’s reply to me:
Werner Brozek asks whether the quite small variations in global surface temperature either side of the billion-year mean indicate that “tipping-points” do not exist. In mathematics and physics the term “tipping-point” is really only used by those wanting to make a political point, usually from a climate-extremist position. The old mathematical term of art, still used by many, was “phase-transition”: now we should usually talk of a “bifurcation” in the evolution of the object under consideration. Since the climate object is mathematically-chaotic (IPCC, 2001, para. 14.2.2.2; Giorgi, 2005; Lorenz, 1963), bifurcations will of course occur: indeed any sufficiently rare extreme-weather event may be a bifurcation. We know that very extreme things can suddenly happen in the climate. For instance, at the end of the Younger Dryas cooling period that brought the last Ice Age to an end, temperatures in Antarctica as inferred from variations in the ratios of different isotopes of oxygen in air trapped in layers under the ice, rose by 5 K (9 F) in just three years. “Now, that,” as Ian Plimer likes to say in his lectures, “is climate change!”
But the idea that our very small perturbation in temperature will somehow cause more bifurcations is not warranted by the underlying mathematics of chaos theory. In my own lectures I often illustrate this with a spectacular picture drawn on the Argand plane by a very simple chaotic function, the Mandelbrot fractal function. The starting and ending values for the pixels at top right and bottom left respectively are identical to 12 digits of precision; yet the digits beyond 12 are enough to produce multiple highly-visible bifurcations.
And we know that some forms of extreme weather are likely to become rarer if the world warms. Much – though not all – extreme weather depends not upon absolute temperature but upon differentials in temperature between one altitude or latitude and another. These differentials tend to get smaller as the world warms, so that outside the tropics (and arguably in the tropics too) there will probably be fewer storms.
Leif Svalgaard says: June 22, 2012 at 6:53 am
@vukcevic says:
You still haven’t learned anything.
Hi doc, learning is for school kids and scholars, adventurers are interested in discoveries. Since you could not explain this one:
Comparing the Svalgaard’s TSI data with the Antarctic’s MF (after re-trending to match the trend of the Svalgaard’s reconstruction of y = 0.0007x) for period 1900 to date, shows stronger correlation than the Wang et al (2005) method, while prior to 1900 the correlation is about equal.
solar science lacks theoretical resources, it is bound to cause headache to the geo-physicists:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Aa-TSI.htm
Perhaps you might venture to comment on the next:
Global temperature’s primary spectral component is identical to the solar magnetic cycle:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTavSpec.htm
again equally not within ability of the climate scientists to grasp.
I got another real gem waiting in the background.