Claim: Trigger for Earth's last big freeze identified

From the University of Massachusetts at Amherst

A new model of flood waters from melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and large glacial lakes along its edge that covered much of North America from the Arctic south to New England over 13,000 years ago, shows the meltwater flowed northwest into the Arctic first. This weakened deep ocean circulation and led to Earth’s last major cold period. A new model of flood waters from melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and large glacial lakes along its edge that covered much of North America from the Arctic south to New England over 13,000 years ago, shows the meltwater flowed northwest into the Arctic first. This weakened deep ocean circulation and led to Earth’s last major cold period. Credit: Alan Condron, UMass Amherst

AMHERST, Mass. – For more than 30 years, climate scientists have debated whether flood waters from melting of the enormous Laurentide Ice Sheet, which ushered in the last major cold episode on Earth about 12,900 years ago, flowed northwest into the Arctic first, or east via the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to weaken ocean thermohaline circulation and have a frigid effect on global climate.

Now University of Massachusetts Amherst geoscientist Alan Condron, with Peter Winsor at the University of Alaska, using new, high-resolution global ocean circulation models, report the first conclusive evidence that this flood must have flowed north into the Arctic first down the Mackenzie River valley. They also show that if it had flowed east into the St. Lawrence River valley, Earth’s climate would have remained relatively unchanged.

“This episode was the last time the Earth underwent a major cooling, so understanding exactly what caused it is very important for understanding how our modern-day climate might change in the future,” says Condron of UMass Amherst’s Climate System Research Center. Findings appear in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Events leading up to the sharp climate-cooling period known as the Younger Dryas, or more familiarly as the “Big Freeze,” unfolded after glacial Lake Agassiz, at the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet covering Hudson Bay and much of the Canadian Arctic, catastrophically broke through an ice dam and rapidly dumped thousands of cubic kilometers of fresh water into the ocean.

This massive influx of frigid fresh water injected over the surface of the ocean is assumed to have halted the sinking of very dense, saltier, colder water in the North Atlantic that drives the large-scale ocean circulation, the thermohaline circulation, that transports heat to Europe and North America. The weakening of this circulation caused by the flood resulted in the dramatic cooling of North America and Europe.

Using their high resolution, global, ocean-ice circulation model that is 10 to 20 times more powerful than previously attainable, Condron and Winsor compared how meltwater from the two different drainage outlets was delivered to the sinking regions in the North Atlantic. They found the original hypothesis proposed in 1989 by Wally Broecker of Columbia University suggesting that Lake Aggasiz drained into the North Atlantic down the St. Lawrence River would have weakened the thermohaline circulation by less than 15 percent.

Condron and Winsor say this level of weakening is unlikely to have accounted for the 1,000-year cold climate event that followed the meltwater flood. Meltwater from the St. Lawrence River actually ends up almost 1,900 miles (3,000 km) south of the deep water formation regions, too far south to have any significant impact on the sinking of surface waters, which explains why the impact on the thermohaline circulation is so minor.

By contrast, Condron and Winsor’s model shows that when the meltwater first drains into the Arctic Ocean, narrow coastal boundary currents can efficiently deliver it to the deep water formation regions of the sub-polar north Atlantic, weakening the thermohaline circulation by more than 30 percent. They conclude that this scenario, showing meltwater discharged first into the Arctic rather than down the St. Lawrence valley, is “more likely to have triggered the Younger Dryas cooling.”

Condron and Windor’s model runs on one of the world’s top supercomputers at the National Energy Research Science Computing Center in Berkeley, Calif. The authors say, “With this higher resolution modeling, our ability to capture narrow ocean currents dramatically improves our understanding of where the fresh water may be going.”

Condron adds, “The results we obtain are only possible by using a much higher computational power available with faster computers. Older models weren’t powerful enough to model the different pathways because they contained too few data points to capture smaller-scale, faster-moving coastal currents.”

“Our results are particularly relevant for how we model the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets now and in the future. “It is apparent from our results that climate scientists are artificially introducing fresh water into their models over large parts of the ocean that freshwater would never have reached. In addition, our work points to the Arctic as a primary trigger for climate change. This is especially relevant considering the rapid changes that have been occurring in this region in the last 10 years.”

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mogamboguru
November 6, 2012 1:02 pm

Say,
what do Geologists say to this?
Is there any evidence of landmarks caused by such a truly diluvian flood – like washed-out canyons, grinded baserock, a massive outflow-delta or huge piles of gravel on the mouth of the Mackenzie River valley – known by Geology?
If so, I’d like to get a link for this, because I am truly interested in this matter – that is, gathering material evidence, rather than fiddling with code.

Doug Jones
November 6, 2012 1:27 pm

“…using new, high-resolution global ocean circulation models…”
They haven’t proved a damn thing, they’ve just been doing an advanced form of masturbation. *Eyeroll*

November 6, 2012 2:20 pm

While this is interesting, it appears to be yet another computer model “best guess.”
My concern is that the model may be/is founded on what we know of the thermohaline circulation today to try to assess what might have happened nearly 13,000 years ago. I’m not sure anyone knows if the thermohaline circulation system today is the same as it was then. I seem to recall seeing articles suggesting that even the current understanding is different than it was just a few years ago.

Editor
November 6, 2012 2:34 pm

I’m stunned. They say they have the “first conclusive evidence”. Then it turns out they have no evidence, only a model, and they appear to have made no attempt to look for any kind of supporting evidence. And then they give the reason for the finding: “if it had flowed east into the St. Lawrence River valley, Earth’s climate would have remained relatively unchanged“!!! So – the climate change had to be caused by this one event, not by anything else going on around the planet or in the solar system. I’m stunned.

rgbatduke
November 6, 2012 4:56 pm

In the timeframe suggested, additional “ANDs” come into play. The closing of the Isthmus of Panama being one:
No arguments. My statement of personal and perhaps collective human ignorance is unbounded from above. Add all of the ANDS that you like — perhaps we might argue about how plausible or implausible any particular condition is, but no matter how you slice it, it was probably multifactorial and we don’t even know the list of probably important factors.
Don’t forget, the really interesting ANDs are the ones we haven’t even thought of, or don’t know how to begin to measure or quantify. Dark matter modulating the size and hence intensity of the sun. Matter infalling from the Oort cloud. Fifth forces. The whims of a programmer, because we are all power units in The Matrix. God’s will.
There is absolutely no guarantee that we even have the full list from which the principle coupled causes could actually be selected.
rgb

rgbatduke
November 6, 2012 5:05 pm

John Marshall says:
Science is a practical subject and needs hands on experiment to learn not a computer.
I’m beginning to think Science is dead. Or at least on its death bed.

Computers are great for lots of purposes in science. Doing statistics (an important part of experiment) is way better with a computer than without. One can learn known science very well with the help of a computer. Finally, there are lots of situations where the physics is known but actually solving the math analytically is — erm — “difficult”, shall we say — where computers can numerically evaluate the known physics to more than adequate precision to solve otherwise intractable problems.
Simulations very much fit into the latter category, and I’ve done a bunch of numerical simulation in exactly these circumstances, as well as written a bunch of code to solve problems where the math is known but not otherwise solvable.
So I have to disagree with the breadth of John’s comment, while still agreeing that numerical simulation or computation is not necessarily a substitute for empirical evidence. In some cases, it is actually superior. In others, it is worthless. In this particular case, as I already commented, it is in between — it contributes to the discussion without coming close to being “conclusive”, and I agree with John that hard evidence is needed for anything like conclusiveness (and unlikely to ever be obtained in this particular case).
So not so broad a statement, please. Science isn’t on its death bed. One narrow aspect of climate science is ailing, no doubt, but most of physics, chemistry, biology is done with excellent scientific methodology and a fair lack of bias.
rgb

mpainter
November 6, 2012 6:30 pm

Michael Tremblay says—
I suppose you have your reasons for wishing to add support for this article. At your suggestion, I referred to Wikipedia articles, one on Lake Agassiz, one on glacial lake outbursts. The Wikipedia article on Lake Agassiz gave the Mississippi, Lake Superior and The McKenzie as drainage paths for Lake Agassiz, and gave “Geologists have found evidence that a major outbreak…. about 13,000 years ago drained north through the McKenzie into the Arctic ocean.”, but the article attributed the final and catastrophic drainage of L. Agassiz through Hudson Bay, raising sea levels .8-2.8 feet, about 8200 years ago. The glacial lake outbursts article gave no mention a YD flood event through the McKenzie, or of any such event through the McKenzie and so much for your references in support of the study’s assumptions, which support amounts to one bald assertion.
Go read about the scablands of eastern Washington if you wish to know what a catastrophic glacial lake outburst does to the landscape, and then come back and report what similar features are seen in connection with your YD catastrophic flood through the McKenzie. Maybe you can find some more Wikipedia articles for us to read.
It is obvious that the model-tinkers simply rigged the model to drain through the McKenzie and to forget about the rest, but you suggest that to inspect such model tinkering would be instructive. Have you nothing better to do? To those who embrace scientific rigor, such science dances around reality and is nothing but a waste of time.

November 6, 2012 6:53 pm

I remarked some time ago on a similar post that I lived the first half of my life in the basin of Lake Agassiz so you can be sure we were taught a lot about this and visited all the various raised abandoned beaches and drove up the stranded sandy delta at Carberry Manitoba where the Assiniboine R. entered Lake Agassiz (no small feature it’s extent was 6500 km^2).
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=carberry%20manitoba&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
The authors are definitely wrong in their theory. I’m not arguing that all those cubic km of cold fresh water could do the job, but only if it rushed out in basically one fell swoop. Here is where the powerful computer fails. A little field work and data gathering, or even reading the papers on the lake and its demise, would have sent them looking for another reason for the Younger Dryas.
The Lake went out in a series of drops, spaced out sufficiently to allow for the mature development of new beaches and rear sand dune developent at each successive drop. The northern ice shore melted back, released water and re-advanced for possibly decades (aren’t all natural records and the stock market zig-zagged?). Most of the sub-parallel strand lines of the shrinking lake had been mapped by the time I began my geological survey work with the Manitoba Gelogical Survey in the late 50s. I was mapping the Precambrian hard rocks of the Canadian Shield when, much of it low-lying and boggy with more lakes than land. What to my surprise, going in on a compass traverse to a weird looking outcrop visible on the aerial photos, I entered a beautiful jack pine parkland with floor of dried moss which I walked over for several miles until I reached my destination to find, in the middle of the woods, a barchan (crescent-shaped sand dune) about 10m high with its beautiful horns pointing downwind away from where the lake had to have been on the other side of a beach, now thick with pine, moss and shrubs. I believe I discovered the last stand of Lake Agassiz in the middle of Manitoba, and I’m sure the water probably whent out the Churchill and Nelson rivers into Hudson’s Bay in a series of pulses.
Another damning piece of evidence is the topography. The lake would have to have climbed over a water shed several hundred metres high to get into the MacKenzie R. Note Lake Winnipeg location in south central Manitoba in the “green” topgraphic area.
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/national/can_relief/referencemap_image_view
This would have been a sufficient review to reject their thesis. The St. Lawrence is out, too. It may be interesting to readers that the Missouri River used to flow northward into Hudson’s Bay, too, before the ice dammed it off and reversed the flow where it was captured from the south and cut a tie into the Mississippi. I used to drill for this channel in Southwestern Manitoba down 300 feet to tap into the sweetest water in quartz gravels with petrified wood and opal pebbles.

November 7, 2012 8:32 am

“Lucy Skywalker says:
November 6, 2012 at 8:39 am
Looking for something that causes mammoths to freeze with fresh flowers in their stomachs… using Occam’s Razor, the simplest way I can imagine this is by the notion of a pole shift, say if the North Pole had centred on the Laurentide ice sheet but suddenly shifted to its present position, due to a “fly-past”. …”

Lucy:
It’s unusual that I get to comment on one of your posts as you’re normally quite thorough.
I don’t think you mean a pole shift, but a change in the earth’s axis of rotation as that would be what actually changes what is artic versus near artic latitudes. The poles reflect the deep earth iron core’s currents and magnetic reversals occur regularly through geological time.
Your reference to the mammoths that have been found with fresh greens and flowers in their stomach, is a key question in the swiftness of the climatic change. Mammoths, frozen in place, whose last meals were undigested are data points matched against a supposed computer model proof of an immense freshwater flood to the artic sea that causes an interruption in the deep heat transfer ocean conveyer belt… But wouldn’t interrupting the deep heat transfer ocean conveyer belt take a long time to change climate weather?

phlogiston
November 7, 2012 10:11 am

Gail Combs says:
November 6, 2012 at 4:50 am
phlogiston says:
November 6, 2012 at 1:04 am
They’re preparing the ground for a “look – global warming is causing global cooling” argument. Expect it within the next 1-2 years.
_________________________________
Yes that certainly sounds likely.
They have already run through:
CRISIS: Global cooling
Catastrophic Global Warming ( while trying to erase the existence of the global cooling scare in the ’70s.)
Catastrophic Climate Change
Climate Weirding (CAGW caused hurricane Sandy)
Lets face it, the Team knows the temperature rise has stalled and the sun has changed. ( WUWT: The sun – still slumping ) So they sent in the troops, Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich , to rewrite the solar activity graphs originated by physicists: Dr. Doug Hoyt and Dr. Richard C.Willson. Judith Lean was then appointed as the ONLY solar physicist to vet her own work!

Incredible! Is the a Leif Svalgaard perspective on this Judith Lean fiasco?
Generally, melting at an interglacial start will always release such ice dams. Therefore if the hypothesis in the above paper is correct, then we could expect to see a “Younger Dryas” pause/reversal at the start of many or most interglacials in the recent 2.5 million years. Do we see this? No.

November 7, 2012 10:50 am

“Lucy Skywalker says:
November 6, 2012 at 8:39 am
Looking for something that causes mammoths to freeze with fresh flowers in their stomachs…
Most have been found in permafrost in bogs – may have sunk under and subsequently froze. Bogs in Siberia and the tundra of N. America would probably have been cold and subsequent freezing would have finished the job. They are dated at 30,000 to 40,000 years ago some of them so it wasn’t too warm an environment anyway.

E.M.Smith
Editor
November 8, 2012 12:13 am

Schoneveld:
We were coming out of the last glacial more or less on schedule, then something strange happened and a cold plunge hit for about 1 k years. That event is a mystery and unexplained (but lots of folks keep trying). That’s what this paper is about. That cold spike when in theory we were pretty much out of the ice age glacial and ought to have ‘locked up’ into hot.
@Lucy Skywalker:
There’s a peculiar aspect of spinning tops. They are VERY stable and don’t like to do “tumbles”, but CAN do them if the spinning tip ‘catches’ on something. The moon also stabilizes our spin. So a “pole swap” is unlikely. Yet… IF you could ‘whack’ the spinning gyro near the spin axis at one end, it would tend to a stability ‘issue’ and can either wobble to a new stability, or even have a ‘gyroscope tumble’. (that can be an issue for gyroscopic navigation equipment…)
So what could make the ‘gyro’ tumble? Maybe a ‘big rock from space’ hitting the ice sheet up in Canada… It would also toss up a giant tidal wave of frozen ice slush that would ‘quick freeze’ the poor critters it buried on the other side of the planet… (There are also warm type grasses and trees buried under dozens of feet of jumbled ‘stuff’ in the same areas). A gentle ‘wobble’ could also explain why the magnetic pole was offset and why the ice sheets were in places that do not now extend symmetrically south from the pole.
All in all, I think that’s the best fit to ALL the known data. Big rock from space, hits the ice sheet (and doesn’t leave too much evidence in the dirt a mile down… but there is some). This not only vaporizes a heck of a lot of ice, but sends a giant tidal wave of “slush” over the pole into Siberia and some into Alaska that accounts for the odd geologic layers and the ‘flash frozen’ animals.
The induced ‘wobble’ instability eventually stabilizes, but with the pole displaced just a little. This, then has consequences for ice sheet history being a bit less ‘centered’ over the present north pole, in keeping with what is observed. Not a full ‘tumble’ or ‘flip’, but an instability that then settles down, displaced.
Finally, there are various places with evidence of impacts on the ground including secondary ejecta re-entry impacts. IMHO a very nice job of researching and laying it all out was done here:
https://cometstorm.wordpress.com/
Has very nice photos of a lot of geologic features from Mexico to Canada that all date and point to a meteor swarm event.
There is also pretty good evidence that Comet Encke is part of what once was a much larger body that has broken up (leaving us with the Taurid meteor storms) and that various orbital mechanics issues have us getting periodic large and then small impact counts (but decreasing over time as things get used up and spread out).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/meteor-showers/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
So while I’d not expect a ‘pole shift’ (meaning a full on tumble and N / S swap) I would expect a large meteor swarm hit, with very large chunks, and probably caused a minor change of the ‘wobble’ (certainly enough to change climate patterns). It would also put a lot of stuff in the air, cause weather changes, and send a giant wall of ice slush into just the places with jumbled fossils and dirt / rocks flash frozen…
@All:
I have to add my voice to the chorus of folks pointing out “computer models are not proof” nor even much in the way of evidence. They are very useful tools for letting you precisely state your understanding and bias and seeing if that is consistent with the known facts and data; but they are proof of nothing.
I’ve spent far too many years of my life chasing bugs in code (some mine, a lot of other folks) to ever call a computer program “proof” of anything. Highly useful, yes, but also very prone to human error… in the programming.
So these folks have shown something is “consistent” with their theory, in a mathematical way, and nothing more. It is also perfectly consistent with the known data to say I will never die. After all, I never have. In fact, you can go further. So many people are alive today that more people are alive than have ever died. So one could say that it is ‘consistent with the number of people alive’ to say that ANYONE has a less than 50% chance of dying. Clearly this is a logical fallacy as it ignores the individual life span ‘issue’; but such is the stuff of ‘computer bugs’ in models….A logical fallacy gets coded into arcane computer codes and then doesn’t get closely inspected…
But it does not prove that 1/2 the people never die…

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 8, 2012 12:20 pm

“This massive influx of frigid fresh water injected over the surface of the ocean is assumed to have halted the sinking of very dense, saltier, colder water in the North Atlantic that drives the large-scale ocean circulation, the thermohaline circulation, that transports heat to Europe and North America.”
This is the key sentence, in particular the “is assumed” part. There is not a single piece of experimental evidence that supports the idea that the circulation would be disrupted. It is nothing more than conjecture based on a vague (and in my view incorrect) notion of how the circulation is sustained.

Stephen
November 8, 2012 9:16 pm

This is going to sound a little odd, but WUWT just convinced me to be alarmed by climate-change. If this theory really checks out, the information on Arctic sea ice here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
now has me worried. Combined with this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/08/co2-could-prove-to-be-our-salvation-from-the-next-ice-age/
I am now concerned.
I wish I had spotted this earlier: On Wednesday, I ran into a guy who happens to be, apparently, one of the world’s leading ocean-modellers. (He got both gravity and atmospheric effects into a single model.) I wish I could have asked him about this.

Stephen
November 8, 2012 9:16 pm

I have just learned my lesson about not checking WUWT every day.