Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
I recently returned from a trip to Greenland’s Jokabshavn Glacier, which discharges more ice than any other in the Northern Hemisphere.

Our route of flight from Reykjavik traversed the ice cap from about fifty miles north of Angmassalik to the airport at Ilulissat, on Disko Bay, about one-third of the way up Greenland’s west coast. In southeastern Greenland, we flew very close to the country’s second-highest peak, Mt. Forel (11,099 feet), and in the near future I will upload a image of a nearby mountain approximately 8,000 feet high completely covered by the ice cap.
It is obvious from the air that there is very little movement over the deepest regions of the ice, and the drift patterns in the lee of some of the submerged peaks are strongly suggestive of at least some regional accumulation. There is virtually no evidence for summer melt in the southeast, while the southwest portion of the ice cap is known to melt and refreeze at the surface on an annual cycle—I saw considerable evidence for multi-year, but small, lakes in that region.
In preparation, I read just about everything I could get my hands on, including a recent very remarkable paper by Dorthe Dahl-Jenson and about 70 coauthors. Dahl-Jensen heads up the Center for Ice and Climate at the University of Copenhagen. Dahl-Jenson’s team drilled to the bottom of the ice in northwestern Greenland, providing us with the first climate history of Greenland that includes the warmest period in the last interglacial period, from about 128,000 to 122,000 years ago, known as the Eemian. That was embedded in the Sangamon Interglacial, which ran from approximately 135,000 to 95,000 years ago.
(For perspective, the last (Wisconsin) glaciation started then and lasted to (nominally) 10,800 years ago—that last date being about a blink of a geologist’s eye ago. Homo sapiens appeared in the ice age, and evidence is that proto-civilization developed while the hemisphere was glaciated.)
One of the reigning myths in climate science is that interglacial temperatures in Greenland were about five degrees (C) above modern, causing a dramatic loss of ice and raising global sea levels about 6 meters (19 feet). Ice cores from southern Greenland in fact have wood and vegetation at their lowest levels, which are younger than the Eemian.
By measuring the ratio of two isotopes of oxygen (specifically 18O to the much more common 16O) one can infer the air temperature at the time that the snow in each annual layer crystallized. This technique has been around for decades and is considered quite reliable, and it correlates well with other temperature “proxies” that Dahl-Jensen also used. Dahl-Jensen found that the average annual temperature peaked at a whopping 8 +/- 4°C (that’s 7 to 22°F!) warmer than the recent millenium in the ice core during the Eemian maximum.
And still the ice survived. In fact, the top of the ice was only a mere 130 +/- 300 meters “lower” (actually from 557 feet higher to 1411 feet lower) than today. For perspective, her entire ice core was about 8,000 feet in depth.
If, like ex-NASA employee James Hansen, you think that global warming is going to drown us all by melting almost all of Greenland “in a hundred years” (Hansen’s words), perhaps you should try another apocalypse. According to the chart shown in Dahl-Jensen’s paper, the entire 6,000-year period averaged about 6°C warmer than the last 1000 years.
The integrated heating in this region during the Eemian maximum appears therefore to be approximately 36,000 degree-years (temperature change multiplied by time).
Climate models for the future show an annual warming of about 3°C over northwestern Greenland by around 2100, or 300 degree-years. At that rate, it would take 12,000 years to just get rid of about one-eighth of the ice in this core, or about 96,000 years to lose all of it. (That’s impossible because another ice age will have intervened.)
Evidence suggests that sea levels during the Eemian were about 4-8 meters (13-26 feet) higher than today.
Prior to Dahl-Jensen’s study, it was generally accepted that the vast majority of this rise came from the loss of Greenland’s ice, but now she cautiously writes that:
Although the documentation of ice thickness at one location on the Greenland ice sheet cannot constrain the overall ice-sheet changes during the last interglacial period, the [Eemian core] data can only be reconciled with Greenland ice-sheet simulations that point to a modest contribution (2 m) to the observed 4-8 m Eemian sea level high stand…These findings strongly imply that Antarctica must have contributed significantly to the Eemian sea level rise.
Whew! Thus does one revolutionary paper shoot pretty much the entire global warming sea-level catastrophe—the one worth being concerned about—through the heart. Antarctica is so cold that it is projected to gain ice in the coming century, as slightly increased precipitation—which may have recently been detected—falls as more snow, which compacts into more ice.
This puts any sea-level crisis out in the hundreds-of-years realm, at least, and probably far beyond our current era of burning hydrocarbons for energy and heat. In other words, forever.
As for Greenland, I have some bad news about the Jakobshavn Glacier. Its 30 X 6 mile (spectacular) Ilulissat Icefjord is going to be much less spectacular very soon, and I’ll also wager that the quick retreat of the glacier is literally grinding to a halt.
Better go to Ilulissat soon—in the next year or two—to see what was outside my hotel window (live webcam here). The spectacular nature of the fjord is a result of the massive icebergs—some a half-mile wide or so—that break off (calve) from the glacier, float down the fjord for a year or two, and then get stuck in the terminal moraine (laid down during the last glacial maximum, probably from circa 1600, when the Little Ice Age wiped out the Greenland Norse), where the fjord empties out into the ocean.
Unfortunately, the Jakobshavn Glacier has now retreated largely to its grounding line, with the exception of about 20% of the north end of the face—and that part doesn’t have far to go. In other words, it is largely no longer a calving tidewater glacier, and it is quite obvious from the air that the big bergs are getting much fewer and further between as the glacier moves further onto land. (Don’t forget to buy a helicopter ticket on Air Greenland—it’s worth it!)
When glaciers turn from tidewater to grounded, their recession rates usually slow dramatically (or, in some cases, they stop). This has probably started to happen.
So get your tickets for next summer (or later this summer) now, before the big bergs are gone.
And, before you go, don’t forget to read up—you just might come across some revolutionary good news.
Reference:
Dahl-Jensen, D., et al., 2013. Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core. Nature 489, doi: 10.1038/nature11789.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bill Illis says:
July 4, 2013 at 7:38 am
…
Regarding how long the current interglacial will last, here are two zoom-in charts of June solar insolation at 65N (from Berger and Loutre 91). This value needs to drop below 470 W/m2 to kick us into an ice age going by paleoclimate history. It drops very, very marginally in the next 1500 years and then goes back up again. After that, we don’t get close to the trigger point until 52,000 years from now but more likely 125,000 years from now. This will be the longest interglacial by quite a margin since the ice ages started. The Milankovitch Cycles are not as regular as people think.
Insolation is not the only game in town when it comes to glacial inception. Here is a recent abstract from Tzedakis:
Determining the natural length of the current interglacial
P. C. Tzedakis, J. E. T. Channell, D. A. Hodell, H. F. Kleiven & L. C. Skinner
Nature Geoscience 5, 138–141 (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1358
Received 23 May 2011 Accepted 28 November 2011 Published online 09 January 2012 Corrected online 10 January 2012, corrected again on WUWT 4 July 2013
The timing of the hypothetical next glaciation remains unclear. Past interglacials can be used to draw analogies with the present, provided their duration is known. Here we propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing. Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years.
I emphasized the quote “was not subdued by radiative forcing”. What the authors meant by this was that, since this interglacial was at a minimum node of eccentricity and precession index oscillation, insolation did not go down to as low a level as one normally expects to be needed to set off glaciation. But glaciation started anyway. This is because other factors were involved. Insolation is only one of a matrix of factors. Another important factor is obliquity. Glacial inception ALWAYS happens during falling obliquity, never during rising obliquity. (We’re in the middle of a down-cycle of falling obliquity now.) Tzedakis also makes a lot of bipolar interhemispheric seesawing. Its interesting to speculate that changing obliquity might somehow affect ocean currents by applying slow torques, perhaps so that when obliquity change is fastest, ocean currents can be perturbed.
phlogiston says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:58 am
———————————
Fifteen hundred years sounds right to me. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet quit retreating over 3000 years ago. Since the Minoan Warm Period (at least) the hot peaks of Bond cycles have been declining & the cold troughs lowering. The next Little (or Medium) Ice Age or one after that might turn into the coming Big Ice Age.
Or maybe not. I don’t think science has the Pleistocene glaciations all figured out. I do know it just won’t be the same without the megafauna. And I’m pretty sure that it will be bad for humanity, although we’re not liable to go extinct ourselves, even if fusion-powered blow-driers can’t keep the ice sheets from crushing temperate zone cities.
Of all the places Warmists worry about the Greenland ice sheet is not one of them. I knew that it survived the Eemian warmer period when, as stated above, hippo paddled in the Rhine and Thames.
http://www.njgonline.nl/publish/articles/000099/article.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016787809000054
I should have said: “the Greenland ice sheet should not be one of them. “
michaelspj says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:25 am
Any possibility for a free copy of the paper is appreciated… See my email under my name above via facebook…
Ferdinand
JM VanWinkle says: @ur momisugly July 4, 2013 at 12:50 am
….Look, i am not trying to be argumentative here, If you think you have a good model for the Holocene duration….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From what I have read that is the critical controversy and the jury is still out.
See the following WUWT threads:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/
William McClenney has been reading papers on that subject for years. (He e-mailed me over 300 in a zip file)
It gets warmer for a while, then it gets colder again. But then it gets warmer again later on. Add time scale as required. Rinse and repeat.
phlogiston says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:58 am
—————————————
I always think of it as “does the winter snow melt in the summer at 75N?; does the sea ice melt out at 75N in August/September?”.
All the action is at 75N, not 65N.
The ice ages are really kicked off when the snow does not completely melt on Northern Greenland and Ellesmere Island in the summer at 75N. It is always going to melt out on the rest of the Arctic pennisula and land-locked North America at 65N, even in the deepest, deepest downturns of the Milankovitch Cycles. In addition, when does the Arctic Ocean basin remain completely ice-covered over the summer at 75N. There really isn’t a 65N and it is going to stay ice-covered at 85N.
You know the Milankovitch changes are so small that it really shouldn’t be able to do what it does. The Sun is 2.0 degrees less high is the summer. Peanuts. That’s only equivalent to 150 kms or so. Pick a town 150 kms farther north than you and that is what the Sun is like in the summer. Hardly any difference.
It is only the Albedo feedback which provides for the really large enough changes in solar insolation on the ground which cause the ice ages.
And it is 75N which is succeptible to flip on the small changes of the Milankovitch.
Last week, a community on the Beaufort Sea coast at 65N recorded a temperature of 34C. No snow is going to make it through summer when temps can get that high. In mid-June, the snow at Eureka Nunuvut Canada was already gone. Alert at 82N still has 1 cm.
What is going to cause enough change so that the snow and ice stops melting in the summer at 75N. I don’t see a polar see-saw changing the fact that the snow melts at (lower altitudes) on Ellesmere Island in the summer and the sea ice melts in the Beaufort in the summer. A lot of change is going to be required to stop these two processes.
And when it does, it is the Albedo feedback at this latitude then causes the snow to not melt at 69N a few decades later. A few decades later, now it is 68N. Then 67N, then a few more decades and we are at 66N. A few thousand years and glaciers are building up and starting to push south. Even more Albedo feedback. Now the glaciers cross into the North American mainland. A few thousand years more, etc. etc.
Long-winded and maybe hard to understand what I mean, I know, but that is how it must be.
I have a really dumb question for Dr. Michaels. When I see graphs plotting +100Kyr temperature and ice volume, it looks like they are in phase. I would have thought that the *rate of change* in ice volume best correlated with temperature. When it’s hot ice melts fast and when it’s cold ice accumulated fast (on my driveway anyway). What am I missing?
pat michaels says:
July 3, 2013 at 10:05 pm
“I hope you will take this phenomenal trip to see for yourself–and before Jokabshavn Glacier completely grounds! ”
============
Thanks for the nice reply.
Glaciers might “ground” occasionally, then over time, the ground is worn away by the glacier.
The ice grabs, as ice will do, rocks that will grind anything in its path.
Flow rates at depth, need more study.
Ice is a sticky phenomenon, pilots hate it cus it adds weight to the airplane while changing the shape of the airfoil, ships at sea get top heavy.
Why is it so sticky ??
Bill Illis says:
July 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm
phlogiston says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:58 am
—————————————
I always think of it as “does the winter snow melt in the summer at 75N?; does the sea ice melt out at 75N in August/September?”.
All the action is at 75N, not 65N.
Thanks for the explanation, 75N is clearly a latitude to watch. The Milankovich forcings are indeed very weak, this is an interesting point. My interpretation would be that they are weak forcings of a nonlinear oscillator, they set the frequency of the oscillator with very small but periodic inputs, the nonlinear system itself provides the rest of the forcing from feedbacks such as albedo. Typically the relation between forcing and resultant periodicity is complex – e.g. 3 million years ago a glaciakl regime began with interglacials every 41,000 years – corresponding to the obliquity cycle, then 1 million years ago it switched to 100,000 years periodicity matching the eccentricity cycle.
This to me shows a system finely balanced between glacial and nonglacial. If anything there is a slow descent into deeper glaciation with frequency of interglacials intermittently reducing.
Perhaps in the future is permanent glaciation with no interglacials. One blogger here gymnosperm considers that the earth is heading into a periodic deep glaciation on schedule as it has at 150 million year intervals, perhaps linked to galaxy rotation. Even a snowball earth comes into the frame, not a pretty picture on a planet with several billion human inhabitants.
BTW – are there any other periods of geological history where glacial periods were punctuated by interglacials – or is the Pleistocene the only one? Maybe the record hundreds of millions of years ago does not have the resolution?
phlogiston says:
July 5, 2013 at 8:57 am
BTW – are there any other periods of geological history where glacial periods were punctuated by interglacials – or is the Pleistocene the only one? Maybe the record hundreds of millions of years ago does not have the resolution?
—————————————
The Carboniferous ice age clearly had many periods of glaciation followed by melting. Temperatures and sea levels cycled up and down many times between a large range. (the large sea level changes participated in the amount of coal which formed in North America and Europe (at the equator) as the large peat swamps were repeatedly buried by marine sediments over and over again which is how the “age” got its name).
The resolution is not high enough however to equate it with the Pleistocene ice age cycles. I might interpret it as periods when the land of Gondwana at the south pole was repeatedly pushed below sea level by the weight of the glaciers. This then lead to the glaciers melting again as the ocean invaded. Glaciers form on land, not on the ocean. After a long period of continental rebound, the glaciers came back which then started the cycle of pushing the crust down again and so on and so on.
Think Hudson Bay which is only below sea level today due to the weight of past glaciations and the glacial flow channels which form the Arctic Archipelego (and northern Asia also has a huge continental shelf margin which extends far out into the Arctic ocean).
Bill Illis says:
July 3, 2013 at 9:49 pm
“… the interglacial at 400,000 Kya.”
Um , that equates to 400 mya, or 400,000,000 years ago.
Fascinating image.
H2O, in all it’s phases, really is in charge, isn’t it?
Agh. A pet peeve violation call on myself: “its phases”.