
From the University of Colorado at Boulder, comes this study about radiocarbon dating some dead moss clumps exposed from under ice/snow at 4 locations on Baffin Island that somehow proves “unprecedented” warmth for the entire Arctic for the last 120,000 years. See below for my take on it.
CU-Boulder study shows unprecedented warmth in Arctic
The heat is on, at least in the Arctic.
Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study.
The study is the first direct evidence the present warmth in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth there in the Early Holocene, when the amount of the sun’s energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere in summer was roughly 9 percent greater than today, said CU-Boulder geological sciences Professor Gifford Miller, study leader. The Holocene is a geological epoch that began after Earth’s last glacial period ended roughly 11,700 years ago and which continues today.
Miller and his colleagues used dead moss clumps emerging from receding ice caps on Baffin Island as tiny clocks. At four different ice caps, radiocarbon dates show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago.
Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years and because Earth’s geological record shows it was in a glaciation stage prior to that time, the indications are that Canadian Arctic temperatures today have not been matched or exceeded for roughly 120,000 years, Miller said.
“The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is,” said Miller, also a fellow at CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. “This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
A paper on the subject appeared online Oct. 21 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal published by the American Geophysical Union. Co-authors include CU-Boulder Senior Research Associate Scott Lehman, former CU-Boulder doctoral student and now Prescott College Professor Kurt Refsnider, University of California Irvine researcher John Southon and University of Wisconsin, Madison Research Associate Yafang Zhong. The National Science Foundation provided the primary funding for the study.
Miller and his colleagues compiled the age distribution of 145 radiocarbon-dated plants in the highlands of Baffin Island that were exposed by ice recession during the year they were collected by the researchers. All samples collected were within 1 meter of the ice caps, which are generally receding by 2 to 3 meters a year. “The oldest radiocarbon dates were a total shock to me,” said Miller.
Located just east of Greenland, (um, no, to the west – Anthony) the 196,000-square-mile Baffin Island is the fifth largest island in the world. Most of it lies above the Arctic Circle. Many of the ice caps on the highlands of Baffin Island rest on relatively flat terrain, usually frozen to their beds. “Where the ice is cold and thin, it doesn’t flow, so the ancient landscape on which they formed is preserved pretty much intact,” said Miller.
To reconstruct the past climate of Baffin Island beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating, Miller and his team used data from ice cores previously retrieved by international teams from the nearby Greenland Ice Sheet.
The ice cores showed that the youngest time interval from which summer temperatures in the Arctic were plausibly as warm as today is about 120,000 years ago, near the end of the last interglacial period. “We suggest this is the most likely age of these samples,” said Miller.
The new study also showed summer temperatures cooled in the Canadian Arctic by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit from roughly 5,000 years ago to about 100 years ago – a period that included the Little Ice Age from 1275 to about 1900.
“Although the Arctic has been warming since about 1900, the most significant warming in the Baffin Island region didn’t really start until the 1970s,” said Miller. “And it is really in the past 20 years that the warming signal from that region has been just stunning. All of Baffin Island is melting, and we expect all of the ice caps to eventually disappear, even if there is no additional warming.”
Temperatures across the Arctic have been rising substantially in recent decades as a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere. Studies by CU-Boulder researchers in Greenland indicate temperatures on the ice sheet have climbed 7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1991.
A 2012 study by Miller and colleagues using radiocarbon-dated mosses that emerged from under the Baffin Island ice caps and sediment cores from Iceland suggested that the trigger for the Little Ice Age was likely a combination of exploding tropical volcanoes – which ejected tiny aerosols that reflected sunlight back into space – and a decrease in solar radiation.
-CU-
Contact:
Gifford Miller, 303-492-6962, cell 303-990-2071
===============================================================
I don’t dispute validity of radio-carbon14 dating techniques, but I think there is a logic failure in the claim being made.
The claim is that these plants haven’t been exposed for thousands of years, as dated by the C14 isotope.
At four different ice caps, radiocarbon dates show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago.
That might be true, but then again they are long dead, so there wouldn’t be any uptake of new C14 if they were exposed to the open air in the past. There’s no claim that the mosses are now suddenly alive and growing again. So, if they had been “exposed to the elements” since then, they would not have an new C14 in them unless they came back to life and conducted photosynthesis.
Since plant material in the Arctic doesn’t decay like it does elsewhere due to low temperature and low humidity, it could very well remain intact while exposed for quite some time. All I think they can claim is that the plants haven’t been alive for 44,000 to 120,000 years. I don’t think they can’t prove with C14 dating that they have not been exposed then reburied under ice/snow since then. Ice is a funny thing, it can melt due to warmer temperatures or it can sublimate at below freezing temperatures if there’s not enough sustaining precipitation, as we know from Mount Kilimanjaro. What I’d really like to see is what the receding ice edge looks like. Sublimation leaves a signature that is quite different from melting.
Studies by CU-Boulder researchers in Greenland indicate temperatures on the ice sheet have climbed 7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1991.
Greenland is not Baffin island. You can’t just say that a temperature change in one place automatically means a similar temperature change in another place. Similarly, Baffin island isn’t the entire “Arctic”, yet it is portrayed in the press release as if this one proxy indicator of four sampled sites represents the entire Arctic temperature experience back 120,000 years. It’s Yamal all over again.
Recall our series of stories about “midges” used for proxy temperature reconstruction on Baffin island: Baffin Island Midge Study – debunked for a 3rd time – nearby weather station shows no warming.
This weather station on Baffin Island [Clyde Meteorological station] shows no summer temperature increase in the last 50 years. Summer matters most because that’s the melt season.
So what’s going on with the receding ice edge on Baffin island; is it melting or sublimating? Inquiring minds want to know. From the one photo they provided, it is hard to tell:

Of course the uncritical MSM is already trumpeting this story without question, with the usual bent that the posited current warmth is a bad thing.
What really bugs me (besides the fact the press release can’t even bother to mention the title of the study) is that they use of the word “unprecedented” in the title of the press release. Obviously this isn’t true, because it had to be warm enough, long enough, back then to give these mosses a chance to get a foothold and grow. If the warmth today was “unprecedented” they’d find nothing in the way of previous life forms under the receding ice. – Anthony
UPDATE: 10/25/13 11AM PDT
I lamented the lack of photographs to show me what sort of ice loss signature there was. The press release at AGU had such a photo in it which I show below, click for a much larger version.
![Fig.1.Sputnik[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/fig-1-sputnik1.jpg?resize=640%2C480&quality=83)
Note the albedo difference from the ice cap on the left side versus the right side. The right side is almost pure white, and there are no stream channels. The left side has lots of stream channels and is a dirty brown. Notice also that the ice in surrounding depressions is whiter that the ice cap, which is actually a small hill, though I don’t know what height it is above surrounding terrain.
What this looks like to me is that the windward side of the Sputnik icecap hill is on the left and it is picking up all sorts of debris and particulates (such as carbon soot) on the leeward side there is less deposition, and the ice is cleaner.
As we’ve noted before on WUWT, carbon soot is a big problem in the Arctic.
I’d really like to know why the authors have not mentioned what is obvious to the eye as an alternate possibility for the icecap decline.
Zeke says:
October 25, 2013 at 9:26 pm
“Kuhn concluded that the path of science through these revolutions is not necessarily toward truth but merely away from previous error.”
If one looks at it as an evolution, the distinction is moot; as like in an evolution, new, superior solutions are always better than all previous solutions (assuming we don’t forget our history) with regards to an objective -i.e. global – evaluation function. A relativist has to maintain that there is no such objective evaluation function or absolute truth; good luck getting through life with that (relativism becomes a very real handicap for the individual afflicted with it; an evolutionary disadvantage. Relativism tries to sell its incapability to recognize truth as a virtue. Itself being a paradigm forever on the way to its own extinction, dying by its own hand.)
I exported a few of the slides from Miller’s presentation linked by Phil says: October 25, 2013 at 7:21 pm
We’re talking about some pretty small ice-caps here on very high isolated mountains.
http://s10.postimg.org/6dh206uyh/41_47_K_bp_ice_cap_Miller2013.jpg
http://s17.postimg.org/gz4xe8kfz/45500_bp_ice_cap_Miller2013.jpg
5 samples collected were supposed to be above the Laurentide ice-sheet. While the mountains are high (the ancient Torngat mountains), I don’t see how this is possible. The ice-age glaciers on Baffin Island and down into Labrador started on this mountain chain, probably as early as 110,000 years ago. None of the snow that fell here melted until about 9,000 years ago. These small ice-caps would have scraped everything off the mountain-top at some point in those in 101,000 years, if not from the Laurentide itself.
http://s24.postimg.org/lzg5lc06t/5_sample_locations2_Miller2013.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/pcgg41a9h/5_sample_locations_Miller2013.jpg
Then a table of the dates arrived at in the 5 samples that passed the threshold of 40,000 years.
http://s23.postimg.org/40862648r/5_sample_dates_Miller2013.jpg
I don’t know, maybe the story holds together, that they recovered moss samples that are probably from the Eemian interglacial before 110,000 years ago. But it doesn’t mean it is now the warmest period in 44,000 years. These little ice-caps have been melting back for 9,000 years at least and will continue to do so as long as the interglacial continues.
http://s13.postimg.org/mzku9ydt3/Warmer_than_40_K_ice_cap_Miller2013.jpg
” . . . . show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago.”
Here’s my question. Why would they have been exposed to the elements during that period, as the region was continuing to be thrust deeper and deeper into the last ice age?
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2013/01/vostok_back_to_eemian.jpg
I’d also note that on the Greenland cores (Vostok – NEEM) graph there, there are two very telling peaks of warming during the past 6,000 (est) years or so.
Now that Anthony mentions soot I went looking and found this. Sorry they are not all peer reviewed.
Temperatures during the Holocene
So there you have it. It’s not warmer now that the last 120,000 years or 44,000 years or 10,000 years. As many suspected it was made up stuff.
Let’s not forget what’s really going on with temperatures up yonder:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/iceland-2.gif
More on soot in the Arctic.
The Pompous Git says:
October 25, 2013 at 10:44 pm
Sign of the times. Don’t know when the Q got added to the LGBT. Some people must have felt left out, bless their hearts.
The Pompous Git says:
October 25, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Debris does accumulate in trenches where the oceanic plate subducts under the continental plate. The material comes from both the continental & oceanic plate. But it doesn’t fill the trenches, which are the deepest places on the surface of our planet, up to 35,000 feet deep. Much of it gets subducted eventually, as the continents continue to override the oceanic plates, or buried by sediment.
The force of an ongoing collision between oceanic & continental plates causes the leading edge of the continent to buckled & compress, raising up a folded mountain range parallel to the plate boundary. The rising mountains slough off lots of rocky debris, which rolls off the continent into the trench. This material is joined by seafloor mud & ooze scraped off the descending plate, as you suggest, creating a wedge of thick, organics-rich sediment.
Continental rock is too buoyant to be forced downward, so when continental plates collide, they crumple but stay at the surface. Think of the Himalayas, where the Indian & Eurasian plates are colliding. Oceanic plates however are topped by basalt, hence dense enough to sink into the mantle, so only oceanic plates can subduct.
The evidence for this process is overwhelming. Plate movements are directly measured now. An expanding earth doesn’t explain observed phenomena. Volcanic rings of fire mark the colliding ocean-continent plate boundaries. Tectonics allow us to figure out where the plates were in the past, which reconstructions are confirmed by magnetic chronology & all other means of checking.
Continental drift is an unavoidable consequence of seafloor spreading from the volcanic ridges running around the planet, which started as rifts between the continental plates on the supercontinent Pangaea. Seafloor dating confirms the break up of Pangaea derived from other lines of evidence.
OK, a few questions:
What is the point of bringing in Kilimanjaro and sublimation? Pressure atop Kilimanjaro is what, half an atmosphere? Not sure what the elevations of the Baffin ice caps in question are, but the highest point on the island is just a tad over 2,000 meters, less than half of Kilimanjaro. So the pressure regime is quite different, as of course is the insolation regime. So the two situations don’t compare very closely in those respects. And what is the postulated sublimation supposed to imply anyway? It’s not clear whether the suggestion in this post is that sublimation could have exposed the moss sometime 1) during the glaciation, 2) early in the Holocene, or 3) recently.
If during the glaciation, that would be pretty surprising; much of the hemisphere remained stably glaciated, after all. Why would a patch on Baffin Island sublime bare in the middle of an enormous expanse of ice? If during the Holocene, then why didn’t some other biological activity leave a trace–caribou eating it, bacteria decaying it, other organisms colonizing it (and thereby changing the isotope signature)? After all, we know the Holocene Arctic wasn’t a biological desert; it supported human habitation by about 4,000 years ago. And if today, then what’s the point? We know the Arctic is warming already; if the ice cap *were* subliming rather than melting, what would that change?
Regarding the “Clyde, NWT” graph–to my eye it looks very much as if there is indeed a warming trend “over the last 50 years.” (Maybe not over 70 years–it appears that the summers from ’49 through ’62 were relatively warm up there.) But what would it look like if it didn’t stop in 2009? Or if the data for ’04 and ’05 weren’t missing? And what would the annual data look like? (Yes, I know that the ‘summer is most important because it’s the melting season,’ but hey, I’m not the one who brought in the suggestion of sublimation here!) Trivially, why is the graph labelled ‘Clyde, NWT?’ (OK, it *used* to be part of the NWT prior to 1999, but as far as I know the English name has always been “Clyde River.”) That doesn’t bear directly on the content, but you have to wonder what the source was, and why the graph is outdated and apparently incorrect.
McIntyre analyzes Miller’s latest:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/26/18501/
What great comments, links etc. All you ‘denier’ fanatics
sure can express coherent thoughts!!:)
My brother sent me the 44k year piece just
to annoy me, as when he says Anthony is a fringe dweller!
Thanks to you, I have buried him in 15 minutes and
He won’t be back for a little while.
Was it Mosher who was talking about Duhem- Quine?
Very important and of course one can compare the two
ideas in at least one way, there is still a problem that
people do not understand that Einstein, after reading
Duhem, was not the same thinker as in 1905!
Many physicists do not understand that Einstein, once
Machian, but after 1916 or so refined his understanding, thanks
to Duhem. Good point.
The peer reviewed references above, from others as well as myself, demonstrate that this claim is false. Tree stumps, Holocene Climate Optimum, regenerated moss from the Holocene, etc. Their claim is bogus. Where is the BULLSHIT BUTTON? This study is nothing but BULLSHIT.
Kevin McKinney,
The studies claim is crap. Have you seen the references countering their BULLSHIT claim? Read them and be honest to yourself.
Correction:
Kevin McKinney,
The study’s claim is crap.
Scientific discourse need not resort to expletives, IMHO.
Jimbo, you sound angry. Why? I am simply asking questions, as a good skeptic should. Do you not have answers for them?
Dear Phil,
I must beg to differ, my esteemed WUWT friend. Perhaps you have, in your noble desire to keep us polite and coolly professional, forgotten?
We are in a war for TRUTH. Robustly labeling the propaganda the Envirostalinists spew forth (which they style “science”) “crap” or worse is simply to be forthright and accurate. Wars are not won by polite discussions in quiet rooms where all observe the professional courtesies. Wars are won with passion for truth and vigorous speech. Language is a POWERFUL weapon. Let us use it boldly!
You go, Jimbo!
AGW policy is killing people, Phil. We need to always bear this in mind.
Your goal is a worthy one per se, I would just ask you to reconsider whether it is a wise one given the context.
Yours with hopes I have not alienated you,
Janice
Surely these fools checked for soot content as carefully as they did for moss?
Theo Goodwin said @ur momisugly October 26, 2013 at 7:54 am
For me, that’s the touchstone. Every time I read Conjectures and Refutations I feel… refreshed. How some can lump Popper in with Derrida and his ilk amazes me. So it goes…
Here’s a sample of Judith Curry’s take on this paper.
A bit of exposed moss on Baffin Island does not tell ups a lot about Arctic wide conditions apparently. If Miller feels it’s OK to do this then we can do the same to show he’s wrong (see my above references).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Here is another local study. Miller et. al. can’t have it both ways.
Really!!!
Imagine the receding edge of the Greenland ice sheet exposing some dead moss because of present day warming. Surely, the dead moss still under the icesheet is going to be more or less the same age. Let’s imagine the temperature goes down a couple of degrees and stays there for a century, but is still warm enough to melt more ice and expose more moss. A researcher comes and samples the moss at the new edge of the ice sheet (the stuff formerly there at a greater distance away has been blown away) and declares the past decade has been the warmest in 5k years (the limit of the dating technique), when in fact it was a couple of degrees warmer a hundred years before. Now assume we had a much warmer period 6,000years (Holocene climate optimum 6-8,000 years ago) but the ice at this locality was 50m thick and melted down to 10m thick. The moss would be still snuggled under the ice during a much warmer period. This warming would not be recorded in Miller’s data
The only thing we are “sure of”, assuming proper dating is that the moss died some X years ago. Many climate changes up and down could have (and most certainly did) occur prior to the exposure of this moss. Surely all we have established is the date of the onset of a major COOLING in a previously warmer environment.
Black carbon can melt the ice without the temperatures actually being warmer than 120,000 years ago. The solar energy absorbed can nearly all be going into the latent heat of melting at least until the ice is gone. The temperature itself need not be any warmer.
How about dating the soil under the plants?
All the evidence shows that it was much colder in the Arctic 44,000 years ago & much warmer than now during the Eemian.
Steven Mosher says:
October 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
“Notice how nobody yells that einstein has been falsified. even though the observations do not match the theory. there are anomalies. Science doesnt throw out theories wholesale. there’s a fork in the road.”
Steven, Einstein’s theory works! Yes “the” anomaly has been filled in with dark matter to preserve the theory (I personally think the dark matter patch is a load of baloney, however). But what about a “theory” that has never been proven to be correct even in the rough. Okay, so CO2 absorbs some IR bands – heralding that the physics is “correct” may not be relevant. What if the system reacts negatively to the effect (the evidence is mounting as we speak). All you have is a correct theory that CO2 absorbs IR; the rest is linear thinking and speculation of the sociological kind on where this fact is leading. The “anomalies” you refer to re Einstein are in a different league altogether. In climate science theory of CAGW the anomalies totally overwhelm the theory such as to render it a small and possibly temporary effect. CAGW is not only not landing a rover in a selected location on Mars, it isn’t even correct on which way is up.