Claim: Last 100 years may be warmest in 120,000 years in the Arctic, but not so fast (UPDATED)

Satellite image of Baffin Island, the Baffin M...
Satellite image of Baffin Island, the Baffin Mountains are seen in northeastern Baffin Island (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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

gmiller@colorado.edu

===============================================================

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:

University of Colorado Boulder professor Gifford Miller is shown here collecting dead plant samples from the edge of a Baffin Island ice cap. Credit: University of Colorado

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]
As ice caps today recede, like this one nicknamed Sputnik, they expose dead plants killed long ago when the ice cap formed and then preserved ever since by the ice. By carbon-dating the organic material, scientists can determine when the plants lived, thousands of years ago, and infer the average temperatures back then that allowed the plants to thrive. Credit: Gifford Miller
Looking at the stream channels, clearly this is mostly a melt process, but did you notice the most important distinction?

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

258 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul in Sweden
October 25, 2013 9:09 am

“Temperatures across the Arctic have been rising substantially in recent decades as a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.”
It appears that no evidence was presented by CU-Boulder geological sciences Professor Gifford Miller to justify that statement.

Joseph Murphy
October 25, 2013 9:15 am

Is there new moss growing where they found the dead moss? No? Then it is still colder.

Theo Goodwin
October 25, 2013 9:20 am

JJ says:
October 25, 2013 at 6:37 am
“The fact that ice has receded to expose point X today tells you absolutely nothing about the maximum temp over the ice during the period it was covered.
Do what these idiots have not, and think about it: Set a twenty pound block of ice on the coffee table in your living room. Set your thermostat to 68F. The ice will begin to melt. After an hour, turn the thermostat up to 90F. The ice will melt faster. After an hour of that, turn the thermostat down to 50F. The ice will continue to melt. At some point, a coaster that you left on the coffee table under the block of ice will become exposed by the melting at 50F. Do you point to it and say “AHA! This proves that the temperature of the room is now warmer than it has ever been since the ice was placed on the table!”?
Only if you are a ‘climate scientist’.”
It seems to me that JJ has nailed the childish reasoning used by the scientists. There is no connection of any sort between the time that these mosses emerge and the temperature at that time.
Also, Vince Causey’s “tautological experiment” is a beauty to behold.

milodonharlani
October 25, 2013 9:21 am

The Pompous Git says:
October 25, 2013 at 12:30 am
Excellent recall. I’m reluctant to speculate as to why Dr. Miller’s opinion changed so drastically.

Alan Robertson
October 25, 2013 9:28 am

The CU researchers missed their opportunity for fame. They could have shown proof of Bigfoot using similar logic and unfalsifiable methods. This is just another AGW “Bigfoot” claim.

October 25, 2013 9:30 am

Steven Mosher says:
October 25, 2013 at 7:59 am
…………..
Hi Steven
Interesting video, but too many parameters (five in total), the von Neumann’s elephant comes to mind.
As usual Vuk been at it too, providing more elegant and physically more credible solution
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RG.htm
(svalgaard non-resistant)

Question
October 25, 2013 9:37 am

It’s not NWT … it’s Nunavut!

Colin
October 25, 2013 9:43 am

Thank you for yet another indication at what clowns these researchers are. The unprecedented warmth that is exposing lichen that obviously (at least to me) grew in a period warmer than now. And these people call themselves scientists. And the “peer” reviewers? Just another indication that the reviewers are actually peers – clowns just like the original researchers. Thanks Anthony

Rolf Hammarling
October 25, 2013 9:46 am

Watch this. Maybe the present warmth isn´t unprecedented after all …http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

TomRude
October 25, 2013 9:47 am

That the MSM would be all over this “unprecedented” claim reinforces the idea Miller is simply using this stuff for PR. Oh sure sea levels during the HCO were at least 1.5m higher across the Pacific… but shhh todays warming in Baffin Island is unprecedented.

October 25, 2013 9:49 am

commieBob says:
October 25, 2013 at 7:17 am
The Viking settlements in Greenland* are a real problem for Miller et al. It was almost certainly warmer in Greenland during the MWP. Viking artifacts are still buried in the permafrost. The basic logic is that anything buried in permafrost got there before the permafrost formed. ie. It was warmer then than it is now. In any event, it is unlikely that the Vikings were farming on permafrost**.
What does this say about all the mammoths found in Siberia down in the permafrost?

October 25, 2013 9:53 am

“…the most significant warming in the Baffin Island region didn’t really start until the 1970s,” [said Miller.]
That is because that region warms when the temperate zone cools, so warming there is a sign of global cooling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/#comment-1398577

October 25, 2013 10:08 am

Hi Steven
Interesting video, but too many parameters (five in total), the von Neumann’s elephant comes to mind.
############
the point is simple: when observation doesnt match theory, working scientists don’t falsify theories. They take one of two paths. Second, which path leads to truth is not knowable from the mere fact of theory not matching observation. you cant know which path is right. you only know: there are two paths.
We have a current theory of gravity. its works to build cars and buildings and fly things to the moon. But Opps, there are anomalies with that theory. the galactic rotation anomaly
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/galactic-spin-anomaly.html
and the slingshot anomaly
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/new-satellite-could-explain-bizarre-flyby-anomaly-spacecraft-slingshot-around-earth
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. And nothing tells you IN ADVANCE which fork to take. you only know: here is a fork. theories get forked they dont get falsified.
Sometimes the neptune fork ( posit something unseen) works.
Sometimes the neptune fork fails ( vulcan) and theory needs to be expanded. Not junked, not falsified, but refined, expanded, reframed.

milodonharlani
October 25, 2013 10:12 am

Steven Mosher says:
October 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
Einstein hasn’t been falsified. Einstein didn’t falsify Newton. Present anomalies do not falsify either expression of gravitational theory.
But CACA has been repeatedly falsified, indeed was false on its face when first proposed & has been shown more laughably wrong with each passing year.

chris
October 25, 2013 10:12 am

I think his point would have been much better served if he were wearing a bathing suit while collecting the moss.

Phil
October 25, 2013 10:13 am

Bill Illis said on October 25, 2013 at 7:20 am:

As Louis said, there is no data presented of C14 ages older than 5,000 years in the supplemental which contains all 145 samples they say they used.

Bill, so far only Louis has picked up on the fact that there are 10 samples missing. No, the supplemental does not contain all 145 samples – the supplemental only has 135 samples. I’m not sure that these 10 missing samples would show C14 ages older than about 4,000 years, as Louis has speculated. They are simply not there. All told, there is precious little data supporting this study. I don’t know how you get from samples, many of which are only a few hundred years old, to saying that the warming is unprecedented in the last 120,000 years. I agree with Louis. This study does not appear to be credible.

milodonharlani
October 25, 2013 10:21 am

mkelly says:
October 25, 2013 at 9:49 am
Mammoth carcasse finds say that permafrost has been intact for tens of thousands of years. The discovered mammoths lived during the last glaciation on steppe-tundra with permafrost not far below the surface. More permafrost formed on top of them after death. Although we’re in a warm interglacial now, permafrost is in no danger of melting, since it was even warmer for thousands of years during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, after the retreat of continental ice sheets.

Bruce Cobb
October 25, 2013 10:23 am

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. And nothing tells you IN ADVANCE which fork to take. you only know: here is a fork. theories get forked they dont get falsified.
Oh, please. You aren’t seriously comparing einsteins’ theory of relativity with the half-baked politics and money-driven CAGW conjecture, are you?

george e. smith
October 25, 2013 10:27 am

“””””…..Brent Walker says:
October 24, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Hmmmmmm! as radiocarbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years give or take 40 years we are talking about measurements of 5 1,000ths and 5 10,000,000ths of a not very known amount. Given that its creation varies according to the cosmic ray activity at the time and it in turn varies according to sunspot activity. This seems to be very impressive scientific measurements or ……
I understood that radiocarbon 14 dating was impossible after about 40,000 – 50,000 years!…….”””””
Well if the 1/2 life is 5730 yrs (I’ll take your number), then ten half lives, would be 57,300 yrs, and you would be down to 0.1 % (1/1024) of the original 14C amount. I seem to recall that they use mass spec to isolate, and count individual atoms, when they do these sorts of studies. Can they detect one part in a trillion, of something like carbon ??
I didn’t catch their logic in expanding from 44,000 yrs to 120,000 yrs .
The bristle cone pine studies that were used to calibrate the radio-carbon dates, probably don’t go back much more than 5,000 years. I assume you need a live tree, or know a priori, when it died, and some rocket scientist, with a masters in botany, murdered the oldest known bristle cone pine tree by cutting it down to count the rings; it was 500 years older (5,500 yrs) than the second oldest known tree. True genius, lies in some of these college graduates.

Alan Robertson
October 25, 2013 10:31 am

Bruce Cobb says:
October 25, 2013 at 10:23 am
“Oh, please. You [Steven Mosher] aren’t seriously comparing einsteins’ theory of relativity with the half-baked politics and money-driven CAGW conjecture, are you?”
____________________________
Yes, he is.

Dave in Canmore
October 25, 2013 10:32 am

This paper was posted by the CBC of course. Canada’s state run CAGW cheerleaders.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/eastern-arctic-temperatures-likely-at-120-000-year-high-1.2251709
It’s so depressing that I pay to have this drek waved around.

Crispin in Waterloo
October 25, 2013 10:36 am

@Armagh Observatory
>Wasn’t C14 dating used to prove that the so-called Turin Shroud was 12th/13th century at the earliest and clearly nowhere near old enough to have had contact with Jesus?
The testing was done in so confused a manner that the results were filled with uncertainty. It is very much like how the hot spot was treated in AR5. The tests were conducted in such a way that it created confusion as to who was given which sample of what and in the end, it was clear there were ‘data issues’. In the end, in both the cases of the Shroud and the Hot Spot signature, the bottom line read that the test results are inconclusive due to data quality problems so the answer you want is probably in there, if you want it to be.
In the case of the Shroud, it leaves open the possibility that it is ‘could be really old’, and in the case of AR5, they conclude the warming troposphere – the legendary hot spot – ‘is probably there’.
You get what you pay for, apparently.

Theo Goodwin
October 25, 2013 10:39 am

Steven Mosher says:
October 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
I thought you were familiar with W. V. Quine’s “Duhem-Quine Thesis.” It explains the choice open to one when a falsifying observation is encountered. There are as many paths of response as there are hypotheses and observations that go together to imply the falsifying observation. Falsification is retained.

MarkB
October 25, 2013 10:54 am

Phil says:
October 25, 2013 at 12:04 am
The abstract states:
Here we use 145 radiocarbon dates on rooted tundra plants revealed by receding cold-based ice caps in the Eastern Canadian Arctic to show that 5000 years of regional summertime cooling has been reversed, with average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years now higher than during any century in more than 44,000 years,…
However, Table_S1.xlsx in the Supporting Information only shows 135 samples. Furthermore, the “C14 Age” of the samples range from 225 to 4,285 years in the spreadsheet.
What gives??

The other 10 samples are in Table 1 of the main paper that you linked and are explained in the main text. These are the samples that date to greater than 29k years before present.

george e. smith
October 25, 2013 10:55 am

“””””……@Mosher……We have a current theory of gravity. its works to build cars and buildings and fly things to the moon. But Opps, there are anomalies with that theory. the galactic rotation anomaly
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/galactic-spin-anomaly.html……””””””
Your referenced article doesn’t say anything about any disagreement between general relativity and classical physics of the cosmos. I’m not aware of any discrepancie between classical models of the cosmos, and either special relativity or general relativity; both of which are strictly classical physics theories.
Now it is true, that the current state of observational knowledge of the cosmos does show serious discrepancies, between the present cosmos, and the cosmos of 1905. That is not a problem of Einsteinian gravitation; it IS a problem of the structure of the universe, and the components thereof.; which clearly is not what it was believed to be in 1905 (when Einstein’s principal theories were first published). There was NO expanding universe, or black holes, in the cosmos of 1905; no big bang either. Find us some discrepancy between Einstein’s gravitation, and the universe of 1905. What general relativity doesn’t explain, is what other unknown components of THE universe are controlled by structures and laws not yet known.
The galactic rotation anomaly, is a problem of galactic composition; not a problem of Einstein’s classical theories of gravitation.

1 3 4 5 6 7 11