
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.
Louis Hooffstetter
“THIS STUDY IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!
No one should be surprised as UC-Boulder is from the same institution that houses Kevin Trenberth and Mark Serreze.”
or guess which university?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10401584/Offensive-Halloween-costumes-banned-by-US-university.html
For more than 55 million years, Ellesmere Island remained in one place while the world around it changed. Fifty-five million years ago, verdant forests grew at 75 North latitude. These wetland forests, [comprised] of species now primarily found in China, grew on an alluvial plain where channels meandered back and forth and periodic floods buried stumps, logs, and leaves intact. Today the forests are preserved as coal seams that outcrop on the edges …[of] modern Ellesmere Island, [where] there are no forests, and the tallest vegetation grows less than 15 cm high. Large parts of the area are polar desert, subject to intensely cold and dark winters and minimal precipitation.
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2010/01/coal-and-the-fossil-record-of-climate-change-in-the-canadian-high-arctic/
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
The picture shows Gifford Miller collecting moss samples for C14 dating. He’s doing that bare handed, bare headed, and leaning over the collection site and open sample bag so the samples can be contaminated with his own effusion of carbon based exfoliating dander. Sample contamination with his own modern carbon emissions is almost assured.
If the photo is representative of Miller’s sample collecting technique, the ‘science’ was compromised from the inception.
MtK
you have to give them credit….
…they have absolutely no reservations about embarrassing themselves
Mosher,
You are confusing a falsifying observation with an anomaly. The latter is a falsifying observation that proves permanent and thwarts all efforts to adjust theory. Mars’ path across the sky was an anomaly for Ptolemaic astronomy.
Steven Mosher says:
October 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
“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.”
How is this different from a comment an essay produced by a freshman taking composition? Is there nothing distinctive about science?
Are there statements that describe the world that can be known to be true apart from theory? If not, what counts as evidence for theory?
This may be a bit off topic…
I was perusing the Arctic Sea Ice News over at NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) and noticed something I couldn’t explain. Can anyone help me? At the bottom of the page the include Table 1 Previous Arctic sea ice extents for the month of September. it shows the ice extent for September 2013 is virtually identical to 2009. The question I have is about the trend in % per decade relative to the 1981-2010 average.
What I didn’t understand is if 2013 ice is the same as 2009, then why is the negative trend higher this year (-13.7%) than it was in 2009 (-12.0%). Shouldn’t it be lower because the number of years in the divisor has to be larger?
Thanks,
MikeEE
Theo Goodwin says:
October 25, 2013 at 11:41 am
CACA never rose to hypothesis status in the first place. It was stillborn, indeed falsified even before being hatched. It never satisfied the requirements of the null hypothesis, ie never showed that temperature observations (even after fraudulent manipulation) were anything out of the ordinary for the Holocene or any other interglacial.
The climate record doesn’t begin 30, 50 or 100 years ago. Thirty years is barely even a long enough period to qualify as “climate” rather than weather. With valid data, the 1920-40s were warmer than the 1990-2010s. It was warmer 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000, 6000, 7000 & 8000 years ago than now. It was much warmer during the Eemian & at least one other interglacial during the past 500,000 years.
CACA is a blatant hoax prima facie, not a valid hypothesis, as it fails its first test prediction.
MikeEE says:
October 25, 2013 at 11:42 am
This may be a bit off topic…
…
What I didn’t understand is if 2013 ice is the same as 2009, then why is the negative trend higher this year (-13.7%) than it was in 2009 (-12.0%). Shouldn’t it be lower because the number of years in the divisor has to be larger?
The trend is calculated using a linear regression algorithm that in some sense optimizes the line for all the data points. Without going into the mathematical details, the trend is more negative through 2013 data than it was up to 2009 because 2010-2012 all fall below the regression line by more than 2013 falls above it.
So, let’s see…out of the last 2.6 MY of the Pleistocene there have been something like 20 glacial/interglacial cycles each about 120,000 years long. Each cycle is made up of a 20,000-ish year long interglacial (warm) period where the temperature varies a few degrees about a pleasant average level conducive to plant and animal (e.g., human) existence, and a 100,000 year long period of glacial (very cold) conditions with average temperatures many degrees below a level conducive to plant and animal survival. Our present, interglacial period (Holocene) has covered only the last 12,000 years or so. It doesn’t take any kind of government-funded study, Doctoral/Masters thesis or intellectual exercise to figure out that of the last 44,000 or 100,000 years, much of that time (32,000 to 88,000 years respectively) has been colder….much colder…that the last 12,000 years. So the claim that the last 100 years has been the warmest in the last 44,000 or 100,000 years is pure harum scarum…the false expansion of a false claim to make the supposed situation sound scarier. What BS.
Another Geo’s Take says:
October 25, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Besides which all the actual evidence in the world shows that earth has been warmer than now for at least half of the past 9000 years.
I can clearly see that the greenhouse gas paradigm shift in geology, paleontology, and archaeology is going to be very, very fruitful.
Mosher: “the point is simple: when observation doesnt match theory, working scientists don’t falsify theories.”
Yes, thank you for stating the obvious.
“But Opps, there are anomalies with that theory. the galactic rotation anomaly”
Proving that current gravitational theory is false. Might be useful in various scales, but false. Stop me if the words are too big for you.
“Notice how nobody yells that einstein has been falsified”
The model they are using for gravitational slingshot has been falsified, nothing more.
In both cases the first case is: It’s false. The second case is: Let’s figure out why it’s false.
More importantly, if you state that random theory X was *not falsified* by a disproof. Then either you didn’t even test the theory in the first place, and so nothing was disproven. Or you’re a dissembling toad that talks about DoD models of the F-22.
milodonharlani says:
October 25, 2013 at 11:53 am
I concur wholeheartedly. Hansen got the ball rolling and the modelers hopped on the bandwagon. Climate science has not emerged from the cellar of wrongly modified and fake data in which it was born.
M. harlani…without a doubt. The whole hottest ever BS bandied about by the alarmists just falls into the “temperature varies a few degrees about a pleasant average level conducive to plant and animal (e.g., human) existence” part of the statement. The climate concern humanity should be thinking about and planning for, at least conceptually, is about what we will need to do warm and feed ourselves when our current interglacial temperatures inevitably fall off the edge of the Holocene plateau and into the glacial abyss. I could be a cold, dark, and violent time.
Theo Goodwin says:
October 25, 2013 at 12:40 pm
And CACA replaced Marxism in the academy & government as the horse on which statists could ride roughshod over freedom, prosperity & reality.
Bruce Cobb said @ur momisugly October 25, 2013 at 10:23 am
It would appear that Mosher become increasingly desperate. I’s really very sad…
Another Geo’s Take says:
October 25, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Even the minor climate fluctuations of the Holocene show how deadly & destructive is cold. Humans could burn up all the accessible reserves of fossil fuels without being able to stop the next glaciation. Maybe we can come up with other means of retarding the formation of ice sheets. Or perhaps we’ll really luck out & discover that eccentricity is the most important of the orbital mechanics controlling glaciations, since it’s headed to a major low over the next 30,000 years.
If not, then watch out below!
milodonharlani said @ur momisugly October 25, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Welcome to hyperreality:
And just to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s:
Besides the good points made by Anthony and others, it amazes me how a study that contains several assumptions which are shaky at best and a time frame of 120,000 years ago can be treated as anything but wild unproven speculation.
To me, these sort of liberties in science used to provide proof of things is why this field has turned into a farce and used as biased ammunition to show one side.
This will get more attention than it deserves. It’s not like independent lines of evidence to contradict or confirm or several independent and unbiased teams are conducting research are getting equal weighting.
This will stand as evidence of what the objective of the study intended to show.
However, TIm Ball makes the best point:
“Most of the Holocene was warmer than today as the Greenland ice cores show.However, if you are unconvinced by the ice core data, it is supported by physical evidence. Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto) identified and photographed a picea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra some 100km north of the current treeline (Figure 2). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP). It was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future. This means global temperatures at least 2-3°C warmer than today”
Dr. Balls information negates the significance of this study’s conclusion.
It’s not just climate science where research findings make false conclusions:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Another Geo’s Take: “The climate concern humanity should be thinking about and planning for, at least conceptually, is about what we will need to do warm and feed ourselves when our current interglacial temperatures inevitably fall off the edge of the Holocene plateau and into the glacial abyss.”
The answer is already baked in the AGW cake: Let them burn coal.
jquip
you dont get it.
‘When Newton’s or Einstein’s gravitational theory is applied on galactic and cosmological scales, various anomalies are found: most famously, the orbital speed of stars far from the centre of a galaxy is roughly constant, where the theory predicts that it should fall off with radius r as 1/√r ”
now if you spend time around here people will thrown feynman or popper at you.
If the observations conflict with the theory, then the theory is falsified.
well, not so quickly.
when the theory conflicts with the observations you have choices. historically scientists rarely throw out an entire theory. ask yourself why
Steven Mosher said @ur momisugly October 25, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Why? Because most theories provide useful predictions even when they also generate anomalies. CAGW has to date made no verifiable predictions that I know of after thirty years of making them.
milodonharlani says:
October 25, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Another Geo’s Take says:
October 25, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Geoengineering to retard the growth of ice shields is probably as far-fetched as geoengineering to cool the earth. In either case, adaptation is likely the most reasonable and cost effective approach. Nuclear anyone?
Jquip says:
October 25, 2013 at 1:26 pm
The answer is already baked in the AGW cake: Let them burn coal.
Or the dead….