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
October 25, 2013 7:22 pm

Theo Goodwin

What we should do, I suggest, is to give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge, and admit that all knowledge is human; that it is mixed with our errors, our prejudices, our dreams, and our hopes; that all we can do is to grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach. We may admit that our groping is often inspired, but we must be on our guard against the belief, however deeply felt, that our inspiration carries any authority, divine or otherwise. If we thus admit that there is no authority beyond the reach of criticism to be found within the whole province of our knowledge, however far it may have penetrated into the unknown, then we can retain, without danger, the idea that truth is beyond human authority. And we must retain it. For without this idea there can be no objective standards of inquiry; no criticism of our conjectures; no groping for the unknown; no quest for knowledge.”
― Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge

Emphasis mine.

October 25, 2013 7:23 pm

Hmmm… WordPress doesn’t understand the em tag. The words I wanted to emphasise: all we can do is to grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach

October 25, 2013 7:40 pm

Content, Context, Fungibility and Disproof by Jack Cohen D.Sc., F.I.Biol. as published in The Citical Rationalist

Introduction
I am a biologist. While teaching biology, especially reproductive and evolutionary biology, at the University of Birmingham I promoted, and taught, a Philosophy of Science course: Bacon, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos with asides to Waddington, Lysenko, and warnings about naive DNA preformationism. Our best students enjoyed even this amateur approach, but were unfamiliar with many of the classical Physics examples like Michelson-Morley or even Newton v. Einstein. These classical examples do not translate into Biology at all well; the quasi-biological ones are worse: black-versus-white swans becomes a simple problem of taxonomy, not an issue of disproof. The interesting issues were, I thought, common to biological science and physical science, and I felt that my teaching (for Popper, mostly from Conjectures and Refutations, 1963a) was inadequately based because the students didn’t seem to take the physics examples into their biology. Now I believe that there are real problems within this transfer; further, I believe that the biological arguments must spread back into physics and raise questions about the classical physics examples themselves, about naive disproof arguments in science generally.

http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-02/number-03/

Gary Hladik
October 25, 2013 7:57 pm

‘[“shtum real quick” ?? Mod]’
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shtum

milodonharlani
October 25, 2013 8:45 pm

Jquip says:
October 25, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Cruel, but the poor, derided legislator’s error was hardly less errant than the former Vice President’s “hanging earth upside down” or “millions of degrees” at its center.

Tim
October 25, 2013 8:48 pm

Is this a simple question? If the moss is there at all, it was WARM ENOUGH for it to take hold and GROW in the first place, meaning that this is NOT the warmest it’s ever been. Wouldn’t there be active moss alongside the 120,000 yo moss, or 44,000 yo moss, if it’s as warm today as it was “back then”?

Jquip
October 25, 2013 8:55 pm

The Pompous Git: “Content, Context, Fungibility and Disproof by Jack Cohen D.Sc., F.I.Biol. as published in The Citical Rationalist”
Not Even Wrong. This is a rather stock n’ trade majesty of the Sorites Paradox. Are particles describable? Sure. Do a stateful/chaotic ensemble of them compose atoms? Sure. Are atoms describable? Sure. Do a stateful/chaotic ensemble of them compose bulk matter? Sure. Is bulk matter describable?
It better damn well be so. For if his statements about stateful/chaotic systems hold any relevance then he can’t read a mark of a ruler composed of a nest of chaotic ensembles all the way down. This is stupid of course, and right up there with “But the heat could instantaneously leave the sea!” It’s a game of obfuscation that folks love to play when the very last thing they want to be is? Proven wrong.
And yet none of them have any problem whatsoever reading the mark of a rectal thermometer. Especially climatologists, since they’ve got their eyes right on the thing.

Jquip
October 25, 2013 8:57 pm

milodon: “Cruel, but the poor, derided legislator’s error was hardly less errant …”
True, but it fit better with plate tectonics. Had some good sport reading about the expanding Earth notions. Entertaining stuff, and a thanks to you and Git for the introduction.

milodonharlani
October 25, 2013 8:57 pm

The Pompous Git says:
October 25, 2013 at 5:14 pm
I wonder how long the expanding earth lectures continued.
To me a lack of accumulation debris doesn’t signify, given subduction. None should be expected.
The Pacific is shrinking, not expanding, but even if it were expanding at the same time as the Atlantic, that wouldn’t invalidate the observable fact of plate tectonics, since continental plates could be subject to compression.
The fact that seafloor is younger as you near the ridges & older the closer you get to the continents would seem to be conclusive support for the hypothesis of seafloor spreading. Almost nowhere is seafloor older than the ~200 Ma breakup of Pangaea.
To credit an expanding earth, you must believe that it both expands & contracts, since supercontinents have formed & spread apart repeatedly over billions of years. IMO the proposition is better supported that the impact forming the moon lofted lots of crust into space, which coalesced into the moon, while giving the surface of our planet plates of thin oceanic crust & thicker continental crust, floating on the mantle. Superplumes like lava lamps under the crust carry these plates together & apart rather rhythmically.
A theory explaining so much so well & having stood up so well to attempts to falsify it, probably, IMO, has a great deal of validity. I’m all for scientific agnosticism, but also like theories that help me understand reality.

milodonharlani
October 25, 2013 9:02 pm

Jquip says:
October 25, 2013 at 8:57 pm
You’re welcome. Tasmanians & Oregonians are nothing if not open to zaniness, including elevating GLBTQ (I hope I have that right) candidates to high legislative office. Sometimes the zany are the sane ones. But not I fear in the case of the expanding earth, an explanation for a problem already solved by actual observations in the 1950s rather than prior speculation.

Richard
October 25, 2013 9:08 pm

All I know is eons ago it was so warm crocodiles swam in the arctic region.

Zeke
October 25, 2013 9:26 pm

When a community of scientific experts decide on a “paradigm shift,” they have taken their prerogative to decide:
“what is to be observed and scrutinized
the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject
how these questions are to be structured [terminology to be used, assumptions]
how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted
how is an experiment to be conducted, and what equipment is available to conduct the experiment.” (Wik)
As if that isn’t enough, the advantages for this “community” of “researchers” continue to tumble out of Kuhn’s philosophy: “Since scientists’ worldview after a paradigm shift is so radically different from the one that came before, the two cannot be compared according to a mutual conception of reality. Kuhn concluded that the path of science through these revolutions is not necessarily toward truth but merely away from previous error.” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-structure-of-scientific-revolutions-at-fifty
Many objections to climate science and to all of these new studies in archaeology, paleontology, and geology are really objections to the underlying “paradigm shift” which frames all questions and interpretations in terms of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from human life on earth systems – better known as Tipping Points in the Anthropocene Age.
I do not think Popper was in any way overly idealistic about the scientific method when he criticized Kuhn in The Myth of the Framework. He showed historically that many scientific achievements happened without any cabals having a paradigm shift. The power of theories and of a shared language structure and terminology is a constant danger to scientists. Scientists are people, and are easily imprisoned by unconsciously held prejudices, esp. within a protected community with its own language. The clash of cultures, of paradigms or “frameworks,” and criticism at all phases of the scientific process is necessary, mainly because the power of theories and our need for them in making observations. (The book is much better than I have made it out to be.)

JJ
October 25, 2013 9:32 pm

Other JJ –
To avoid confusion, please choose another handle.
Thanks,
JJ

milodonharlani
October 25, 2013 10:00 pm

Richard says:
October 25, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Technically not eons, nor even eras or periods. Epochs, yes, one period, yes. The last polar crocodilian or champosaur probably decamped for balmier climes in the Eocene Epoch of the Tertiary or more fashionable Paleogene Period, c. 50 Ma.

October 25, 2013 10:22 pm

milodonharlani said October 25, 2013 at 8:57 pm

I wonder how long the expanding earth lectures continued.

I don’t know. Prof Carey had retired some years before I enrolled in my early 50s. I doubt that they formed a large part of the curriculum. Both theories explain most of the observations and Carey still has his followers one of whom used to post here quite regularly.
I’m curious as to why you don’t think the overriding continental plate wouldn’t scrape the soft material and sea mounts off the oceanic crust as it is subducted.

October 25, 2013 10:44 pm

milodonharlani said October 25, 2013 at 9:02 pm

You’re welcome. Tasmanians & Oregonians are nothing if not open to zaniness, including elevating GLBTQ (I hope I have that right) candidates to high legislative office.

According to the wiki-bloody-pedia, glbtq.com has 2.2. million words on notable gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual or transgendered and queers. That’s about the same number of words Isaac Newton devoted to telling the world about his religious ideas 🙂

Jerry Franke
October 25, 2013 11:30 pm

I do not see where they have proven anything. If say, 100 years ago, someone were to have gone there and taken moss samples from the just-exposed ground at the margin of the shrinking ice cap, those dead moss samples would have had the same C14 signature as their sample. Therefore, the temperature rise preceeding the “100 year ago sample taking” could also be claimed to be unprecedented in the last 44,000 years (without anthropogenic influence). If my logic is flawed, someone please explain to me where I went wrong!

Janice Moore
October 26, 2013 12:49 am

Dear A. Grimm,
Thank you for your excellent, highly informative, post about C14 dating at 3:30am on 10/25/13. I found it very helpful. I especially wanted to tell you this not just because no one mentioned it (there are lots of other fine posts, here, that were never acknowledged) but, mainly, because a commenter after you, from his post, clearly had not read what you wrote (or he would not have written what he did). It’s always a bummer when it appears that no one read what one took time and care to write. Well, someone DID read it! #(:))
Gratefully,
Janice
P.S. Caleb — your north slope analogy at 6:20am on 10/25 was well-written and helpful (JJ’s giant ice cube, too).

phlogiston
October 26, 2013 2:45 am

This is another minger like Marcott.

DirkH
October 26, 2013 4:17 am

Steven Mosher says:
October 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
“here is a fork. theories get forked they dont get falsified.”
You are progressively losing it.

Don B
October 26, 2013 4:23 am

Forty-four thousand years ago the earth was in the glacial period which preceded this inter-glacial Holocene. The claim that it was warmer 44,000 years ago than any time since, until today, simply makes no sense.

Tim
October 26, 2013 4:29 am
Owen
October 26, 2013 7:03 am

This story was splashed across the news yesterday in Canada. I fell off my chair laughing. More unprecedented lies, propaganda and BS. The Climate Liar community has no shame. They will say anything to support their cause. The really sad thing about all of this is Canadians actually believe this crap is true.

Theo Goodwin
October 26, 2013 7:52 am

Zeke says:
October 25, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Excellent post. With Kuhnians, the bottom line is that your “conceptual scheme,” “worldview,” or whatever you want to call it, causes you to experience the world according to its dictates and causes you to understand the world and other scientists according to its dictates. Like all Marxisms, it takes for granted that our thought is to some degree determined. That is what is most offensive about it. The Kuhnian view demands that all standards of criticism for science must be set aside during “conceptual revolutions” because the poor fellows suffering the revolution are caused to be unable to communicate across the “conceptual divide.” What garbage.
Popper was correct to criticize it.

Theo Goodwin
October 26, 2013 7:54 am

The Pompous Git says:
October 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Excellent.