Study finds massive climate change in North America before there was even an argument about it

From Vanderbilt University and the “climate has never been static” department:

Reconstructing topsy-turvy paleoclimate of western US 21,000 years ago

Improves climate models developed to predict future rainfall patterns

Reconstruction of the climate 21,000 years ago at the peak of the last ice age in the western US found that the transition between the dryer zone in the north and wetter zone in the south ran diagonally from the northwest to southeast. Credit :Jessica Oster, Vanderbilt University
Reconstruction of the climate 21,000 years ago at the peak of the last ice age in the western US found that the transition between the dryer zone in the north and wetter zone in the south ran diagonally from the northwest to southeast. Credit :Jessica Oster, Vanderbilt University

Climate scientists now put the odds that the American Southwest is headed into a 30-year “mega drought” at 50/50. Meanwhile, the forecast for the Pacific Northwest is continued warming with slightly drier summers and even wetter winters.

However, 21,000 years ago, at the peak of the last Ice Age, a period known as the Last Glacial Maximum, the Southwest was wetter than it is today – much wetter – and the Northwest was drier – much drier.

A team of scientists from Vanderbilt and Stanford universities have created the first comprehensive map of the topsy-turvy climate of the period and are using it to test and improve the global climate models that have been developed to predict how precipitation patterns will change in the future. Their efforts are described in a paper published online on Feb. 23 by the journal Nature Geoscience.

“Most of the previous research of the past climate in this region is based on detailed studies of specific sites,” said the lead author Jessica Oster, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at Vanderbilt University. “We combined these records to create a detailed map of past climate change in the American West. We then compared this map to computer climate models to understand what caused these changes.”

“Our previous research used field studies to understand the history of climate change in the Western US,” said study coauthor Kate Maher, assistant professor of geological and environmental sciences at Stanford University. ” It was amazing to see how our results, when combined with work of many other research groups and compared to the newest generation of climate models, revealed a consistent story about how rainfall patterns were altered in the past.”

One of the reasons that Oster and her colleagues picked this region to map is because the mid-latitudes, in general, and the western United States, in particular, are regions where the climate models tend to disagree on the magnitude and, in some cases, even the direction that precipitation patterns will change in the future.

“This is a transition zone. There are strong competing effects such as changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation, sea surface temperature changes like El Niño and La Niña and the dynamics of westerly storm tracks that all interact at the mid-latitudes,” said Stanford co-author Matthew Winnick who contributed to the study with fellow doctoral student Daniel Ibarra. “As a result, understanding the exact nature of how these different effects express themselves to form the north/south transition zone will be extremely important for freshwater resource management in major population centers across the Western US.”

Of course, there aren’t any direct records of precipitation levels thousands of years ago. So climate scientists rely on indirect means, called proxies, to reconstruct past variations in precipitation patterns. In this case, the researchers combined records of ancient lake levels, location and extent of glaciation, variations in the composition of stalagmites in caves, and evidence for changes in vegetation and subsurface soil deposits associated with water table depth. (One of the smelliest proxies that they used is pollen preserved in ancient packrat middens.)

During the Last Glacial Maximum, Canada was completely inundated by the massive Laurentide Ice Sheet. A number of the site-specific studies in the Northwest had provided evidence for a drier climate during the period, while similar studies in the Southwest found evidence for a wetter climate. For instance, a 1997 vegetation study from the University of Wisconsin found that much of the Northwest was covered by polar desert or tundra while the Southwest was covered by extensive conifer and broadleaf forest. However, there was also conflicting evidence of drier conditions at some sites in Utah and Colorado and of wetter conditions in Idaho and Montana.

“People hypothesized that the transition between the two climate zones ran along a straight east-west line, but that didn’t work very well,” said Oster. “Our study indicates that the transition zone is angled from the northwest to the southeast.” This explains the drier conditions in Utah and Colorado. Their analysis also found that the wetter sites in the north were situated next to large inland lakes that existed at the time, so they attribute them to local, lake effects.

Two basic theories have been advanced to explain the dramatically different rainfall patterns of this period:

  • One is that the cold air above the Laurentide Ice Sheet created a tremendous high pressure system that shifted the polar jet stream to the south, pushing the track followed by winter storms down into the Southwest, which had the effect of dramatically reducing the amount of rainfall in the Northwest while increasing it in the Southwest.
  • An alternative explanation is that the subtropical jet stream was enhanced, increasing the frequency with which the Southwest was hit by “Pineapple Expresses:” water-saturated subtropical plumes of air that periodically swing up from Hawaii and hit the West Coast and these days cause serious flooding. When combined with a strengthened summer monsoon, this could also explain the wetter conditions in the Southwest.

When the researchers compared their results with the output of a number of climate models, they found that several of the newer models that have higher resolution and use updated ice sheet configurations do “a very good job” of reproducing the patterns observed in the proxy records.

“According to these models, it is the high pressure cells that are really important in steering winter storms, and in determining the shape and location of the transition zone,” said Oster. “Some models do hint at an increase in subtropical winter moisture, but we don’t see evidence of an enhanced summer monsoon.”

Given the prospect of continued global warming, there is no chance that this ancient weather pattern will return in foreseeable future. Curiously, however, a similar pattern re-emerges periodically during the warm phase of the El Ni?o-Southern Oscillation, which produces drier than normal winters in the Northwest and wetter than normal winters in the Southwest.

###

The research was supported by National Science Foundation grants AGS1203701 and EAR0921134.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 24, 2015 8:38 am

Chaco Canyon has info, better info than the current National Weather Service has. The old ones lived in the real weather not in the air-conditioned lie the data centers of Mike Mann etal.
http://www.nps.gov/chcu
http://www.nps.gov/chcu/

February 24, 2015 8:42 am

Does anyone want to explain how this study falsifies AGW?

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 8:53 am

AGW needs no further falsification. It was born falsified.
There is not a shred of evidence in support of the hypothesis of man’made global warming. Humans have caused local warming in some places, as for instance central cities which used to be desert, swamp, woods or grassland. But human activities also arguably cool the planet, so even the sign of our net effect is not known, but is sure in any case to have been negligible so far.
Please, as asked previously, present what you consider to be the evidence showing that AGW exists, with a high degree of probability. You could win a Nobel Prize for doing what IPCC & national science academies have not been able to do. Thanks.

Reply to  milodonharlani
February 24, 2015 9:05 am

OK. So the first response to my question is an answer that doesn’t stand up in the Court of Reason: “AGW needs no further falsification. It was born falsified.”
The answer to your question ‘what is the evidence for AGW” is that the evidence is overwhelming. If you wish to read it, go to the IPCC 5th Assessment, which summarizes 10,000 papers by peer-reviewed independent researchers from all over the world.
Have you read this evidence?

mpainter
Reply to  milodonharlani
February 24, 2015 9:42 am

warrenpound:
#######
Have you read it? What we want is for someone like you to briefly summarize the main evidence in support of AGW. No one has so far. No one never will. You are fooling no one with your dodges.

Reply to  milodonharlani
February 24, 2015 10:34 am

@mpainter. I’ve read the 5th Assessment, and the evidence is voluminous. Care to try to falsify it?

Reply to  milodonharlani
February 24, 2015 11:39 am

There is not a shred of evidence demonstrating AGW in any IPCC report or anywhere else.
If you know of some, please, for the umpteenth time, present it. If you imagine it to be overwhelming, that should be easy for you.
Thanks.

Newsel
Reply to  milodonharlani
February 28, 2015 3:04 pm

milodonharlani
Went to that site and NASA is still pedaling the 97% BS? Guess who is their paymaster.

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 10:36 am

@mpainter.
I’ve read the 5th Assessment, and its mounds of evidence. Care to try to falsify it?

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 10:57 am

@warrenlb:
Planet Earth is busy falsifying the IPCC, AR-1 through AR-5.
You don’t like it? Tell the planet she’s wrong.
The rest of us will laugh at you.

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 11:48 am

As I said, the hypothesis was born falsified, in its revived 1980s version.
Callender recognized that his hypothesis was falsified in the early ´60s by pronounced cold, to his disappointment, since in the ´30s he hoped that man-made global warming would benefit humanity & other living things.
Despite rapidly rising CO2, the world cooled from the late ´40s to late ´70s. Some slight warming might have occurred from then until the late ´90s, accidentally coinciding with a continued rise in CO2. Since then, for going on 20 years, the world has stopped warming & appears to be cooling, again despite a further rise in CO2 levels.
Thus was AGW stillborn. Abundant other evidence supports the same conclusion.
QED.

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 12:32 pm

Here, Warren, I’ll help you:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Please state in your opinion the most compelling evidence for AGW. I hope your evidence isn’t as lame as NASA’s ludicrous claims.
Thanks.

mpainter
Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 12:54 pm

Warren pound,
The consensus opinion on you is that you will never present here, in your own words, the most compelling evidence of AGW.
Now, all you need to do is just present one item of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis, just one, that’s all, and we are wrong.

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 2:25 pm

I hope Warren is Mensch enough to dare to falsify your hypothesis concerning his pusillanimity.

Dawtgtomis
February 24, 2015 9:19 am

With the conditions described in the article being the norm of that epoch, How can we dictate what the norm should be now? The scary statistics of this Carbon-crazy diversion into a climate twilight zone are based on anomalies… from what norms? to pick out a century or two when climate was at a different juncture and focus on that as a norm, is like choosing one or two minutes of a year to calculate against the anomalous variations in the remaining minutes.
I see optimism in human ingenuity and adaptability. We need to get back on the main road of science and put off predicting the future for a while, to take care of completely understanding the present.
I sure don’t doubt climate change, but I seriously doubt any ability to predict it’s course.

wws
February 24, 2015 9:41 am

These people have no knowledge of even basic natural history. 21,000 years ago, much of Utah was covered by Lake Bonneville, which was 1,000 feet deep and larger than Lake Michigan. (the Great Salt Lake is a very small remnant) And it was far from the only great lake in the region – there were lakes covering large portions of Nevada as well.
So ya think it was a bit wetter then than now?
btw, it’s kind of funny to see warrenlib preach the True Faith of the IPCC. Warren, you’ll do better by finding some organization that isn’t run by a self-aggrandizing sex offender. Trust me on that one.

Reply to  wws
February 24, 2015 10:32 am

So how does your fact about Lake Bonneville have anything at all to do with AGW?

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 10:58 am

Prove AGW exists.
I’ll wait here, while you trot back to SkS or Hotwhopper for your talking points.

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 11:36 am

As always, Stealey has no ability to falsify AGW or its evidence, and certainly not this study, which is the question at hand.

Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 12:42 pm

As always, Warren the Numpty doesn’t understand. The planet herself is busy falsifying AR-1 thru AR-5.
So, who should we believe? warrenlb? Or Planet Earth?
Because one of them has to be wrong.

mpainter
Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 1:02 pm

So far, still no evidence presented by Mr. #. Rest assured that he never will present any such evidence.
One cannot escape the impression that pound lacks sufficient grasp of the matter to be able to articulate the science that he claims as support for AGW.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  warrenlb
February 24, 2015 2:47 pm

While AGW theoretically exists, it has not been able to make it’s presence felt in nearly 20 years. I suggest that your favorite culprit of climate change might actually be the ant trying to move the elephant out of the room.

Reply to  warrenlb
February 25, 2015 8:51 am

Where is the evidence that AGW is driving the climate? You have been asked numerous times now, and all you have is dodge, in reply. Give us an example with details, Warren.
You a Los Angeles Dodger fan?

Don K
Reply to  wws
February 24, 2015 12:08 pm

So ya think it was a bit wetter then than now?

You’re right about the lakes. There’s a map at http://gec.cr.usgs.gov/projects/paleo_hyd/paleolakes.shtml However in a addition to probably being wetter back then, it was also presumably colder — there was, after all, a major glaciation in progress. That probably means evaporation was lower. Cut back on the evaporation enough and wait a few millenia and even the meager flow of the Truckee, Walker, Owens, Humboldt, Virgin Rivers is probably going to fill up all the low spots in the Great Basin.

Mac the Knife
February 24, 2015 11:44 am

It was an interesting read….. until Climatodrastic Global Warming was invoked to justify the implausibly short sighted statement “….there is no chance that this ancient weather pattern will return in foreseeable future.” Sounds similar to other hyperbole assertions like“Children won’t know what snow is!”, doesn’t it?
The climate models do not reflect reality: 18 years of no warming while atmospheric CO2 has continued its ploddingly regular annual increases. They are unsuitable for forecasting, by any reasonable standard. Even their ‘hind casting’ outputs are little better than ‘hind cast’ products produced in ‘rest rooms’ world wide.

Don K
February 24, 2015 11:52 am

Mostly, these folks seem to be trying to describe the climate of Western North America during the last glacial period. Seems a reasonable undertaking. And nothing they are working with seems objectionable.
OK then, very possibly we had arctic tundra in regions adjacent to the Laurentide ice sheet and cool, reasonably well watered forests of conifers South of the tundra. Seems pretty reasonable, no? (At least if you ignore the existence of literally hundreds of substantial mountain ranges and deep intermountaine valleys that probably have different climates at different elevations).
As for climate models When the researchers compared their results with the output of a number of climate models, ‘they found that several of the newer models … that use updated ice sheet configurations do “a very good job” of reproducing the patterns observed in the proxy records.’ No offense to the modelers, but if climate science is so damn rigorous, why don’t ALL the models do a good job? If you fire shots pretty much at random, you’re bound to hit a target every now and then. That’s luck, not science.

ren
February 24, 2015 12:31 pm

A fixed pattern of stratospheric polar vortex (geomagnetic field) can lead to glaciation in the specific area.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z05_nh_f00.gif

ren
Reply to  ren
February 24, 2015 12:52 pm

What happens when, with the circulation over North America will occur a super volcanic eruption in Kamchatka?

James at 48
Reply to  ren
February 24, 2015 6:38 pm

Another case where “are we there yet?” has meaning!

ren
February 24, 2015 1:04 pm

“Cold air from Canada and moisture from the Gulf of Mexico will clash to bring a significant winter storm with accumulating snow and an icy mix in a large part of the South at midweek.”
It will also be more moisture in California.

ren
Reply to  ren
February 24, 2015 9:36 pm

When the cold air from the Arctic drops further south must be more moisture in California.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/02/28/0600Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-121.14,43.30,688

Proud Skeptic
February 24, 2015 6:36 pm

I’m sorry, but I remain skeptical that the degree of accuracy they are claiming in these models is available from proxy data. You may be able to get a general trend but I would be surprised if it was useful for calculating anything to any useful degree of accuracy.

ren
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
February 24, 2015 9:28 pm

When the cold air from the Arctic drops further south must be more moisture in California.

Verified by MonsterInsights