From the Alfred Wegener Institute and the “Melting triggers sympathetic melting” department
Scientists show how warm ocean water melted glaciers during the last glacial period – a potential template for processes affecting the modern Antarctic ice sheet

The melting of glaciers on one side of the globe can trigger disintegration of glaciers on the other side of the globe, as has been presented in a recent paper by a team of AWI scientists, who investigated marine microalgae preserved in glacial deposits and subsequently used their findings to perform climate simulations. The study highlights a process with alarming consequences for modern ice sheets—continuous warming of the ocean can result in a massive loss of polar ice mass, and consequently to rapid sea level rise.
Ocean basins around the world are interconnected by large-scale current systems, and like a global conveyor belt, the currents transport water around the globe at varying depths. The resultant distribution of warm and cold water masses is critical for global climatic conditions. Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) and MARUM Center for Marine Environmental Sciences have now documented how a change in currents in one ocean basin can trigger massive and unexpected changes in a distant basin, even on the other side of the planet.
The Bremerhaven-based researchers report in the journal Nature that during the last glacial period, a massive inflow of freshwater into the polar North Atlantic set off a chain of events in the ocean and the atmosphere, which resulted intensive glacier melting in the North Pacific, thousands of kilometres away. The source of the freshwater was melting ice sheets, which covered land masses surrounding the North Atlantic during the glacial period. At the end of the chain of events, warm water penetrated the Pacific coastal area of the North American continent, which was also covered by an ice sheet. As a result, parts of the sheet disintegrated and were released into the Pacific as large-scale flotilla of icebergs. Considering that the modern ocean is warming continuously as a result of global warming, this finding is alarming for the AWI scientists. Comparable to the process observed in the eastern North Pacific during the last glacial melting, the ongoing ocean warming may disintegrate Antarctic ice, which subsequently would result in a significant sea level rise.
Together with a team of scientists, AWI geoscientist Edith Maier describes a complex stepwise process. First indications were gathered from sediment sampling during an expedition with the German research ship Sonne 600 kilometres off the coast of Alaska. The recovered glacial sediment layers of up to cobble-sized stones, which originated in the distant continental land. The only feasible explanation: the stones must have been transported while incorporated within icebergs into the open North Pacific Ocean when the North American coast was covered by an ice sheet. Confirmation came from the dating of the layers, which reveals that the stony layers were deposited around 16,000 and 38,500 years ago, during the last glacial period. “Accordingly, we assume there were two major melting events in the North Pacific realm,” says Edith Maier.
To test this thesis, the team employed an innovative analytical technique pioneered at the AWI. The method uses diatoms to determine how intensively the salinity of ocean surface waters has declined, e.g., due to meltwater deposition. By performing an oxygen isotope analysis on the remains of the siliceous parts of diatoms preserved in the sediment record, the researchers were able to identify at what times the surface salinity was most intensively affected by melting ice. “In fact, our analyses showed that there were major inflows of freshwater into the area south of Alaska roughly 16,000 and 38,500 years ago,” confirms Edith Maier.
Previous reconstructions of glacial conditions have documented that meltwater inflows have caused major drops in surface salinity in the North Atlantic, a feature that inspired Edith Maier to investigate whether the meltwater events in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific were linked via the global water circulation. Today, warm surface water is transported from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, then flows around the southern tip of Africa towards the Caribbean realm and then spreads into the North Atlantic via the Gulf Stream.
The driver of this global flow is the generation of cold and salty water in the polar North Atlantic. This water, produced during ice formation, is denser than warm water and therefore sinks into the deep ocean. As a result, the surface warm water is pumped to the North. But 16,000 and 38,500 years ago, the global “pumping system” was seriously disrupted by the decreased salinity of the North Atlantic. Consequently, only little warm water flowed out of the Pacific, causing the tropical Pacific to get warmer. In turn, more warm water reached the western coasts of Canada and Alaska. The inflow of warmer water destabilized the ice sheet covering the coastal areas which resulted in a discharge of the continental ice into the ocean and a drop in surface salinity.
To validate this scenario, Edith Maier asked the AWI’s climate modelers, led by Gerrit Lohmann, whether such a complex, global chain of events could be simulated using computer models. The results were unequivocal: If the oxygen isotopes are taken into account, the models clearly show that the phenomenon occurs. The model results also show that meltwater pulses in the Atlantic caused the changes in the Pacific—and not the other way round. “Our findings are also relevant for the future, because they highlight that climate effects on one side of the Earth can significantly impact regions on the opposite side,” says Edith Maier. “The AWI is currently exploring how similar phenomena involving the inflow of warmer water are now affecting the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet. There is increasing evidence suggesting that further ocean warming will jeopardise both the stability and volume of the Antarctic ice.”
The study: E. Maier et al, North Pacific freshwater events linked to changes in glacial ocean circulation, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0276-y
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“alarming consequences”…and of course it’s a new innovated technique
…sick of these people
But their research must be good because they ran climate simulations to demonstrate how bad things could get! 😄
no, they ran simulations to see if the thesis they derived from the data made sense in the model.
the data drives the interpretation. the modelling merely reinforces what the data say.
this is referred to as consilience of evidence.
like if you had a thermometer reading of -4c
and then also found that ice had formed.
supporting evidence from a different approach.
standard stuff
But if thermometer is in the South Pole and ice in the North Pole perhaps not. Here the thermometer seems to be in the northern Pavific and ice in the North Pole. Hewing to your science by analogy. Yes standard stuf in the social science of climatology
Too bad I can’t run simulations on my retirement accounts and then have the simulations declared to be reality.
innovative ( aka non validated ) techniques.
The most obvious problem is why would one expect the last glacial period to be a “template” for the current inter-glacial.? These two climate states are very different.
BTW what is the woolly word “template” supposed to imply in scientific terms? Is templatology a new branch of statistics ?
It seems that this is a word game, where it suffices to say the magic word template and this obviates the need to show that there is an established relationship which can be used
to infer a behavioural link,
This probable needs to be put in a box with synchronised menstruation.
Bingo.
untested? technique has been around for 5 years. read up on it.
“If the oxygen isotopes are taken into account, the models clearly show that the phenomenon occurs.”
Yes, and the model used by the Old Testament, clearly shows that the Earth is not quite 5,000 years old.
Are those dog years, or people years, or God years?
None of the above. They’re the product of the fevered imagination of an Irish Anglican Archbishop named Ussher, who added up the begats (along with other chronological jiggery-pokery) and came up with a Creation date and time of around 6 pm on 22 October, 4004 BC. Others had done similar calculations, but for some reason, his estimate has stuck.
The date is not surprising. What takes the biscuit is the 6 PM.
It was done just in time for god to put her feet up, listen to the 6 o’clock news… & have a biscuit, some beers & a splif.
” in time for god to put her feet up”
OMG , even the Lord has gone transgender these days. Clearly the destruction of Saddam and Gomorrah was not enough to repress his latent tendencies. This time God will have to destroy the whole of creation.
I always understood it was 4pm. GMT? BST? CET? EST? We should really be told.
Universal time , of course. That’s what used to be called GMT, since Greenwich is the centre of God’s universe.
( Greenwich, London , not village people Greenwich )
For starters, 6 p.m. is almost dark at that time of year and the first thing he did was create light. There might be another thing or two I could question about the whole yarn as well.
Like, what was the temperature? Did he have to create a hockey stick right away to get things up to operating temperature? Did he use the same magic math as Michael Mann for that? Apparently Adam and Eve were running around naked so I assume it was warmer in the Garden of Eden and yet there was no drought or severe storms or aberrant weather such as out of season blizzards.
They must have really made God mad. He infested us with Eco-Socialist loonies.
God gave us all free will, even the eco-socialist loonies, who’ve given their will away to the MSM.
God’s Dog years.
Must be canary years.
OMG! Facepalm.
Just exactly how were these models validated? There’s always a requirement:
I don’t see how they could possibly have done that.
They have ignored the AMO ….at their peril
Did the AMO even exist in the last glaciation. If it did it would have been very different from today.
This is why this whole exercise is total BS. The world cliamte is in a totally different state during glaciation. How the hell do they manage to justify what happened then as being a “template ” for the current inter-glacial.
Commie Bob,
Yes. I thought the big melt-water outflows into the North Atlantic occurred around 14,000 years ago (or later), hence, significantly after the younger Pacific event 16,000 years ago.
In post-normal science, you simply reverse the process!
“To validate this scenario, Edith Maier asked the AWI’s climate modelers, led by Gerrit Lohmann, whether such a complex, global chain of events could be simulated using computer models.”
its not about model validation.
you really need to read harder.
An unvalidated model is pure speculation at best but probably better described by the technical term garbage.
I can shorten that to “Super El Nino” for both poles, but then that does not get counted as a publ.
Of course it has to be one pole effecting the other…not!
It couldn’t possibly be happening at both ends simultaneously. Seeing as the sun is the ONLY external source of energy for this planet (lets neglect starlight) unless there is some massive solar activity which acted within one year’s span, both poles would be effected equally. That being said, given the same amount of energy they wouldn’t necessarily have the same immediate result. The thermal mass of each will determine how that heat is absorbed and or transported throughout.
The argument put forth in the article is akin to saying because the river broke free of ice sooner than the forest next to it, the river caused the subsequent thaw of the forest.
Melting triggers melting Scientists? Oh, I see a missing period… lol…
For Michael Mann, it’s always the wrong time of the month…
If Mann said it was the wrong time of the month , he’s probably lying. Assume it is the right tome of the month.
Yeah, right. Can I sell you London Bridge? You can prove whatever you want with a climate model, as long as you can pay the grant money to the modelling priests up front.
Only problem is the reality doesn’t match the prophesy if you make it easy to check in the lifetimes of those affected- so don’t do that.
Just add the terms you want, dismiss those you don’t as insignificant, and adjust “sensitivities” until you get some conformance with the answer you are asked to give. Theoretical consensus science is SO much easier than deterministic, no proof required or sought by your sponsors, only the answer they expect and can promote as “scientific” for easy profit.
Convince me that transitioning out of the last glacial (18kya) is exactly like the lingering end of the present inter-glacial so I can accept the scary conclusions.
The abstract does not seem to say how long this process took which is surely what we need to know if we are to panic properly.
I don’t know how relevant this is but for a talk that I gave to a local community history group on the recent archaeology work in Greenland in relation to climate change the N Atlantic currents came into the presentation . I quoted a report that said that if you dropped a bottle in the (warm) Irminger current off Iceland today you would have to wait 1000 years for it to pop up again after its global passage through the ocean conveyor system.
I just love it when some group discovers that the oceans might just be important to climate.
Microorganism, bacteria, diatoms, forams, tend to evolve and adapt faster than most other life on earth. The authors assume diatom physiology has not changed in past 16 to 30+ thousand years.
Ocean bottom water, a significant part of the so called conveyer, is estimated to be between 700-1000 years old since it last saw the surface. Get this, models estimated the age to be twice as old.
It is bad enough when they model the future without any chance of verification during the lifetime of the modelers but to model complex ocean current conditions tens of thousands of years ago———well so much horse hockey.
We act like we know all about the ocean current system. We don’t; we are still just learning how the system functions today, much less about how it function in the distant past. I would suggest we are not even close to understanding; we are still in kindergarten. As an oceanographer friend told me. “When I was in graduate school (circa 1960s) we all believed we knew all there was to know about the Gulf Stream. No one even thought about doing additional research of the Gulf Stream. Then we put a satellite up to look back. We discovered we knew damn little and what we thought we knew was mostly wrong. For example eddies are very common not extremely rare events as we had been taught.”
https://huemaurice5.blogspot.fr/2017/12/est-ce-que-40-000-volcans-sont.html
https://huemaurice5.blogspot.fr/2015/03/les-volcans-sous-marins-finalement-pris.html
https://huemaurice5.blogspot.fr/2018/01/la-terre-est-une-planete-froide.html
https://huemaurice5.blogspot.com/2014/06/surprise-le-volcan-ouest-fait-fondre-la.html
https://huemaurice5.blogspot.com/2018/06/biodiversite-biosphere-et-biomasse-cest.html
“But 16,000 and 38,500 years ago, the global “pumping system” was seriously disrupted by the decreased salinity of the North Atlantic.”
38,500 – 16,000 = 22,500 years.
Precession period.
Axial precession meets apsidal precession.
These guys likely found a precession signal.
Fee-fi, niddle noddle,
I smell the stench
of a climate model.
Hmmm. Wouldn’t melting glaciers put COLD water into the system?
Ever stood in glacier melt?
The theory is melt water (fresh water, low salinity, more buoyant) shuts down warmer, high salinity current flow and overturning circulation (sinking). Thus the tropical oceans warm because their primary cooling that is the “pumping system” is gummed-up until the fresh water pulse disperses.
So the cold glacier melt stays at the surface? Keeping the less-buoyant, high-salinity water down deeper – where it ought to be colder anyway? It seems either way, you’d get a net cooling effect. Is the idea that this process somehow retards the tide flow across the entire ocean?
Seriously, not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but doesn’t this seem to be working backwards from a premise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
I never knew that icebergs were known to carry cobblestones with them. To support their theory, they should demonstrate that stones are still found in icebergs today. But if the cobblestone deposits show a relatively even distribution, or if there are more stones than can be accounted for then you know the theory is bunk.
Anyway, it’s not exactly true that this is the only explanation. Immanuel Velikovsky would have an easy explanation, but they REALLY wouldn’t like it.
Ice-rafted debris (rocks, stones, sand, silts from the bottoms of the glaciers) is a well-studied phenomenon. Of course, the beautiful blue color of glacier fed rivers is due to the finely ground silts preferentially refracting the blue light. But the stones and gravel are there too, falling to the ocean floor as the icebergs ablate as they get carried to warmer waters.
I love the blue color of the glacier, and the diamond clarity of the ice chunks, but the river melt is almost white with glacier flour. I have never seen our glacier river ‘blue’. As it enters the bay, that milk spreads for miles until it reaches some point and the line of sea water and glacier water is quite distinct. It is fascinating to observe. The milk does hide some things just below the surface, so we travel slowly as we enter the river.
It is (old) glacier ice that is blue. Glacial meltwater rivers and lakes on top of glacier sometimes look blue too, but the color comes mostly from the ice:
Glacial meltwater is brown to milky depending on the amount and type of glacial debris. But once it reaches a lake and the coarser fraction sediments out the lake turns into a beautiful bluegreen color:
… the beautiful blue color of glacier fed rivers …
The glacier fed rivers in Alaska are muddy, gray with no fish in them.
I thought it was something about low oxygen content in the ice?
Freezing and melting freezing and melting. I’m sick of this so make up your mind Gaia or we’ll make it for you.
“To validate this scenario, Edith Maier asked the AWI’s climate modelers, led by Gerrit Lohmann, whether such a complex, global chain of events could be simulated using computer models.”
Mathematical onanism. It cause blindness and insanity, like this article.
There is nothing wrong with making computer simulations and running various scenarios to find the ones that best match the data. The problem is degeneracy, that is multiple scenarios can replicate (explain) the data, especially when your data is of low temporal resolution. Low temporal resolution data frequently leads to seeming causality paradoxes where effect only seems to precede causation.
“To validate this scenario, Edith Maier asked the AWI’s climate modelers, led by Gerrit Lohmann, whether such a complex, global chain of events could be simulated using computer models. The results were unequivocal: If the oxygen isotopes are taken into account, the models clearly show that the phenomenon occurs. The model results also show that meltwater pulses in the Atlantic caused the changes in the Pacific—and not the other way round. ”
Anything can be simulated using computer models. Sooooooooooooooo what does that prove?
In no way whatsoever, is that a meaningful validation.
It gives a whole new meaning to the concept of entanglement. If I understand it correctly I should not be surprised if there is, somewhere in the southern hemisphere, another me typing furiously on a tablet. Let’s get in touch!
If you get a mirror you can see this individual. Symmetry demands that this person, even though he looks exactly like you, will be opposite-handed!
Or else that what he types causes you to type the same thing on the other side of the world. Either way, it melts glaciers!
I just checked. You are right: he needs a shave!
quote:
…..currents transport water around the globe at varying depths. The resultant distribution of warm and cold water masses is critical for global climatic conditions…
endquote
But doesn’t variations in carbonoxide make for critical climate conditions?
quote:
global climatic conditio…
endquote
Wouldn’t that mean that if ice melted in one place, it would melt somewhere else, assuming we all actually are on The Same Planet?
quote:
climate effects on one side of the Earth can significantly impact regions on the opposite side,
endquote
As I write, 17:34 GMT on 13 July, the sun is moving across the surface of this earth at just shy of 431 metres per second.
As far as Sol (the driver of everything) is concerned, there are no ‘opposite’ sides and even if there were, they are closing in at 965 miles per hour
All we have is is the news that “Ice melts”
HoodaThunk
There is a phenomenon concerning head injuries. If someone is struck a heavy blow on the skull, there will be detectable signs inside the skull, on both the side struck and on the opposite side, as the brain is suddenly propelled from one side of the skull cavity to the opposite. I can’t remember the term for this phenomenon, but it comes up in criminal trials. (The effect is not observed when the skull is held stationary, for example, by lying on the floor; there is no bounce effect in that circumstance.)
This article’s hypothesis, that glacier melt on one side of the globe stimulates similar melt on the opposite side, struck me as quite similar. So now, inquiring minds want to know: What sort of blow was struck where the first glacier melted, and who struck that blow?
John M Ware : “BEWARE ! ” It was THAW with his Hammer !!!
It is amazing what you can surmise when your head is stuck in a computer.
I wonder what the continents looked like back in those ice ages. Just a thought when considering ocean currents.
I blame their parents for not restricting mobile phone use at the developmental stage.
I guess the continents looked bigger during the glaciations.
Younger Dryas cold spell was caused by melting glacial ice but melting ice causes other melting ice so even cold weather causes the ice to melt! I’ve pulled out all my old physics textbooks and I’m redacting all the things refuted by AGW. There really isn’t much left there to read and I’ve used up all my felt markers. Do they cause AGW, too?
Something worse going on. Perhaps for another post. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/13/flooding-fears-huge-iceberg-drifts-close-greenland-village/
Yikes! That could drop the biggest load of old cobblers on baby whales so what’s the IPCC doing about it?
I suppose modeling has a role in developing hypotheses and testing sensitivity to various inputs however, it remains ridiculous that supposed scientists can make their career on what amounts to pure astrological speculation without doing any real science. If the public and the modelers were sexual partners there would be a hell of a lot of faking going on.
Thankfully, ice sheets are expanding.