Arctic Temperatures Reach Highest Levels In 44,000 Years
By LiveScience staff writer Douglas Main
Many studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting, but how does it compare to the past, and how serious is it?
Researchers warn that the cold Arctic seas are undergoing a process of rapid acidification as a result of rising carbon emissions . Acidification destabilizes ocean chemistry and endangers the fragile ecosystem. [Photo viaShutterstock]
New research shows that average summer temperatures in the Canadian Arctic over the last century are the highest in the last 44,000 years, and perhaps the highest in 120,000 years.
"The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is," Gifford Miller, a researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in a joint statement from the school and the publisher of the journal Geophysical Researcher Letters, in which the study by Miller and his colleagues was published online this week. "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."
The study is the first to show that current Arctic warmth exceeds peak heat there in the early Holocene, the name for the current geological period, which began about 11,700 years ago. During this "peak" Arctic warmth, solar radiation was about 9 percent greater than today, according to the study.
Read how researchers arrived at their findings ;
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
If you want to see global warmings signature, look to the Arctic. Up north, the air is warming and the ice ismelting. As all of that reflective ice goes away, the Arctic Ocean is soaking up more sunlight, further enhancing warming. Melting Arctic ice is also contributing significantly to sea level rise.
[EarthObservatory.NASA.gov]
[ Link ]
Photo: Henrik Egede Lassen/Alpha Film
Jerry
I totally understand and acceptthe concept of global warming /climate change but who exactly had the thermometer 44,000 yeas ago?
This guy ?
BadFish
I could be wrong about this but I think that "sea ice" is caused by the glaciers melting and pieces breaking off and floating in the sea
Petey
Sorry to confound the issue but sea ice happens from flash freezing of large areas of ocean due to very cold temperatures .
I thought it would be a good idea to be a real estate agent selling farmland on Baffin Island.
Petey
Thanks for the feedback, this is what I found in Merriam's dictionary --
It looks like it naturally increases and decreases to a degree annually.
Again thanks for the feedback
It's what , not who has the temperatures from 44,000 years ago. The study of theof 10's of thousands of years agois done by boring holes deep into the ice glaciers, extracting tubes of ice that are studied for their contents.
Byexaminingthe molecules in the ice they candeterminemany things about the earths history.
This is an excerpt from the international Antarctica's Gamburtsev Province Project (AGAP
Ice cores are a sample of layers of snow and ice that have collected over a period of a series of years that offers a continuous record of events and conditions. Falling snow captures the atmosphere through which it travels, collecting the chemistry, particles and compounds that are present - these include bits of dust, trace metals, or radioactivity. In extreme climates the snow remains all year, with each year's snow contribution being sealed with each subsequent year's snow accumulation. This means that all this information trapped in the snow is being captured and sealed in place.
As snow is layered it compresses, and over time the lower layers are turned into ice, capturing small samples of the atmosphere as air bubbles. These natural ice archives with trapped chemicals, dust and air, can hold a a tremendous amount of information for scientists. Past climates and temperatures, large scale Earth events such as volcanic eruptions, atmospheric changes, ice accumulation rates over time, changes in vegetation and human impacts on the overall Earth system through emissions of gases and chemicals are all information that is captured in ice cores.
Click on the link and read more, it's afascinatingproject.
Very funny Denier Dean,
Try reading the above comment and become a little informed about what the issue is all about.
It's not magic, and it's not superfluous guesswork from a snapshot of the current climate, as most Deniers seem to believe.It's deeply involved true scientific research done by competent, educated scientist.
It really pisses me off that people that have little to no education in thesciences, think they're in a position to make jokes about things they know little to nothing about.
Sea Ice is completely different fromGlacialIce;
A glacier is a persistent body of dense ice exceeding a surface area of 0.1km constantly moving under its own gravity; it forms where the accumulation of snow exceeds its ablation (melting and sublimation ) over many years, often centuries . Glaciers slowly deform and flow due to stresses induced by their weight, creating crevasses , seracs , and other distinguishing features. They also abrade rock and debris from their substrate to create landforms such as cirques and moraines . Glaciers form only on land and are distinct from the much thinner "Sea ice" and lake ice that form on the surface of bodies of water.[Wikipedia]
I have one question for you Mike ....... WHY?!
Offer something tangible, instead of just saying it's all bullshit and following the ignorant deniers that are unable to understand the research that is laid out in front of them!
Click this link , or don't if you would rather remain ignorant about the issue.
Hahah.....
Sea Ice is completely different fromGlacialIce;
A glacier is a persistent body of dense ice exceeding a surface area of 0.1km constantly moving under its own gravity; it forms where the accumulation of snow exceeds its ablation (melting and sublimation ) over many years, often centuries . Glaciers slowly deform and flow due to stresses induced by their weight, creating crevasses , seracs , and other distinguishing features. They also abrade rock and debris from their substrate to create landforms such as cirques and moraines . Glaciers form only on land and are distinct from the much thinner "Sea ice" and lake ice that form on the surface of bodies of water.[Wikipedia]
Little problem with that BF,
The article is not about "recorded"temperatures, it's about research done to determine temperatures 44,000 years ago. Climateresearchersknow comparing temperatures of today with those of the 150 years ago, when they started to record temperatures,is of no value when trying to determine the actual long term effects of climate change.
I think that's a rather unfair statement, Jerry. You really don't know how much education others may have had, and not everyone holds the same opinions as you do. As well, sometimes a bit of humour can be a relief.
Remember the advice from a great American philosopher, Pogo: "Don't take life too serious, son. It ain't no ways permanent."
So ... does this mean that the Jerry Verlinger is an expert ? If so he should have no problem interpreting this up to date graph :
Many, maybe most, people that post dissentingcomments, or wisecracks, when faced with evidence regarding climate change, lack the credentials to make an intelligent judgement or evaluation of that evidence.
Yeah, I think lots of people need some relief from me, .....I'm toomuchof a tight-ass.
Maybe I need to loosen up a bit.
But it still pisses me off when people ignore evidence!!
Alright-a-ready! I give up!.
"I have met my enemy .... and he is me!."
( But,' ain't noways' I'm not gonna be snarky with people that ignore scientific evidence)
Okay Jerry, you're only human, and who isn't? Truce. Okay?
You don't have to be an expert to understand plain language reports. You just need to have an open mind and the ability to understand what you are being shown.
If you had read the comments posted here and were able to understand what we're discussing , you would should know the following;
1 - We are not discussing sea ice, we're discussing glacier ice. (See [ this link ] for an explanation of the difference.)
2 - We are not discussing the last six years , we're discussing the last 44,000 years.
You also don't have to be an expert to read and understand theNORSEX algorithms charting the ebb and flow of the arctic ice concentration, youonly have to be an expert to create them.
Why do we always have to have a truce every time you surrender? [snark]
Why don't we just make one permanent truce to agree to dis-agree whenever necessary?
[JV - Place your mark here]
Gonna finance to Baffin project withyour profits from selling farmland in the Gansu Province?
The Jade Gate (Yumen) and Han Dynasty Great Wall of China , located about 116 KM North-West outside of Dunhuang in Gansu Province.
We don't always disagree. The problem has been that when we disagree we REALLY disagree. I have not forgotten, nor will I ever, when you came to my defence on that 'unmentionable' site.
My mark - [BotO]
But that DOESN'T mean I don't want to have fun or tease once in a while.
I don't recall the issue(posted over 15,000 comments over there),but I do recall you were always one of the good guys.
Oh, on the UNICEF issue you may not think I'm such a good guy.
The situation I had referred to was when someone attacked me on the basis that I was (according to him) uneducated in legal matters. You posted a comment telling him he should check out a person's listed profile before making such an accusation.
I remember that, although I have no idea what the debate was about. (or what your user name was)
I have a habit of looking up the profile of people I'm debating with, sometimes it makes it a little easier to understand their viewpoint.
In China, nobody can own land in fee simple, it is only by means of a long-term lease from the government. As well, only citizens can hold land in that manner. It's a shame, cause if I had the money seven years ago when I came here, then through a trustee (or my wife 5 years ago) I could have tripled my money.
I have always used the samenom de plume, both there and here.
I don't recall the issue either.
I thought so, but did we share friends list over there? Because your not on the list of my friends that I copied (complete w/links) before Tyler deletedthemall.
You would think a 50,000 year lease on a a Canadian Glacier would be a safe bet, but it appears some critters may have to move out 6,000 years early.
Here is the very 1st sentence in your seeded article :
So right there it is clear that there are serious errors in this article . But nice tap dance around the actual WORDING in the article . Here is a link to explaining what that means :
Ha ha. In our case we were friends on and off. When we had a bad dispute I deleted you as a friend, Then when you saw things my way I added you on the list again. I guess at the time you copied your list it was a 'dispute' period.
Here on NT you've been on my list ever since you joined here. I guess I've become more tolerant.
The problem with posts and information like this is how easy it gets lost in the alarmism and hysteria that surrounds the whole topic. Proponents of "climate change" have done themselves no favors pushing falsified hockey stick graphs and allowing ridiculous statements to go unchallenged.
"Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now." John Kerry, 2009.
Time and time again supposedproponentsofAnthropogenic Global Warming make these ridiculous assertions claiming the full weight of scientific authority behind them and then end up looking ridiculous. Its hard for anyone of askepticalmindset to take these sort of pronouncements veryseriousanymore. Its hard to imagine a worse job of public relations then has been done on behalf of the climate change movement. They've brought a deserved amount of ridicule upon themselves.
Jerry,
Petey knows this, and is yanking your chain. He and I have discussed the ice cores and the meaning of them for quite some time.
The very first sentence of the article says (my underline);
Many studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting, but how does it compare to the past, and how serious is it?
That is what the 1st sentence says.
Now perhaps you would care to explain exactly what the "serious errors" are in the article.
However, before you go off an a tangent, I know it's against your nature, but it might have been a good idea if you did a little research on your own before you get further involved in this discussion.
If you had, you would have found that I am not dancing around any words, because there is a clear and important distinction between sea ice, a glacier, or ice cap.
Vatnajkull is an example of an ice cap in Iceland . [6] ------>
Btw, I posted the above information for the benefit of the other readers on this thread, because I understand, from a comment made by Perrie * , that you know all this;
*
" Jerry,
Petey knows this, and is yanking your chain. He and I have discussed the ice cores and the meaning of them for quite some time."
Therefore, because this discussion is about the earths temperature differences during the current geological period based on glacial cores, any further discussion about sea ice willconsidered off topic , and subject to deletion.
Too late.
OK :
If they don't include the statistical measure called the "confidence interval" then this is not a scientific study .
That part is unproven . They have not studied many factors which can contribute to warming ... uh "climate change" ... whatever they are calling it now .
It's goddamn STUDY Sean, something is happening, the earths atmosphereisgetting warmer, should we not do studies in an attempt to find out why and what the effects might be?
The only people that seem alarmed and get all hysterical about studies like this are descendents of the "the world is flat" crowd. What, are you afraid that yourcontinueddesireto deny the obvious is going to bechallenged?
The earths atmosphere has gotten warmer, that science is in and accepted by most people. The debate has moved to the cause of the warming trend, how much of it due to carbon emissions and how much is due to the natural evolution of the earths atmosphere. (You need to catch up).
Even the debate regarding the cause of the carbon emissions has abated, because the cause is not as important right now as the effect. The ice caps,glaciers and ice sheets are meltingat an ever increasing pace, the oceans salinity and currents are changing (don't make me look up becauseI can produce it ). Should we ignore all that and just say it's not really happening? Or should we study it all and figure out what we should do?
Deniers of the changes in the climate have some set of balls to accuse scientist, who have devoted their lives to studying the earth and producing accurate, verified reports, offalsifying the results of their studies.
If you want to see aridiculousstatement, read the one you just posted. Please explain to us Sean, just who is "allowing" these statements to go unchallenged?! Challenge them!! Go ahead,scientist love to be challenged, here's your chance,produce some scientific evidence the atmosphere and climate is not changing.
But simply accusing people of "pushing falsified hockey stick graphs", is just not going to cut it.Either isquotingJohn Kerry, who specializes inforeignaffairs, not science.
Btw, AGW is pretty much old hat, like I said, you need tocatchup.
Wow. Thanks for proving my point. It's like I mentioned infant baptism at a Baptists' convention. You just need to sit back and watch reason flee and the spittle fly.
t, are you afraid that yourcontinueddesireto deny the obvious is going to bechallenged?
Congrats on whipping that strawman's ass! What obvious thing do you imagine I deny? Maybe you should invest a little energy in reading comprehension before you start projecting imaginary arguments onto others.
B