Arctic Current Warmest In Over 2,000 Years, Warning Of Ice-Free Seas

OSLO (Reuters/Alister Doyle) - A North Atlantic current flowing into the Arctic Ocean is warmer than for at least 2,000 years in a sign that global warming is likely to bring ice-free seas around the North Pole in summers, a study showed.

Scientists said that waters at the northern end of the Gulf Stream, between Greenland and the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, averaged 6 degrees Celsius (42.80F) in recent summers, warmer than at natural peaks during Roman or Medieval times.

"The temperature is unprecedented in the past 2,000 years," lead author Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, told Reuters of the study in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

The summer water temperatures, reconstructed from the makeup of tiny organisms buried in sediments in the Fram strait, have risen from an average 5.2 degrees Celsius (41.36F) from 1890-2007 and about 3.4C (38.12F) in the previous 1,900 years.

The findings were a new sign that human activities were stoking modern warming since temperatures are above past warm periods linked to swings in the sun's output that enabled, for instance, the Vikings to farm in Greenland in Medieval times.

"We found that modern Fram Strait water temperatures are well outside the natural bounds," Thomas Marchitto, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, one of the authors, said in a statement.

The Fram strait is the main carrier of ocean heat to the Arctic.

ICE-FREE OCEAN

The authors wrote that the warming temperatures "are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming" and that the warming "is most likely another key element in the transition to a future ice-free Arctic Ocean."

Ice on the Arctic Ocean shrank to its lowest on record in 2007 and many experts expect the ocean will be ice-free in summers in coming decades, a threat to the hunting livelihoods of indigenous peoples and to creatures such as polar bears.

The Arctic is heating up twice as fast as the global average as part of a trend the U.N. panel of climate scientists blames on a build-up of greenhouse gases from mankind's use of fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

The shrinking of reflective ice and snow in the Arctic region exposes water or ground which are darker colored and so soak up more heat from the sun, amplifying warming.

(Editing by Ralph Boulton)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[BlackbirdHighway]

05:41 AM on 02/03/2011

The Earth has not had one single month of the global temperature being below the long term average since 1985. Not even a single month!

Deniers keep telling us that warming isn't happening, that we are going into a cooling period. Why don't you guys wait until the Earth has had a month below average, and then claim it's not warming. That should keep you all quiet for the next 1000 years or so.

[SarahCuda2]

04:30 PM on 02/09/2011

Who claimed that a gradual natural warming trend hasn't been going on for thousands of years?

Proof that humans have anything to do with recent warming? Zero.

Proof that it has been MUCH warmer here way before humans started burning fossil fuel? Right here - http://www.sott.net/image/image/s2/51819/full/easterbrook_fig5.png

[ClimateHQ]

09:13 PM on 02/09/2011

Way incorrect. It has not been 'much warmer' by any stretch of the imagination. Here's data from Antarctica, 850,000 years worth:
http://www.climatehq.com/2009/12/epica-dome-c-ice-core.html

Other proxies stretch back 2 million years.

Carbon isotopes prove without a shadow of a doubt that the recent 100ppm increase in CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning:
http://www.climatehq.com/search/label/Carbon

Global average temperature reconstructions from multiple sources show that it has not been a natural trend for thousands of years:
http://www.climatehq.com/2009/12/global-average-temperature.html

[mamacat]

01:30 AM on 02/03/2011

NASA is reporting that their satellite data shows large parts of the Arctic -- from Siberia, to Alaska, to Northern Canada -- is about 18 degrees Celsius above normal.

[jimboy71]

11:02 AM on 02/03/2011

It was warmer in Inuvik than Toronto for a good chunk of this winter...

[The 300]

11:23 PM on 02/06/2011

And that proves what?

[Dianekkdi]

12:53 AM on 02/03/2011

Beware of swimming trolls and frequent peeing in pool.

[cascot]

09:26 PM on 02/02/2011

Because there is really no oversight on these "studies" we are told to believe what they choose to tell us. When was the last time YOU went up to the Arctic and checked it out? How many people actually do? We could be told what supports their theory, TO support their theory. What about the Ross Ice Shelf? I've read different data. One says it changes in size many times--cold year, more ice shelf. Warmer year, less. I am too cynical of so called experts to hang on their every breath. The exposed emails showed their true colors...

[Publicola]

01:25 AM on 02/03/2011

cascot's momma, a generation ago:

"Because there is really no oversight on these "studies" we are told to believe what they choose to tell us. When was the last time YOU went up the Johns Hopkins Medical Center and checked it out? How many people actually do? We could be told what supports their theory, TO support their theory. What about cigars? I've read different data. One says its more cancer causing than cigarettes. Another study, less. I am too cynical of so called experts to hang on their every breath. The exposed letters showed their true colors..."

[silverwolf13]

05:43 PM on 02/08/2011

Beautiful!

[gallon]

03:29 AM on 02/03/2011

There is indeed oversight. It's called peer review. If the authors were found to be fudging or fabricating, they would have a difficult time getting their future work published.

The email thing was a manufactured scandal. It has been investigated through some six or more reviews and found to have no substance. Every time.

Overall, you give the impression that you just want to vent. Fine, but expect to be challenged on your facs.

[cascot]

09:20 PM on 02/02/2011

Read this today...

Pat then played some of the audio from Democratic Senators saying that snow would gradually lessen or disappear.

“We need a climate change strategy and we need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we’ve had. Look at the kind of winter we’ve had in Washington. One snow. Three inches. There’s a drought that has come upon this area of the country. What can we expect for the spring and summer season? What’s going to happen to our crops, our livestock, our economy? This is serious. I lived a long time, 84 years. Something’s going on out there. I don’t need a scientist to tell me that,” Senator Byrd said of the Winter of 2002.

“He also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of the century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear. Now, no wonder we have people visiting our offices who are just already hurting from the recreation industry in this nation. They see what’s happening. They see the handwriting on the wall,” Barbara Boxer said.

“Isn’t it great to have it both ways? Is there anything better than winning your argument by having it both ways? The lack of snow is global warming and the abundance of snow, also global warming. And today we’ve got that global warming all over our heads for about 2,000 miles,” Pat joked.

[gallon]

10:26 PM on 02/02/2011

Your reference is nine years old.

[SarahCuda2]

11:45 PM on 02/11/2011

Exactly! It IS 9 years old and proves that the change in climate has little to do with atmospherics and everything to do with a political agenda desperate to hang on to whatever it can. Supposedly back then, the 'science was settled', the 'debate was over' - yet the story being foisted on the public is suddenly reversed and we're aren't supposed to notice? Alarmists said winters were going to get milder, that there would be less snow, drought in the western states, etc. - now listen to them - global warming is making it more cold and snow ... BS!

[BlackbirdHighway]

05:35 AM on 02/03/2011

"for the second half of the century"

Umm, we are currently in 2011. You need to wait another 50 years and then post that comment.

[Publicola]

02:09 PM on 02/03/2011

cascot got that passage from the Glenn Beck show - such details are unimportant to Beck and his followers.

[mrpossumtail]

09:18 PM on 02/02/2011

Here is some off topic data historians and weather geeks might like. Listed below are the 4 driest months for all 12 months from a recording period since 1899 for the USGS streamflow gage at the James River @ Cartersville. The beauty of stream flow data is that not only does this represent rainfall but evaporation and it's whole impact on human interests. The years are ranked in this order 1234

Jan-1956,1966,1981,2002
Feb-2002,1934,1931,2001
Mar-1981,2006,2002,1931
April-1995,1966,1942,1925
May-1930,1915,1956,2006
June-2002,1999,1964,2008
July-1930,2002,1977,1963
Aug-1930,1932,2002,1957
Sept-1930,2002,1954,1963
Oct-1930,1941,1921,1963
Nov-1930,2001,1941.1965
Dec-1930,1955,1917,2001

[Publicola]

05:02 PM on 02/02/2011

patches12: "...THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING..."

Yawn.

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significan­­­­­tly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in two thousand years if not far longer.

* Greenhouse gases including anthropoge­­­­­nic CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse the Earth would be below freezing.

* Atmospheri­­­­­c CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era to the highest level in at least 800,000 years, if not far longer.

* Increased atmospheri­­­­­c CO2 has been empiricall­­­­­y proven by satellite measuremen­­­­­ts to increase heat energy retention in the atmosphere­­­­­.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increase in atmospheri­­­­­c CO2 is due to anthropoge­­­­­nic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatio­­­­­n for said increase.

* There is a strong correlatio­­­­­n between said atmospheri­­­­­c CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles, increases in solar radiation, and natural increases in atmospheri­­­­­c CO2 - cannot explain said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropoge­­­­­nic global warming (AGW) survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting AGW is overwhelmi­­­­­ng.

[The 300]

11:27 PM on 02/06/2011

* There is a strong correlatio­­­­­­n between said atmospheri­­­­­­c CO2 increase and said recent warming.

What exactly is the correlation? Can you cite statistical probabilities?

[Publicola]

11:18 AM on 02/07/2011

Do you understand basic correlation stats, "The 300"? If so you will understand the following:

Between 1959 and 2007 the linear R^2 was 0.82, p-value

[Publicola]

11:23 AM on 02/07/2011

My "less than" symbol truncated the post - here are the correlation stats again:

Between 1959 and 2007 the linear R^2 was 0.82, p-value less than 0.0005.

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature.html

[patches12]

01:27 PM on 02/02/2011

MORE BS.. THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.. ITS A SCAM TO CONTROL RESOURCES AND KEEP THE POOR -. POOR

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/04/food_for_thought_from_joe_bast.html

[jimboy71]

02:15 PM on 02/02/2011

Sure. Because you say so. Question:

How are the oil companies making the poor rich right about now?

[gallon]

03:12 PM on 02/02/2011

I see you are citing a weather site. Did you know climate is different than weather? Take a look at NASA, NOAA, NAS, AGU, et al.

[keyman125]

09:03 AM on 02/02/2011

I guess we could argue about "global warming" till hell freezes over (pardon the pun!), but what I dont understand are the "deniers". Why are they so afraid of the possibility that something is happening on our planet that may not be part of a natural cycle of events. I guess these people's ancestors where among those that believed the earth was flat.

I think the basic facts in all this can be divided into three parts. First all of the scientists who study these events surely have no motive to make all this stuff up just to get more grant money. So this leads to the first conclusion which is that something is going on with the sea ice, and water temps etc. So this leads to the second part which is a difference of opinion on whether these changes are a natural part of the cycle of the earth or some thing that has been adversly introduced ie carbon emissions. Thirdly then is the question of how concerned we should be with these changes.

So in summary we can at least try to reduce CO2 emissions or we can do nothing
and assume eventually we will run out of oil so the reduction of emissions will take place naturally and everything will go back to "normal" and the earth will have suffered no long term problems, but can we afford to take that risk?

[ClimateHawk]

09:22 AM on 02/02/2011

No, we cannot afford to take that risk.

If you look at the history, it breaks into parts more like this:

1) what does the earth's energy balance look like? (the discovery of the greenhouse effect)

2) why were there ice ages? (the investigation of the complete energy balance of the earth and all the factors that drive it)

3) could human activity influence the climate? (the role of CO2)

4) if warming occurs, what will be the effects? (feedbacks, and the disruption of the usual patterns)

Those who peddle the notion that scientists noticed the globe is warming and then went to search for explanation have it backwards. They usually make this claim first and then say there could be other factors that explain the warming, but they never bother to put all the pieces of the puzzle together (because that is not their goal).

[jimboy71]

09:55 AM on 02/02/2011

The sad reality is that the world's wealthy think their money will protect them. The further tragedy is that the average American voter thinks this means them too, because of a steady diet of st//pid flakes, American Exceptionalism, and "go team".

The truth is that the catastrophe we're making will affect everyone, rich and poor. We're seeing the beginning of the unravelling already in Europe and now the Middle East. The reality is that food prices WILL go up, energy costs WILL go up, and sooner or later, things will go to he// in a handbasket.

This would be happening anyway, without AGCC. Arable land is finite. Water resources are finite. The population continues to explode. Fossil fuels are finite. Yet we continue to behave as if they are not. AGCC will just make the whole situation a heck of a lot worse.

[mrpossumtail]

09:26 AM on 02/03/2011

Are you aware of our capability to quantify terrestrial mean wet bulb? I am curious if the wet bulb has been increasing in the every expanding arid regions. If it is decreasing this could indicated and expanding energy imbalance. If it is increasing, I guess this means we have a definite energy increase.

[mrpossumtail]

05:46 AM on 02/02/2011

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/

The winter of 2009-2010 marked the end of a long running period of +NAO that started in the early 80s preceded by a very long period of -NAO. If another 20+ year run of -NAO is experienced like the one the one in the late 50s-80, we will probably experience fewer hurricanes and more cold winters on the eastern seaboard. Less drought was also experience on the eastern seaboard during the last major -NAO. This will also impact the polar region in a major way. Time will tell.

[ClimateHawk]

09:30 AM on 02/02/2011

Nice link.

The conclusion I draw from this is that human activity that affects the climate is a layer on top of the natural variability. If we ignore the natural variability we will confuse ourselves. We need to be watching the long-term trends more, and today's weather a bit less.

[jimboy71]

09:49 AM on 02/02/2011

Tell that to Toronto, which cancelled itself for three inches of snow today...I'm at work, though.

[mrpossumtail]

06:53 PM on 02/02/2011

If these -NOA winters persist, I take it that Greenland will lose much ice.

[Forester]

11:08 PM on 02/01/2011

One basic fact that the lazy thinkers on the right keep missing (or ignoring) is that the RATE of warming is faster than at any time in the last 850,000 years, The changes we are measuring in glacial data commenced at the exact time that we began to pump the atmosphere with GHG's at the end of the 19th century. Some humans may be just too dense and stubborn to survive - something we almost experienced under the Shrub.

[BlackbirdHighway]

12:34 AM on 02/02/2011

You are attempting to use facts and logic against people who have no regard for logic or facts. Keep in mind that these people think that hating Al Gore is a valid argument to scientific research. You might as well spend your time teaching your dog algebra.

[MikeWebster]

01:45 AM on 02/02/2011

Good comment about hating Al Gore being thought a valid argument against AGW by some on the right. It's a bit like denying Newton's laws on the basis that they're ideologically unsound.

[scottyknows]

08:55 PM on 02/02/2011

How can you hate a guy who invented the internet and global warming?

Such a jokester.

[DUSAA-1775]

10:27 PM on 02/01/2011

...' in recent summers, warmer than at natural peaks during Roman or Medieval times....' Every one knows that the temperature record keeping for the Romans and the medieval weather men in the arctic ocean was poorly recorded and was done very sloppily.

[MikeWebster]

01:46 AM on 02/02/2011

I assume that's a joke, but if not, you might have missed this part of the article:

"The summer water temperatures, reconstructed from the makeup of tiny organisms buried in sediments in the Fram strait, have risen from an average 5.2 degrees Celsius (41.36F) from 1890-2007 and about 3.4C (38.12F) in the previous 1,900 years."

[The last sane American]

08:04 AM on 02/02/2011

I might want to ask what natural event caused those two warmings of the current?

[Publicola]

11:13 AM on 02/02/2011

LTSA: "I might want to ask what natural event caused those two warmings of the current?"

I might want to ask why are you assuming that a single event caused those two warmings.

[jimboy71]

09:35 AM on 02/02/2011

READ FOR COMPREHENSION!

[sleeperd]

07:40 PM on 02/01/2011

The fanatical Globull Warmers make the Christian Evangelicals look luke warm...

[Publicola]

07:54 PM on 02/01/2011

Q: Why can't science deniers understand the difference between science and religion?

A: Because they are science deniers, of course.

[sleeperd]

08:21 PM on 02/01/2011

I'm not really a scientist but I play one on the huffington post...

[Publicola]

09:36 PM on 02/01/2011

sleeperd: "I'm not really a scientist but I play one on the huffington post..."

If so you're acting is about as good as your ability to discern between science and religion.

[ILoveFiction]

08:13 PM on 02/01/2011

Fanned and fav'ed.

Nice post. Great story, but not as good as mine: http://www.twainquotes.com/18621004t.html

[The last sane American]

08:13 AM on 02/02/2011

And brevity also it would seem.

[jimboy71]

09:25 AM on 02/02/2011

If there is relevence in there, far be it from me to excavate it.

[Richard2]

02:12 PM on 02/01/2011

"It doesn't sound much. But this website is telling is that the ice pack which is created in the north of the Okhotsk Sea and then is blown down the coast of northern Sakhalin before reaching the Shiretoko coast in the north of Hokkaido, actually arrived in Japanese waters three days earlier than the annual average – on 29 January.
...
Ice extent reports also have to be assessed in the context of strident complaints about the decline in the icepack, which was first observed in 1989. Since then, we are told, it "has never recovered to its former levels" – except perhaps now, when it is above average for the time of year." eureferendum

[jimboy71]

02:19 PM on 02/01/2011

One cold winter a trend does not make. You know that. Yet you continue to make this mistake over and over and over again. One might think it pathological.

[Publicola]

03:22 PM on 02/01/2011

And/or, one might think said incessant "mistake" is intentional disinformation by a paid science denier - R2 certainly fits the profile.

[lbsaltzman]

02:31 PM on 02/01/2011

You also have to look at how thin the ice has become and not get carried away by one season.

[jimboy71]

03:06 PM on 02/01/2011

Richard two likes to get carried away...just like that boy in "The Neverending Story"...on that beast. I think I can hear Limahl right now...