Polar Ice Is Lost at Sea
Via Naked Capitalism and published orinially at Grist Polar Ice Is Lost at Sea:
Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: Sea ice fell to its lowest level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago.
That worrying development is just the latest sign that rising temperatures are inflicting lasting changes on the coldest corners of the globe. The new record low comes as the planet’s climate system shifts further from the relatively stable period that helped give rise to cities, commerce, and the way we live now.
So far, the new year has been remarkably warm on both poles. The past 30 days have averaged more than 21 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal in Svalbard, Norway — the northernmost permanently inhabited place in the world. Last month, a tanker ship completed the first wintertime crossing of the Arctic Ocean without the assistance of an icebreaker. Down south in the Antarctic, sea ice is all but gone for the third straight year as summer winds to a close.
The loss of Earth’s polar sea ice has long been considered one of the most important tipping points as the planet warms. That’s because as the bright white ice melts, it exposes less-reflective ocean water, which more easily absorbs heat. And that, sorry to say, kicks off a new cycle of further warming.
According to research published last fall, that cycle appears to be the primary driver of ice melt in the Arctic, effectively marking the beginning of the end of permanent ice cover there. The wide-ranging consequences of this transition, such as more extreme weather and ecosystem shifts, are already being felt far beyond the Arctic.
So Dan,
Since this isn’t new news other than timing of the winter crossing of the Arctic even perhaps, then why are we ignoring it’s other far more devastating implications? Isn’t that what we should be addressing … the reasons for NOT COOPERATING to reduce the rate of warming or even limit it?
I submit that the reason is that the globe, including the of course the U.S. relies on fossil fuel consumption to improve standards of living or at least maintain them. This reliance can only be changed by either:
1. A new technology that obviates the use of fossil fuels for energy in all its uses or virtually all of them. Or
2. Gov’t restrictions of sufficient magnitude to cut fossil fuel use by fiat and non-voluntary enforcement.
#1 is “hope” based with no known solution in sight (hype is cheap talk for doing nothing until that “hope” materializes in fact).
#2 requires global cooperation and massive investments in restructuring societies to use energy orders of magnitude more efficiently than it has even contemplated.
Yet, despite the necessity of #2 that level of cooperation hasn’t materialized even with multiple so called “attempts” to do so, nor is there even any method of global enforcement proposed, much less an effective one.
So it appears inevitable that humans are on a path of self – destruction… massive displacements of humans with massive starvation and subsistence level living (if lucky).
The only major exception among the large nations may be China that can mandate by fiat it’s use of energy and sources, while the more populist democratic societies give lip service to solutions that have no significant impact at all.
Could it be perhaps that capitalism’s economic system and gov’ts fealty to it is the real problem with why #2 isn’t occurring?
LT,
Welll…yes. It should be labeled update on….
And our little neck of the world as economists
http://angrybearblog.com/2017/06/40138.html
This is just not true: “Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: Sea ice fell to its lowest level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago.”
12,000 Years ago puts us near (perhaps just past) the end of the last glaciation. 12,000 years ago the sea level was ~40 to 50 METERS below what it is today. That means the Polar Ice Caps were also much larger than today to account for sea level gain. Unless something has dramatically changed in the past 10 years NASA said this: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
Unless you and GRIST believe that sea level has changed 40-50 meters in the past decade, this is just not supported.
BTW, the supporting links are quite weak. A PHD candidate may not be the best studied in the field.
Yes, and my comment to Dorman’s economiics piece at that time was then as it is now:
“If mitigating global warming or keeping it below any specified threshold which maintains a habitable environment for what we now refer to “as we know it” is about money, profit, loss, costs in present v future value thereof this globe is fucked.”
As that comment clearly implies and my present one more directly suggests, the capitalist economic system is the real problem.
The longer we continue to pay homage to capitalism, which is actually just another religious belief system, the greater the decline of the human race and the small Earth as humans have known it..
As far as I’m aware there’s yet been no proposal to scuttle it and introduce an alternative. That in and of itself tells us as much about the future for humans as anything else.
LIttle people. small thinkers.
.
In case anybody believes CoRev’s comment, he cites total bullshit … he’s one of the climate denier trolls.
This is what the link from NASA actually says:
“Massive ice sheets covered parts of North America, northern Europe, and several other regions during the last ice age. This huge volume of ice lowered global sea level by around 120 meters as compared to today.”
It wasn’t as CoRev claim’s due to polar ice melt, but the ice sheet’s in the Northern Hemisphere (which warm far more than the polar regions of course).
Over the decade ending 2007, the NASA link says:
“Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade.”
Glaciers and Greenland ice — neither are polar ice caps.
0.23 millimeters to 0.57 millimeters is 0.00023 meters to 0.00057 meters or in inches that’s 0.009 inches (what is referred to in engineering as “9 mils” or something considerably less than your sparkplug gap) to 0.022 inches (approx. the thickness of a THIN sheet of paper)
So over the decade ending 2007, ocean levels rose 0.09 to 0.22 inches … a tenth of an inch to less than a quarter inch.
Finally, CoRev said the statement
“Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: Sea ice fell to its lowest level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago”
wasn’t true. The NASA article he cited he linked to says nothing at all about SEA ICE
Here’s the link again in case you want to read it:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
CoRev’s comment should be deleted from AB as patently false and intentionally lying. A common troll method is to link to a real legitimate science article but which the troll knows 90% won’t even open, assuming the troll is faithfully and honestly synopsizing the articles contents or relevant portions thereof.
Longtooth,
CoRev is not a troll. He has done more research into the global warming literature than almost anybody on the planet. You would be wise to listen to him as a way to alleviate your angst re global warming. It’s not what you fear.
Sammy, care to provide the links to all global warming research CoRev has conducted “more than anybody on the planet”?
LT, I’m not sure to what you are objecting.
What I objected to was the hyperbole associating frame, 12,000 years ago. Associating the sea ice changes from near the end of the last glaciation is disingenuous, when the sea ice issue relates to present. Or at best the past 6,000 years when the glaciation melt leveled.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h1F1CJpn&id=8FBD286978584EB0A7F2D95862CE66115F508E21&thid=OIP.h1F1CJpnGCn0kWlZd8YqygHaFR&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fclimatesanity.files.wordpress.com%2f2009%2f08%2fholocene-sea-level-rise-graph.jpg&exph=374&expw=526&q=holocene+sea+level&simid=607989606838111707&selectedIndex=0
We do not have decent sea ice metrics for the past several centuries, let alone the past 6,000 years, and that’s why I objected to the hyperbole.
You also said: . “Glaciers and Greenland ice — neither are polar ice caps.”, but they were 12,000 years ago. Greenland is today. https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
CoRev,
I’m objecting to your false / lying characterization that polar ice caps melting caused the major sea level rises when the link you provided says quite the opposite. This is elementary since sun’s intensity an warming decrease with increasing latitudes hence melts will occur outside the polar ice caps long before they occur within them.
And btw, “what’s up with that” is not a legitimate source of anything related to global warming…. it is a global warming denial web-site couched in pseudo-science and outright mis-characterization and use of physics.
If you look at the ice caps Greenland is 4/5’s or 5/6ths below it, and it’s It’s proportion of sea ice is miniscule.
.
CoRev,
I figured when Sammy said you had ” done more research into the global warming literature than almost anybody on the planet.” you were part of the “What’s up with that.” troll group.
To the ill informed, fwiw:
What’s Up with That website:
“a blog[1] promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
And CoRev, fyi, I’ve been quite familiar with WUWT blog bullshit for a few years … having read some of the junk to understand how it uses illegitimate methods myself. It’s what is known as junk science. But you already knew that I’m sure.
I’ll ignore any further comments from you.
LT, ignore if you will, but you are horribly wrong with this: “I’m objecting to your false / lying characterization that polar ice caps melting caused the major sea level rises when the link you provided says quite the opposite”. Are you actually denying that melting sea ice causes sea level rise???
This is just one of hundreds of papers explaining the fundamental concepts of sea level rise. http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/132.pdf Which studied the Antarctic Polar Cap.
“Volumetric change in the ocean are of two types, usually referred to as eustatic and steric. The eustatic rise of sea-level is the result of water being added to or subtracted from the oceans, mainly through an exchange with ice held in the polar ice caps, or, on a longer geological scale, by changes in the shape of the ocean basins. The steric effects refer to changes in
sea-level produced by changes in water density. ”
And this stude centers on the Arctic Polar Ice Cap: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107001941
“The collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and release of freshwater 8740–8160 years ago abruptly raised global sea levels by up to 1.4 m….”
Had I known about your WUWT concern I would have picked another graph from the many found in my search for graphs. WUWT was just the repository. This graph is so common in the literature its repository is nearly meaningless. Here’s a FR Wiki example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Holocene_Sea_Level-fr.svg/1024px-Holocene_Sea_Level-fr.svg.png
LT, as I explained why I claimed the statement: “Finally, CoRev said the
“Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: Sea ice fell to its lowest level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago”
statement was untrue and later clarified as hyperbolic is best exemplified by rewriting changing the subject and impact: “Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: (day length grew) to its (longest) level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago”
The inclusion of mankind and the selection of the comparison dates are meaningless. The causes for both examples are well known, ice cap melting, warmed oceans, salinity changes and isostatic rebound for sea level rise and orbital mechanics for day length.
Mankind and dates for comparison are meaningless in each.
Sammy and CoRev, together at last. Or appearing in the same place at the same time. And using the same bs style of discussion that does nothing at all but throw sh!t up against the wall, and wastes everyone’s time.
EM,
CoRev & Sammy illustrate the human’s capacity to make up their own imagined world as soon as reality encroaches or has the probability of on their own personal benefits.
– Atmospheric greenhouse gasses, principally CO2 and Methane in sufficient concentrations cause global warming to increase.
– As warning increases positive feed-backs increase the rate of warming
– Warming eventually melts more and more land-ice to increase sea levels, increase ocean temperatures, modifying the Earth’s normal climate patterns causing massive changes in Earths habitual zones for humans and other living species, modifying human’s habitats as humans have known it.
– Nearly all of the increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and methane have been produced by increasing human energy consumption in the form of fossil fuels to increasingly increase human productivity which has fueled human standards of living, especially in the regions where that productivity growth has been the greatest.
– if the present rate of CO2 & methane production by humans is not dramatically reduced then warming eventually makes most human habitats on Earth uninhabitable by humans in any state of being similar to human’s life on earth since at least the last 10k years.
– to avoid this warming outcome or significantly mitigating it fossil fuel energy production has to be reduced to levels that reduce global standards of living.
– reducing fossil fuel energy production reduces economic growth which depends on fossil fuels and thus reduces all existing systems of goods and services production on the globe.
– this consequence leads to two options:
–
— a). reduce fossil fuel energy production at the rate necessary to avoid the long term impact on habitable and life supporting Earth. Humans haven’t done this yet, though there have been increasing effort to do so
— b) deny all the above and do nothing.
Longtooth,
Explain this graph to me:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=zkdHHtl0&id=F9A37C24C166717379809ABAF8B6CDC7FDB4C4F5&thid=OIP.zkdHHtl0rDYALo48R7851QHaEr&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.geocraft.com%2fWVFossils%2fPageMill_Images%2fimage277.gif&exph=417&expw=660&q=c02+over+time&simid=607994851007661448&selectedIndex=7&ajaxhist=0
LT, “CoRev & Sammy illustrate the human’s capacity to make up their own imagined world ….” Only you are arguing as if your beliefs inGlobal Warming is under attack.
I certainly did not do that. I did show the hyperbole in the opening of the article.
Sammy, I can help with that chart.
In terms of man made global warming it means absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Bupkus.
And I do have to laugh at the comments on sea level from ” has done more research into the global warming literature than almost anybody on the planet” regarding sea ice.
Ever watch an ice cube melt in a glass?
EM, I wasn’t going to respond to your trolling, but I see you continued on a newer thread.
The article I poivided ended with this after talking about Grennland melt: “Furthermore, even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses.”
I too was surprised by LT assumption: “I’m objecting to your false / lying characterization that polar ice caps melting caused the major sea level rises when the link you provided says quite the opposite.”
I was surprised by LT’s apparent ignorance or denial that 12,000 years ago the Polar Ice Caps included the remainders of the great glaciers.
The article made many references to this ice loss as the source of sea level rise. This is the start of paragraph 2 in the article: “Massive ice sheets covered parts of North America, northern Europe, and several other regions during the last ice age. This huge volume of ice lowered global sea level by around 120 meters as compared to today. After the ice sheets began to melt and retreat, sea level rose rapidly, with several periods of even faster spurts….”
If you and LT do not understand that “Massive ice sheets covered parts of North America,…” also included the Polar Caps and all Sea Ice in that area, then you are hopelessly lost.
Your last comment: “Ever watch an ice cube melt in a glass?” actually indicates you are just trolling effort and/or have a reading comprehension problem. Or there is always the chance you are clueless on the subject.
Please get an understanding of the fundamentals or stop the trolling.
I can understand all of that. What you cannot seem to grasp is sea ice is the topic. You know the difference between sea ice and polar ice caps and melting glaciers, so why go on this way?
EM, why? Because Sea Ice is directly linked to glaciers. Antarctic and Greenland being two of the prominently written about. To deny the linkage, especially 12,.000 years ago is ignorant of the subject.
Continuing to troll: “sea ice is the topic” is either showing ignorance or a knee jerk reaction to someone pointing out the weakness and hyperbole in the 1st paragraph.
To think “sea ice is the topic” does not effect sea level, as LT claimed and you implied is even more wrong than the 1st paragraph of the article.
It does not affect it greatly, but you know that.
This is just another version of your game plan. You cherry pick the part you can rant about, and try to change the subject. You did the same thing on a constant basis for years and now you are just repeating yourself, while constantly claiming the “do you know who I am card” on a constant baseis.
Yeah, I know who you are. You are the guy who spent a decade or so bookmarking the “works” and “thoughts” of various deniers. Rising temps that obliterated almost every single one of your past “works and thoughts” kept you out of here for years. Let’s hope hope the next hottest year ever drives you underground again.
EM, what is “it: “It does not affect it greatly, but you know that.”
You’re getting pretty old when you cannot remember the subject you tried to change.
EM, since you cant seem to comment without trolling, I will just ignore you.
Made my day.
You need a dictionary.
Thus far we know this.
“The lead, or opening paragraph, is the most important part of a news story. With so many sources of information – newspapers, magazines, TV, radio and the Internet – audiences simply are not willing to read beyond the first paragraph (and even sentence) of a story unless it grabs their interest. A good lead does just that. It gives readers the most important information in a clear, concise and interesting manner. It also establishes the voice and direction of an article.”
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/735/05/
In this thread the lead was:
“Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: Sea ice fell to its lowest level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago.”
I googled this.
“Abstract
The collation of 913 driftwood samples from across the western Arctic, with spatiotemporal distribution and available provenance data, enabled the production of a high-resolution proxy-based reconstruction of Holocene Arctic Ocean surface current and sea ice dynamics.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JC013126/abstract
So, who is the troll here?
Well, ice is ice, and:
“Well, Art is Art, isn’t it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.”
Groucho Marx
What do I know? Some, after many years of daily research.
1) The article establishes the start date as 12,000 years BP.
2) The Holocene Optimum, the warmest period of the Holocene, was in the early part of the 12,000 years. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
3) Studies have shown Polar Cap ice may have been less than today.
“Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a REDUCTION in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) COMPARED TO PRESENT conditions….” (MY EMPHASIS)
BTW, (∼6000–10,000 years BP) is the Optimum. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162
4. No one actually knows when and what the least amount of Polar Ice was. We have almost no quality records earlier then 1978 and definitely now over the past few centuries.
5. The lead was written to imply something (Sea ice fell to its lowest level since…) that is not well unsupported in science as indicated above.
Grist can make statements like these to general audiences knowing few have spent the many hour needed to understand and confirm/contest his claims.
Grist is well known in the community and many have similar feelings toward him as others have toward WUWT.
Nothing is really simple in Climate Science. The article made this claim: ” That’s because as the bright white ice melts, it exposes less-reflective ocean water, which more easily absorbs heat….” Which is only partially true, because ice free Polar water also emits more energy to space than ice than when covered. Polar Sea Ice is formed mostly in the Winter when there is little sun shining on it to have an albedo effect (reflects sun shine/heat).
So who is the troll here? I did have to look up the Holocene Graph, but the paper referenced was in my links library
CoRev
February 18, 2018 2:48 pm
This is just not true: “Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: Sea ice fell to its lowest level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago.”
12,000 Years ago puts us near (perhaps just past) the end of the last glaciation. 12,000 years ago the sea level was ~40 to 50 METERS below what it is today. That means the Polar Ice Caps were also much larger than today to account for sea level gain. Unless something has dramatically changed in the past 10 years NASA said this: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
Unless you and GRIST believe that sea level has changed 40-50 meters in the past decade, this is just not supported.
BTW, the supporting links are quite weak. A PHD candidate may not be the best studied in the field.”
I missed the part about sea ice, where did it go. Sorry I did not know you had a PHD, kudos.
BTW, you tell me there are no accurate records, then show me what you call an accurate record that refutes the article. Sorry, don’t work that way.
Either your study or the other study is more correct(or maybe both suck). Has nothing really to do with your comments, you could care less. As your sea level comment blows your authority (PHD or not), showing you to be a troll and forcing you to take to your “links library” to come up with more worthless support for your ideology.
BTW, what is the difference between googling and going to your links library?
In the answer lies what you are.
EM, just can’t help yourself. Don’t understand what I presented. Can’t refute it, so you fell back to your trolling comfort zone. G’day to you..
“Unless you and GRIST believe that sea level has changed 40-50 meters in the past decade, this is just not supported.”
“We do not have decent sea ice metrics for the past several centuries, let alone the past 6,000 years, and that’s why I objected to the hyperbole.”
” Studies have shown Polar Cap ice may have been less than today.
“Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a REDUCTION in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) COMPARED TO PRESENT conditions….” (MY EMPHASIS)”
And my favorite right after:
” No one actually knows when and what the least amount of Polar Ice was. We have almost no quality records earlier then 1978 and definitely now over the past few centuries.”
You gotta watch that whiplash.
Don’t let the screen door hit you on the way out.
Come back when another “pause” happens.
FWIW,
The best, most recent, objective scientific data and studies on the Artic Sea Ice extent is found in
History of Sea Ice in the Arctic, Leonid Polyak, et. al., Section 4.3.1
Quaternary Science Reviews xxx (2010) 1–22
https://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf
Extract:
“”Coastal records indicate seasonally ice-free conditions as far north as the northern coasts of Svalbard [80 N]
and Greenland.” ( 83.5 N)
“Probably the most spectacular evidence of low-ice Arctic conditions in the early Holocene comes from Northeast Greenland At this northernmost coast in the world, isostatically raised ‘staircases’ of
well developed wave-generated beach ridges investigated along a total coastline stretch of several hundred kilometers document seasonally openwater as far north as 83 degr. Further north, ridges are short and sporadic, restricted to mouths of embayments and valleys, which suggests that permanent sea ice persisted throughout the Holocene at the northernmost stretch of the coast near 83.5oN.”
“Permanent sea ice… persisted near 83.5 deg N”
Nearest land is 83.63 degr North today, so permanent sea ice existed to the nearest land and beyond it. Considering data rounding by the authors, actual sea levels at the northern reaches of Greenland at the earliest Holoscene (11.7 k years ago — aka 12k years ago), then there’s no (significant), difference between the extent of permanent sea ice to and including northern land masses of Greenland and seasonal open water at that time. It was certainly not passable by shipping (had shipping even existed then) even at the seasonal ice minimums.
This is the best science had available in 2007. There may be more today but I couldn’t find any new studies.
From all objective science date (cited and linked in my former comments) to date it cannot be stated that the following statement is not true without significant bias of opinion and beliefs.” Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: Sea ice fell to its lowest level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago.”
if the statement “Our planet reached another miserable milestone earlier this week: Sea ice fell to its lowest level since human civilization began more than 12,000 years ago.”
were stated as an hypothesis, the data science offers to date will conclude the hypothesis is NOT FALSE.
But then you have to be a scientist to draw that conclusion from the objective data.
LT, if science is represented in your: “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic, Leonid Polyak, et. al., Section 4.3.1
Quaternary Science Reviews xxx (2010) 1–22
https://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf
Then this finding contained in the abstract has merit:
“Ice was apparently most wide-spread during the last 2–3 million years, in accordance with Earth’s overall cooler climate. Nevertheless,
episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmerperiods linked to orbital variations. The LAST LOW ICE EVENT related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was IN THE EARLY HOLOCENE, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.” Your selected paper also has this to say: “Overall, the ZONE of coastal MELT was DISPLACED about 500 km NORTH of its PRESENTposition.”
Furthermore, your selected reference includes this: ” A downcore IP
25 record from the central archipelago demonstrates LITTLE ICE during the early Holocene, an accelerating increase in ice occurrence between 6 and 3 ka, and high but variable occurrence since then (Fig. 11a). ”
Also your selected reference paper in its conclusion says this: “…Arctic sea-ice extent has been declining since the late 19th century. Although this decline was accompanied by multidecadal oscillations, the accelerated ice loss during the last several decades lead to conditions not documented in at least the LAST FEW THOUSAND YEARS.”
But was documented in several passages, just a few examples shown above, where Sea ice was estimated to be lower earlier.
Therefore my statement stands, and the hypothesis IS falsified.
I must remind you that it was you who misunderstood my previous comment saying this: ” I’m objecting to your false / lying characterization that POLAR ICE CAP MELTING CAUSED THE MAJOR SEA LEVEL RISES when the link you provided says quite the opposite.” When the title of my referenced article was: Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today
My objection to the article’s lead was its hyperbole, linking mankind 12,000 years ago, and my knowledge that much science existed saying otherwise. Even your selected reference confirms that contention.
Therefore my statement of “untrue” stands
EM, since you doubt the strength of keeping links, here are a couple of graphs of Arctic Sea Ice:
https://s19.postimg.org/a2p8qx7oz/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Changes-_Chukchi-_Sea-_Yamamoto-2017.jpg
and
https://s19.postimg.org/v6om69bj7/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Extent-_North-of-_Iceland-3000-_Years-_Moffa-_S_nchez-.jpg
LT and EM, the Sea Ice science is readily available. BTW these are relatively recent e. A little study and knowledge goes a long way. I’ll let you both look up these papers or your own.
As related to the early Holocene (circa 12k to 9k years agoi)
The chart cited and linked by CoRev (February 21, 2018 8:55 am) is from the following paper. The chart by itself says nothing at all about the early Halocine Ice extent. To interpret the Chart you have to read the paper. When you read the paper the authors concluded as quoted below about sea ice extent of the specific region in the early Holocene .
This is one of the favored methods by those that want to mislead (lie) since a) few readers will go to the trouble of finding the actual paper and b) when they do the science terms, jargon, referenced detail numbers and information, and writing style overwhelms all but the most diligent or anybody who has not had a reasonable back-ground in reading scientific papers.
What I will say though about the CoRev linked chart is that’s simply another form of misdirection with intent to lead readers to believe that which CoRev says rather than what the papers he refers to cite. and show.
Arctic Sea Ice Changes Chukchi Sea Yamamoto-2017
https://www.clim-past.net/13/1111/2017/cp-13-1111-2017.pdf
Section 5.4
“This pattern contrasts with reconstructions from
other Arctic regions that show lower sea-ice concentrations
in the early Holocene (de Vernal et al., 2013). This discrepancy
suggests that the intensified BG circulation exported
more ice from the Beaufort Sea to the northeastern Chukchi
Sea margin. Furthermore, the heat transport from the North
Pacific to the Arctic Ocean by the BSI was likely weaker
in the early Holocene than at later times as indicated by the
C= I and CK= I ratios of cores 06JPC and 01A-GC (Fig. 8).
We infer that this combination of stronger BG circulation
and weaker BSI in the early Holocene resulted in increased
sea-ice concentration in the northeastern Chukchi Sea despite
high insolation levels (Fig. 5).”
Repeating: ” this combination of stronger BG circulation
and weaker BSI in the early Holocene resulted in increased
sea-ice concentration in the northeastern Chukchi Sea ”
Section 5.5
“In the northeastern Chukchi Sea, dinoflagellate cyst and
biomarker IP25 records from several cores in the northeastern
Chukchi Sea, including 05JPC, demonstrate that sea-ice
concentration in this area was overall higher in the early
Holocene than in the middle and late Holocene (Fig. 8; de
Vernal et al., 2005, 2008, 2013; Farmer et al., 2011; Polyak
et al., 2016). This pattern contrasts with reconstructions from
other Arctic regions that show lower sea-ice concentrations
in the early Holocene (de Vernal et al., 2013).”
Repeating: “…sea-ice concentration in this area was overall
higher in the early Holocene than in the middle and late Holocene”
——————————
This comment is simply to show the strong contrast between what some commenters write and the facts. CoRev is not alone in this endeavor to reconstruct the world as they want others to think it is in order to further their own interests.
BTW,
The paper cited in my prior comment (Feb 21, 1:26 pm) relates only to the region of the Chukchi Sea, which is roughly to the western side of the Arctic Sea, and far further west than the Greenland region paper of the Arctic Sea I linked to in my comment Feb 21, 3:25 am.
The Chukchi Sea is due north of the Bearing Straits (which is between the Alaskan archipelago and Russia)
Also pay close attention to what data refers to in time frames. The time from of interest (as it relates to the Posted article to which I’m commenting) is the early Holocene, variously characterized as being from ~ 12k to at most 9k years ago.
The Chukchi Sea data the authors used to relate the Early Holocene period ice extent is from just two core samples (of the dozen or so cited in the paper) and thus only relate to the North-Eastern Chukchi Sea. Other data they cite related to the early Holocene is from prior papers of other authors.
What I find most interesting though about CoRev’s comments is that that he cites or shows a misleading and incomplete piece of information rather than cite the actual science data itself or the authors data related to a specific time period or location.
If a scientist is going to dissent from a peer reviewed scientific paper from a reputable publication they will always directly address the specific data or relationships itself, citing their specific reasons with data supporting it.
I have no idea of CoRev’s credentials, much less his scientific credibility other than he uses the WUWT global warming deniers web-site which is not considered even a tiny bit credible by the scientific community, and his modus operandi in commenting with misleading or irrelevant data to confuse the normal AB reader.
I am also not familiar with his prior posting history on AB or any other blog or website, though it appears that he has ample discredited comments from his prior history, which I conclude from EM’s statements.
LT, you are trying an interesting approach by completely ignoring the take down of your interpretation of the selected reference.
Your lack of background is causing you to fail. Your own quotes: “THIS PATTERN CONTRASTs WITH RECONSTRUCTIONS from other Arctic regions that show lower sea-ice concentrations in the early Holocene (de Vernal et al., 2013)”. (Same phrase repeated in section 5,5)
Translation our study of a specific area and set of proxies differs from other studies. Additional study is required to determine why. I hope you understand that’s how science works. You appear to not understand the scientific concept. They are hypotheses not facts.
In your 1:15 comment you make this point: “Also pay close attention to what data refers to in time frames.” The 2nd chart I provided is clearly marked, “0 to 3000 years BP” and correlates well with the Yamamoto chart. Your complaints you found in section 5.4 and 5.5 of the supporting paper clearly state ” early Holocene”. In your zeal you failed to notice the simple discrepancy in the time frames.. If you are experienced at reading scientific papers you are clearly inexperienced reading Climate Science papers.
LT, you illustrate the human capacity to make up their own imagined world as soon as your reality is threatened. Your first reactions are the giveaway when you decided to define Climate Science as if your view of it was threatened.
The subject was Polar Ice Is Lost At Sea and is lowest for the period of 12,000 years. My response was to say this was untrue, and when challenged provided multiple sources supporting that position. Even your challenged points proved it. Therefore, my statement of “untrue” stands.
You have miserably misinterpreted two papers now, and have fallen into GOTCHA mode, without the background to realize when the one GOTTEN is yourself.
Since you are unable to add anything of value to the conversation, I will now add you to the list of trolls to ignore along with EM.