North Atlantic Current Warmest in 2,000 years

[stellarfun]

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.

.

Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water

Robert F. Spielhagen 1, 2; Kirsten werner, 2.; Steffen Aagaard Sorensen 3.; Katarzynna Zamelczyk 3; Evguenia Kandiano 2.; Gergeon Budeus 4.; Katrine Husum 3.; Thomas M. Marchitto 5.; Morten Hald 3.

1 Academy of Sciences, Humanities, and Literature 53151 Mainz Germany

• ²Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR), 24148 Kiel, Germany.
• ³Department of Geology, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway.
• ⁴Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany.
• ⁵Department of Geological Sciences and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.

The Arctic is responding more rapidly to global warming than most other areas on our planet. Northward-flowing Atlantic Water is the major means of heat advection toward the Arctic and strongly affects the sea ice distribution. Records of its natural variability are critical for the understanding of feedback mechanisms and the future of the Arctic climate system, but continuous historical records reach back only ~150 years. Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.

http://www.sciencema...16/450.abstract

[easternsnowman]

Maybe this will shut down or at least slow up the gulf stream.

[BethesdaWX]

Satellites disagree that the northern Gulf Stream is warmer than ever....eh, this is crap.

How do we even know how warm the northern portion of the gulf steam was during the MWP?

Problem is, the gulf stream is rather weak, & the SST's just off the east coast are Frigid.

You take watcha get

[stellarfun]

Satellites disagree that the northern Gulf Stream is warmer than ever....eh, this is crap.

How do we even know how warm the northern portion of the gulf steam was during the MWP?

Problem is, the gulf stream is rather weak, & the SST's just off the east coast are Frigid.

You take watcha get

Can't find any rebuttal on Drudge, or Whatsupwiththat?

Erik Thorvaldsson and Leifr Eriksson were very faithful about recording SST in their voyages. Did you not know that?

Looks like 10C off Iceland at the moment..

[BethesdaWX]

Can't find any rebuttal on Drudge, or Whatsupwiththat?

Erik Thorvaldsson and Leifr Eriksson were very faithful about recording SST in their voyages. Did you not know that?

Looks like 10C off Iceland at the moment..

No need to find anything from WUWT...I, and anyone else, can see the BS here, heck, I'll grab a few POES images if I need to, its evident this "study" is crap. I thought he (above poster) meant the Gulfstream. Either way its downright stupid & most likely incorrect to claim 1 datset measurement to be the warmest in the past 2000yrs...

I would have given the study more merit if the "2000 years" were not included. I mean, really....

Knowing that Glaciers in the Arctic were much smaller in the MWP than they are now, I'd throw this out if I were you.

You can thank the +AMO for the warm anomalies we're seeing, record +AMO ftl I guess

[stellarfun]

No need to find anything from WUWT...I, and anyone else, can see the BS here, heck, I'll grab a few POES images if I need to, its evident this "study" is crap. I thought he (above poster) meant the Gulfstream. Either way its downright stupid & most likely incorrect to claim 1 datset measurement to be the warmest in the past 2000yrs...

I would have given the study more merit if the "2000 years" were not included. I mean, really....

Knowing that Glaciers in the Arctic were much smaller in the MWP than they are now, I'd throw this out if I were you.

You can thank the +AMO for the warm anomalies we're seeing, record +AMO ftl I guess

Ah, I understand, you have read the article, and find flaws in a.) its methodology.or, b.) its sampling, or, c.) its analyses, or d.) all three.

Remind me again, your post high school science courses have been __________?

[BethesdaWX]

I'm basing this off the fact that

1) All Satellite data proves otherwise (see below)

2) We have no clue on the SST's even at year 1900.......2000yrs ago....year 10 AD.....that is just LOL

3) This proves you don't even need to be a scientist....heck, we "common folks" have been pointing out errors in the IPCC, NOAA, etc reports.

I can provide evidence debunking a study...yet I'm only a high school grad?

Satellite

Year 1998

Today

[skierinvermont]

Not to say the peer-review process is perfect, or that there is always perfect agreement amongst scientists (there shouldn't be), but the quality of research in peer-review journals vastly exceeds that elsewhere.

So when it comes down to BethesdaWx HS genius vs the peer review process, I choose the latter.

[BethesdaWX]

Not to say the peer-review process is perfect, or that there is always perfect agreement amongst scientists (there shouldn't be), but the quality of research in peer-review journals vastly exceeds that elsewhere.

So when it comes down to BethesdaWx HS genius vs the peer review process, I choose the latter.

Some man goes on a "voyage" with mysterious measurements strongly contradicting every satellite out there.....and THEN claims that in the 2000 years that we know nothing about, our SST's are warmer than ever.....when they have been warmer several times in the past 15 years of the +AMO regimine..

Give me a break....NEXT?

[stellarfun]

Some man goes on a "voyage" with mysterious measurements strongly contradicting every satellite out there.....and THEN claims that in the 2000 years that we know nothing about, our SST's are warmer than ever.....when they have been warmer several times in the past 15 years of the +AMO regimine..

Give me a break....NEXT?

As you have apparently taken no courses in science post high-school, what about geography?

The paper in the journal dealt only with the North Atlantic Current, not with global SST climatology and/or anomalies.

As for how they measured going back 2,000 years,

Since continuous meteorological and oceanographic data for the Fram Strait reach back only 150 years, the team drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years to determine past water temperatures. The researchers used microscopic, shelled protozoan organisms called foraminifera -- which prefer specific water temperatures at depths of roughly 150 to 650 feet -- as tiny thermometers. In addition, the team used a second, independent method that involved analyzing the chemical composition of the foraminifera shells to reconstruct past water temperatures in the Fram Strait, said Marchitto.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/uoca-wna012511.php

[BethesdaWX]

As you have apparently taken no courses in science post high-school, what about geography?

The paper in the journal dealt only with the North Atlantic Current, not with global SST climatology and/or anomalies.

As for how they measured going back 2,000 years,

http://www.eurekaler...a-wna012511.php

1) Do we have any idea how accurate these proxies are? The proxies we use have failed the MWP test....global treelines were higher, less ice/smaller glaciers on both poles (I posted references to this in another thread).

2) POES has the area in question warmer even back in 2006, even warmer than that in 1998. This is the only source that shows otherwise, thus its an outlier.

3) There was no raw data presented, aka, how the instrument was programmed, how the numbers were derved, etc.

I call BS

[Snow_Miser]

So how accurate are the measures from 2,000 years ago...? Not very good if I have to say myself...

[skierinvermont]

1) Do we have any idea how accurate these proxies are? The proxies we use have failed the MWP test....global treelines were higher, less ice/smaller glaciers on both poles (I posted references to this in another thread).

No you did not.

So how accurate are the measures from 2,000 years ago...? Not very good if I have to say myself...

Thank you for your professional opinion. I am relieved.

[WeatherRusty]

Anyone happen to notice how no matter the study or the subject matter, if it tends to support the concept of a warming world or mankind's involvement in the same, the skeptics knee jerk reaction is to be against it. Every study is flawed. No wonder they see a conspiracy, the whole enterprise of science is based on egregiously flawed, deceptive methodology and dubious intent according to them. Astonishingly every one of their counterpoints and alternative explanations, no matter how diverse in scientific coverage is supposed to be true or at least a better explanation than that coming from the actual researchers.

[BethesdaWX]

No you did not.

Thank you for your professional opinion. I am relieved.

Do I have to post them again?!?!?

Holy Sh*t, you're so clueless it scares me.

[BethesdaWX]

Anyone happen to notice how no matter the study or the subject matter, if it tends to support the concept of a warming world or mankind's involvement in the same, the skeptics knee jerk reaction is to be against it. Every study is flawed. No wonder they see a conspiracy, the whole enterprise of science is based on egregiously flawed, deceptive methodology and dubious intent according to them. Astonishingly every one of their counterpoints and alternative explanations, no matter how diverse in scientific coverage is supposed to be true or at least a better explanation than that coming from the actual researchers.

This study is clearly flawed. I have not harangued any others on such if I did not see error myself.

[salbers]

I have yet to see this "error" clearly explained. The sediments and such probably look on longer time scales than 1998 vs 2010.

[stellarfun]

I have yet to see this "error" clearly explained. The sediments and such probably look on longer time scales than 1998 vs 2010.

Hope you don't suffer from hypoxia while you wait for that.

Much of the science for the increased temps during the Medieval Warm Period relies on analyses of sediments,. Funny how sediment analysis is okay when it supports warming that is non-anthropogenic in origin, but sediment analyses that might support AGW are immediately discounted.

[BethesdaWX]

I have yet to see this "error" clearly explained. The sediments and such probably look on longer time scales than 1998 vs 2010.

huh? Two seperate issues bro.

I'm saying satellite data has the area in question warmer just a few years ago, and even more-so in the late 1990's, & mid 2000's

[BethesdaWX]

Hope you don't suffer from hypoxia while you wait for that.

Much of the science for the increased temps during the Medieval Warm Period relies on analyses of sediments,. Funny how sediment analysis is okay when it supports warming that is non-anthropogenic in origin, but sediment analyses that might support AGW are immediately discounted.

No. The only reason I post differing proxies (AGW & Skeptic), is to show how stupid it is using proxies to measure temperature.

You can get results to show what you want.

Ice core proxies are the only of such that I have any interest in, as preservation is better when frozen.

[salbers]

huh? Two seperate issues bro.

I'm saying satellite data has the area in question warmer just a few years ago, and even more-so in the late 1990's, & mid 2000's

Maybe a separate issue that is unrelated to this thread. Again, sediments measure averages over more than a few years I think.

[BethesdaWX]

Maybe a separate issue that is unrelated to this thread. Again, sediments measure averages over more than a few years I think.

Yes. Unfortunately, this says nothing.....given what happened in the Arctic/NH during the MWP. We've been over this several times.

This is why using sediments, or proxies in general to calculate a trend, is risky, how these natural substances work is still somewhat unknown.

[stellarfun]

Yes. Unfortunately, this says nothing.....given what happened in the Arctic/NH during the MWP. We've been over this several times.

This is why using sediments, or proxies in general to calculate a trend, is risky, how these natural substances work is still somewhat unknown.

Below is a link to a full length journal article that measured SST in the Chesapeake Bay for over 2,200 years. There is a detailed description of the methodology used, which I expect you will reject because from your perspective, the science has little validity, and is full of error.

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/Croninetal-GlobPlanChng03.pdf

It is surprising that somebody would posit that they put all their stock on ice core samples, because the proxy of using the ratio of a heavy isotope of oxygen to a more normal isotope is replete with difficulty, and is a problem still being worked. But perhaps, you have that all figured out.

[BethesdaWX]

Below is a link to a full length journal article that measured SST in the Chesapeake Bay for over 2,200 years. There is a detailed description of the methodology used, which I expect you will reject because from your perspective, the science has little validity, and is full of error.

http://holocene.mete...bPlanChng03.pdf

It is surprising that somebody would posit that they put all their stock on ice core samples, because the proxy of using the ratio of a heavy isotope of oxygen to a more normal isotope is replete with difficulty, and is a problem still being worked. But perhaps, you have that all figured out.

huh? I don't think this is related to my point above about the contradicting evidence. Its obvious the MWP was much warmer in the NH than today is....based on physical evidence of Tree Remains, & viking cemetaries found under todays melting glaciers...where such tree species could NOT grow today due to...colder temperatures.

Whether the proxies support the warmist view, or skeptical view, I'm hesitant either way. I've posted skeptical proxies to highlight the uncertainties. You can get a proxy to show what you want.

[hoosierwx]

It's entirely possible that the extent of the thaw during the MWP is greater than today because it spanned a longer period than todays warming has so far. I don't think that proves it was warmer then than now.

[skierinvermont]

It's entirely possible that the extent of the thaw during the MWP is greater than today because it spanned a longer period than todays warming has so far. I don't think that proves it was warmer then than now.

The idea that the MWP was significantly warmer than present is simply laughable. There is no scientific study to support this fraudulent claim. There are literally dozens of studies to the contrary. The claim cannot even be taken seriously. Such claims are usually based on false data or regional data that has been misinterpreted.

[BethesdaWX]

It's entirely possible that the extent of the thaw during the MWP is greater than today because it spanned a longer period than todays warming has so far. I don't think that proves it was warmer then than now.

What would you consider proof then? We're as close as we can get, really.

-We were able to grow wheat/barley past 70N, today we cannot.

-Vinyards were grown in Scandi, today we cannot.

-Treelines Globally were higher than what is seen today.

-Tree remains are being found under todays melting glaciers, where such climates are currently too cold for such species to grow.

-The West Anatarctic Ice Sheet was hit by the MWP as well, shrinking to much smaller porportions than what is seen today.

-Expeditions into the arctic by vikings were rarely hindered by ice, Greenland went on record to being "green"as in formentioned.

So, what would you consider proof?

beats me

[BethesdaWX]

The idea that the MWP was significantly warmer than present is simply laughable. There is no scientific study to support this fraudulent claim. There are literally dozens of studies to the contrary. The claim cannot even be taken seriously. Such claims are usually based on false data or regional data that has been misinterpreted.

Quit making yourself looking like a clown.

CAT scan please? Hurry, he's in trouble! Unfortunately, it looks like you're fighting a loosing battle. The Idea that the MWP was cooler than today is simply laughable, not the other way around.

Thousands of studies from all portions of the world say otherwise. Peer Reviewed Evidence used, physical evidence abundant.

Its plain to the eye.

Each link contains many many studies from each region of each continent & sector. There are abot 500 included in this list. Ask, and I will give you more.

http://www.co2scienc...ions/africa.php

http://www.co2scienc.../antarctica.php

http://www.co2scienc...egions/asia.php

http://www.co2scienc...australianz.php

http://www.co2scienc...ions/europe.php

http://www.co2scienc...orthamerica.php

http://www.co2scienc...ions/nhemis.php

http://www.co2scienc...ions/oceans.php

http://www.co2scienc...outhamerica.php

Around 500 studies, all linking peer reviewed evidence, all the gold you want, its there.

[stellarfun]

What would you consider proof then? We're as close as we can get, really.

-We were able to grow wheat/barley past 70N, today we cannot.

-Vinyards were grown in Scandi, today we cannot.

-Treelines Globally were higher than what is seen today.

-Tree remains are being found under todays melting glaciers, where such climates are currently too cold for such species to grow.

-The West Anatarctic Ice Sheet was hit by the MWP as well, shrinking to much smaller porportions than what is seen today.

-Expeditions into the arctic by vikings were rarely hindered by ice, Greenland went on record to being "green"as in formentioned.

So, what would you consider proof?

beats me

Why are you citing these proxies when you stated previously that the only proxies that had value were ice cores, and data from any other source was flawed, or manipulated, or just straight b.s.

Here is the ocean SST record from a non-polar region for the past 2,000 years. Sorry, its hard to get ice cores from the tropics, so some other proxy will have to suffice.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162

[hoosierwx]

<br />What <i>would</i> you consider proof then?  We're as close as we can get, really.<br /><br />-We were able to grow wheat/barley past 70N, today we cannot.<br /><br />-Vinyards were grown in Scandi, today we cannot.<br /><br />-Treelines Globally were higher than what is seen today.<br /><br />-Tree remains are being found under todays melting glaciers, where such climates are currently too cold for such species to grow.<br /><br />-The West Anatarctic Ice Sheet was hit by the MWP as well, shrinking to much smaller porportions than what is seen today.<br /><br />-Expeditions into the arctic by vikings were rarely hindered by ice, Greenland went on record to being "green"as in formentioned.<br /><br /><br />So, what would you consider proof?<br /><br />beats me<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I am not saying that it might not have been warmer in those climes than it is today, less ice up north would equal more warmth in those areas. I am simply stating that those reasons don't disprove that we are warmer globally and that the NATC could be warmer than it was then and has not had time to cause the same effect. The MWP lasted 300 years and at present we have only been warmer than that for 30 or 40 years.