Arctic Glaciers ADVANCED 16 km During 2008-2016 In A Region That Was 6°C Warmer ~9,000 Years Ago

Newly published science indicates glaciers in the High Arctic Svalbard/Barents Sea region have rapidly advanced in the last decade — surging 16 kilometers since 2008, which is the greatest ice growth since 1890.

About 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, this region was 6°C warmer than today. Consequently, the region’s glaciers were much smaller (or non-existent) at that time and the sea ice was much less extensive (0-10% spring sea ice vs. today’s 80%).

Lovell et al., 2018

“Most large tidewater glaciers in Svalbard are known to have surged at least once in the last few hundred years. However, very little information exists on the frequency, timing or magnitude of surges prior to the Little Ice Age (LIA) maximum in ∼1900. We investigate the sediment-landform assemblages produced by multiple advances of the Nathorstbreen glacier system (NGS) in order to reconstruct its Late Holocene surge history. The glacier has recently undergone one of the largest surges ever observed in Svalbard, advancing ∼16 km from 2008 to 2016.”
“By combining these data with previous marine geological investigations in inner and outer Van Keulenfjorden, we demonstrate that NGS [Nathorstbreen glacier system] has advanced at least four times prior to the recent 2008–2016 surge: twice at ∼2.7 kyr BP, at ∼1160 AD, and in ∼1890. This represents a unique record of the timing and magnitude of Late Holocene tidewater glacier surges in Svalbard.”

Røthe et al., 2018

“Reconstructing Holocene Glacier and Climate Fluctuations From Lake Sediments in Vårfluesjøen, Northern Spitsbergen … Here, we present work from the northern coast of Spitsbergen in which we unravel the sediment sequence from a distal glacier-fed lake, Vårfluesjøen. … During the early Holocene, the glaciers in the Vårfluesjøen catchment were considerably smaller than today or had even melted completely. … D’Andrea et al. (2012) […] point to increased heat transport via the West Spitsbergen Current, and accompanying increased winter precipitation, rather than cold temperatures, to have caused LIA expansions on Svalbard.”
“During the early and mid-Holocene period, other glacier reconstructions from the west coast of Svalbard suggests that many glaciers were small or completely melted during this time interval (Svendsen and Mangerud, 1997; Røthe et al., 2015; van der Bilt et al., 2015; de Wet et al., 2018). Mangerud and Svendsen (2018) postulated that August temperatures in Svalbard were 6°C warmer from 10000 to 9000 cal. yr. BP than they are today, based on the presence of Zirfaea crispate.”

Fjeldskaar et al., 2018

About 60% of Svalbard is covered by glaciers today, but many of these glaciers were much reduced in size or gone in the Early Holocene. High resolution modeling of the glacial isostatic rebound reveals that the largest glaciers in Nordaustlandet and eastern Spitsbergen survived the Early Holocene warming, while the smaller, more peripheral glaciers, especially in the northwest, started to form about 5,500 years ago, and reached 3/4 of their current size about 600 years ago. Relative sea level has been rising during the last few millennia in the north and western parts of Spitsbergen, while land still emerges in the remaining part of Svalbard. Here we show that this sea level rise in the northwest is caused by the regrowth of glaciers in the Mid- to Late Holocene that slowed down, and even reversed, the post-glacial isostatic uplift and caused the crust to subside over large areas of Spitsbergen.”

Tarasov et al., 2018

“In the Korovinskoe record (Fig. 10A) the first increase in temperate deciduous tree/shrub percentages is dated to ca. 10,400 cal BP followed by a second, more pronounced increase (up to 21%) between ca. 10,100 and 9800 cal BP. The latter rise corresponds to maximum summer SSTs (i.e. 6-7°C above the mean modern SST value) reconstructed in the NE North Atlantic (Fig. 10E) and the NW Barents Sea (Fig. 10F).”
“A pollen-based reconstruction of the summer temperature anomaly at Lake Kurjanovas (Fig. 1) in Latvia suggests that the warmest interval in the area located ca. 270 km west of Korovinskoe occurred ca. 8100-5600 cal BP (Fig. 10C; Heikkila and Seppa, 2010).”
“Mangerud and Svendsen (2018) reported appearance of the most warmth-demanding mollusk species ca. 1000 km farther north of its current distribution indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10,200-9200 cal BP and that the regional climate was as warm as present by ca. 11,000 cal BP.”

Köseoğlu et al., 2018

“The core 70 site is characterised by extensive modern sea ice conditions (≈80% SpSIC [Spring Sea Ice Concentration]) and the downcore record represents a gradual evolution of sea ice cover in the northern Barents Sea from ice-free conditions during the early Holocene to prolonged seasonal sea ice presence prevalent in the region today. The primarily insolation-controlled southward expansion of sea ice cover previously inferred for the core site throughout the Holocene (Belt et al., 2015; Berben et al., 2017) is reflected in the CT model assessment. Consistent with the onset of the Holocene Thermal Maximum and the resulting proximity of the annual maximum sea ice edge to the core site between ca. 9.5–8.5 cal kyr BP evident from low PIIIIP25-derived SpSIC (ca. 5–15%), the CT model predicts mostly marginal sea ice conditions during this interval.”
From ca. 10.0–1.5 cal kyr BP, ice-free conditions characterised the core 11 site, as evidenced by consistently low SpSIC (ca. <10%) and marginal sea ice conditions predicted by the CT model, and further supported by an enhancement of AW [Arctic Water] inflow to the core site from ca. 9.8 cal kyr BP (Groot et al., 2014)”

44 responses to “Arctic Glaciers ADVANCED 16 km During 2008-2016 In A Region That Was 6°C Warmer ~9,000 Years Ago”

  1. Bitter&twisted

    An inconvenient truth😁

    1. Kurt in Switzerland

      Took the words right out of my mouth.

    2. William Meek

      Inconvenient to whom?

      Warmer ice moves faster and warmer air holds more water.

      Some glaciers surging is a prediction of global warming. Most likely in the north.

      1. Kurt in Switzerland

        William Meek:

        You wrote, “Inconvenient to whom?”

        For starters, Inconvenient to the incessant narrative [of arctic ‘out of control’ warming].

    3. Skeptik

      Why is it “inconvenient”? The advancement or shrinkage of glaciers is mainly dependent on two competing factors. These are precipitation and temperature. It is perfectly possible to have retreating glaciers when temperatures are falling or advancing ones when temperatures are rising provided that precipitation is doing its job.

      If this thread is designed to show that temperatures are falling, it simply fails to cut the mustard. This is regardless of whether real temperatures are actually rising or falling. If, on the other hand, the purpose is to counter some of the alarmism about melting glaciers, then it hits the mark.

  2. Alan Tomalty

    So no matter who is right, glaciers cannot be used as a measure of climate change or not. Alarmists even make the claim that snow cover or snowfall cannot be used as a measure of global warming. It will soon get to the point that NOTHING can be used as a measure of global warming. Just accept Al Gore’s Church of Climatology as the last word and bow down in reverence to the global warming GOD. What a farce.

  3. Graeme No.3

    Well, I don’t think the Climate will change in the next week or two so A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all readers, except the believers in AGW who can have a miserable time if they want.

  4. sasquatch

    If you ever visit Alaska and visit a glacier, it will become obvious that some glaciers have receded over the years. The Byron Glacier in particular has receded from the edge of Portage Lake up the glacial valley a good mile or more. That was about the distance you have to walk to make it to the glacier’s leading edge. The year was 2004 in late July, early August.

    The evidence from photographs do show the Byron Glacier recession since the beginning of the 20th century. The Pacific Oscillation probably does that melting.

    When you see a mountain top that is covered with snow and it is August, you know the snow isn’t going to melt up there. Even though the temps were in the eighties F, the Matanuska Glacier was still there, it was in melt mode, but it wasn’t going to go away.

    The east slopes of the mountain range that forms the border with Canada and the US up there in northern British Columbia are glaciated in large swaths, all ice and snow.

    At Burns Lake, a logging town and some agriculture, as you left town, to the south side of the road was a small mountain, the northeast corner had a small area that was all ice, still a glacier. You are still probably 300 miles south of the 60th parallel.

    As you travel further north, you expect the temps to be not warm. You are too far north for it to be more than 80 plus degrees F. You will be surprised to find out the temps do indeed reach into the 80’s.

    Whitehorse in The Yukon is fifteen hundred miles from Edmonton, Alberta. You know you are a long ways from nowhere. Northern British Columbia and The Yukon Territory are incredible places on the planet. When you are at Muncho Lake, it’s wilderness, not until you arrive at the Peace River area are you back to full sustainable agricultural activity. Further north in the mountains are caribou, mountain sheep, bear at lower elevations, it is all frontier. To think that camels were living there that far north is inconceivable, but they did.

    Was very surprised to learn that people from all over the world were living in The Yukon. A husband and wife from Switzerland managed a campground outside of Whitehorse. Had some lunch at a Greek cafe in downtown Whitehorse. An elderly couple from Greece were the owners. There was a woman from Uruguay there working a job with the Alaska Highway rebuilding. Some incredible road work being done in Canada at that time. The Canadian border checkpoint is twenty-five miles from Canada/US border, a no man’s land between there and Alaska. It is a lonely outpost.

    Sights not soon to be forgotten, no doubt about it. The sun sets but it doesn’t get dark, not even a dusk. When you look into the forest as you go, you know there is nobody out there in that wilderness, or very few for recreational purposes, the only people there are on the highways and in the towns. The creek bed will reveal bear tracks not two hours old. Wildlife rules the wilderness up there, nobody else. har

    The record low for my locale was set at -37 degrees F set in 1916 on December 16. The record high was in 1923 at 53 degrees F. One thing about winters in a climate in the middle of a continent at higher latitudes, they’re all bad. lol

    Although, the weather has been good with temps in the 40s, very warm for this time of year. You are more active and have to do things to get stuff done.

    The Winter of 1917-1918 was particularly bad.

  5. DWD-Klima-Horrormärchen: 2018 kann trockenstes Jahr in Deutschland werden! Nein, kann es nicht! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Arktische Gletscher rücken von 2008 bis 2016 um 16 km weiter vor in einer Region, die vor 9000 Jahr… […]

  6. tom0mason

    Why worry if some ice melts, calves, or dissociates from the Arctic?

    It is just a meaningless idea as the Arctic ice recede and advance periodically. Humans are not in charge of this occurring!

    Only the flimflam ideas congregating around some correlation of ice amount equating with ‘global temperatures’ are ever voiced, nobody notices that ice level variations rise and fall in correlation with the wholesale price of cream cheese in Northern Ireland, and also a good correlation with the percentage of prisoners retried, found not guilty, and freed in Wyoming.
    Either or both of these are just as good as any other supposition with correlations as to why ice levels rise and fall.

  7. Skeptik

    -> KR

    I have no wish to patronise you or anyone else and I would prefer not to be patronised myself. Although many of my posts are couched in terms of a reply to yourself, they are really addressed to the much wider audience of your readership/acolytes, some of whom would appear, on the basis of their comments, to have very little knowledge/understanding of the subject matter.

    You accuse me of not being a real sceptic. Clearly, your, (and Yonason’s), definition of a sceptic is very different from mine. For me it is sufficient to be sceptical about only one important aspect of a theory in order to be classified as a sceptic. One certainly does not need to be sceptical about all of it. I thought that I had already made clear my disbelief in the idea of a high positive feedback from water vapour. If such a feedback is non-existent, (and I have both theoretical and observational reasons for thinking so), then the alarmist case, and the politics derived from it falls to the ground and the apparent mismatch between theory and observation becomes much less significant and much more explicable.

    You and Yonason accuse me of reading only the headlines and not opening any of the links that you provide. Very occasionally this is true, but, most of the time it is not. If it were true in the present case, then how would I know that your first link was merely a graph or that your second referred to a paper which really only dealt with one location? Graphs are useful but I prefer to use both graphs and numbers. It is often difficult for the naked eye, (or at least my naked eye), to pick out trends from graphs with noisy data. Numbers are a much more sensitive technique. Sometimes, of course, numbers can be misleading. A good example of this would be to make a correlation between the temperature of the lower stratosphere and total solar irradiation. Numerically there is a good correlation but graphs of the two show that whereas TLS has two pronounced peaks TSI has three.

    Obviously, if you say that your post was not meant to indicate that Arctic temperatures were rising, then I believe you. This is why I used the word “suspicion”. However, I would also like to point out that I wrote that if your post was designed to counter the alarmist stories about glaciers melting, then it “hit the mark”. It is completely unnecessary to give me a long sermon as though I believed in these scare stories. I don’t!

    Going back a few blogs, you suggested that I ought to provide some empirical evidence that increasing CO2 causes warming. This is virtually impossible to do. We would have to make large sudden and irregular changes both downward as well as upward to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and observe the earth’s temperatures while doing so. Technologically, this is well beyond our current capability. What you ignored was my statement to the effect that none of the basic physics involved was unique to climate science and that all of it had received empirical verification elsewhere. The minimum basic physics involved is: Kirchoff’s laws; the Stefan-Boltzmann law; the infrared spectrum of CO2; the principle of the equipartition of energy; the acceleration due to gravity and a little bit of quantum mechanics. Which of these do you disagree with?

  8. Skeptik

    Apologies. In my list of the basic physics behind the AGW theory I omitted to mention the ideal gas laws.

    1. tom0mason

      Good idea not to mention the ideal gas laws as this planet’s moist atmosphere is not much like an ideal gas.

      Also of note is that Stefan-Boltzmann law fails to consider a moist gas interface as a ‘surface’.

  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #341 | Watts Up With That?
  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #341 –

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy