Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ice Free Arctic

  1. Jan 2, 2010 #1


    User Avatar

    Here’s a recently published paper on sea surface temperatures 3 million years ago when the Arctic was seasonally ice free:


    The paper presents some interesting data. The most northern location sampled was found to be 18C warmer during the summer. That's huge! It was found just off the coast of Spitsbergen; a chain of island that was (until a few years ago) encrusted in ice most of the year. In contrast, temperatures at tropical sites were found to be similar to those of today.

    They also found evidence of significant warming off the coast of California and western South America compared to less warming further off shore. So, the global warming of that time was not at all uniform.

    Note; at the current rate of sea ice retreat and thinning, the Arctic may be seasonally ice free by 2040. As such, this study provides a possible analog for our future climate conditions. CO2 levels during that time period were close or just slightly higher than current levels.

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 3, 2010 #2
    Is it known if the geographic north pole was in approximately in the same location as now 3-3.3 Ma? I know this is too short a time period for significant tectonic activity. However, I'm not sure about stability of the earth's axis of rotation. I know that the poles have several different cycles of movement within a small area but I think the mean location has been fairly stable over the 52 years since the establishment of the US south polar antarctic station.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2010
  4. Jan 3, 2010 #3


    User Avatar

    The geographic north pole was in the Arctic ocean 3 million years ago.
    Plate tectonics move about 1cm/year. So, over 3 million years that equates to 30km or about 20 miles.
  5. Jan 3, 2010 #4
    Thank you, but I acknowledged that it my post. I asked about the location of the geographic pole in terms of the stability of the earth's axis of rotation.. I included a link. The mean location of the geodetic south pole (which is is accessible to daily observation) does move within a circle of about 30 meters radius, but seems to have fairly stable mean location over the past 52 years of observation. My question is: Is it known if a significant shift of the geographic pole is a reasonable possibility over this 3m year period such that the Spitsbergen site could have been at a lower latitude?
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2010
  6. Jan 3, 2010 #5
    There is a mechanism called http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/full/nature06824.html.

    It is legimate physics, when a body is not spinning around a stable axis, which in case of earth can be caused by mass shifts like in the Earth mantle maybe due to dynamic mass changes in mantle plumes due to heat convection. Note that this is not the same as plate tectonics, which is associated with Apparent Polar Wander.

    For now I would think that the accuracy of formal claims, mostly based on paleomagnetic construction, could suffer from circular reasoning and uncertaintly in the three dimensional planes of tectonics changing the geomagnetic orientation in a more complex way than assumed.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Jan 3, 2010 #6
    Thanks for the links. The Steinberger abstract describes substantial movement which he attributes to true polar wandering, but still at timescales comparable to tectonic movements.

    I just checked the Cryosphere Today site and saw that the 2 Jan,2010 image shows open water north of Spitsbergen. With the exception of the region north of Scandinavia and northwest Russia, the surface extent of the ice pack seems in line with the 30 year average. This region has been historically warm for 80 degrees north latitude due to the Gulf Stream but this is unusual. Current summer temperatures are 5 to 10 C in Spitsbergen so I'm not surprised that they could have been as high as 18 C if the earth was warmer and the Arctic Ocean was ice free 3.3 Mya. Continuous summer daylight lasts about 16 weeks and maximum solar insolation is higher than lower latitudes.

    I understand the Pleistocene glaciations began only about 1 Mya although Antarctic ice cap dates from about 20 mya.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  8. Jan 3, 2010 #7


    User Avatar


    According to the paper, the Spitsbergen sites (909 & 911) were just within the minimum sea ice extent based on 1978 to 1992 averages.

    At the Cryosphere site, I checked some dates from the 1980s and early 90's and it was indeed often iced up to the North of Spitsbergen thru July and August, but not always in January. (I didn't check every year, so maybe I just got lucky)

    Anyhow, it seems to be a strange place for sea ice as there can be more ice in the summer than the winter. Ocean and Ice currents are probably a signficant factor.
  9. Jan 4, 2010 #8
    Open water north of Svalbard on 2 Jan is not unusual as can be seen here. Just try more 2 Januaries from the past 7 years
  10. Jan 4, 2010 #9
  11. Jan 4, 2010 #10


    User Avatar


    During the Holocene, the earth orbit was such that the NH was closer to the sun during the summer. So, the arctic was warmer around 8000 years ago than it is now. That is in essense the Milankovitch theory. That is that periodic orbital fluctuations drove the ice age glacial max and mins.

    Don't see why anybody would consider this is a problem for Milankovitch.

    BTW, that site is not a peer reviewed published paper, so it's against forum guidelines.
    If you wish to make surprising claims, they really should be backed up by peer reviewed literature.

    The earths orbit has been gradually reducing the amount of solar radiation in the Arctic for the last 8000 years. It is expected to continue to reduce arctic solar radiation for another 4000 years. The current warming in the arctic is from rising greenhouse gases and can not be explained by orbital forcings.
  12. Jan 4, 2010 #11
    Xnn; I appreciate your reply. Okay, the paper on the twice-size monkey skeletons isn't peer-reviewed, but that shouldn't take away the sensation of their finds. It's a professional university research project with clearly defined data. How can twice-size tree-top monkeys evolve during the pleistocene in the Amazon rainforest? Ans: By the sun being hotter, the trees growing bigger and the fruit growing twice-size. What other explanation is there?

    The significance of the finds puts the current topic of an ice-free arctic into the shade. Can you not see the importance of an ice age rainforest twice it's normal interglacial size? Hotter sun, colder oceans is the ONLY explanation imo.
  13. Jan 4, 2010 #12
    There is much better proxy data for solar flux than monkey heads. As well as many other possible explanations for larger monkey heads.

    Why would there be colder oceans if the Sun is hotter? That seems counter intuitive. Stronger SW flux would have a strongly positive influence on ocean temperatures.

    It appears you are attempting to confirm a belief, not investigate a mystery.
  14. Jan 5, 2010 #13
    Such as what? There are two complete twice-size pleistocene monkey skeletons that still need explaining.
    I'm saying that the oceans get colder due to an increase in deep ocean tidal mixing which lowers the sea surface temperature.
  15. Jan 5, 2010 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Based on the satellite record since '79? i.e. a 'current rate' measured over what time period, and why that period?
  16. Jan 6, 2010 #15
    Hmm... I think you're on to something...
  17. Jan 6, 2010 #16


    User Avatar

    The paper in the original post contains the following statement:

    I have not looked up each of these paper to see how they arrived at 2040. However, I have reviewed the Cyrosphere website and they present a record since 1900:


    The summer minimum appears to be at an inflection point.
    The data points of the last 2 years appear to be below the trend.
    However, by simply extending the trend by hand or a 4th order polonomila, I also get a 2040 date. So, the 2040 date appears reasonable.

    However, we are sure to hear all types of news reports whenever a new record minimum is reached.
  18. Jan 6, 2010 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes I was looking at the same series. From this hundred year series I take it that you suggest starting the trend around 1970 or later, a subjective choice based on GHG theories I assume. If one looks at the entire 110 year series, takes the data simply as it is, I see a linear decline of ~0.4 million sq km / decade, which would have ice year round in the Arctic for at least another 100 years. No doubt the more recent data is more accurate, but we don't have error margins on this graph.
  19. Jan 6, 2010 #18


    User Avatar

    I used all the data, and found that a linear trend does not fit very well.

    Since 1970 or so, it does appears to be linear with the exception of the last couple years. However, there is no reason I can think of to throw out the last few years.

    Excel has a nice function where different types of trend lines and projections can be drawn. So, from just playing around with it, a 4th order polynomial looks to fit the best.
    Of course, this isn't a physics based approach, but the data is clearly trending lower at an accelerating rate.
  20. Jan 6, 2010 #19
    Amazing! About the time we'll run out of oil...

    Comming at 'ya!
  21. Jan 7, 2010 #20
    Sun spots for recent activity, (last 400 years) and beryllium-10 for further back

    Be that as it may...it is a huge mistake scientifically to base ones hypothesis on fifth order evidence that is contradicted by first and second order evidence.

    First. The oceans would not get colder due to tidal mixing, whatever that means. Moving the heat around does not change the overall temperature.

    Second. What evidence do you have that suggests such a phenomenon occurs?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook