Friday, October 22, 2021
Home Left Column New Study finds 'global warming could drive increasing Arctic snowfall' - 'Slow...

New Study finds ‘global warming could drive increasing Arctic snowfall’ – ‘Slow shrinkage of Greenland Ice & affect pace of sea levels rise’

-

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/uab-aho052316.php

A history of snowfall on Greenland, hidden in ancient leaf waxes

A surprising trove of data yields indications of increased Arctic snowfall in times of warming

UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO

IMAGE
IMAGE: UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO RESEARCHER ELIZABETH THOMAS HOLDS HALF OF A SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTED FROM THE LAKE IN WESTERN GREENLAND WHERE THE STUDY WAS SITED. SUCH SEDIMENT CORES CONTAIN AQUATIC LEAF… view more

CREDIT: CREDIT: DOUGLAS LEVERE

BUFFALO, N.Y. — The history of Greenland’s snowfall is chronicled in an unlikely place: the remains of aquatic plants that died long ago, collecting at the bottom of lakes in horizontal layers that document the passing years.

Using this ancient record, scientists are attempting to reconstruct how Arctic precipitation fluctuated over the past several millennia, potentially influencing the size of the Greenland Ice Sheet as the Earth warmed and cooled.

An early study in this field finds that snowfall at one key location in western Greenland may have intensified from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, a period when the planet’s Northern Hemisphere was warmer than it is today.

While more research needs to be done to draw conclusions about ancient precipitation patterns across Greenland, the new results are consistent with the hypothesis that global warming could drive increasing Arctic snowfall — a trend that would slow the shrinkage of the Greenland Ice Sheet and, ultimately, affect the pace at which sea levels rise.

“As the Arctic gets warmer, there is a vigorous scientific debate about how stable the Greenland Ice Sheet will be. How quickly will it lose mass?” says lead researcher Elizabeth Thomas, PhD, an assistant professor of geology in the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences who completed much of the study as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Climate models and observations suggest that as temperatures rise, snowfall over Greenland could increase as sea ice melts and larger areas of the ocean are exposed for evaporation. This would slow the decline of the ice sheet, because snow would add to its mass,” Thomas says. “Our findings are consistent with this hypothesis. We see evidence that the ratio of snow to rain was unusually high from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, which is what you would expect to see if sea ice loss causes snowfall to increase in the region.”

The research was published on May 23 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

Aquatic plant leaf waxes as a record of snowfall

Thomas’ research looks to understand how precipitation changed in the past, with an eye toward better predicting how modern warming will affect the Earth.

“We are using the past to see what might happen in the future,” she says.

Aquatic leaf waxes are a relatively new tool for completing this work. They reveal information about the seasonality of precipitation — how amounts of ancient summer rain compared to amounts of ancient winter snow.

To understand how aquatic leaf waxes function as a historical record, you need to know a little about aquatic plants. In the Arctic, these organisms survive on lake water, and use hydrogen atoms from this water to produce wax coatings on leaves.

These hydrogen atoms are the key to studying precipitation: In years when the ratio of summer rain to winter snow in a region is high, lake water and aquatic leaf waxes end up containing high levels of a rare form of hydrogen called deuterium, which is heavier than “normal” hydrogen. (This is because summer rain holds more deuterium than winter snowfall.)

In contrast, in years when snow is relatively abundant, aquatic plants start producing waxes with less deuterium.

This is what Thomas and her colleagues saw when they extracted a long, cylindrical sediment sample from a lake bottom in western Greenland. The mud contains ancient leaf waxes, with the oldest at the base of the column and the youngest at the top.

By dating and analyzing thin slices of the sample, the team determined that aquatic leaf waxes had low levels of deuterium from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago.

This is exactly what researchers would expect to see if the warm temperatures of that time had fueled sea ice loss, leading to increased Arctic snowfall and a decline in deuterium in lakes, Thomas said. She acknowledged that it’s possible that a drop in summer rainfall accounted for the changes in deuterium, but says a rise in winter snowfall is the more likely explanation, as scientists have found independent evidence that the region was wetter 6,000 to 4,000 years ago.

###

The research team included UB Associate Professor of Geology Jason Briner; undergraduate student John J. Ryan-Henry from Brown University, the University of Rhode Island and the Roger Williams University School of Law; and Professor Yongsong Huang from Brown University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and research grants from the Geological Society of America.

26 COMMENTS

  1. “increasing Arctic snowfall, slow shrinkage of Greenland Ice & affect pace of sea levels rise’

    Warmists should be happy – these are all desirable things according to the CAGW gospel. In fact, I believe it’s 3 of Gore’s 10 commandments. The others concern his inalienable rights to beach houses, free air travel and carbon-credits.

      • You read my mind. I’ve been drinking to AGW for years because it’s the best thing that could ever happen. I’d love a growing season over 90 days.

        Or, do you want me to drink because your ill-conceived, ill-fated and unimplemented action plan is already kicking in and turning the tide?

        It’s progressive boilerplate…. invent catastrophe….propose a useless plan…. collect money….. take credit when nothing actually happens. Slap each other on the back for a job well done.

        Not a bad gig – if you don’t actually have a gig, that is.

        • A few questions, please:

          Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

          Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

  2. But wait….. aren’t warmunists DENYing that the MWP (and earlier durations during this interglacial) were NOT as hot, and not global? And, for the IPCC (which never ventures past the MWP), how does the MWP differ from that earlier warming 6000 to 4000 years ago?

    • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!kj31ytwo days ago grey MacLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !kj31y:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPermanentGetPay-Hour$98…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!kj31y….,……

    • Incredible. Can you give me your opinion on:

      Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

      Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

      • There does seem to be a correlation between roaches coming out after dark, and confused members of the warminista cult contributing nothing but nonsense, obfuscation, and/or distraction when asked for (1) empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on the planet’s temperature (2) evidence to justify their claim that the MWP was merely regional and not as warm as today, (3) evidence that they have found the missing “hot spot”

        • You completely forgot to answer my two questions. WHy is that? But you expect me to address your drivel. How is that logical?

          You are claiming that the smartest people in the world got it wrong, but you, an anonymous Disgus user, got it right. But you refuse to show your work, how you know you are right. That’s not very smart at all.

          I’m not interested in your canards. You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.

          This is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals via attempts of falsifying the evidence. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

          But you want to exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because your goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which you cannot do, you’re not qualified, and thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority, but the undecided ignorant don’t). Your hope is to steal their vote, to warp public policy in your favor, which is your ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

          Don’t confuse consensus and opinion in science. Opinion is stated because consensus emerged (due to failure of ACC falsification attempts). In the case for ACC, opinion and consensus are basically same in terms of % (98% and 97% respectively).

          But this is not about the science, is it?

          This is about your greed and attraction to conspiracy theories.

          And I’m backed by this via scientific research that has not falsified the facts that Climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

          What do you have to fear of ACC is true?

          • The “smartest” people in the world? Apparently not true, even in climate science, let alone the general statement. The “conspirators” in the case of climate science are not the skeptics, but the proponents of AGW. That’s about as far as I’m interested in dealing with your quiz.

            “Show my work”? I’m merely a skeptic asking questions and bringing up other conflicting facts.

            Scientific issues are resolved in various ways, whether the media is technical papers, or real-time discussion on the web. I’m not a climate scientist, no formal or educational experience. I have never been able to get straight answers from “scientists” who are proponents of warming.
            For example, it appears that the AGW theory carries with it a necesary condition which has never been satisfied – namely that there must be a warming in the troposphere over the tropics at about 10km. Weather balloons have never found any such “hot spot”. (This is not my theory – it apparently comes as part and parcel of the GHG/AGW hypothesis.)
            Asking me to prove that condition is ludicrous. It implies you either (1) have never heard of it and don’t even understand the situation, or (2) are being disingenuous.

            Various skeptical scientists have also stated that there is no empirical evidence that co2 level has NEVER had any impact on the planet’s temperature, not even over geologic periods when co2 level was many times higher than it is now. This appears to be consistent with the warmist hypothesis, since I”ve also heard “scientists” who are proponents of AGW claim justify their belief by claiming that there appears to be “no other reason for the warming”. That is an argument based on ignorance, not science. Why would any scientist (presumably anxious to convince skeptics) otherwise admit that their only basis for their hypothesis is because they have not found any actual evidence?

            There are other related questions which carry no prerequisite for the “skeptic” to have published in the climate science area – namely the claim by “warmists” that the MWP was NOT global, and NOT as warm as now. The warmists seem to have no basis for their position given that there are 1,000+ peer-reviewed documents conflicting with that claim, plus 6,000 boreholes which show it to be a global trend. Keep in mind that no one or two studies confirm or contradict the warmist claim, but even a half dozen such studies, each remote from all others, would bring it into question, because it’s also well known that there are likely some areas which, even in global trends, don’t exhibit that trend. Finally, two receding glaciers (Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska, and another in the Alps) recently exposed splintered tree trunks still standing in their original position. The Alaskan tree is dated 1,000 years old, the trees in the Alps are dated 4,000 years old. These trees were thriving at northern latitudes where trees obviously no longer grow, a clear implication it has been warmer in the past.

            “Scientists” who claim to be experts almost invariably attempt to duck or distract the query by claiming either “gish” (numerous questions posed) or that they do not want to legitimize the “denier” by responding. That’s not at all helpful to their cause.

            I’ve posed some real questions. If you’re concerned that you would “legitimize” my position by responding, then surely you view yourself as “legitimate”…. so ??

            • You completely forgot to answer my two questions. Why is that? But you expect me to address your drivel. How is that logical?

              Are you claiming that scientists are not the smartest people in the world?
              The fact that no scientific body of international or national standing support your position, none of them dissent from ACC.
              Are you saying these smart people are “conspirators”?
              Bejeus man. That is a massive claim. Can you back that up?

              “Show my work”? I’m merely a skeptic asking questions and bringing up other conflicting facts.

              And no, skepticism is a process, your denialism is a position. If 99 pieces of evidence support an idea and 1 doesn’t, a skeptic says ‘that idea is probably not false’. A mis-informer says ‘Ahah, that idea is false’. A denier says ‘Ahah, you never showed me any evidence’.

              I showed you the evidence for ACC: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              Yet, you now claim I did not. You’re a denier.

              As for the rest of your comment, it is rubbish. You can answer my two questions, and then tell me why you reject the evidence that I provided you – and show your work – your published peer reviewed scientific journal.

              I’m not going to address your canards. You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.
              What I can say is that your reasoning is guilty of:

              1.1. Appeal to authority.
              You will always cite some scientific expert that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. You will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.

              1.2. Appeal on consequences
              You will also state how bad it will be if we accept the science and act. This is merely your outcry to the public and looking for support, hoping that you can spread your ignorance to them, and instill unsupported fear, rather than focusing on the science and trying to falsify it.

              1.3. Circular Reasoning
              You will offer one canard (false claim) after the other. When we rebut the first, you will not acknowledge that, you will just play the next canard. On and on we go, hey.

              Scientific issues are resolved in various ways, whether the media is technical papers, or real-time discussion on the web. I’m not a climate scientist

              You’re not a scientist. You’re not qualified to have a say in scientific knowledge. And no, science is not done the way you propose. Educate yourself in the scientific method.

              One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. You do need require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

              What is wrong with http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              You’re not a scientist, you’re an ignorant greedy denier that loves a good conspiracy theory.

              Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

              Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

              So, my dear, answer my questions. The burden in yours. if you don’t, then you remain a denier. Ah, and it’s ok for you to deny being denial, because that’s what you are!

              I mean, the smartest people in the world are wrong, and you are right, yet you ask me to educate you (address your canards)? But you refuse to answer my questions. Do you think that is smart of you?

              • Silly, and no content, as usual.

                I’ll not be chased around the internet. No links please. Just a simple question, which you, as a believer, should be able to provide, but in your own words please, if you can. Not one climate scientist has EVER been able to provide a valid answer to that simple question about empirical evidence that co2 has EVER had any impact on the planet’s temperature. Most warmists also ignore the fact that there has been no “hot spot” discovered, (a NECESSARY, but not sufficient condition for the GHG AGW hypothesis to even be valid) despite years of weather balloon observations. Neither do you alarmists have any evidence for the ludicrous claim that the MWP was not global and not as warm as now.

                So far you’re batting zero. No empirical evidence, and the hypothesis cannot even get to first base unless/until the “hot spot” is found.

                You obviously don’t understand science if you think believers promoting a dubious hypothesis have no obligation to justify their position, particularly when current politicians are willing to spend money like drunken sailors on this issue.

                Attempting to attack skeptics is obviously an admission that you cannot provide an answer. Certainly since warmists are so alarmed about saving the world from “climate change” (aka AGW) why would they not jump at the opportunity to justify their position. If you believe I’d reject whatever you say, please remember – there are other readers. Perhaps you can convince some of them ? Don’t miss this opportunity to save our world for pete’s sake.

                • Interesting, you’re a slow learner. Reminder, you’re in denial, you’re not an skeptic. We covered that. I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate that. One should have been enough, but your clearly not very good at trends.

                  Great, you decided to ‘answer’ indirectly relying on inference as demonstrated in your post content. You loudly agree then to:
                  There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism.

                  Fantastic. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.

                  I don’t understand your request to educate you. Why do you beg me to be your teacher?
                  Remember, I’m a stupid warmest alarmist. I was the dumbest in my class. I’ve always been very open about that.
                  However, my stupidly is no excuse for your ignorance and denialism; your greed and belief in crank theory

                  I’m not going to address your canards for these reasons:

                  1) You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position. That is not how science is done. Science is not a sport, it does not have two equal sides. That you don’t understand this shows me that you’re not worth my time.

                  2) I accept the scientific theory of ACC. One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. You do need require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.
                  You have no credentials to have a say in scientific knowledge. You have no credentiald to meaningful challenge the scientific theory of ACC. That’s why you deny its existence. Educate yourself in the scientific method if you want to accept scientific findings. Or become a creadentialised climate change scientist and then your opinionated challenge about the scientific findings would be valued.

                  3) You claim that the smartest people in the world are all wrong, but you, an anonymous Disqus user, got it right. However, you refuse to tell me how you know that your right. You refuse to show your work, your evidence. That’s not very smart of you. That’s troll behaviour.

                  4) You refuse to answer my questions, yet expect me to answer yours.
                  You ask me to educate you (address your canards), but you refuse to answer my questions directly (uou dod indirectly, wink). You berate me with your ‘alarmist’, ‘warmest’ libel. Is that your sophisticaàted troll experience?

                  5) There is no AGW or CAGW hypothesis or idea. ACC graduated from hypothesis to scientific theory because of the evidence I pointed you to. ACC is the leading scientific theory. And it’s the only only one that explains a heating up of earth (surface and oceans), CO2 being the cause with humsn activities causing the CO2 ppm accumulation. You don’t even understand the very thing that you deny, yet you claim it’s false. That not logical. You need to stop rejecting logic when it goes against your beliefs.

                  I see no point debating the ACC science with you or taking your AGW straw man seriously or educating you (doing your homework). You have no climate change credentials, why should I waste my time with you educating you on ACC science? You clearly don’t want any links or reference to scientific information, but expect me to blindly accept your opinion. What’s wrong with you? Also, as you can tell, teacher, I’m able to educate myself on any subject of my chosing.

                  Incidentally, I told you before “Here is the evidence for ACC. Use Google, it is so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish and unintelligent statements”. You chose not to, yet ask me to educate you – to shoot down your carnards – but you call me a stupid warmist alarmist! I’ll be in real trouble if you really though I was stupid!

                  Absolutely logical from you, the logic is so obvious it dissappeared for you!

                  Look, religion (your questionACC denial) should be private, practiced behind close doors. It’s quite odd though that you’re using your greed and love of crank theory to defend your denislism.

                  At least now you know why you’re in denial. It’s about your belief in laissez-fair economy and conspiracy ideology. Your ignorance of science and its method is not the main issue. Please stop hiding behind it.

                  You can get out of denial. But it would be hard work. Extremely hard work in your case. I can help you, but you need be willing to pay attention, work hard and do homework. Your first step is to accept your own evidence that you’re in denial. Then be honest about your greed and attraction to crank stories.

                  Ready to change, to give up denialism?

                  • Your ranting, but no response (or useful content) to valid questions is now beyond tiresome.

                    You have answered my questions (by inference, of course). You’re a definite “projector”. You admit you’re stupid which, again, by inference, admits that your admission that you cannot provide any empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on the global temperature. You also admit that you don’t have a clue about the missing “hot spot” (needs to exist to validate the GHG/AGW theory, and, as with all members of your cult, continue to DENY (ironic, no?) that the MWP was indeed a global event and likely warmer than now. (This is no doubt because a warmer, global MWP begs the question – “Must have been natural climate variation back then, so why isn’t our current (miniscule 2 decade duration of warming) the same?”

                    Based on your confession of stupidity you nonetheless offer yourself up as sufficiently competent to assess my skeptical position by claiming I’m ignorant, a denier, greedy, and believer of a “crank theory”. (The last tells readers all they need to know about your competence, since I have posed no theory — only posing conflicting evidence which apparently cannot be explained by the GHG/AGW theory.)

                    • Sadly, you offered no new content. Nothing for me to respond to.
                      It’s ok to be loud. It’s also ok to have nothing to say. But to be both, on a Disqus forum, like you, is rather pathetic.
                      You have not answered my two questions, nor have you told me why you fear ACC being true.
                      Further, you have not convinced me why I should legitimise your illegitimate position.
                      It’s extremely odd though that you’re still using your greed and love of crank theory to defend your denialism.

                      (Btw, I updated my previous post. Re-read it. I left a surprise in it for you. Check if you can spot it. Let me know if you do.)

                    • Thanks for conceding with your insult.

                      I don’t think you read any of my posts. If you did then you would have found my surprise. It’s impossible to miss.

                      You clearly don’t want to get out of your denialism today. Maybe you will reflect on this conversation in future and then write me. I can help you.
                      Or perhaps, you don’t want help because your denialism is not based on evidence, but on a deep seated need to deny.

                      Denying the science of ACC makes your position irrelevant.

                    • Denis,
                      You refused to answer my questions, yet expect me to answer yours. You did not even attempt to rationalize that.

                      I found your comments confusing and inconsistent with your devotion to pseudo science information – it was not even a good attempt at pseudoscience. It’s all crank theories and political desire for a laissez-faire economy cemented in logorrhea.

                      The earth warms and hiatus/coolists panic alarm.

                      When climate deniers cannot reject the facts, they smear and sneer. It is a propaganda ploy and an admission of weakness.

                      Write me when you can deal in fact.

                    • Neither do you. You’re predictable.

                      Tell me more about your crank theories.

                      Moon landing – true or false?

                      Evolution – true or false?

                      9/11 Government conspiracy – true or false?

                      Government is hiding Aliens/UFO’s – true or false?

                      Earth’s resources are limited – true or false?

                      The smartest people in the world are wrong about ACC – true or false?

                      What is your best crank theory?

                      Tell me about your greed then.

                      Do you think that governments should regulate limited resources?

                      Are you in favor of free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism?

                      What political or economical implication will impact your life the most if ACC is true? We both know it’s not the carbon tax, so what is it?

                      What makes your lifestyle so special that it triumph all other life on earth?

                      Open up and tell me all.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Antarctica might go green say scientists (only 2km of ice and 50C of warming to go)

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/antarctica-might-go-green-say-scientists-only-2km-of-ice-and-50c-of-warming-to-go/ More great journalism from The Guardian: Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers Or maybe it isn’t. Check out the brave actual prediction:...

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s talks in Prague

By Dr. Lubos Motl Richard Lindzen's talk in Prague Richard Lindzen, prof emeritus at MIT, is the most famous atmospheric physicist among the climate skeptics. I...

Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol...