It would seem that there were some folks at NASA GISS who still knew how to do real science in 1998. That’s the date on the following article. Yes, it has the obligatory Genuflection to Global Warming tacked on at the end, but rather like a Heil Hitler stuck at the end of a memo by an unthinking clerk who is just following the style guide of the times, words now devoid of meaning due to their over use.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/peteet_02/
Here’s the closing bit:
Arctic and boreal peatlands are important components of climate change because they play a crucial role in the terrestrial/atmospheric carbon balance as sources and sinks of carbon dioxide and methane. Today, the role of the Arctic as either a carbon source or sink is highly controversial among researchers.
Not a lot there of substance, but it has the obligatory “climate change” wrapped in “important” and “crucial”. Then promptly side steps into a null position with only a vague implication that more money would fix things.
Surprisingly, not but a sentence later, they then say it’s possibly due to MORE permafrost.
Our study, along with similar studies in the Canadian Arctic suggests that Arctic peatlands are acting more as a source of carbon to the atmosphere than a sink, possibly due to many factors such as less nutrient mineralization, increased permafrost leading to drier peat, or oxidation from winds.
Well, I guess that is “Climate Change”…
OK, starting back at the beginning, these folks are looking at stuff in the ground to get an idea what has happened to climate at the North Pole over the length of the Holocene (or at least the last 10,000 years of it)
I’m going to quote heavily as “pro skeptic” things at NASA & GISS (and NCDC too) tend to be “disappeared” after they come to light.
Science Briefs
The Ancient Treeline and the Carbon Cycle in the Siberian ArcticDecember 1998
Today the Siberian Arctic tundra appears to be a desolate endless expanse of green wetlands dotted with shallow lakes. But have the same species of herbs and shrubs been present over the last 10,000 years? When did trees first arrive at the present-day northern treeline? Is the Arctic tundra acting as a source or a sink of carbon to the atmosphere today?
So from 1998, the very peak of the Global Warming scare, just before we went flat (or slightly dropping) over the last 16 years). Looking back over 10,000 years, when Mann and friends show a dead flat hockey stick blade. Primarily looking at carbon source / sink, and only accidentally looking at temperatures, from the look of things.
US and Russian scientists joined together to answer these questions by digging up the tundra to find out what happened in the past. GISS staff scientist Dr. Dorothy Peteet and NRC postdoctoral-fellow Dr. Andrei Andreev spent a summer north of the Arctic Circle between the Pur and Taz Rivers of Siberia, east of the Ural Mountains (66°N, 79°E). From their analysis of a deep sequence of frozen peat, they found that the tundra has undergone a series of changes and that the peatland was initially a shallow lake. The environment changed from drier to wetter tundra and back again several times between 9,000 to around 4,500 years ago. This high-resolution, complex record of peatland changes demonstrates the high degree of variability in peatland growth over a span of 5,000 years in a permafrost environment. Different species of moss as well as seeds and leaves of higher plants tell us about the changes in hydrology, local nutrient supply, and temperature. Charcoal in the peat record tells us whether or not fire has played a big role in this landscape. There is very little charcoal in this peatland sequence. Thus, the role of fire appears to have been a minor one, in contrast to the fire history of Finnish peatlands, in which more than half of the carbon loss was attributed to fire (Tolonen et al., l992).
So “Climate” can change all on its own? Without people or The Magic Gas CO2 being with Sin? Golly…
It also looks like there is clear evidence for a cycle, though they are a bit light on the numbers (this just being a ‘news’ bit).
The migration of trees into the region is expressed at our site by the macrofossil pattern of larch (Larix siberica) and birch (Betula pubescens) arrival, followed by spruce (Picea obovata). About six thousand years ago, spruce trees moved even further northward. Climate at that time was warmer than today. Since that time, however, the treeline retreated to its present position, and tundra replaced the old trees. The redevelopment and spread of peatland resulted in increases in moisture and acidity. This vast spread of tundra within the last few millennia indicates that climate cooled after the mid-Holocene warming.
Well. So much for the “Warmest Ever!” hype. Nature, all on its own, made the Arctic so much warmer than today that all sorts of tundra turned into forests. Then we started getting colder, with cyclical wetter / drier events. Not a lot of CO2 activity then.
A major finding of this study is the surprisingly old ages of the uppermost peat in this part of Siberia. These results show a clear lack of peat accumulation in recent millennia, either due to very low net productivity, or alternatively, recent oxidation of fossil peats. Arctic and boreal peatlands are important components of climate change because they play a crucial role in the terrestrial/atmospheric carbon balance as sources and sinks of carbon dioxide and methane. Today, the role of the Arctic as either a carbon source or sink is highly controversial among researchers. Our study, along with similar studies in the Canadian Arctic suggests that Arctic peatlands are acting more as a source of carbon to the atmosphere than a sink, possibly due to many factors such as less nutrient mineralization, increased permafrost leading to drier peat, or oxidation from winds.
ReferencePeteet, D., A. Andreev, W. Bardeen, and F. Mistretta l998. Long-term Arctic peatland dynamics, vegetation and climate history of the Pur-Taz region, Western Siberia. Boreas 27, 115-126.
Tolonen, K., H. Vasander, A.W.H. Damman, and R.S. Clymo l992. Rate of apparent and true carbon accumulation in boreal peatlands. In Proceeding of 9th International Peat Congress, Uppsala, Sweden, 22-26 June l992. Volume 1, 319-333.
ContactPlease address all inquiries about this research to Dr. Dorothy Peteet.
Well. So it’s colder, primary productivity is down, the permafrost is more prevalent so preventing much peat formation, and it’s so cold things are drier too. The forest is retreating due to the cold and permafrost.
Not sounding a whole lot like either “climate stability” that is the fictional baseline used by Climate Alarmism, nor like “Warmest Ever” now, since we are cooling significantly from the peak warmth of the Holocene. On that slow, many tens of thousands of year slide back to an Ice Age Glacial. I note in passing that the trees and Polar Bears all seemed to come through that warmer time Just Fine, thank you very much. So it looks like some warming from here is not going to be particularly catastrophic anyway.
What I find amazing about this paper is two fold. That it is clearly good and honest Science being done by someone at NASA GISS with Hansen Trolling the halls. With only a minor sop to the Global Warming gods… Then, that it actually saw the light of day. Perhaps in 1998 the “peat guys” were not yet thought of as a climate issue.
But there it is.
No nice flat hockey stick shaft; it has a hump and ripples in it.
No hottest Ever!! – not until the Larch and Spruce are back at top of the Siberian tundra.
No environmental catastrophe 6000 years ago.
No need for CO2 to cause climate change.
Just natural cycles.
Amazing.
Musings from the Chiefio 
As the science became more “settled”, the rhetoric became more “unsettled”. In 1998, EVERYONE knew AGW was real (McIntyre and McKittrick had not dissected Mann’s Hokey Stick). So real science could be done. But since 1998, with the world not cooperating with alarmist, and skepticism growing, they have have to suppress real science as they see it as heresy to their religion.
@E.M. So they have just rediscovered putrefaction, OMG!, the way nature reduces carbohydrates to carbon, passing through composite without oxygen, i.e. FUELS!!…and they are constantly produced.
BTW: Do a fast research about the substitution of a NON-POLAR chemical as methane with a POLAR chemical as water, in fracking….
You will find that the first one supports soil structures while the second one does not. Funny, isn´t it?….Make your personal SINKHOLE in your back yard!
The PDF for the paper Long-term Arctic peatland dynamics, vegetation and climate history of the Pur-Taz region, Western Siberia. this article was taken from.
There is a newer paper that says just the opposite. SURPRISE! (not)
I guess it all depends on your definition and starting point for “Warmer” doesn’t it?
So that maximum ‘Late Holocene cooling’ is the baseline for the ‘warming over decadal-centennial timescales’ in the 2011 paper. Nice bity of misdirection.
This last paper (2010) is well worth a look. Lots of great charts of stuff like pine tree-line in Sweden, “…Holocene summer melting on the Agassiz Ice Cap, northern Ellesmere Island, Canada. “Melt” indicates the fraction of each core section that contains evidence of melting….. The timing of initiation and termination of the Holocene Thermal Maximum in the western Arctic (Kaufman et al., 2004).” Someone actually got out of their office and looked at the evidence and someone else compiled all the information.
How is it called PEAT when older?….LEONARDITE, and if older?, CARBON…and, those big phosphate deposits?….Oh, those!…one or two million years old BLOGGERS. :-)
We have all seen the Mauna Loa CO2 graphs with the nice straight line through the seasonal zigzag. Just recently there was a graph by Dr. Roy Spencer of the Mauna Loa CO2 growth rate that looks a heck of a lot more realistic than that Goreified first graph.
Dr Spencer’s graph is interesting when you do an eyeball comparison of Dr. Spencer’s Global Lower Troposphere Temperature graph and Dr. Roy Spencer’s Sea Surface Temperatures graph Here are a couple more SST graphs, the Second Hadley Centre Sea Surface Temperature dataset graph and a last graph graph from WUWT.
Is it me or am I seeing the CO2 levels responding to SST/sat lower troposphere temperatures?
(No wonder I have never seen that Mauna Loa CO2 graph before!)
Oh, and while we are at it, here is NASA coming right out and saying CO2 is the earth’s thermostat complete with an actual picture of a thermostat. (Gag) Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth’s Temperature… a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet’s temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide….
Again: On what really depends EARTH TEMPERATURE has been established by our friend and Chiefio regular M.Vukcevic:
Let us forget for ever the “Fred Flintstones´pebbles´universe”!!
Same about the non existing Peak Oil and therefor No Limits on the use of carbon fuels or population growth for that matter. We have fossil fuels to last for thousands of years, no worries.. Where it’s nature against human kind over the past thousands of years, people often lost against nature. Warm spells were appreciated and populations boomed. But cold spells caused grave dangers and humans suffered, especially during those periods when nature decided to change it’s mood. But today we have technology which doesn’t make us the ultimate winners but practically protect ourselves against most of what the elements within a certain margin can throw at us without severe consequences. But sometimes nature can hit us with a tremendous punch, a quake, a tsunami a volcanic eruption, a storm, a blizzard you name it. Some times I really wonder how much more nature we need to endure, especially when hundreds of thousands of people, entire regions including cities and villages are wiped of the map in a matter of minutes. Life however is so incredibly beautiful, we simply accept the risks of life and make the best of it like we always have done. It has become our second nature. Many animals must have had similar thoughts, With humans around life gets a lot easier. We have one type of homo sapiens however, we call it homo sapiens environ mentalis, who is a bit sensitive about nature. He doesn’t realy like humans and he’s a kind of a drag who gets depressed rather quickly. But fortunately there is nothing what a good shot of Irish Whiskey, some Rohypnol and a ferm kick under the ass can’t cure nowadays. It’s time to hand out some medication. After that life will be a lot more ….let’s say livable.
The UN at Doha COP18 was stirring up alarm about thawing of Siberian permafrost. But there are scientists in Siberia monitoring the situation. What do they say?
“Indeed above at the surface it has gotten warmer, but that’s just part of a normal cycle. The permafrost is rock hard, And that is how it is going to stay. There’s no talk of thawing.” Michali Grigoryev
http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/19/russian-arctic-scientist-permafrost-changes-due-to-natural-factors-its-going-to-be-colder/
“It seems that the permafrost should be melting if the temperature is rising. However, many areas are witnessing the opposite. The average annual temperature is getting higher, but the permafrost remains and has even started to spread. Why? An important factor is the snow cover. Global warming reduces it, therefore making the heat insulator for the permafrost thinner. Then even weak frosts are enough to freeze the ground deeper below the surface.”
Nikolai Osokin is a glaciologist at the Institute of Geography, the Russian Academy of Sciences.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070323/62485608.html
“The Russian Academy of Sciences has found that the annual temperature of soils (with seasonable variations) has been remaining stable despite the increased average annual air temperature caused by climate change. If anything, the depth of seasonal melting has decreased slightly.”
“This is just another scare story . . . This ecological structure is balanced and is not about to harm people with gas discharges.”
Vladimir Melnikov is the director of the world’s only Institute of the Earth’s Cryosphere. The Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute is located in the Siberian city of Tyumen and investigates the ways in which ground water becomes ice and permafrost.
“The boundaries of the Russian permafrost zone remain virtually unchanged. At the same time, the permafrost is several hundred meters deep. For methane, other gases and hydrates to escape to the surface, it would have to melt at tremendous depths, which is impossible.”
Yuri Izrael, director of the Institute of Climatology and Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605-print.html
Arctic volcanoes are a heck of a lot more likely to produce SO2 and CO2 as well as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon disulfide (CS2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), hydrogen flouride (HF), boron, hydrogen bromine (HBr), mercury (Hg) vapor, and various organic compounds.
Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths Buried under thick ice and frigid water, volcanic explosions are shaking the Arctic Ocean floor at depths previously thought impossible, according to a new study….
Volcanoes of Iceland and the Arctic Ocean and the Kamchatka Peninsula and map of same
“Volcano Watch’ Alaska Volcano Observatory: WEEKLY INFORMATION RELEASE 15-2013, Kamchatkan and Northern Kuriles Volcanic Activity
Up to date Iceland Earthquake Activity
Volcano by Eruption Date (historic until 2011)
Paper:
Interesting that those three papers come from Asia and as we head into a solar minimum they are not the type of news I want to hear.
I can picture little Al Gore sitting on the front porch of his father’s mansion, rubbing his chin, deep in thought, while his father entertains his buddies in his light southern drawl…”Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it”. (Boy, gee whiz, wouldn’t my dad be proud of me….)
It has gone from Global Warming to Climate Change, and now through necessity it is moving toward “Climate Disruption”. Climate disruption may not actually take hold like the previous two terms, but they are trying to get it to stick. I think the appropriate term should be “Climate Morphing”; That way the term can mean “weather”, as well as honestly representing the way that the data is modeled/interpreted, and it (the model) can change depending on the desired outcome.
All those that think CO2 makes a real difference (even 1 – 2 degrees) need to imagine a satellite view of a night football game … Imagine the Rose Bowl football stadium, at capacity, full of 100,000 USC fans dressed all in red & white (15,000 in white and 85,000 in red). Now add to that image 28 UCLA fans all dressed in blue dispersed equally throughout the stadium (can you see all 28 of them from your blimp-view seats). Now add another 12 UCLA fans dressed in blue (can you see the difference, can you hear the difference, can it possibly make a difference). Maybe?
This “Fan Warming” is scary to some because the additional 12 UCLA fans may change the outcome of the game. You see, the blue UCLA fans absorb more heat (and yell way louder) than the other 100,000 fans in the stadium. Those additional 12 UCLA fans are going to make things hot and uncomfortable and they should not be allowed to stay in the stadium. We need to make 12 (no … 14) of them leave so we can continue to have a comfortable game experience just like we had back 1970. … no? … you don’t agree that 30 or 40 UCLA fans dressed in blue will really be able to influence the overall game or even the overall stadium character? Well they will!
They will scream too loud and get drunk and they all do the wave. It will be “Fan Change” … those 40 fans will change the whole character of the game and the stadium. …no again? … you think that 40 dispersed people in 100,000 can’t do a good wave? Well they might! They could do more than that!
They could, all 40 of them, sit together getting drunk and throwing beer. This would be true “Fan Disruption” and we shouldn’t allow it because it would be a true game changer. Especially if we show them on the Jumbo-tron repeatedly. .. no? The game still goes on the same? Well!
Well I know for a fact that the UCLA fans are bad and they shouldn’t be there. I know that the game will just end so badly if we allow them to stay and watch. They will cause some type of catastrophic event that will ruin the game. I just know it. I’ll let you know what it is too, when I can explain it.
Until then, please, please, make them UCLA fans leave.
{In reality the UCLA fans don’t impact any part of the game (or the stadium temperature). In this analogy the biggest factor is the Back Judge. If he starts throwing flags on every play it makes a big difference … if he closes his eyes on every play it also makes a big difference. Can anyone guess who the Back Judge is? (no its not AlGore)}
The post is about Siberia, but an observation about Alaska. In 1974 I was looking at the mud returns to the mud pit on an active well drilling operation drilling at 900′ in open hole. Out came a muddy object larger then others and I grabbed it to see what it was. It was a Doug Fir cone (pseudotsuga menzeseii), complete with mouse tails. Open hole, so it could have washed out of the sidewall at any depth, and did not come from the drill bit as it was perfectly intact, not crushed and shredded. Over the years it disappeared.
So yes, the Arctic has been warmer. Doug Fir has a coastal race and a Rocky Mountain race, and I surmise the latter as the source. Since the Prudhoe operating area is an outwash plain from the Brooks Range, it could have washed out from anywhere from the well location to the crest of the Brooks Range.
We know the actual temperature data is mutilated by the likes of James Hansen. Here is an interesting comparison of the average for the 1971 -2000 segment of data from UK’s CET (oldest data set) todata from the same area for the last few months. For March the average was 6.3C and the 2013 was 3°C, a drop of about 3°C.
This is a real problem for the CAGW Climate Claque so Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo has a new spin. “……”
Guess she missed the paper I cited above that shows the Arctic has cooled 5C since the Holocene Optimum.
” Please address all inquiries about this research to Dr. Dorothy Peteet. ”
Can we be sure she was not short of information?
Her replacement won’t have big shoes to fill.
6,000 years ago eh? I keep hearing about that era, so much so that I wrote a web page about it, see http://wermenh.com/climate/6000.html . Yep, I was so taken with it I put it in the URL.
If one considers what Thomas Gold offered about hydrocarbon sourcing this all gets to be really interesting. Especially with the amounts of CO2 involved.