Releases may have speeded end of last ice age — and could act again![[]](https://i0.wp.com/www.eurekalert.org/images/clear.gif?resize=8%2C1){kind=spacer}
![[]](https://i0.wp.com/www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/rel/12776_rel.jpg?resize=200%2C200&quality=83)
![[]](https://i0.wp.com/www.eurekalert.org/images/eutube/icon_image_tiny.gif?w=1110){kind=icon}
IMAGE: This pictures shows the locations of cores showing Antarctic upwelling.
Natural releases of carbon dioxide from the Southern Ocean due to shifting wind patterns could have amplified global warming at the end of the last ice age–and could be repeated as manmade warming proceeds, a new paper in the journal Science suggests.
Many scientists think that the end of the last ice age was triggered by a change in Earth’s orbit that caused the northern part of the planet to warm. This partial climate shift was accompanied by rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2, ice core records show, which could have intensified the warming around the globe. A team of scientists at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory now offers one explanation for the mysterious rise in CO2: the orbital shift triggered a southward displacement in westerly winds, which caused heavy mixing in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, pumping dissolved carbon dioxide from the water into the air.
“The faster the ocean turns over, the more deep water rises to the surface to release CO2,” said lead author Robert Anderson, a geochemist at Lamont-Doherty. “It’s this rate of overturning that regulates CO2 in the atmosphere.” In the last 40 years, the winds have shifted south much as they did 17,000 years ago, said Anderson. If they end up venting more CO2 into the air, manmade warming underway now could be intensified.
Scientists have been studying the oceans for more than 25 years to understand their influence on CO2 levels and the glacial cycles that have periodically heated and chilled the planet for more than 600,000 years. Ice cores show that the ends of other ice ages also were marked by rises in CO2.
Two years ago, J.R. Toggweiler, a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), proposed that westerly winds in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica may have undergone a major shift at the end of the last ice age. This shift would have raised more CO2-rich deep water to the surface, and thus amplified warming already taking place due to the earth’s new orbital position. Anderson and his colleagues are the first to test that theory by studying sediments from the bottom of the Southern Ocean to measure the rate of overturning.
The scientists say that changes in the westerlies may have been triggered by two competing events in the northern hemisphere about 17,000 years ago. The earth’s orbit shifted, causing more sunlight to fall in the north, partially melting the ice sheets that then covered parts of the United States, Canada and Europe. Paradoxically, the melting may also have spurred sea-ice formation in the North Atlantic Ocean, creating a cooling effect there. Both events would have caused the westerly winds to shift south, toward the Southern Ocean. The winds simultaneously warmed Antarctica and stirred the waters around it. The resulting upwelling of CO2 would have caused the entire globe to heat.
Anderson and his colleagues measured the rate of upwelling by analyzing sediment cores from the Southern Ocean. When deep water is vented, it brings not only CO2 to the surface but nutrients. Phytoplankton consume the extra nutrients and multiply.
In the cores, Anderson and his colleagues say spikes in plankton growth between roughly 17,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago indicate added upwelling. By comparing those spikes with ice core records, the scientists realized the added upwelling coincided with hotter temperatures in Antarctica as well as rising CO2 levels.
In the same issue of Science, Toggweiler writes a column commenting on the work. “Now I think this really starts to lock up how the CO2 changed globally,” he said in an interview. “Here’s a mechanism that can explain the warming of Antarctica and the rise in CO2. It’s being forced by the north, via this change in the winds.”
At least one model supports the evidence. Richard Matear, a researcher at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, describes a scenario in which winds shift south and produce an increase in CO2 venting in the Southern Ocean. Plants, which incorporate CO2 during photosynthesis, are unable to absorb all the added nutrients, causing atmospheric CO2 to rise.
Some other climate models disagree. In those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the westerly winds do not simply shift north-south. “It’s more complicated than this,” said Axel Timmermann, a climate modeler at the University of Hawaii. Even if the winds did shift south, Timmermann argues, upwelling in the Southern Ocean would not have raised CO2 levels in the air. Instead, he says, the intensification of the westerlies would have increased upwelling and plant growth in the Southeastern Pacific, and this would have absorbed enough atmospheric CO2 to compensate for the added upwelling in the Southern Ocean.
“Differences among model results illustrate a critical need for further research,” said Anderson. These, include “measurements that document the ongoing physical and biogeochemical changes in the Southern Ocean, and improvements in the models used to simulate these processes and project their impact on atmospheric CO2 levels over the next century.”
Anderson says that if his theory is correct, the impact of upwelling “will be dwarfed by the accelerating rate at which humans are burning fossil fuels.” But, he said, “It could well be large enough to offset some of the mitigation strategies that are being proposed to counteract rising CO2, so it should not be neglected.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did I miss something here?
All I get out of this is digging for the timbers to prop op pet C02 forcing theories. It’s looking more like Epicycles these days. Very fragile, nothing direct, always looking for a hot spot for a quick “aha” smoking gun.
Just stick with what “may have been found”. A change in Earth’s orbit started the place warming, and it warmed. C02 rose AFTER the warming started and provided the food for reforestation. Not much grows under ice sheets. And someday, when the orbit shifts again, the place will cool off, the ice sheets will reform, and the food for plant life will dwindle, and the animal life with it, including mankind if we haven’t gone off the deep end.
In the meantime, we are in an interglacial, plant life is abundandant, and when the Sun decides to go out to lunch, it lets us know about it.
How’s that blank Magnetogram working for you these days?
It just seems to me that there has been an increase in the scrambling for something, anything, that will lead to support for human emissions of CO2 causing catastrophic overheating of the planet. These so-called pieces of “evidence” are weakening. It is becoming ever more evident to me that nobody has a stinking clue as to how to get human missions of CO2 to cause any warming at all. That is why we have 10,000 different hypothesis of 10,000 different mechanisms to try to produce one outcome, but all of them fail! Just more grasping at straws…
Paul S,
Prof. Dyson appears to be simply comparing what computer models are better at doing. They are helpful in fluid dynamics; not so much in climate dynamics. In fact, not a single one of the twenty-odd supercomputer climate models currently in existence predicted the rapid decline in global temperature since 2007.
I think they are blowing C02 up tailpipes.
Have some ice with your mid-March Flatlined Flux brand coffee.
Sprinkle Sunspecks brand cinnamon on your cold toast.
Hey buddy, can you spare some C02 for our greenhouse?
“”” Mike Ramsey (14:31:17) :
For the counter argument that any increase in CO2 is offset by changes in the earths precipitation systems which then leads to no net effect on global temperature, see:
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-planetary-atmospheres-by-miskolczi-a-review/ “””
Well the first mistake in this paper is in assuming that the earth’s surface and atmosphere are in any way in equilibrium.
And we have real actual experimental verification for that. See Jan 2001 Geophysical Research Letters, a paper by I believe John christy et al, reporting on about 20 years of oceanic buoy studies of simultaneous near surface (-1 m) water temperatures, and near surface (+3m) air temperatures over some oceanic locations.
Prior to this study there generally was a bleief that surface and atmosphere were in equilibrium, so oceanic water temperature measurements were accepted as a proxy for oceanic lower tropospheric air temperatures.
The studies showed they aren’t in equilibrium; they aren’t the same temperature, the lower tropospheric warming (at those sites) over that 20 years was only about 60% of the oceanic water temperature warming (at those sites); but more importantly the two data sets were not even correlated; so the real oceanic lower troposphere temperatures are not recoverable form the scads of oceanic water temperature that up till that time (around 1980) had been accepted as a proxy for lower troposphere air temperatures.
Why would you expect them to be correlated, since oceanic currents are maybe a few knots, while air currents can be tens to hundreds of knots. Air over Hawaii today, may be over Mexico in a couple of days, but the water surely won’t.
So nyet ! the earth surface and the lower troposphere are never in equilibrium; specially with that big orange blowtorch going around every 24 hours or so.
So Kirchoff’s law doesn’t have a whole lot to do with anything climatical; and in particular it doesn’t do any transmutation of solar spectrum photons into long wave infra red photons.
Most solar energy arriving at earth goes right into the deep oceans; well they are 73% of the total earth surface area and a darn side more than 73% of the tropical surface area where the highest solar irradiance occurs; so it is pretty safe to say that the water to land division of the solar energy pie, is about 3:1 which is a very nice number since it agrees with the obligatory 3:1 fudge factor that accompanies all climate science model preditions of future outcomes. A good bit of the land area solar energy pie also happens to end up in water in soils and the like, so the water to rocks division is even bigger than 3:1
The oceanic part is subject to conduction in all directions; including downwards towards the ocean depths; BUT ! salt water of more than 2.47% salinity, has no maximum density before it freezes, and most oceanic water is 3.5% salinity, so it has a definite positive coefficient of thermal expansion.
That means that the oceanic waters heated by solar energy, expand, and travel upward by ordinary convection. Convection always trumps conduction in energy transport at lower temperatures; so that oceanic solar energy is inexorably brought back to the surface where it eventually gets wrm enough to evaporate a lot of water, and also radiate an almost black body spectrum, as well as heat the atmosphere by conduction. Froma there atmospheric convection also transports that energy into the upper atmosphere, along with the IR radiation from the water surface (and even hotter tropical desert land surfaces).
There is nothing that is a bit equilibrius in this picture; it is a seething mass of dynamic energy exchanges.
So don’t invest your life savings in promoting that German paper.
George; Hey ! It’s The water !!
Well, Squidly, what they need are volunteers. They need a million monkeys and a million typewriters working a million years to write AGW XP Professional. Ask Bill Gates how that works.
Smokey
I agree on all accounts. I just wanted to point out that climate scientists and models, whilst they appear to understand fluid dynamics well, wouldn’t have the full understanding of the oceans workings.
In fact, not a single one of the twenty-odd supercomputer climate models currently in existence predicted the rapid decline in global temperature since 2007.
They should stop trying to force C02 into the supercomputers. It’s obviously overheating them. You’re supposed to use liquid nitrogen, don’tca know.
Bob, you are interjecting that this paper is somehow showing “the warming powers of CO2”, which it does not. The fact is, it contradicts many other research papers and empirical evidence that clearly show how CO2 increases in the past have lagged temperature rises by 800-1000 years. Further, several in-depth, peer-reviewed studies clearly show that CO2 can only have a very small overall warming effect and may instead create a negative feedback and lead to cooling in the long run. I suggest you go back and do a little more studying. Try reading some of the other threads here and follow links posted by others to get started.
Paul S,
Thanks for that response. It parallels what Freeman Dyson says further down in that interesting article:
Dyson refers to himself as a heretic — his term for a skeptic. That’s why the NY Times is attacking him. They can not refute his science, so they do their typical ad hominem attack, using a scribbler who has learned nothing accurate about climate science. That’s all they have, while Dyson has real street cred in the science community.
A long lost friend in Sudbury Ont Canada commented to me recently that in the last few years there are rarely calm wind days.
Unlike in years past, the wind seems to blow constantly. He spends a lot of time “back in the bush” so he notices these things.
If this is true, a series of graphs of average wind velocity for various places over the last 30 plus years might be revealing.
Here in Cleveland OH we do seem to get more windy days and wind storms than I recall from previous decades, except on summer days when I might go sailing.
It might have some bearing on the AGW debate. BTW I thing AGW is rubbish.
Cheers,
TJP
Cleveland OH
Re: Steve Moore (16:47:29) :
Some of them do, on the same “team” also I think.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2005030218443
Squidly, ” It is becoming ever more evident to me that nobody has a stinking clue as to how to get human missions of CO2 to cause any warming at all.” And George E. Smith, “There is nothing that is a bit equilibrius in [the earth’s surface and atmosphere]; it is a seething mass of dynamic energy exchanges.” The trolls don’t phase you in the least. For those who at present have been stuffed up by the pseudo-science of AGW/Climate Change/Evil CO2, a few blasts from the knowledgeable here should clear the sinuses.
After reading that the New York Climate Conference received all of five minutes of mass media attention by Glen Beck, I felt deeply angered. But a glass of wine and a few minutes reading up this thread gave me renewed hope that both the language and the thinking is getting clearer and clearer. And at least “global warming” is at the bottom of Americans’ list of concerns. Perhaps there is time — and perhaps Americans will revolte if there is a serious attempt at cap-and-trade. I am raising my glass to a future with a wider reach for the real science of climate change. Thanks to Anthony and WUWT contributors all.
While this theory is nothing more than conjecture,
There is this fascinating animation of clouds (and winds) over 1 year, every hour produced by NCAR.
Watch the winds circulate around Antarctica (no wonder sailing ships had such a hard time getting around Cape Horn). Strong enough wind patterns to actually produce the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Notice the winds follow the path of the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio extension current off Japan. Watch equatorial heat being transported rapidly to the poles by heat-differential-generated winds. It certainly gives you a different view of the climate.
https://www.ucar.edu/publications/nsf_review/animations/ccm3.512×256.mpg
Stephen Wilde, I was looking for data on jetstream changes and any accompanying analysis.
The reason I ask, is ten or fifteen years ago climate change clearly meant the shifting of the Earth’s climatic zones, polewards in the case of a warming climate.
This is a very easy thing to measure, eg the track of low pressure systems, and we have good data going back at least 200 years.
This meaning (the only real meaning IMO) has been quietly forgotten as the data shows this poleward shift simply isn’t happening.
One of many dogs in climate science that mysteriously don’t bark.
primitive
A defrost control system for a self-defrosting refrigerator is configured to monitor a compressor load, determine whether at least a first defrost cycle is required based on the compressor load, execute at least one defrost cycle when required; and regulate the defrost cycle to conserve energy. A controller is operatively coupled to a compressor, a defrost heater, and a refrigeration compartment temperature sensor. The controller makes defrost decisions based on temperature conditions in the refrigeration compartment in light of other events, such as refrigerator door openings, completed defrost cycles, and power up events. Defrost cycles are automatically adjusted as operating conditions change, thereby avoiding unnecessary energy consumption that would otherwise occur in a fixed defrost cycle.
US Patent 6606870 – Deterministic refrigerator defrost method and apparatus
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6606870.html
Basic thermodynamics:
sorry
Dear pyromancer76 (18:08:22) :,
I too share your optimism. It is my sincere hope that more sites, like this one, begin to, at the very least, inspire further thought and consideration by the general masses. Perhaps people will finally see that if we can spend trillions of dollars on a non-existent problem, then perhaps we can at least spend a few billion addressing severe problems that do exist. I don’t know about you, but in my town (Nashville, TN) there are a whole lot more people living down by the river than there used to be. Doesn’t this kind of thing bother anyone? It sure doesn’t seem to, not when talking about things like CO2 taxation and Cap’N Trade (reminds me of Cap’N Crunch). Here, I will make a very simple deal with all of the AGWer’s and pro Cap’N Trade people out there. When I can drive to work and not see garbage spewing out of the ditches beside the road, then I will have a little more faith in our ability to actually do something “positive” towards our environment, and I will sign on to your Cap’N Trade. Until then, keep your AGW hypothesis to yourself and stay out of my life! For these reasons I will continue to frequent sites like WUWT, and continue to further my own education on what IS real, and raise my voice in protest against that which aims to distort our perceptions towards what is NOT real. My daughter is going to have to put up with a world in the future that frankly scares the hell out of me. I fear for he, and not from our world getting warming, but rather from this incessant perpetration of this preposterous idea that emissions of CO2 from humans is going to overheat our world. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to learn and educate others on all of these things that are science, so that they may see clearly and objectively what reality really is. The AGW hypothesis war will only be won by real sciences when the masses are led through the fog and are able to see and understand those sciences for themselves.
Bill Illis,
That’s a mesmerizing graphic! Every time I see it I notice something new.
…meanwhile, windmills and carbon credits do nothing to reduce CO2:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html
Smokey
I had picked up the Kolbert quote from a commenter at RealClimate
By the way she is from NEW YORKER Magazine, not the NY Times.
I see you got her idiotic “economy going thru the roof” point too.
Here is Anne’s comment on RC, followed by a response from Gavin, defending that stupid AGW defending journalist:
So how should a blogger handle statements by the press, which are stupid.
I just ran across a Yale Environment 360 interview with Elizabeth Kolbert, a climate change reporter with the New Yorker, where she says:
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2130
“I mean, Freeman Dyson has done a tremendous amount of damage saying, “I don’t believe models. We can’t model this.” Well, we actually can model
it very accurately, it turns out. And we’re talking about very fundamental science. It’s not a very complicated science.”
Should we ignore such imbecilic statements of how simple the science is? Is that the message we want to give the public? Someone should tell this woman to look at the scientific blogs out there, so that she realizes how complex it is to model the climate.
[Response: Kolbert has done a tremendous job bringing this to the public and understands the issues extremely well. Her “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” is probably the best pop. sci. intro to the issue out there. Her statement is not ‘imbecilic’ – the basic science is very simple and something that the public doesn’t grasp well. And yes, she understands how hard it is to model the details – read chapter 5 of her book. You have picked the absolutely worst target here. – gavin]
Real climate will defend any idiot pushing that AGW alarmism.
OT slightly, but global cooling is gaining more mainstream press: (and both of these mention one Anthony Watts!)
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090312/OPINION03/903120335/1014/OPINION
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272625298.shtml
Tax the wind!!!
Where’s the quantification of how much of the past 40 years’ CO2 was due to this mechanism?
Thanx, Hal, for the correction.
I was intrigued by the scribbler’s statement:
Which begs the question: then why don’t climate models accurately model the climate, if it’s so easy to do?
Terry Phillips (17:49:16) :
One of my favorite graphs is from the Blue Hill Observatory showing the
30 year decline in average wind speed:
http://bluehill.org/annwind.gif
I don’t believe anyone has a good reason for it. There has also been a
decline in the number of flooding storms along the Massachusetts
coast.