From a Louisiana State University Press Release Oct 1, 2009
Algae and Pollen Grains Provide Evidence of Remarkably Warm Period in Antarctica’s History
Palynomorphs from sediment core give proof to sudden warming in mid-Miocene era
The ANDRILL drilling rig in Antarctica
For Sophie Warny, LSU assistant professor of geology and geophysics and curator at the LSU Museum of Natural Science, years of patience in analyzing Antarctic samples with low fossil recovery finally led to a scientific breakthrough. She and colleagues from around the world now have proof of a sudden, remarkably warm period in Antarctica that occurred about 15.7 million years ago and lasted for a few thousand years.
Last year, as Warny was studying samples sent to her from the latest Antarctic Geologic Drilling Program, or ANDRILL AND-2A, a multinational collaboration between the Antarctic Programs of the United States (funded by the National Science Foundation), New Zealand, Italy and Germany, one sample stood out as a complete anomaly.
“First I thought it was a mistake, that it was a sample from another location, not Antarctica, because of the unusual abundance in microscopic fossil cysts of marine algae called dinoflagellates. But it turned out not to be a mistake, it was just an amazingly rich layer,” said Warny. “I immediately contacted my U.S. colleague, Rosemary Askin, our New Zealand colleagues, Michael Hannah and Ian Raine, and our German colleague, Barbara Mohr, to let them know about this unique sample as each of our countries had received a third of the ANDRILL samples.”
Some colleagues had noted an increase in pollen grains of woody plants in the sample immediately above, but none of the other samples had such a unique abundance in algae, which at first gave Warny some doubts about potential contamination.
“But the two scientists in charge of the drilling, David Harwood of University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and Fabio Florindo of Italy, were equally excited about the discovery,” said Warny. “They had noticed that this thin layer had a unique consistency that had been characterized by their team as a diatomite, which is a layer extremely rich in fossils of another algae called diatoms.”
All research parties involved met at the Antarctic Research Facility at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Together, they sampled the zone of interest in great detail and processed the new samples in various labs. One month later, the unusual abundance in microfossils was confirmed.
Among the 1,107 meters of sediments recovered and analyzed for microfossil content, a two-meter thick layer in the core displayed extremely rich fossil content. This is unusual because the Antarctic ice sheet was formed about 35 million years ago, and the frigid temperatures there impede the presence of woody plants and blooms of dinoflagellate algae.
“We all analyzed the new samples and saw a 2,000 fold increase in two species of fossil dinoflagellate cysts, a five-fold increase in freshwater algae and up to an 80-fold increase in terrestrial pollen,” said Warny. “Together, these shifts in the microfossil assemblages represent a relatively short period of time during which Antarctica became abruptly much warmer.”
These palynomorphs, a term used to described dust-size organic material such as pollen, spores and cysts of dinoflagellates and other algae, provide hard evidence that Antarctica underwent a brief but rapid period of warming about 15 million years before present.
LSU’s Sophie Warny and her New Zealand colleague, Mike Hannah, sampling the ANDRILL cores at the Antarctic Research Facility.
“This event will lead to a better understanding of global connections and climate forcing, in other words, it will provide a better understanding of how external factors imposed fluctuations in Earth’s climate system,” said Harwood. “The Mid-Miocene Climate Optimum has long been recognized in global proxy records outside of the Antarctic region. Direct information from a setting proximal to the dynamic Antarctic ice sheets responsible for driving many of these changes is vital to the correct calibration and interpretation of these proxy records.”
These startling results will offer new insight into Antarctica’s climatic past – insights that could potentially help climate scientists better understand the current climate change scenario.
“In the case of these results, the microfossils provide us with quantitative data of what the environment was actually like in Antarctica at the time, showing how this continent reacted when climatic conditions were warmer than they are today,” said Warny.
According to the researchers, these fossils show that land temperatures reached a January average of 10 degrees Celsius – the equivalent of approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit – and that estimated sea surface temperatures ranged between zero and 11.5 degrees Celsius. The presence of freshwater algae in the sediments suggests to researchers that an increase in meltwater and perhaps also in rainfall produced ponds and lakes adjacent to the Ross Sea during this warm period, which would obviously have resulted in some reduction in sea ice.
These findings most likely reflect a poleward shift of the jet stream in the Southern Hemisphere, which would have pushed warmer water toward the pole and allowed a few dinoflagellate species to flourish under such ice-free conditions. Researchers believe that shrub-like woody plants might also have been able to proliferate during an abrupt and brief warmer time interval.
“An understanding of this event, in the context of timing and magnitude of the change, has important implications for how the climate system operates and what the potential future response in a warmer global climate might be,” said Harwood. “A clear understanding of what has happened in the past, and the integration of these data into ice sheet and climate models, are important steps in advancing the ability of these computer models to reproduce past conditions, and with improved models be able to better predict future climate responses.”
While the results are certainly impressive, the work isn’t yet complete.
“The SMS Project Science Team is currently looking at the stratigraphic sequence and timing of climate events evident throughout the ANDRILL AND-2A drillcore, including those that enclose this event,” said Florindo. “A broader understanding of ice sheet behavior under warmer-than-present conditions will emerge.”
Engineer. I had a taste of fluid dynamics in undergraduate physics. I also “worked” in a weather station more than 30 years ago and have kept an interest in weather since.
I do genuinely admire those complex engineered models that include the kitchen sink (I would not leave out human-induced water cycle changes – ok, I would at least add irrigation, stream diversion, water pollution that affects evaporation, etc).
P Wilson says:
How do you get that estimate of the human temperature signal? Humans are at a temperature of about 37 C, so that should give ~524 W/m^2. And, I have already linked to something that explains how these devices work http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/nightvision.htm and they don’t say anything about Steffan-Boltzmann not applying. What they say is “Hotter objects, such as warm bodies, emit more of this light than cooler objects like trees or buildings. “
Gross net body temperature is around 500wpms, but net its around 150 – about as much energy given off as a lightbulb. That is, the amount that it radiates
Thats a commercial link. Actually, i’m focussing on thermal imaging technolgy that converts Infrared heat into light
P Wilson says:
I’ve explained to you why this isn’t the case but “the proof is in the pudding” as they say and, as I noted in another thread, I just discovered that there are actually several peer-reviewed papers that have directly measured the increase the greenhouse effect in two ways: (1) By using satellite data to look at the decrease in emitted radiation from the Earth over time at those frequencies where the various gases, including CO2, have absorption peaks. (2) By looking at the increase in downward IR radiation at the earth’s surface (in one paper, again spectrally resolved). Here is a webpage providing links to these papers: http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
No…The net amount is not what matters as far as detecting the emission is concerned. Consider a lightbulb…After you turn it on, it will heat up but after a while it will reach equilibrium where the amount of radiation it is emitting is equal to the amount that it receives. (Actually, that equilibrium is established pretty quickly for the filament, but more slowly for the glass part of the bulb.) At that point, the amount of energy that it is emitting equals the amount it is receiving, so the net energy flow is zero, and yet you don’t even need any detector other than your eyes to know that you can still detect the emitting radiation! (In a real room, some of the energy flows are due to convection and conduction but if you want it to be exchanging heat with the rest of the room only by radiation, you can imagine this whole process being carried out in a vacuum chamber.
You need correcting in both cases, since you’ver explained nothing anyway.
I’ve mentioned on another thread how c02 peaks disappear in the lower troposphere and become shoulders at 5% their thermal efficiency at upper troposphere. Oxygen and nitrogen molecules absorb more heat than c02 at this level. The paper you cite talk of spectra but not of temperature.
Your link comes from a pro AGW website who seem to look for the swallows to prove the summer.
The radiation of a human body is 100watts. The generation is between 500-800 watts. Gross – net is 100W
BMR estimation formulas
Several prediction equations exist. Historically most notable was Harris-Benedict equation, which was created in 1919.
The original equations from Harris and Benedict are:
for men,
for women,
where P is total heat production at complete rest, m is the weight, h is the stature (height), and a is the age, and with the difference in BMR for men and women being mainly due to differences in body weight. [2] For example, a 55 year old woman weighing 130 lb (59 kg) and 5 feet 6 inches (168 cm) tall would have a BMR of 1272 kcal per day or 53 kcal/h (61.3 watts).
Body temperature and heat emitted are not the same thing
Incidentally, The human basal metabolic rate runs 50-75 watts
NB “Infrared sensors convert an infrared radiation from the surface of a subject into an electric signal and displays the image of the subject based on the electric signal for measuring a temperature distribution, etc. of the surface of the subject. The infrared sensors are required to have excellent temperature resolution so as to be able to distinguish small temperature differences and also to have a wide dynamic range so as to cover a wide range of temperatures that can be measured.”
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6154252/description.html
P Wilson:
Yes…It shows how the radiative forcing due to the greenhouse gases changes by showing how the outgoing spectrum of radiation changes. To determine the resulting temperature response requires the complete understanding of all the feedbacks, which is a challenging problem and for which there is still a considerable degree of uncertainty. One issue at a time! At this point, I would just be happy to get you to accept the basic radiative physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. That has been such a chore that frankly I am going to let you believe pretty much anything that you want in terms of the final climate sensitivity…I don’t have an infinite amount of time or patience.
Does it matter where it comes from? It leads to peer-reviewed papers in the literature.
That is irrelevant. I don’t disagree that the net emission is less than the gross emission. And, the BMR will give an indication of the net emission.
However, an infrared sensor pointed at a human body will be sensitive to the gross emission since it doesn’t see the infrared that is being absorbed, only that which is being emitted (or reflected from some other source of infrared radiation impinging on the person…but I think that contribution is pretty small).
[By the way, my example about the lightbulb was too simplistic because really the filament is converting electrical energy to radiation, so for the filament, the equilibration point will be when the heat emitted minus that absorbed equals to electrical energy going into it and hence there is a net flow of heat coming from it. However, for the glass bulb surrounding the filament, you will have heat emitted = heat absorbed and it would still be true that you could detect the gross emitted radiation of the glass bulb, although you would need to use something other than your eyes because it would be in the infrared and the detector would have to be aimed so that it didn’t “see” the filament itself. So, it is not quite as clean an example that I wanted it to be, although the basic notions are correct. Perhaps someone else can come up with a better one.]
P Wilson: And your point in quoting from that patent is what exactly? What formula do you think that the detector uses to compute the amount of emission from the object? [Answer: Stefan-Boltzmann Equation!]
In fact, IR imaging devices measure the radiant energy emitted from a surface. They do not detect its internal temperature
Yes I think it matters where it comes from. You can say “The troposhere is -45C. Last year it was -45C. This is runaway global warming caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Using such logic is Aristototelian, or deductive however, and can be used to prove anything.
You could write a paper providing a possible physical link between Television use and global temperature, and maintain with a causal formula that a million extra TV’s will cause the temperature to increase by 0.05C, and given that TV’s in the world have increase over the last 40 years in line with relative affluence and population increase, the 0.6% increase in the global mean temperature is caused by the corresponding increase in TV signals sent over the air, and demonstrate with models how this is the case.
Incidentally, Aristotle held that an object weighing 10 times another object would reach the groud 10 times more quickly than another object weighing 10 times less. To prove him wrong, Galileo who went to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa and dropped two weights, at 10 times the weight difference apart, which landed simultaneously, and yet the professors of Pisa university, even after thousands of years, refused to accept it was a valid experiment, since Aristotle couild not be in the wrong. Of course they claimed that their eyes were deceiving them.
the same sort of logic regading logical deduction has been wielded in the entire AGW debate which forms theh conclusions on the basis of assumptions that haven’t been tested
oh: the point in quoting was to make it quite clear that IR equipment detects “radiation emitted from”. Any other IR thermal imaging company or science paper on the subject will tell the same thing
They do not detect its gross temperature
Joel Shore (14:59:06) :
” Wilson: And your point in quoting from that patent is what exactly? What formula do you think that the detector uses to compute the amount of emission from the object? [Answer: Stefan-Boltzmann Equation!]”
reply:
equally, the S-B constant says that the earth is emitting 390wpsm at 59F, or 15C.
P Wilson:
Very good. And, how do you think that such a device can then read out a temperature (for the surface, not the internal part) on the basis of its measure of this radiant energy? Answer: Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation.
…which is in fact correct.
so in fact the earth is emitting more radiation than a human being in wpsm according to this theory. The wavelength thermal peak for us (humans) is 9.3 microns, which corresponds to 85wpsm at 15C
390wpsm indicates that earth surface emits three times more than a human at 15C
at 15C on a warm night, then thermal imaging equipment detects humans but not mortar, asphalt or solid matter – unless its radiating heat detectable in the 6-12 micron range – such as heated houses.
Matter at normal temperatures simply doesn’t radiate this much heat. This constant means that water would freeze at 315wpsm – which is 3 times greater the thermal heat of a human!
the thermal image of a 100W light bulb is on par with that of a human – however – the consraining factor is that a human emits a fraction of what we actually generate and receive, suh is the order of biology.
Another thing -cooling takes place at the tropics mainly – where the window is 8-9 microns, well out of the c02 window. The only environment open to c02 spectral peaks is Arctic, antarctica, or else subzero environments.
there’s no way such magnitudes could cause global warming
P Wilson:
No, a human emits ~525 W/m^2. Humans are generally warmer than the earth’s surface. Therefore they emit more. Is that so hard to understand? (And, by looking only at certain wavelengths, e.g., at the peak wavelength for emission at ~37 C or even a bit to the shorter wavelength side of it, one can even get a larger factor difference in emission.)
As we have discussed before, what ends up being most important is the emission in the upper troposphere where the average temperature is ~255 K.
Joel, you’re so full of grad opinions of facts than facts themselves comments that I won’t be responding anymore. Its like trying to argue the sun is hotter than the moon to someone who insists on the opposite. Try some of these calculations yourself with a thermal imaging device in an experiment and do the conversions.
A human emits around 100wpsm -its an agreed FACT, which is considerably warmer than the earth radiant emission psm
Go and experiment
Joel Shore (08:02:37
“As we have discussed before, what ends up being most important is the emission in the upper troposphere where the average temperature is ~255 K.”
How did you arrive at that figure? 255K is equaivalent to 18°C.
P Wilson:
Yes, indeed it is. You disagree with essentially every qualified scientist on the planet and yet you are convinced that you are correct. What can one do?
Actually, it is equivalent to -18°C. It is arrived at by balancing the energy received by the Earth system from the sun to that emitted back out into space using the accepted equations that are well-confirmed by actual empirical measurements and the entire field of remote sensing.
average temperatures at the upper troposphere are measured from -75 to -45, which averages to -60, or -40 at a generous portion
525wpsm is quite powerful. At ambient temperatures , 15C lets take, in a room, a typical human being would be able to raise the temperature by 5C. Maybe You’re confusing between body temperature and base metabolic rate: the body isn’t efficient at using energy – perhaps 10%. so how do you arrive at 525wpsm?
be careful here.. The SB constant says that ice forms at 235wpsm – which is the energy emitted by three lightbulbs
From the Steffan-Boltzmann Equation that everybody but you seem to think applies. With emissivity = 1, which it is in the infrared to a good approximation.
Note, however, that unless you are setting out in the depths of space, you are also receiving radiation from various sources (and there is also conduction and convection to consider)…So, the net amount of heat you are losing is a different number. However, an infrared detector will be sensitive to the infrared energy that is leaving your body. It cannot detect the radiation that is being absorbed by your body from other sources. (It can detect radiation reflected by your body but I don’t think this is a big player at infrared frequencies.)
Actually, I get that an object at 0 C emits about 315 W/m^2. Note that a m^2 is a pretty big area. This is only 0.03 W per square cm or 0.2 W per square inch. Furthermore, you are trying to use your intuition, which is rather difficult given that we are basically surrounded by objects that are radiating according to their temperature, which usually tend to be fairly close in temperature. It is fine to contemplate why your intuition might be wrong; it is ridiculous to conclude that your intuition is right and basic, extremely-well-tested principles of science are wrong.