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.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The SB constant only works with a perfect black body. If applied to humans, it is a theoretical equation. remote spectrometers detect surface radiance of around 85wpms to 100wpsm, and this apt with the biological function of basal metabolic rate. 525wpsm, according to the SB equation calculates that someone would need to consume well over 11,000 calories a day, just to maintain their temperature.
I remember you mentioned in one of your earlier postings the errors that can occur when physics equations are simply applied to any situation, and then physicists need reminding that it cannot take account of the complexities of the subject applied to.
P Wilson says:
And, I assume you can find a cite for this?
In this case, they are quite well-verified and, in fact, entire technologies are based on them.
Joel Shore (08:33:07) :
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN55_01%2FS0007114586000041a.pdf&code=ae6564492f522f6b13924f0d065b8fde
P Wilson: That link doesn’t work for me.
http://www.vias.org/physics/example_2_2_8.html
ok well sorry about that – it was a series of tests undertaken on humans – nearly all produce 75-85 watts for a human as heat radiated. I’ll try again tomorrow. Given that an average human is 0.85 of a square metre, or thereabouts, 75wpsm might be the inferred production.
i know that you and cba put all your faith in the SB equation, although there are quite a few qualifications if SB calibrated guages record a far higher output than non human matter, when thermal equipment produces higher magnitudes for humans.
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN55_01%2FS0007114586000041a.pdf&code=87cb0355566a56129a5cdd4ecca8b84c
It looks like cambridge journals don’t operate as links, so try the hompage and enter:
“Description of a human direct calorimeter”
A different paper from the first – which I can’t locate at the moment…
P Wilson: The problem with this link that you gave http://www.vias.org/physics/example_2_2_8.html is that it discusses the amount of heat that the human body produces…not the amount it radiates. As I have noted, these two numbers are different because energy conservation requires
amount of heat human produces = amount human radiates (and leaves by other heat transfer methods like conduction and convection) – amount human absorbs (from radiating objects and conduction and convection).
And in our everyday world, the amount that we absorb is considerable because the objects around us radiate. Like I said, if we were put in outer space (far from any significant radiating objects), we would not be able to keep ourselves warm just by producing that ~100 W that we are able to get away with producing in everyday life.
By the way, in this thread http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=448894 the person “rracecarr-ga” gives a similar explanation to what I would say. (Not sure that I believe the part about the clothes completely…It would depend on how transparent or opaque such clothes are to IR radiation, which I don’t know a good estimate for.)
try the cambridge journals. They express the actual measured amount of heat radiated by the human body.
Its possible to enter ‘Description of a human direct calorimeter’ on the search page
to be clear: Actual measured heat from the human body varied from 75-100wpm2 at 27C. However, these are not average temperatures. Its likely that radiation absorbed from objects is greater at 27C than at 15C, so at lesser temperatures, if you incur the SB constant, it would be less. However, i’m sceptical. Mainly as air is a poor conductor of heat, and objects that can produce their own heat are generally warmer than objects that depend ona heat source.
“rracecarr-ga”5 ends up writing: 50 to 100 W is probably not a bad guess. ”
Suffice to say… With the SB I get 446wpm2
What “rracecarr-ga” says is:
This is exactly what I am saying: Humans radiate around 500 W, give or take as the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation (with emissivity close to 1) requires, and absorb about 400-450 W, for a net rate of 50-100 W. However, a detector sensitive to radiation will see the ~500W coming off of you. It has no way of seeing the amount that you are absorbing. (It would see any amount that you reflect but that is apparently quite tiny in the IR.)
Yes, I’m aware of what you are saying. Although as he (rracecarr-ga) notes in his final comment, when he sees the need to be realistic, it is quite wrong to apply the constant willy nilly to nature, and by his own admission “50-100 watts is a good guess”
all you need to do is research the empirical papers from Cambridge journals than relying on a theoretical equation to justify some absurd figure. They measure actualy radiation and not some theoretical figure derived from an equation.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/login;jsessionid=692A2868718F8EE1EC09B27D627C23E3.tomcat1
from google: enter:
‘Description of a human direct calorimeter’
and it takes you directly to the pages
so what heat does the human body absorb, at 15C, apart from the ambient atmospheric temperaure? At 27C its found that 100wpsm optimum is emitted. That is not because 450 is absorbed, but what the “human generator” produces, which is relatively warmer than its surrounding objects
Ok, here’s another way of looking at it. The most important heat source is internally generated human metabolism, which doesn’t depend on external factors.
http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~bsapplec/heat.htm
looking at the figures, where 1 met=58w/m2, you obtain 0.7met resting, 2.0-3.4 walking, 1.4-2.6 playing tennis:
These variations aren’t caused by external absorption. They’re caused by human generated activity. The closest to the SB constant is during the course of dancing – up to 8.7met. But for most people a 1.5met would be a good average.
the point of this exercise is to demonstrate that increasing the temperatures around the human body, via sunlight or central heating doesn’t increase the wattage of the human body, but attempts to reach an equilibrium with it. When all such fails then its apt to dance or do heavy work to raise the internal wattage to compensate for the lack of equilibrium from the outside
P Wilson: There is really nothing more I can say. The scientific and engineering community will continue to use the S-B Equation to design infrared detection systems, do remote sensing, and everything else. You will continue not to believe it. “One can lead a horse to water…”