
There’s a new article at Nature News where they report on an amazing new paleoclimatology breakthrough with temperature reconstructions using clamshells. The Nature article reports on a new paper in PNAS from William Patterson at the University of Saskachewan. Here’s a short excerpt:
The study used 26 shells obtained from sediment cores taken from an Icelandic bay. Because clams typically live from two to nine years, isotope ratios in each of these shells provided a two-to-nine-year window onto the environmental conditions in which they lived.
Patterson’s team used a robotic sampling device to shave thin slices from each layer of the shells’ growth bands. These were then fed into a mass spectrometer, which measured the isotopes in each layer. From those, the scientists could calculate the conditions under which each layer formed.
Unlike counting tree rings which have varying widths due to all sorts of external influences such as rainfall, sunlight, temperatures, available nutrients, and available CO2, this method looks at the levels of different oxygen isotopes in their shells that vary with the temperature of the water in which they live. One simple linear relationship.
The data resolution from isotope counts is incredible.
“What we’re getting to here is palaeoweather,” Patterson says. “We can reconstruct temperatures on a sub-weekly resolution, using these techniques. For larger clams we could do daily.”
The reconstruction is shown below. We see familiar features the little ice age, the medieval warm period and the downturn which led to the extinction of Norse settlements on Greenland.
And the feature of this reconstruction to surely stick in the craw of many who think we are living in unprecedented times of warmth is the “Roman Warm Period”. Have a look:

From Nature: Shellfish could supplant tree-ring climate data
Temperature records gleaned from clamshells reveal accuracy of Norse sagas.
Richard A. Lovett
Oxygen isotopes in clamshells may provide the most detailed record yet of global climate change, according to a team of scientists who studied a haul of ancient Icelandic molluscs.
Most measures of palaeoclimate provide data on only average annual temperatures, says William Patterson, an isotope chemist at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and lead author of the study1. But molluscs grow continually, and the levels of different oxygen isotopes in their shells vary with the temperature of the water in which they live. The colder the water, the higher the proportion of the heavy oxygen isotope, oxygen-18.
The study used 26 shells obtained from sediment cores taken from an Icelandic bay. Because clams typically live from two to nine years, isotope ratios in each of these shells provided a two-to-nine-year window onto the environmental conditions in which they lived.
Patterson’s team used a robotic sampling device to shave thin slices from each layer of the shells’ growth bands. These were then fed into a mass spectrometer, which measured the isotopes in each layer. From those, the scientists could calculate the conditions under which each layer formed.
“What we’re getting to here is palaeoweather,” Patterson says. “We can reconstruct temperatures on a sub-weekly resolution, using these techniques. For larger clams we could do daily.”
It’s an important step in palaeoclimatic studies, he says, because it allows scientists to determine not only changes in average annual temperatures, but also how these changes affected individual summers and winters.
“We often make the mistake of saying that mean annual temperature is higher or lower at some period of time,” Patterson says. “But that is relatively meaningless in terms of the changes in seasonality.”
For example, in early Norse Iceland — part of the 2,000-year era spanned by the study — farmers were dependent on dairy farming and agriculture. “For a dairy culture, summer is by far the most important,” he says. “A one-degree decrease in summer temperatures in Iceland results in a 15% decrease in agricultural yield. If that happens two years in a row, your family’s wiped out.”
Technically, the molluscs record water temperatures, not air temperatures. But the two are closely linked — specially close to the shore, where most people lived. “So, when the water temperatures are up, air temperatures are up. When water temperatures are down, air temperatures are down,” Patterson says.
Read the complete article at Nature News
Leif Svalgaard (18:59:21)
Old hat? Done before? Foraminifera are not a type of clam. I dont think they are claiming to have invented O16-O28 aging.
YES…there was a MWP
YES…there was a LIA
NO….Methane is not building up in the atmosphere. Read here World climate Report
Note the spikes during El Nino years.
Re: the above post. I thought I could help Mann out by providing him with a good PR song for promoting his tree.
Fried clams, steamed clams, clams in Portugee stew – there’s as many ways to eat a clam as there are clams.
So, does this prove that clams got legs?
phlogiston (19:22:16) :
Old hat? Done before? Foraminifera are not a type of clam.
So what? this works with any kind of shell with oxygen in it.
E.g. 2009 Portland GSA Annual Meeting (18-21 October 2009)
USING MOLLUSK SHELL SHUTDOWN TEMPERATURE TO CONSTRAIN OXYGEN ISOTOPES OF WATER
GILLIKIN, David P., et al.
“It is well known that mollusk shell oxygen isotopes (δ18O) are a function of both water temperature and δ18O value of water in which they grew.”
or http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ceam/GoodwinPalaios.pdf
[from 2003]
Have to agree with Henry here.
This paragraph is full of fail:
Technically, the molluscs record water temperatures, not air temperatures. But the two are closely linked — specially close to the shore, where most people lived. “So, when the water temperatures are up, air temperatures are up. When water temperatures are down, air temperatures are down,” Patterson says.
First off, it would be “especially”, not “specially”. And secondly, we’ve seen that melting of ice around Greenland recently has been demonstrated to be due to warmer currents moving north, not warmer air temps. It would take a very long time and a complete lack of currents and wind for local water and air temps to locally homogenize.
Just keep that shaver thing away from the Rocky Mountain Oysters.
@davidmhoffer (19:15:44) :
It wasn’t clams mate, but we won’t go into that here…
http://s396.photobucket.com/albums/pp47/clamsgotlegs/
Moderator: Tips and Notes doesn’t seem to be working. My browser freezes when I click the link. I wanted to pass on the information that the crisis in climate science made it onto the PBS Newshour tonight with an entire segment titled, “Criticism of Climate Science Heats Up.” The segment was apparently provoked by the announcement of the “independent” IPCC investigation, and features Stephen Schneider, Pat Michaels, and Judith Curry. It has some flaws, to be sure, but all-in-all quite balanced I thought. Judge for yourself (The link starts with a short commercial):
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/jan-june10/climate_03-10.html
REPLY: Whatever the problem is, it is with your computer setup/browser.
This appears to be a promising method. I think this article is just scratching the surface though – no pun intended.
Pamela Gray
Thank you for the posts. You make the wait between syndicated episodes of “Family Guy” much more bearable.
I love it when something like this paper turns up… after I was criticised in private.
Here is evidence the LIA did apply to Alaska too. There will be much more there for finding if you look in the data. What this might do is give a clue on where to look.
Compare with the graph in the full clam paper.
http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/
Please don’t tell Pachauri about shaving climate clams, he’ll start a sequel to “Return to Almora”!!
Synopsis: Slices from layers of shell growth bands fed into a mass spectrometer = palaeoweather.
Hmmm… seems as if the grouping of shell growth bands into “layers” might be arbitrary.
Anyway, the spectrometry of slices of shell growth bands = spectrometry of slices of shell growth bands. I am certain that “palaeoweather” is linearly independent of the spectrometry of slices of shell growth bands.
What a crock of excrement.
phlogiston (19:22:16) :
Old hat? Done before? Foraminifera are not a type of clam.
The clams were done before the Foraminifera, Epstein [1951], on suggestion from Urey [discoverer of Heavy Water] back in 1947:
http://geology.rutgers.edu/~jdwright/JDWWeb/2000/Wright2000.pdf
Emiliani did it on a large scale and takes credit for the systematic exploitation of the idea.
R. de Haan (18:03:27) :
“If he can find the funding, that is exactly what Patterson would like to establish next. “We have what may be the world’s oldest clam,” he says, “that might give a continuous record going back 400 years.””
So, we have a “demonstration” that covers the period up to 1650 and if Patterson gets the funding we will get the clam record of the past 360 years!
It looks promising, mabe this is money well spend!”
Sounds like it is time to take up a collection…. Where oh where is all that OIL MONEY
Seriously, if I were not dead broke I would very much like to help fund this research….
Think they need a free lab assistant???
Lazarus Long (19:27:57) :
So, does this prove that clams got legs?
they got feet… or foot, at least.
Sorry.
I got as far as sub-weekly resolution & my BS detector hit the pins
I’m a sceptic but I reject this
DaveE.
I’m so sorry…
I can’t help myself..
Playing this U Tube will reveal that, YES, we “skeptics” are very, Very, VERY…
SICK!
Leif Svalgaard
Now you’re shifting from plankton to molluscs. That is the whole point. The growth of a mollusc shell at a given location will vary year-to-year much less than that of plankton (bloom and bust) at any location. A K rather than an r strategist. This makes measurement of O16-18 ratio in the mollusc shells a statistically stronger (I’ll avoid the other “r”-word) measurement than planktonic foraminifera.
Going from smaller molluscs to clams just continues this improvement in data quality – bigger, more mineralised tissue for more accurate mass spec.
“Because clams typically live from two to nine years, isotope ratios in each of these shells provided a two-to-nine-year window onto the environmental conditions in which they lived.”
By contrast your average foraminiferan lives only for a few months.
pat (18:46:06) :
“Maurice Newman, Chairman of ABC Australia (BBC equivalent – tax-payer funded) has created a huge furore 0 especially with his own staff – with a speech he made to ABC journalists yesterday:….”
Thank you very much for this. I can not believe a journalist is actually showing this much integrity. …. Now I have to go pick my jaw up from off the floor.
phlogiston (19:58:23) :
Now you’re shifting from plankton to molluscs.
That is still old hat as I showed with some cites. And for ‘climate’ studies, the lifetime of weeks, month, years, etc doesn’t make much difference. What makes a difference is how often the claims are sampled, and from the Figure shown that leaves a lot to be desired. Looks like centuries to me.
seems most here today are in a humourous mood. Good.
The shaver thingy? it’s been around for years. That’s how we get nice thin slices of ham.
So there were warmer and cooler periods going back thousands of years? Oh well, there goes another nice theory murdered by a brutal gang of facts.
(Duc de La Rochefoucauld)
Leif Svalgaard (19:43:42)
OK I read you second post – fair enough. The paper you referenced looked at Belemnites – sort of extinct Mesozoic cuttlefish; Planulina, an abyssal snail; and … more foraminifera. All smaller than clams.