From a Rutegers press release
Rutgers researchers find a ‘great fizz’ of carbon dioxide at the end of the last ice age
Relevance for geo-engineers: What fizzed once, can fizz again
Imagine loosening the screw-top of a soda bottle and hearing the carbon dioxide begin to escape. Then imagine taking the cap off quickly, and seeing the beverage foam and fizz out of the bottle. Then, imagine the pressure equalizing and the beverage being ready to drink.
Rutgers marine scientist Elisabeth Sikes and her colleagues say that something very similar happened on a grand scale over a 1,000 year period after the end of the last ice age – or glaciation, as scientists call it.
According to a paper published recently in the journal Nature, the last ice age featured a decrease in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide and an increase in the atmospheric carbon 14, the isotope that guides scientists in evaluating the rate of decay of everything from shells to trees.
In recent years, other researchers have suggested that some of that carbon dioxide flowed back into the northern hemisphere rather than being entirely released into the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere.
Sikes and her colleagues disagree. Their data, taken from cores of ocean sediment pulled up from 600 meters to 1,200 meters below the South Pacific and Southern Ocean, suggest that this “de-gassing” was regional, not global. This has important implications for understanding what controls where and how CO2 comes out of the ocean, and how fast – or, to put it another way, what tightens or loosens the bottle cap.
Carbon dioxide and carbon 14 in the atmosphere and ocean are on opposite ends of an environmental pulley. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the level of carbon 14 drops, and vice versa. That’s chemistry and ocean circulation. Biology also helps, because photosynthesizing organisms use carbon dioxide, then die and take it with them to the bottom. During the last ice age, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was lower because much of it was trapped in the bottom of the oceans.
The ventilation of the deep Southern Ocean – the circulation of oxygen through the deep waters – slowed considerably during the last ice age, causing carbon dioxide to build up. Sikes and her co-authors report that, as the ice began to melt, the oceanic bottle cap began to loosen, and the carbon dioxide began to leak back into the atmosphere. Then, as warming intensified, the cap came off, and the carbon dioxide escaped so quickly, and so thoroughly, that Sikes and her colleagues could find very little trace of it in the carbon 14 they examined in their samples.
Eventually, just like the carbonated drink in a bottle, equilibrium was established between the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide in the ocean. Today, the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has been rising in the past 200 years pushing the levels in the ocean up. Human activity is responsible for that rise and the rise of other “greenhouse gases.” Some people have suggested we can pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and force it back down to the bottom of the oceans by manipulating the biology – growing algae, for instance, which would increase photosynthesis and send carbon dioxide to the bottom when the organisms die. But Sikes’ results suggest that global warming could eventually result in another great fizz.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That was a fizz!
Interesting article.
It touches on something I have often thought about ‘burying’ CO2.
Before people get too keen to rush to that option they might like to consider the Lake Nyos disaster from Cameroon in 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
So the ice melt increased the circulation; or did the same set of conditions that led to ice melt also contribute to increased circulation?
Especially if the phytoplankton aren’t there to sequester it.
Unfortunately I do not buy the warmist claim that CO2 has been historically low (for 100s of years) and only rising due to human activities. Direct chemical bottle data has been discounted by the IPCC solely because it did not suit their agenda. I think it is time to recognize that CO2 has been higher than present during three periods in the last 200 years, making this paper essentially meaningless as far as any implications regarding the present. The IPCC pretended that the CO2 bottle data was too variable, as it was erratic, but when plotted over time, the data describes periods of increases and decreases.
Ok, so the good news is that the oceans won’t “acidify” and the corals and jelly fish will be saved. The bad news is that all that additional CO2 is gonna be a tipping point, temperatures will soar, and we’re all gonna die. I get it.
Is this just another story about how cold water holds CO2 better than warm water? Was AGW responsible for “removing the bottle cap” (whatever the h*** THAT means) back at the end of the ice age? How do they relate this to AGW?
Maybe someone should test the theory. Get a ship to dump several tons of
ironMentos into the ocean and see what happens to local CO2 levels.Somebody has been thinking way too hard about this matter.
So, once again: What happened when the CO2 got higher than now?
Right: Plants grew.
And, what happened when it got less than now?
Right: It got darned cold.
In both cases, the TEMPERATURE preceded the matter.
Guess what? It’s getting colder …
Fascinating.
It ties back into other theories. One being, did Antarctica ice fields and sheet block the circulation of the Atlantic and the Pacific?
It also answers the latest big worry brought up at the Congressional Hearing in which Lord M. Was pitted agains four members of the IPCC, and that is the acidification of the oceans by CO2.
Their discovery does more than pop the cap on the bottle. It now provides an insight into the stages of pre-global glaciation.
As the oceans dropped to 400 feet below today’s sea levels, topography was moving towards the Equator how much carbon dioxide was needed to sustain plant and animal life?
How much carbon dioxide was stored in glaciers and ice sheets and fields at different states of the glacial periods?
Good job!
Paul
So we have a theory that matches the data that C02 increases follow temperature changes, not drive them. New measurements reaffirm the phase relationship.
Okay. I’m not seeing a problem here.
“Carbon dioxide and carbon 14 in the atmosphere and ocean are on opposite ends of an environmental pulley. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the level of carbon 14 drops, and vice versa.”
I suspect what they mean is the amount of C14 in the atmosphere as CO2 is fairly constant and as the amount of CO2 increases, the proportion of C14 CO2 decreases.
“something very similar happened on a grand scale over a 1,000 year period after the end of the last ice age ”
So over the next 1,000 years or so we’ll have to worry about, disappearing Greenland icecaps, Florida flooding AND a gradual degassing of CO2 from the oceans (assuming of course a new ice age “– or glaciation, as scientists call it” doesn’t start)?
I can do differential and integral calculus, but I cannot figure out this article. Does the fizz mean that CO2 went up or C14? Or an equilibrium? Can someone explain the analogy because I’m seeing an explosion of CO2 being released in that pic of the Coke bottle.
The following confuses me as well.
Ok, so cold oceans at the onset of an ice age absorb more CO2 just like cold pop drinks. Got it. But then, it’s followed up with this.
Wait, what? Did it not go into the oceans? Or is this talking about the end of the ice age? Whatever the case may be, do they know if temperature precedes change in CO2 levels or vice versa?
How can natural processes separate C12 from C14 ? Isn’t that just a question of dilution?
Interesting findings that form another piece of the puzzle. Unfortunately we do not yet know how to fit this and the other identified puzzle pieces together yet. I strongly suspect until science gets off its fixation with deterministic models, that predict nothing except white noise, we won’t know either.
So, if the planet does not warm back up, the CO2 is ‘on ice’.
Out of sight, out of mind, out of the ecosystem.
When the planet cools, bye-bye goes the CO2.
CO2 is at the mercy of the planet’s temperature, not the other way around.
……as another 10M of our money is spent to study a pointless issue….
Vorlath: C14 forms a component of the carbon in CO2. C14 is produced naturally in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation and is a radioactive isotope of carbon.
Ray, Natural processes do not separate C12 from C14. The concentration of C14 is determined by atmospheric processes that are to do with cosmic radiation.
Interesting.
So these results agree with the cosmic ray theory for atmospheric cooling??
Less sun activity = more cosmic rays = more C14
And also
Less sun activity = more cosmic rays = more cloud = cooler conditions
Opposite ends of the same pulley, as they said.
During the recent Australian election I got into an argument with a warmist over CO2, but armed with the logic of Steven Goddard (WUWT ’09) I was on a winner.
‘Consider the earth 14,000 years ago. CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and temperatures, at 6C below present values, were rising fast. Now consider 30,000 years ago. CO2 levels were also around 200 ppm and temperatures were also about 6C below current levels, yet at that time the earth was cooling. Exactly the same CO2 and temperature levels as 14,000 years ago, but the opposite direction of temperature change. CO2 was not the driver.’
Steven Goddard ’09
Such statements have become commonplace, even in Science and Nature. Does anyone have any cites for research showing that 19th C industry caused most of that century’s increase in CO2? Ditto for the first half of the 20th C?
>>>Rhoda
>>>Was AGW responsible for “removing the bottle cap”
>>>(whatever the h*** THAT means)
The warming of the earth. A warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2, so it out-gasses.
But this assumes, of course, that the warming is prior to, and independent of, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
.
Addition to my last.
Warming and cooling are therefore independent of CO2 levels ….. but CO2 levels are wholly dependent on warming or cooling. So CO2 is a temperature gauge, much more than it is a greenhouse gas (which is why it mimics the role of a greenhouse gas so well – it follows temperature).
Warmer = more atmospheric CO2.
Cooler = less atmospheric CO2.
The warmer or cooler is probably determined by the sun and the resultant levels of cloud.
So, now they need to go back two “ice ages” and find out if the same relationship holds true.
Fizz? More like another damp squib…