UF research gives clues about carbon dioxide patterns at end of Ice Age
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — New University of Florida research puts to rest the mystery of where old carbon was stored during the last glacial period. It turns out it ended up in the icy waters of the Southern Ocean near Antarctica.
The findings have implications for modern-day global warming, said Ellen Martin, a UF geological sciences professor and an author of the paper, which is published in this week’s journal Nature Geoscience.
“It helps us understand how the carbon cycle works, which is important for understanding future global warming scenarios,” she said. “Ultimately, a lot of the carbon dioxide that we’re pumping into the atmosphere is going to end up in the ocean. By understanding where that carbon was stored in the past and the pathways it took, we develop a better understanding of how much atmospheric carbon dioxide the oceans can absorb in the future.”
Scientists know that during the transition from the last glacial period to the current inter-glacial period about 14,000 years ago, carbon dioxide levels rose very quickly at the same time that the age of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fell, as measured by radiocarbon data. That suggests carbon dioxide had been stored in the ocean and suddenly released, she said.
One idea holds that it was building up in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, where extensive sea ice on the surface of the ocean initially prevented the exchange of gasses into the atmosphere, Martin said. The other possibility is that the same process occurred in the Northern Hemisphere with ice sheets in the North Pacific Ocean, she said.
In her lab, Martin and lead author Chandranath Basak, a UF graduate student in geological sciences; Keiji Horikawa, a UF postdoctoral fellow in geological sciences; and Thomas Marchitto, a University of Colorado geology professor, studied that question by using a technique to measure isotopes of neodymium, a rare earth element not commonly found in marine sediments but preserved in microscopic fossil fish teeth. The isotopic signature of a water mass, which is captured in the fish teeth, reflects the location where the water mass came from, she said.
“It’s essentially what we call a water mass tracer,” Martin said. “You can tell where the water masses have formed and where they have moved to by using this tracer.”
The researchers took samples that had been shown to have old carbon in them and measured the neodymium isotopes on fish teeth from the sediments to see if they could reconstruct whether they had come from the North Pacific or the Southern Ocean, she said.
“When we did this, we got a signal that looks very much like the Southern Ocean,” she said. “It implies that all the carbon was being stored in the Southern Hemisphere and as the ice sheet melted back, it released that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing part of the big increase in carbon dioxide and introducing old carbon back into the atmosphere.”
By giving information about environmental conditions during the last glacial period, the research findings can help scientists to reconstruct what the world was like at that time, she said.
The implications are that while large amounts of carbon could be stored in the ocean when there was a great deal of sea ice, the opposite is the case in a world that is warming, with less ice, which allows more carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere, Martin said. Thus, in a warming scenario the oceans may not be able to store as much carbon dioxide as they could under glacial conditions
The oceans are a critical part of the carbon dioxide cycle, Martin said. “The oceans have 60 times more carbon dioxide in them than the atmosphere, so when we worry about what’s happening with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we often look to the oceans as a potential source or sink.”
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the glacial periods was about 200 parts per million, compared with 280 parts per million during a typical interglacial period, Martin said. Today that level has soared to about 380 parts per million, she said.
The time period that encompasses the last glacial period to the current interglacial period when carbon dioxide levels went up very quickly is often referred to as the “mystery interval” because scientists hadn’t known where the carbon was stored, Martin said.
“Now we have a better understanding of how the system worked,” she said.
One wonders how the sea life down there tolerated all that extra carbon resulting in “ocean acidification”.
FijiDave says:
October 25, 2010 at 6:21 pm
========================================================
I’ve probably tried to state the same thought 15 different times in 15 different manners, but I never came close to your articulation of the same. Well done!
“The isotopic signature of a water mass, which is captured in the fish teeth, reflects the location where the water mass came from, she said.”
http://www.geochem.geos.vt.edu/bgep/pubs/Chapter_1_Weiner_Dove.pdf
Excuse me?
“Ulrey et al recognized that certain phyla may not deposit their skeletal material in isotopic equilibrium with their environment, and within a few years it was clearly demonstrated that some phyla completely control their isotopic composition, as well as their Mg and Sr skeletal contents.”
I would hate to see the venerable science of biomineralization become just another hand grenade in the hands of these climate quacks.
R. Gates says:
October 25, 2010 at 4:39 pm
This is the common logical falacy that is propagated by many AGW skeptics. Namely that a temperature rise prior to CO2 increases proves that CO2 cannot cause warming. Yes, rises CO2 levels follow temperature increases in many instances in the geological record, but then once the CO2 begins to increase, it functions to extend and amplify the warming. Furthermore, it is glaciation that serves to increase CO2 levels through a slowing of the hydrological cycle. To say that a rise in CO2 can not affect an increase in global temperatures simply because is sometimes lags a rise in temperature is one of the biggest logical fallacies that I see coming from the skeptical community. CO2 can act as a positive feedback to a general warming that may have been initiated through astrononomical (i.e Milankovitch) or other natural cycles.
**********************************************************************
R Gates – please point me to one or more periods in the paleo-climate record when you believe that the above positive feedback as described by you caused a catastrophic runaway increase in atmospheric temperatures.
Thanks.
I was reading through it… trying to figure out what percentage of climate scientists drink carbonated drinks and why they did not give a quarter to the ones who don’t.
Also while reading this article, I was waiting for the part about where they have to say that the situation is hopeless, we must act now, everything is spiraling out of control. It did not disappoint.
“The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the glacial periods was about 200 parts per million, compared with 280 parts per million during a typical interglacial period, Martin said. Today that level has soared to about 380 parts per million, she said.”
There it was. Confirmation I’m still in the same Universe.
I’ve been conducting research for over twenty years now regarding CO2 stored in cold liquids.
The hypothesis is that a cold liquid stores CO2 and outgasses it as it warms.
My method is to compare drinking a warm beer versus a cold beer, and see which is bubblier as it hits my throat. I am expecting to observe that a cold beer is much bubblier, as it should have (if the hypothesis is correct) stored more CO2 at cold temps, and the CO2 should outgas as the beer warms in my mouth. Warm beer should (if the hypothesis is correct) have already outgassed much of the CO2 and should be quite flat as it hits my throat.
Observations so far seem to support the hypothesis (although reading my handwriting the day after the experiments has been a little tricky).
R. Gates says:
October 25, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“This is the common logical falacy [sic] that is propagated by many AGW skeptics. Namely that a temperature rise prior to CO2 increases proves that CO2 cannot cause warming.”
========================
Wow. Who is committing the logical fallacy here?
No one is saying that this “proves CO2 cannot cannot cause warming.”
So stop putting words in our mouth, bud!
R, since you certainly are the wizard of logical fallacies, you should know a logical fallacy when you saw it.
Nobody is saying “all or nothing”, here. Your reducing it to that….is a logical fallacy in and of itself.
Checkmate.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
What’s news is that this team confirmed the southern ocean was the main sink then. This finding also points to why CO2 lags temperature in paleoclimate temperature and CO2 reconstructions.
– Anthony
And immediately implies the high ocean acidification occured thousands of years ago and has been decreasing ever since, pH moving up. High school stuff, right? We may be near a high in pH if this article is correct and we are topping off a ‘period’ of coming out of the last ice age, may have already started the slide down from MWP.
Give give thanks this Thanksgiving for what warmth we have! (ps Anthony: hope the best is happening for all)
Am I wrong? I thought that CO2 concentrations in many past epochs had been much higher then now?
FijiDave thats the right way to call it. Thankyou one of the best summaries yet.
James Sexton asks:
So what then, pray tell, stopped the death spiral? Because we all know CO2 causes an increase in the temps, and the increase of the temps causes ice melt, and ice melt causes increase in temps because of the albedo. Such a vicious, vicious never ending cycle of doom! So, please tell me, at what point did the process halt, and how did it halt?
Logical falacies?
No Logical falacies, but the black body radiation from the earth’s surface increases with the fourth power of the temperature, so a small increase in temperature can balance a large increase in forcing.
The runaway warming stopped on Venus, after all the water evaporated and the carbonate rocks turned to gas.
Firstly, in R Gates’s defense, a positive feedback doesn’t have to run away. For example, suppose the increase in CO2 adds 20% (percent of what, I hear you ask, but let’s ignore the actual numbers for now so I can explain the principle) to the temperature, which in turn causes a release of more CO2, which adds another 4% (ie. 20% of 20%) to the temperature, etc. As you can see, while the temperature has increased, it’s not a runaway situation.
That’s the theory that I’ve been told when I first raised the same question. It’s certainly reasonable, though I’m not saying it’s a fact. It’s a theory, with little (if any) evidence that I’ve seen to support that theory.
However, while R Gates is correct that having a CO2 increase lagging temperature doesn’t preclude the possibility that a CO2 can also cause a temperature increase, it doesn’t provide any evidence in support of that statement, either, and does provide circumstantial evidence against that theory. In particular, as I saw someone else note in a thread here at WUWT, the lag in the geological record appeared to be around 700-800 years, and it’s been 700-800 years since the MWP….
Finally, according to the geological graphs I’ve seen, not only does the CO2 rise lag behind the temperature rise, but the CO2 drop also lags behind the temperature drop. Again, not proof that CO2 can’t cause a temperature rise, but it provides no evidence to support that position, either, and the implication is that the historical CO2 changes were driven by the temperature changes, or by something else that was causing both.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/25/rahmstorfschellnhuber-confirm-no-anthropogenic-climate-change/
hehe
‘The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the glacial periods was about 200 parts per million, compared with 280 parts per million during a typical interglacial period, Martin said. Today that level has soared to about 380 parts per million, she said.’
I know that there have been many studies regarding concentration of CO2 and plant life. I know there is a minimum value where photosynthesis all but shuts down. I do not remember the exact PPM, but I do believe 200ppm was very very close to it. So, we either came very close to a huge extinction event, or the 200ppm number is total BS.
[snip] post in Tips & Notes please
Gosh Mr. Watts:
I do not have a chemistry doctorate, but is that why those little bubles climb to the top of a beer glass as it warms?
I did not realize the CO2 saturation point of the Antarctic Oocean was so close to a tipping point, until you provided the info.
Thanks again.
Bob says
Quote
The runaway warming stopped on Venus, after all the water evaporated and the carbonate rocks turned to gas.
Unquote
Nice to see the paper on that?
[i]”Bernie says:
October 25, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I do not understand the notion of new and old carbon dioxide.”[/i]
I believe they are referring to the C12 // C13 ratios — both of these Carbon isotopes are stable and can be differentially taken up by photosynthetic processes. Some scientists use this fact and the observed differential isotope ratios in fossil fuels vs biotic processes to claim that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of fossil fuel consumption. This can be considered controversial and IMO it’s overstating our current understanding.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
And there was clearly no atmosphere on the moon and therefor it was utterly impossible for there to be any water there….
And lets not forget Mars, Mars unquestionably had no water either, and no life (the latter now seems to be up in the air at this point).
Meanwhile, why has the Earth not gone the way of Venus long long ago, each and every time we came out of an ice age?
Fascinating news to me to hear from you that we’ve got good, extensive, accurate mineral surveys of the entire surface of Venus, such that we know the status of CO2 entrainment or lack thereof on the planet. Somehow I missed that bit of amazing scientific astronomical space exploration news!
Rational Debate,
Can’t vouch for what is in the surface of Venus, but, they have done a pretty good job of showing very little hydroxyl, and therefor little water, in the atmosphere of Venus. Could you explain the mechanism for the surface and below to hold H2O at temperatures in excess of 400C even at the surface pressure that exists on Venus?
Rational Debate,
that question goes for compounds of CO2 also.
These results would seem to indicate why CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes. When the temperature goes us then the ice melts and releases more CO2 but at a certain time after the temperature started to rise. I would also think the reverse would also be true that as temperature goes down the CO2 would lag behind the temperature.
I wonder if this also might explain the yearly fluctuation in CO2 levels (low in the northern winter and higher in the northern summer)
The other possibility is that the same process occurred in the Northern Hemisphere with ice sheets in the North Pacific Ocean
What is it with these people… where does their prejudice against the North Atlantic come from… this blatant example of Anti-Atlanticism needs to be addressed… OK I know us poor European cousins can’t afford to give our fish neodymium teeth fillings… but hey… we eat fish in Europe… we don’t send them to the dentist… and besides… I thought the Homer Simpson University of Springfield had this cold beer thingy sorted out long ago… cold beer is best…. pour… drink… belch… QED… and everyone knows that all those empty Duff beer cans drift south to the South Pole when you toss them overboard… just take a cruise to Hawaii if you don’t believe me… Oh! You have… now I understand.
The R. Gates comment…
In order for his scenario to work, you have to accept that 1) a little change in atmospheric CO2 can have a large effect on water vapor concentration which has a large effect on temperature, and 2) while not stated directly by R. Gates, when the astronomical or other natural trigger to the initial warming is removed, the absence trigger’s contribution to the warming, while not enough to account for the subsequent warming after the introduction of the trigger, is enough to overpower the positive feedback contribution of the CO2/Water system.
Yes, it is very much like having your cake and eating it too.
Last weekend I retreated into the countryside to marvel at the wonders of the chestnut season… thus I was sitting in a peaceful valley listening to the sound of chestnuts falling from the trees… the evening air was cool and calm… and as I opened another can I began to wonder about this heavier-than-air CO2 stuff… or more specifically… how come I am not wading knee deep through a cloud of CO2 as it settles out of the cool, calm air… and whether giraffes evolved when CO2 levels were much higher… like above-my-head much higher… and perhaps this is why woman wear high heels… if only all scientific research was this much fun.
The Solar Wind is theorized in many astrophysical papers to have classified the early Solar System. The Earth managed to keep it’s tectonic and volcanic mechanisms going to replenish the early scouring from Solar Wind, thanks also in part to a protective magnetic field and a tugging Moon. Mars magnetic field froze up and lost its shield. Venus is another story. But, AGW is the only theory that I know of that makes a trace gas in an atmosphere the master molecule by which temperature is controlled.