From Oregon State University News, more news of unsettled science.
Nature study: Rising CO2 levels at end of Ice Age not tied to Pacific Ocean
CORVALLIS, Ore. – At the end of the last Ice Age, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose rapidly as the planet warmed; scientists have long hypothesized that the source was CO2 released from the deep ocean.
But a new study using detailed radiocarbon dating of foraminifera found in a sediment core from the Gorda Ridge off Oregon reveals that the Northeast Pacific was not an important reservoir of carbon during glacial times. The finding may send scientists back to the proverbial drawing board looking for other potential sources of CO2 during glacial periods.
The study, which was supported by the National Science Foundation and the University of Michigan, was published online this week in Nature Geoscience.
“Frankly, we’re kind of baffled by the whole thing,” said Alan Mix, a professor of oceanography at Oregon State University and an author on the study. “The deep North Pacific was such an obvious source for the carbon, but it just doesn’t match up. At least we’ve shown where the carbon wasn’t; now we just have to find out where it was.”
During times of glaciation, global climate was cooler and atmospheric CO2 was lower. Humans didn’t cause that CO2 change, so it implies that the carbon was absorbed by another reservoir. One obvious place to look for the missing carbon is the ocean, where more than 90 percent of the Earth’s readily exchangeable carbon is stored.
The Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean by volume. The deep water mass longest isolated from the atmosphere and most enriched in carbon is found today in the Northeast Pacific, so the researchers focused their efforts there. They hypothesized that the ventilation age in this basin – or the amount of time since deep water was last in contact with the atmosphere – would be older during glacial times, allowing CO2 to accumulate in the abyss.
“We were surprised to find that during the last ice age, the deep Northeast Pacific had a similar ventilation age to today, indicating it was an unlikely place to hide the missing carbon,” said David Lund, a paleoceanographer at the University of Michigan, formerly at Oregon State, and lead author on the Nature Geosciences paper.
“This indicates that the deep Pacific was not an important sink of carbon during glacial times,” Lund added. “Even more intriguing is that we found the ventilation age increased during the deglaciation, at the exact time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising.”
The researchers reconstructed the ventilation history of the deep North Pacific, examining the sediments at a site about 75 miles off the coast of southwestern Oregon. There the water is more than a mile-and-a-half deep and is known as the oldest water mass in the modern oceans, Mix said. By radiocarbon dating both the planktonic, or surface-dwelling, and benthic (seafloor-dwelling) foraminifera, the scientists can determine whether the isotopic signatures of the foraminifera match “values predicted by the assumption of oceanic control of the atmosphere.”
The organisms that lived on the seafloor have older “apparent” radiocarbon ages than the organisms that lived at the sea surface, Mix said, even though both come from the same sediment sample and are of the same true age. The radiocarbon dating was performed using an advance particle accelerator by the authors’ colleague, John Southon of the University of California at Irvine.
“Different sources of CO2 have different apparent ages, depending on how long they have been isolated from the atmosphere,” Mix said. “We use these dates as kind of a ‘return address label’ rather than to establish precise ages of the events. The bottom line is that the deep North Pacific wasn’t the source of rising CO2 at the end of the last ice age.”
The study is important not just in tracing climatic history, scientists say, but in forecasting how the Earth may respond to future climate change. The Earth “breathes carbon in and out,” Mix said, inhaling carbon into sediment and soils, while exhaling it via volcanism and a slow exchange between the oceans, soils and plant life with the atmosphere.
When everything is in balance, the Earth is said to be in a “steady state.” But on numerous occasions in the past, the carbon balance has shifted out of whack.
“Because the ocean is such a huge repository of carbon, a relatively small change in the oceans can have a major impact,” Mix said. “We know ocean circulation changed during the ice ages and that is why many scientists assumed the deep Pacific Ocean was the source for rising CO2 levels during the last deglaciation.”
Lund said it “is conceivable that we are misunderstanding the radiocarbon signal by assuming it is controlled by ocean mixing.”
“These are volcanically active regions, so the input of carbon from volcanoes, which lacks radiocarbon because of its great age, needs to be looked at,” Lund pointed out. “But it is premature to draw any conclusions.”
The researchers’ next step will be to look for chemical traces of volcanic influence.
Another source of carbon could be from land, though the authors say it would be difficult to account for the magnitude of atmospheric carbon increase and the apparent radiocarbon age of released carbon by pre-industrial terrestrial sources alone.
“If we can better understand how carbon has moved through the Earth’s systems in the past, and how this relates to climate change, we will better predict how the carbon we are now adding to the atmosphere will move in the future,” Mix said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jeremy says:
October 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm
come on Jeremy – think man! (no disrespect intended – it’s late here and I’m ready for my bed!)
ALL the biomass lives on carbon – within the carbon cycle – which is based on what, exactly? – it’s CO2.
compare to chicken and egg…think about it – which came first? – it HAD to be CO2!
And as for your comment that CO2 is negligible – think about the scale – yes, it is negligible in OUR terms, as a gas – but theres a sh*tload of it in the massive volume we call the atmosphere and many many times as much ‘buried’ within the earths crust as carbonates.
Now ask yourself the question – where did it come from?
Kev, look up thermophilic bacteria………………it’s a anaerobic or sub-oxic process
Thermophilic bacteria are believed to be the first bacteria….more or less
Today they are found around hot springs, thermal vents, etc
You were saying that “Just as an aside – you are aware that a great proportion of CO2 is not really derived from living biosmass, aren’t you?”
…and I’m saying that is a gross exaggeration…..
CO2 is also produced by bacteria that do not use living biomass….
…and that was the original source
Almost all of the CO2 now, is produced by bacteria as a result of ammonification, denitrification, nitrification, etc…..otherwise we would all be dead
What about methane? Methane in the atmosphere oxidizes to CO2. Changing ocean temps can cause methane to accumulate or be released. Warming during a deglaciation could release quite a bit of methane accumulated over 50,000 years. Sediment studies would miss a methane contribution. Relatively speaking, not much solid methane clathrate converted to gas would be needed to create large volumes of methane gas that could result in quite a bit of CO2. I don’t have time right now to verify my back-of-envelope calcs, but an early guess is methane 10^5 km^2, 1 m deep converted to gas might be enough. Maybe that seems like a lot, but I don’t think so.
I just found this newly minted PhD’s thesis. Some interesting numbers suggest methane might be the answer.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~justinpb/Files/thesis.pdf
Kev,
I think you are fighting a strawman that you created. I think everyone accepts that higher elements are made in stars and that planets and the elements are remains of past stars or supernovas.
So you have proved a point. The earth came first. That is before life could exist on the earth, life needed elements like Carbon, Oxygen etc to exist.
Now does volcanic activity or weathering of limestone by rain and water modulate atmospheric CO2? So if that is your point then I quite agree – for sure it does. A catastrophic comet collision with earth would likely raise atmospheric CO2 also. As does a forest fire. Lots of possible cycles within cycles and processes.
At the start of the industrial revolution the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. At present it is about 385 ppm. One hundred and sixty years of burning coal and alkanes has allegedly increased the CO2 concentation in the atmosphere by about one part per 10,000. If this sets your pants on fire I suggest you sit in a bucket of CO2; it has helped other vegetables.
Latitude says:
October 3, 2011 at 3:34 pm
again, I cannot agree – you seem to be making the jump to saying that all CO2 is produced by the current biomass? I cannot accept that – you are ignoring the chicken and egg situation I described before. Look, if we have a carbon cycle (and I assume you agree) – we have to have a start point – carbon dioxide came from somewhere. what continues the cycle today is largely irrelevent – it started somewhere – and that somewhere was BEFORE life began!
that’s my point – though I accept I am probably not making it very well. It’s a long time (30yrs) since I studied for this stuff originally, so my memory isn’t great, but I am working from first principles.
What bugs me – as a geologist – is that the startpoint is ignored. I dunno, perhaps we could compare it to electricity generation – we all know that generation efficiency is not 100%, so energy is lost somewhere along the process – it’s the same with the carbon/CO2 cycle ? Now consider the carbon volumes in toto, and you realise that we are only ‘seeing’ what we understand and that is only some fraction of what has actually ‘been’ ? I’m a geologist, so my perception of ‘scale’ (including timescale) is generally different to others! Do you realise that a single centimetre of carbonate formation/rock may represent thousands of years of actual time? (not being facetious – just trying to put stuff in perspective for you).
So No ! – I don’t agree that all CO2 is based on the current biomass – indeed, I suspect it is far from it, it’s probably a (small) fraction of the actual carbon cycle! I humbly apologise to Anthony and others if I have strayed too far from the thread………
regards
Kev
Jeremy says:
October 3, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Thanks – though I didn’t realise I’d created a strawman argument! I was honestly trying to put some perspective on the subject of CO2 and the carbon cycle – and in particular, the issue of CO2 being a ‘recycled’ material that must have started from somewhere……
best regards
Kev
The biggest source and sink of CO2 on shorter timelines is land-based vegetation. We just reviewed a study which said it might be an annual cycle of 150 billion to 175 billion tons carbon per year. This turns out to be 70 to 85 ppm of CO2.
There is also the lag of CO2 rising compared to Temperature rising which is 800 years or more. As the Glacial Ice starts melting and the plant vegetation regrows again, the large annual vegetation sink and source returns and the overall level of CO2 rises.
Plants take up Carbon locked up in the formerly dead frozen / buried under a mile of ice soils and returns it to the active Carbon/CO2 cycle.
I imagine alot of CO2 was locked up in glacial ice as well.
Kev-in-Uk says:
October 3, 2011 at 3:55 pm
again, I cannot agree – you seem to be making the jump to saying that all CO2 is produced by the current biomass? I cannot accept that – you are ignoring the chicken and egg situation I described before. Look, if we have a carbon cycle (and I assume you agree) – we have to have a start point – carbon dioxide came from somewhere.
============================================================
LOL…..that’s because we’re not on the same page
I thought you were talking about rocks weathering and a major contribution of CO2 from that…..today, now…..present
I didn’t realize you wanted to go all the way back to the beginning……
Today, it’s mostly from bacteria….
….before thermophilic bacteria evolved, who knows…nothing was alive to care…..;)
Dear, God, I read these silly attempts – mostly by amateurs – trying to find the missing carbon. Fact is you’re all wrong. It’s here in the oil sands. Hasn’t anyone here hear we’re destroying the entire world mining oil sands, the natural world’s largest oil spill us humans are attempting to clean up?
Fred Allen says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:38 pm
“Interesting quote…has the Earth ever been in a steady state?”
Yes, the Christians call it the Garden of Eden and the Marxists call it “L’age D’Or,” or The Golden Age.
So No ! – I don’t agree that all CO2 is based on the current biomass – indeed, I suspect it is far from it, it’s probably a (small) fraction of the actual carbon cycle!
===============================================================
I think you just combined two things……
Carbon that’s available, and carbon that’s not.
Atmospheric carbon, CO2, is the extremely small fraction of what is available.
But that vast majority of that small fraction is liberated by bacteria.
The largest processes on the planet is bacterial nitrification and de-nitrification. Those bacteria liberate carbon from calcium carbonate, and all the salts of carbonic acid. The vast majority of those processes have nothing to do with biomass…
thermophilic bacteria use elemental sulfur………
Well, wait a min, because it does have something to do with biomass……the largest biomass on the planet is bacteria……………
As long as those guys believe that CO2 can create enough extra energy to raise the Earth’s mean temperature just by recycling that old 2nd hand stuff, – move along Sun, no extra energy needed here – then, of course, it is a big disappointment for them to find that CO2 has not been doing any “Deep Sea Diving” where they (or their Models) have expected that particular gas so to do.
Latitude says:
October 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm
You have lost me somewhere! – nitrification bacteria use CO2 and denitrifying bugs produce CO2, don’t they, as far as I recall? Is there an overall balance there? I don’t know just asking? but off to bed now, it’s even later here in Uk.
regards
Kev
Kev-in-Uk says:
October 3, 2011 at 5:46 pm
=================================================
See….I told you we weren’t on the same page…..;-)
Thermophilic bacteria started the whole mess……..raising CO2 levels and maintaining it
Originally there was no use for CO2, so it built up.
Bacteria evolved, and now CO2 levels are maintained by the process of ammonification, nitrification, and de-nitrification.
Right now, the biggest elephant in the room, is why are CO2 levels so low……………..
and you can’t have ocean acidification until after denitrification stops……
…and if denitrification stopped, no one would care what pH the ocean is
because we would all be dead
WOW!
No computer model proofs? An actual attempt to test a hypothesis with observation? An admission of uncertainty about sources and sinks of CO2? And then: “The Earth “breathes carbon in and out,” Mix said, inhaling carbon into sediment and soils, while exhaling it via volcanism and a slow exchange between the oceans, soils and plant life with the atmosphere.”, what, no SUV’s? and to top it all off: “on numerous occasions in the past, the carbon balance has shifted out of whack” , what, not perfectly stable until we came along?
For a second there I thought we had made some real progress and then they had to go and ruin it: ”“If we can better understand how carbon has moved through the Earth’s systems in the past, and how this relates to climate change, we will better predict how the carbon we are now adding to the atmosphere will move in the future,” Mix said.”
Must pay homage to the great and mighty CAGW I guess.
richard verney says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:01 pm
First Trenberth cannot find the missing heat, and now this study suggests that they cannot find the missing carbon. Perhaps the link betwen temperatrure and CO2 is not as strong as the Team would have one believe.
——————
I don’t know richard, maybe they are both in hiding together.
ou my god!
what happn to the 2012
Robert of Ottawa says:
October 3, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Paul Deacon says @ur momisugly October 3, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Will they find the missing carbon before they find the missing heat? >>>
Paul, they will find their missing socks before they find their missing heat. At least the socks exist … somewhere.>>>
Of come on! This one was solved YEARS ago.
Socks disappear through a black hole in the back of the clothes dryer and reappear through a similar hole in the back of your clothes closet as a wire hanger. Correlation is 100%.
Everyone knows that!
I have been following this subject for a long while. I am neither an engineer nor a climate scientist; I am only a person who reads and observes, and tries to make sense of the debate. After reading this post, I have concluded that climate scientists have no idea of anything. It’s like the proverbal blind men feeling different parts of an elephant for the first time and describing what they feel. The CO2 mongers are out of control. They are so focused on one cause that they are blind to the multitide of causes. Sorry for rambling.
CodeTech says
CO2 doesn’t drive climate, it doesn’t drive a bus, it doesn’t even ride a bicycle. CO2 is a trace gas. As long as the planet has a molten core CO2 will be put into the atmosphere. As long as there is plant life at sea and on the land CO2 will be processed and removed from the atmosphere.
————-
Here is a riddle for you. If CO2 is a trace gas how can there be enough of it to be useful as plant food?
B.Klein quotes
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
———-
No. No one claims the greenhouse effect is a heat pump. This is called a straw man argument
Jesse, you are a good observer and make sense.
DirkH says
It’s especially depressing when it’s NASA.
———-
For goodness sake Dirk, why would you think some guy writing an article in the American Thinker has the faintest clue about the green house effect. That article has do many mistakes in it if I bothered to debunk it the text would be twice as long. Just because it sounds vaguely sciency
B.Klein says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:54 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
An interesting post.
If a non greenhouse gas such as oxygen cannot be heated, it would always have a constant temperature. Whenever, one came accross oxygen, and measured its temperature, it would (if it cannot be heated) always be at the same temperature. In much the same way as the speed of light is a constant.
However, one knows that one can heat such a gas simply, for example, by pressure. Likewise, if I store the gas (in a sealed glass container) in a room at 1deg C, the gas will acquire (or tend to acquire) that temperature. If I store it in a room at say 35deg C, the gas will acquire (or tend to acquire) that temperature.
It sounds a very fanciful proposition that non greenhouse gases cannot be heated. Of course they can and they are at different temperatures in the atmosphere depending upon then prevailing local conditions including the altitude of the gas.