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.
John says: October 3, 2011 at 2:23 pm
quote
[]
The mechanism was windier, drier air blowing dusts from what is now southern Argentina into the Southern Ocean; these dusts had then and have today tiny amounts of iron. The iron causes phytoplankton to grow because it is the “missing nutrient.” []
unquote
Before the spring plankton bloom occurs, there is a bloom of diatoms: these tiny plants (?) have silica shells and only when the dissolved silica is all used up can the normal, carbonate-shelled, phytoplankton take over. Lots of silica, few calcium carbonate phytos.
Diatoms use a carbon-fixing metabolic pathway (C4-like say the books) which does not discriminate against the heavier carbon isotopes, which means that in a world dominated by high levels of aeolian dust there will be a pull-down of 14C (and, incidentally 13C) from the atmosphere. The figures are complicated in that the pull-down by diatoms is much reduced compared to the calcareous phytos and the deposits will have relatively more 14C. If the deposits are heavy in 14C they will appear younger by carbon dating.
Light C signal in the atmosphere, increased CO2… oh, look, doesn’t that remind you of something?
JF
There are two volcanic sources of CO2. Above surface eruptions and those invisible ones that are far more numerous, those at construction boundaries at the ocean ridges. All produce CO2.
You all should realize that scientists who attempt to quantify sub-segments of the carbon cycle have only the roughest estimates of it’s constituent processes. Just about the ONLY sub-process we can and have “accurately” measured is fossil fuel consumption and the resulting CO2 production. The rest is best thought of as a series of WAGs.
Kev-in UK has a valid point when he mentions CO2 cycling from crustal and mantle processes acting on carbon containing bedrock, soils, etc.. Latitude is considerably off-base when he suggests that ALL CO2 derives from (bacterial) biological process fluxes. Orogeny, vulcanism, mineralization, etc. of carbon containing bedrocks and deposits are poorly quantified as a global sources of CO2, however, they are likely to be order(s) of magnitude larger than Anthropogenic combustion as a CO2 source. We don’t even need to mention that geologic processes mobilizing CO2 in fossil fuels are likely to be order(s) of magnitude more effective at consuming megatons of such CO2 sources than humans are.
The problem here is one of scale and time. We all know about cave formation in limestone, marble, dolomite, etc deposits for example, but fail to consider the significance just how widespread carbonic acid cycle weathering and other global CO2 mobilization from non-biological processes might be. Only the most cursory consideration of CO2 production from vulcanism is another instance of how poorly we understand and quantify these kinds of numbers. Consider the issue of acidic precipitation flowing across the landscape, mobilizing megatons of CO2 from everything it touches. The fact that the vast majority of carbon on earth resides in crustal deposits should provide the clues about where CO2 comes from and ends up.
So, this study is perhaps interesting but somewhat like the needle in the continent-wide-forest rather than the haystack.
Where has all the carbon gone?
Long time passing
Where has alll the carbon gone?
Long time ago
Where has all the carbon gone?
We are baffeled every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Kevin -in-UK et al, can I (gently) suggest you read a bit about nucleosynthesis….how stars form elements…which gives you insight as to why some are more abundant than others.
“The above processes explain why hydrogen and helium are in the greatest quanities in the universe (75% and 24% respectively) as they are formed during the first moments of the universe; why the next most abundant elements in the universe are oxygen, carbon, neon, nitrogen, magnesium, silicon and iron, the seven elements assembled in the greatest quantities by stellar nuclear reactions”
And C is readily oxidised within cooler environments such as planetary masses..
BioBob says:
October 4, 2011 at 3:08 am
. Latitude is considerably off-base when he suggests that ALL CO2 derives from (bacterial) biological process fluxes.
====================================================================
Bob, show me where I said “all”……………………..and I’ll correct it.
…I said “mostly” and “vast majority of that small fraction”…..never used the word “all”
….then show me where those clean surfaces are for those neat little formulas
everything on this planet is covered in bacteria
That’s an awefull lot of speculation from just one core. I don’t see how one core by itself has any meaning at all. I could list 10 pages of ‘what if’ scenarios which could cause anomalous samples at any single location.
I am surprised that the obvious cause of the increased CO2 has not yet been mentioned: all the SUV trips the cavemen had to make while relocating as the climate warmed and the ice melted.
Somewhat off topic but have you noticed how peoples’ names and what they do can sometimes have fortuitous connection? Studying sediment cores, oceanographer Professor Alan Mix. And, irresistible conjunction, archeologist author of ‘The Bog People’, Professor Blog. I remember that one of my teachers at primary school was called Miss Cross.
Sorry, Latitude, but your statement “Almost all of the CO2 now, is produced by bacteria” is simply incorrect. CO2 is produced and consumed by the CO2 + H2O equilibrium with H2CO3 and associated processes without ANY required input from bacteria whatever. The carbonic acid cycle is one of the most pervasive INorganic chemical processes on earth. Furthermore, large amounts of CO2 are produced by oxidation of crustal carbon by inorganic oxidation processes (burning) in the earth’s crust. Almost none of these processes have been accurately measured but they likely dwarf anthropogenic CO2 production.
Many animals DIRECTLY absorb bicarbonate / carbonic acid like Foraminifera which form chalk beds and limestone forming corals. Bacteria are perhaps only minor players in these particular processes but of course, biological processes are messy and complex. While the mass balance of these particular processes act as CO2 sinks in their formation of Ca//Mg//CO3, the inorganic carbonic acid cycle reverses the sequestration as well without any required action by bacteria.
This is not to say that bacterial CO2 respiration and production is not a large source of CO2 – it is. Just don’t think that it is ALL or ALMOST ALL.
Bob, why would you think it’s “all”? The only person that said it was “all” was you………LOL
Show me those clean surfaces for those chemical reactions to take place…………
Aside from the fact that the “published” CO2 measurements have been rigourously “selected’ by people like Callendar, Revelle and his disciple Keeling ( Mauna Loa) to fit their preconceived curves, (shades of the hockey stick only much much worse) they also ignore the buffer capacity of the oceans and the rapidity of the reactions. (See: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf and for technical details: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf)
“….In addition to this biogeochemical balance, there is also an important geochemical balance. CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with carbonic acid dissolved in the ocean, which in term is close to CaCO3 saturation and in equilibrium with carbonate shells of organisms and lime (calcium carbonate; limestone) in the ocean through the following reactions (where s indicates the solid state, aq is the aqueous state, and g is the gaseous state):
Partial reactions:
CO2 (g) ø CO2 (aq)
CO2 (aq) + H2O ø H2CO3 (aq)
H2CO3 (aq) ø H+ (aq) + HCO3- (aq)
HCO3- (aq) ø H+ (aq) + CO32- (aq)
CO32- (aq) + Ca2+ (aq) ø CaCO3 (s)
____________________________________
Net reaction:
CO2 (g) + H2O + Ca2+ (aq) ø CaCO3 (s) + 2 H+ (aq)
In addition there are a number of different aqueous metal complexes of lesser concentrations.
A buffer can be defined as a reaction system which modifies or controls the value of an intensive (i.e. mass independent) thermodynamic variable (pressure, temperature, concentration, pH, etc.). Our carbonate system above will act as a pH buffer, by the presence of a weak acid (H2CO3) and a salt of the acid (CaCO3). The concentration of CO2 (g) and of Ca2+ (aq) will in the equilibrium Earth system also be buffered by the presence of CaCO3, at a given temperature. If the partial pressure of CO2 (g) is increased, the net reaction will go towards the right because of the Law of Mass Action. If the temperature changes, the chemical equilibrium constant will change, and move the equilibrium to the left or right. The result is that the partial pressure of CO2 (g) will increase or decrease. The equilibrium will mainly be governed by Henry’s Law: the partial pressure of CO2 (g) in the air will be proportional to the concentration of CO2 (aq) dissolved in water. The proportional constant is the Henry’s Law Constant, which is strongly temperature dependent, and lesser dependent on total pressure and salinity (Drummond, 1981).
Questions have been raised about how strong this buffer is. It has been postulated (Bolin & Keeling, 1963) that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will be balanced when only approximately one tenth of this is dissolved in the ocean. This postulate fails for a number of reasons. An increase in atmospheric CO2 will namely increase the buffer capacity of ocean water, and thereby strengthen the ocean’s capacity to moderate an increase of atmospheric CO2; maximum buffer capacity for the system CO2 – H2O is reached at 2.5 to 6 times the present atmospheric partial pressure of CO2, depending on temperature and alkalinity (Butler, 1982). According to Maier-Reimer & Hasselmann (1987) the borate system also increases the ocean storage capacity for CO2 by more than 20% over an ocean with the carbonate-system alone.
Furthermore, this carbonate buffer is not the only buffer active in the atmosphere / hydrosphere / lithosphere system. The Earth has a set of other buffering mineral reactions. The geochemical equilibrium system anorthite CaAl2Si2O8 – kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 has by the pH of ocean water a buffer capacity which is thousand times larger than a 0.001 M carbonate solution (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). In addition we have clay mineral buffers, and a calcium silicate + CO2 ø calcium carbonate + SiO2 buffer (MacIntyre, 1970; Krauskopf, 1979). These buffers all act as a “security net” under the most important buffer: CO2 (g) ø HCO3- (aq) ø CaCO3 (s). All together these buffers give in principle an infinite buffer capacity (Stumm & Morgan, 1970).
Stable carbon isotopes (13C/12C) show that CO2 in the atmosphere is in chemical equilibrium with ocean bicarbonate and lithospheric carbonate (Ohmoto, 1986). The chemical equilibrium constants for the chemical reactions above provide us with a partition coefficient for CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean of approximately 1 : 50 (approx. 0.02) at the global mean temperature (Revelle & Suess, 1957; Skirrow, 1975). This means that for an atmospheric doubling of CO2, there will have to be supplied 50 times more CO2 to the ocean to obtain chemical equilibrium. This total of 51 times the present amount of atmospheric CO2 carbon is more than the known reserves of fossil carbon. It is possible to exploit approximately 7000 GT of fossil carbon, which means, if all this carbon is supposed to be burned, that the atmospheric CO2 can be increased by 20% at the most under geochemical equilibrium at constant present surface temperature.
14C isotopes show that the circulation time for carbon in the upper part of the ocean is some few decades (Druffel & Williams, 1990). This is sufficient time for the ocean to absorb an increase in atmospheric CO2 from burning of fossil fuel at the present projected rate (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a)…..
…..The calculations show how the IPCC’s (Houghton et al., 1990) atmospheric CO2
lifetime of 50-200 years only accounts for half the mass of atmospheric CO2. However,
the unique result fits an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of -5 (5.4) years, in agreement with
numerous 14C studies compiled by Sundquist (1985) and chemical kinetics (Stumm &
Morgan, 1970)…… http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf
If you start from the “carefully selected” CAGW CO2 data that ignores a huge amount of data showing higher (and lower) CO2 readings from ice cores and historic results then ignore the ocean’s true capacity for absorbing CO2 then you come up with the problem of the “Missing Sink”
…Trabalka (1985) summarizes the status of carbon cycle modelling and its missing
sinks (Trabalka et al., 1985) by: “As a first approximation in the validation of models, it
should be possible to compute a balanced global carbon budget for the contemporary
period; to date this has not been achievable and the reasons are still uncertain.” . . .
“These models produce estimates of past atmospheric CO2 levels that are inconsistent
with the historical atmospheric CO2 increase. This inconsistency implies that significant
errors in projections are possible using current carbon cycle models.” http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
Hopefully we are starting to see the whole artificial construct of manmade global warming crumbling because the basis is political and not scientific.
“””””” “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.” “””””
Translation:- “Our grant money is just about all gone, so we are ready to receive new grants, to keep the wolf away from the door for a few more years !”
And the good Professor’s statement calls for a retraction.
Clearly the deep North Pacific was NOT such an obvious source for the carbon; specifically for the carbon that clearly is NOT there.
“”””” Kev-in-Uk says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Latitude says:
October 3, 2011 at 11:56 am
Just as an aside – you are aware that a great proportion of CO2 is not really derived from living biosmass, aren’t you?
please note this.
http://goldschmidt.info/2009/abstracts/finalPDFs/A392.pdf
especially the last couple of sentences in the first paragraph.!! “””””
So what was in column IV of the periodic table, in the second row, back before there was life on earth to manufacture carbon.
The biggest mystery of planet earth is how life got started with no carbon on the planet.
Don’t neglect to consider the implications of this:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/4/4e/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.png
Note the minuscule absorption of methane. Prima facie evidence that the “powerful GHG” meme is BS. It seems it is credited with the powers of hypothetical BURNING, which would transform it into 1xCO2 + 2xH2O. But burning is the fate of very little of released methane, even if that were a valid computation (instead of a shell game travesty).
Plants have billions of years of gross and fine tuning of their ability to extract it from the air. They drove it down by a factor of about 20 to the limits of their ability to absorb (with considerable help from diatoms etc. depleting ocean water and making limestone). It is now hovering just above starvation levels. They will greatly appreciate any contributions we can make towards restocking their larder, and will reward us by feeding us better.
But you’ll never be able to acknowledge any of that. Too far gone in justifying past st**** comments.
Outgassing from the THC in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific according to Henry’s Law accounts for the variable paleo CO2 record. This is the solubility pump. That water was saturated with CO2 at about 0ºC at the uptakes in polar waters, and released at the ambient, tropical surface temperature (about 30º to 35ºC) with a dominant, peak lag of about one millennium. According to contemporary estimates, the volume of CO2 released is about 90 GtC/yr, about 15 times anthropogenic emissions, at a temperature within 2º to 4ºC of Earth’s warm state maximum. See The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide at rocketscientistsjournal.com.