Little Bubbles part 2 – Firn; The Great Equalizer

Continued from part 1…

Guest Post by Caleb Shaw

Snowflake. Small microscope kept outdoors. Sna...
Image via Wikipedia

I will now tell you what I’ve learned, so you can subject it to your kindly WUWT peer- review. I’m fairly certain I’ve gotten some of it wrong, because it doesn’t entirely make sense.

For the purposes of this paper we will imagine a place where snow falls at a great rate, builds up and compacts swiftly, and turns to ice with little bubbles, in only sixty years.  We will begin sixty years ago, in the year 1951, on an icecap where the temperatures are always below freezing.

When snow first falls it is called, “Snow.”  I find this very relieving, because Climate Scientists have more words for snow than an Inuit.  Their official reason for this is to respect other culture’s words for “snow,” and to demonstrate political correctness, as in Climate Science that correctness is more important than the mathematical sort, and they are exceedingly respectful towards all cultures, except Yankees. (In fact I imagine their secret reason for creating the snow-jargon is to keep Yankee laymen like myself confused, hoping the confusion will keep us from butting in where we are not wanted.  It is almost as if they are saying, “Yankee go home,”  but two can play that game.  With the exception of the single word “firn,” I will only use Yankee lingo.)

The snow that fell in 1951 was dry, and around 95% air,  but wind whipped it around and it became the sort of packed powder that is around 90% air.  At this point the snow is 1951 snow, and the air is 1951 air.

As seasons pass this snow gets buried deeper and deeper by successive snowfalls, as temperatures never allow thawing.  As 1951 turns to 1961, and 1961 turns to 1971, the sheer weight of the snow overhead causes changes in the packed powder.  Despite the fact temperatures never rise above twenty below, the snow behaves as if it had thawed, and becomes “firn,”  which involves the snowflakes becoming crystals of ice too large to be called flakes.

As decades continue to pass and pressures build the firn becomes what Yankee call “gritty snow,” (like granulated sugar,) and then becomes “corn snow,” and finally becomes “candle ice.” Then, in the year 2011, with over 400 feet of snow overhead, we arrive at a momentous occasion, wherein the air in the ice, which once was able to move with some degree of freedom through the firn, is locked into little bubbles. Firn is firn no longer, and has stepped over the frontier and become ice.

I’m sure Climate Scientists have a word for this frontier, but I can only research so long before my computer freezes up, and therefore I’ll make up my own Yankee jargon,  and call the boundary between firn and ice, “The Firnopause.”

It is at the Firnopause that the formerly free air suffers the indignity of an icy chastity belt clamping about its freedom, forcing it to become what Climate Scientists call, “pristine.”  And pristine it must remain, eon after eon, until at long last a gallant Climate Scientist rides up and frees it from its deplorable condition. (Sorry about the purple prose. Unfortunately that is a prerequisite, in Climate Science.)

And that gallant Climate Scientist then discovers a remarkable thing.  As you remember, the snow originally fell in 1951, so the ice around the bubble dates from 1951.  However the air within the bubble dates from 2011. Somehow the air from 2011 has made its way down through over 400 feet of tightly packed snow, and all the air from 1951 has been booted out.

Accepting authority, I try to get my mind around this amazing natural phenomenon, and to think of what natural factors could have caused it to occur.

It can’t be the kinetic movement of air, for that higgiltypiggilty movement would not cause 1951 air to only move up, even as 2011 air only moves down. Even the most frenetic kinetic motion would create a mix of airs from all the years between 1951 and 2011, with air from 2011 the least likely to be down that deep.

It can’t be due to expansion and contraction of summer and winter air, because, once you move down ten feet  into the firn, temperatures remain constant, and air neither expands nor contracts.

The best solution involves the difference between a huge 950 mb winter storm and a huge 1040 mb winter high pressure area.  Before my computer froze I determined this was a difference between 13.778 psi and 15.084 psi. (I haven’t a clue what this means in terms of volume; the peer-review of WUWT will help me out, I’m sure.)  However, because I prefer math to be simple, I will state there is a ten percent difference in volume between  the same amount of air in a 950mb low and a 1040mb high.

This is a significant difference.  Stand by a cave with a large chamber and a small entrance as barometric pressures falls,  and you will feel a breeze blowing out.

A cave is actually a poor analogy for firn, for firn in effect has a large entrance which funnels down to smaller and smaller cracks and capillaries.  However, just to shut me up, assume that, as a 950mb low gives way to a 1040 mb high overhead, air actually can be inhaled 10% of the way down into the firn.

Big deal. That is only 40 feet, and leaves you with 360 feet to go, for 2011 air to be at the Firnopause in time to be clamped into little bubbles. Furthermore, as soon as the 1040 mb high starts to move off and pressures fall, the 2011 air gets exhaled out.

Obviously we need to discover a way to inhale the 2011 air down, and exhale all the pre-2011 gas out.  Fortunately Climate Science is much like undone homework; if you have no excuse you can always make one up.

Therefore, to be helpful, I have invented the concept of “grabacules.”  Grabacules are yet-to-be-discovered, gravity-activated, kinetic bonds on the sides of fresh air,  but worn off the sides of stale air.  Because they are gravity-activated, 2011 air slides freely downwards through the firn, but grabs onto the ice when any power tries to move it back up.  In essence 2011 air stands aside for pre-2011 air, (which lacks grabacules,) to pass, and then moves downwards again the next time downward forces come into play.  The 2011 air moves like an inchworm, moving foreword, grabbing, and moving foreword again.

Pretty cool theory, aye?  Isn’t Climate Science wonderful!?  (And if you think  that idea is good, you should have heard my excuses for undone homework. A breathless hush would fall in the classroom, as I arose to speak…)

The problem with my admittedly brilliant idea is that the inch-worm gets shorter and shorter.  Moving 10% of the way to your goal can never get you to your goal.  Up at the surface of the firn, a huge change in atmospheric pressure may shove the 2011 air 40 feet downwards,  but 100 feet from the firnopause the same change only moves the 2011 air 10 feet towards the goal, and 10 inches from the goal it only moves an inch towards its goal.

According to my layman’s calculations that is as far as the 2011 air gets, for by then it is 2012, the 2012 Air starts downwards, and the 2011 air, its grabacules all shot to heck, has to U-turn and start back upwards to make room for the 2012 air.

This leaves a space of nine inches the 2011 air never gets to.  This is a very important space, for it is this air which is actually is incorporated into the little bubbles.  If this air isn’t 2011 air,  what is it?

First we must have a name for this nine inches, just above the Firnopause, and I suggest it be called the Yankeeopause, (named after me, of course.)

It is in this nine inches which a factor so tiny it is unseen, up at the surface,  becomes glaringly apparent.  It is a factor I call “Spongeosis.”

We all know that, when you squeeze a sponge, water comes out.  The exact same thing happens when you squeeze snow, which is 95% air, and wind up with the Firnopause ice, which is at best 10 % air.  The difference is that with a sponge you squeeze out water, but when you squeeze snow you squeeze out air.  Where is that air to go?  Nowhere but up.

This very weak, nearly imperceptible flow is unseen at the surface, where changes in barometric pressure have veritable tides of air inhaling and exhaling through the firn,  but down in the quiet and still depths of the Yankeeopause, this flow is all there is.  Like the bow-wave of a boat, it moves just ahead of the freeze-up at the Firnopause, and consists of the very last bit of air squeezed from the snow.  It never holds air from above, and rather consists of a great many years worth of air all slowly pushed ahead like snow before a plow.  Some of the air may be centuries old,  and when a part of the Yankeeopause’s blended air gets left behind as a bubble in ice at the Firnopause,  the CO2 level in that bubble will not represent any particular year,  but rather an average.  All peaks and valleys in the CO2 record will be smoothed out.  The firn, in the end, has been a great equalizer.

And that is the end of my story, which I have told for your entertainment.  It flies in the face of the desire of Climate Science, which is to move 2011 air down to inclusion in tiny bubbles at the Firnopause.  However it’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

161 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
T.C.
November 1, 2011 10:59 pm

In the comments section of “Little Bubbles part 1” I was chastised for name calling (although I consider the term I used an endearment for someone who is hopelessly conflicted).
I deserved the chastisement. I apologize. Thank-you moderator for your efforts in keeping the discussion civil.
That said, heres my further contribution.
I say never mind all this talk about clathrates and super-cooled water. What do we know about algae, living just under the surface of a translucent layer of snow – this will be a quite balmy microclimate by Arctic/ Antarctic standards. And these algae will be quietly photosynthesising and drawing down the levels of trapped atmospheric carbon dioxide that is destined to be bubbled once it reaches the Firnopause?
Have any of the bubble scientists actually checked their ice cores for the microscopic remains of bacteria, yeast and algae that might have lived in the snow? What about sampling for microbial DNA and RNA in the ice layers? If one were to get evidence of organic materials in the bubbles, might this not cast doubt on bubbelisation as a proxy for actual levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It is logical to assume that photosynthesis and respiration will have an effect on carbon dioxide concentrations under the snow if the microbiota are present, isn’t it? Trouble is that no one seems to look for it.

Gail Combs
November 1, 2011 11:07 pm

Your explanation makes as much sense and is more entertaining.
However you missed the problem that the snow when compressed not only forms ice but also water that can absorb the CO2. CO2 measured in the melt water at the firn can be as high as 12,000ppm (Stauffer et al 1985)
Also after 1985 only the CO2 in the bubbles is reported while the data before 1985 (Higher results) also looked at the CO2 in the ICE SURROUNDING the BUBBLE.
http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf (Jaworowski & Segalstad)

Editor
November 1, 2011 11:18 pm

Snow is curiously porous. I’ve been inside a snow cave with the entrance blocked off with snow. I could still feel the wind blowing through.
So. A few issues. I don’t find any references to a pore closure depth (a.k.a. firnopause) of 400 feet (120 metres). The usual closure depth I find is more like half of that, 170 to 200 feet (50-60 metres).
As to the age of the air mixture, a combination of diffusion, changing barometric pressure, changing temperature, and wind pressure will make the final air some weighted mixture of all the air from the time the snow fell until the pore finally closed. My guess as to that weight is that the ongoing interchange will weight the age to something nearer to the time of pore closure than the time the snow fell.
One final point. Regardless of the weighting of the ages of the different air in the bubble, we are sure that the air will not be composed of air from the years around when the snow fell. Almost all of that air will be gone, mixed out in the decade after the snow fell. This means:
• The ice age (age of the ice surrounding a bubble) will always be older than the air age (weighted average age of the ice in the bubble).
How much older? The mixing seems to go on until close to the pore closure time, which in turn depends on how fast the snow falls. Scientists do think about this stuff …
w.

November 1, 2011 11:27 pm

Firnologists are airheads. Bubbles in the brain cause strokes. Strokes cause mental and physical disabilities and blindness. Hence, …

Steve C
November 1, 2011 11:29 pm

I like the ‘grabacules’ theory … a possible explanation for why the bottom sheet on my bed rides inexorably up towards the pillow end most nights. [Important legal note: No daughters are involved in this process.]
But yes. And once all the little bubbles have sealed off with their ???-year old air mixture, presumably all chemical and physical interaction with the surrounding ice must stop, or those future noble climate scientists would only end up measuring a long-term average of an approximate equilibrium condition. Then they’d have to conclude that historical levels of, say, CO2 were very stable and (with all that pressure involved) probably relatively low.
Errr … remind me, someone. What are they actually saying?

Matt
November 1, 2011 11:45 pm

Inuits don’t have many words for snow. So yes, scientists have more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

Sandy
November 2, 2011 12:24 am

Snow falls as 95% air but the time it is ice it’s < 5% air. So below the breathing zone air is being squeezed up past newer snow as it compresses. So the air in the trapped bubble is *older* than the ice around it.

November 2, 2011 12:26 am

Climate science begins as Bogus Suppositions (referred to hereafter as BS); as seasons pass, this BS collects and gets deeper and deeper. As First Assessment Report turns to Second Assessment Report, and Second Assessment Report turns to Third Assessment Report, etc, the sheer weight of the BS overhead causes changes in the impacted science.
Despite the fact the data do not reflect the posited suppositions, the BS behaves as if it had been validated, and becomes “consensus”.
Then, in the Fifth Assessment Report, with over 4000 feet of BS and lots of flakes overhead, we arrive at a momentous occasion, wherein the money in the economy, which once was able to move with some degree of freedom, is locked into huge grants, science is science no longer, and has stepped over the frontier and becomes “settled”.
I’m sure Climate “Scientists” have a word for this frontier, but I can only research so long before my brain freezes up, and therefore I’ll make up my own jargon, and call the boundary “The MANNopause”.

November 2, 2011 12:54 am

Who said there’s no living bacteria in the ice?

Tony Mach
November 2, 2011 1:06 am

Their official reason for this is to respect other culture’s words for “snow,” and to demonstrate political correctness, as in Climate Science that correctness is more important than the mathematical sort, and they are exceedingly respectful towards all cultures, except Yankees.
Now, that was uncalled for, that scientists use their lingo to be “politically” correct. You could have come up with all kinds of reasons, but this is bullshit. Their behaviour has nothing to do with PC and it just shows bias. You don’t accept other things as fact, you need to question your aversion to PC (or question your concept of PC, to be more precise).
And by the way, what the heck is wrong with being respectful towards other cultures? Especially when you are from the White/Christian/European culture and the other culture has been the target of subjugation and/or extinction in the name of your culture?

Tony Mach
November 2, 2011 1:17 am

And all this “I’m just a naive boy from Texas asking simple questions” just reminds me too much of “A Modest Proposal”. Only, you seem like the target of the satire, not the author.
Stick to (climate) science, and by all means write funny about it. It is really good to read critical/sceptical positions, that you don’t take something for granted (“Everybody knows CO2 will kill us all!”). Don’t bring positions into it you haven’t critically/sceptically questioned and researched yourself (“Everybody knows that PC is bullshit!”).

Editor
November 2, 2011 1:41 am

Konrad
Caleb explains the firn scenario in a much more amusing manner than I did in my article;
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
However it is not correct to say that the methods of measurements of Co2 from 1820 (around the date of the first credible readings) up to the 1940s, immediately prior to Keeling, were not scientically determined.
Some very famous sciemtists took measurements with well tried equipment and were well aware of the dangers of contamination from adjacent co2 emitting sources. The British enacted the first legislation to set co2 limits (in cotton factories) over 120 years ago and such parameters as the gas light burners in a factory had to be accounted for.
There are too many historic measurements to be dismissed, and an audit of the more robust readings by a suitably independent and qualified authority would settle the matter once and for all.
tonyb

Editor
November 2, 2011 1:43 am

Sandy says
“Snow falls as 95% air but the time it is ice it’s < 5% air. So below the breathing zone air is being squeezed up past newer snow as it compresses. So the air in the trapped bubble is *older* than the ice around it."
Surely the 'old' air would change the composition of the newer air in the layers above it?
tonyb

Richard S Courtney
November 2, 2011 2:04 am

bones:
Thankyou for your clear explanation (at November 1, 2011 at 9:06 pm ) of a point I have made repeatedly in many places (including on WUWT) since the mid-1990s. Indeed, it is the major disagreement on ice core data between Ferdinand Engelbeen and myself.
To save others needing to find your excellent post, I copy it here; you wrote:
“Although there might be some bulk flows associated with outflows from compaction and changes of barometric pressure, the exchanges of gases above the “firnopause” should be dominated by diffusion processes. For example, for CO2 in air at the freezing point of water, the diffusion coefficient is about 0.14 cm^2/s. In sixty years, CO2 molecules could move diffusively about 400 meters, which is about three times the depth to your firnopause. The conclusion should be that the air trapped at the firnopause would have properties intermediate between those of air at the time the snow fell and those at the surface above the firnopause.”
Yes!
And the IPCC says the firn takes 83 years to seal. Assuming this 83-year figure is correct, then the effect of diffusion in the firn is similar to the effect of a 83-year running mean conducted on data from ice that sealed in each single year.
It is not possible to conduct an 83-year running mean on the Mauna Loa data for atmospheric CO2 concentration because that data only started to be obtained in 1958 (i.e. about half the time ago of 83 years).
And the ice core data is consistent with the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentration assembled by Beck if an 83-year running mean is applied to Beck’s data.
Simply, if the IPCC is right that the ice takes 83 years to seal then the ice core data cannot indicate significant fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentration of less than ~160 years duration.
Richard

Jerker Andersson
November 2, 2011 2:53 am

It certainly is a very interesting thing you talk about there, how air is trapped in ice and what air is actually trapped.
If we consider your example that it takes 60 years going from snow to ice the question is, the air between 30-60 meters, does it ever escape out in the atmosphere or is it forever trapped in the ice and blended with the air from the layers above?
In that case the air that gets trapped could actually be a mix of hundredes, instead of a decade or two. In that case CO2 swings that last for 100 years could be averaged out in the past and become mostly invisible.
This must have been calculated and done som research of allready how much air that is trapped and blended with comming years.
At what depth is air permantently trapped in the snow, not ice, and do not escape into atmosphere anymore but can stll blend around in the compressed snow?
How many % air does the ice samples contain? By looking on some pictures it looks like there are just a few percent air in the ice.
Lets make a thought experiment with guesstimated values.
If the ice contains 4% air bubbles per ice volume, and new snow contains 95% air it means that about 96% of the air for any given year gets blowed out inte atmosphere by the previous 60 years of remaining air.
So for any given year of air in the ice it must consist of 96% old air and 4 % of that specific years air. This value is proboably much smaller since the air gets blended with the previous and comming decades. It may never exeec 1% for any given year. This could probably be calculated by someone how knows how to do it.
Since the air blended and gets pushed upward it doesn’t mean it takes 60 years for the air to get trapped completley as this is probably a logarithmic blending where not all 60 year old air gets trapped but some portion gets blended with above decaeds and can surive beeing trapped for hundreds of year.
Any given year should have a higher portion of air blended in from the closest decades than air from 50-60 year old snow. Even air from comming decades will blend into the past as the blowing outward is very slow and air can mix rather fast if it can move in any way.
I can’t make any conclusions from my own thought experiment but it certainly convinces me that this is someting I am interested to read more about.
Am i completley off in this subject? Does anyone know of any research that is available and readable for a layman like me?

John Marshall
November 2, 2011 3:00 am

When a temperature profile is taken through a glacier the temperature gradually increases towards the base to 0C or just above due to geothermal heat. The same will happen through an ice sheet. Perhaps this gradual warming helps change the air.

Iggy Slanter
November 2, 2011 3:44 am

Calling Nobel Prize for Physics? Hello?!

November 2, 2011 4:08 am

Excellent! It is the origin of the grabicules that is the great unknown 🙂

Bob Kutz
November 2, 2011 4:11 am

Caleb,
Great post. I have always wondered how they resolved the gas diffusion/resolution issues in ice cores but have never looked into it.
I think what you are looking for, though, is brownian motion and fractional vapor pressure as the mechanism for transport. I think calling it ‘2011 air’ vs. ‘1951 air’ is a bit of a misnomer. What is looked at is air that has the same chemical composition as the atmosphere had in 2011. While it would be impossible to replace the air, hundreds of feet down into the snow/ice strata, nature will ensure that, over time, the co2/nitrogen/o2, etc become balanced out. It probably becomes less effective at doing so as the snow finally makes the transition to ice, someone with a deeper understanding that I have would have to do a lot of math to be able to define that, but the mechanisms of brownian motion and fractional vapor pressure will ensure that the various gases equalize, over time, even at great depth.
Sorry if someone already posted this information, but I didn’t have time to read every comment.
Anyway, it’s still a great post.
Google dalton’s law, brownian motion, mass diffusion and Einstein’s theory (not relativity).

Sandy
November 2, 2011 4:13 am

So diffusion dominates compaction outflow, ok.
Could the nuclear test of the 60’s be used as a marker to see how wide the diffusion is??
It seems compaction should be at a certain depth, so double the accumulation rate (say PDO flip) halves the enclosure time??

Chuck L
November 2, 2011 4:24 am

I believe the noted scientist, Don Ho, also considered this issue! 🙂

November 2, 2011 5:22 am

Concerning Ernst-Georg Beck’s analysis of historical CO2 data:
I wrote with Beck as co-author a paper on the accurate determination of CO2 background levels. The CO2 versus wind speed method whih gives good results for contemparary measurements was also applied to historical measurements (Liege, Giessen, Vienna) and gave as a conclusion that these calculated backgrounds were clearly higher than those of the IPCC consensus (i.e. derived from ice core bubbles).

November 2, 2011 5:30 am

I thank commenters for their responses. My intent was to get people to chuckle about things they often take too seriously, but also to think about the mixing that occurs before bubbles form. Most are focused on the possible mixing that occurs after the bubbles are already formed.
I learn a lot from people. The entire subject of algae and bacteria living in the snow is fascinating, and something I was not considering.
I likely need to go back to school regarding the subject of diffusion. Perhaps we could persuade a great teacher, (such as Willis,) to lecture laymen like myself on the subject. However, even if 1951 air can move 900 feet in sixty years, it still doesn’t address the issue of it all mysteriously heading up, as 2011 air all mysteriously heads down, which was what I was poking fun at. I remain convinced the air in the bubbles is a blend, right from the start.
I’ll have more comments, but I need to milk my goats, and do other chores.

Gail Combs
November 2, 2011 5:36 am

Jerker Andersson says:
November 2, 2011 at 2:53 am
…I can’t make any conclusions from my own thought experiment but it certainly convinces me that this is something I am interested to read more about.
Am i completely off in this subject? Does anyone know of any research that is available and readable for a layman like me?
___________________________________________
There is this readable paper: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf
You could also read the pdfs on Segalstad’s web site: http://www.co2web.info/

epolvi
November 2, 2011 6:14 am

Considering we are talking about CO2 so the 5% air buble contains about 0.03% CO2 and add the impact of the differences in partial pressure of CO2 and other gasses into the equation over the time, the time stamp of the CO2 content in the bubble becomes at best a wild guess.

Verified by MonsterInsights