From the University of Bristol
Carbon cycling was much smaller during last ice age than in today’s climate
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most important greenhouse gases and the increase of its abundance in the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning is the main cause of future global warming. In past times, during the transition between an ice age and a warm period, atmospheric CO2 concentrations changed by some 100 parts per million (ppm) – from an ice age value of 180 ppm to about 280 ppm during warm periods.
Scientists can reconstruct these changes in the atmospheric carbon stock using direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 trapped in air bubbles in the depth of Antarctica’s ice sheets. However explaining the cause of these 100ppm changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations between glacial and interglacial climate states – as well as estimating the carbon stored on land and in the ocean – is far more difficult.
The researchers, led by Dr Philippe Ciais of the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et l’Environnement near Paris, ingeniously combined measurements of isotopes of atmospheric oxygen (18O) and carbon (13C) in marine sediments and ice cores with results from dynamic global vegetation models, the latter being driven by estimates of glacial climate using climate models.
Dr Marko Scholze of the University of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences, co-author on the paper said: “The difference between glacial and pre-industrial carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere is only about 330 petagrams of carbon, which is much smaller than previously thought. The uptake of carbon by vegetation and soil, that is the terrestrial productivity during the ice age, was only about 40 petagrams of carbon per year and thus much smaller: roughly one third of present-day terrestrial productivity and roughly half of pre-industrial productivity.”
From these results, the authors conclude that the cycling of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere – that is, the time between uptake by photosynthesis and release by decomposition of dead plant material – must have been much smaller than in the current, warmer climate.
Furthermore there must have been a much larger size of non-decomposable carbon on land during the Last Glacial Maximum (the period in the Earth’s history when ice sheets were at their maximum extension, between 26,500 and 19,000 years ago).
The authors suggest that this inert carbon should have been buried in the permanently frozen soils and large amounts of peat of the northern tundra regions.
Paper
‘Large inert carbon pool in the terrestrial biosphere during the Last Glacial Maximum’ by P. Ciais, A. Tagliabue, M. Cuntz, L. Bopp, M. Scholze, G. Hoffmann, A. Lourantou, S. P. Harrison, I. C. Prentice, D. I. Kelley, C. Koven and S. L. Piao in Nature Geoscience
“The uptake of carbon by vegetation and soil, that is the terrestrial productivity during the ice age, was only about 40 petagrams of carbon per year and thus much smaller: roughly one third of present-day terrestrial productivity and roughly half of pre-industrial productivity.”
The work has the value to document the big difference between the pre-industrial productivity and today productivity.
If glacial was 50x, the pre-industrial was 100x and now we are at 150x, 50% more then pre-industrial values. Further analysis could show how much of it is attributable to the last 150 years warming and how much to more CO2, but it is very important to see the difference to pre-industrial level.
It is vital to highlight this point in view of any discussions about reducing CO2 to pre-industrial levels.
Conclusion: people who want to do it would like to exterminate 1/3 of current living beings on Earth.
And the follow-up question : how much extra living beings can the planet host with some more CO2? 500ppm? Can we get to 200% pre-industrial values?
…..In past times, during the transition between an ice age and a warm period, atmospheric CO2 concentrations changed by some 100 parts per million (ppm) – from an ice age value of 180 ppm to about 280 ppm during warm periods….
If this was true there would be no trees and certainly nothing like mammoths during the last ice age. At 180 ppm Class 4 plants (grasses) could possibly survive but would not have the “energy” to produce seed. At 200 pm CO2 trees starve http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067 (That link of course has since been purged from the internet – SURPRISE – not)
Another study on wheat (a grass) in open fields showed the CO2 level 2 meters above the crops was reduced to a near constant 300 ppm during the day but fluctuated during the night. Again indicating a lower threshold of 250 ppm ~ 300 ppm and certainly not indicative of below 180 ppm.
From the people who know and depend on the truth – FARMERS
Hydroponic Shop
Keith in another WUWT discussion brought up another good point the effect of partial pressure of CO2 at higher elevations on plants.
Now when will Engelbeen come to valiantly defend this very important pillar of CAGW? After all low CO2 is the KEY to CAGW.
Dr. Jaworowski tried to do the study to determine the accuracy of the Ice Core CO2 data but the funding was turned down because it was feared his study would “Disprove” the CO2 readings from the ice cores and we couldn’t have that now could we???
Ice core measurements a “direct” measure of past CO2 concentrations? I’d hate to see a convoluted measure then!
Lars P. says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:10 am
“The work has the value to document the big difference between the pre-industrial productivity and today productivity.”
Yes, that leapt off the page at me too. According to the authors biologic activity was 40 petagrams carbon during glacial period, 80 petagrams during pre-industrial, and 120 petagrams today.
So the primary producers in the food chain are 50% more productive today than 200 years ago. This is the highest figure I’ve seen. Typically 15% to 30% is bandied about for the agricultural windfall of increased atmospheric CO2 but that doesn’t take into account longer growing seasons from CO2 induced surface warming nor reduced water requirements. So this is a VERY interesting admission coming from the nattering nabobs of anthropogenic negativity.
I must agree with your conclusion that these people don’t give a fig about global warming all they care about is reducing the human population. That can’t be done so long as primary production in the food chain keeps rising – useless eaters can’t increase in number without an increase in food supply. As long as we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere the biosphere just gets more and more active, winters get more and more mild until the Antarctic continent is covered by temperate forest again, and the biologic carbon cycle is several times greater than it is today.
I call these people ice-huggers. They’re lunatics. The last thing they want is a green planet. They want a planet that is cold and unfriendly to life including human life.
I don’t know what is most embarrassing: The university of Bristol using past low against “present perfect pre industrialized day” average or that they excluded past eras with higher average than 280.
Around 93% of the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural and most of that is from inorganic sources (the equatorial oceans). Click on my name for details.
Ferdinand Engelbeen has a very good point, that he made above.
We also have to conclude then that the size of the plant biosphere, creates its own balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.
When the mass of the vegetation biosphere increases (like it did in the Cretaceous for example), this increases the CO2 balance in the atmosphere. Changes in the distribution/type of plants can also therefore affect the balance of CO2. The evolution of grasses 24 million years ago seems to have reset the natural CO2 balance in the atmosphere at a lower level (from 1200 ppm to 270 ppm) (which is where it has been for the past 24 million years, a little known fact in the climate science community).
Aside from the plants during the Ice Age showing the CO2 reading are way off there is another elephant in the room.
It is called Water Vapor.
95% of the green house effect is caused by WATER not CO2. It is up to 4% where as CO2 is a puny 0.036% That is why water is left out of the IPCC reports. (Another lie by omission) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Next what did the last ice age to to the water content of the atmosphere???
So there goes the change of 100 ppm in CO2 having any effect because it would be completely swamped by the water vapor changes! Not to mention the effect of the Milankovich cycles that would directly effect those changes in the amount of water vapor.
Of course we KNOW the sun has nothing to do with our climate because climate scientists tell us that is so. /sarc>
So as usual these [self-snip] scientists are busy chasing grant money with the get out of peer review CO2 card and not doing real science.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
Sorry, I disagree. Some skeptics don’t like the ice core CO2 data (or even the current atmospheric CO2 data), because they are one of the cornerstones of the AGW scare. But that are real data.
That are real data that don’t say what they are claimed to say. The alleged pre-industrial CO2 cap of 280 ppm is a convenient ‘err’ in the assessment of ice core data. The temporal resolution of those data is not sufficient to support such claims.
What I would like to see, is whatever they use to “baseline” or “proof” the ice core information. Any links would be helpful, because I’ve certainly looked, and can’t find it.
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most important greenhouse gases and the increase of its abundance in the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning is the main cause of future global warming.”
According to the unproven theory of AGW.
Here is why CO2 neither cools nor heats over short or long periods of time. The oceanic and atmospheric teleconnection used to produce weather pattern variation oscillations has far greater sustaining energy needed for such oscillations than puny CO2 has. If there is any warming or cooling that can be attributed to CO2, it will quickly be overrun, outrun, wiped out, and beaten to the mat by an “ill wind this way blows”.
So, in my opinion, the mortal wound in the paper is this: The authors fail to present the background weather pattern systems in place at the knee bends of rising/falling CO2. They must first rule out the first encountered pathology (intrinsic active weather pattern variation oscillations) before making their case regarding CO2. None of these scientists ever do this in their gloom and doom papers. They walk into a sh**-filled room and look for mice turd, whilst ignoring the sheepish elephant standing in the corner.
New studies:
“At night it is colder than outside”.
“The higher, the splash.”
The LSCE was founded in 2006. Seems they’ve achieved a lot of experience within 5 years to come up with such a crap to justify their raison d’être… and to cry for more $$$ funds.
*yawn*
“ingeniously combined measurements of isotopes of atmospheric oxygen (18O) and carbon (13C) in marine sediments and ice cores with results from dynamic global vegetation models, the latter being driven by estimates of glacial climate using climate models.”>>>
So….global vegetation based on a computer model based on input about climate from another computer model….
The “ingenious” part would be figuring out how to get that past peer review. Oh wait, we have pal review now. OK, so what was the ingenious part then?
Carbon cycle? What of the carbon sinks? I have yet to see any mention of the ongoing process of the calcium carbonate deposits on igneous rock, that have to be a current process. We have a lot of basalt in western Colorado. The exposed boulders, as well as buried rocks get covered from the top down in calcium carbonate. How many tons does this comprise?
Gail Combs says: November 21, 2011 at 4:57 am Excellent point about atmospheric pressure due to altitude.
“The researchers, led by Dr Philippe Ciais of the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et l’Environnement near Paris, ingeniously combined measurements of isotopes of atmospheric oxygen (18O) and carbon (13C) in marine sediments and ice cores with results from dynamic global vegetation models, the latter being driven by estimates of glacial climate using climate models.”
GIGO squared. I love it. A whole new level of abuse in computer modeling.
From Gail Combs on November 21, 2011 at 4:57 am, quoted in “Hydroponic shop” section:
Been awhile since it was only 300ppm, that value isn’t even on the “official” Mauna Loa graph, now we’re almost at 400ppm. Is that a very old reference, an “unmixed” local reading, or just mistaken?
It is completely wrong to assume that CO2 measurements from ice cores have anything to do with absolute values. They can show trends and highs and lows, but they are NOT quantitative in any way. Jaworowski, the leading expert has stated that there is 30–50% losses of CO2 during the traumatic process of core extraction. If you back calculate the losses, you end up with CO2 concentrations the same or higher than now.
It is only the IPCC that likes to pretend that ice core data, clearly indirect data, is quantitative—it is NOT!
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most important greenhouse gases and the increase of its abundance in the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning is the main cause of future global warming.
Has someone invented a time machine?
Models, models, models and proxy data feeding into more models that feed into ignorance and ideology. And what came first the swamp or the permafrost. As a northerner I am inpatient with southerners trying to tell us how things are and were in the arctic.
I think it’s the pro-AGW “concensus” people that have a problem with the ice-core data. They’re in denial that warming proceeds increases by CO2 levels by an average of 800 years. The two hardly go hand-in-hand. The data shows first it warms and then CO2 goes up.
Which means from the AGW supporters standpoint, it undermines one of their bases arguments.
There is of course, not a single supporting fact for that statement. It’s accepted as fact.
Any when some other pinhead(s) does a survey of the literature, this study will be counted as one more that supports the so-called “consensus view.”
Come now, we all now what actually happened
to end the last interglacial:
The Neandertal-IPCC said 280 ppm
was stressing out the Ice-Age big game they ate,
so they established a fire-rationing committee.
They had such great success in reducing their emissions
that they pulled 100ppm out of the atmosphere.
“Oops! All those glaciers marching south?
Trees don’t grow any more either.
How can that be? It wasn’t in our models!”
Now we know why the Neandertals died out.
Lars P. says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:10 am
“The work has the value to document the big difference between the pre-industrial productivity and today productivity.”
____________________________
Dave Springer says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:06 am
Yes, that leapt off the page at me too. According to the authors biologic activity was 40 petagrams carbon during glacial period, 80 petagrams during pre-industrial, and 120 petagrams today.
So the primary producers in the food chain are 50% more productive today than 200 years ago. This is the highest figure I’ve seen. Typically 15% to 30% is bandied about for the agricultural windfall of increased atmospheric CO2 but that doesn’t take into account longer growing seasons from CO2 induced surface warming nor reduced water requirements. So this is a VERY interesting admission coming from the nattering nabobs of anthropogenic negativity…..
______________
That is an interesting point, guys. It goes along with the charts of grain (cereal) production showing an increase from about 2.5 tonne/hectare to almost 7 tonne/hectare http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/goklany_srex2.jpg
It is from the WUWT article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/19/the-odd-omission-in-ipccs-summary-for-policy-makers-for-srex-on-extreme-weather-and-climatic-events/#more-51451
It is nice when information from completely different areas dovetail.