This is an attempt to redefine the graph made famous by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth that showed temperature leading CO2.
From a press release embargoed until 1PM EST 4/4:
Work that may clarify the relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and temperature at the end of the last ice age is presented in this week’s Nature. The study reveals that rising temperatures were preceded by CO2 increases during the last deglaciation, contrary to prior findings derived from ice cores that were thought to represent larger global patterns. These results support an important role for CO2 in driving global climate change.
Antarctic ice-core records indicate that CO2 may have influenced climate changes during the Pleistocene ice ages, which began around 2.6 million years ago and ended about 11,700 years ago. However, the exact role of CO2 in producing climate changes has remained unclear, partly because ice-core records only reflect local temperatures. To better understand the relationship between CO2 and global climate change, Jeremy Shakun and colleagues reconstruct global surface temperatures for the last deglaciation. They show that rising temperatures are correlated with, and generally lag behind, increasing levels of CO2.
The reconstructed global temperatures were produced using proxy records of temperature variability, such as those recorded in planktonic microorganisms. Anomalies in the correlations, such as in the Antarctic where the CO2 changes lag behind temperature, are explained by redistribution of heat between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the authors suggest.
==============================================================
Here is the long form press release (h/t to junkscience.com):
Rising CO2 levels linked to global warming during last deglaciation
CORVALLIS, Ore. – Many scientists have long suspected that rising levels of carbon dioxide and the global warming that ended the last Ice Age were somehow linked, but establishing a clear cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and global warming from the geologic record has remained difficult.
A new study, funded by the National Science Foundation and published in the journal Nature, identifies this relationship and provides compelling evidence that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming.
Lead author Jeremy Shakun, who conducted much of the research as a doctoral student at Oregon State University, said the key to understanding the role of CO2 is to reconstruct globally averaged temperature changes during the end of the last Ice Age, which contrasts with previous efforts that only compared local temperatures in Antarctica to carbon dioxide levels.
“Carbon dioxide has been suspected as an important factor in ending the last Ice Age, but its exact role has always been unclear because rising temperatures reflected in Antarctic ice cores came before rising levels of CO2,” said Shakun, who is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-doctoral Fellow at Harvard University and Columbia University.
“But if you reconstruct temperatures on a global scale – and not just examine Antarctic temperatures – it becomes apparent that the CO2 change slightly preceded much of the global warming, and this means the global greenhouse effect had an important role in driving up global temperatures and bringing the planet out of the last Ice Age,” Shakun added.
Here is what the researchers think happened.
Small changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun affected the amount of sunlight striking the northern hemisphere, melting ice sheets that covered Canada and Europe. That fresh water flowed off of the continent into the Atlantic Ocean, where it formed a lid over the sinking end of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation – a part of a global network of currents that brings warm water up from the tropics and today keeps Europe temperate despite its high latitudes.
The ocean circulation warms the northern hemisphere at the expense of the south, the researchers say, but when the fresh water draining off the continent at the end of the last Ice Age entered the North Atlantic, it essentially put the brakes on the current and disrupted the delivery of heat to the northern latitudes.
“When the heat transport stops, it cools the north and heat builds up in the Southern Hemisphere,” Shakun said. “The Antarctic would have warmed rapidly, much faster than the time it takes to get CO2 out of the deep sea, where it was likely stored.
“The warming of the Southern Ocean may have shifted the winds as well as melted sea ice, and eventually drawn the CO2 out of the deep water, and released it into the atmosphere,” Shakun said. “That, in turn, would have amplified warming on a global scale.”
The researchers constructed a record of global surface temperature from 80 temperature reconstructions spanning the end of the Ice Age and found that average temperature around the Earth correlated with – and generally lagged behind – rising levels of CO2.
Peter Clark, an Oregon State University scientist and co-author on the paper, said changes in solar radiation were the likely trigger for the series of effects that followed. His 2009 study, published in Science, confirmed an earlier theory that wobble in the Earth’s axis, which changes the amount of sunlight captured by Earth, first caused melting of the large northern ice sheets.
“It has long been known that Earth’s slow wobble is caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years,” said Clark, a professor in OSU’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences.
Shakun said there is “an enormous amount” of carbon sequestered in the deep ocean.
“The Southern Ocean is connected to all the deep ocean basins,” he pointed out, “so the most likely mechanisms to draw it out of the ocean were certainly there.”
The question now, the researchers say, is how human-generated carbon dioxide will affect the planet when there isn’t an ice age.
“CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age,” Shakun said, “and it took about 10,000 years to do it. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond.”
“While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming,” Shakun added.
###
==============================================================
The paper is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html and named:
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Abstract:
The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than
global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.
METHODS SUMMARY
The data set compiled in this study contains most published high-resolution
(median resolution, 200 yr), well-dated (n5636 radiocarbon dates) temperature
records from the last deglaciation (see Supplementary Information for the full
database). Sixty-seven records are from the ocean and are interpreted to reflect sea
surface temperatures, and the remaining 13 record air or lake temperatures on
land. All records span 18–11 kyr ago and,85% of them span 22–6.5 kyr ago. We
recalibrated all radiocarbon dates with the IntCal04 calibration (Supplementary
Information) and converted proxy units to temperature using the reservoir corrections
and proxy calibrations suggested in the original publications. An exception
to this was the alkenone records, which were recalibrated with a global
core-top calibration41. The data were projected onto a 5u35u grid, linearly
interpolated to 100-yr resolution and combined as area-weighted averages. We
used Monte Carlo simulations to quantify pooled uncertainties in the age models
and proxy temperatures, although we do not account for analytical uncertainties
or uncertainties related to lack of global coverage and spatial bias in the data set. In
particular, the records are strongly biased towards ocean margins where high
sedimentation rates facilitate the development of high-resolution records. Given
these issues, we focus on the temporal evolution of temperature through the
deglaciation rather than on its amplitude of change. The global temperature stack
is not particularly sensitive to interpolation resolution, areal weighting, the
number of proxy records, radiocarbon calibration, infilling of missing data or
proxy type. Details on the experimental design of the transient model simulations
can be found in ref. 25.
The temperature stacks and proxy data set are available in Supplementary Information.
Full Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of
the paper at www.nature.com/nature.
PDF files
-
- Supplementary Information (9.2M)
- This file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Figures 1-30, Supplementary Tables 1-3, additional References and Supplementary Appendices 1-2.
Excel files
-
- Supplementary Data (2.4M)
- This file contains Supplementary Data.
==============================================================
Don Easterbrook has some initial thoughts on the Nature paper.
The paper is based on many assumptions without supporting data. Here are a few examples:
1. They assume that CO2 is capable of causing climate changes, even though 95% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect is from water vapor. In order to seriously consider CO2 as a causal mechanism, you first need to prove that very tiny increases in CO2 do indeed increase atmospheric water vapor. However, during recent warming, purported to be caused by increased CO2, atmospheric water vapor has not gone up, it has decreased slightly. CO2 by itself cannot cause significant warming because there is little of it in the atmosphere (0.038%) and CO2 accounts for only a few percent of the GHG effect.
2. They assume that the AMOC is the only driver of climate change, totally ignoring the influence of the Pacific Ocean, which covers almost half of the Earth’s surface and we can see in the modern data a strong influence of ENSO as a driver of climate changes (actually a closer correlation than the AMOC). They offer no evidence that the AMOC is the main and only driver of climate change.
3. They assume a hemispheric ‘see-saw’ of climate changes in which the North and South Hemispheres are out of phase, despite strong evidence in both hemisphere that climate changes were closely simultaneous, not out of phase with one another (Easterbrook, 2011).
4. The dismiss all other causal mechanisms by simply stating that they are only of ‘regional importance’, similar to the tactic of dismissing the MWP and Little Ice Age as only regional climate changes, not global. They also totally ignore the complete lack of correlation of CO2 with Holocene climate changes. They don’t even mention the very strong correlation of variation in 10Be and 14C with climate changes, suggesting a solar cause.
================================================================
The Antarctic Ice core graph is particularly troublesome.
In the long scale graph at top, I pointed out that the resolution of the temperature reconstruction diminished as the sample got older. Willis responded to my query with this:
The resolution for temperature drops, as does the CO2 resolution, because the ice is getting more compressed and so there is more and more time between equally spaced samples. Here’s one of my old graphs of the same data, showing the same phenomenon:
Where I think they go wrong is the claim that they can somehow reconstruct, not just the couple thousands of years of temperature that Mann claimed, but nearly a million years of temperature … and that the timelines for the two wouldn’t have errors.
My rule of thumb about these kinds of things is, no error bars … no science.
w.
Other rebuttals are in the works. I will add to this posting as they develop.
Pat Michaels writes to junkscience.com:
I am very unexcited about this. I have always thought that the timing of carbon dioxide changes and warming/cooling is pretty much irrelevant… What is interesting about this latest “finding” is that it demonstrates, yet again, the unfalsifiability of climate change “science”. The standard argument on the ice cores has been that temperature preceding carbon dioxide changes is simply evidence for positive feedback rather than lack of forcing. Now the argument will revert back to the other way around — that CO2 causes all the major pleistocene (which we are still in — see Greenland) climate fluctuations.
About that carbon dioxide–it’s just another attempt to explain the true mystery of climate change, which is why major glaciations ever go away.
My mantra is that “it’s not the heat, it’s the sensitivity”, which is obviously overestimated in climate models, for a variety of reasons that should be obvious.
Tom V. Segalstad Associated Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, at the
University of Oslo writes:
There are some serious problems with ice cores.
I’ll be surprised if the new Nature paper cites our paper by Jaworowski, Segalstad & Ono (1992): Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? in the professional peer-reviewed Elsevier journal “Science of the total environment”, Vol. 114, pp. 227-284 (1992). The paper is available on my website here: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf
There’s a follow-up paper (abstract) on the stable isotope temperature measurement technique in ice cores here: http://www.co2web.info/aig.pdf
I checked the references of the Shakun et al paper published today, and the paper Segalstad mentions is not part of the references section. I guess it was too inconvenient to mention.
Steven- I stopped caring about this article after I read the first sentence of point #1, but I suppose it’s worth clarifying what the article actually says, since I suspect most people won’t get around to reading it.
They are still assuming natural causes started the temperature rise. Why not just assume that those natural causes caused all of the temperature rise, instead of complicating it with CO2?
Thanks
JK
They just have to find an “excuse ” for everything that goes against their beloved religion.
Mosher you can be such a prat at times and that’s sad. CO² Experiment indeed. What’s that a glass bottle again. OR IR light of very narrow energy or some other misrepresentation of the planet.
Atmospheric Argon responds to changes on ocean temperature by changing its partition into the atmosphere, warming causes oceanic outgassing. I would be interested in looking at the known Ar data with their new ‘Temperature’ proxies.
Are we seeing the AGW psychosis creating observer, indeed researcher bias here?
Unbelievable that this has gone through peer-review.
It sure means that the reviewers of that article are just a bunch of activists. I never want a subscription to Nature now for sure. The chief editor should be fired.
How can ice sheets melt in the Northern Hemisphere without additional warmth by the sun?
Take a good look at the green line (cause that’s climate in the Netherlands) in the following graph:
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/grafieken/jaar/index.cgi
That green line is caused by the tilt of the Earth’s axes to the sun. A very slight change causes huge temperature changes in the Netherlands.
For example the change between the end of July and early September means at least a 2 degrees Celsius change. What a little bit of less sunlight can do for just one lattitude.
Milankovitch cycles are different. These cause a more longterm change in orbital distance, axial tilt and axial precession on a global scale. Causing somewhat more or less solar radiation towards Earth and thus changing temperature.
How on Earth are these scientists able to cancel Milankovitch warming/cooling out and let CO2-increases lead temperature changes?
It’s the same like Japan’s coastal line was already destroyed before the tsunami hit. It was the destruction which caused the tsunami.
Didn’t the lowering of CO2 content of the atmosphere to 180ppm nearly cause the extinction of life as we know it on Earth because the green plants would have starved? Once the plants die, the animals that live by eating them die and so on and so on.
Either the measurements were wrong or the atmosphere was not well mixed and CO2 levels in places warm enough for plants to live was higher.
According to the Antarctic Ice core graph above CO2 increased by approx. 43% (~185 to ~265 ppmv) and the global temperature rose by ~3.5°C.
What about the similar CO2 increase of 40% from pre-industrial times (280 ppmv) till today (392 ppmv)?
In case that CO2 primarily drives the global temperature there surely was a similar temperature increase. No? Well, then there must be some other primary cause…
And it looks like the antarctic temperature drove CO2 concentration and global temperature.
So, what caused the change in the antarctic temperatures?
The sun? The oceans? Or maybe the penguins?
In the first place all of this discussion is too short-term to be meaningful: 800,000 years is less than half of the Pleistocene, after all. I suggest we go back and look at the global temperature from the end of the Eocene (say 34 MM YBP), and refer to M. Zack on the initiation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the effect of that event on the climate of Antarctica (it was temperate before the ACC started up, if I remember rightly), and then fold in the rise of the Isthmus of Panama and the blocking of the warm Pacific Current. These two events coincide with two major cooling phases of global temperature, culminating with the beginning of ice ages at the end of the Pliocene. Ice appears at the poles in the Miocene or late Oligocene, for the first time in 200 MM years, during which icecaps and glaciers were absent from the Earth. Looks like ocean currents have a bigger impact on global climate than any other factor, and they are controlled largely by plate tectonics. Does CO2 even enter into the equation?
George CPG
Interesting article. I have a question that those with more knowledge of climate science may be able to help me with. My understanding is that ice cores can provide an understanding of early atmospheric CO2 levels on the basis that air (and thus CO2 along with oxygen, nitrogen and other gases) would be dissolved in water. By melting the ice core samples at different depths we can infer by analyzing the dissolved gas composition what the atmospheric composition would have been at the time. This seems straightforward but I’m curious if this accounts for any diffusion of the dissolved gases over time through the ice. While I realize diffusion of a gas like CO2 thorugh a solid (frozen water) is probably very slow we are talking about samples from hundreds of thousands of years. Over that length of time it would seem that some gas migration through the ice due to simple chemical diffusion and buoyancy would have occured making the measurements less accurate. Perhaps this is already accounted for by the scientists. I’m just curious if anyone knows anything about this. Thanks.
Personally, I don’t have a lot of trouble believing that GHGs do affect atmospheric temps. Where I get screwed up with this hypothesis is that the most obvious GHG to get released into the atmosphere when the ice melts is good ole’ H2O. And I imagine that ice contains a LOT more H2O versus CO2. But that obvious observation isn’t addressed in the paper. Why? Could it be because H2O isn’t / can’t be controlled by humans? Hmmmm….
If lots of CO2 came out of the ocean to trigger a temperature rise then the ph of the oceans must have been lower (more acidic) than now. What evidence is there for damage done to life in the ocean by that lower ph?
What volume of ice would have to be turned into water to start this process? And what kind of energy does that require over what time frame? Did those questions get addressed in this paper? I didn’t see it.
>>My rule of thumb about these kinds of things is, no error bars … no science.
Is that blur on the green and red temperature lines supposed to represent an error bar ? If it is, it looks like it’s about +/- 0.1 deg C, same as Phil Jones claims for 1850 with thermometer temperatures. Ridiculous. It would make more sense to have an error of a couple of degrees in an estimate of temperatures 20,000 years ago.
The CO2 measurements follow the temperatures in Antarctica, not the northern hemisphere.
Remember the north has much more variability (the Dansgaard-Oeschger events) and this variability is not exhibited in the high resolution CO2 estimates. Temperatures in Greenland nearly reached today’s level 14,000 years ago but CO2 didn’t budget at all.
Last ice age, Greenland and Antarctica Ice Cores.
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9484/lasticeageglant.png
Last 800,000 years, Antarctica, North Atlantic proxies, and CO2 (at 3.0C per doubling).
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4670/last800knaant.png
But this paper is going to be cited over and over again by the pro-AGW people (no matter how poorly done it is).
Okay, it’s a Rube Goldberg mechanism, or it’s new subspecies, a Rahmstorf-Maschine (so called after the seminal work of the famous German PIK inmate). They’re trying to construct these things all the time; a little change here leads to larger changes there. This confronts them with two problems (ironically, on the meta level, the chaotic amplification also works!):
-If true, it would show that their models are incapable of predicting, as the chaotic nature of the global climate system shows, so forget about predicting to 2100. (The Gavin Schmidt defense of GCM’s was always that no matter how chaotic the system, the alleged global energetic imbalance must always lead to a warming; this argument breaks down when the amplification mechanisms of this new paper hold; Steven Mosher’s and everybody elses belief in usefulness of GCM’s would be collateral damage.)
-Their proposed mechanism only exists in their models or reconstructions and is not observable in present or past data. So it’s all conjecture anyway.
I’m glad this is now settled.
/sarc
But seriously, where did these turkeys get their CO2 data from? The temperature and CO2 data must be from the SAME REGION at the very least.
Otherwise, it’s garbage!
Does anyone know?
Morrel says:
April 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm
“By melting the ice core samples at different depths we can infer by analyzing the dissolved gas composition what the atmospheric composition would have been at the time. This seems straightforward but I’m curious if this accounts for any diffusion of the dissolved gases over time through the ice.”
I’m not an expert but Ferdinand Engelbeen is.
Jaworowski had similar arguments:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
But Ferdinand Engelbeen says it has been refuted:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/#comment-900613
If climate processes are in play that cause the oceans to warm, that then releases CO2, you still haven’t managed to turn CO2 into a primary driver. It still follows. Their “problem” is still there.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/04/feathered-tyrannosaur/
“The average temperature would have been about 10 degrees C,” says Sullivan, an associate professor at the Beijing paleontology institute.
‘It’s possible that some dinosaurs that were even bigger had feathers but we can’t tell one way or
the other because most dinosaurs are known only from bones’
“That is perhaps not too different from northern China today,” he says, but was an “unusually cool” period in the age of the dinosaurs.
What George E. Smith; says on April 4, 2012 at 11:16 am seems to be similar to what I always say, which is that if CO2 is the main “Climate-driver” there should be no possibilities of Ice Ages happening because, under “AGW – CAGW Law”, global temperatures cannot possibly decline by some 6 – 8 deg. Celsius at a time when atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising or is at its maximum.
Bill Illis says (April 4, 2012 at 2:34 pm)
But this paper is going to be cited over and over again by the pro-AGW people (no matter how poorly done it is).
——
Yeah, odd coincidence. They had a hole in the AGW theory that was just this size and this shaped. And then along comes Dr Shakun with a jigsaw piece just so big and just so shaped.
Isn’t science wonderful! (sarc)
PS: Anyone notice Dr Shakun and Kari Norgaard are both at U of Oregon? Is there something in the water over there?
Bill Illis says:
April 4, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Thanks for the useful images and data.
If anything, looking at both figures, it seems that temperature rises at the start of interglacials begin in the NH before, not after, the SH. This is especially clear at the start of our current interglacial. This is the precise opposite of what the above paper asserts – that NH moves later than the SH allowing CO2 to lead. Instead CO2 lags even further behind.
The authors seem to have forgotten about Greenland.
Mosher and Colose,
So the argument is that a change in the Miliankovich cycles melted the northern hemishere glaciers (which prior to this event covered Europe and North America with a sheet of ice more one mile thick in places) and also raised temperatures significantly in antartica but this only represented a trivial change in the global climate? It was only when CO2 increased as a result of these minor changes that global climate underwent any signficant change? Have I got that right?