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.
keith says:
Wow the reverse logic is flowing tonight. Will: the CO2 lag was the last straw held by critics of AGW. They no longer have a factual basis to stand on
======
Static temperatures for 15 years during a period of unprecedented forcing, ice core proxies apparently now rubbish because someone’s speculative climate model says they are, missing tropical hot spot, lack of expected warming trend in the oceans (ARGO), tiny 30 year linear trend in the troposphere, lack of stratospheric cooling for 15 years, missing water vapour feedback, analysis of ERBE data shows opposite of expectations of climate models, models inability to explain early 20th century warming… could go on but I’ll keep it short.
You know I always thought environmentalism was a good thing when environmentalists did things like fight for rain forest protection. Since it’s gradually turned itself into an apocalyptic cult backed up by speculative junk science, I’ve become less enthusiastic.
So strange that the graph includes the current CO2 levels but not the current Antarctic temperatures. Trying to hide the decline? After all, if they maintain the same scale, shouldn’t current Antarctic temperatures be around 10°C? Fear-mongering psientists.
I would have expected the BBC’s article (link provided at top of comments) to have been written by Black or Harrabin, but unfortunately the normally excellent and unpoliticised Jonathon Amos has been dragged into the mire.
Amos’s articles on astronomy will no longer have the same aura and demeanour of erudition and professionalism.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/edc.jpg
The temperature falls a lot faster than the CO2 falls!
tautology tsk tsk
“…. during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation…”
Some devil being in the detail I have a question: Why does the supplementary data document supplied in support of the Shakun paper record in its properties as last being modified at 15:16 on 23 January, 2012, having only been created at 03:48 on 26 November, 2011, whereas the paper itself was submitted to Nature well over two months earlier on 16 September 2011?
The BBC summarises: “…a subtle change in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun known as a Milankovitch “wobble”, which increases the amount of light reaching northern latitudes and triggers the collapse of the hemisphere’s great ice sheets…this in turn produces vast amounts of fresh water that enter the North Atlantic to upset ocean circulation….heat at the equator that would normally be distributed northwards then backs up, raising temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere…this initiates further changes to atmospheric and ocean circulation, resulting in the Southern Ocean releasing CO2 from its waters…..the rise in CO2 sets in train a global rise in temperature that pulls the whole Earth out of its glaciated state….”.
What stops this alleged process? Why doesn’t the global rise in temperature due to CO2 out-gassing from the oceans continue indefinitely?
Something very strange about the graph concerning the slopes of the Antarctic temps, Global temps and CO2.
From 18000 yr to 14000 yr the slopes for Antarctic temps and CO2 are very similar, but not so Global temps.
From 13000 yr to 11000 yr all three slopes are very similar.
Why is that?
Why did the Global temps respond so slowly to rising CO2 for one period of time, but not for the other?
Looking at the graph more closely there is a definite anamoly/divergence between 18000 yr and 15000 yr between the slope of Antarctic temps, CO2 and the Global temps.
The slopes of all three are very similar for the period 22000 ye to 18000 yr, and 15000 yr to the present.
So why did the slope of Global temps diverge for only 3000 years of this 22000 year period when CO2 concentrations rose from 190ppm to 210ppm?
That is a very strange!
I say they should study the amounts of BS in the press relating to climate, and how that BS drives the temperatures, because the correlation is obvious. And proving causation, with their superior “scientific” methods should be a doddle.
/sarc
OH dear ! more mannian statistical methods.
The original work on Vostok showed CO lagged by 1000 +/-800y . ie *at least* 200 year lag with a proper uncertainty estimate. WHAT IS THE UNCERTAINTY OF THIS NEW RESULT?
Just one look at the principal graph makes it blindingly obvious. Their Younger Dryas event happens about 1500y later than that in the Vostok record. So why are they comparing it to CO2 from Vostok !?
The temperature proxy from that same physical bit of ice as the CO2 measurement, is deemed to be less relevant than some fuzzy mangle of different proxies from around the world where they overtly admit they have ignored the fundamental experimental uncertainties.
They recognise that the deglaciation was triggered by planetary influence on the Earth’s orbit causing melting of the NH ice sheet but their proxy shows Antarctica warming 1500 years earlier.
Their own paper more or less proves they’ve mis-calibrated their timescale.
It is unbelievable in this day and age that can be presented as science.
Neil Jordan says (April 4, 2012 at 7:45 pm)
—–
Thanks Neil. I stand corrected. 🙂
“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.”
So it’s a bit more than a “trigger” if it *first* melted the norther ice sheets that were kilometers thick !!
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.
Yeah, so “rapidly” that it got there first , by about 1500 years.
The only way to resolve this massive contradiction in their explanation is to recognise that one of the time scales is seriously in error.
Whichever it is (possibly the one without error bars), once you realign the Y-D event, it brings the two temperature records back into line and CO2 lags temperature as had already been established.
bmcBumley: “The key insight of this paper is that the change in the Milankovitch cycle is a “climate neutral” event which melts the glaciers through an undisclosed process having nothing to do with climate.”
So deglaciation is “climate neutral”? Absolutely priceless!
If the Church of AGW was properly recognised as a cult there would be help for these people. There would be support groups, counseling, help with deprogramming, etc. But currently there is nothing. This is just so, so unfair.
For those who query the accuracy of ice core gas samples, the paper mentioned in the last few paragraphs of the posting is well worth a read (all 58 pages) as it points out at least 20 ways that are shown to contaminate results. As far as I could make out any conclusion other than general trends over large periods of time would be futile. See:-
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
Mike says:
April 4, 2012 at 11:35 pm
“So many armchair experts and google galileos having a say here.”
Sadly , all it takes is a google galileo to see through this kind of drivel. You only high school science not a PhD.
” Better get writing people, The journals will be keen to present your detailed, scientifically valid and statistically sound debunking off this detailed”
Oh really, what universe are you living in ? I’ll pop over for a visit, Sounds like a lovely place to spend the summer.
“Mike says:
April 4, 2012 at 11:35 pm
So many armchair experts and google galileos having a say here. Better get writing people, The journals will be keen to present your detailed, scientifically valid and statistically sound debunking off this detailed, scientifically valid and statistically sound research. You should all probably go and do some university level science courses at least at undergraduate level first though.”
Dear Mike,
Niee of you to write. Read your blog. You may be paid to be a “research scientist” but a scientist you’re not. You need to spend a year or two as a fellow studying an allied, and more critical research (for you) topic: confirmation bias.
I presume you’re a relatively new graduate at some level. You call yourself an ecologist, if true, that makes you technically unqualified to be a climate science reviewer, or even criticise most of the commenters on WUWT. You simply don’t have the depth of technical training needed. You should be able to comment intelligently on the use of biological proxies, but I’m guessing you don’t have near enough experience yet, and you still have the hump of confirmation bias to crawl over. Take some advice from an old biologist who’s an applied ecologist (there’s even a fancy name few can say: epizooiologist): STFU and listen, read and study. The designation T.R.O.L.L. after your name is universally recognized, but no one pays for it. It might get you into a peer-reviewed climate journal, but so will a letter to the editor of any daily newpaper. Humility is the hallmark of an experienced biologist, not arrogance. Many a farmer can put you in your place without even half trying. “Best to be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and prove it.”
Best wishes for successful and enlightened career..
You gleaned all that from a blog I spend 5 minutes a day on? You are in the wrong profession. You should be a clairvoyant. They also overestimate their abilities and are never correct beyond chance. I guess someone finds you impressive. So, what is epizooiology? I’ve never heard of that discipline. Is it a climate science? Oh, you mean epizoology or epizootiology, neither of which are climate sciences either although I suppose as AGW really starts to ramp up we can expect animal diseases to undergo range shifts. I might even have a reference or two over at my blog. Anyway, its probably time for your nanna nap, so its been a pleasure. Thanks for your hypocritical criticism.
See? Hard to say and even tougher to write: epizootiologist. sigh.
Mike says:
April 4, 2012 at 11:35 pm
So many armchair experts and google galileos having a say here. Better get writing people, The journals will be keen to present your detailed, scientifically valid and statistically sound debunking off this detailed, scientifically valid and statistically sound research. You should all probably go and do some university level science courses at least at undergraduate level first though.
You forgot the /sarc tag…
/sarc
“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.”
I assume that Peter Clark has been through Kari’s treatment program for deniers at Oregon State. His earlier study ( 2009) says it’s the sun and orbital wobble that causes the melting. After Kari’s treatment for deniers it is now the CO2 what done it!!!!! Well done Kari Norgaard!
Here is another Chart showing the “smoothed” data that Shakun 2012 used compared to Greenland, Antarctica and CO2.
It is a little busy given one needs to see all the data together to get the right perspective.
Shakun 2012 moves the known temperature trends out by several hundred years to get the result wanted (by the pro-AGW science that is).
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6066/transliashakun2012.png
Let me get this right. In every 85,000 molecules of air, 33 molecules are CO2 molecules. The IPCC AR4 indicated 3% of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year is from human activity, and the overwhelming 97% is natural. This mean of the 33 molecules of CO2, only 1 of these CO2 molecules comes from human activity.
They want us to believe it is this one CO2 molecule in every 85,000 molecules of air that represents the key driver of atmospheric temperature, creating catastrophic global warming?????
This suggestion is scientific insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!
The new study suggesting CO2 drives temperature is simply a desperate but poor attempt at producing the world’s first peer reviewed scientific paper proposing such nonsense, nonsense which the IPCC can then use to support its greenhouse gas effect supposition, which has underpinned its mantra since the IPCC was created, and for which the IPCC has, to date, failed to support with empirical evidence.
Smokey says:
April 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm
With the rise in CO2 the IPCC’s conjecture says that the planet’s temperature should be rising smartly. It is not.
Is there any chance you will stop linking to graphical representations which are both misleading and dishonest. Apart from the fact that your linked graph uses US–only temperatures (we’ll let that pass) the choice of scaling on the vertical axis is nonsense. Even the IPCC are only predicting 3 deg C (~5 deg F) increase for a doubling of CO2 (290ppm -> 580 ppm) yet the graph uses a temperature range of 60 deg F alongside a CO2 scale of 100 ppm (290 -> 390).
At best, the graph is meaningless. At worst it’s a perfect example of the kind of rubbish that gives AGW scepticism a bad name.
Saying that rising atmospheric CO2 levels precede interglacials is one thing. Saying that said rises in atmospheric CO2 CAUSE interglacials is a completely different statement, the latter being a leap of faith at best.
All other things being equal, and just to name one, a more likely cause for the start of an interglacial period could be as simple as a sustained change in the frequency of this type of geological activity:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/23-1_staudigel2.pdf
Best,
J.
Ok so let me get this straight. Some ice cores show CO2 rising before temperature and other ice cores show temperature rising before CO2. This makes me question the validity of using ice cores to try to show a causal relationship. I’ve never trusted ice cores and now this study demonstrates that they are not reliable. That’s my take on this topic.