More fatal flaws in the Shakun et al. Nature paper claiming that CO2 preceded late glacial warming [Part 2]

By Dr. Don Easterbrook

In Part 1 , I posed 11 questions related to underlying assumptions and misconceptions that form the basis for the paper “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation by Shakun et al. (Nature 2012) and discussed the first five questions related to the authors claim to have “compelling evidence that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming” and 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.”

Part 1  discussed problems related to the lack of direct dating of the Antarctic ice cores and the difficulty of accurately measuring CO2 in ice cores. In Part 2, we will look at the validity of the authors’ claims that (1) climate changes in Antarctica were out of phase with global climatic changes and Southern Hemisphere climatic changes have a ‘see-saw’ relationship with the Northern Hemisphere. These contentions are central to the whole theme of the paper. We’ll also have look at the Greenland ice cores as proxies for global climate change, the AMOC forcing as the only causal mechanism for climate change, why orbital forcing doesn’t work for the abruptness of climate changes, and if we make through all of that, we’ll look at some other causal mechanisms that the Shakun et al. paper casually dismiss.

As shown in Part 1, the lack of direct dating of Antarctic ice cores resulted in reliance on theoretically modeled, wiggle-curve correlations age estimates that are essentially just best guesses, not accurate measurements. How can we check the validity of the Antarctic ice core ages used in the paper? The nearest places to Antarctica where well-dated climate chronologies exist are New Zealand and southern South America. If the Southern Hemisphere is indeed out of phase with the Northern Hemisphere (the ‘see-saw’), we should see it also in the chronologies of New Zealand and South America. Let’s see how they compare with the Antarctic chronology. Two specific periods of climate change can be compared: (1) a late phase of the LGM ~17,000 years ago, and (2) the Younger Dryas 12,700 to 11,500 years ago. If the basic contentions of the Shakun et al. paper are correct, the chronology of these two climatic phases in Antarctic, New Zealand, and South America should be out of phase with the chronology of similar phases in the Northern Hemisphere.

New Zealand and Patagonia at the last glacial maximum

A well-defined, well dated set of glacial moraines marking the last glacial maximum enclose Lake Pukaki in the Southern Alps of New Zealand (Figure 1). Seven Beryllium 10 (10Be) age measurements of boulders on the terminal moraines average 17,400 years old (Schaefer et al., 2006; Easterbrook, 2011).

clip_image002clip_image004

10Be dates from moraines at Lake Pukaki, Glacial and pollen chronology from the

New Zealand. (Schaefer et al., 2006) southern Lake District of Chile.

LGM moraines and pollen from bogs in the Lake District of southern Chile have been extensively 14C dated. The average ages show an LGM at 17,400 years ago. LGM moraines surrounding Lago Buenos Aires in Patagonia have been 10Be dated at 16,000 and 18,800 years old (Kaplan et al., 2004).

Nineteen 10Be ages measured from boulders on moraines in the Tasmanian highlands of SE Australia range from 19,100 on terminal moraines to 15,oo0 on recessional moraines with a mean of 16,800 years. (Barrows et al., 2001, 2002).

What these well-dated chronologies are telling us is that the LGM occurred at the same time in the both the Northern and Southern and Hemispheres, i.e., the hemispheres are not out of phase with one another.

The Younger Dryas chronology

An even better climate chronology can be found during the Younger Dryas in New Zealand, which can be compared to the Antarctic YD chronology to test the Shakun et al. contentions. At least two phases of the Younger Dryas can be identified in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, making the YD an excellent test of whether or not the YD was synchronous in both hemispheres or was out of phase (as contended by Shakun et al.).

Southern Alps, New Zealand

New Zealand has a well-established Younger Dryas chronology at multiple localities in the Southern Alps. The YD double–moraine pattern is found in the glacial chronology at at Birch Hills along Lake Pukaki, Arthur’s Pass, Prospect Hills, Waiho Loop, and at several other localities. At Birch Hills ~40 km upvalley from the Lake Pukaki LGM moraines, 5 10Be dates from the outermost Birch Hills moraine average 12,800 years old and 4 10Be dates from the inner moraine average 11,200 years old. Another pair of YD moraines at Arthur’s Pass show a mean 10Be age of 11,800 years for the outermost YD moraine and 11,400 for the inner moraine. A YD moraine at Prospect Hills yielded 10Be dates of 12.7 and 12.8 years B.P. (Easterbrook, 2002, 2011).

On the west coast of South Island, wood in the Waiho Loop moraine, deposited by the Franz Josef Glacier about 20 km behind the LGM moraine, has been dated at 11,200 14C years (equivalent to a calendar year age of slightly less than 13,000 years). (Mercer, 1982, 1988; Denton and Hendy, 1994).

clip_image006clip_image008

Ages of Younger Dryas moraines in the Southern Alps of New Zealand.

 

clip_image010clip_image012

Ages of inner and outer YD moraines at Birch Hills in the Southern Alps.

Younger Dryas chronology in the Northern Hemisphere

At least two phases of the Younger Dryas are also well documented in the Northern Hemisphere at many localities in North America, the European Alps, Scandinavia, and eastern Europe. The chronology of these climatic events is well dated by radiocarbon. This provides the opportunity for comparison with the double phases of YD glaciation found in New Zealand and elsewhere. The double YD phases are found both in the record of continental ice sheet glaciation and in the alpine record.

Alkenone SST measurements from marine cores west of Vancouver Island indicate a temperature drop of ~3° C during the YD (Kienast and McKay, 2001). Cool-water foraminifera, suggesting YD cooling, have been found on the British Columbia shelf and in the Santa Barbara Basin. Cooling during the YD is also shown from pollen records in SW British Columbia, NW Washington, Oregon, and SE Alaska. The ages of multiple YD moraines of the Pleistocene Cordilleran Ice Sheet in NW Washington have been established by more than 100 radiocarbon dates at between 11,500 and 12,700 years old.

clip_image014 clip_image016

[A] Reconstruction of the YD phase of the [B] Ages of the double YD moraines of the

Cordilleran Ice Sheet in NW Washington Scandinavian Ice Sheet. Ages shown are 14C ages

11,500 and 12,700 years ago. equivalent to 11,500 and 12,700 years ago.

 

Alpine Glaciers

Dated YD moraines occur in the Wind River Range at Titcomb Basin and Temple Lake, and similar, moraines occur throughout the Rocky Mts. What is apparent from these examples of YD moraines is that not only was the YD climatic event recorded by alpine glaciers in western North America, but in many places double moraines record a dual YD climatic change.

Cirque glaciers expanded twice during the YD at Titcomb Lakes in the Wind River Range, WY. Erratics on moraines and glaciated bedrock ~33 km upvalley from LGM moraines at Freemont Lake, Wyoming, have been 10Be dated between 12,300 and 10,600 years old Birkeland, 1974; Zielinski and Davis, 1987; Davis, 1988; Davis and Osburn, 1987).

 

clip_image018 clip_image020

Double Younger Dryas moraines at Titcomob Ages of YD moraines in the Rocky Mts., ID

Lakes in the Wind River Mts., WY.

 

Cirque moraines at multiple elevations in the Sawtooth Range of Idaho also record two YD climatic events. Bench Lakes, north of Redfish Lake, consist of several glacial lakes at successively higher elevations, representing sequentially rising YD snowlines. The 10Be ages of boulders from range from 11,700 to 11,400 years. Thus, at least two phases of moraine building took place here during the YD.

Double, post–LGM moraines occur about 12 km upvalley from LGM moraines at Icicle Creek in the North Cascades of Washington. Boulders on the outmost YD moraine were 10Be-dated at 12,600 and 12,300 years and boulders on a younger YD moraine were dated at 11,300 and 11,900 years. All of the dates from the inner and outer moraines fall within the YD.

Double YD moraines occur at Julier Pass near St. Moritz, Switzerland and multiple YD moraines at Loch Lomond in the Scotish Highlands have been radiocarbon dated between 12,900 and 11,500 years old.

The Greenland GISP2 oxygen isotope record

The double phase of the Younger Dryas also appears in the Greenland GISP2 oxygen isotope record between 11,500 and 12,700 years ago, correlating very well with the global glacial record.

clip_image022

Double Younger Dryas event recorded in the GISP2 ice core

 

CONCLUSIONS

So what does all this mean and why is it important? The double nature of YD moraines in widely separated areas in both hemispheres suggests a common, global, climatic cause. The YD is characterized by two distinct moraines in widely separated parts of both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and in the Pacific and Atlantic regions, indicating that the YD consisted of more than a single climatic event. This means that the twin YD cooling occurred virtually simultaneously globally and both ice sheets and alpine glaciers were sensitive to the dual YD cooling. The two YD phases in the GISP2 ice core confirm the globally synchronous climatic events. The global synchronicity of the late Pleistocene twin YD phases indicates a global atmospheric cause. The absence of a time lag between the N and S Hemispheres climatic fluctuations precludes an oceanic cause propagated from one hemisphere to the other. The sensitivity and synchronicity of worldwide climatic events with no apparent time lag between hemispheres means that abrupt climatic changes such as the YD were caused by simultaneous global changes.

So what does this mean about the validity of the contentions of Shakun et al. that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres were out of phase? Compare the age of the YD in their Figure 2 to the numerous YD chronologies from all over the world.

clip_image023

Shakun et al. Figure 2. The Red line is Antarctic temperature curve based on ice cores; the yellow dots are CO2 measurements from ice cores; the blue line is composite global temperature from 80 proxies.

The age of the YD shown on their Antarctic curve is from 13,000 to 14,700, nowhere near the age of the YD in New Zealand and the rest of the world. Considering the lack of adequate dating of the Antarctic ice cores and lack of correlation with New Zealand and global YD chronology, what this means is that their entire Antarctic curve is incorrect and needs to be shifted by nearly 2,000 years, taking with it the CO2 curve. This means that their entire argument for CO2 preceding warming during the last glaciation falls completely apart.

At this point, we haven’t yet gotten to issues with the AMOC, orbital forcing, or other possible causal mechanisms of climate change. Consideration of those issues would make this longer than most people would want to read at one sitting, so looks like they will have to await Part 3.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 18, 2012 11:40 am

10Be dates from moraines
I wonder a bit about those 10Be ages. The usual error on a 10Be date the last 10,000 years is +/-1000 years. The Half life of 10Be is very long, 1.4 million years, so getting a date even to with 1000 years is quite a feat. Could you expand a bit on this?

April 18, 2012 11:49 am

For the recent observation of the Arctic temperature and increase in the CO2, one could say the order is inconclusive, but it is more than clear there is no correlation between two. Graphic: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm

April 18, 2012 11:51 am

Elegant. Well done!

A. Scott
April 18, 2012 11:54 am

Pesky facts … 😉
Excellent work Dr. Easterbrook. Understandable to even a layman. Which begs the question – why wouldn’t these alleged scientists look for and compare their work with known other proxies before publishing clearly erroneous conclusions?

Glacierman
April 18, 2012 11:56 am

Doesn’t matter, it will still get into AR5.

tty
April 18, 2012 12:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard 11:40 AM
10Be dating measures the exposure age, i. e. how long a rock has been exposed to cosmogenic neutrons, so the long half-life of 10Be is actually helpful. The main source of uncertainty is secular changes in the amount of cosmic radiation, but this is rather well-known for the last 30,000 years or so from calibration of 14C measurements (which are similarly affected by changes in radiation flux) .
The main problem with 10Be dates is that the local geology must be well understood. Repeated exposures and burials must be excluded.

A. Scott
April 18, 2012 12:24 pm

“… it will still get into AR5”
Exactly the thought I had.

Vincent
April 18, 2012 12:28 pm

Is Carbon 14 dating valid much beyond 5000 years ago?
Not to dispute what Dr Easterbrook is saying, but I think the data is so imprecise, that you cannot tell one way or the other.

Hal
April 18, 2012 12:44 pm

It doesn’t matter how articulate and thorough the responses & critiques from Willis Eschenbach or Don Easterbrook are, once somebody has publicly vindicated Al Gore, then the Main Stream Media will quickly shut the door on any chance at a rebuttal.

April 18, 2012 12:46 pm

tty says:
April 18, 2012 at 12:22 pm
The main problem with 10Be dates is that the local geology must be well understood. Repeated exposures and burials must be excluded.
But that leaves the uncertainty at about +/-1000. Averaging several samples from the same location does not help to beat the error down as they have the same systematic error.

Auto
April 18, 2012 12:55 pm

Typo?
A YD moraine at Prospect Hills yielded 10Be dates of 12.7 and 12.8 years B.P. (Easterbrook, 2002, 2011).
Possibly before 1999 – possiblt A YD moraine at Prospect Hills yielded 10Be dates of 12.7 and 12.8 thousand years B.P. (Easterbrook, 2002, 2011).
otherwise excelent.

April 18, 2012 1:03 pm

Many thanks for this piece Don. I have long pondered the question of synchronicity between the hemispheres.

Robbie
April 18, 2012 1:04 pm

Oh that’s fantastic!
I am sorry, but I can’t take this serious anymore as long as Mr. Easterbrook and/or Mr. Eschenbach don’t present these facts in a peer-reviewed journal. Any journal, but preferably Nature.
That’s exactly the reason why those warmists don’t take these two gentlemen seriously, because they simply don’t have the courage to publish their rebuttals. It looks like.
Science simply isn’t played like this what these two gentlemen try to accomplish here.

April 18, 2012 1:22 pm

swag master

Editor
April 18, 2012 1:28 pm

Leif: where is your ±1000 yrs on recent 10be dating from? If what is being measured is the build-up of 10be, not half-life as with carbon14 in plants, why can’t it be quite accurate?

April 18, 2012 1:42 pm

10Be dating is one among several cosmogenic dating techniques, all of which are based upon bombardment of rocks exposed at the earth’s surface by cosmic radiation that produces in-situ, stable isotopes. 10Be is produced in quartz, mostly from nuclear spallation reaction with oxygen atoms.
The amount of each cosmogenic nuclide generated in exposed rocks depends on (1) the decay constant of the isotope, (2) the production rate (rate at which the isotope is created by nuclear bombardment, (3) the amount of time the surface has been exposed to atmospheric cosmogenic radiation, (4) any erosion rate of the rock surface since the isotopes were generated, and (5) any inherited component of the isotope concentration from earlier exposure. The buildup of cosmogenic isotopes in rock surfaces exposed to the atmosphere is a function of how long the surface has been exposed. The production rate of cosmogenic isotopes P. is given by the equation
Px = Po e-(kx) (17)
where Px =production rate at depth x (atm/g/yr)
x = depth
Po = production rate at the rock surface (atm/g/yr)
k = a density dependent constant representing the absorption of cosmic radiation (cm 1)
For a closed system with no surface erosion and no isotopes left from earlier events, the abundance Nx of stable cosmogenic isotopes depends upon the isotope production rate Px and time t.
Nx = Px t (18)
For unstable isotopes, Nx must take the decay constant of the isotope into consideration, so that
Nx = Px (1 – e-t) -1 (19)
Still more complicated equations can be written which include the effect of surface erosion during isotope accumulation.
Production rates of isotopes generated by cosmic radiation have been determined by measurements in samples collected from surfaces of known age. The production of cosmogenic isotopes decreases exponentially with decreasing altitude and with depth below the rock surface because of attenuation of the cosmic radiation flux.
In order to produce measurements that represent the time since a boulder or rock surface was first exposed to the atmosphere, the surface must have remained intact since it was exposed. However, a stringent sampling strategy can effectively minimize or avoid the effects of post-depositional processes on boulders.
Measurement of cosmogenic isotope exposure ages offers several significant advantages over other dating methods. Perhaps the most obvious is that cosmogenic isotope dates give the age of exposure to the atmosphere and thus the time of deposition (as an erratic boulder on a moraine).
Our recent results from the Wind River Range, Wyoming, show that total 10Be age uncertainties are ~4% including systematic errors. Total analytical reproducibility is better than 3% with multiple dates from a single landform.
The accuracy of 10Be dating isn’t enough to distinguish the two phases of the YD individually but it is accurate enough to positively identify the age span of the pair. If we know that two post LGM moraines are both Younger Dryas that tells us that we have both phases.

April 18, 2012 1:47 pm

vukcevic says:
April 18, 2012 at 11:49 am
but it is more than clear there is no correlation between two.
The correlation you do show is spurious and fails going further back in time.

April 18, 2012 1:49 pm

Robbie says:
April 18, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Oh that’s fantastic!
I am sorry, but I can’t take this serious anymore as long as Mr. Easterbrook and/or Mr. Eschenbach don’t present these facts in a peer-reviewed journal. Any journal, but preferably Nature.
That’s exactly the reason why those warmists don’t take these two gentlemen seriously, because they simply don’t have the courage to publish their rebuttals. It looks like.
Science simply isn’t played like this what these two gentlemen try to accomplish here.
If you had bothered to check the references you would have seen that all of this material is in fact published in a peer reviewed journal. Nature is no longer a credible journal.

Richard S Courtney
April 18, 2012 1:51 pm

Robbie:
This is a scientific blog. So, people here know that in science information is assessed on its merits and NOT on the basis of who provided it and/or where.
Until you have learned this then go away because nobody is interested in what you – or any other scientifically illiterate – troll thinks.
Richard

April 18, 2012 1:55 pm

Alec Rawls says:
April 18, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Leif: where is your ±1000 yrs on recent 10be dating from?
Common knowledge. Check any number of papers, e.g.
http://web.natur.cuni.cz/ksgrrsek/acta/2000/mercier.pdf
Their Table 1:
Sample, Altitude, 10Be exposure age± relative error (in 1000 yrs)
G 01 1200 7.32 ± 1.31
G 02 1180 7.97 ± 1.48
G 03 1250 7.90 ± 1.47
G 04 1200 4.17 ± 0.81
G 05 1060 8.56 ± 1.53
G 06 1040 4.14 ± 0.92
G 07 1020 6.83 ± 1.25
G 08 990 9.28 ± 1.83
G 09 970 3.34 ± 0.67
L 10 1280 3.72 ± 0.69
L 11 1290 5.70 ± 0.97
L 12 1335 19.20 ± 3.16
L 13 1300 11.08 ± 1.83
L 14 1275 8.50 ± 1.41
L 15 1098 9.68 ± 1.67
L 16 1095 9.00 ± 1.55
L 17 995 12.29 ± 2.12
L 18 970 8.74 ± 1.50
L 19 830 12.10 ± 2.05
L 20 828 11.53 ± 1.97
L 21 1420 23.21 ± 3.83

tty
April 18, 2012 2:01 pm

Vincent says:
April 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Is Carbon 14 dating valid much beyond 5000 years ago?
It is valid back to about 35,000 radiocarbon years ago. Older records than that are extremely sensitive to contamination and should be regarded av minimum ages.
Radiocarbon years can be calibrated to calendar years, but the calibration curves have considerable uncertainties beyond the range of tree-ring dating. Note that the uncertainty of a calibrated date is always larger than an uncalibrated. Sometimes very much larger.

Joseph Murphy
April 18, 2012 2:08 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Possibly higher depending on the inherent problems tty pointed out. Namely consistency of exposure but, I imagine the half-life depleting the buildup of 10BE is calculated in as well. Anyways, agreed, 10BE dating comes with an accuracy of about ±1000.

April 18, 2012 2:11 pm

Alec Rawls says:
April 18, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Leif: where is your ±1000 yrs on recent 10be dating from?
From Abramowski’s dissertaion
http://opus.ub.uni-bayreuth.de/volltexte/2005/150/pdf/dissua04.pdf
page 84:
“3.3.1 Uncertainties of cosmogenic exposure ages
A general uncertainty of 11% is calculated to result from the present uncertainties”
This is not my specialty, so I have only general knowledge of this, but I’m willing to learn [and measurements get better all the time].

April 18, 2012 2:15 pm

Some interesting observations about 10Be deposition uncertainties
Perhaps most troubling of all is the cross correlation of the yearly 10Be concentration and flux measurements themselves from two sites on the polar plateau which should be observing the same 10Be production. These cross correlation coefficients are the lowest of all, less than 0.25 …..
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf

Rob R
April 18, 2012 2:41 pm

Don,
Down here in NZ there is a general consensus among those working in Quaternary deposits that the ACR is well represented in NZ, that it is an older event than the YD and that the YD is poorly expressed (if at all). Further, there is well dated evidence (not all published yet) that the ACR in NZ spans the same time interval as it does in Antarctic ice cores. While I agree with you that the Shakun et al paper is of dubious merit I think you need to have a closer look at the recent literature on deglacial events in NZ.

1 2 3