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.
This is the BBC’s take on it. Oh boy, they just keep on trying…
Sorry! Forgot the link…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404
They could have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble by just using Mike’s Nature Trick (Mark 2) and shifting one set of data 1000 years to the left. 🙂
I was under the impression that even main stream climate scientists ( I say that tongue in cheek) agreed that CO2 follows temps
Has the stench of desperate “results-driven” science ever been stronger? I’m amazed these “researchers” would stake their reputatons on finding some proxy, any proxy, to blur the 100-year lead of temperature-to-CO2 during the last deglaciation, when the multi-thousand-year lead from the previous glaciation (125,000 BC to 110,000 BC) so clearly exposes their sophistry.
It’s those farting Mammoths they keep digging up wot dunnit!
In many areas of science, what you see on the large scale, you see on the small scale, and vice-versa. It is a principle of geology and, I think, astrophysics, two ends of the spectrum. So if your long-term data shows a rise in temp before CO2, that is, the larger scale features of temp pre-date CO2 releases, then you will expect to see the same in the small scale. Which is what was first seen, the 800-year disconnect. “Adjusting” or “correcting” the data for the smaller time-frame to show the opposite is reasonable only if you also can do it for the larger time-frame.
The problem is this: how do you have small changes add up to become the bigger changes, if sums of each part are opposites? The small have to add up to the big.
This article is unreal!!!How on Earth can any conclusions be drawn as to what leads what when reliant on Antarctic ice cores, especially they are the very low resolution Vostok cores? The time it takes the gas, in this case Co2 to be sealed off from the present day atmospheric source is hundrends of years. This means is simple terms the resolution is just that poor. Nature magazine should know better! But they have an agenda, as scientists like Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Roy Spencer well know! Rod Chilton, http//www.bcclimate.com
The Models have Spoken. Dissent no more, ye Disbelievers.
Tremble at the destructive power of CO2.
Be it hereby revealed the True-Believers’ new mantra:
Climate Corrosion
So, what about Petit et al, Fisher et al and Callion et al ? Totally forgotten?
A I have said before, they will never give up.
If CO2 leads temperatures, then what’s causing it to increase in the first place when the earth is very cold? Cold oceans tend to retain it. It’s not anthropogenic. Global respiration ought to be lower in glacial periods compared to inter-glacials. I can’t think of a source that would provide enough CO2 to force temperatures up, even if it truly was the driver.
Of course the BBC is at it without any delay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404
So their own graph shows that CO2 is nearly 400 ppm and the temperature now is less than the last interglacial and several past ones. How does that show CO2 is a driver of warmth?
Well I will have to read the paper in detail, and try to put actual dates to their data, such as what means the last deglaciation, but as to their overall conclusion, and specifically with reference to the first graph of 800,000 years of data in the first graph, my initial comment would be “poppycock”.
I’ll give just one observation; and you can easily see the repeats for yourself.
Looka t the spike upwards at around 120,000 years ago. Specifically look at the downward side of the CO2 and Temperature peaks. The CO2 decline is slow as all get out, compared to the much earlier and faster TEMPERATURE fall. No amount of mud snail prestidigitation can make that CO2 seem to fall before the Temperature decline that the lack of CO2 causes. They can try and fudge the rising edges all they want but you can look at every other peak in that sequence, and see that the CO2 declines later and much slower than the Temperature falls. And remember that is THEIR THESIS that the higher levels of CO2 is what is holding up the Temperature. And if the CO2 can’t hold up the Temperature in the Antarctic, where there are fewer competing distractions, it surely isn’t going to hold it up anywhere else.
I’ll let Don Easterbrook, have the genteel observations; my first reaction is, a lot of work for not much convincing. Balderdash, may be a more accurate evaluation of the claims. I’ll accept their “observations”, but the interpretation is full of holes.
So the first step in the process is that the Milankovitch cycle melts the ice but the melting of the ice is not a response to any increase in warmth because the change in the Milankovitch cycle itself does not increase warmth or produce climate change directly. The climate only warms once CO2 is released from the deep ocean which happens after the ice melts but before the climate warms in response to the CO2. 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.
h/t to Michael T in Craster, UK (April 4, 2012 at 10:42 am) for the BBC link
“So, in the last 100 years we’ve gone up about 100 ppm – about the same as at the end of the last ice age, which I think puts it into perspective because it’s not a small amount.”
100 parts per million? Yes. It. Is.
PS: Where’s BBC doomspinmeister Richard Black? Somewhere discussing global warming policies (nudge nudge) with professor Kari Norgaard?
I thought we had already cast doubt on proxy temperature measurements?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/03/proxy-science-and-proxy-pseudo-science/
I’ve always believed that ‘scientists’ were looking for a way to find CO2 leading temperature. And now they say they have…
My question is, the amount of rise in CO2 from those ice core graphs (about 100 ppm) only gives a few degrees of temp rise using the general CO2 warming equation of 5.2ln(c/co). If you look at how high the temperature changes, it changes by 10 to 12 degrees. What causes the other 8 to 10 degrees in temperature rise?
Garys post is very interesting, what is causing the ancient CO2 rise?
I suppose the one fact which nearly blew the top off my BSometer is this:
OK, but what caused the rising CO2 levels, which supposedly drove the temperature upwards?
The only realistic source is the oceans, which are not going to release the CO2 unless their temperatures rise. In other words, in order to have an egg, you first need a chicken, but where did the chicken come from etc.,etc.,
Someone suggested farting mammoths produced the increase in CO2, but even a ‘climate scientist’ would probably recognise this as being unlikely.
One possible explanation would be a huge increase in volcanic activity to explain the increase in carbon dioxide levels, but there is no evidence of that in the geological record.
A second explanation could be a huge increase in animal (including farting mammoths – although they died out before the Holocene began), insect and vegetation levels – the problem here is that you need the temperature to rise first to make the global climate more clement for life to thrive and begin exhaling more CO2.
So what are we left with?
1. Natural climate cycles warming the oceans and releasing CO2, and
2. Faulty data readings, analysis, or maybe even outright untruths and/or falsification of data.
As I recollect EG Beck’s paper on the 180 year CO2 record was slated because it relied on local measurements which varied widely from location to location (probably due to pollution). I have never understood why Antarctic ice-core records should be considered suitable proxies for global CO2. How do modern Arctic readings compare with those of Mauna Loa? Has CO2 atmospheric penetration been measured consistently over a period in, say, a remote Antarctic area and, if so, how does that data relate to Mauna Loa’s?
As Gary says – it is illogical for increased CO2 before temp rises – about the only thing I could think of that would cause significant increased natural CO2 before temp rises would be volcanoes (obviously of the super dooper type) or perhaps mega amounts of acid rain falling on all the carbonate rocks releasing stored CO2! Neither seem very plausible on a global scale….
The BBC article somebody linked to above says
““At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260;”
If you plug in those numbers to the general CO2 equation of dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), you get:
1.967 (not sure of units, either K, C, or F)
According to many ice core temperature graphs I have seen, the temperature rise from the last ice age was 20 degrees F:
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/
So unless I plugged in some wrong numbers or did a math error, how could a 80 ppm rise in CO2 give 20F of warming when their own warming equation gives 1.97 (which could be in C or K…)?
This has appeared on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404
Dr Shakun’s team has now constructed a narrative to explain both what was happening on Antarctica and what was happening globally:
This starts with 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
I’ve read this a few times and all I see is, the warming starts first and the oceans get warmer.
Warmer water holds less gas than colder water
Dr Shakun’s narrative suggests that the warming precedes the rise in CO2 or am I losing it?