WUWT readers may recall this recent story: New evidence of Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact The story below provides much more detail about the Younger Dryas event and the split that has developed in the scientific community over the cause. I’ve added this graph below from NCDC to give readers a sense of time and magnitude of the event. – Anthony
![alley2000[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/alley20001.gif?resize=450%2C361)
Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 19, Issues 1-5, 1 January 2000, Richard B. Alley
A consideration of many other very important factors that should be considered as well as the “Black Mats and Nanodiamonds”
ABSTRACT:
The genesis of the Younger Dryas stadial (cold interval) remains an enigma. The onset was both climatologically unexpected and extremely sudden. The two principle theories are diametrically opposed and the proponents of both deeply committed. The debate to date has primarily been centred on some unusual “black mat” deposits that may or may not be linked to a cosmic origin. What has been lacking in the wider discussion are all the other important features associated with the Younger Dryas. The following addresses many of these, in hopes of their inclusion in future debate.
AND NOW THE REST OF THE STORY:
The Younger Dryas onset remains a little understood event. The cause of the 1,300 year-long interval continues to be debated. There are two completely different theories that have split the scientific community. One group strongly endorses an overall slowing or complete stoppage of the Northern Atlantic Ocean circulation 13,000 years ago. The other camp maintains that a catastrophic event originating from the cosmos was the cause.
Following on the heels of the mostly milder Bølling and Allerød intervals (interstadials), there was an extremely sudden and severe climate reversal, this was the Younger Dryas, first detected from Danish pollen studies as long ago as the mid 1930’s. Pollen from the Dryas flower, an arctic species lends its name to this very cold interval. The Younger Dryas cold was first thought to have been confined to north-west Europe, with a possible extension to some other localities immediately surrounding the North Atlantic. More recently however, the cold climate shift is seen as world-wide in extent or nearly so.
The Younger Dryas appeared similar to earlier events known as Heinrich events that were prominent in the Pleistocene (approximately 70,000 to 14,000 years ago) (1). Their cause is not altogether clear, but marine cores, primarily in the north-east Atlantic are festooned with layers of sand, pebbles and rock (lithic materials). These deposits arrived in this area carried on “large armadas” of ice that upon melting deposited their lodes onto ocean bottoms. Rapid climate shifts have been linked to ice melt from sea ice and the large continental glaciers that surrounded the North Atlantic. Lower salinity meltwater is less dense than ocean water and tends to float as a freshwater cap over the marine waters, and this is perceived as associated with North Atlantic Ocean circulation disruption. The Younger Dryas is understood to be linked primarily with meltwater almost solely from the great continental ice sheets.
North Atlantic Ocean circulation has been likened to a great ribbon-like conveyor belt (2). Driven by temperature (thermo) and salinity (haline) differences, the thermohaline (THC) circulation is associated with the formation of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). The sinking of the NADW is alleged to result in the drawing north of warmer waters from southerly climes. This provides north-west Europe with its generally mild climate. However all of this is thought to change when the North Atlantic Ocean circulation slowed or stopped.
It has been proposed that a sudden immense amount of fresh water disrupted the THC approximately 13,000 years ago, and the most likely source was eastern North America’s Laurentide Ice Sheet (3). This particular scenario is presumed to have been affiliated with the relocation of freshwater outflow that had been exiting via the Mississippi River with entry into the Gulf of Mexico. Presumably, an alternate route, the more northerly St. Lawrence corridor became available as the Laurentide Glacier retreated (4). As time has passed however, this idea has largely been abandoned. Not only did salinity levels in the off shore waters adjacent to the St. Lawrence remain the same during the Younger Dryas (5), but the St. Lawrence route remained blocked by ice until well after the Younger Dryas ended (6).
Failure of the St. Lawrence River to deliver the melt has lead to alternative freshwater routes proposed. One of these involves the continent of Antarctica. The idea suggested here is that a significant increase in meltwater entry into world oceans took place approximately 14,300 to 14,600 years ago (7). An inundation known as “meltwater – pulse 1a” (mwp-1a) occurred with perhaps as much as 90% of the meltwater volume originating from Antarctica (8). This premise has the Antarctic melt as affecting the North Atlantic region, but with a significant delay (the bipolar see-saw concept where at least Antarctic climate is out of phase with the Northern Hemisphere). The eventual arrival of the Antarctica melt waters is seen then, as making the North Atlantic vulnerable to even modest amounts of meltwater (9). Presumably, the final threshold was crossed 13,000 BP, allowing the North Atlantic to become disrupted (10). Not all researchers share this view, as at least one study assigned a much different date for mwp-1a, and that was shortly before 13,800 BP (11). And although these scientists also conclude slowing or shutdown of the North Atlantic, the Antarctic as a source becomes questionable.
Since the Antarctic theory appeared, a number of other possible North Atlantic meltwater sources have been suggested. The first of these considered meltwater from the Laurentide as flowing northward through the Canadian Arctic via the Hudson Strait before reaching the North Atlantic (12). A second route was proposed more recently, and this was freshwater flowing across Arctic Canada from the main Laurentide source, Lake Agassiz, then down the Mackenzie River and into the Arctic Ocean (13). The first of these meltwater corridors has now been shown to have remained blocked by ice throughout the early Younger Dryas, much like the St. Lawrence (14), and the second pathway, the Mackenzie, required adjustments to both the Laurentide Ice Sheet and the underlying landmass, before model simulations even allowed meltwater flow to take place (15).
As just mentioned, the main Laurentide meltwater source originated in the huge glacial lake, Agassiz. Most research has indicated that there was a significant lowering of the lake approximately 13,000 years ago. The assumption to date has been that most of the water exited by one corridor or another. However, recent research has suggested that Lake Agassiz may not have experienced very much rapid outflow at all. Dr. Thomas Lowell of the University of Cincinnati contends that lake lowering resulted primarily from open lake evaporation when the lake was ice-free and some sublimation when it was frozen (16). However, this too has been disputed by another study that questions the very high rate of evaporation that the Lowell findings contend; this at a time when the climate was presumably very cold (17). The scientists who criticized the evaporation idea however fall back on the now implausible St. Lawrence meltwater route (18).
Certainly a very important question regarding the Younger Dryas is what effects, if any, were felt elsewhere in the world (away from the immediate confines of the North Atlantic). There are some indications that one outcome was similar to the most recent Heinrich event, specifically a warming of one to two degrees Celsius in the western tropical Atlantic and the Caribbean (19). The reason given for this warming is evidence of a response to strengthened easterly trade winds, which causes greater amounts of warm water to be driven into the Gulf of Mexico (20). Well to the west, on the north coast of South America the same stronger trade winds may also have induced ocean upwelling (21).
The evidence for the greater ocean upwelling is increased ocean productivity within the Cariaco Basin (22). However, the very premise of a trade wind induced warmer Caribbean and western tropical Atlantic during the Younger Dryas is now seen as suspect. Recent studies have shown that south-east portions of North America, the Caribbean and western tropical Atlantic all became much drier and colder at this time (23,24). Central America, for instance, shows a 300-400 metre lowering of the subalpine tree line. This is equivalent to a two to three degree Celsius temperature decrease (25). A number of other studies also indicate colder temperatures.
One of the more important proxies comes from the Orca Basin within the Gulf of Mexico. This is a very interesting study, dependent upon the assessment of certain specific marine organisms. This has allowed scientists to make some startling conclusions. An organism, Globigerinoides Ruber (a species tolerant of high salinity and cold ocean temperatures), when compared to five other marine species less tolerant of cold and high salinity depicted a sudden change in the Orca Basin ecology 13,000 BP (26). Originally, the Orca Basin was thought to have become much more saline, the result of a sudden diversion of meltwater from the Mississippi to the St. Lawrence corridor. However, the eastward meltwater route has now been shown to have been implausible. Instead, it now appears that the Orca Basin experienced a five or six degree drop in ocean temperature. (27). This has recently been confirmed by a new study that depicts significantly colder SST occurred within the Orca Basin region (28). All of this is consistent with a meltwater pulse continuing down the Mississippi and not flowing into the St. Lawrence.
It is interesting too, that the Younger Dryas is now seen has being a widespread event that extended well beyond the North Atlantic. The cold and predominately dry interval is now documented from all across North America and northward as far as Alaska. South America also experienced a definitive climate shift to a predominately cold and arid regime. This included the Amazon Basin, covering a significant portion of the tropical and subtropical latitudes of South America. Indications of an extreme drop in Amazon River levels to as little as 40% to 60% of present day levels are evident (29). Lake Junin (11° S), a high elevation lake in the northern Andes is a second proxy showing an arid Younger Dryas, as lake levels were at their very lowest for the last 14,000 years (30). Not only did the climate become drier, it appears to have become colder too. Certainly the two to three degrees Celsius cooling, in Colombia is an indicator (31). The aforementioned very low Amazon River level may well have been a response to decreased snowmelt and run-off from a colder Andes mountain chain.
Further to the south in the Altiplano region (15° to 23° S), the climate during cold intervals like the Younger Dryas is expected to be wet (32). However, 13,000 years ago there appears to have been an exception (33). Indications are from the glacier Sajama (18° S) that a retreat of the glacier occurred, much as Glacier Quelccaya had done a little further to the north (both likely responding to a drier and colder habitat) (34). Further, considering once again the very low Amazon water levels, the Altiplano source region also appears to have been experiencing a decrease in precipitation.
Aside from a study from the Great Australian Bight (32° –35° S) (35) and an area near the edge of Antarctica (36) where distinct cooling was evident 13,000 years ago, the remainder of the Southern Hemisphere does not show a definitive warming or cooling trend.
Antarctica, at least the interior portions of the continent, may well be a different matter entirely. Here, the analysis of ice cores depicts a climate out of sync with the rest of the planet. Research suggests that very strong downslope (katabatic) winds prevent weather (climate) from penetrating any appreciable distance inland (37). However, it must be said that conclusions as to the Antarctic climate during the Younger Dryas are far from certain. There are problems having to do with the generally very light snowfall that is a feature of Antarctica.. This prevents researchers from accurately differentiating climate intervals of less than about 2,000 years (38).
One type of methodology that permits past climate to be assessed depends upon the analysis of various gases that become trapped within ice after being deposited as snow within ice sheets throughout the world. The worldwide dispersion of most gases only takes one or two years, this allows comparisons of relative gas concentrations in localities as far apart as Greenland and Antarctica. The alignment of ice cores from low snowfall Antarctic and higher snowfall Greenland permits scientists to differentiate past climate. The problem is that it takes many years for the gas to be completely sealed off from the present day atmosphere. This varies between low snowfall areas like Vostok in Antarctica, where it takes as long as 2,500 to 6,000 years to “close off’ (depending upon the age of the ice deposit) to about 60 to 100 years in Greenland cores (39). The technique, while very good in determining the longer-term glacial and interglacial periods, at least in Antarctica is clearly inadequate for shorter-term events such as the Younger Dryas.
The continued contention that the North Atlantic was the principle trigger of the Younger Dryas has relied heavily upon a number of marine cores from the Atlantic. The first of these cores comes from the Bermuda Rise (EN120GGC1 – (33° 40’ N., 57° 37’ W)), where the analysis of benthic profiles of carbon 12 and 13 isotopes, along with cadmium/calcium ratios theoretically shows North Atlantic Ocean circulation disruption (40). However, a number of problems have been identified that relate to the Bermuda Rise marine core. Before analysis could be done a comparison was required with another marine core, CH73-139C (54° 30’ N., 16° 21’ W.), a core now found to have been affected by a condition called “bioturbation” (an unwanted mixing of the marine sedimentary layers) (41). This prevents precise dating as to the time when the slowing or stoppage of the ocean circulation occurred (42). A second problem with the samples from Bermuda Rise is its location. Rather than sampling the desired amounts of deep water from the North Atlantic and Antarctic, it appears to be sampling an area where a localized mixing of ocean waters took place, that once again prevents accurate assessments (43).
The marine species Neogloboquadriana pacyderma, a polar organism displayed a definitive shift in population approximately 13,000 years ago, both at a marine core, Troll 3.1 (60° 47’N., 03° 43’W.), just west of Norway, and a second core V23-81 (54°02’N., 16° 08’ W.), just off Ireland’s west coast (44). Both of these studies have been drawn upon to deduce that a slowing or complete shutdown of the North Atlantic Ocean circulation occurred 13,000 BP. A third study, that utilizes diatoms, (much more sensitive than Neogloboquadriana pacyderma), is very likely more appropriate in discerning relatively brief cold intervals such as the Younger Dryas (45). This study from the South-east Norwegian Sea does show a definitive shift of five to six degrees Celsius. However, that may or may not necessarily be attributable to North Atlantic circulation disruption (46). The following quote highlights the researchers caution when they stated, “there is evidence that cooling was related to reduced salinities, but this does not prove a direct causal relationship that cooling was directly forced by meltwater events” (47). The shift instead may simply have been the result of changes in the relative number of polar and arctic organisms (48).
The inference drawn is that cold intervals such as the Younger Dryas may well have another altogether different trigger than North Atlantic Ocean circulation. Further to this, a somewhat more recent paper, also by the same researchers that conducted the study in the Norwegian Sea indicates, that a reduction in incoming solar radiation might be the trigger that initiates fluctuations in the polar front in the Nordic Seas (49). It is very intriguing that a reduction in incoming solar radiation may have occurred at a time when during the summer a maximum of solar energy should have been occurring (see ref. 75).
The whole concept of North Atlantic Ocean circulation as having any appreciable influence upon the Younger Dryas is placed further in doubt by the work of Dr. Michael Sarnthein. Dr. Sarnthein has collected a large number of marine cores from throughout the Atlantic sampling the interval back to 30,000 before present (BP).
The conclusion gleaned from his work reveals that the North Atlantic Ocean circulation was operative during the Younger Dryas, and had been so for more than 1,500 years prior to the start of this cold period (50). This is consistent with one other high-resolution marine core from the South Atlantic (presumably a good location to detect North Atlantic shifts) that does not show a slowing or shutdown of the North Atlantic (51).
Oceanographer Dr. Carl Wunsch has gone so far as to suggest that the whole concept of a temperature and salinity induced ocean circulation shift is in error, at least in the North Atlantic (52). Dr. Wunsch also believes that the North Atlantic is simply too small to cause significant climate changes in other parts of the world (53). Dr. Wunsch was even more emphatic about the role of the North Atlantic in climate changes when he stated that “you can’t turn the Gulf Stream off as long as wind blows in the North Atlantic” and then goes on to say that “the conveyor is kind of fairy tale for grownups”(54). Dr. Richard Alley seems to echo these sentiments when he questioned how the small high latitude North Atlantic “energy starved polar tail” could possibly “wag the large energy rich tropical dog”(55).
Apart from this, the presence of a less dense freshwater cap may not result in what many scientists see as a cooling at all. Instead, Dr. Richard Fairbanks sometime ago suggested that the presence of a shallow freshwater lid over more saline waters might be subject to rapid warming during the summer and early autumn (56). Thus, instead of the commonly perceived shift to cold associated with the presence of freshwater within the North Atlantic may well result in warming. This of course is the exact opposite of what many scientists currently believe occurred during the Younger Dryas. All of this presumes that there may have been a less saline North Atlantic at this time. However, according to many scientists there was an absence of meltwater entering world oceans approximately 13,000 BP, thereby making this scenario unlikely.
There are in addition a number of other perplexing factors apparent during the Younger Dryas: Carbon 14 (14C), for instance, increased markedly by 70% to 80% at the very beginning of the cold interval (57,58,59). This far exceeds the expected 30% or 35% 14C increase when the North Atlantic allegedly slows or shuts down (60,61). The consideration of possible 14C increases from geomagnetic changes or increased sea ice coverage are also thought to be quite insignificant (62). A second element, Beryllium 10 (10Be), also increased significantly approximately 13,000 years ago. Snowfall at this time in Antarctica and Greenland was much reduced, and it is this that some scientists see as the cause for higher 10Be concentrations (63). The contention is that the snow that did fall removed as effectively the beryllium from the atmosphere, thereby resulting in higher concentrations within ice. However, an alternative view is seen as plausible, and that is simply that there was much more 10Be in the atmosphere during the Younger Dryas (64,65). Both of these elemental forms are known to be products of cosmic events that therefore lend credence to the Impact Hypothesis.
Two other deposits within Greenland and Antarctica glacial ice display interesting characteristics as well. Nitrates are one of these, and though very difficult to analyze, there appears to be little doubt that much of the increase 13,000 BP was attributable to very high amounts in the atmosphere (66,67). A second deposit, ammonium, was also greatly elevated during the Younger Dryas. The predominate origin for Younger Dryas ammonia that arrives in Greenland is North America, and one reason proposed for very high levels is that biological activity remained very prominent because of a continuation of a mild climate (68). However, it is now known that North America did become significantly colder at this time, therefore making greater biological activity extremely unlikely. Thus, there are more questions than answers about the possible origins of the elevated levels of both nitrates and ammonium.
Even more intriguing, and more controversial as well, are a number of other deposits found both in soil and ice, possibly linked to a cosmic origin (69). Associated with an unusual “black mat” deposit found in many of the terrestrial sites, the dates for this layer are very close to the 13,000 BP Younger Dryas beginnings (70). What has garnered most of the attention thus far, are features called “nanodiamonds.” One way in which nanodiamonds are produced is under very high temperatures and pressures (consistent with a cosmic origin). Scientists such as geologist Dr. Allen West contends that approximately 13,000 years ago “ a low density object” entered the Earth’s atmosphere, disintegrated explosively, and the remnants of the catastrophe rained down upon the planet (71). The signatures (including nanodiamonds)of this event were left behind throughout a widespread area that includes Europe, the Greenland Ice Sheet and North and South America (72,73,74).
Another perplexing feature of the Younger Drays is that it was a time of increased solar insolation during the summer months. Solar receipt during summer months when received associated with “June perihelion.” Somewhat surprisingly, it is the summer months that are most critical to snow and ice being retained from one year to the next at the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes (75). This particular alignment has occurred forty-two times over the past one million years and the Younger Dryas is noted as the only significant cold interval (76).
Two final features to be noted about the Younger Dryas, is that it took hold, not in decades as was once thought, but rather in as little time as a few years, or even less (77,78). This is but another piece of the puzzle that does not fit with the whole premise of an ocean induced short-term cold climate interval. It may be concluded that an alternative hypothesis, that of a very large cosmic event took place not that far from Earth, 13,000 years ago. All things considered, the evidence that supports this cosmic origin is available in much greater detail elsewhere, though a number of scientific papers are referenced here.
Concluding Remarks:
Despite all of the preceding discussion as to its numerous shortcomings, the North Atlantic Ocean circulation as cause for the Younger Dryas, remains the most widely accepted hypothesis. During the past several years, however, a debate on what is seen by many as a much more plausible trigger, one that involves either a very close comet passage or even a possible impact event that had transpired. To date, the primary focus in attempts to justify a cosmic origin for the Younger Dryas has been almost totally limited to black mat deposits (specifically nanodiamonds), that have been detected in various parts of the world. This is far too limited an approach!
It is the purpose of this paper to attempt to raise the profile of the long list of other very important clues that also require consideration. An in conclusion, a list of many of the most important aspects are listed as follows:
- The North Atlantic Ocean circulation (known as the THC) slowing or shutdown was not triggered by meltwater suddenly shunted down the St. Lawrence, nor was it likely to have flowed north through Arctic Canada. Nor was the continent of Antarctica involved in Younger Dryas forcing.
- Furthermore, dating of significant meltwater entries into the world’s ocean have not been shown as contemporary with the Younger Dryas onset.
- The main marine cores drawn upon as evidence for the THC hypothesis have either proven to be unreliable, or in some other cases only circumstantial.
- And in contrast, with the just mentioned marine cores, are the proxies collected by Dr. Michael Sarnthein that depict the North Atlantic Ocean circulation as operative during the Younger Dryas and much as 1,500 years before the interval, as well throughout the Younger Dryas. In fact, the North Atlantic appeared to have been operative as much as 1,500 year before the start of the interval, and continued right on through the period as well.
- Increases of both 14C and 10Be are much too large to be associated with the North Atlantic Ocean circulation disruption.
- Also, as time as gone in it is becoming increasingly evident that the onset of the Younger Dryas was indicative of atmospheric origins for the event, in that the onset was so very rapid, perhaps in one year or less.
- Finally, it should also be stated that such an extraordinarily severe and long-lasting event occurred at a time when glacial and sea ice expansion took place despite a peaking of solar radiation in the most critical summer months.
Acknowledgements:
My thanks to Steve Garcia and Clint Unwin for their valuable suggestions, and thorough editing of the foregoing paper. Also to Reed Kirkpatrick for keeping me apprised of some specific subject areas.
REFERENCES:
1) G Bond et al., “Correlation Between Climate Records from North Atlantic Sediments and Greenland Ice,” (1993): Nature 365, 143-147.
2) Richard B. Alley, “The Two-Mile Time Machine,” Princeton, Princeton University Press, (2002): 144.
3) W.S. Broecker et al., “Routing of Meltwater from the Laurentide Ice Sheet During the Younger Dryas Cold Episode,” (1989): Nature 341, 318-321.
4) S. Rahmstorf, “Rapid Climate Transition in a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model,” (1994): Nature: 372, 82-85.
5) A. De Vernal et al., “Reduced Meltwater Outflow from the Laurentide Ice Margin During the Younger Dryas,” (1996): Nature 381, 774-777.
6) P. La Salle and W.W. Shilts, “ Younger Dryas – Age Readvance of Laurentide Ice into the Champlain Sea,” (1993): Boreas 22, 25-37.
7) P.U. Clarke et al., “Freshwater Forcing of Abrupt Climate Change During the Last Glaciation,” (2001): Science 293, 283-287.
8) A. J. Weaver et al., (2003): “Meltwater Pulse 1A from Antarctica as a Trigger of the Bølling-Allerød Warm Interval,” (2003): Science 299, 1709-1713.
9) L. Tarasov and W.R. Peltier “Arctic Freshwater Forcing of the Younger Dryas Cold Reversal,” (2005): Nature 435, 662-665.
10) J. B. Murton et al., “Identification of Younger Dryas Outburst Flood Path from Lake Agassiz into the Arctic Ocean,” (2010): Nature 464, 740-743.
11) T.V. Lowell et al., “Revised Deglacial Chronology of the Laurentian Ice Sheet and Implications for Catastrophic Meltwater Discharge as Triggers for Abrupt Climate Change,” (2005): Eos. Trans. AGU 86 (52). Fall Meet. Suppl. Abstract. F1233.
12) J. B. Murton et al., “Identification of Younger Dryas Outburst Flood Path from Lake Agassiz into the Arctic Ocean,” (2010): Nature 464, 740-743.
13) T.V. Lowell “Glacial Lake Agassiz – “Its History and Influence on North America and Global Systems,” (October, 2011): Presented at the Geological Society of America Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
14) C. Ruhlemann et al., “Warming of the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and Slowdown of Thermohaline Circulation During the Last Deglaciation,” (1999): Nature 402, 511-514.
15) A. McIntyre and B. Molfino, “Forcing of Atlantic Equatorial and Subpolar Millennial Cycles by Precession,” (1996): Science 274, 1867-1870.
16) K. A. Hughen et al., “Rapid Tropical Atlantic Region During the Last Deglaciation,” (1996): Nature 380, 51-56.
17) Ibid.
18) W. A. Watts, “A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South-east Florida,” (1975): Geology 3 #6, 344-346.
19) E. C. Grimm et al., “A 50,000 –Year Record of Climate Oscillation from Florida and its Temporal Correlation with the Heinrich Events,” (1993): Science 261, 198-200.
20) G. A. Islebe et al., “A Cooling Event during the Younger Dryas Chron in Costa Rica,” (1995): Paleoceanography, Paleoclimatolgy, Paleoecolgy 117, 73-80.
21) W. S. Broecker et al., “Routing of Meltwater from the Laurentide Ice Sheet During the Younger Dryas Cold Episode,” (1989): Nature 341, 318-321.
22) B. P. Flower and J. P. Kennett, “The Younger Dryas Cool Episode in the Gulf of Mexico,” (1990): Paleoceaonography 5 #6, 949-961.
23) C. Williams et al., “A Multi-proxy Approach to Deglacial Paleo-salinity Reconstructions Based on Gulf of Mexico ?” , Presented at the 2010 Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, California Dec 13-17. 2010.
24) M.A. Maslin and S. J. Burns. Reconstruction of the Amazon Basin Effective Moisture Availability over the Past 14,000 Years,” (2000): Science 290, 2285-2287.
25) G. Seltzer et al., “Isotopic Evidence for Late Quaternary Climatic Change in Tropical South America,” (2000): Geology 28, 3-5.
26) P. Kuhry et al., “The El Abra Stadial in the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia (South America).”(1993): available online:http//www.science direct.com/science.
27) P. A. Baker et al., “Tropical Climate Changes at Millennial and Orbital Timescales of the Bolivian Altiplano,” (2000): Nature 409. 698-701.
28) L.G. Thompson et al., “A 25,000 – Year Tropical Climate History from Bolivian Ice Core,” (1998): Science 282, 1858-1864.
29) D. J. Rodbell and G.A. Seltzer “Rapid Ice Margin Fluctuations During the Younger Dryas in the Tropical Andes,” (2000): Quaternary Research 54, 328-338.
30) M. S. Andres et al., “Southern Ocean Deglacial Records Supports Global Younger Dryas,” (2003): Earth and Planetary Science Letters 216, 515-524.
31) P.M. Grootes et al., “The Taylor Dome Antarctica 18O Record and Globally Synchronous Changes in Climate,” (2001): Quaternary Research 56, 289-298.
32) Ibid.
33) T. Sowers and M. Bender, “Climate Records over the Last Deglaciation,” (1995): Science 269, 210-214.
34) R. S. Bradley, Paleoclimatology, “Reconstructing Climate of the Quaternary”, Amherst Massachusetts 1999, 168.
35) E. Boyle and L. Keigwin, “The North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation During the Past 20,000 Years Linked to High Latitude Surface Temperature,” (1987): Nature 330, 35-40.
36) R. A. Fairbanks, “A 17,000-year Glacioeustatic Sea Level Record: Influence of Glacial Meltwater Rates on the Younger Dryas Event Deep Ocean Circulation,” (1989): Nature 342, 637-642.
37) Ibid.,
38) E. Jansen and T. Veum “Evidence for Two-Step Glaciation and its Importance on North Atlantic Deep Water Circulation,” (1990): Nature 343, 612-618.
39) S. J. Lehman and L.D. Keigwin, “Sudden Changes in North Atlantic Circulation During the Last Deglaciation,” (1992): Nature 356, 757-762.
40) R. S. Bradley, Paleoclimatology, “Reconstructing Climate of the Quaternary”, Amherst Massachusetts 1999, 27.
41) N. K. Karpuz and E. Jansen, “ A High Resolution Diatom Record of the Last Deglaciation from the SE Norwegian Sea: Documentation of Rapid Climate Changes,” (1992): Paleoceanography 7, 499-520.
42) Ibid.
43) Ibid.
44) S. J. Lehman and L.D. Keigwin, “Sudden Changes in North Atlantic Circulation During the Last Deglaciation,” (1992): Nature 356, 757-762.
45) M. Sarnthein et al., “Changes in East Atlantic Deepwater Circulation over the Last 30,000 Years: Eight Time Slice Reconstructions,” (1994): Paleoceanography 9, 209-267.
46) C. Wunsch, “Towards Understanding the Paleocean,” (2010): Quaternary Science Reviews 30, 1-10.
47) Ibid.
48) R. B. Alley, “Icing the North Atlantic,” (1998): Nature 342, 335-336.
49) R. A. Fairbanks, “A 17,000-year Glacioeustatic Sea Level Record: Influence of Glacial Meltwater Rates on the Younger Dryas Event Deep Ocean Circulation,” (1989): Nature 342, 637-642.
50) J. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht. “Atmospheric Radicarbon Calibration to 45,000 Year BP: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production,” (1998): Science 279, 1187-1189.
51) T. Goslar et al., “Variations of Atmospheric 14C Concentrations Over the Allerød-Younger Dryas Transition,” (1999): Climate Dynamics 15, 29-42.
52) K.A. Hughen et al., “Deglacial Changes in Ocean Circulation from an Extended Radiocarbon Calibration,” (1998): 65-68.
53) T. F. Stocker and D. G. Wright, “Rapid Changes in Ocean Circulation and Atmospheric Radiocarbon,” (1996): Paleoceanography 11, 773-791.
54) R. Muscheler et al., “Changes in Deep-water Formation During the Younger Dryas Event Inferred from 10Be and 14C Records,” (2000): Nature 408, 567-570.
55) T. Goslar et al., “Variations of Atmospheric 14C Concentrations Over the Allerød-Younger Dryas Transition,” (1999): Climate Dynamics 15, 29-42.
56) R.C. Finkel and K. Nishiizumi, “Beryllium 10 Concentrations in the Greenland Ice Project 2 Ice Core from 30-40 ka,” (1997): Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 266699-26706.
57) R. Muscheler et al., “Changes in Deep-water Formation During the Younger Dryas Event Inferred from 10Be and 14C Records,” (2000): Nature 408, 567-570.
58) F. Yiou et al., “Beryllium 10 in the Greenland Ice Core Project Ice Core at Summit, Greenland,” (1997): Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 26783-26794.
59) Q. Yang et al., “Global Perspective of Nitrate Flux in Ice Cores,” (1995): Journal of Geophysical Research 100, 5113-5121.
60) M. Legrand and S. Kirchner, “Origins and Variations of Nitrates in South Polar Precipitation,” (1990): Journal of Geophysical Research 95, 3493-3507.
61) K. Fuhrer and M. Legrand, “Continental Biogenic Species in the Greenland Ice Core Project Ice Core: Tracing Back the Biomass History of the North America Continent,” (1997): Journal of Geophysical Research 102 C12, 26735–26745.
62) R.B Firestone et al., “Evidence for an Extraterrestrial Impact 12,9000 Years Ago that Contributed to the Megafaunal Extinctions and the Younger Dryas,” (2007): PNAS 104 #41, 16016-16021.
63) Heather Pringle, “Firestorm from Space Wiped out Prehistoric Americans,” (2007): New Scientist 8-9.
64) Ibid.
65) R.B Firestone et al., “Evidence for an Extraterrestrial Impact 12,9000 Years Ago that Contributed to the Megafaunal Extinctions and the Younger Dryas,” (2007): PNAS 104 #41, 16016-16021.
66) W.C. Mahaney et al., (2010) “Evidence from the North-western Venezuelan Andes for Extraterrestrial Impact: The Black Mat Enigma,” http://www.science.com
67) A.V. Kurbatov et al., “Discovery of a Nanodiamond – Rich Layer in the Greenland Ice Sheet,” (2010): Journal of Glaciology 56, 749-758.
68) B. Molfino and A. McIntyre, “Nutricline Variation in the Equatorial Atlantic Coincident with the Younger Dryas,” (1990): Paleoceaography 5, 997-1008.
69) Ibid.
70) J. P. Steffenson et al., “High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in a Few Years,” (2008): Science 321, 680-683.
71) K. Ravillious” Ice Age Took Hold in Less than a Year,” (2009): New Scientist, 10.
Rodney R. Chilton, a climatologist for the past thirty years, is interested in a number of nature’s mysteries, including the enigmatic Younger Dryas. The author resides on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve never been a fan of the notion that changes in the THC *causing* much anyway. It has been my opinion that changes in the THC were more an effect than a cause. But overall I find the reasoning behind dismissal of large cold freshwater outflows to be thin. I see no reason to discount the impact of such flows into the Arctic, North Atlantic and Pacific. And there would have been substantial other changes happening as the glaciers retreated and mass rebalanced across the globe. The rotational North Pole would have been gradually migrating from its point at the LGM somewhere near Ellesmere Island toward its current location.
We might also be looking things in completely the wrong way. Rather than looking at the period immediately before the Younger Dryas as the beginning of the current interglacial and as the Younger Dryas as some sort of temporary interruption, maybe that isn’t the case. Maybe the warming before they YD was the same sort of interstadial event that happened from time to time during the last glaciation anyway. Temperatures warmed rapidly to near modern temperatures several times during the last glacial period, stayed that way for a couple of thousand years, and headed South again. Maybe it is only the rapid warming after the YD that is the real start of the current interglacial.
Maybe Earth passing through clouds of interstellar dust is the reason for the ice ages and “clear” spaces within those clouds are the reason for those brief interstadial events. Maybe “bubbles” in that dust cloud are reasons for the interglacial periods. No idea but at this point it is just as plausible as anything else.
Grey Lensman says on June 17, 2012 at 5:56 am:
“O.h. DAHLSVEEN Omits entirely the largest and most powerful ocean current driver, Coriolis force/effect.”
========
False arrest Lensman! – The Coriolis effect is not responsible for the creation of Ocean currents and if you would bother to read your own link you will find that your article says about the Coriolis effect that “It is thus responsible for the shape of wind and ocean currents.” So, – therefore it has a “deflective influence” on that particular current but it has no further responsibility for it, or any other current.
Wow; what a lot of work. I sure enjoy this site.
A couple of notes. First, a lot of this reminds me of the joke on the blackboard during my engineering training. Two guys in lab coats are looking at a bunch of equations with ‘now a miracle happens’ in the middle, to get them from start to end. An interglactic event? really?
Now, almost 50 years of experience later, my contribution is that: if a hypothesis doesn’t satisfy ALL the data, it is unlikely to be correct. No matter how much you like the hypothesis. And its opportunities.
Al may have fifty reasons for his activist position but since the CO2 profile seems to follow the temperature profile on HIS graph, it’s easy to ignore those fifty reasons. In God we trust; all others: bring data.
charge on; thanks.
Cal in 65
There has never been an ‘interruption’ of the solar magnetic cycle [which is self-sustaining] and even if there were one, any effects would be extremely minor.
Leif, this article does raise a very interesting issue that falls closer to our realm.
What in your opinion would bring about these highly elevated C-14 and Be-10 numbers?
Here is an interesting paper on the subject.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/2797/2008/acp-8-2797-2008.pdf
Compare the increased Be-10 (32% during the Maunder Minimum compared to today) and the increased C-14 (not quantified in the above paper), and then compare it to the numbers in this paper.
Interestingly, one of the referenced papers in this article has these interesting graphs…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6812/fig_tab/408567a0_F3.html
Look at the C-14 production during the Y-D , which is referred to in this paper.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6812/fig_tab/408567a0_F3.html
From what I can see, at least in this core, there is very little change in Be-10 during the Y-D
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6812/fig_tab/408567a0_F1.html
I found the paper itself here.
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/marchal01epsl_42277.pdf
There is considerable controversy over the Be-10 numbers in the GISP-2 core concerning the source.
So, at the end of the day, what cosmogenic force would account for the large rise in C-14 coincident with the Y-D.
I don’t think an asteroid or comet would account for that UNLESS that comet was rich in carbon-oxides as has been found (CO at least) in some comets.
Could that be a proxy for cometary implanted C-14? That would make sense as comets typically come from much further out in the solar system or beyond, which would account for a dramatically increased C-14 spike, but not the abrupt rise and subsequent slow tail off as shown in figure 3 above…..
I’m afraid all this Younger Dryas stuff is riddled with errors and over speculative suppositions.
For instance if you check deuterium excess in the grenland ice cores
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5731/118.full
You’ll see that the YD acts identical to the Dansgaard Oegscher events. So why then would the YD be something different than another D-O event? Not that we have any idea what those are, but if the YD needs an extraterrestrial impact, then how about all other D-O events?
Then we have the alleged 14C of Hughen et al 2000 based on the varve count in the Caracio basin
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5498/1951.abstract
However, newer studies have shown major problems with this proxy so in the new INTCAL09 radiocarbon calibration table, this part of the chronology is rejected, which also diminishes the 14C spike to noise levels.
But I guess it’s useless to make this post since everthing I write in this sense is moderated away, far far worse than RC. Shame. I thought that we, skeptics could deal with discussing truths.
I will as the author of the paper respond to the last two submissions. As far as the Hughen paper goes it was not the only one that reported very large increases at the beginning of the YD. Two other papers also cited in my paper, one by Goslar et al (1999) and the other by Kitagawa et al (1998) also presented very large C14 increases a the beginning of the YD. Also please note that the sun itself does not have to register chnages in magnetic field or waht have you. A very large flux of dust and an interruption in incoming sunlight can also be responsible for huge increases in C14. Be 10 increasing on its own may not be so .impressive, but when it does so with C14 then I think we have something ……A cosmic encounter! Thank-you all of you for your comments signed Rod Chilton or mystery seeker
A very large flux of dust and an interruption in incoming sunlight can also be responsible for huge increases in C14.
Neither a large influx of dust or an interruption in incoming sunlight will increase the C-14 flux. The C-14 flux is modulated in the normal fashion by a decrease in solar wind velocity/solar magnetic field strength, which allows a higher proportion of galactic high energy particles to enter the inner solar system. The two, C-14 and Be-10 usually rise in tandem under this influence. However, if the Y-D has a large C-14 increase without an increase in Be-10, then this would tend to rule out solar variation (unless the Be-10 data is in error which some authors claim).
If C-14 increases dramatically, as was the measured case, then the possibility exists that a carbon rich asteroid or comet (A large carbonaceous Chondrite asteroid or comet with a lot of carbon), would tend to have a much higher C-14 proportion due to its life mostly outside of the inner solar system where cosmogenic particle production would be higher. The lack of Be-10 can be explained by the fact that much of the Be-10 is from nitrogen transmutations that does not typically exist in any extraterrestrial asteroid/comet body.
I have always found this quite interesting, and kinda on topic. Microscopically too?
Once again, something else that shows how little we really know about this place we call
home 🙂
http://tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/chevrons.htm
or
http://my.opera.com/nielsol/blog/2006/11/15/asteroid-impacts-tsunamis-and-chevron
Ya think?
Coriolis force, as it does wind, so it does ocean currents, it drives them. In the case of wind topography and thermal effects have a major influence in the pattern. Ocean currents are much more robust and have huge inertia. The Coriolis force drives them and shapes them. Thus they just carry accumulated heat and disperse it, not driven by heat at all.
Ocean current overturning is complete nonsense.
Additional notes
How come every single comet photographed looks just like an asteroid or meteor and not a dirty snowball?
The original temperature chart makes it absolutely clear that current temperatures are not unusual, not record, nor highest ever nor unprecedented nor catastrophic. But things like that have happened in the past with no input from man.
In view of the Svensmark cosmic radiation modulation theory for climate change and the relatively long duration of this period, it might be worthwhile to see if the solar system might have been transiting an unusually thick wisp of galactic dust or the arm of a supernova fragment during this interval. Dr. Svensmark has published a paper that seems to correlate cold climatic intervals on the Earth with the passage of the solar system through galactic clouds with high cosmic radiation levels which facilitate cloud formation and cooling of the Earth’s surface.
edward says:
June 16, 2012 at 6:09 pm
IMO, the discussion about the YD event is talking about the cart before the horse. If one can explain the climatic phenomenon that occurs roughly every 1200 yrs throughout the glacial cycle, then one is ready to discuss the YD event. … the 1200 yr spike is the anomaly, unexplained and not understood, and without the understanding of what is “forcing” this switch like behavior, one cannot possibly understand what happens when this forcing is removed.
I agree with your perspective here. Just before the YD were deep glacial conditions and the YD was just a drop back to current glacial “normality” after an abortive jump to interglacial conditions.
Indeed, if we remind ourselves that these very short abortive interglacial spikes occurred regularly throughout the glacial period, then the YD cool interval disappears as an anomaly, it is just an abortive interglacial spike that just happened to occur shortly before the “successful” interglacial rize which – unlike the abortive spikes – held on stably to the interglacial attractor rather than falling away from it.
Further, if we remind ourselves of the rather self-evident fact of glacial and interglacial being alternate attractors in a nonlinear/nonequilibrium climate system, then these 1200 year interval abortive interglacial spikes and the less frequent interglacial rises which “stick” are an expected and normal behaviour.
Thus the YD is not in any way a “problem” except a problem of imagination and paradigm of the observer. The need for every upward or downward wiggle of earths climate history to have some discreet and unique external forcing comes from ignorance of quasi-chaotic systems and a deficient paradigm. It is even slightly absurd to imagine the climate system to be so passive.
“””””……Elizabeth Elmore says:
June 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm
George E. Smith; says:
June 17, 2012 at 10:43 a
……………………..
George:
Could it be that you do not know that
National forest boundaries are sold off by the US Forest Service of the Dept of Agriculture to the highest bidder. The government builds the roads to allow the timber to be harvested. The revenue from the sale of the timber often does not pay for the cost of the tax-payer funded roads, and the timber (at least in the west) is often sold to Japan, not locally milled. ………..
………….. Clear cutting, applied willy-nilly regardless of climate or terrain is the most destructive and lazy “innovation’ to beset forestry since slash and burn as it exposes the soil to drying and erosion,
……………….
What man does man can sometimes undo, but not if we continue in denial. If we stop timber sales in simi-arid areas, whitened all the dark pavement and put solar out roofs through such companies as Solar City, (something something some of the wealthy in India are doing, then we will be going more in the right direction……….”””””
Elizabeth, let me state here just for the record, that I do not normally post everything I know, in every post I make; that would be tiring, to write, and probably moreso to read.
So never assume, I don’t know something simply because I don’t mention it in every post.
I’m quite familiar with the forestry practices of the United States Federal Government. If the American people (voters) are all for and quite happy with the Federal Government (not money grubbing private compqanies) selling lumber in the Tongass National Forest to a Japanese company for the handsome price of $1 per tree, so they can transport it to a factory ship outsie US Territorial waters, to process, into wood products to then bring ashore for sale in the United Staes markets; well why should I protest what the American people want, and let their government do on their behalf. But it isn’t private companies selling their lumber to those foreigners, it is the US taxpayer. If $1 per tree is fine with you, so be it.
I’m not in the forestry business, so I wouldn’t know why somebody would cut down trees in some place where they hardly grow at all, anfd expect to replace them in any reasonable time. In New Zealand, they have virtually NO harvesting, of native forests, or at least tiny amounts, for specialty situations. Almost 100% of their foresty industry is farmed, the largest man made forests in the world. A Douglas fir (Oregon pine down under) grows to around 135 feet in about 30-35 years; they do have rain where they do their forest farming. They generally clear cut in quite small plots, largely protected by surrounding forest, and replan immediately. Some of their native trees are over 2,000 years old, and they don’t cut those; they don’t have to; they simply dig them up from long buried swamps. I have apicture of a large specimen of one of those trees, and it is framed in a frame made from one of those resurrected buried trees. It was radio-carbon dated to 45,000 years old.
When I came to America, I had to wait in line for a visa, behind hundreds of agricultural scientists, being imported into America. Perhaps the US forest service should consider hiring some of them to tell them how to grow trees.
So just what material would you recommend we dig up from underground, to whiten all of the asphalst areas of the USA; didn’t Obama suggest painting our roofs white.
Do you know how much Solar City pays in rent, to rent the roofs of people for their taxpayer funded solar panels. Why would anybody rent out their valuable solar energy collection area for somebody like Solar City to put up junk solar panels made from extremely toxic chemicals (Cadmium and Selenium), with very low solar conversion efficiency. In solar energy collection; absolutely NOTHING matters except solar to electric conversion efficiency; it is criminal to put up junk like Solar City and Solyndra had, in valuable solar collection sites.
Solar energy may be free, but collection of it is extremely expensive; and we get no more than 100 Watts per square foot of it from the sun. If 87% of the energy is wasted as heat; it’s not worth doing.
Oh I forgot; the taxpayers are footing the bill. And that TV dope Ed Asner is pushing it so it must be good.
Some good research is going on in solar cell development; and it will be available one day. (NO I do not work in the field or have an iron in the fire) People who fall for the Solar City gig, will wake up one day, and find obsolete non functioning solar panels on their roof, and Solar City will be long gone, and won’t come back to retireve their junk off your roof.
If you put Dish TV on your roof, and finally tire of it, they simply abandon the hardware, and leave the problem of getting rid of it to you to pay for.
When a solar PV installation can pay for itself without the taxpayer getting ripped off for it, I would encourage anybody with a roof to consider it; but don’t by some fly by night system that is both cheap and inefficient, and make sure your solar system is OFF the grid, so you can then also take your LED lighting off the grid as well, and don’t waste energy making the double round trip conversion from solar DC to grid ac, and back to LED lighting DC. Now I do plead guilty of knowing something about that technology, and lately the business as well. But I have only been working in LED technology since 1966, so if you go back before that, then you probably know more about LEDs than I do.
Thank you for the article outlining the controversy over the cause of the Younger Dryas. It has a really interesting and broad summary of the studies involving ice and marine cores and the limitations involved in reading them and syncronizing them.
In reply to Rod Chilton about the alleged 14C spike at the onset of the Younger Dryas, quoting Kitagawa 1998 and Goslar et al 1999.
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1998/RadiocarbonKitagawa/1998RadiocarbonKitagawa.pdf
I’m afraid that this Kitagawa et al 1998 does not report a carbon spike while Kilian et al 2002 report problems matching varve dates with carbon dates from the same lake Gosciaz that Thomas Goslar used for his spike.
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/root/2002/QuatIntKilian/?pFullItemRecord=ON
Really it would be a good idea to scrutinize Reimer et al 2009
http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.arizona.edu%2FVolume51%2FNumber4%2F49691745-6a68-4e2c-a26f-08f0a16c1a53
and plot their delta 14C from INTCAL09 values at the YD transition in comparison with INTCAL04 to see how the spike vanished, due to the removal of the Cariaco data.
http://i54.tinypic.com/20zocch.jpg
As a consequence the carbon dates are now also calibrated differently and the widespread carbon date of 10,9 ka BP, associated with the onset of the Younger Dryas, which used to calibrate to 12.9 cal BP is now 12.7 cal BP instead, which is perfectly in agreement with several European counted proxies.
A more detailed discussion can be found here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=192583
Would this one really pass the moderation?
Neville says:
June 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Well we don’t know what caused it, but do we know what caused the rapid temp increase that ended the younger dryas?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
This abrupt temp increase of 10c in a decade occuring in Venezuela and Greenland at the same time must also be very unusual?
I just wish that someone here could give a suggestion for this huge temp increase over such a short time span.
*******************************************************************************
Burning biomass from 1) the bolide entering the atmosphere and 2) the impact itself would throw up an awful lot of carbon. At first it would be very cold due to the decreased sunlight reaching the Earth, but it would get warmer as CO2 built up in the atmosphere.
Kay,
Maybe that 10 degrees wasn’t there. The only indicator for that are isotope which have a lot of problems, but I can’t talk about it because that is moderated away here..
Anyway, the lake cores of greenland tell a different story
http://www.geol.lu.se/personal/seb/Geology.pdf.pdf
The first late-glacial lake sediments found in Greenland were analyzed with respect to
a variety of environmental variables. The analyzed sequence covers the time span between
14 400 and 10 500 calendar yr B.P., and the data imply that the conditions in southernmost
Greenland during the Younger Dryas stadial, 12 800–11 550 calendar yr B.P., were characterized
by an arid climate with cold winters and mild summers, preceded by humid
conditions with cooler summers. Climate models imply that such an anomaly may be
explained by local climatic phenomenon caused by high insolation and Fo¨hn effects. It
shows that regional and local variations of Younger Dryas summer conditions in the North
Atlantic region may have been larger than previously found from proxy data and modeling
experiments.
Note that climate model excuse is just an excuse. It’s not holding up to real scientific ethics, testing that hypothesis.
I’m sure this one won’t pass moderation. Too much rebellion
George E. Smith; says:
June 17, 2012 at 11:51 pm
George:
In what reasonable world would I mention the lac wit way that boundaries are sold off in sensitive areas if I approved of same.
it is a little hard to ascertain what your point is, other than perhaps you, yourself live carefully and do not contribute to man-made climate change?
In that I applaud you.
As far as Solar City is concerned, I think you need to shelve the attitude and do a little more research. Solar City rents solar panels that will provide most of the electricity for a home at a lower cost than the electric utility charges. They will provide the maintenance and the upkeep.
As for solar panels containing selenium or cadmium, it is somewhat like being concerned that your leaded crystal chandelier is going to poison you. If you restrain the impulse to eat or burn the solar cells you will be fine.
There are certainly industrial by-products involved in solar cell manufacture as there are in oil and gas extraction, and the cadmium telluride panels will need certainly to be recycled at the end of their life to prevent cadmium contamination of the ground water, just as we recycle led batteries, but really, cadmium yellow and orange are common pigments and contribute much more to cadmium to the enviro than solar panels ever will. If you have concerns about that solar panel technology choose silicon cells or the copper ir cells, or the organic dye cells that are under development. If you have done work in LEDs then you know that the same quantum mechanical effect used in LEDs can be reversed to produce electricity. I believe that a UC Berkley team presented something of the kind at the Conference on ElectroOptics last May, a cell that is like 28% efficient.
A couple of points in regard to C14 and Be 10, as has been discussed by leftturnaandre and others. First, quite right re: the increase in C14 not being caused by shielding by cosmic dust (sorry a brain f–t). Of course though, an expected increase, likely large, occurred at the beginning of the Younger Dryas, because I and others contend that Earth had an encounter witha comet or an asteroid. Not all the other possible factors that include: geomagentic variation, expanded sea ice extend, nor a colder ocean, in combination with what I now see as a non responsive North Atlantic, can account for the large 70% to 80% increases as reported by Goslar, Hughen, Lee, and yes Kitagawa (perhaps not seen as a peak, but a large increase nonetheless). Now onto Be 10, yes granted there is controversy re: its increase at the start of the Younger Dryas too. Some scientists content that it was the result of a drastic reduction in snowfall (hence a more concentrated deposit of Be 10 in the ice). However, just as many scientists that I have read believe that the increase was simply because there was more Be 10 in the atmosphere at the time, 13,000 BP. The fact that I still see the two radionuclides increasing in tandem, and considering the many other important signs of a cosmic event reinforces greatly the comet encounter idea. Thank-you again Rod Chilton the mysteryseeker.
A couple of points in regard to C14 and Be 10, as has been discussed by leftturnaandre and others. First, quite right re: the increase in C14 not being caused by shielding by cosmic dust (sorry a brain f–t). Of course though, an expected increase, likely large, occurred at the beginning of the Younger Dryas, because I and others contend that Earth had an encounter witha comet or an asteroid. Not all the other possible factors that include: geomagnetic variation, expanded sea ice extend, nor a colder ocean, in combination with what I now see as a non responsive North Atlantic, can account for the large 70% to 80% increases as reported by Goslar, Hughen, Lee, and yes Kitagawa (perhaps not seen as a peak, but a large increase nonetheless). Now onto Be 10, yes granted there is controversy re: its increase at the start of the Younger Dryas too. Some scientists content that it was the result of a drastic reduction in snowfall (hence a more concentrated deposit of Be 10 in the ice). However, just as many scientists that I have read believe that the increase simply was because of more Be10 in the atmosphere at the time 13,000 BP. The fact that I still see the two radionuclides increasing in tandem and considering the many other important signs of a cosmic event reinforces greatly the comet encounter idea. Thank-you again for this valuable forum signed Rod Chilton, the mystery seeker
Smokey says:
June 17, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Are you SERIOUS?
You recon without PREDATOR Capitalism.
It was the clear cutting of the Northern Pacific Railroad’s old growth boundaries after a hostile takeover at the hands of Michael Milken &Co that sucked so many people into unsustainable logging.
“””””……Elizabeth Elmore says:
June 18, 2012 at 9:22 am
George E. Smith; says:
June 17, 2012 at 11:51 pm
George:
In what reasonable world would I mention the lac wit way that boundaries are sold off in sensitive areas if I approved of same.
it is a little hard to ascertain what your point is, other than perhaps you, yourself live carefully and do not contribute to man-made climate change?
In that I applaud you……”””””
Elizabeth, actions taken by the US government, and/or agencies of that government are done on behalf of the US citizens who vote for, and put those people in control. To the extent, that American citizens disapprove of what the Government does on their behalf, there is a simple remedy. You vote those people out of office and you replace them with people who will do things more to your liking .
We have ethanol or MTBE in gasolines because Americans voted for people who dictated that stuff should be in there.
As for Solar City, I’m fully aware of their business model. It’s very clever. Like Solyndra before them, Solar City has a solar panel (II-VI based) that nobody in their right mind would buy using their own money, because it is too inefficient. If I want to put up a solar system on my roof, I want to use that space for the most conversion efficient solar devices available.
So Solar City can’t sell their product, so they rent it instead, so they install it on people’s roofs, and sell them back their own solar energy, by just undercutting the local utility electric rate.. They pay no rent at all for use of the homeowner’s roof to install their solar collectors. I presume that SC is responsible for whatever property taxes are involved in the arrangement, and I wonder who is liable for any insurance consequences. But it sounds like you are an insider, so I guess you probably have those answers.
I’m quite familiar; very familiar actually, with the Solar cell research being done by Eli Yablonavitch at Berkeley, and also the research elsewhere. Currently 43.5% is the best reported conversion efficieny; but I don’t know if that is an air mass zero efficiency or whether it is ground level AM 1.5 perhaps; nor do I know how many suns, that performance was reached at.
Personally, I would opt for the two axis steering high concentration technology, being researched by Prof Roland Winston et al at UC Merced in Atwater CA.. That requires much smaller quantities of whatever expensive and potentially toxic cell materials, are used.
Material toxicity can’t be just shucked off as you seem to think, because solar proponents, are talking prodigious areas of solar collection farms. For example, a proposed solar farm to be situated in the waste desert areas of the American South West (see Sci-Am for Jan 2008) would occupy 30,000 square miles for solar panels. That much area would have to be totally cleared of human habitation; remember your mention of long time inhabitants turned out of their homes. It would then have to be fenced and provided with armed guard security, because of the vulnerability of solar farms to vandalism, or worse.
30,000 square miles, is an interesting number; it converts to 19.2 million acres, which just happens to be the area of the entire Arctic National Wildlife Reserve; in which energy companies, would like to drill on 2,400 acres to recover the already known energy resources.
I remember Ca Senators Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein working hard to protect those “waste” desert lands of California, and the American South West
; pretty much the only good thing Boxer has ever achieved in her stint n Washington DC.
You see Elizabeth, the reason I may have “an attitude”, is because I see what is being done, and who it is being done by, and I see Americans complaining about it, and then I watch them go to the polls, and re-elect the scoundrels who are doing those things on their behalf; and usually because they want the Government to “do something” for them; usually with other people’s money and hard enterprise. The E. in my name has always stood for EFFICIENCY, and I have put in more than half a century working toward that end, in the interest of a better America, and a better life available for all.
I’m already 22 years past the age, at which my “public servant” daughter can retire, on a full pension at a large fraction of her last pay rate; for which I and many other private economy workers will be entirely responsible for paying (and therefore continuing to work) . So yes I have an attitude; I’d like the lazy bums to get off my back.
As to an Electro-Optics seminar in May, Elizabeth, I didn’t attend one; they seem to have so many lately; but I did attend the Las Vegas LightFair International; which turned into an almost exclusively Solid State Lighting affair. Back in March/April time frame, I did attend a solar energy symposium at UC Merced, at the Merced campus, and the Eli Yablonavitch presented his Berekeley group’s flexible GaAs based solar cell; and that might have been 28 some % efficient. The big thing was the tiny amount of material and the substrate reusability of their very clever peeling process. Shoji Nakamura’s group at UC Santa Barbara, are working on a GaN/InGaN high band gap cap for a multijuction multibandgap solar cell, and those crazy people think they can get as much as 60% solar conversion efficiency that way. I’m also crazy enough to believe they can, and I think they will do it (at least labwise) in less than five years; and eventually make it volume manufacturable. I’m sure it will be expensive enough to only be usable in Prof Winston type high concentration multi-sun designs (more than 100 suns concentration).
George E. Smith; says:
June 18, 2012 at 10:24 am
It sounds so smooth and sweet. Is this a great country, or what?
But I hope you weren’t thinking of the recall of Gov. Grey Davis – primarily because of a criminally manipulated energy crisis – that brought Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to power in California, where he presided over California’s nosedive.
Back on topic, if you look at the graphs awhile, the most recent 12 millennia or so sure have been relatively benign. Perhaps the Taurids have shot their wad, but big rocks are still whizzing by without much advance notice, in some cases.
Elizabeth Elmore,
You responded to my comment:
…with your coomment:
Again, government is the problem. Selecting one example shows the laxity of regulation, not that government is the solution. And I very much doubt that you have ever visited the site you referenced, but rather, you accept the opinion of another writer who also has not done any on-site research. Of course, I could be wrong. But I well recall the demonization of Michael Milken, who turned out to have more character than any of his detractors.
I also remember the open land rush the federal government held in Colorado in the 1950’s. The land was federally owned, and a lot of it was covered with trash and open mines. Anyone could stake a claim to 5 acres on the day of the land rush, which was held with great fanfare. The result? Within one year the local residents were commenting on how well cared for the land was.
The federal government owns huge swathes of land, which pay not a dime in taxes. It costs a lot of money to administer, and is a drain on the treasury. Litter abounds, marijuana plantations are cultivated, and feral hogs ruin the land. That land should be sold to the highest bidders. Private owners will take good care of it, unlike the lackadaisical government.
Smokey says:
June 18, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Actually I have seen KKR’s work up close and personally.
I worked for one of the high tech companies that KKR put in play because we had no debt and a lot of assets. We paid taxes and they could borrow money against us to buy us out and then reduce the taxes to nothing by deducting the interest. KKR made the first tender offer but we were not ultimately bought out by them. We were subjected to a hostile takeover/ leveraged buyout by a ” white knight.” who wound up making a tender offer for stock that gave them control for 200M. Then they took a 200 Million dollar tax write off, took our fully funded 200 mil pension fund, our 50 million dollar R&D budget, sold the IP to a competitor for 200Mil and cut up and sold the other assets of the company for I don’t know what. We had 2370 employees and they laid off 2300 of us, because during the Reagan Administration the rules were changed so that the stock we sold suddenly became the instrument of our undoing.
The system was/is gamed by Wall Street to destroy good, well run manufacturing companies.