Guest essay by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The results of oxygen isotope measurements from ice cores in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets several decades ago stunned the scientific world. Among the surprises from the cores was the recognition of multiple, late Pleistocene, extraordinarily abrupt, intense periods of warming and cooling. The most precise records of late Pleistocene climate changes are the ice cores of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) and the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). These cores are especially important because the ages of the ice at various levels in the core have been measured by counting annual layers in the ice, giving a very accurate chronology of climatic fluctuations determined by measurement of annual layers.
Figure 1. Oxygen isotope fluctuations in the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warm periods, blue = cold periods. Up on the vertical axis is warmer (Plotted from data in Stuiver and Grootes, 1997)
Figure 2. Temperature fluctuations in the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warm periods, blue = cold periods. (Plotted from data in Cuffy and Clow, 1997 and Alley, 2000)
Figure 1 is the oxygen isotope record from the GISP2 Greenland ice core from 11,000 to 15,000 years before present (BP). Although it is not a direct measure of temperature, the 18O/16O ratio is a proxy for temperature. Figure 2 is the reconstructed temperature record for the same time interval, based on data from Cuffy and Clow (1997), modified by Alley (2000). Comparison of the two different approaches in Figures 1 and 2 shows essential agreement.
The temperature variations shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 correlate very well with other geologic data that has led to recognition of several named periods of warming and cooling. The named periods of warming and cooling discussed below were established long before the same climatic events were discovered in the ice cores.
[1] Bølling warm period: Abrupt, intense warming 14,500 years ago resulted in sudden wholesale melting of the huge continental ice sheets that occupied vast areas in North America, Europe, and Russia and extensive alpine glaciers in mountainous areas. What made this warming so remarkable was not only its abrupt onset, but also its intensity. Temperatures in Greenland rose 20°F (~12° C), about equal to the total cooling of the late Pleistocene glaciation, to near present-day levels in about one century (Figs. 1, 2). Although this temperature change is for Greenland, simultaneous glacial retreat all over the world indicates that this was a global event. Prior to the ice core analyses, such large swings in temperature were believed to have taken a thousand years or more. This warming event, known as the Bølling (Figs. 1, 2) lasted only a few hundred years, but temperatures rose to near-modern levels.
[2] Older Dryas cold period: At the end of Bølling, temperatures suddenly plummeted about 20° F (~11°C) from the Bølling maximum in a few hundred years (Figs. 1, 2), initiating the Older Dryas cold period, which lasted from about 14,300 to 14,000 years before present (BP). Temperatures returned to near full glacial levels and glaciers halted their rapid retreat.
[3] Allerød warm period: About 14,000 years BP, temperatures once again rose abruptly and the Allerød warm period began. It lasted until 12,800 years BP, but was not as warm as the present or the Bølling. However, the rate of warming was very intense ~8° F (~4.5°C) accomplished in as little as a single century.
[4] Inter-Allerød cold period: Near the end of the Allerød warm period (13-14,000 years BP), temperatures dropped precipitously, ~14° F (~8°C) in about a century (Figs. 1, 2) during a time known as the Inter-Allerød cold period (IACP). Temperatures returned to near full Ice Age levels but persisted for only a few hundred years, so glaciers halted their retreat but did not rebuild to former extents. Just as suddenly as it had cooled, the IACP warmed abruptly 9° F (~5°C) and temperatures returned to Allerød levels.
[5] Younger Dryas cold period: 12,800 years ago, temperatures plunged ~14° F (~8°C) to full glacial levels where they remained for 1300 years during the Younger Dryas (YD). Because of the abruptness, intensity, and duration of the cooling, the YD is the best known of the Dansgaard/Oerscher events. Glaciers, including remnants of the huge ice sheets and alpine glaciers, re-advanced, leaving moraines as footprints of their former presence. Temperatures rose sharply, about 21° F (~12° C) 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cold period and the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age. Additional details of the YD may be found at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/the-intriguing-problem-of-the-younger-dryaswhat-does-it-mean-and-what-caused-it/
Radiocarbon and isotope dating of glacial moraines in regions all over the world and abrupt changes in oxygen isotope ratios in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores indicate that the Younger Dryas cooling was globally synchronous. Evidence of Younger Dryas advance of continental ice sheets is reported from the Scandinavian ice sheet, the North American Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets, and the Russian ice sheet. Alpine and ice cap glaciers also advanced during Younger Dryas cooling in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, e.g., many places in the Rocky Mts. of the U.S. and Canada, the Cascade Mts. of Washington, the European Alps, the Southern Alps of New Zealand, and the Patagonian Andes Mts. of South America.
Multiple Climatic events within the Younger Dryas
The Younger Dryas cooling was not just a single climatic event. Climatic warming and cooling occurred not only before and after the YD, but significant climate fluctuations also occurred within the YD. That these were global events that occurred in both hemispheres is shown not only by the ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica, but also in glacial deposits of the major, late Pleistocene ice sheets of the world, all of which experienced multiple moraine-building episodes as did alpine glaciers.
Figure 3. Oxygen isotope record from the Greenland ice core showing an abrupt temperature drop 12,800 years ago, 1,300 years of cool climate, and sudden warming 11,500 years ago. Up on the vertical axis is warmer. (Plotted from data in Cuffy and Clow, 1997 and Alley, 2000)
Figure 3 shows a plot of oxygen isotope variation within the YD. Temperatures fluctuated up and down at least a dozen times, some brief warming periods reaching near-Allerød levels. That these climatic fluctuations were real and global in extent is shown by multiple YD and IACP moraines in the Puget Lowland of Washington, Loch Lomond in the Scottish Highlands, European Alps, Rocky Mts., Alaska, Cascade Range, Andes, New Zealand Alps, and elsewhere.
Magnitude and rate of abrupt climate changes
How do past temperature oscillations compare with recent global warming (1978-1998) or with warming periods over the past millennia? The answer to the question of magnitude and rates of climate change can be found in the δ18O and ice core temperature data (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/).
We can compare the warming and cooling in the past century to approximate 100 year periods in the past 25,000 years (Fig. 4). Not all of the periods noted here are exactly 100 years̶̶—some are slightly more, some are slightly less, but they are close enough to allow comparison of magnitude and rates with the past century.
Figure 4. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming. (Plotted from data in Cuffy and Clow, 1997 and Alley, 2000)
Implications of multiple Younger Dryas and Inter-Allerød climatic fluctuations
The multiple nature of YD moraines in widely separated areas of the world and in both hemispheres indicates that the YD consisted of more than a single climatic event and these occurred virtually simultaneously worldwide. Ice sheets and alpine glaciers were sensitive to the multiple YD phases.
What can we learn from all of this?
(1) The ice core isotope data were hugely significant because they showed that the Younger Dryas, as well as the other late Pleistocene warming and cooling events, could not possibly be caused by human emissions of CO2 because they occurred thousands of years before such emissions had any effect on atmospheric CO2.
(2) The magnitude and intensity of multiple climatic fluctuations has been up to 20 times larger than warming during the past century.
(3) Single events, i.e., volcanic activity or cosmic impacts, cannot have caused the abrupt Dansgaard/Oerscher warming and cooling events because of the multiplicity of warm/cold events over periods of thousands of years.
(4) The absence of a time lag between the N and S Hemisphere glacial fluctuations precludes an oceanic cause and is not consistent with the North Atlantic Deep Ocean Water hypothesis for the cause of the Younger Dryas.
(5) The abruptness of the climate changes and their multiplicity could not have been caused by slow, Croll-Milankovitch orbital forcing, which occurs over many tens of thousands of years. Since fluctuations to and from full glacial climates occurred over short periods of time, clearly a cause other than the Croll-Milankovitch theory is capable of causing the Ice Ages .
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sabertooth says:
June 2, 2013 at 4:20 pm
###
Don’t take that last comment to mean that I trivialize the extinction of your Smilodon relatives.
Whenever there is a shift from one relatively short term ‘environmental paradigm’ to another i.e. a bistable system as Ian H said, there is almost invariably a period of enhanced instability where the parameter one is measuring goes through one, two or three large sin wave cycles before settling into the ‘new environmental paradigm’. Classic examples of this I have often seen are e.g. where flows out of groundwater-fed streams or regional water levels on boreholes reflect a transitioning from a extended drought or lengthy wet period to the reverse state (of the bistable system). It is at these times that the fundamental period of whatever drives such state changes is starkly revealed.
All these data Don has presented seem to rule out almost every fundamental period (or suite of periods) other than those which are no longer than about 100 years. In this context it seems almost crass to say that, once again; it must be the Sun (stupid).
Yet we are all very well used to deconvolution efforts such as Jeff Glassman’s:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html#more
regularly getting hosed down by Leif Svalgaard with his perennial cry that the data (no matter how recent and how well peer-reviewed) is simply no good and hence irrelevant (i.e. it doesn’t get the Svalgaard seal of approval). Clearly it is also irrelevant that Svalgaard’s cell phones have probably been using Glassman’s Fast Fourier Transform for years.
Yet we continue to wonder….So what are we (or more precisely Svalgaard), missing here?
James Cross says:
“None of this means CO2 has no warming effect.”
==================================
Then by all means, please post verifiable, testable, replicable scientific evidence showing that CO2 has a measurable global warming effect.
We already know, based on empirical observations, that ∆CO2 is a function of ∆T. But there is no testable evidence showing that ∆T is a function of ∆CO2. None at all. Any such claims are based on simple graphical overlays — which are not evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. A simple overlay does not show which is the cause, and which is the effect.
So far, all claims that CO2 causes subsequent changes in temperature are nothing more than circular arguments and hand-waving.
But I could be wrong. If you think so, post your testable evidence here, showing conclusively that ∆CO2 causes ∆T.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
These abrupt change are some to think about, but they take place over generational periods. They do not happen over night.
DesertYote on June 2, 2013 at 6:22 pm says:
“Personally, I would like to see the Holocene – Pleistocene division disappear altogether, but that’s not about to happen.”
Oh, it could still go the way of the Brontosaurus. I consider all Holocene believers to be Quaternary deniers.
Thanks for the kind words about my family.
This data does not match our models. Where’s the Hockey stick? The data must be wrong. Please correct the data so that it fits our model output.
Once we entering a cooling (glacial) period, the positive feedbacks that perpetuate it are fairly clear; albedo and ice elevation. What’s more of a mystery is how we get out of glacial periods.
Looking at figure 1, it seems we start a cooling period and then warm again within 2 to 4 centuries. The MWP to LIA would seem to be the climate norm, and indicates the post LIA warming is also largely natural.
There is some mechanism that operates on a century scale that causes regular warming periods. The sun is the obvious candidate, followed by a multi-century scale ocean oscillation. Other candidates, a cycle to volcanic eruptions, and a cycle of sea level falls, causing large scale fires in coastal swamps and bogs, melting ice through albedo changes.
The Sun is shipping out more energy but Earths climate has gotten radical unstable/colder the last 27 million years.
Earth is moving away from the Sun?
Earth is gradually loosing atmosphere/insulation?
I think I would go for the last one?
@Sittingquietly..etc
I uploaded the working paper here as well:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/hbe9awgsrnj/
Earths magnetic field is getting weaker, due age? The Sun is getting bigger. Or both?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years; geomagnetic intensity has declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value achieved approximately 2,000 years ago. The rate of decrease and the current strength are within the normal range of variation, as shown by the record of past magnetic fields recorded in rocks (figure on right).
Great analysis. Another consideration is the constant changing star we call the “Sun” – episodes of violent sun storms has also affect Earth. One day, in the extremely far distance, our star will become like what all stars end up – a “Black Hole”. Hopefully, for the future of humans, there will be colonies amongst the stars where humans can move to a fresh place in the universe. It could happen sooner if we would stop fighting amongst ourselves on this small blue planet – and look to the stars. But in reality of human nature, there will always be someone or some group that wants the real estate of others and to subjugate the people. Spending more money on science and technology and reaching out into the universe is far better a course than spending vast amounts of money on wars and governments who do not recognize natural laws, rights and liberties.
Anyway, I said to give at least three examples (not in the working paper) which support the hypothesis that isotopes in precipitation record humidity rather than temperature.
From the USA, and the Younger Dryas the oldest -pre-isotope- records I could find online is Dreimanis 1968.
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/5422/V68N06_257.p?sequence=1
Page 267
“Approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years ago, an abrupt change is recorded in
pollen diagrams from that part of the Great Lakes Region… The change in pollen content coincided with stratigraphic indications of drier climate, for instance the deposition of wind-blown sand over lake marl at the Wells mastodon site, Indiana (Gooding and Ogden, 1965)…All the widespread and consistent palynologic and geologic evidence suggests that the period of dominance of pine pollen represents an increase in dryness and probably also warmer summers (Cox, 1959).”
Note that the Younger Dryas in RadioCarbon dates or 14C dates is currently between about 10,010 and 10,850 BP using the INTCAL09 calibration table.
More recent: Nordt et al 2002
http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/boutton/files/2013/01/Nordtetal2002_6.pdf
“Increased C4 production between 11,000 and 10,000 14C yr B.P. suggests that the Younger Dryas was a warm interval responding to the diversion of glacial meltwater away from the Mississippi River.”
This begs the question if the C4 pathway dominance and warmer conditions is really dependent on the meltwater idea. Balakrishnan et al 2oo5:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589404001127
“Average δ13C values of the aragonite shells of the fossil Vallonia range from −7.3 to −6.0‰ among different archaeological levels and are not as negative as modern values. This suggests that the proportion of C4 vegetation at the Folsom site approximately 10,500 14C yr B.P. was greater than at present; a result which is consistent with other evidence for higher proportions of C4 plants in the region at that time.”
That predominance of C4 vegetation suggest warm and arid conditions can be found here for instance:
http://www.wzw.tum.de/gruenland/publication/la_3_13.pdf
As NucEngineer says the Be10 figures would be interesting to give an indication of the sun’s activity at the time so more correlations can be made. (Though these figures may not be available)
Otherwise a great post, thanks Dr Easterbrook.
Fig. 4 is a real eye-opener.
Some of you will have seen the BBC Horizon program ‘Science Under Attack’. The program featured a senior NASA climate scientist. This scientist told an appalling and provable lie. He stated that mankind emits seven times more CO2 than Nature (in fact Nature emits around thirty times more than mankind).
This ‘scientist’ told another lie: that, even if the 20th century temperature was not unprecedented, the rate of change certainly was.
Looking at Fig. 4, it’s clear that he didn’t tell a lie. He told an outrageous lie. I hope this individual was disciplined for bringing NASA into disrepute. But I rather doubt it.
Chris
Impressive analysis.
These repeated steep rises and drops on a time scale of several decades – are they truly random, as the multiple-attractor hypothesis proposed by rgbatduke would lead one to expect, or do they follow some regular and possibly even familiar pattern, such as the sun spot cycle?
Don’t forget that the drift and location of the continents plays a big part in setting up climate stability (or instability).
Michael Palmer says:
June 3, 2013 at 6:04 am
Impressive analysis.
These repeated steep rises and drops on a time scale of several decades – are they truly random, as the multiple-attractor hypothesis proposed by rgbatduke would lead one to expect, or do they follow some regular and possibly even familiar pattern, such as the sun spot cycle?
They wouldn’t have to be random, just locally stable to a small perturbation but not to a larger one. That larger perturbation could be a random event or the result of a regular pattern.
Great analysis by Dr. Easterbrook, as usual.
I agree with other comments that the Holocene is just another Quaternary interglacial stage, only differentiated from the Sangamonian and prior interglacial stages by the dominance of humans. The regularity of the D-O stadial/interstadial cycle has continued on into the Holocene… I highly recommend the following paper…
Note the peaks at 155 and 164 years on the Davis & Bohling power spectrum plots of the GISP2 ice core. Greenland and the rest of the Arctic are at or near the peaks of at least 3 different natural climate cycles (~60-, ~150- and ~1,000-yr). The Arctic is at about its peak Holocene cyclical warmth; yet it’s still not as warm as most of the previous cyclical Holocene warming episodes. This is due to the underlying glacial-interglacial signal. We are on the down-slope of the glacial-interglacial cycle.
On a side note… I recently unpacked an old box of textbooks and found my old geomorphology text book: Principles of Geomorphology by Don J. Easterbrook, McGraw-Hill, 1969.
(3) Single events, i.e., volcanic activity or cosmic impacts, cannot have caused the abrupt Dansgaard/Oerscher warming and cooling events because of the multiplicity of warm/cold events over periods of thousands of years.
True, but an impact could have initiated such a period on an earth already in an unstable climatic situation.
@ur momisugly Phil
yes, the attractors per se would be compatible with both cyclical disturbances and random ones. However, rgbatduke was emphasizing random disturbances, and that is what I had in mind when I posed the question.
Multistable in what sense? Is the more ice/less ice glacial/interglacial regime bistable? From the data above it doesn’t look very stable at all. What were the multiple attractors scattered all over phase space doing for the vast majority of the Zoic when the planet was ice free?
***
Bill Illis says:
June 2, 2013 at 4:52 pm
There are 28 of these swings in the Greenland ice core record over the last ice age, so there is nothing special about the Younger Dryas.
***
OK, but the YD (in NA & other NH regions) is marked by a soot, iron dust, nanodiamond, etc layer where no more fossils of large mammals are found above. Didn’t happen on any of the other 28 swings.
It is interesting to see all this discussion around the ice cores oxygen isotope ratio with time, but some oddities struck my eyes: first, how you can, seeing merely to the graphs, tell that the inter-allerod was a glacial period and that the next period ( the resuming of allerod) was a melting period. Looking the values (and maybe all values everywhere) it is impossible to assess by picking to a particular point of temperature (pardon, isotope ratio) plot to directly infer the general conditions of climate. Obviously, you have to look right and left of the selected point, to see if the values are around a certain mean, but also you have to look if you have glaciers melting or reconstructing in the same time.
If I wanted to infer some superficial conclusion from the ratio graph, I could say that a much larger time interval should be considered as “second part of allerod” because values are pretty at the same level for a longer period than the “red part” in the graph 1 around 13ky before present. I suppose that cross evidence is saying otherwise, but the point there is that such series are not indicative alone of the inertia of the general climate.
Another point, what is the assessed inertia of the ice sheets formations and melting? Do we have the same variability found in the O16/O18 graph? I suppose not. And then: what is the *current* trend of ice sheet melting/formation? Do we have *recent* ( that is related to the last century) measurements of O16/O18 ratios? How the two time series (ice sheet formation and ratio ) correlate? Do we have hints of trend of next century ice melting/formation?
This is because, caused by human or not, if the sea level will rise one or two meters in one century, we still have to prepare for it.
@beng,
While some of the recent work on a YD impact is interesting, virtually all of the supposed impact evidence can and has been interpreted otherwise. YD lacks a clear PGM anomaly and no significant evidence of cratering.
Three things clearly distinguish the YD from prior Later Pleistocene DO glacial stadials:
1) Rapid extinction of many megafauna, particularly outside of Africa and parts of Asia.
2) The rapid expansion of humans into the areas in which the megafauna rapidly went extinct.
3) YD was the last Late Pleistocene glacial stadial.
It’s certainly possible that an impact or bolide played a role in the extinctions, but it almost certainly didn’t trigger the YD glacial stadial.