How far into the past can ice-core records go? Scientists have now identified regions in Antarctica they say could store information about Earth’s climate and greenhouse gases extending as far back as 1.5 million years, almost twice as old as the oldest ice core drilled to date. The results are published in Climate of the Past, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).
Potential oldest ice study areas (Credit: Van Liefferinge and Pattyn)
By studying the past climate, scientists can understand better how temperature responds to changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. This, in turn, allows them to make better predictions about how climate will change in the future.
“Ice cores contain little air bubbles and, thus, represent the only direct archive of the composition of the past atmosphere,” says Hubertus Fischer, an experimental climate physics professor at the University of Bern in Switzerland and lead author of the study. A 3.2-km-long ice core drilled almost a decade ago at Dome Concordia (Dome C) in Antarctica revealed 800,000 years of climate history, showing that greenhouse gases and temperature have mostly moved in lockstep. Now, an international team of scientists wants to know what happened before that.
At the root of their quest is a climate transition that marine-sediment studies reveal happened some 1.2 million years to 900,000 years ago. “The Mid Pleistocene Transition is a most important and enigmatic time interval in the more recent climate history of our planet,” says Fischer. The Earth’s climate naturally varies between times of warming and periods of extreme cooling (ice ages) over thousands of years. Before the transition, the period of variation was about 41 thousand years while afterwards it became 100 thousand years. “The reason for this change is not known.”
Climate scientists suspect greenhouse gases played a role in forcing this transition, but they need to drill into the ice to confirm their suspicions. “The information on greenhouse-gas concentrations at that time can only be gained from an Antarctic ice core covering the last 1.5 million years. Such an ice core does not exist yet, but ice of that age should be in principle hidden in the Antarctic ice sheet.”
As snow falls and settles on the surface of an ice sheet, it is compacted by the weight of new snow falling on top of it and is transformed into solid glacier ice over thousands of years. The weight of the upper layers of the ice sheet causes the deep ice to spread, causing the annual ice layers to become thinner and thinner with depth. This produces very old ice at depths close to the bedrock.
However, drilling deeper to collect a longer ice core does not necessarily mean finding a core that extends further into the past. “If the ice thickness is too high the old ice at the bottom is getting so warm by geothermal heating that it is melted away,” Fischer explains. “This is what happens at Dome C and limits its age to 800,000 years.”
To complicate matters further, horizontal movements of the ice above the bedrock can disturb the bottommost ice, causing its annual layers to mix up.
“To constrain the possible locations where such 1.5 million-year old – and in terms of its layering undisturbed – ice could be found in Antarctica, we compiled the available data on climate and ice conditions in the Antarctic and used a simple ice and heat flow model to locate larger areas where such old ice may exist,” explains co-author Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey, now at the University of Cambridge.
The team concluded that 1.5 million-year old ice should still exist at the bottom of East Antarctica in regions close to the major Domes, the highest points on the ice sheet, and near the South Pole, as described in the new Climate of the Past study. These results confirm those of another study, also recently published in Climate of the Past.
Crucially, they also found that an ice core extending that far into the past should be between 2.4 and 3-km long, shorter than the 800,000-year-old core drilled in the previous expedition.
The next step is to survey the identified drill sites to measure the ice thickness and temperature at the bottom of the ice sheet before selecting a final drill location.
“A deep drilling project in Antarctica could commence within the next 3–5 years,” Fischer states. “This time would also be needed to plan the drilling logistically and create the funding for such an exciting large-scale international research project, which would cost around 50 million euros.”
More information
This research is presented in the paper ‘Where to find 1.5 million yr old ice for the IPICS “Oldest Ice” ice core’ published in the EGU open access journal Climate of the Past on 05 November 2013. Please mention the publication if reporting on this story and, if reporting online, include a link to the paper or to the journal website.
Full citation: Fischer, H. et al.: Where to find 1.5 million yr old ice for the IPICS ‘Oldest-Ice’ ice core, Clim. Past, 9, 2489-2505, doi:10.5194/cp-9-2489-2013, 2013.
The other study mentioned in the release is by Van Liefferinge, B. and Pattyn, F.: Using ice-flow models to evaluate potential sites of million year-old ice in Antarctica, Clim. Past., 9, 2335–2345, 2013.
Samuel, thank you for your comments of November 8, 2013 at 6:57 am.
Now we have Ferdinand (and others) arguing FOR the Mass Balance Argument (MBA), Samuel (and others) arguing AGAINST the MBA, and Richard Courtney and I UNDECIDED.
As previously stated, I am politically indifferent to the MBA, because the “fight against global warming” and “CO2 reduction” schemes such as wind power, corn ethanol, and CO2 sequestration are clearly foolish whether the MBA proves true or false.
Repeating my position, the sensitivity of climate to atmospheric CO2 (ECS) is insignificant or nonexistent. As we clearly stated in 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Furthermore, CO2 concentrations are dangerously low in Earth’s atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More atmospheric CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more atmospheric CO2 is a lot better.
As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. 🙂
Best, Allan
Samuel said to Ferdinand on November 8, 2013 at 6:57 am:
Henry’s Law knows what it is doing so don’t be using it as a “whippingboy” as a means to justify CAGW “junk science” claims.
___________
Samuel, as you know, it’s probably not just Henry’s Law. Henry is a nice guy and all, but let’s not give him too much credit.
Please examine the 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
Clearly, atmospheric CO2 concentrations vary greatly from season to season on both land and sea.
From memory:
The annual “CO2 sawtooth pattern” in the Carbon Cycle is dominated by the larger landmass of the Northern Hemisphere.
The atmospheric CO2 amplitude is about 16 ppm in the far North at Barrow Alaska, and almost zero at the South Pole. The CO2 sawtooth at Mauna Loa approximates the global average.
I suggest that we do not really know what is driving the increase in atmospheric CO2. Ferdinand is sure it is human combustion of fossil fuels, according to inferences drawn from his Mass Balance Argument (MBA). Others, particularly Richard Courtney (and I), hold that this conclusion is not adequately supported by the evidence. Ferdinand could be correct, partially correct, or largely in error. I find his MBA unconvincing, but Ferdinand is a very intelligent man and he could be largely correct.
As Earth enters a natural global cooling cycle, which I think will happen soon, we will learn more.
It would also be helpful for many reasons if the destructive clear-cutting and burning of the rainforest would stop now. This needless devastation of the rainforest is outrageous, and the Green extremist political movement is largely responsible for this sacrilege.
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 8, 2013 at 5:15 am
Can you cite supporting evidence that the CO2 ppm quantity in the air at the surface in Antarctica during snowfall accumulations is UNAFFECTED by the potential “noise” caused by the snowflakes themselves. If not, then your argument is void.
Come on Samuel, CO2 is completely insoluble in ice, no matter if that are snowflakes or rigid ice, it is only soluble in liquid water.
CO2 is soluble in water: some 3.3 g/l at 0°C and 1 bar pressure. CO2 in the atmosphere is at 0.0004 bar pressure, thus some 1.3 mg/liter water will be dissolved in 1 liter of rainwater.
1 liter of rainwater per m2 is good for 1 mm water height which thus contains 1.3 mg CO2 at saturation. 1 m3 of air weights 1.293 kg at 0°C. If all of 1 mm of rainwater evaporates, setting all dissolved CO2 free in the adjacent 1 m3 of air, then the atmosphere in the first meter above the ground will be “enriched” with 0.5 ppmv CO2…
CO2 in snowflakes is present in the air in between the snow/ice crystals not in the ice itself and can freely exchange with CO2 in the free air around the flakes, even years after it has fallen on the ground and under pressure of the above new layers of ice. Thus even IF there was any temporarely noise during snowfall, it is simply averaged over years, as long as the pores inbetween the ice are wide enough to allow exchanges.
Forgot to react on:
to measure temperature, pressure relative humidity
Even if the relative humidity at -40°C was 100%, the absolute humidity (the absolute water content per volume of air) at -40°C is extremely low compared to 10% relative humidity at 0°C. Antarctica is dryer than the Sahara: with 80% relative humidity in Antarctica you may dry out completely…
Gail Combs says:
November 8, 2013 at 6:02 am
phlogiston says: @ur momisugly November 7, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Thanks for the useful JoNovo image links.
“It’s snowing still,” said Eeyore gloomily.
“So it is.”
“And freezing.”
“Is it?”
“Yes,” said Eeyore. “However,” he said, brightening up a little, “we haven’t had an earthquake lately.”
Winnie the Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner by A.A. Milne.
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 8, 2013 at 6:57 am
For the past 55 years the data record shows that there has been a STEADY and CONSISTENT bi-yearly average 6 ppm decrease in atmospheric CO2 following the Vernal equinox and an average 8 ppm increase following the Autumnal equinox
Look a little deeper:
– the seasonal flux gives for an increasing temperature: more CO2 release (in fact less uptake) by the oceans and more uptake by vegetation. The latter wins mainly thanks to the extratropical NH forests as can be seen in the opposite d13C record. The opposite happens when temperatures drop.
– the year by year (2-3 years) variability gives for an increasing temperature: more release from the oceans (less uptake) and some temporarely net release from the tropical forests.
– the overall CO2/T ratio over huge periods of time is caused by the temperature influence on the oceans (more release / less uptake) and vegetation (net uptake).
Thus at least three different processes are at work for different periods of time and different variability.
Add to that human emissions which were in average twice the observed increase in the atmosphere.
a STEADY and CONSISTENT yearly average 1 to 2 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2.
Yes at the same time that over the same period human emissions increased from 2 to 4 ppmv/year.
And there has been nothing STEADY and CONSISTENT about humans or their activities during the past 55 years.
Human emissions from fossil fuels have been inventoried over decades, which were steady and consistent rising:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
The fit between total human emissions and increase in the atmosphere is an extremely perfect fit:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
while the temperature-CO2 fit is less than perfect:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
look at the difference between short term temperature variability and the trend: a T change of halve the scale has little effect on CO2 but the trend, supposedly caused by temperature should give 70 ppmv increase???
because Henry’s Law doesn’t give-a-hoot what your highly questionable average increase in/of near-surface air temperature(s) is/are.
As the ocean temperature drives the atmospheric temperature and we have rather accurate satellite measurements of the atmospheric temerature of the atmosphere, we may assume that the satellite measurements reflect the trend in ocean surface temperature.
Moreover, the equilibrium CO2 pressure in seawater is regularly measured over the oceans, which give an area weighed average difference of CO2 pressure between the atmosphere and all oceans of 7 ppmv. Thus in average driving CO2 from the atmosphere into the oceans not the other way out:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
And the whole biosphere is a net sink for CO2:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
If the oceans are a net sink and the biosphere is a net sink and humans are a net source where is your temperature influenced natural source?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 8, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“CO2 in snowflakes is present in the air in between the snow/ice crystals not in the ice itself and can freely exchange with CO2 in the free air around the flakes, even years after it has fallen on the ground and under pressure of the above new layers of ice. Thus even IF there was any temporarely noise during snowfall, it is simply averaged over years, as long as the pores inbetween the ice are wide enough to allow exchanges.”
———————-
Given your above commentary, I am now really confused.
If the atmospheric CO2 is say 190 ppm during pristine conditions, but potentially less during periods of snowflake formations, how many of the snowflakes that form in the atmosphere will contain a CO2 molecule within its crystal lattice? And if that CO2 molecule “can freely migrate” in and out of that crystal lattice, what are the odds that said molecule will still be in said lattice when the snowflakes accumulates on the surface?
And if those CO2 molecules “can freely migrate” out of those snowflakes “even years after they have fallen on the ground”, what percentage of said molecules will “freely migrate” back into the atmosphere?
And if those CO2 molecules “can freely migrate” within and between the different layers of glacial ice, …. via “the pores inbetween the ice” (crystals), ….. for years and years thereafter, … then I would think that after a lapse of 10,000 to 40,000+ years of CO2 molecule migrations within the glacial ice that it would be really “tuff” to determine the atmospheric CO2 ppm for any given decade or century within aforesaid timeframe.
But whatta I know, I’m not a climate scientist, ….. just an “original thinker” with learned knowledge in/of the sciences.
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 9, 2013 at 9:11 am
how many of the snowflakes that form in the atmosphere will contain a CO2 molecule within its crystal lattice?
There are hardly any CO2 molecules within the snow crystal lattice. There is CO2 in the air enclosed by the snow crystal structure. If you look at snow under a microscope you will see a fine nice crystal structure in many forms with air inbetween, open to the atmosphere. Air can simply move in and out the fine snow structure, not in and out the ice crystal lattice. When the lattice is formed most of all air and CO2 is excluded from the lattice…
The speed of migration of any constituent depends of the porosity, temperature and concentration. The net migration is always from higher levels to lower levels (there are exceptions like reverse osmosis, but that doesn’t play a role here at any depth). Porosity of the snow/firn/ice is a matter of density: when the pressure by the weight of new layers increases, pores get smaller and smaller and at a certain point there is no migration anymore. Somewhat deeper the air is fully enclosed for the first bubbles and again somewhat deeper for the last bubbles.
The time that air/CO2 and other gases can migrate makes that the average age of the gas composition is younger than the age of the surrounding ice. How much younger strongly depends of the accumulation speed.That ranges from ~30 years for the high accumulation Law Dome ice cores to several thousands of years for Vostok. Another problem is that the resolution gets worse with the reversal of accumulation speed: the longer the migration keeps going, the more years are mixed in in the average. That makes that the Law Dome ice cores have an average resolution of ~10 years but Vostok doesn’t show any variability of less than 600 years.
As accumulation speed also influences the number of layers, two of the three Law Dome ice cores don’t go back more than 150 years before hitting rock bottom, while Vostok goes back 420,000 years. Fortunately there are a lot of ice cores with different accumulation speeds, which overlap each other over the same time periods:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg
Some interesting notes about ice cores can be found at:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 8, 2013 at 1:42 pm
“Look a little deeper:
– the seasonal flux gives for an increasing temperature: more CO2 release (in fact less uptake) by the oceans and more uptake by vegetation. The latter wins mainly thanks to the extratropical NH forests as can be seen in the opposite d13C record. The opposite happens when temperatures drop.”
———————-
The above is simply wishful thinking on your part. So, best you look a little deeper and a good place to start is the “daily” CO2 ppm data as recorded at Mona Loa (1974-2013) which can be found @ur momisugly: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt and on which part of my following commentary is based, to wit:
The Vernal equinox occurs on 20th of March of each year and the “high-point” for atmospheric CO2 ppm occurs in late May of each of those 38 years, …. and which is like 60+ days after the equinox occurred.
Now given the fact that the CO2 didn’t start decreasing until late in May, one would think this was due to the plant biomass in the NH temperate zone starting their new growth cycle and the up-taking of CO2 for photosynthesis. But the fact is, said new growth process began in late February and early March and was “triggered” by the increasing length of daylight and the warming air temperatures. New root hairs began to grow, and the uptake of water followed and stored sugars in the roots began being transported up to the “new growth” location of each plant.
Thus by mid to late May, the air temperatures have really warmed up and the majority of plants/shrubs/tree species in the NH temperature zone have added all of their new limb growth and their foliage and canopy cover (leaves) and have been absorbing CO2 from the air for several weeks.
But on the contrary, those really warm temperatures and the abundant moister have also “triggered” the bacteria, yeast, molds and mildews to start their “digesting” of all the dead plant and animal biomass that has been lying around on the ground and in the soil all winter long and/or since before the past equinox occurred in September. And there are massive amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere as the waste product of their digesting ….. which replenishes much of the CO2 that the live plants have been absorbing.
The Autumnal equinox occurs on 22/23rd of September of each year and the “low-point” for atmospheric CO2 ppm occurs in mid to late October of each of those 38 years, …. and which is like 30+ days after the equinox occurred..
Most all said bacteria, yeast, molds and mildews adhere to the Refrigerator/Freezer Law. They don’t do a lot of “rotting n’ decaying” work if the temperature is below 60F …. or the dead biomass it too dry …… and late August, September and October are normally dry periods of minimal rainfall, …. and then with below 60F temps from mid October thru November. And most will refuse to do much work at all if the temperature is below 42F. (Which is why that is the recommended temperature for the inside of your refrigerator).
Anyway, there is a “time lag” between the increase in near-surface average air temperatures and the near-surface average water temperature of all large bodies of water. And conversely, a similar “time lag” exists when said near-surface temperatures are decreasing.
Nuff said for now cause I’m tired …… and I’m sure you have found things to disagree with since I just “winged it” from memory.
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 9, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Have a look at the seasonal d13C record (sheet 12 of the 7 MB .ppt file):
http://courses.washington.edu/oc583/Figures09/Carbon_A_W07.ppt
but be aware that Mauna Loa at 3,400 m altitude lags the changes at ground level with about 3 months:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_height.jpg
There is an opposite swing between CO2 uptake by plants and the d13C changes in the atmosphere as plants by preference use 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. Ocean warming releases CO2 in summer, which gives a near neutral (slight incease) of d13C in the atmosphere, but the bulk of the 13C and thus the CO2 change is from the growth of vegetation.
The SH has far less vegetation, this is reflected in a very small seasonal change in CO2 and d13C.
BTW, photosynthesis shifts in time with latitude and is at maximum in spring but that doesn’t stop in summer and bacteria break down organic debris at maximum in summer, but that doesn’t stop in winter, including under a snow deck…
Continuation of:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 8, 2013 at 1:42 pm
“Yes at the same time that over the same period human emissions increased from 2 to 4 ppmv/year.”
Now that was a prime example of “generating” facts to explain an unknown by use of reverse-mathematical calculations. Constantly massaging the ESTIMATED human caused emissions to insure that they conform to the measured yearly increase in CO2.
They have been doing the same reverse-mathematics with average temperature increases and CO2 increases but it caught up with them on the last “round” when the CO2 increased another 2 ppm and the average temperature didn’t increase any.
“Human emissions from fossil fuels have been inventoried over decades, which were steady and consistent rising:”
Of course human emissions from burning fossil fuels have been rising, for the past 200+ years, …. BUT NOT steady and consistently. But if you want to claim semi-erratic and exponentially, I will agree with it.
Ferdinand, there is no correlation whatsoever between humanity and atmospheric CO2 increases and here are eight (8) decades of statistics that proves that fact.
Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 18.9% ____ 310 ppm – 3.1% —— 1.0 ppm/year
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 22.0% ____ 316 ppm – 3.2% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 20.2% ____ 325 ppm – 2.7% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 18.5% ____ 338 ppm – 3.8% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 15.2% ____ 354 ppm – 4.5% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 12.6% ____ 369 ppm – 4.3% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.1% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2012 – 7,057,075,000 – 13.8% ____ 394 ppm – 1.3% —– 2.5 ppm/year
Source CO2 ppm: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt%20
—————————
“The fit between total human emissions and increase in the atmosphere is an extremely perfect fit:”
So, wherein the above stats is that “perfect fit”?
And claiming that “inventoried” thingy about human emissions is akin to me claiming that all illegal immigrants that have crossed the Mexican border into the US during the past 5 decades have been inventoried and accounted for.
“As the ocean temperature drives the atmospheric temperature and we have rather accurate satellite measurements of the atmospheric temerature of the atmosphere, we may assume that the satellite measurements reflect the trend in ocean surface temperature.”
The ocean temperature might drive the atmospheric temperature at night time but that’s about the only time. And you know what “assuming” does for you, right. And assuming past trends are future facts is ridiculous.
“If the oceans are a net sink and the biosphere is a net sink and humans are a net source where is your temperature influenced natural source?”
Ferdinand, that was a strangely worded question. The biosphere includes the other two, ya know.
Anyway, the oceans can be a “net sink” for CO2 as well as a “natural source” of CO2. And like I told you in yesterday’s post, the greatest temperature influenced natural terrestrial source is the rotting and decaying of animal and plant biomass which is estimated to be 10 times that of human emissions.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 10, 2013 at 1:49 am
“There is an opposite swing between CO2 uptake by plants and the d13C changes in the atmosphere as plants by preference use 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Ferdinand, you are literally beating a dead horse to a pulp by touting that something of scientific value is associated with that fictitious C12/C13 isotope ratio. Me thinks that is/was an actual case of “someone pulling their facts out of thin air”. pun intended.
Ferdinand, I could elaborate on the “junk science” aspects of that CAGW claim but …. the author of the following cited commentary does an exceptional job at doing said, so ……. you read his commentary and if you have any specific questions I will try to answer them. To wit:
The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios – http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
“BTW, photosynthesis shifts in time with latitude and is at maximum in spring but that doesn’t stop in summer and bacteria break down organic debris at maximum in summer, but that doesn’t stop in winter, including under a snow deck…”
BTW, to you too, …. and Ferdinand, I am a Biologist first n’ foremost and a Physical Scientist secondly. So believe me when I tell you that all trees have an apical meristem, you “tap” a Sugar Maple tree when nighttime temps are below 32F and/or snow is still on the ground ….. and that people don’t buy refrigerators for the sole purpose of keeping beer cold.
And yes, winter wheat and Crocuses will grow right up thru snow cover and depending upon the species, food stored in your refrigerator will slowly get “moldy” …. but molds are not bacteria.
Now I know I am being overly critical sometimes but I really hate seeing someone citing one “junk science” claim to either prove or disprove another “junk science” claim. As they say, … two wrongs don’t make it right.
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 10, 2013 at 6:46 am
Now that was a prime example of “generating” facts to explain an unknown by use of reverse-mathematical calculations. Constantly massaging the ESTIMATED human caused emissions to insure that they conform to the measured yearly increase in CO2.
Sorry, but the emission data comes from fossil fuel sales (taxes!) in the past under the supervisory of the statistics cells in the departments of finance (not the environment…). Thus if anything wrong with the data, they may be underestimated (by under the counter sales…), not overestimated. See:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8
Ferdinand, there is no correlation whatsoever between humanity and atmospheric CO2 increases and here are eight (8) decades of statistics that proves that fact.
You are comparing the increase of world population with the increase in CO2, but you imply that all people in the world increase their energy use / CO2 emissions at the same rate everywhere. That is certainly not the case. Only now the Chinese and Indians are catching up with the Western countries in per capita CO2 emissions. See the differences in per capita emissions between different countries in the above link…
all illegal immigrants that have crossed the Mexican border into the US during the past 5 decades have been inventoried and accounted for.
For the same reason as for CO2, the estimate of the growth of the population in the US is certainly underestimated, not overestimated…
Anyway, the oceans can be a “net sink” for CO2 as well as a “natural source” of CO2. And like I told you in yesterday’s post, the greatest temperature influenced natural terrestrial source is the rotting and decaying of animal and plant biomass which is estimated to be 10 times that of human emissions.
As long as no matter is destroyed or created from nothing, the oceans are either a net sink of CO2 from the atmosphere or a net source to the atmosphere, not both. But they are anyway a huge source and at the same time a huge sink of CO2. It is the net balance between these two which is important.
The same for the biosphere: even if rotting of biomass was 100 times that of human emisions, that doesn’t matter at all: if the total uptake by plants is 100.5 times that of human emissions, the human emissions still would be the only cause of the increase in the atmosphere (assuming the oceans in equilibrium).
According to the oxygen balance, of the about 9 GtC human emissions, some 1 GtC is the net sink in the total biosphere (including biological life in the oceans).
The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios –
I agree with the main points of the article. But that doesn’t change a few facts:
– all fossil fuels have 13C/12C ratio’s lower to far lower than the ratio in the atmosphere.
– all current plants (including C4 plants) have 13C/12C ratio’s lower to a lot lower than the ratio in the atmosphere.
– the decay of plants (or their use for feed and food) releases CO2 with a lower 13C/12C ratio than in the atmosphere.
– the uptake of CO2 by plants uses referentially 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere.
– the oxygen balance shows a net uptake of CO2 by the total biosphere. That means that there is a slight increase of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere caused by the total biosphere and thus not the cause of the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 10, 2013 at 3:07 pm
The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios –
I agree with the main points of the article. But that doesn’t change a few facts:
—————
But your noted few facts …… doesn’t change the following fact, to wit:
——————————————–
The technical inadequacy of the carbon isotope ratios as indicators of origin.
Galimov demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratio of methane can become progressively heavier while at rest in a reservoir in the crust of the Earth, through the action of methane-consuming microbes. ……………. Galimov established that the longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the heavier becomes its carbon isotope ratio..
The δ13C carbon isotope ratio cannot be considered to determine reliably the origin of a sample of methane, – or any other compound, and no ethical and competent scientist or engineer would try to use them as such, excepting very unusual circumstances.
Exerted from: http://blueprintsforliving.com/dating-the-earth-and-lifes-beginning/2/
——————
Given the above said, then the oxidizing of natural gas (NG) (CH4) during the past 200+ years has emitted into the atmosphere greater amounts of C13 than that of C12. And given the fact that there has been an ever increasing consumption of NG during the past 40 years …. then there has also been an ever increasing emission of C13 into the atmosphere during the past 40 years.
Cheers
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 10, 2013 at 3:07 pm
“You are comparing the increase of world population with the increase in CO2, but you imply that all people in the world increase their energy use / CO2 emissions at the same rate everywhere.”
No I was not implying that. Energy use be damned. Look at the average % increase in population per decade ….. verses …. the average % increase in CO2 per decade. They don’t correlate, especially the decade ending 1970 and 2010, to wit:
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 20.2% ____ 325 ppm – 2.7% —— 0.9 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.1% —– 2.0 ppm/year
And decade ending 1970 was the highest population increase and the lowest increase in CO2. Just what happened between 1961 and 1970 to cause that reversal?
Samuel,
As far as I know, all CH4 of biotic origin is far to extreme far lower in 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. The article you linked to doesn’t give ratio’s, so I have to guess if the “enrichment” in 13C is from -60 to -40 per mil or from -40 to -5 per mil. Besides that, how much of that high 13C methane is used compared to the rest of the -40 to -80 per mil methane?
They don’t correlate, especially the decade ending 1970 and 2010, to wit:
There is no reason that they should correlate: most of the Western countries with the highest CO2 releases don’t show a population growth, or very modest. The largest growth was in countries like China and India with at that time very little CO2 releases. Now they are catching up with energy use, they also catch up with a smaller population growth…
Ferdinand,
I searched for an abstract on those studies but couldn’t find one so I don’t know what the ratios were.
And to answer your question, theoretically 99.9% of all the methane that is outgassed to the surface is that of the “high” 13C type. But to determine how “high” in 13C it is, one would have to test a “sample” from each and every drilled oil and gas well. The following excerpt from my cited reference will explain my response, to wit:
“Columbo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini demonstrated conclusively, by a simple experiment the results of which admitted no ambiguity, that the carbon isotope ratios of methane change continuously along its transport path, becoming progressively lighter with distance traveled. Colombo et al. took a sample of natural gas and passed it through a column of crushed rock, chosen to resemble as closely as possible the terrestrial environment. Their results were definitive: The greater the distance of rock through which the sample of methane passes, the lighter becomes its carbon isotope ratio.”
Now you asked how much of that NG was “used”, but I assume you meant “burned”, and that requires a different answer than the one above, to wit:
To determine how “high” in 13C the NG is that is “burned”, one would have to test a “sample” from each and every “location” that the actual burning process occurs. And that is because most all commercial NG in the US is piped from the “wellhead” to the Gas Transmission Pipeline network and then “pumped” to wherever the demand is for the NG. See map of network, to wit:
http://www.rita.dot.gov/sites/default/files/publications/challenges_of_building/images/map_02.jpg
Ferdinand, I live in central WV where gas wells are everywhere, there everywhere. And if you look at the above map you can see the “cluster” of pipelines that originate here. And all those new “deep wells” they are punching into the Marcellus Shale will also be connected to that “network”.
“There is no reason that they should correlate:”
Something should correlate because every human leaves a carbon “footprint”. And the world’s population has tripled (3X) in the past 60 years. And they all have to eat and keep warm.
“Nearly all China’s rural residents and a shrinking fraction of urban residents use solid fuels (biomass and coal) for household cooking and/or heating.” … http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892127/
And in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, etc, they burn fuelwood. Fuelwood, therefore, tends to be the dominant fuel in rural areas and is primarily used for cooking. http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7519e/w7519e08.htm
Sorry Sammy, but syntactically “excerpted” is the only word that makes sense; your labored effort use a rare inappropriate sub-meaning to make “exerted” fit is a failure. Is English your native tongue? You can’t just pluck alternate definitions from a dictionary and use them at will; they have narrow contexts in which they apply, usually. Like now and here.
Brian H says:
November 12, 2013 at 7:40 pm
“Sorry Sammy, but syntactically “excerpted” is the only word that makes sense;”
No need to apologize, Briany, it is a common an oft used tactic by those persons who don’t like the content/context of the “message” to find fault with the verbiage used by the “messenger”.
“Is English your native tongue?”
Actually “No”, but close. It is referred to by some as being Hillbillyease and by others as Appalachian English. It has its roots in Elizabethan English with a touch of Scots-Irish and/or Anglo-Scottish dialects. You would be in your “glory” with your pickiness iffen I was to write in my native oral or spoken language.
Briany, when I post to forums such as this one, I write for “effect”. And depending upon the “effect” I wish to achieve is dependent upon the verbiage I use.
Briany, here is the link to commentary that I authored and Seeded to the Newsvine Forums. Read it to see if it “makes any sense” to you.
http://snvcogar.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/04/16348804-a-logical-perspective-on-the-origins-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens
“they have narrow contexts in which they apply, usually.”
HA, …. I sure do like that “usually” part ….. cause I usually decide which definition applies to the verbiage I use, …. and I am now too damn old to be trying to impress the likes of you.
Cheers