An ice core study to determine the timing and duration of historical climate stages

From the RESEARCH ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS

An ice core study to determine the timing and duration of historical climate stages

Two deep ice cores drilled at the East Antarctic dome summits ‘Dome Fuji’ and ‘Dome C’ were volcanically synchronized over the past 216 kyr to improve our knowledge of the timing and duration of the Marine Isotope Stage 5 climate period (80-130 kya)

antarctic-dome-fuji-dome-c
Figure 1 Locations of where the ice cores were obtained in Antarctica. Dome Fuji is located in the Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean sector, and Dome C is located in the Indian Ocean Sector. CREDIT Fujita S. /NIPR

Ice core records are rich archives of the climate history during glacial-interglacial cycles over timescales of up to ~800 kyr before the current age. In ice core studies, the accurate and precise dating of the core samples is a central issue that must be investigated to better constrain the timing, sequence, and duration of past climatic events.

To help solve this issue, two deep ice cores were drilled at the remote dome summits Dome Fuji (DF) and EPICA Dome C (EDC) in Antarctica (Figure 1) and were subsequently synchronized in time by matching identical volcanic events. Precise synchronization was possible because large volcanic eruptions on the earth can be commonly identified in ice cores due to the presence of high concentrations of sulfuric acid. A total of 1401 volcanic matching points were identified within the past 216 kyr (Figure 2). These matching points were then used to precisely compare the two chronologies between these ice cores. The ages between the matching points in the cores were within 2 kyr, except during the last interglacial period referred to as “Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5”, which occurred from 80-130 kya. The DF core produced ages that were older than the EDC core, with peak values in the age difference of 4.5 kyr at MIS 5d (ca. 120 kya) and 3.1kyr at MIS 5b (ca. 90 kya).

This is a picture of the distribution of the volcanic matching points in the Age-Depth plot. CREDIT Fujita S. et al.
Figure 2This is a picture of the distribution of the volcanic matching points in the Age-Depth plot. CREDIT Fujita S. et al.

The causes of the age differences at MIS 5 were proposed to occur from (i) an overestimation of the surface mass balance at around MIS 5d-6 in the glaciological model, and (ii) an error in one of the age constraints by ~3 kyr at MIS 5b. Additionally, we found that changes in the water stable isotope signatures in the ice at DF tended to occur before the same changes at EDC, with the time between changes being more pronounced during cold periods. The results suggested that signals that were indicative of abrupt climate change tended to propagate first at DF and later at EDC. The results of the research have been published in the journal Climate of the Past.

Dr. Shuji Fujita of the National Institute of Polar Research, Tokyo, is one of the two lead authors on the paper and has commented: “Our work contributes establishing a common time scale of ice cores and will be extremely important in studies of temporal and spatial propagation of abrupt climate change in the Antarctic.”

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating
142 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
December 28, 2015 11:06 am

Nothing as far as the group’s results yet? I was interested in how this related to Mann et al.

Scott Scarborough
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 28, 2015 11:34 am

I believe the error in the timescales of this method are greater than the total time scale of Mann et al.

MCourtney
Reply to  Scott Scarborough
December 28, 2015 12:31 pm

Yep.

The ages between the matching points in the cores were within 2 kyr

That holds this Christmas and the first one in the same data-point.

Reply to  Scott Scarborough
December 28, 2015 12:45 pm

Perhaps this should read:
“the error in Mann et al. are greater than the total time scale of this method”

george e smith
Reply to  Scott Scarborough
December 29, 2015 1:08 pm

I don’t consider 2,000 years to be a match. If snow deposits are seasonal, I would consider two years to be a match; not 2,000 years.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 28, 2015 2:26 pm

Starting an Ice Hockey Team?

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 28, 2015 5:22 pm

Since climate science has joined the leftist “cause” I bet that temperature leading CO2 is political uncorrect?

JohnTyler
Reply to  Santa Baby
December 29, 2015 7:59 am

You’ve got it reversed; the leftists are the ones who created today’s idea of how climate “science” needs to be prosecuted.
It is no coincidence that the CO2 mantra began in earnest at the time the USSR fell apart. The USSR , for the left, was the great hope to “neutralize” (if not destroy) capitalism’s great satan, the USA, notwithstanding the fact that the Bolsheviks / Stalin exterminated – BEFORE WWll – 20 to 50 million souls; (vs. 12 million murdered in Hitler’s gas chambers) got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette !!!
When that hope died, the best way to achieve capitalism’s extinction was to destroy its means of production and wealth and destroying the means to produce and utilize carbon based energy sources was seen as the best way to go.
Through first rate propaganda, and the willing mass media, it is now thought by many average folks that air pollution IS CO2 and CO2 is a pollutant.
Never, ever underestimate the power of top notch propaganda; you can make folks believe absolutely anything at all.

AndyJ
Reply to  Santa Baby
December 29, 2015 9:35 am

Very. Their new excuse is that the earth tilted and warmed a little, then the CO2 took over. This way they can excuse away the temp rise preceding CO2 rise. Now CO2 “pushes” a previous warming from behind.
Anything to keep their lunacy alive.

December 28, 2015 11:11 am

Anthony, a happy New Year to you. Keep up the good work.
I was looking for a link, which you always provide. Maybe you could state explicitly that this information is not available on the Internet.

Alexandre
December 28, 2015 11:24 am

Guys, please write a post about this year’s mean temp asap. The record break meme is all over the internet!

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Alexandre
December 28, 2015 11:58 am

Hey Alexandre if that is an honest comment (and not just OT disingenuous trolling) take Richard Linden’s advice:
“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree …
when someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree …”.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 28, 2015 12:41 pm

I meant Richard Lindzen of course, one has to be careful to correct the spell-correct.

AndyJ
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 29, 2015 9:39 am

Yup. Scale is their way of hiding the reality. It has been warmer at many times in the past 11,000 years but they keep everyone focused on a tiny rise in the last fifty years. It’s pure deception.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Alexandre
December 28, 2015 12:20 pm

Mean temp where? If you mean global, no such thing.

Auto
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 28, 2015 2:36 pm

Jeff
If any one should, by chance, claim such a thing, ask them how accurate the data is at sea – >65% of our planetary home.
A few buoys for 400 million square kilometres, pus Voss. Whilst they really try – a bucket is not really good for 0.01F/C/R/K accuracy.
My experience – if trying hard – probably within half a degree – or so.
Auto

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 29, 2015 5:56 pm

Auto, it wouldn’t matter how many buoys they had, or how many thermometers on land. Temperature is an intensive property, averaging readings from different points is physically meaningless.

Reply to  Alexandre
December 28, 2015 2:10 pm

Before the year is even dead? The civility has disappeared, indeed.

richard verney
Reply to  Alexandre
December 28, 2015 2:59 pm

Nothing to get too worked up about when you see temperatures in absolute terms, see:
comment image
The current El Nino which is responsible for this years warm temperatures appears to be waning, and there are predictions for a La Nina in 2016.
Arctic ice, has set a 10 year December high, see:.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
Hopefully, this will put your mind at ease.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  richard verney
December 28, 2015 4:32 pm

Richard Verney,
Here is GISS in absolutely absolute terms:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png

Hopefully, this will put your mind at ease.

You might also be relieved to know that CMIP5 vs observation looks really good on your Fahrenheit thermometer:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RqcviJ-LBFo/VTWzaE5AFNI/AAAAAAAAAbk/J2BX64yHG9A/s1600/GISS%2BGlobal%2Bvs%2BCMIP5%2BTemps%2BF.png

Reply to  richard verney
December 28, 2015 5:26 pm

What is the source of this sea ice graph? National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) graph is looking rather different.

Frederik
Reply to  richard verney
December 28, 2015 6:48 pm

Aveollila, the source is the DMI (Danish Meteorological institute) and it’s their older “30% ice cover/with coastal regions masked”- graph.
this reading is indeed different as it uses different standards then cryosphere today (which take error prone coastal regions and the more error prone 15% ratio.)
in terms of absolutes this graph underestimates the total ice coverage because of the masked out coastal zones, however in terms of “significance” it is more reliable
the reason is simple: the more error prone zones are left out and thus the certainty of the ice coverage is far greater so even if it’s not the full picture, it reveals a lot.

Reply to  Alexandre
December 28, 2015 6:06 pm

Alexandre:
You need to visit JoNova and read this post of hers.
And then follow this link to the original article, not the full discussion though.
And then follow up by reading Anthony’s article, “Press Release – Watts at #AGU15 The quality of temperature station siting matters for temperature trends”.
Some relevant extracts:

“…1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.
The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983. By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records. In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records. When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago. This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real…”

“…4. The 30-year Tmean temperature trend of unperturbed, well sited stations is significantly lower than the Tmean temperature trend of NOAA/NCDC official adjusted homogenized surface temperature record for all 1218 USHCN stations.
5. We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations…”

Enjoy!

steverichards1984
December 28, 2015 11:35 am
Paul Westhaver
December 28, 2015 11:35 am

I see differences of 10,000 years at certain places.

zemlik
December 28, 2015 11:53 am

People are concerned ( try to understand ) the weather as to how it affects humans.
Apparently I am an Aquarian because of the time and place I was born.
They say Aquarians ” have a love of humanity ”
I say “well I do have a love of humanity”.
In my years of study of humans I have to say that it would be better if there were less of them.
I recognize this is like a fascist way of looking at things and the man that gave me life fought against the beastly Hun.
Yet I also love trees and all things that grow, fishes and little green frogs ( life ).
It is a dilemma

Tom in Florida
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 12:07 pm

Perhaps you love the weed a little too much

Marcus
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 28, 2015 3:16 pm

+ 1,000 LOL

Marcus
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 28, 2015 3:18 pm

Tom, what I always find with people who say such idiot things is that THEY are still alive…If they truly believe what they say, why wouldn’t they start with themselves ?

mebbe
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 28, 2015 7:02 pm

Marcus,
Ever ready with the “idiot” thing!
If the fire marshal tells you you’re at capacity, do you think he should commit Seppuku?
When the 97 bus doesn’t stop for you, ‘cos he’s full, do you think he should drive into the river?
The perennial propensity to call for someone’s suicide whenever they opine that the world is over-populated with humans is lamentably at odds with rational discourse.
I’ll agree that zemlik sounds like he might recently have visited Colorado (or here in BC), but his outlook is infinitely more people-friendly than the vitriol you frequently proffer.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 28, 2015 8:50 pm

Marcus,
I’m glad to see that you did not dignify mebbe’s unfair characterization of you with a response. You call a spade a spade. That’s all. Mebbe sure is on a vendetta about you… very odd. TONS of other people write similarly, but, he (or she) calls you out. He (or she) even dissed you about exclamation marks!!!!
Well, Marcus!!!! I LIKE YOU!
Don’t stop being your wonderful, enthusiastic, ACCURATELY CANDID, self.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your WUWT pal,
Janice
#(:))
… how many comments am I up to, now?…. look out record…… !

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 29, 2015 5:52 pm

Mebbe:
You certainly do run a high streak of erroneous statements.
Likkyzem’s alleged ‘people friendly’ attitude is decidedly anti-human as he harps and harps on that the world population must be reduced.
Are you, perhaps, volunteering to help zemlik achieve his dream of reducing population?

“…I’ll agree that zemlik sounds like he might recently have visited Colorado (or here in BC), but his outlook is infinitely more people-friendly than the vitriol you frequently proffer.”

mebbe
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 29, 2015 8:17 pm

ATheoK December 29, 2015 at 5:52 pm
“Are you, perhaps, volunteering to help zemlik achieve his dream of reducing population?”
So, now you’re inviting me to off myself because I object to comments that encourage suicide?

Plan Jane
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 12:13 pm

Too many people? Probably only think that because you have been taught to think that, not because you think there is too many people living around you.
So have you noticed lately that some or most of your neighbours need killing? If so which ones?
Or is it just because it is taught in the media and schools as a self-evident truth that the “planet” is dying from too many people, despite that there are many disproofs of the theory of Malthus.
If people would stick to sorting out their own lives, rather than wanting to control the lives of others, the “population problem” would go away and the world probably really would be a better place. Most of todays supposed big problems like Climate Change, overpopulation ozone holes, most wars and armies etc etc would just go away if people(governments) would just stick to fixing current problems affecting their own homes.
I have a great deal of respect for people that think there are too many people on the planet and can follow that belief up with its self-evident conclusion. Unfortunately people have the fascist tendancy to think there are too many people so other people should die for their beliefs, not themselves.

MarkW
Reply to  Plan Jane
December 28, 2015 12:33 pm

In my experience, those who believe that there are too many people all live in large, to very large cities.
They actually believe that the whole world looks like the view from their windows.

Stephen Reilly
Reply to  Plan Jane
December 28, 2015 1:55 pm

“If people would stick to sorting out their own lives, rather than wanting to control the lives of others, the “population problem” would go away and the world probably really would be a better place.”
Well said. If we all lived in a truly free society, a capitalist society, where the government recognised that everyone owns their own life and stuck to protecting the private property of individuals, then there would be no war, no crushing bureaucracy sapping our wealth and so on. I’m one of the few people on this planet who does not believe the planet is over populated, just over governed. Experts are skilled at coming up with figures and ‘facts’ that usually turn out to be wrong. Consider this: if someone had of stood up at the end of the WW11 when the population of America was about 147 million and suggested that the government take steps to more than double the population by the end of the century the experts would have come up with figures (crop yields, water resources etc) to absolutely ‘prove’ that wasn’t possible – mass starvation would result. But America can supports more than 300 million people with a standard of living well above most of the ‘over populated’ planet. We do not have too many people; we have too much government bent on controlling us down to the last tiny detail.

Editor
Reply to  Plan Jane
December 29, 2015 2:14 am

My usual response to those people is “off you go then”. They become quiet after that.

AndyJ
Reply to  Plan Jane
December 29, 2015 9:45 am

Remember, it’s all those folk in the really poor countries that are supposed to go first. After all, they obviously can’t support an addiction to smartphones and large-screen TVs, therefore they are “surplus population”.

Reply to  Plan Jane
December 29, 2015 10:15 am

Stephen Reilly identified the problem: overgoverned rather than overpopulated.
Absent taxation, humans produce enough wealth to obtain far more. Governments effectively destroy wealth, creating poverty and shortages. It seems those most enamored by “more” government have some need to create poverty and want so they can “solve” the “problem”.
That idea seems to explain the CO2 fetish pretty well.

MarkW
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 12:32 pm

On what grounds would you conclude that there are to many people.
Unless you don’t love humanity as you claim.

Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 12:58 pm

In my years of study of humans I have to say that it would be better if there were less of them.
===============
You do recognize the irony? Why not do the right thing and lead by example? Shuffle off this mortal coil and thereby reduce the population by 1. Your example will encourage those that agree with you to also get with the program, and thus by ending the problem will be solved. You will have done your bit for God and Country, making the world just that much better. Truly a final solution.

zemlik
Reply to  ferdberple
December 28, 2015 2:25 pm

what is mine is mine.
If I claim ownership of all of creation who are you to say it is not mine ?
And If want to protect what is mine who are you to say I cannot protect what is mine ?

Editor
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 2:34 pm

zemlik

If I claim ownership of all of creation who are you to say it is not mine ?
And If want to protect what is mine who are you to say I cannot protect what is mine ?

So, today’s liberal/socialist/communist/US governments DO say “I (the government) DO claim ownership of all of creation and who are you to say it is not mine ?
And I (the government) WILL use MY government forces and privileges to protect and expand what is mine and who are you to say I cannot protect and expand what is mine ?”

Marcus
Reply to  ferdberple
December 28, 2015 3:21 pm

Zemlik, thank you for the great example of why too much pot is not good for the brain !!!

Pat Frank
Reply to  ferdberple
December 28, 2015 3:49 pm

zemlik, if you were to claim to own of all creation, most here would require you demonstrate objective proof of ownership. Many here would also require you to demonstrate objective proof of creation.
Absent objective proof of ownership and of creation, your claims are no more than personal opinion. Your personal opinion justifies nothing external to you, including and especially ownership.
Further: your use of “protect” requires a definition. What actions, what program does that word entail? Can that program be objectively justified? Your personal opinion about what “protect” entails also justifies nothing.
Your posts have not met any of these necessary criteria. Therefore, your posts are, thus far, objectively meaningless. They have no meaning beyond your inner monologue.

zemlik
Reply to  ferdberple
December 28, 2015 3:59 pm

people used to say ” put your finger in the water and lick it, if it tastes salty it is British.”

Reply to  ferdberple
December 28, 2015 6:16 pm

“zemlik December 28, 2015 at 3:59 pm
people used to say ” put your finger in the water and lick it, if it tastes salty it is British.”

No they didn’t.
From all of your posturing and silly claims zemmielik, you don’t come across as a lover of humanity. You do come across and a raving megalomaniac.
Does your doc know that you haven’t been taking your lithium?

Reply to  ferdberple
December 28, 2015 6:28 pm

“what is mine is mine.
If I claim ownership of all of creation who are you to say it is not mine ?
And If want to protect what is mine who are you to say I cannot protect what is mine ?”
It really doesn’t matter what you claim. Someone else with more “protection” will just come along, remove you from the equation, and claim what you once claimed was yours, as their own. “Mine” doesn’t even work with toddlers if there’s a bigger, more aggressive toddler.

graphicconception
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 3:28 pm

“… it would be better if there were less of them.”
If we all lived in one big city as densely populated as, say, Manila in the Philippines, then all 7 billion of us would fit into an area no bigger than Florida in the USA.

Kymbo
Reply to  graphicconception
January 1, 2016 6:16 pm

The whole of the worlds population could live on 700m2 of land in just two thirds of Queensland, Australia.

Reply to  graphicconception
January 5, 2016 1:24 pm

Talk about pointless observations! How much land feeds these people? What’s left in the oceans after the bottom draggers and commercial net fishermen go over? And just because practically all heavy industry has decamped to China doesn’t mean they don’t pollute. Just check the skies over Shanghai! Where does the industry go that drip feeds these mindless consumers with their cars, game consoles and I-pads? How many people can the planet handle based on your analysis? About a trillion? I’m pretty sure that based on unbiased analysis, AGW is a pile of baloney, but not believing there are hard or desirable limits to the population the earth can handle is way beyond that in terms of lunacy. For those who thin k we have probably already exceeded that limit, I say fair comment. Any number is valid if it’s supported with a rational argument. If not- go yell down a hole!

Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 6:13 pm

I don’t think you get to claim to “love humanity”, if you don’t love ALL of humanity, or want to see less of it.
I also question your claim to love “all things that grow” (life) because humanity is a living, growing life form.
Any dilemma here is of your own creation.

zemlik
Reply to  Aphan
December 28, 2015 7:03 pm

well abortion is allowed in free thinking societies.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 9:36 pm

zemlik. If you really think there are too many people on earth, why don’t you lead by example?

Michael 2
Reply to  zemlik
December 29, 2015 12:04 pm

“it would be better if there were less of them.”
I wish people would say fewer in this context.

JJ
Reply to  Michael 2
January 2, 2016 2:42 am

comment image

Michael 2
Reply to  zemlik
December 29, 2015 12:06 pm

“well abortion is allowed in free thinking societies.”
Non sequitur. Free thinking is allowed in free thinking societies. Abortion is allowed in abortion allowing societies.

mebbe
Reply to  Michael 2
December 29, 2015 8:33 pm

Michael 2,
Your two assertions about what is allowed in different types of society do not refute the statement that abortion is allowed in “free thinking societies”.
Your only argument would have to be that no society that permits abortion is “free thinking”. If that is your contention, then, I’ll leave you to it.

george e smith
Reply to  zemlik
December 29, 2015 1:14 pm

Well there’s them and then there is us. I guess you aren’t human after all.

ralfellis
December 28, 2015 12:01 pm

Why is this news?
Benegdicte Lemieux-Dudon did the same with two Antarctic ice cores plus Gisp in Greenland. Likewise, Steig compared Talor Dome and Gisp. And rather than just the volcanic signature, the most prominent marker seems to be methane concentrations.
And what these analyses do seem to show is that Shakun et al were wrong, when they said there was a one or two thousand year lag between Antarctica and the Arctic (with Antarctica leading for some reason). Lemieux, for instance, demonstrates that the Younger Dryas happened at the same time and bore exactly the same form in both hemispheres.
R

ralfellis
Reply to  ralfellis
December 28, 2015 12:15 pm

Perhaps I did not read this article correctly.
Are they really saying that major climatic changes were recorded at Dome Fuji first, and then took 2,000 years to reach Dome C?? Sorry, I am with Steig and Lemieux on this one, these climatic events must be recorded simultaneously, especially on one continent. You cannot have temperature variations taking 2,000 years to cross a continent, while maintaining their form enroute.
R

Reply to  ralfellis
December 28, 2015 1:13 pm

You cannot have temperature variations taking 2,000 years to cross a continent
======================
but, but, but we are told that changes that happen quickly are the signature of human as the cause. if changes that happen slowly are impossible, then that means that all changes are due to humans, even those hundreds of thousands of years ago.
So pretty much since the discovery of fire, humans have been the cause of climate change. But then really, it is Prometheus that is to blame.

Kirkc
Reply to  ralfellis
December 28, 2015 2:12 pm

They are just saying that compaction varies and depth is no indicator of age. That’s all. Nothing about climate variations with location. Very interesting actually.

Reply to  ralfellis
December 28, 2015 6:29 pm

“…The causes of the age differences at MIS 5 were proposed to occur from (i) an overestimation of the surface mass balance at around MIS 5d-6 in the glaciological model, and (ii) an error in one of the age constraints by ~3 kyr at MIS 5b. Additionally, we found that changes in the water stable isotope signatures in the ice at DF tended to occur before the same changes at EDC, with the time between changes being more pronounced during cold periods. The results suggested that signals that were indicative of abrupt climate change…”

ralfellis: It looks like you did read the article above correctly.
That same discussion regarding differences between bore holes is quite irksome in multiple ways.
“..surface mass balance at around MIS 5d-6 in the glaciological model…”. Model?
“…error in one of the age constraints by ~3 kyr at MIS 5b…”. Error? What kind of error? How did they identify it? What is the correction? Or is the correction actually an adjustment?
“…Additionally, we found that changes in the water stable isotope signatures in the ice at DF tended to occur before the same changes at EDC…”. Additionally? In addition to the differences?
“…with the time between changes being more pronounced during cold periods. The results suggested that signals that were indicative of abrupt climate change…” Abrupt climate change? Abrupt is three thousand years between relatively close boreholes? And changes are more pronounced during cold periods? In Antarctica!?
Why do I think there is too many excuses?

ralfellis
Reply to  ralfellis
December 29, 2015 4:30 am

They are just saying that compaction varies and depth is no indicator of age. That’s all. Nothing about climate variations with location. Very interesting actually.
___________________________________________
I don’t think so. What they say is:
The ages between the matching points in the cores were within 2 kyr, except during the last interglacial period.
So they have matched the two cores together, using volcanic signatures. And yet having done so, they still find a 2 kyr difference in the dates and chronologies.
What this means, is that a temperature change takes 2kyr to cross Antarctica, which is nonsensical. It is just as nonsensical as Shakun et al saying that the Younger Dryas was recorded in Antarctica 2.5 kyr before it was recorded in Greenland. And yet the profile and signature of this event (in terms of methane concentrations) remained exactly the same across two millennia and two hemispheres.
Yes, and my grandma was the Queen of Sheba…..
Ralph

RoHa
Reply to  ralfellis
December 28, 2015 3:53 pm

Can someone please direct me to a description of what an ice dome is? I haven’t been able to track one down.

Editor
Reply to  RoHa
December 28, 2015 4:57 pm

RoHa

Can someone please direct me to a description of what an ice dome is? I haven’t been able to track one down.

Case 1. What is NOT an Ice Dome.
Take a mountain, place it above a long valley, leading down the valley to a lake. Put ice and snow falling onto the mountain top, some of the ice and snow may not melt over a long series of summers. If so, the ice and snow accumulate, and stack up over top of each previous year’s ice and snow. The whole mass increases, increases in weight, and begins to slowly slide down the mountain towards warmer weather far down below. Classice definition of a glacier – Packed up accumulated years of ice and snow, getting “squeezed” together and skiding down a mountain slope. At some point, the warmer weather each spring and summer down the slope will permanently melt every year’s accumulated ice and snow, right? Glaciers stop at that point, their melt water runs off into the lake below the end of the valley.
Case 2. What if there is no “valley” to let the snow run off? What if the glacier can’t “flow downhill” to warmer weather?
That is the “ice dome” .. Consider a huge very high altitude valley , where the mountains are surrounding the valley are an extreme altitude, but trap all of the valley’s outlets. The glaciers begin on both sides of the “valley” – which may hundreds of miles across. They flow down hill, but reach the bottom of the valley .. and DON’T melt. Each winter more ice and snow accumulate on earlier layers, and none of it melts. The valley eventually fills, but the snow and ice now fall on both mountain top slopes AND the ice trapped between the mountain ranges. The ice in the center of the valley (already very high in elevation) rises above the original mountain walls as a rounded shallow-sloped dome shape, but the ice “flow” is now from the high center of the former valley “out” through the passes between the peaks in the surrounding mountain ranges.

mebbe
Reply to  RoHa
December 28, 2015 8:06 pm

As distinct from an alpine glacier, in which the ice is constrained by the rocky sides of mountains, an ice dome forms on flattish terrain and develops, over time, a convex shape, with ice slowly flowing away from the centre in all directions.

RoHa
Reply to  RoHa
December 29, 2015 4:58 pm

Thanks, RACook and mebbe.

December 28, 2015 12:09 pm

By logging in you’ll post the following comment to An ice core study to determine the timing and duration of historical climate stages:
Question to Dr. Shuji Fujita
about:
“we found that changes in the water stable isotope signatures in the ice at DF tended to occur before the same changes at EDC, with the time between changes being more pronounced during cold periods.”
Have deuterium excess and the MWL also been investigated? Could it be that the difference in DF and EDC could be related to differences in the Rayleigh fractination due to changes in aridity?

Jane Davieshere in Canada as we are overwhelmed with
December 28, 2015 12:27 pm
Reply to  Jane Davieshere in Canada as we are overwhelmed with
December 29, 2015 6:08 pm

Welcome to WUWT Jane:
Unfortunately, you did bring us old news already sponsered here on WUWT.
Josh’s notes on Dr. Patrick Moore’s presentation.
Some discussion about Dr. Moore’s presentation
Video @ http://climateconference.heartland.org/
PS: Tips and notes, listed in the WUWT menu, is the proper location to drop Anthony info about news!
Come back and visit more!

ralfellis
December 28, 2015 12:32 pm

And since it is the festive season, how about putting something in the tip-jar? When was the last time you put something in?
Organised opposition to Big Green does not happen all by itself, and since Big Oil will not assist, and Big Science has run up a white flag decades ago, it is down to each and every one of us. So come on, put a few dollars in the tip-jar.
Merry Xmas.
R

Fatty Matty
December 28, 2015 12:48 pm

I have no idea what this means but I’m sure it’s very interesting!

Editor
December 28, 2015 1:10 pm

I just read the header for this post and mis-read the last three words as “hysterical climate stages” which is probably just as apt. Yesterday we flew from Newcastle to Amsterdam, then to Detroit on a Great Circle route, skimming the South coast of Greenland, before entering Canada at its most South Western Point, heading over the Great Lakes to Detroit and then getting the last flight to Orlando. Anybody who says that the can detect AGW in the complex climate systems is deluded,
Newcastle 55 North yesterday 4 Celsius
Southern Greenland 62 North ice snow everywhere including sea ice, this stared to get thinner and break upas we reached the US, but I would guess Hudson Bay would be frozen and nee an icebreaker to allow ships to make port

December 28, 2015 1:27 pm

Ice rings are not annual rings like tree rings.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Elmer
December 28, 2015 2:11 pm

Interesting. Thanks!

Reply to  Gunga Din
December 28, 2015 3:00 pm

Elmer,
Hadn’t seen the film before commenting…
Depends where the planes were found. If they are at the edge of the Greenland inland ice, that are probably not annual layers but may be multiple layers of every snowstorm in all seasons, partly melted and refrozen. Quite different at the summit which very seldom (once every 150 years or so) refreezes or in Antarctica…

Reply to  Elmer
December 28, 2015 2:14 pm

Ice rings are annual, but their thickness depends of the annual snow precipitation and ice pressure/flow. That is 1.2 meter ice equivalent per year at coastal deposits like Law Dome (thus annual layers of 1.2 meters in the ice!) to a few mm/year for Dome C and other inland cores.
The highly visible winter-summer precipitation differences in density are getting smaller and smaller with depth thus losing their annual visibility for the sites with the smaller precipitation. Still measurable with radar and conductivity, but even that is lost with depth.
The longest annual time period is from a Greenland core where they counted over 100,000 annual layers down to the Eemian, the previous warmer interglacial…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 28, 2015 2:32 pm

I live in Minnesota we can have multiple snow, freeze, melt partially than snow again intervals in one year. If you watch the video you can see that planes from WWII were buried under 263 feet of snow and ice in just 48 years with many hundreds of ice core wings appearing in that distance not just 48. That’s about 5.5 feet accumulation per year, so if you take a 10,000 foot ice core ring and divide by 5 you get 2,000 years not 700,000.

Auto
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 28, 2015 2:40 pm

Elmer
Yeah – potentially.
I ought to read the original paper to see if I could guide you better.
But not tonight, I fear.
Auto

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 28, 2015 2:56 pm

Observable facts. From observable facts hypothesis are formed. Some assumptions are made in forming a hypothesis. The assumption made here is that ice rings are annual. The observation is that they may not be.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 28, 2015 3:21 pm

Elmer,
The 5.5 feet accumulation shows that the local precipitation is much higher that where the ice cores are taken near the summit for Greenland. Thus local precipitation, melt and refreeze are not annual rings but snowstorm rings. Near the summit melt is quite seldom (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/06/study-greenlands-july-2012-insta-melt-was-triggered-by-a-combination-of-warm-weather-and-carbon-soot/) and the layers are real annual with a slight difference in density between summer and winter, besides changes in conductivity, isotopic changes due to ocean temperatures and where the snow in the air is formed.
Annual precipitation in current times at the different summits (Greenland and Antarctica) where ice cores were taken are exactly known in modern times, so one can calculate the densification with depth and the resulting layer thickness. Be it that it is more guessing for sites with very little precipitation and what the precipitation was during e.g. glacial periods…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 29, 2015 4:21 am

@ Ferdinand 3.21pm dec 28, I am no expert., so here goes: I agree that right now the ice rings may be annual due to the “desert” type conditions that exist today and the recent past but when these domes started that must have a time period that had a lot more precip to start the sequence. So my question is how do you tell the difference from what you called “snowstorm” rings to today’s “desert” type ice rings?

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 29, 2015 10:30 am

Asybot,
One can follow the temperature of the origin of the water vapor and the temperature of where the snow was formed as both make a differentiation between the lighter and heavier isotopes. Thus if one measures the 18O/16O isotopic ratio and the D/H isotopic ratio in the ice, one will find an up and down going ratio change between winter and summer. Thus if the thickness of the layers is sufficient, it is easy to know if the layers are annual or snowstorm disposed…
For most places where ice cores are taken, that are annual layers, even if the thickness varies between interglacial and glacial periods.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 30, 2015 7:17 pm

Thanks ferdinand, appreciate the reply I am going to have to learn more ( again, sigh).

Marcus
Reply to  Elmer
December 28, 2015 3:33 pm

Your trusting a preacher to tell you about science ?? LOL

Latitude
December 28, 2015 1:41 pm

I thought the Antarctic was isolated….

December 28, 2015 2:13 pm

“Historical” in my definition started when human writing began, So I did not expect the pleistocene.

Michael 2
Reply to  Hans Erren
December 29, 2015 12:09 pm

“It’s not a belief it’s an interpretation of an observation ”
Does that mean you do NOT believe in interpretations of an observation?

Reply to  Michael 2
December 30, 2015 6:12 am

What’s your interpretation of the red shift?

Michael 2
Reply to  Hans Erren
December 30, 2015 9:01 am

Hans Erren asks a question to divert attention from not answering a question posed to him. But, okay, here we go:
“What’s your interpretation of the red shift?”
I must assume rather a lot of context since red shift speaks to color temperature in photography that happens when you dim incandescent lighting or toward evening. In the realm of astronomy it speaks to absorption and emission spectra that shifts to longer wavelength in more distant stars; of course, to a certain extent the more-distant stars are assumed to be more distant by the amount of redshift. The implication is that this is equivalent to a Doppler effect and that they are all moving away from me at high speed. That’s better, perhaps, than heading toward me at high speed but either way proposes a rather bleak distant future.
Curiously this produces the phenomenon of the Earth being at the exact center of the observable universe, a center that follows me everywhere I go. It’s a great feeling being at the center of the observable universe and I feel the weight of being a reliable pivot for Life, the Universe and Everything.
So, I have played your game, let’s see if you can play mine. Since the relevant parts are scattered I will assemble it briefly here:
zemlik: “why would any sensible person believe in a big bang creation?”
Hans Erren: “It’s not a belief it’s an interpretation of an observation (doppler spectral red shift)”
Me: “Does that mean you do NOT believe in interpretations of an observation?”
Obviously you mis-wrote. Of course you believe it, since the alternative is to NOT believe it, and that would be a strange thing for you to write. But you don’t want to admit to believing it either. Why is that? It is because you have accepted a definition of “belief” that implies fictionality when more correctly “belief” is merely what happens in your brain the moment you accept someone’s CLAIM of something, in this case red shift means doppler means far distant means expanding universe.
Can you prove it? No. But you can believe it and so do I, based on provable parts that do not deny the whole.
Same with global warming. It is probably impossible to prove carbon dioxide heats the actual atmosphere by any particular amount; but it is easy to prove the principle of carbon dioxide’s power to intercept infrared radiation. With that principle established, one then need only discover all of the many confounding factors that collectively create the temperature of the atmosphere.
Now then, *I* will answer zemlik:
A sensible person is, for sake of argument, concerned about Life, the Universe and Everything; particularly as it pertains to his own survival and reproduction. It’s Darwinian in other words; a normal human being is programmed from birth to wish to live and to wish to not die. As he grows older he starts to extend this “life wish” to others besides himself; he starts to have charity and altruism.
At some point he realizes that the sun itself has a lifespan, maybe also the universe itself. Thus the “sensible person” that has any sort of scientific curiosity wonders how long the Earth might exist and be habitable, and by what; same for the sun, and the universe — and will the universe “die” or will it rebound for ever in a succession of “bangs”?
Thus the “sensible person”, stimulated by his natural instinct for life itself, wonders and worries about the future of everything that touches his life, which includes the life of the universe itself.
The fact that everyone reading this will be long dead is irrelevant to human instinct. That a danger exists billions of years from now is sufficient to trigger fear right here, right now, in a good many people. I remember worrying about it in my own younger years.

Editor
Reply to  Michael 2
December 30, 2015 9:28 am

Nice one Michael. Very clearly thought through.

Marcus
December 28, 2015 3:03 pm

Dear mods..something is wrong with your link for ..
British Officials Blame Climate Change for Floods
by Eric Worrall

December 28, 2015 3:04 pm

There are fundamental problems with Antarctica-measurments, inland, close to the pole around 80 degrees
South.
(1) go to the WUWT sea ice page and look up the South polar temperatures (TLT) and you will see that
although temperatures have risen since 1979, this does not show in satellite measurements: This meaning:
Global temp changes cannot be CLEAN and DISTINCTLY be detected in Antarctica temp values.
(2) As opposite to the Arctis, with the annual ice core very long (in meters), the annual ice core is short
in only the millimeter range. In order to receive at least some meagre values, only the Deuderium method produces some humble results, and not in accurate in the decadal and centennial time range. The better O-18 oxygen method even cannot be sensefully employed.
For those two reasons, the Antarctica (higher 75 degrees latitude) values are useless to show CENTENNIAL AND DECADAL temp changes. It is further questionable on their millenial scale, because
uncertain calibrations are said to show a 1000 year temp advance earlier to the Arctis, which
is a systemic nonsense, since both, Arctic and Antarctic always go in temp sync, which is hard to detect because of (1) and (2). An alleged ” dis-synchronity of temps on both poles” is the major meme of the
“see-saw”-ocean flow nonsense and for this reason, those see-saw-proponents fight with all claws
against the synchronity fact of pole temp evolution. JSei

Reply to  J.Seifert
December 30, 2015 12:47 am

It looks like someone needs to “fight with all claws” against their smart-phone spell-checker 😄

zemlik
December 28, 2015 3:34 pm

People are saying that the Earth is a 3 dimensional round thing in a 3 dimensional space. I do find this very difficult to comprehend.
Rather I am more attracted to the idea we are reflections of something else. Lives, emotions, stories are echoes of other events.

Pat Frank
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 4:06 pm

Four dimensional space-time, zemlik, not 3-dimensional space. Oblate spheroid (flattened at the poles), not round. You’re right that it’s difficult to comprehend, but it’s worth the effort to grasp.
You proposed a poetically valid view. But if you put your view up as a valid alternative to the physical description (oblate spheroid in 4-D space/time), then a physical demonstration is required.
If you can demonstrate your “other events,” and can demonstrate their correlation with our lives or our selves, then you’ll have a case. Not otherwise.

zemlik
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 28, 2015 7:21 pm

coincidences Pat,. look at coincidences.

zemlik
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 28, 2015 7:40 pm

@Pat
My first wife and I were thrown together in a hundred coincidences over hundreds of miles. This life that you move through is the thing that exists rather than the stage it is on.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 28, 2015 11:32 pm

zemlik, in a world of 7 billion people someone experiences a 1-in-7-billion low-probability event every single day.
Seven million people experience a 1-chance-in-a-thousand event every day. Coincidences mean nothing more than that. They are bound to occur merely by statistical chance when the number of events is so huge.
A few happened in your favor. Fortunate you. Others are not fortunate. You apparently suppose life is a cosmic conspiracy. How then do we account for teratomas? Or for other misfortunes in which the victim is utterly blameless?
Such events turn any cosmic meaning into the hand of a monster.
Assigning a cosmic hand to happenstance necessarily produces unearned pride and crimeless guilt. That way leads to arrogance and persecution.
Fortunately, we have grown beyond that idea as a species. The understanding that some events are random and that all natural events are both uncontrolled and deterministic opens the door to compassionate understanding, zemlik, especially of misfortune.
Good fortune or misfortune — they have no evident cosmic meaning. That was forever demonstrated in 1753, when Ben Franklin removed lightning from the hand of god.
Two hundred sixty-three years — time enough for you to exit 16th century mysticism. Humane ethics require that exit.

george e smith
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 29, 2015 1:25 pm

The earth IS round. I can see that from any point on the California coastal cliffs.
g

Marcus
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 4:14 pm

Again…Zemlik, thank you for the great example of why too much pot is not good for the brain !!!

JB Goode
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 4:28 pm

Zemlik,lay off the ganga,get a haircut and get a job and all will become clear.Trust me.

Editor
Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 5:03 pm

zemlik

Rather I am more attracted to the idea we are reflections of something else. Lives, emotions, stories are echoes of other events.

Those of us who are skeptics are rather more firmly attached to measurable reality of matter, physics, energy, entropy, and enthalpy. Our souls, our consciousness, our origins and our “humanity” is a religious topic, not measurable here and now, and are a different matter subject to miracles and random evolution as directed by The Intelligent Big Bang Designer (er, God and Creator).

zemlik
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 28, 2015 7:12 pm

why would any sensible person belief in a ” big bang ” creation ?

zemlik
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 28, 2015 7:14 pm

believe

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 29, 2015 3:22 am

It’s not a belief it’s an interpretation of an observation ( doppler spectral red shift)

Michael 2
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 29, 2015 12:13 pm

zemlik asks: “why would any sensible person belief in a big bang creation?”
It is a tautology. Sensible person is defined as someone that believes in a big bang creation. Other definitions probably exist.

george e smith
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 29, 2015 1:30 pm

Actually I was a very tiny bang. The whole dang universe was all in the same place.

Reply to  zemlik
December 28, 2015 6:31 pm

Zem, if you’re a reflection of something else, you’d better pray no one smashes the mirror….

Reply to  Aphan
December 28, 2015 7:35 pm

Zemlik, get off the Internet, go for a long walk and look at people until you feel better about them. Then go to bed early and get a good night’s sleep.

Michael 2
Reply to  zemlik
December 29, 2015 12:08 pm

“People are saying…”
Some say, some don’t. Let them speak for themselves.
“I am more attracted to the idea we are reflections of something else”
That’s nice. Presumably you spend quite a lot of time at a mirror 😉

george e smith
Reply to  Michael 2
December 29, 2015 1:34 pm

Actually you don’t have to be anywhere near the mirror to have a reflection. The Coulomb force is infinite in range.
Like Gravity. But Gravity sucks. Coulomb blows instead.

John Whitman
December 28, 2015 4:22 pm

Trying to test my understanding.
It looks to me like the research is saying that you date when events (volcanic) in locations in their Antarctic DF ice occurred (independently of other ice cores) and do the same thing with their Antarctic EDC ice core then compare age determinations of an event that is seen in both ice cores. Events seen in both ice cores were found to have differences in age of 2,000 years or more.
If my understanding is correct, the implication of this is that dating of events via ice cores needs corroboration between ice cores including factors accounting for the difference in locations of the ice cores.
John

December 28, 2015 5:03 pm

The results suggested that signals that were indicative of abrupt climate change tended to propagate first at DF and later at EDC.
It also suggests that the synchronization points aren’t quite settled, yet.

lowercasefred
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 28, 2015 6:26 pm

“It also suggests that the synchronization points aren’t quite settled, yet.”
I agree.

papiertigre
December 28, 2015 7:33 pm

Recently I saw a paper asserting an anti-greenhouse effect as the cause of the cooling of Antarctica. Now I can’t find it. The search engines, bing, google, yahoo, are worthless.
Have any of you seen this paper, and could you post a link to it here?
Much appreciated.

papiertigre
Reply to  papiertigre
December 28, 2015 9:30 pm

Found it. It was an AGU publication Geophysical Research Letters.
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/abstract
See how they defeated the search engines? Negative Greenhouse effect rather than Anti-Greenhouse effect (which Wikipedia seems to believe only exists on Titan. Strange how the laws of physics need an astericks for the only other body in the solar system with flowing liquid and an active weather system).
A cold reading of the paper is entertaining but the media version is interesting also.
Warming culprit CO2 has a cool side — and it’s in Antarctica
Combo of chilly surface temps and accumulating gas creates cooling effect.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/warming-culprit-co2-has-cool-side-%E2%80%94-and-it%E2%80%99s-antarctica

In a cold corner of the world, carbon dioxide is doing something surprising. Instead of causing warming, rising CO2 levels over central Antarctica produce a net cooling effect, new research suggests.

“We’re not saying the greenhouse effect is rubbish,” says study coauthor Justus Notholt, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Bremen in Germany. “But in Antarctica, the situation is different.”

Central Antarctica is the only place on Earth where surface temperatures are regularly colder than those in the overlying stratosphere. So instead of primarily trapping heat radiating from the ground, accruing CO2 above central Antarctica boosts the amount of heat escaping into space from the atmosphere, the researchers report in a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters.

That’s a Paradyme shift.

papiertigre
Reply to  papiertigre
December 28, 2015 9:48 pm

Strangely NOAA says,

As the density of the gases in the troposphere decrease with height, the air becomes thinner. Therefore, the temperature in the troposphere also decreases with height in response. As one climbs higher, the temperature drops from an average around 62°F (17°C) to -60°F (-51°C) at the tropopause.

Which means there are plenty of places all over the planet where the surface is colder that the stratosphere. In each and every one of those places co2 acts as a negative greenhouse. All of the purple regions in this temp map of the world.
http://www.mawsweather.com/currcond.html#worldloops

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  papiertigre
December 29, 2015 1:51 am

The temperature of the stratosphere depends on Ozone much more than CO2, I how high its major concentration zone is from the surface. Airborne chemistry dictates the ozone concentration achievable at the time.
Influences on ozone formation and destruction include GCR, sunlight, bromine, chlorine, H2S and a host is lesser chemicals.
That some paper concludes CO2 is causing cooling just indicates knowledge gaps about how the atmosphere works to retain heat (or not) at the poles. No doubt we will soon hear that burning coal causes changes in the height of the Antarctic ozone layer, in turn causing both warming and cooling. It be obvious by now that coal causes everything.

papiertigre
Reply to  papiertigre
December 29, 2015 2:30 am

Thanks for the reply.
Don’t even get me started on the ozone hole. That is stupidity cubed. The South Pole measures UV indexes, you know like the newspapers do to warn people with light skin against getting a sunburn. Well at the South Pole the highest UV index ever recorded was +4. For comparison, here in California with our “thick layer” of ozone taking the edge off the sunshine, we routinely get +12 in the summer.
The same Esso bees (read it as one word) who pushed that fraud are the self same but wads (also read as one word) pushing the current one.
They belong in prison.

papiertigre
Reply to  papiertigre
December 29, 2015 2:38 am

Since NOAA defines the layers of atmosphere by their temperature, you can say the troposphere ceases to exist in those wobegon areas of the world routinely recording surface temperatures lower that minus 50 C.
And the sky above them is cold enough for co2 to condense into dry ice.

Werner Brozek
Reply to  papiertigre
December 29, 2015 9:47 am

And the sky above them is cold enough for co2 to condense into dry ice.

Is there not some sort of “relative humidity”, but applied to CO2 that would be necessary for this to occur? If water vapour for example was at 0.04%, and at -50 C, would it condense?

papiertigre
Reply to  papiertigre
December 29, 2015 10:47 am

I always wondered why water vapor would condense out at 4%. I mean the higher you go the more diffuse it’s supposed to get, right?
And yet there are clouds. Miracles.

george e smith
Reply to  papiertigre
December 29, 2015 1:38 pm

Dang ! whoda thunk the air would get thinner as the density goes down ??

Reply to  papiertigre
December 29, 2015 3:27 am

See the bottom nimbus IR spectrum over antarctica. Thermal inversion leads to a net emission in the IR spectral co2 band over antarctica.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/spectra.gif

Reply to  Hans Erren
December 29, 2015 9:16 am

That spectrum really is amazing! It is what you expect to see from the ground looking up, but it is from 1100 Km. Except that the background blackbody temperature of the spectrum (something like 200K as can be gauged by the atmospheric window) is colder than the tropopause. Those CO2 (and ozone @ WN 1050) photons are radiating at a higher temperature than the surface!

Reply to  Hans Erren
December 29, 2015 9:58 am

I have some weatherballoon measurements of arctic inversion explaining what is happening in antarctica.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/baroim190203.gif

george e smith
Reply to  Hans Erren
December 29, 2015 1:45 pm

Those spectra are not radiances; they are spectral radiances. W.m^-2.sr^-1.(wave number)^-1

papiertigre
Reply to  Hans Erren
December 29, 2015 11:25 pm

They’re like florescent rock. Any resemblance between that heat is superficial. They have no relationship between them and the actual temperature of that layer.

Reply to  Hans Erren
December 30, 2015 6:16 am

Papertigre, how come modtran can reproduce the spectra using layer temperatures?

papiertigre
Reply to  Hans Erren
December 31, 2015 5:05 am

Because they are using the language of light rather than the language of temperature.
Spectra means fark all when the air is thin, because temperature is the measurement of collisions between air molecules.

old construction worker.
December 29, 2015 1:55 am

“Our work contributes establishing a common time scale of ice cores and will be extremely important in studies of temporal and spatial propagation of abrupt climate change in the Antarctic.”
Ok, I have a question? What time frame are they referring to when the use the term “abrupt”? 2000 years? 3000 years? 5000years?

Michael 2
Reply to  old construction worker.
December 29, 2015 12:17 pm

I believe “abrupt” in this context is 10 to 40 years.

old construction worker.
Reply to  old construction worker.
December 30, 2015 6:31 am

10 to 40 years? So, what was their error bar on 80-130 kya ice core?
I find it hard to believe they could tell within 30 years of an abrupt change in our climate.

Michael 2
Reply to  old construction worker.
December 30, 2015 8:27 am

old construction worker writes “I find it hard to believe they could tell within 30 years of an abrupt change in our climate.”
Hence “abrupt”. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html
“it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years. ”
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml

old construction worker.
Reply to  old construction worker.
December 31, 2015 1:04 pm

So, the error bar is + or – 5years? That’s cutting the ice awful thin.

old construction worker.
Reply to  old construction worker.
December 31, 2015 1:38 pm

From ideo link: The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), and although the date cannot be known exactly, it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years.
But goes on to say
however, the Akkadian empire collapsed abruptly at 4170 ± 150 calendar yr B.P.

davidswuk
December 29, 2015 3:45 am

Since when did minor fluctuations in a Polar (or any) Climate qualify as being a Climate Change?

talldave2
December 29, 2015 12:52 pm

Got a brand new shipment of electrical equipment, it’s addressed to the bottom of the sea Send a tangerine-colored nuclear submarine with a sticker that says STP.

johann wundersamer
January 4, 2016 6:04 pm

1st: An ice core study to determine the timing and duration of historical climate stages.
2nd: “Our work contributes establishing a common time scale of ice cores and will be extremely important in studies of temporal and spatial propagation of abrupt climate change in the Antarctic.”
____
GOT IT:
the timing and duration of historical climate stages
ALWAYS
will be extremely important in studies of
/temporal and spatial/
propagation of abrupt climate change in the Antarctic.”
Good to know. Hans

%d bloggers like this: