The CO2 Shift; Ice Age to Gas Age

Guest Post by Renee Hannon


Introduction
This post examines CO2 data collected from Antarctic ice cores and compares CO2 measurements in both ice age and gas age. The age of trapped gas in ice varies dramatically across the Antarctic and is dependent on accumulation rates. To compensate for this age difference, peer reviewed studies use a simple method of shifting CO2 measurements from the core ice age to match a younger CO2 gas age.

The CO2 Hockey Stick
The CO2 hockey stick is a familiar plot. Figure 1 shows CO2 data from ice core bubbles, CO2 data from the firn, as well as Cape Grim atmospheric instrumental CO2 measurements. Atmospheric data is available for only about the past 150 years. Therefore, firn and ice core data are used to extend the CO2 record further into the past. High accumulation ice records such as DE08 frequently do not extend as far back into the past nor do they even cover the Little Ice Age (LIA). It is amazing how all the vastly different CO2 datasets overlap quite nicely with few exceptions.

Figure 1: CO2 concentrations corrected to gas age. Inset is blow up between 1900-2020 AD showing CO2 flat spot. Boxes highlight different data medium and approximate location of the ice bubble zone. CO2 data for Law Dome (DE08, DSS) is from Rubino 2019; WAIS is from Bauska 2015; Siple is from Neftel 1994; and EDML is from Siegenthaler, 2005.

Other than the eye-popping hockey stick, there are several other observations worth noting. There is more scatter in CO2 measurements from 1900 and older between the various ice core records. One reason for the higher scatter is WAIS CO2 data is systematically 3-4 ppm higher than Law Dome ice core CO2 data (Ahn, 2012). Scientists cannot explain this deviation and frequently just subtract 4 ppm from this dataset (Bereiter, 2014).

A CO2 flat spot and stabilization of 310-312 ppm from 1940-1960 is apparent on the Law dome data (MacFarling, 2006). Smoothing due to gas diffusion in the firn and enclosure in bubbles reduces CO2 variation, so the actual atmospheric variation is likely larger than the Law Dome ice core record. Unfortunately, the CO2 flattening ended just before atmospheric records at Mauna Loa started.

A CO2 bulge occurs in all ice core records from about 1000 AD to 1600 AD and is over 600 years in duration. Again, this increase in CO2 likely had a larger atmospheric signature than is preserved in ice cores. The CO2 bulge ends with the onset of the LIA around 1600 AD where CO2 declines in all ice core records. A unique CO2 dip in the Law Dome DSS data occurs at 1610 AD near the beginning of the LIA and may be due to its higher resolution (Rubino, 2019). This dip is not seen in any other ice records and adds to the scatter in CO2 data. DSS also has other CO2 lows at 1780 AD near the end of the LIA, and at 1278 and 1350 AD in the middle of the CO2 bulge. Rubino points out that understanding these amplitude variations recorded by ice and the actual size of the original atmospheric signatures before firn smoothing is a critical piece of the CO2 puzzle.

The CO2 Shift
As discussed in my previous WUWT post here, atmospheric gases are modified during the firn transition to ice and bubble trapping. There are two key modifications that are dependent on snow accumulation rates and temperature. First, CO2 variability is smoothed due to atmospheric mixing and diffusion with firn CO2 concentrations. Secondly, the gas is believed to be younger than the age of the ice when it is eventually trapped within bubbles. (Battle, 2011; Trudinger, 2002, Blunier, 2000). Once trapped within the bubbles, gas is assumed to age with the ice. This age difference is referred to as the ice-gas age delta. The delta ranges from about 30 years in Law Dome to 835 years in the lower accumulation EDML ice core. Very low accumulation sites such as Dome C and Vostok have a large delta of thousands of years.

Figure 2 shows CO2 measurements from the actual age of ice in which it is trapped for five ice cores in the Antarctic and before adjustments by applying ice-gas age deltas as shown in Figure 1. Atmospheric data from Cape Grim and firn data are shown on the plot for comparison. The delta difference in years between the younger gas age and older ice age are noted. The top of ice which roughly corresponds to the base of the bubble zone is also shown. This plot is a profile rarely found or discussed in published literature.

Figure 2: CO2 concentrations in ice age. The numbers show the ice-gas age difference in years. The dashed line is the top of ice and approximate position of the base of the bubble zone. CO2 data references noted in Figure 1.

Figure 2 leads to a question about how the delta between ice and gas ages is calculated? When gas measurements in ice or firn are the same as instrumental data it is simply shifted to the age of instrumental data. For example, Law Dome DE08 ice gas data is uniformly shifted by 31 years to match instrumental atmospheric data. Various other methods are used to estimate the delta and ensuing uniform shift. Firn models can calculate the ice-gas age delta for ice cores using density and temperature data and are constrained by using nitrogen-15 data, a proxy for firn thickness (Raynaud, 2005). Another approach uses ice depths in the core that are contemporaneous with ice cores where gas ages are well constrained (Bender, 2005). DSS and Siple are shifted 58 and 83 years, respectively, to match the DE08 data. After all the shifting is done, a big hockey stick of increasing CO2 concentrations appears around 1900 AD as shown in Figure 1.

The CO2 ‘Shift Method’ using Siple data was notably highlighted by Jaworowski, 2004. He pointed out that high CO2 concentrations of 328 ppm occurred in 1890 AD in the Siple ice core which did not match the interpreted CO2 baseline. The entire Siple CO2 data was simply shifted by 83 years to match modern instrumental CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa in 1973. This simple shift method continues to be an accepted technique for “correcting” the younger gas age in ice cores.

The amount of age shifting is interpretive, and scientists use various methods resulting in different shifts for the same dataset. Ice-gas age deltas have uncertainties of 10-15% (Seigenthaler, 2005). So, why is this important? Temperatures from the water isotope composition of the ice are in ice age. Thus, temperatures are always presented in the same age as the ice. Whereas the gas data is corrected from the age of the ice to an interpreted gas age. Any evaluation of lead-lag relationships should consider the 10-15% uncertainty associated with the calculation CO2 ice-gas age deltas.

CO2 Hockey Stick Preservation in Ice
When the CO2 shift or age delta is removed as shown in Figure 2, then the CO2 variability suppression with lower accumulation sites become readily apparent. Except for DE08, ice core records below the bubble zone show CO2‘s highest recording is only 312-316 ppm which is almost 100 ppm lower than the current atmospheric reading of 410 ppm (Figure 3a). It is interesting to note these readings of 312-316 ppm are comparable to the DE08 flat spot.

Many authors have documented gas smoothing in the firn layer due to vertical gas diffusion and gradual bubble close-off during the transition from firn to ice (Trudinger, 2002; Spahni, 2003; MacFarling, 2006; Joos and Spahni, 2008; Ahn, 2012; Fourteau, 2019; Rubino, 2019). To compensate for cores from different rate of accumulation sites, a gas age distribution width or smoothing is modeled. For example, high accumulation Law Dome cores have a gas age average of 10-15 years, WAIS gas average is about 30 years, and DML is 65 years. Low accumulation sites such as Dome C and Vostok show gas is averaged or smoothed over hundreds of years. This means a smoothing factor needs to be applied to atmospheric gas measurements when comparing to various ice cores. However, most CO2 historical graphs simply splice on atmospheric and firn CO2 to ice CO2 data without applying any smoothing as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 3: a) Initial CO2 concentration in each ice core beneath the bubble zone. b) graph showing relationship between ice-gas age delta and gas smoothing in years. Data from Ahn, 2012; Trudinger, 2002, and Seigenthaler, 2005.

Low accumulation ice cores that experience bigger shifts and larger ice-gas age deltas also preserve lower CO2 variability and higher smoothing. The relationship between ice-gas age shifting and gas amplitude smoothing in shown in Figure 3b.

Observations
Many variables and data assumptions are used when comparing the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 during this century to past ice core data. CO2 measurements from very different datasets are frequently linked; atmospheric, firn, and ice cores. Atmospheric CO2 gas is modified in the firn by diffusion and gradual bubble trapping and cannot be directly compared to CO2 data in ice cores beneath the Bubble Zone. The common method of simply shifting CO2 ice core age measurements combined with not applying the appropriate atmospheric attenuation results in the amplified CO2 hockey stick.

Acknowledgements: Special thanks to Donald Ince and Andy May for reviewing and editing this article.


Download the bibliography here.

4.6 20 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
161 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
May 2, 2021 6:17 am

Good post. Ice core measurement techniques have not received the level of quality review commensurate to the extent and how results are being used.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Scissor
May 3, 2021 3:10 am

Yes great post thanks. What I don’t understand is why the gas air age delta is beautifully linearly correlated to CO2. It would be a reasonable hypothesis to test that there is some consistent systematic reduction in CO2 during this phase in the transition from snow to ice.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 3, 2021 4:33 am

I was first made aware of this correlation between the difference between the gas age and the ice age – the gas-ice delta – and the CO2 concentration in a discussion paper written by Jonathan J. Drake in 2008. He also used this to ‘correct’ the original CO2 data to remove this bias. The resultant CO2 timeseries seemed much more reasonable, and suggested that the CO2 levels have been fair consistent through time.

co2IceGas.PNG
Jay Willis
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 3, 2021 4:38 am

Anyhow, I’ve never seen an explanation for this correlation, and why this correction is not justified. The data look a great deal more interesting after the removeal of this major source of variation.

In any case, it’s not nothing.

I have a copy of the original Jonathan J Drake paper if anyone is interested – it’s very simple. But I checked using the original Vostok data and it all appeared OK.

Renee
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 3, 2021 7:59 am

Jay,
Can you put in the link to the Vostok dataset that Drake used to calculate the ice gas delta. I can find CO2 data from Vostok only in gas age, not ice age.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Renee
May 4, 2021 5:04 am

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2F20859/MediaObjects/41586_1999_BF20859_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

I used: co2nat.txt and found a good correlation.

Drake’s original links don’t work, he cited:
cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
and some other ftp type links.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 3, 2021 10:57 am

Jay,

There is no physical base for such a “correction”. The only physical base in the Vostok ice core is between temperature and CO2 levels, with a lag. That points to about 8 ppmv/K, where temperature is based on the delta-18O and delta-D measurements in the ice phase. These depends mainly of the temperatures where the snow is formed from water vapor, that is near Antarctica. Translated to global temperatures, that is about 16 ppmv/K. Not by coincidence the change in solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature changes…
The discrepancy between T and CO2 is mainly from the lags, for which is not corrected…

Vostok_trends.gif
Jay Willis
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 3, 2021 4:34 am

Timeseries of CO2 data at Vostok ‘corrected’ for linear relationship between gas-ice delta and CO2

timeseriesCO2Vostok.PNG
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 3, 2021 9:49 am

There is no difference between CO2 levels as measured in the remaining open pores of the ice and the already closed bubbles at the same closing depth. That was measured by Etheridge e.a. 1996 at the Law Dome ice cores and firn.
Thus no fractionation of CO2 at the moment of bubble closing, but there is some for the smallest molecules like Ne and Ar and even O2.. See Table 1 in:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/Closeoff_fractionation_EPSL.pdf

Renee
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 11:01 am

Here’s another article discussing CO2 diffusion in ice. “One common assumption in interpreting ice-core CO2 records is that diffusion in the ice does not affect the concentration profile. However, this assumption remains untested because the extremely small CO2 diffusion coefficient in ice has not been accurately determined in the laboratory. In this study we take advantage of high levels of CO2 associated with refrozen layers in an ice core from Siple Dome, Antarctica, to study CO2 diffusion rates. Smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion in deep ice is comparable to smoothing in the firn. Other types of diffusion (e.g. via liquid in ice grain boundaries or veins) may also be important but their influence has not been quantified.”

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217137199.pdf

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Renee
May 3, 2021 2:32 pm

Renee, if you take these theoretical values as true, that means that the resolution, which is about 20 years for the Siple Dome ice core, that would get 22 years at middle depth and 40 years at full depth, Hardly a problem. Siple Dome even is a relative “warm” (-23 C) ice core.

For the much colder (-40 C) inland ice cores like Vostok or Dome C, there is no liquid water at all (except for dust inclusions) and migration is virtually zero.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 4, 2021 5:15 am

That’s all very well Ferdinand, but there is a very good correlation between the gas-ice delta and the CO2. Much too good a correlation to be there by chance. Therefore, we are compelled to ask where that correlation comes from – it is not enough to say that you don’t know of any reason – and then to ignore it.

It may be due to algae, in the upper layers of the firn. Whatever. I don’t have to provide a plausible reason for it. It is there. It is not nothing. Therefore, until it is adequately explained – the entire construct of historical accuracy of the absolute values of CO2 in the atmosphere in the remote past from these cores is in question.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 4, 2021 11:48 am

Jay, there is a very good correlation between temperature and CO2 levels (with a lag) which has a plausible, physical base.
You also have a good correlation between ice age – gas age difference and CO2 levels, which has no physical base.
If you correct the CO2 levels with the ice age – gas age difference, the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels vanishes, which is against basic physics…

I did vaguely remember that Drake’s “correction” was discussed some years ago, and now did find it back:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-2/

From that time:

He makes the basic mistake of conflating a good correlation with a causation: The error is of the kind:

A causes B and shows a good correlation.
A causes C and shows a good correlation.
Thus B causes C, because there is a good correlation between the two.

But that correlation is completely spurious, as there is not the slightest physical connection between B and C.

The explanation for his observation is quite simple:
Temperature (“A”) causes the ice-gas age lag (“B”), as temperature is directly connected with humidity of the atmosphere, thus influences the amount of snowfall, thus the accumulation rate and as reciprocal the speed of closing the bubbles: higher temperature, higher snowfall, smaller ice-gas difference.
Temperature (“A”) influences CO2 levels (“C”) directly: higher temperature means higher CO2 levels.
Because the previous two results have a high correlation with temperature, that gives that the ice-gas age difference and the CO2 levels also show a high correlation, but there is no physical mechanism that shows any direct or indirect action of ice-gas age difference on CO2 levels or vice versa. It is a completely spurious correlation, without any causation involved, but both share the same cause. Any “correction” of CO2 levels found in ice cores based on the correlation with ice-gas age difference is meaningless.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 5, 2021 2:02 am

Ferdinand, thanks for sharing your point of view. That is very interesting. I’m not sure I agree, but it is certainly worth considering what you say. I still think it is entirely possible that there is a process which reduces co2 over time in the firn, such as algae. Since temperature changes are so tiny im not entirely convinced that they are the cause. But, as I say, I might well change my mind after reading your comment carefully. Thanks for being explicit and taking the time to explain.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 6, 2021 9:28 am

Ferdinand, Thanks again for your comprehensive reply – I have much to learn. However, as for your A-B, A-C and B-C example. The trouble is that the correlation from CO2 to AgeDiff is much better (R2 0.81), than either Temp to AgeDiff (0.68) or Temp to CO2 (0.67). This can’t happen if there is no additional correlation between CO2 and AgeDiff – so it remains an issue. All these things can be correlated to each other – it’s just that you don’t know the mix, or the reason why CO2 is correlated to AgeDiff. At the moment, that hypothesis remains unfalsified. We can’t just say that we don’t know of a reason and forget about it.

Also, I didn’t understand your proof of the situation with Etheridge e.a.. in 1996. Here he found that CO2 was lower at 72m, and then decided that it was lower there becase it was lower in the past in the atmosphere. So he used it as the way to determine the age difference of the gas/ice at 72m – since these two values were both decreasing there would always be a supposedly definite measure of difference. Totally circular logic in my view, no risky hypotheses were falsified. The problem is that there is always massive autocorrelation in the CO2 figures, so the chances of finding a ‘correct’ value are no better or worse than 50/50. What if something else was reducing the CO2 in the firn?

Also, on the graph you showed (Fig. 2) the CO2 goes down consistently, even at 5, 10, 20 m and so on – so how are we to recognise that the gas in the firn is in exchange with the atmosphere? It appears to be lower at each depth, so is it fixed in the firn at 5m, 10m etc., or is there some other reason for this gradient? I don’t understand this. But there may well be a good explanation. Anyhow, no worries, thanks for your explanations above, it is much appreciated.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 6, 2021 11:19 am

Jay, Etheridge had the advantage of the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising at the time that he measured CO2 in firn and ice. If there wasn’t a change at all, it was impossible to directly know the ice age – gas age difference.

In this case, we know that the 10 ppmv CO2 lower concentration of CO2 at 72 meter depth is the same level as at the South Pole about 10 years before. Thus in average 10 years older, even if it is a mix of 40 years of air.

But it can be calculated too: if one knows the migration speed of the different molecules and the pore diameter and the concentration differences, one can calculate the age distribution of the air at every point of the firn from the surface to closing depth.

And there is help from recent emitted gases: as well as the 1960 14CO2 spike as the many freons released since their invention…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/96GL03156

May 2, 2021 6:37 am

Suggesting that the degree of atmospheric variation might be larger could be quite an understatement.
The scale of variability in exchanges with the oceans being the likely culprit for much larger short term atmospheric variability.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 2, 2021 8:52 am

Joseph,
I think the takeaway is that when confronted with anomalies (used in the more conventional sense, not temperatures) the investigators employ ad hoc adjustments that are not standard or used universally. Thus, we observe another example of poor methodology in climatology.

Last edited 12 days ago by Clyde Spencer
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 3, 2021 11:09 am

Stephen, depends of the resolution of the ice core. The highest resolution is in the Law Dome ice cores from the summit, around 10 years, which include an overlap (1960-1980) with the direct measurements at the South Pole. The drawback of the high resolution (caused by an extreme accumulation rate of 1.2 meter ice equivalent/year) is that the rock bottom is reached already 150 years back in time for the enclosed gases.
Further back in time there are several cores each with their own resolution and time span. The longest period is in the Dome C ice core which spans 800,000 years and has a resolution of about 560 years…
Even in that ice core, the current increase of 100 ppmv in 170 years would be visible as a spike of about 60 ppmv, if it would decrease to zero in a similar 170 years…

Renee
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 4, 2021 6:42 am

Ferdinand,
Joos and Spanni show a 95 ppm atmospheric spike (black line) is attenuated to only a 30 ppm spike in ice for Dome C (lower blue dashed line) by the firn densification process.

D6F452F9-300F-4A87-B34A-346AA92D3567.jpeg
Last edited 10 days ago by Renee
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Renee
May 4, 2021 12:54 pm

Depends of the length of the increase and decrease… But even a 30 ppmv spike would be visible as an anomaly in the Dome C CO2 curve, as the accuracy of the ice core CO2 measurements is around 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma)…

Renee
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 5, 2021 6:48 pm

Ferdinand,
The methane graph on the right better describes your scenario for Dome C. Methane decrease from 1800 ppb to 900 ppb, by half. Methane has higher diffusion rates than CO2. That’s why methane data from ice cores shows less scatter than CO2.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Renee
May 6, 2021 11:30 am

Renee, the spike in the ice core should be 1350 ppb, as a spike of methane doesn’t drop immediately to 900 ppb, it also takes time for the methane sources (like swamps) to decrease to lower values or stop entirely if the earth cools.

Ian W
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 6, 2021 1:35 pm

“Suggesting that the degree of atmospheric variation might be larger could be quite an understatement.”
The current logic for calculating the CO2 in the atmosphere appears to be that the amount of natural CO2 is known and invariant so any change in atmospheric CO2 must be due to human activity such as SUVs and industry. This is patent nonsense as the number of undersea volcanoes is not even known let alone how much CO2 they are continually emitting into the oceans. Indeed it appears that every time this is studied the number of ‘vents’ and their size is increased. Human activities will be seen in future to be a very minor player in the level of atmospheric CO2. Therefore, ideas/mandates such as changing all vehicles to electric will have an unmeasurably small effect on atmospheric CO2 and yet do considerable economic damage to human activities – which may of course be the aim.

Note that this is a separate argument/discussion as to whether increasing atmospheric CO2 actually does raise atmospheric temperatures and if that is a problem to the biosphere.

Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2021 6:53 am

This article is way over my head. What’s the takeaway from it?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2021 7:07 am

Yeah, mine too, although I could probably get my head around it if I had the time. One takeaway from it for me, from eyeballing the plots and which I think is important, is that the 280ppm baseline seems to be a solid number.

Reply to  philincalifornia
May 2, 2021 7:10 am

The point seems to be that methods of ascertaining atmospheric CO2 via ice cores could seriously understate the amounts and the degree of natural variability.

Steve Taylor
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 2, 2021 7:29 am

…because during the entrapment, the CO2 in the compressing column of snow-ice can still exchange with higher layers ?

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Taylor
May 2, 2021 8:26 am

Yes it can “Bubble Out” of earlier deeper layers of firn thereby lowering past ice fast measurements potential accuracy relative to actual atmospheric concentrations at the time in question.

Then there is this…

The CO2 bulge ends with the onset of the LIA around 1600 AD where CO2 declines in all ice core records

Which stands to demonstrate the fact that colder temperatures lagged the Drop in CO2 and weren’t caused by it. Most other records indicate the LIA temperature drop began about 200-300 years prior to the End of the Bulge in 1600
Apparently CO2 concentration LAGS Temperature variances

Last edited 12 days ago by Bryan A
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Bryan A
May 2, 2021 9:54 am

Bryan A,

Please clarify the following sentences of your post:
“Which stands to demonstrate the fact that colder temperatures lagged the Drop in CO2 and weren’t caused by it. Most other records indicate the LIA temperature drop began about 200-300 years prior to the End of the Bulge in 1600
Apparently CO2 concentration LAGS Temperature variances”

The first sentence stands contrary to the second and third sentences.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 2, 2021 6:52 pm

I often place the horse before the cart
I definitely meant cart before the horse though

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 2, 2021 8:03 am

Makes sense. I often see alarmists claim ice core measurements are precise and I doubted it. I’ll remember this next time I hear about ice cores.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2021 7:28 am

You should not try to relate “apples” to “oranges”. Comparing averages over differant time scales will always give you differences,
The high resolution ice core data from Summit when adjusted for diffusion in solids shows less age differences in the 20th century.

Last edited 12 days ago by Fred Haynie
griff
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2021 9:52 am

CO2 is going up…

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  griff
May 2, 2021 9:56 am

… global temps aren’t cooperating

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  griff
May 2, 2021 10:05 am

data for April 2021 included.

Screen Shot 2021-05-02 at 12.03.49 PM.png
Robert A Davis
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 2, 2021 2:04 pm

… global temps aren’t cooperating”

According to your plot they are. This data is trending up at 1.36 deg/C, with a standard error of that trend of 0.0656 deg/C. There is a 95% chance that the trend is between 1.23deg/C and 1.49deg/C. I don’t think my wife’s desktop can calculate the chance that the trend is flat/down, i.e. “aren’t cooperating”.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Robert A Davis
May 2, 2021 2:50 pm

Well, first of all, subtract out the pre-1950 baseline as per the scientific null hypothesis, then give it another eyeballing and I think you might be able to see that it’s ENSO that is being cooperated with.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Robert A Davis
May 2, 2021 5:34 pm

by “aren’t cooperating” means lack of agreement with junk model outputs.

Using HadCRUT4 from last year:
(see attached fig below)
And now 12 months on from that figure, the discrepancy is even far worse. See the above UAH global Temp of Lower Troposphere (TLT) through April 2021.

Screen Shot 2021-05-02 at 7.32.21 PM.png
Last edited 12 days ago by joelobryan
Abolition Man
Reply to  griff
May 2, 2021 10:56 am

Since 1800!? What part of the words ICE AGE are unclear to you!?

fred250
Reply to  griff
May 2, 2021 1:57 pm

“CO2 is going up…”

.
Thanks girff… that is GREAT NEWS for all life on Earth !

philincalifornia
Reply to  fred250
May 2, 2021 2:51 pm

Not if you’re still wetting the bed in adulthood (allegedly).

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
May 2, 2021 2:46 pm

No shit Sherlock.

……. and Arctic sea ice extent closed out April above 2004. It may be going up, but it seems to be having a stamina issue.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  griff
May 2, 2021 4:44 pm

but not the temperatures … there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures … 0, nada, zilch … its a failed theory … which has failed in every 30 year timeframe its been observed …

Renee
Reply to  The Dark Lord
May 2, 2021 5:25 pm

It is difficult to compare CO2 and temperatures. One is in ice age and the other is in CO2 shifted gas age. Good luck.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
May 2, 2021 7:02 pm

Stop breathing!

JCM
May 2, 2021 7:33 am

Splicing modern direct observations with smoothed historical proxies have many problems that few seem to acknowledge.

Redge
Reply to  JCM
May 2, 2021 7:58 am

And several try to hide

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  JCM
May 2, 2021 8:18 am

The illusion of knowledge is a Siren’s Call to the rocks. The temptations are great, the rewards appear many in the short term for career promotion to get a paper published, but it usually does not turn out well.

SirensCall_Clisci.jpg
Last edited 12 days ago by joelobryan
Jean Parisot
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 2, 2021 8:39 am

Replace prestige with stock options in green energy companies and the graphic nails it.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jean Parisot
May 2, 2021 9:58 am

tenure = career security
grants = money (or stock options if you prefer)
prestige = ego soothng

commieBob
May 2, 2021 7:39 am

In the Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments, Ed. V. Gornitz, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Earth Science Series, 2008, there is a chapter on dissolved CO2 in the ocean which contains the following:

On time scales <10^5yrs, the ocean is the largest inorganic carbon reservoir (~38,000 Pg C) in exchange with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and as a result, the ocean exerts a dominant control on atmospheric CO2 levels.

(The ‘^’ was supplied by me because the superscript didn’t survive the copy/paste operation.)

It should be uncontroversial that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere does not control the level of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. In fact, the reverse is true. A rise in atmospheric CO2 starting around 1600, as shown in the above ice core data, is probably a sign of warming in the deep ocean where most of the CO2 resides.

Last edited 12 days ago by commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
May 2, 2021 7:47 am

The thermohaline circulation being about 800 years it is possible that the oceans are releasing CO2 absorbed at the early stages of the LIA during the 13th Century.and/ or that the reduced cloudiness of the recent warm period has been allowing increased sunlight to drive more CO2 from the tropical ocean surfaces.

Phil.
Reply to  commieBob
May 2, 2021 8:56 am

Atmospheric CO2 levels will control the CO2 dissolved in the atmosphere when the atmospheric concentration is above the equilibrium value for the ocean temperature then CO2 will enter the ocean. The increase in atmospheric [CO2] to over 400ppm would have required a larger increase in ocean surface temperature than has occurred.

commieBob
Reply to  Phil.
May 2, 2021 9:25 am

A calculation based on the information in this paper shows that a 0.1C increase in the deep ocean temperature would change the CO2 solubility enough to explain the modern increase in atmospheric CO2.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  commieBob
May 2, 2021 1:52 pm

It would seem.to be difficult to seperate the difference between warming caused co2 increase, and co2 caused warming.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Jean Parisot
May 2, 2021 4:48 pm

actually, it isn’t … CO2 causes a minuscule increase in air temperature and an even smaller increase in ocean temperature … CO2 can’t have caused the ocean warming …

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  commieBob
May 3, 2021 12:27 am

CommieBob,

That paper shows the solubility of CO2 in fresh water at 10 bar (220 psi) and higher, little resemblance with the solubility in seawater with 0.0004 bar CO2 partial pressure in the current atmosphere…

commieBob
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 4:45 am

Most of the CO2 is stored in deep water at very high pressure and as something other than a gas. As such, its solubility is exquisitely sensitive to temperature.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  commieBob
May 3, 2021 7:39 am

Deep ocean water doesn’t play any role at all, as it is largely isolated from the atmosphere. Only the upper 100-200 meter layer of the oceans (the “mixed” layer) in close contact with the atmosphere is of interest. It is that layer which exchanges CO2 with the atmosphere at high speed (half life time less than a year).
Lucky for us, it is not the deep oceans: with the cold temperatures there, the levels of CO2 would drop a lot in the atmosphere…

The exchange with the deep oceans does matter on longer time scales, as there is a continuous exchange via the THC: with sinks near the poles and upwelling near the equator. That may explain in part the long lags of CO2 after temperature changes…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 9:35 pm

“Deep ocean water doesn’t play any role at all, …”

“The exchange with the deep oceans does matter on longer time scales, …”

What’s wrong with this picture?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2021 12:57 pm

The time stamp of exchange rates:

Less than a year for the surface layer.
Around 800 years for the deep oceans.

KcTaz
Reply to  Phil.
May 3, 2021 1:49 am

Phil, how does CO2 “disolve” in the atmosphere?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  commieBob
May 3, 2021 12:51 am

ComieBob, I am a little late in de discussion, but on this point there is no doubt left.

It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the oceans, all what matters is the partial pressure of CO2 in seawater surface (not the deep oceans) compared to the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The partial pressure of CO2 in the seawater surface depends mainly of the following items:

  • The CO2 (and derivatives like bicarbonates and carbonates, together DIC) concentrations
  • The pH
  • Temperature

With over 3 million samples taken of the ocean surface, the trends at fixed places show that

  1. DIC increased over time
  2. The pH dropped a little
  3. Temperature increased a little

See: https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/27-1_bates.pdf

The above shows that the CO2 flow is from the atmosphere into the ocean surface, not reverse.

  • With a temperature increase, DIC should decrease and the pH should increase.
  • With a pH decrease (e.g. by underwater volcanic SO2), DIC should decrease.

The solubility of CO2 in seawater for temperature changes is exactly measured and the following formula is used to compensate for the temperature difference between the inlet and the automatic equilibrium measurements on board of commercial vessels:
(pCO2)sw @ Tin situ = (pCO2)sw @ Teq x EXP[0.0423 x (Tin-situ – Teq)]

Which translates to about 16 ppmv/K around the average ocean surface temperature.
Or about 13 ppmv increase from the warming ocean surface since the Little Ice age.
The rest of the 110 ppmv increase is from us, humans…

commieBob
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 5:38 am

So, why do the ice cores show atmospheric CO2 shooting up starting as early as 1600 but in any event well before humans started pumping much CO2 into the atmosphere?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  commieBob
May 3, 2021 7:51 am

The CO2 levels were lower from 1600 on than in the period before and only from about 1800 at the same level as the period 1200-1500…

law_dome_1000yr.jpg
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 9:38 pm

The above shows that the CO2 flow is from the atmosphere into the ocean surface, not reverse.

I presume you mean the net flow. Could that be changing as the ocean surface warms, or deep water from colder times in the past upwells?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2021 1:34 pm

Clyde, indeed the net flow.

If the temperature of the ocean changes somewhere, the equilibrium pCO2 of the waters with the atmosphere at that point changes with about 16 μatm/K

Near the poles, the waters are very cold and the pCO2 of the waters is around 150 μatm. Near the equator they are around 750 μatm. With the atmosphere around 400 μatm, there is a CO2 flux between the atmosphere and the ocean surface near the poles and from the ocean surface to the atmosphere near the equator. That flux is estimated at around 40 GtC/year in and out, which is maintained by the THC, which transports CO2 enriched waters from the poles to the equator via the deep oceans.

As long as there is an equilibrium between the influx and outflux, nothing happens with the atmospheric CO2. If the ocean surface warms everywhere with 1 K, that will result in a temporarily increase in CO2 outflux and a temporarily decrease in output due to larger pCO2 difference between waters and atmosphere at the upwelling and the opposite at the downwelling,
Until the atmospheric pCO2 increased with 16 μatm (~ppmv) and the fluxes are in equilibrium again…

The same for any increase or decrease in CO2 levels of the deep ocean waters since the past 800 years… But I don’t think that would be a big deal: even if all human emissions ultimately ends in the deep oceans, that is only 1% of all deep ocean carbon species and once in equilibrium with the atmosphere, that is not more than 3 ppmv…

upwelling_temp.jpg
Bart
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 5, 2021 12:45 pm

Still doing that static thinking I see.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bart
May 6, 2021 11:34 am

Hi Bart, that is a long time ago…

I don’t think that a full deep ocean exchange with the atmosphere of 40 GtC/year is static, it is called a “dynamic” equilibrium…

Sweet Old Bob
May 2, 2021 7:43 am

“The CO2 ‘Shift Method’ using Siple data was notably highlighted by Jaworowski, 2004. He pointed out that high CO2 concentrations of 328 ppm occurred in 1890 AD in the Siple ice core which did not match the interpreted CO2 baseline. The entire Siple CO2 data was simply shifted by 83 years to match modern instrumental CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa in 1973. This simple shift method continues to be an accepted technique for “correcting” the younger gas age in ice cores. ”

So , the data must be “corrected ” again ….

Editor
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
May 2, 2021 7:49 am

Yep, Renee’s point is that the CO2 hockey stick we are presented with in the media, may very well be contrived. The CO2 “spike” the alarmists worry about, may not be real.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
May 3, 2021 1:02 am

Seet Old Bob,

Let Dr. Jaworowski rest in peace, including his ideas about ice cores. He was completely wrong when he wrote that in 1992 and was completely refuted by the work of Etheridge e.a. in 1996, but still published his wrong ideas in 2004…
Especially the “shift” which never took place: he looked at the wrong column of the age if the ice of Neftel’s Siple Dome measurements i.s.o. the average age of the gas in the bubbles. The gas age IS ALWAYS many decades to centuries younger than the surrounding ice for the simple reason that the pores in snow and firn remain open for many decades to centuries, thus remain connected to the open atmosphere, until the pores are closed at 70-80 m depth. Meanwhile, the surrounding ice is already 40 to 600 years older, depending of the snow accumulation rate.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

Joel O'Bryan
May 2, 2021 8:04 am

“This simple shift method continues to be an accepted technique for “correcting” the younger gas age in ice cores.”

So much stuff like this happens in Climate Science that its practitioners think this is okay and happens in other science disciplines.

In Astrophysics, two methods have been used to determine a Hubble Constant, which has resulting in a discrepancy that curently appears intractable. The difference may seem small, but actually has huge implications when the size of the observable universe and age is considered. Astrophysicists don’t simply “shift” one measure to agree with another. It would be an abhorrent approach that would certainly not help the scientists understand what is really going on, simply to appease one faction in the debate to be the “winner” with the prestige and career promotions.

Climate Science is severely broken until the main-stream practitioners who get the prestigious journal publications in the field can fix these urges to “shift” and smooth and ignore uncertainties in data-based results to push an agenda and fit pre-conceived model outputs.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 2, 2021 10:23 am

“So much stuff like this happens in Climate Science that its practitioners think this is okay and happens in other science disciplines. ”

Yes , Climate Science has become “Claimate Science” .
😉

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 3, 2021 1:20 am

Joel, there are many things going wrong in climate science, but there are two points where they are right: we are responsible for the 40% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the oceans or volcanoes and the difference between ice and gas age in ice cores is real.

The latter was proven by Etheridge e.a.. in 1996 by drilling three cores at Law Dome. At 72 m depth, the ice was already 40 years old, but the CO2 levels only 10 ppmv below the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that is about 10 years older, as measured at the South Pole.

law_dome_firn.jpg
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 9:45 pm

we are responsible for the 40% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, …

Then why, when the photosynthesis sinks were dormant, and the annual rise in CO2 concentration is most sensitive to supply, is there no discernible change in slope when anthropogenic emissions presumably declined by 18% for 3 or 4 months?

How does the atmosphere know the difference between anthropogenic CO2 and all the other sources?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2021 2:24 pm

Clyde, the sinks don’t react on what is emitted in one year, they react on the total extra CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere above equilibrium for the current average ocean surface temperature. That would be around 290 ppmv today. About 2% of that extra pressure will be absorbed by the sinks (oceans, vegetation) each year, no matter the current emissions or origin of the individual CO2 molecules.

Human emissions in normal years are around 4.5 ppmv/year, or 1.5 ppmv in 4 months. A drop of 18% means that the total increase would be 1.23 ppmv. Which difference with 1.5 ppmv is hardly detectable as the accuracy of the method is about 0.2 ppmv and the seasonal change is +/- 4 ppmv and the natural variability is +/- 1.5 ppmv…
Only after a full year or even several years of a 20% drop the deviation would be certain…

Abolition Man
May 2, 2021 8:11 am

Interesting, but what does it all mean?
From the included graphs it appears that the rapid rise in CO2 began 200 years ago! What caused that? Human emissions seem unlikely; perhaps there was a major increase in sea floor vulcanism and venting! We don’t know enough about the dynamics of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere OR the lithosphere, far less the mantle; to be throwing trillions of dollars away on snake oil and charms!
How about spending all our extra money on real science and solutions to actual human problems like poverty and reliable food, water and energy for the world! One of the first effects of leaving poverty behind would be a halting of population growth; but maybe the Greens don’t want that to occur because they are sure their plans for population are much more fun to implement! I’m beginning to doubt that there are any depths to which GangGreen will not go!

TennDon
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 2, 2021 8:44 am

GangGreen is so descriptive. Should become the name for all the Warministas!

DMA
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 2, 2021 8:57 am

“From the included graphs it appears that the rapid rise in CO2 began 200 years ago! What caused that? Human emissions seem unlikely”
Until about 1960 the rise in atmospheric CO2 was less than all human emissions (Climate Miracle by Dr. Ed Berry) so your question is very pertinent. That natural increase in CO2 didn’t just stop in 1960. The IPCC statement that ” the recent rise in CO2 is entirely caused by human emissions” is falsified by these facts.

Abolition Man
Reply to  DMA
May 2, 2021 9:42 am

DMA,
Why do “IPCC” and “falsified” fit so well together in SO many sentences?

ATheoK
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 3, 2021 3:47 am

IPCC formed under UN missions and operations.Formed by the UN’s WMO (World Meteorological Organization)

Under IPCC guidelines:

Working Groups and Task Force

IPCC assessments and special reports are prepared by three Working Groups, each looking at a different aspect of the science related to climate change:

Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis),

Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), and

Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change).

The IPCC also has a Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, whose main objective is to develop and refine a methodology for the calculation and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals.

The Working Groups and Task Force handle the preparation of reports, selecting and managing the experts that work on them as authors.

The activities of each Working Group and the Task Force are supported by their Technical Support Units (TSU).”

Note the responsibilities and wordings.
Physical science basis.
Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
Mitigation.

That is, the IPCC/UNFCCC missions assumes Climate Change is bad; that mankind causes those bad things to happen and that the UN/WMO/IPCC are central components to managing/preventing climate change.
Basically, that the UN assumes control of global climate change actions.
Along with the control of alleged observations and analyses that form the basis for UN actions.

Put simply, it is near impossible to convince someone of something when their income, career and awards are based their supporting opposing positions.
And the IPCC, WMO, UN, UNFCCC all depend on maintaining that civilized mankind is responsible and can support the expenses of the chosen change.

Once again putting into perspective the missions of official alarmists are to change world government through their reporting and that researcher’s purpose is to supply facts to support that world change.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  DMA
May 3, 2021 8:01 am

DMA,

I had a lot of discussions with Dr. Berry, as he used the reverse formula of the residence time in his reasoning, which you may not do if some flows are reversing in direction (like all seasonal CO2 fluxes), but that is another discussion.

Anyway, since 1900, human emissions are about twice the increase in the atmosphere, thus the increase in the atmosphere is (near) entirely caused by human emissions…

acc_co2_1900_cur.jpg
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 9:47 pm

How can you eliminate the possibility that it is a spurious correlation?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2021 2:31 pm

Clyde,

If all evidence points to the same cause and no evidence contradicts it, it may be assumed that it is the cause…
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

Even the single fact that emissions in every year of the past 60 years of accurate measurements were higher than the increase in the atmosphere is already sufficient: that means that nature as a whole was a net sink for CO2, not a source and thus not the cause of the increase…

Bart
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 5, 2021 12:51 pm

No, that is not sufficient.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bart
May 6, 2021 11:41 am

Bart, the only possibility for a natural cause is if the natural carbon cycle in the past 60 years increased a fourfold, the same as the increase in human emissions.

For which is not the slightest proof, to the contrary: the residence time slightly increased over time, but should have been reduced a fourfold if your theory was right…

RichDo
May 2, 2021 8:30 am

“… WAIS CO2 data is systematically 3-4 ppm higher than Law Dome ice core CO2 data (Ahn, 2012). Scientists cannot explain this deviation and frequently just subtract 4 ppm from this dataset (Bereiter, 2014).”

This is a stunning statement. I am unfamiliar with the referenced studies so perhaps I’m missing something but if there is no explanation for the difference what is the justification for adjusting one of the two data sets? Why not add 4ppm to the Law Dome data? How can anyone who manipulates observational data this way call themselves “scientists”?

Reply to  RichDo
May 2, 2021 9:05 am

WAIS CO2 data is systematically 3-4 ppm higher than Law Dome ice core CO2 data (Ahn, 2012)

That would not be because of the volcanoes in West Antarctica would it?

Table 1 Comparison of Number of Volcanic Events Detected During the Period of 1–2000 CE in Ice Cores From Several Antarctica Locations
Ice_Core; Location; #of Events; Match; Reference.
WDC; WAIS_Divide; 84; (This work).
WDC; WAIS_Divide; 89; Event matched with WDC 66; Sigl et al. (2013) .
DSS; Law_Dome; 43 Event matched with WDC 32; Plummer et al. (2012) .
.
Cole‐Dai, J.,et al. 2021. Comprehensive record of volcanic eruptions in the Holocene (11,000 years) from the WAIS Divide, Antarctica ice core. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres,

Renee
Reply to  RichDo
May 2, 2021 9:21 am

<i>Why not add 4 ppm to the Law Dome data? <i>

This is a valid question. Due to high accumulation rates and the absence of impurities in the ice, Law Dome is considered the premier dataset. Rubino, 2019, speculates that WAIS has more impurities in the ice which may possibly lead to in situ CO2 production. The fact that the shift is systematic across all of the data and not just where there are higher impurities makes me question this assumption. Scatter in data is trying to tell a story, however, any deviation from the gold dataset in Climate science is suppressed.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  RichDo
May 3, 2021 8:15 am

In my education time and as an engineer, data was never “adjusted”. It was either removed as unreliable or new measurements were taken. The user of the data was responsible for what ever method was used to “fill in” missing data. This doesn’t mean you couldn’t “correct” data if there was a valid reason, such as a correction chart from the manufacturer or a comprehensive study found a miscalibrated instrument. However, each correction was noted with a footnote as to what, why, when, and by whom.

This “adjustment” appears to be so far from having an scientific basis that one must be concerned about the value of the data.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 4, 2021 2:49 pm

Jim, in the case of ice cores “shifting” of data, there is zero adjustment of the data, only a shift in time, on good, scientific grounds.

While the layers of ice (=ice age) grows, the pores between the ice crystals still are open in direct connection with the open atmosphere. At closing depth (about 70-80 meters) where the pores get too narrow to have much exchange left, the ice age may be 40 years (with thick layers of ice per year) or several thousand years (with very thin layers of ice per year), while the CO2 levels still are near what they are in the current atmosphere.

Thus there is a proven difference in ice age and average gas age of several decades to several thousands of years, depending of the snow accumulation rate. It is that difference which is in discussion here, while there shouldn’t be a discussion at all, as that is based on firm grounds. One only can discuss the exact timing (which is quite uncertain for deep cores with very thin year layers), but not the principle…

DMA
May 2, 2021 8:33 am

Another consideration brought out by Dr. Salby is that CO2 is not strictly conserved in the formation of the ice. In addition to diffusion there is formation of clathrates that permanently removes CO2 from the gas bubbles. I have often wondered if, after certain pressures are attained, there is a minimum concentration of CO2 that can remain. If so that minimum would be the 280PPM that we are told was the steady state of CO2 before our emissions got large enough to change the atmosphere. Because the ice cores don’t match the early chemical analyses I have concluded the smoothing and non conservation of CO2 in the cores should be viewed quite skeptically and certainly not as “settled fact”.

Richard Page
Reply to  DMA
May 2, 2021 4:11 pm

So the 280 ppm should definitely be viewed as a ‘smoothed minimum’ rather than a direct observation of atmospheric CO2? Would this effect increase as you go further back (ie – increasingly more pressure) or act as a ‘set threshold’ as it were?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Richard Page
May 3, 2021 8:18 am

The pre-industrial ice core levels show values between 180 and 300 ppmv, depending of global temperatures, thus 280 ppmv is not a smoothed minimum…

Renee
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 10:27 am

One could have a smoothed minimum for the interglacial period versus a minimum for the glacial periods.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Renee
May 4, 2021 2:56 pm

Renee, as migration doesn’t stop with time, only with nivellation of the levels, that assumes that equal peaks as measured today were much higher 300 kyear ago than 200 kyear ago and again than 100 kyear ago during the interglacials. Which implies that original values during ice ages were below zero from 100 kyear on further back in time…

Renee
Reply to  DMA
May 2, 2021 4:12 pm

Clathrates form are much deeper depths than data discussed in this post. Although I agree in establishing baselines, especially on minimums.

Reply to  Renee
May 3, 2021 8:46 am

Could the CO2 reduction be an effect of chemoautotrophic bacteria living within the ice layer?
MCLEAN, A. Bacteria of Ice and Snow in Antarctica . Nature102, 35–39 (1918). https://doi.org/10.1038/102035a0

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
May 4, 2021 3:07 pm

From:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/13/4631.pdf
Item K.

If all N2O was used as energy source to convert CO2 to be used as building block for the bacteria, that would be a difference of 1 ppmv…

The Dark Lord
Reply to  DMA
May 2, 2021 4:51 pm

CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas therefore using ice core CO2 measurements from the poles and then comparing them to measurements from Hawaii is less than useless … its fraudulent …

philincalifornia
Reply to  The Dark Lord
May 2, 2021 8:47 pm

…. and then using temperature anomalies to “prove” polar amplification makes it fraudulent squared.

Fraudulent cubed if you run away, run away and hide from the Antarctica data.

Waaaaaaaaah, you climate deniers are just horrid.

Last edited 12 days ago by philincalifornia
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  The Dark Lord
May 3, 2021 8:22 am

Come on, about 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged each year with CO2 of the biosphere and the oceans. 90% of all human emissions are in the NH and you complain about differences of less than 2% full scale between CO2 levels near the North Pole and at the South Pole?

I call that well mixed…

ATheoK
Reply to  DMA
May 3, 2021 3:56 am

I have often wondered if, after certain pressures are attained, there is a minimum concentration of CO2 that can remain.”

As would the observe condition. That in the process of freezing, water limits the amount of CO₂ that is captured. That, under normal conditions, ice captured CO₂ has maximum concentration levels?

Which brings up the question, has anyone performed replicated long term experiments on ice freezing, aggregation and compaction gas components?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  ATheoK
May 4, 2021 3:17 pm

ATheoK,

The CO2 measured in ice cores is not what you find in freezing ice, as that is virtually zero. CO2 is originally in the air between snow crystals and compressed in the depth only in the air bubbles enclosed in ice and some may hide in the liquid-like layer at the surface of the ice or in liquid veins around contamination, but during measurements under vacuum still recovered…
Theoretically it can be between 0% and 100% of all enclosed gases.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  DMA
May 3, 2021 8:16 am

DMA, not the only error Dr. Salby made, but never discussed out here or anywhere else…

  1. With the current sublimation method all CO2 in the ice is recovered, even from clathrates.
  2. Theoretically there could be some migration in relative “warm” ice cores (-23 C) like Siple Dome, but measurements near melt layers showed only a 10% broadening of the gas age range at medium depth (20 to 22 years) and a doubling at full depth (40 years). Not a big deal.
  3. The migration in the very cold inland ice cores (-40 C) like Vostok and Dome C is virtually zero…
  4. If Dr. Salby would be right, migration doesn’t stop with time. That means that the original levels at the peaks were higher and higher with each interglacial back in time and that the original CO2 levels during ice ages were negative when the migration started back before 200,000 years…
Clyde Spencer
May 2, 2021 8:36 am

WAIS CO2 data is systematically 3-4 ppm higher than Law Dome ice core CO2 data

Might it be that the 90-some volcanoes recently found under the ice in WAIS are supplying CO2 that diffuses up through the ice, or elevates the CO2 dissolved in the adjacent ocean, which in turn outgasses and is trapped in the firn?

taxed
May 2, 2021 9:00 am

The cause of the LIA has little to do with CO2.
Am now pretty well convinced it was due to the affects that extended low sun activity have on the jet stream. Which appears to scatter the jet stream over a wider surface area.This increases the amount of jet stream activity within the Arctic circle, slows down the movement of the weather patterning and weakens/changes the formation of the Hadley cell highs over the eastern Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Renee
Reply to  taxed
May 2, 2021 9:58 am

The cause of the LIA has little to do with CO2

The decrease in CO2 during the LIA is also accompanied by a decrease in methane. These decreases suggest that processes releasing GHG slowed down during the LIA cold phase.

taxed
Reply to  Renee
May 2, 2021 10:49 am

The decrease in methane was likely down to cooling in northern Russia. With increased jet stream activity in the Arctic there would have been a greater risk of Polar out brakes over Russia that extended beyond the winter months. l think this was certainly in eastern Russia.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Renee
May 2, 2021 4:53 pm

oh please … unless you ALSO measure water vapor at the same time you are just claiming the tail wagged the dog … That is by far the dominant GHG and you have no idea its concertation at any location …

DMacKenzie
May 2, 2021 9:25 am

Look at Fig. 2, CO2 increase year 1650 to 1700…But we know CO2 started to rise near 1870 or later. It looks like ambient CO2 levels leak downwards into approximately 200 year old ice. You would need something with about a thousand year long verifiable temperature trend to verify if CO2 bubbles in ice are a suitable proxy for temperature. Does anyone know if we have that ? Unlikely, since thermometers were invented in 1714.

May 2, 2021 9:52 am

Despite what ever CO2 increase (or not), in larger parts of Europe May will stay cold.

comment image

comment image

Last edited 12 days ago by Krishna Gans
taxed
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 2, 2021 10:56 am

England has just had its coldest mean temp in April since 1989.
But what has been striking about this April is the amount of frosts we have had. Which have made this April have the lowest daily min temps since 1917.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  taxed
May 2, 2021 11:11 am

You can mention that, but the great fusion ball in the sky with its cycles must not be named.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 2, 2021 4:54 pm

that’s because CO2 doesn’t control temperature …

May 2, 2021 10:32 am

CO2 (g)+ 2H2O (l) + cold = HCO3- + H3O+ (arctic/antarctic)

The area where the CO2 must dissolve in the ocean is getting smaller on account of it getting warmer in the arctic. Hence the zigzag in Hawaii.

However, the reaction is a in equilibrium. Meaning more hydronium ion from the waste of 7 billion people, +++ animals ++++ factories makes the oceans less alkaline, hence the reaction goes to the left, bringing more CO2 in the air.

2 variables: the declining areas where CO2 dissolves + the waste of all of the world

that nobody has ever even mentioned anywhere. I think you will find that that will explain the rise in CO2, mostly.

Not that I think that CO2 causes any warming. That is just a red herring.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  HenryP
May 2, 2021 4:56 pm

the Artic is not getting warmer … homogenizing 2 dozen thermometers over the entire Atric doesn’t count as “measuring” …

Reply to  The Dark Lord
May 2, 2021 10:33 pm

Perhaps click on my name of my first comment to read relevant report.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 2, 2021 11:01 am

Left unmentioned in the above article is the issue of CO2 gas diffusing into surrounding water ice and thereby being chemically converted into carbonic acid ice. One wonders if this is properly unaccounted for when using Greenland ice core analysis to derive paleoclimate atmospheric CO2 concentration levels.

I have not seen an article saying that this is being done.

Sure, by the Arrhenius rule-of-thumb of scaling of reactions rates halving for every 10 °C decrease in temperature of reaction, this process is sure to be slow at Greeland ice core borehole temperatures at depths >200 m ranging from -13 to -32 °C (ref: Figure 9 of Physical and structural properties of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 ice core: A review; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/97JC00165 )

However, a “slow” reaction rate pretty much loses its meaning when one is considering processes occurring over a thousand, let alone over several hundred of thousands, of years.

Last edited 12 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Renee
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 2, 2021 12:03 pm

“Issue of CO2 gas diffusing into surrounding water ice and thereby being chemically converted into carbonic acid ice

This post was limited to Antarctic ice cores and did not use any Greenland ice cores. CO2 data in Greenland ice cores is largely ignored due to suspected chemical reactions. The carbonate content of ice is difficult to measure directly and so the carbonate content is estimated indirectly from the Ca2+ concentrations. Tschumi and Stauffer concluded, after completing a detailed lab study on Greenland cores, that the acid-carbonate reaction can explain only about 20% of the CO2 surplus.

Thanks for your article. Here’s an article discussing possible chemical reactions in ice.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/reconstructing-past-atmospheric-co2-concentration-based-on-icecore-analyses-open-questions-due-to-in-situ-production-of-co2-in-the-ice/3D64BB84BAFBD03B19EDDFBE0676716A

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Renee
May 2, 2021 10:02 pm

Renee,

Thank you for your response and for pointing out the chemical analyses issues with Greenland ice cores vs. Antarctic ice cores.

I wasn’t aware of the subtle chemical differences between the two locations . . .my fault for jumping on the “global climate” bandwagon, I guess. 😉

I’ve downloaded the article that you linked . . . thanks 1E+6 for that . . . and I look forward to reading and studying it.

BTW, I do greatly appreciate your above article, as well as prior ones you’ve written for WUWT!

Finally, I’m wondering if there is any signature of the Younger Dryas rapid climate excursion in the Antarctic ice cores, and if so how such might compare in d(CO2ppm)/dt to the post-1800 AD “hockey stick blade” shown in your Figure 1 above?

Last edited 12 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 3, 2021 6:30 am

“BTW, I do greatly appreciate your above article, as well as prior ones you’ve written for WUWT!”

Me, too! 🙂

Renee
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 3, 2021 8:41 am

“is there any signature of the Younger Dyras rapid climate excursion in Antarctic cores”

The Younger Dryas does not see a CO2 excursion in Antarctic ice core data. It barely sees a rise in the B-A event of only 10 ppm. In contrast, Greenland CO2 from ice core records a 50 ppm rise during the YD, however, this dataset is largely ignored due to hypothetical chemical reactions.
Buizert, C., Adrian, B., Ahn, J., Albert, M., Alley, R. B., … Bencivengo, B. B. (2015). Precise interpolar phasing of abrupt climate change during the last ice age. Nature, 520(7549), 661–665. doi:10.1038/nature14401

7088DD8D-4063-420C-920C-93BBA309E658.jpeg
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Renee
May 3, 2021 12:59 pm

Renee, once again, thank you very much!

Chris Hall
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 3, 2021 7:51 am

It would be interesting to see if anyone measures total carbon, both organic and inorganic (TOC and TIC) within ice cores. Just crushing and/or melting ice and hoping that ALL of the original CO2 is released may not tell the wholes story. Given the amazing discoveries of extremophiles in some pretty unusual places, I wouldn’t be shocked if biology even reared its complicated head.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Chris Hall
May 3, 2021 11:30 am

Extremophiles are found in the Vostok ice core, where there is inclusion of dust. These bacteria use nitrogen to convert CO2 in carbon for which thy use a different synthesis that produces energy that ends in N2O. The total amount of N2O is less than 1 ppmv, thus even if all N2O was produced by extremephiles, the drop in CO2 wouldn’t be more than 1 ppmv…
See the interesting paper about extremophiles, Item K. for Vostok:
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/101/13/4631.full.pdf

dk_
May 2, 2021 11:20 am

Although I’m assured frequently that it doesn’t make a difference, I still wonder at the standard of using a single-point measurement for global CO2 concentrations that is (>1km?) above an active volcano field and year round cultivation. In every measurement of any other element of actively chaning chemistries, to obtain an average we must have many, dispersed arrays of sensors, with calibration and uncertainty calculated for each. I’m much more skeptical, now, of the measurement system for CO2.

KcTaz
Reply to  dk_
May 3, 2021 2:18 am

dk,
I feel the same way. However, I’m not a scientist but it simply makes no sense to me and never has to use Mana Loa as the measuring point for CO2. Sigh. I assume it’s my ignorance but I certainly wish it could be explained to me how those measurements are a reliable measurement of CO2 on the entire Earth.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  KcTaz
May 3, 2021 6:33 am

Doesn’t NASA have a satellite or two that measures CO2 in the atmosphere. Funny, you never seem to hear about any of their results. Has anything been learned from these CO2 satellites?

Renee
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 3, 2021 2:18 pm

The satellite data from GOSAT shows how much terrestrial vegetation affects CO2 on a seasonal basis in the Northern Hemisphere. During winter months when vegetation is dormant, CO2 increases to 415 ppm and during summer growth months, CO2 decreases by 20ppm.

BFFDE33E-1F1A-4C1C-92B3-B2FDD6362571.jpeg
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  dk_
May 3, 2021 8:42 am

dk, CO2 is measured at 10 “background” stations around the world by NOAA and about 70 other “background” stations from other organizations in other countries. Besides that there are over 400 stations that monitor CO2 fluxes in and out forests, fields, etc.

Here an overview of the most important stations:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/

And here the parallel figures of CO2 measurements in different stations:
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends.html
It hardly matters if you take the measurements of 1 station or several for “global” averages.

The calibration of the CO2 monitoring devices is one of the best and most rigorous procedure I have seen for a field measurement. One can only hope that one day the temperature measurements were done in the same way…
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
But just read that they replaced the previous CO2 analyzer by another system, which is even more accurate…

Jackie Pratt
May 2, 2021 12:11 pm

I cannot tell from my read of the article,
so a question: does the author accept all of the ‘shifts’ made? They seem to be arbitrary. Or I’m being typically dense…… again. Thanks. JBP

Renee
Reply to  Jackie Pratt
May 2, 2021 1:44 pm

Does the author accept all of the ‘shifts’ made?

The shifts over the recent 1000 years AD appear to be reasonable. The data aligns up over the bulge and hockey stick fairly well. However, the entire ice CO2 datasets are uniformly shifted. Time should be a dynamic shift, not a static shift. Lower accumulation rate sites such as Vostok and Dome C which have large shifts of thousands of years are much more problematic.

One of the purposes of this post was to demonstrate the interpretative modifications of CO2 measurements that are used to create the CO2 hockey stick as the final product. I do not believe the hockey stick comparing atmospheric/firn CO2 data to ice core data is realistic. The atmospheric data must be attenuated for a fair comparison.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Renee
May 3, 2021 8:46 am

Renee, as far as I know, the ice age – gas age difference which is calculated by a model for the low accumulation ice cores takes into account the fact that in cold periods there is less precipitation, and thus a longer ice age – gas age difference…

Chris Hall
May 2, 2021 1:27 pm

One thing that makes me skeptical of the ice core trapped CO2 proxy for atmospheric CO2 is that the drop in apparent CO2 from the MWP to the LIA is only about one quarter that of the rise from the LIA until the present warming period, even before any possible anthropogenic signature. Let’s say ~1850 to 1950.

This strongly suggests to me that decadal to millennial scale variations have been dramatically attenuated in the ice core record. Until we understand why this is so, we cannot be really confident about this proxy subtle climatic variations. Just arm waving about the age-CO2 difference just doesn’t cut it.

Renee
Reply to  Chris Hall
May 2, 2021 2:17 pm

”decadal to millennial scale variations have been dramatically attenuated in the ice core record

Attenuation of CO2 occurs in the firn layer due to gas diffusion and gradual bubble close-off
during the transition from firn to ice. Gas concentrations are therefore, an average of atmospheric concentrations over a period of time. This average is referred to as the gas-age distribution and is calculated in years shown in figure 3b. This smoothing removes fast variability from the record such as the decadal variations.

The gas age distribution or smoothing ranges from 10 years at high accumulation sites DE08-2 to over 500 years at low accumulation sites such as Vostok. The gas smoothing effect can be roughly approximated when comparing atmospheric CO2 data to CO2 ice data by applying a Gaussian filter corresponding to the gas-age distribution (Trudinger, 2002, and Spahni, 2003). However, most CO2 historical graphs simply tack on atmospheric CO2 to ice CO2 without applying any smoothing.

Last edited 12 days ago by Renee
Chris Hall
Reply to  Renee
May 2, 2021 5:42 pm

That still does not address the point of my skepticism. even if there is a low pass filter for CO2, which is basically your argument, the MWP CO2 levels should have at least approximated the 1950 levels. Yet their rise above the LIA values are tiny by comparison. This tells me that there is a lot of CO2 missing in the deeper ice cores.

Renee
Reply to  Chris Hall
May 2, 2021 6:01 pm

Chris,
I agree with you. There are significant changes that happen to CO2 concentrations as they pass through the Bubble Zone with depth. The physical process of burial history, compaction and its effect on CO2 are not well documented and quantified.

Could the 1940-55 flat spot in the DE08 data be an artifact of the bubble zone? It’s concurrent with the top of ice for WAIS, Siple, and DSS. And porosity density data shows the top of DE08 is still being compressed.

Last edited 12 days ago by Renee
Chris Hall
Reply to  Renee
May 2, 2021 6:36 pm

If there are significant changes below the Bubble Zone, then it’s a lousy millennial scale proxy. That could explain why the MWP, which lasted much longer than the 1850-1950 warming, shows such a tiny rise in CO2. The CO2 had to go somewhere. The trouble with CO2, compared to some other proxies, like noble gases, is that there is chemistry involved. That always complicates things.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Chris Hall
May 3, 2021 8:50 am

Chris, humans started to use coal already in the 1750’s, but the main industrial revolution is from 1850 on. From that date, the CO2 emissions increased at about twice the resulting increase in the atmosphere. In 1950, already some 40 ppmv were emitted (if that remained in the atmosphere) and the CO2 levels already increased with about 20 ppmv.

Chris Hall
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 3, 2021 9:23 am

Circular reasoning. The period from 1850 to 1950 included significant warming. How much of the CO2 rise was from the warming? I don’t know of any alarmists who claim that CO2 prior to 1950 contributed at all to the recent warming. The emissions were just too small. Add in the likely short half of CO2 in the atmosphere and this becomes an even greater stretch (e.g. C-14 from the bomb tests). You have to factor in the fact that the world’s total population by the end of WWII was MUCH smaller than the current one and it was significantly less industrialized.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Chris Hall
May 3, 2021 11:44 am

Chris, as far as I know, even the IPCC admits that before 1950, the extra levels of CO2 were too low to have any measurable warming effect, thus until 1950 all warming was natural.
That doesn’t exclude that there was already an increase of CO2 caused by the twice as high human emissions.

And the half life time of CO2 is not that short: about 50 years for an excess amount of CO2 to get absorbed (as mass) into (deep) oceans and vegetation. The short 4-5 years residence time is a cycle (“turnover”) time, not a decay time.
The 14C decay time is about 14 years (already 3 times the residence time), but is faster than for a 12CO2 excess time, as what goes into the deep oceans is the isotopic composition of today, what comes out of the oceans is the isotopic composition of about 1000 years ago…
That gives that in 1960, peak of the bomb 14C, 97.5% of all 12CO2 returned out of the deep, but only 45% of all 14CO2…

14co2_distri_1960.jpg
Peter W
May 2, 2021 4:04 pm

My personal observations/theory are as follows:

Plate tectonics creates lots of volcanic activity in the deep ocean; consider for example the Atlantic mid-oceanic ridge. All of this volcanic activity injects lots of CO2 into the cold, deep ocean which then essentially saturates with the gas. The amount of gas which the ocean can absorb varies with the temperature of the oceans

Conversely, the trenches contain lots of decayed vegetable matter which is violently buried in the trenches as the result of earthquakes. This is the eventual source of the volcanic CO2. All else being equal, we have CO2 stability.

However, a lot of carbon has been stored in coal deposits, put there in the distant past by events such as the dinosaur-killing asteroid which ignited vast forest fires worldwide and whose aftereffects resulted in the burying of vast amounts of carbon due to the large amount of plant growth due, in turn, to higher CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

By mining and burning that coal we are merely returning earth to a more prolific status; increasing plant growth but obviously, unlike what some theorists believe, not significantly affecting temperature. Normal non-ice age recent levels have been around 290 ppm CO2. We are now over 410 ppm, an approximate 40% increase with little to no increase in temperature contrary to the fear-mongering.

Back in 1968 an academic fear-monger claimed that by now we would all be starving to death in his book “The Population Bomb.” We have had that increase in population without starvation, and the reason is because of the enhanced plant growth due to the increase in CO2.

The Dark Lord
May 2, 2021 4:40 pm

apples and oranges … CO2 in the polar caps vs CO2 in Hawaii … CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas as the satellites have proven … useless study

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  The Dark Lord
May 3, 2021 11:51 am

Do you call a 2% variability of CO2 between the North Pole and the South Pole, while 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with vegetation and oceans over the seasons NOT well mixed? Well mixed doesn’t mean that a change in one place is immediately distributed all over the earth. It takes several year to do that, as the ITCZ allows only 10% per year of air mass exchanges between the NH and SH and 90% of all human emissions are in the NH…

Geoff Sherrington
May 2, 2021 5:00 pm

Renee,
In the early years there was frequent complaint that not all of the relevent analysis results were available to the public. Steve McIntyre often wrote about this, often about Law Dome.
What is the present state of data release?
Are you confident that you can access all of the past work in a useful format?
Have you used essentially all of the past work in this essay?
Are there still parts of drill holes with data unreleased? Geoff S

Renee
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 2, 2021 5:20 pm

Excellent question. Ice core records are fairly easy to find in gas age and I have referenced all the most recent datasets. The actual data measurements in ice age are rare and only hit or miss. Firn data is discussed in publications but the actual datasets are not publicly available. CO2 data in depth, the raw unaltered data, is scant. My next post will be documenting available CO2 data in depth.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Renee
May 2, 2021 9:45 pm

Renee, If you make email contact I might be able to assist that quest.
sherro01 at outlook dot com Geoff S

CRISP
May 3, 2021 12:43 am

This article is welcomed but could do with a rewrite as it is far from clear what these adjustments are, in what direction they are, whether are post hoc alterations made to fit the desired outcome, whether these adjustments are even justified by any science etc.
My impression from this article is that the adjustments are based on the caprice and whim of the researcher rather than on scientific rigour.

Renee
Reply to  CRISP
May 3, 2021 6:54 am

Crisp,

Check out Bender, 1997; Schwander, 1984; and Trudinger, 2002 in the bibliography for the science justification and calculations of CO2 diffusion within the firn, the ice gas age delta and gas distribution width. The lower the accumulation rate, the larger the delta and gas width.

Ferdberple
May 3, 2021 9:00 am

The problem with adjustments and corrections is that they are always made in the direction of the assumed “correct” answer.

As such, why bother with measurements? If you know from assumption the direction of the correct answer, you can reapply your assumptions repeatedly to move the result, until it agrees 100% with your assumptions.

The “correction by assumption” method has worked famously for global temperature so why not for ice cores?

Ferdberple
May 3, 2021 9:15 am

the gas air age delta is beautifully linearly correlated to CO2
========
What this says loud and clear is that CO2 concentrations are not stable in ice. That the CO2 slowly leaches out of the air bubbles trapped in ice.

Makes sense to me. We know that chemical reactions continue in ice, at a slower rate. If CO2 has a higher solubility in ice as compared to the solubility of air in ice, then CO2 leaching should be expected.

Which is not going to be popular with climate science. As I recall Bob Carter argued strongly that CO2 was not stable in ice bubbles and got a lot of grief as a result.

Last edited 11 days ago by ferdberple
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Ferdberple
May 3, 2021 11:57 am

Ferd, where should that CO2 hide? With the grating technique, any present water-like layer on the bubble surface or in between the ice crystals is removed under vacuum and water trapped in a cold trap. That gives the same result as the newer sublimation technique where everything is sublimated and cryogenically separated and measured with a mass spectrometer…

Steve Z
May 3, 2021 12:51 pm

When looking at lag times between changes in CO2 concentrations in the air and in ice, the ice core sites need to be segregated between those in the Northern Hemisphere (Greenland or other northern glacier) and those on Antarctica.

Most anthropogenic CO2 emissions occur over the Northern Hemisphere (due to the much higher land mass there), and could migrate to Greenland much faster than to Antarctica, so that the lag time should be shorter for ice cores in Greenland.

Mauna Loa, where the “standard” CO2 concentration is measured, is on a mountain on a tropical island thousands of miles from most anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and also thousands of miles from any glaciers or ice caps. Should we not consider a lag time between CO2 emissions and a change in concentration at Mauna Loa? It is also possible that CO2 concentrations are much higher over major metropolitan areas than at Mauna Loa.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Steve Z
May 4, 2021 3:36 pm

The difference in “background” CO2 levels between near the North Pole (Barrow) and the South Pole is not more that 8 ppmv on 410 ppmv, seasonal amplitudes removed.
These CO2 levels are measured in 95% of the atmospheric mass: over all oceans to 30 km height and from a few hundred meters over land to 30 km height.
Only in the few hundred meters over land you can find CO2 levels between 250 and 650 ppmv, due to local sources and sinks.

About lag times: about half a year between ground level (Barrow) and 4 km height (Mauna Loa) and about two years between Barrow and the South Pole:

co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
Greg
May 3, 2021 8:44 pm

It is amazing how all the vastly different CO2 datasets overlap quite nicely with few exceptions.

It’s not that amazing once you are familiar with the concept of “data homogenisation”. Entire conferences are held where the declared aim is to get all the various datasets to agree with one another.

This is essentially a politically motivated venture to reduce the variability between different proxies and thus remove any perceived “doubt” in the reliability of the data and allow otherwise unwarranted claims of low uncertainty.

Where a divergence or contradictory values occur, selective reasoning is used to find a means of “correcting” any data not fitting the program: cooling the past and warming the future.

The classic example is “Mike’s Nature Trick” ™, where Briffa’s inconveniently plunging tree ring proxy was quite simple truncated and this trucation was hidden by deliberate slight of hand.

Another fine example is Josh Willis’ 2006 ocean cooling, where the “super accurate” ARGO data showed a slight cooling of the oceans between 2005 and 2006.

Willis had a conference booked where he was going to announce this important finding but he was told to get with the program. He then searched all the ARGO data for any inconveniently cool measurements which were spoiling the narrative. He identified a series of ARGO floats which were duly deemed “defected” and removed from the database. Problem solved.

What was NOT done was an objective review of the data to find any floats which where either warmer or cooler by an a priori defined margin. Neither was the geographic distribution of the offending floats analysed. Maybe they were all in a warm water current somewhere, quite possibly from the same deployment since there were from the same production batch.

This is NOT objective SCIENCE, it is called rigging the data to fit an agenda.

Last edited 11 days ago by Greg
Greg
Reply to  Greg
May 3, 2021 8:54 pm

Before being “amazed” by the degree of agreement, I would need to dig deeply into the processing and “corrections” applied to the data. The Antarctic ice core data was my first dive into climate data back in about 2007. All the core data is available, but what is NOT open and freely available for validation is the whole “gas age” process.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Greg
May 4, 2021 3:52 pm

Greg, in the case of ice core CO2 measurements, there is no CO2 data adjustment, correction or homogenization whatever applied. These are real measurements “as is” and nothing else.
Only when there are serious problems with the equipment or contamination with drilling fluid, the data are discarded (which happened for one and only one data point in the 800,000 years long Dome C ice core.

One can discuss the result of the gas age calculations, which are difficult to perform for ice cores with very thin layers, but the principle of a (large) difference between ice age and average gas age in an ice core is scientifically sound.

That ice age – gas age difference only shifts the CO2 data in time, but doesn’t change the data themselves. It would be quite difficult to explain that the past spikes and drops and current CO2 spike would be at different times in different ice cores, while the flat parts all are at similar levels (within 5 ppmv).

Greg
May 3, 2021 9:20 pm

The common method of simply shifting CO2 ice core age measurements combined with not applying the appropriate atmospheric attenuation results in the amplified CO2 hockey stick.

Very good article. This clever climatological “trick” ™ is also done on the temperature record, as seen in Marcot Shake and Mix . Modern undamped thermometer data is compared to ice core proxies which attenuate variations. They then spuriously conclude that recent change is fast than any period in the last X hundred thousand years.

It’s a lie since we are not comparing the comparable. Any half trained scientist knows that, so the three authors on this paper are actively misleading and introducing false conclusions into the literature which other then get to cite unquestioningly.

%d bloggers like this: