Slashdot Mirror
New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation
vinces99 writes A new study shows that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide that contributed to the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago did not occur gradually but rather was characterized by three abrupt pulses. Scientists are not sure what caused these abrupt increases, during which carbon dioxide levels rose about 10 to 15 parts per million – or about 5 percent per episode – during a span of one to two centuries. It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns and terrestrial processes. The finding, published Oct. 30 in the journal Nature, casts new light on the mechanisms that take the Earth in and out of ice ages.
"We used to think that naturally occurring changes in carbon dioxide took place relatively slowly over the 10,000 years it took to move out of the last ice age," said lead author Shaun Marcott, who did the work as a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon State University and is now at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle."
Previous research has hinted at the possibility that spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide may have accelerated the last deglaciation, but that hypothesis had not been resolved, the researchers say. The key to the new finding is the analysis of an ice core from the West Antarctic that provided the scientists with an unprecedented glimpse into the past."
"We used to think that naturally occurring changes in carbon dioxide took place relatively slowly over the 10,000 years it took to move out of the last ice age," said lead author Shaun Marcott, who did the work as a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon State University and is now at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle."
Previous research has hinted at the possibility that spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide may have accelerated the last deglaciation, but that hypothesis had not been resolved, the researchers say. The key to the new finding is the analysis of an ice core from the West Antarctic that provided the scientists with an unprecedented glimpse into the past."
This sort of confusion happens a lot in science.
We're in an interglacial, still in same ice age.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
" Perhaps the CO2 resulted from increased biological activity occuring as a result of the warming"
A simpler explanation is Henry's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law
"carbon dioxide from a carbonated drink escapes much faster when the drink is not cooled "
Likewise, carbon dioxide from a carbonated ocean escapes when the ocean warms.
There are several catastrophic event types that, if they occurred at the location of a large carbon reserve, would result in a massive pulse of CO2 released into the atmosphere.
Sounds like they really just don't know.
It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns and terrestrial processes.
But at least they are studying and learning.
"This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle. "Previous research has hinted at the possibility that spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide may have accelerated the last deglaciation, but that hypothesis had not been resolved, the researchers say.
The earth has been from +14 to -6 degrees on average from where it is today. Historically speaking, were in the "colder than usual" range of the bell curve today, and thats with using ice cores to detect CO2 levels and temperature histories. Its not like we had a thermocouple hooked up to a server recording that data for millions of years. These deductions are best effort conclusions on data that only tells a very broad stroke of the story.
What upsets me is how demonizing the argument about Global Warming / Climate Change is. The earth will change its temperature. That will happen with or without us, just look at the historical record. Earths temperature isn't stable. And for all those who argue we are burning too much fossil fuels, those carbon atoms weren't created into existence in the ground as they were today, unless you believe the earth is 6000 years old!
They were a part of the global carbon cycle, and buried during mass extinction events and processes that sequestered them to where they are today. It isn't science to say "for sure this and for sure that". Its science to say: "To the level of our current understanding...". Thats it. You can't know for certain, just like they didn't know for certain that the earth was the center of the universe, even though it was proselytized. Its not OK to attack the character of an individual when they are skeptical of your conclusions. All of science works better when there are those who are skeptical. It refines your proof if you are right, or betters your understanding if you are wrong.
As for the problems associated with climate change, it will happen. For those of us living where it will flood, there will be a new continent to live on, once it unfreezes (again!).
Actually they do know, they just don't know precisely.
You're basically implying their knowledge is zero, the truth is they've already ruled out countless possibilities, they just haven't gotten all the way to the truth.
Interesting but I'm not sure how it's relevant.
You're arguing a strawman, no one has ever argued that climate is completely stable without us. The claim is that we're undergoing an extreme and dangerous rate of change due to human causes.
Ahh, I get it.
AGW deniers are often associated with Young Earth Creationists (YECs) because the religious right and YECs are fairly well represented in the AGW denier community. Therefore you compare AGW proponents to YECs, and if any show outrage at the comparison you can say they're hypocritical because of how people associate YECs with denialists.
And again I'm not sure what the point of this section was other than to accuse the researchers of not doing science... and then promptly follow that up with a deliciously ironic complaint that people shouldn't "attack the character of an individual when they are skeptical of your conclusions".
I stole this Sig
We do not know exactly how high the cost will be, but we do know that it will be cheaper if we act now.
Absolutely. The difficulty is that "action" has to get past a fence of anti-science, anti-technology, anti-capitalist nutjobs who say on the one hand that a) we face a civilization-ending event and b) we must not use various well-known and ready-to-go solutions to the problem, but instead must embark on an unproven revolutionary program that "changes everything!"
Nuclear power, carbon taxes, and research in to carbon sequestration are the obvious immediate responses to climate change.
The first two are practical, proven and ready-to-go. The latter is a backup plan.
Instead we have left-wing idiots protesting oil pipelines, because that's where the donation dollars come from.
With regard to carbon taxes: we have to tax something to fund government. Even righties who just want to use government money to bomb brown people generally agree with that. We can tax income, or we can tax carbon emissions. Who but a raving anti-wealth socialist would want to tax something good and wonderful like income when we can tax some basically nasty like carbon emissions instead?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.