Mysteriously Warm Times In Antarctica

A new study of Antarctica's past climate reveals that temperatures during the warm periods between ice ages (interglacials) may have been higher than previously thought. The latest analysis of ice core records suggests that Antarctic temperatures may have been up to 6 degrees C warmer than the present day.

Previous analysis of ice cores has shown that the climate consists of ice ages and warmer interglacial periods roughly every 100,000 years.

"We didn't expect to see such warm temperatures, and we don't yet know in detail what caused them. But they indicate that Antarctica's climate may have undergone rapid shifts during past periods of high CO2."

But if all of this is true, politics aside, what would have caused these spikes in CO2? 125,000 years ago is a bit before mankind's influence on the planet.

What natural forces caused this - IF CO2 was behind it?

I put this in "General" as it is a science question.

 

Carbon dioxide is naturally sequestered in soils and biomass. If something were to heat the planet, like a hotter Sun, it would melt ice which would expose soil which would then outgas carbon dioxide. If this heat also resulted in more wildfires or insect infestations, it would kill trees which, when they decay, would also release carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide would then warm the planet further. Oceans are currently a carbon sink but their ability to absorb CO2 decreases with rising temperature. So, warmer oceans would also contribute to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

There are a variety of ways CO2 can enter the atmosphere through natural means. There's more than one way to heat the planet. The existence of one method does not invalidate all of the others.

 

Volcanoes are, I believe, the largest contributor of CO2 into the atmosphere.

BC.

 

Not according to the US Geological Survey:

 

Mark, you can read more about this below & then follow some of the links.

Eemian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Earth is a dynamic thing & to believe that global warming isn't happening is folly. To firmly believe that man is the sole cause of it, in my opinion, is greater folly.

 

Agreed Kurts. Tha's why i say we should focus our resources on technologies that help us survive the warming. This would prove far more effective than an arrogant and expensive effort to mitigate the planet's climate changes.

If all our efforts managed to find a way to cool things down, what happens in the latter part of the 21st century when the next mini ice age has been predicted? Let us hope that the Waxman-Markey so called "incentives" produce solutions and technologies with a reverse gear somewhere in the machinery.

Of course we need not worry. The government always has a handle on things. Right?

An Example
After spending $Billions on levees and dikes for 200 years, the government is now spending more $Billions to restore the wetlands.


roadster with a stick

 

If we're causing the warming, attempts to adapt to it without actually cutting emissions will eventually fail. The warming will outpace all of your attempts to survive it.

 

As radmanly pointed out, perhaps not.

But it still remains: the only way to really mess up the atmosphere (and climate) is STILL a volcano:

Researchers have found compelling evidence of a previously undocumented large volcanic eruption that occurred exactly 200 years ago, in 1809. The discovery explains the record cold decade from 1810 to 1819.

Researchers analyzed ice sample chemicals from snow-capped Antarctica and Greenland in the Arctic. The year-by-year accumulations of polar ice sheet snow show what went into the stratosphere. Researchers found large amounts of volcanic sulfuric acid in the snow layers of 1809 and 1810 in both Greenland and Antarctica. Climate records show that not only was 1816 the “year without a summer”, but the entire decade is the coldest for at least the past 500 years. We long knew that Tambora’s massive and violent eruption in 1815 in Indonesia killed 88,000 people and caused the worldwide cold weather in 1816 and in years after.

Volcanic eruptions cool the planet because they release atmospheric sulfur that forms sulfuric acid aerosols and blocks sunlight. However, early decade cold temperatures, before that eruption, suggest Tambora alone did not caused the climatic changes. The immense Tambora eruption sent 100 million tons of sulfur gas into the atmosphere. Ice core samples suggest the 1809 eruption was also very large, perhaps half Tambora’s size. This would also cool the earth for a few years.

The 1809 volcanic sulfuric acid came down at opposite poles at the same time, meaning that sulfate is from a single, large, volcanic eruption. The two different eruptions are together responsible for the unusually cold decade. Because they found sulfuric acid at both poles, the eruption occurred in the tropics, as Tambora’s did. Wind patterns carried volcanic material to the entire world.

The research specifically looked for and found a special indicator of sulfuric acid from stratospheric volcanic sulfur gas. The special indicator is an unusual sulfur isotope in the volcanic sulfuric acid. The unique sulfur isotope composition is a fingerprint of volcanic material that reached the stratosphere.

The stratosphere is the second major layer of the Earth's atmosphere, reaching from about six to 30 miles above the Earth’s surface at moderate latitudes. To affect global climate, rather than local weather, the gas has to reach up into the stratosphere. Once there, it spreads around the world.

Got it here:
Undocumented Volcano Contributed To Extremely Cold Decade From 1810-1819

 

Please also note that the outcome of a volcanic eruption is usually cooling, not warming.

 

Understood - but please see that the outcome of these eruptions can be ... so significant ... that I can't come up with a word for it.

There is little debate or discussion that these eruptions have a marked effect. The same cannot be said for the "coming ice age" turned "global warming" turned "climate change" crisis.

 

Not sure I can even agree with THAT. While the earth warms and cools over cycles, sure, I agree.

As to if it has been warming over the past 5-10 years, no I am not so sure of that at all.

 

Which has a more "marked effect:" a volcanic eruption that brings big changes that dissipate within a couple of years or manmade global warming that last centuries?

 

So far, the volcano.

I suspect that is the way it is, period.

 

No one knows it, but 100,000 years ago mammoths were actually driving the first cars, and that caused the rapid climate shifts.

Saber toothed tigers tried to stop it by driving smaller, fuel efficient cars, but it was really just hype and they weren't doing much to help.

The sloths all bought carbon offsets, but that was just a load of crap and didn't do anything but make the possums that sold it richer.

 

Interesting that the volcanoes massive expulsion of CO2 along with tons of polluting dust actualy cooled things down.

Perhaps we should just reverse the Clean Air Act and go back to dirty smoke.

That would keep things in balance.

CO2 is rising. No one can dispute it. CO2 emmisions are generaly the result of man's activities. No logical observer can truly dispute that either.

But mankind is not alien to this planet. He does not have to walk the earth's surface without disturbing it. He is no different than the trobelites that once covered it or the organisms that purged the seas of iron and turned them blue.

The one difference is that he is aware of his environment, of his part in it. He must be judicious in his decisions about that affect. The current suggested solutions are nothing more than the redistributing wealth. Third world nations rich enough to loan the US money claim they can't and won't participate in the CO2 reduction programs. And as a Debtor to them, we can't argue the point. So we pay, thr the nose to someone. It is still not clear who gets the money.

"But at least we are doing something"

Why? Why do just something? The Planet will not incenerate next year, next decade or even within the next century. So, why not take the time to get it right. I would suggest that despite the fearmongering shouts to the contrary, we are not at a "tipping point."

I would suggest instead, that we proceed with caution, not haste. I would further suggest that if the US wants to be a leader in that effort, it needs to do so with a robust economy, a robust military, and a robust program of acceptable solutions.

Not a meek, apologetic begging on bent knee,approach to those world economies that have had a historical bad habit of repeatedly asking us to solve their problems with our treasure and the blood of our youth.

So let us not hobble our economy further. Let us unleash the industry that is restrained by overregulation and government interventions. The businesses of the world are as concerned about the fututre as any tree hugger. They live here as well and after all, are not in the purpose of suicide. They want a long life and future for their progeny as well as anyone. And, they have as much right to expect it.

Any solution to Climate change or Global warming has to include economic growth. Carlin"s Point BTW. Otherwise we are doomed to a return to pre-industrial life. I would think the average Yank would not do well as a serf in a medievil village lifestyle.

For those who weren't paying attention in school that day, Serfs did not have big screen TV's, NFL Football and nachos in their huts.


roadster with a stick

 

Volcanic eruptions and their effects don't dissipate within a couple of years. Without volcanic eruptions and volcanisms, we would have no atmosphere. We would have no oceans. We would have no life on this planet (most likely). The effects of volcanic eruptions are what afford us the air we breathe and the water we drink.

After all, the greenhouse effect is a good thing. We couldn't live without it.


And while a single large eruption may cool the recorded temperatures on the ground, that is due to ash blocking solar radiation at the surface. Surely the huge amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor that also are emitted must be of concern to the global warming proponents? Surely, without those huge amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the "cooling" effects of the ash would be even greater. How is it that those gasses just dissipate, while the ones produced by humans don't?

The real issue (or at least a primary issue) going on here is land use. We need to be careful about how we're using the land...urban sprawl, etc. That's what's really causing the temps to rise...they're rising artificially because of the land use around the recording stations (to a large degree anyway). I know Radmanly will provide us with IPCC (ha!) charts to show otherwise, but I encourage anyone to look at a "city" temperature and a nearby rural temperature at the same time for themselves, at any point, any day and compare. I guarantee the difference is more than the .05 degrees C I believe he referenced before. Also, as the cities expand, the difference is getting greater. For example, the cooling country breezes that set up in the evening due to pressure differences between the city and country are removed even farther away from city center. Surely this adds at least a little uncertainty to the recorded numbers.

 

Also, during past periods of high volcanic activity, and certainly before humans, I'm sure the statistic of humans emitting more C02 than volcanoes would not be correct. That snapshot may only apply to today. Tomorrow it may not. In the past, it certainly didn't. Also, water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than co2, and has consistently been around in larger, but variable, quantities. During glacial periods, less c02 is consumed by plants and absorbed by frozen oceans. But, less water vapor consumed and emitted (available) too. As glaciers retreat, more co2 and water vapor are released, but also consumed. More questions about where we actually are today...

 

I don't think so. The biggest volcanic eruption in recent memory was Mt. Pinatubo. It barely slowed global warming.

 

So why do deniers keep trying?

This is based on what exactly? The climate system is BIG and CO2 hangs around for a long time. If we keep putting CO2 into the air, there will come a point where the inertia of the climate system will take us into dangerous territory.

I don't think there's any danger we'll move too quickly. That certainly hasn't been the pattern so far. I expect we'll take some half-measures which will surely be watered down by conservatives. We're going to find out exactly what it's like to try to survive in a 4x or 5x CO2 world.

There's nothing stopping industry from developing alternative fuels right now. Heck, they can get tax breaks out the wazoo for it. Worries about "overregulation and government interventions" are hooey.

Businesses exist to return profits to shareholders as quickly as possible. If screwing the planet in 100 years is the cost of getting a bump in share prices today, I don't doubt that they'd do it.

"Pre-industrial life" would be even worse for the planet. We need new technologies, not a return to the stone age. "Pre-industrial" energy sources are far dirtier than solar panels and wind turbines.

 

Sure they do. Even the ash from Krakatoa eventually washed out of the atmosphere.

I think that's pushing it a little far. The biosphere is the product of MANY processes, not just volcanism.

Water vapor has a short atmospheric lifetime so it's not really a big concern. The carbon dioxide from volcanoes precipitates out of the atmosphere the same way as carbon dioxide from human sources. Volcanoes just produce less of it than humans.

Absolute temperature measurements aren't the issue. It's the rise in temperatures that matters. Consider an urban station that consistently measures .05C warmer than a nearby rural one. One day, the urban station measures 20.05C and the rural one measures 20C. The next day, the urban station measures 21.05C and the rural one measures 21C. Even though the urban and rural stations are .05C off, they BOTH correctly measure a 1C rise in temperature. It's not the absolute measurement that matters but the relative trends.

If you just look at rural stations, you get warming similar to that in the entire record. Plus, sea surface temperatures have risen, too, and there are no cities in the middle of the ocean.

Not really.