Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change

Jul 23, 2012
An ice core from the deep drilling through the ice sheet at Law Dome in Antarctica.

The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.

In the warmer the atmospheric content of CO2 is naturally higher. The gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2 helps to intensify the natural climate variations.

It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years.

"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change
The research results show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere followed the temperature in Antarctica closely throughout the shift from ice age to interglacial in the period 19-11,000 years before the present. The green curve shows the temperature from measurements from the 5 ice cores marked on the map. The red and blue curves show the atmospheric CO2 content in the air bubbles in the ice cores from the two bores at Siple Dome (red) and Byrd (blue). The analysis shows that the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic tempera- ture so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.

The research, which was carried out in collaboration with researchers from the University of Tasmania in Australia, is based on measurements of ice cores from five through the ice sheet in Antarctica. The is formed by snow that doesn't melt, but remains year after year and is gradually compressed into kilometers thick ice. During the compression, air is trapped between the and as a result the ice contains tiny samples of ancient atmospheres. The composition of the ice also shows what the temperature was when the snow fell, so the ice is an archive of past climate and atmospheric composition.

"The ice cores show a nearly synchronous relationship between the temperature in Antarctica and the atmospheric content of CO2, and this suggests that it is the processes in the deep-sea around Antarctica that play an important role in the CO2 increase," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen.

He explains that one of the theories is that when Antarctica warms up, there will be stronger winds over the Southern Ocean and the winds pump more water up from the deep bottom layers in the ocean where there is a high content of CO2 from all of the small organisms that die and fall down to the sea floor and rot. When strong winds blow over the Southern Ocean, the ocean circulation brings more of the CO2-rich bottom water up to the surface and a portion of this CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This process links temperature and CO2 together and the new results suggest that the linking is closer and happens faster than previously believed.

Climatic impact

The global temperature changed naturally because of the changing solar radiation caused by variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the Earth's tilt and the orientation of the Earth's axis. These are called the Milankowitch cycles and occur in periods of approximately 100,000, 42,000, and 22,000 years. These are the cycles that cause the Earth's climate to shift between long ice ages of approximately 100,000 years and warm interglacial periods, typically 10,000 – 15,000 years. The natural warming of the climate was intensified by the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current and that can bring the Earth's climate out of balance," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen adding "That is why it is even more important that we have a good grip on which processes caused the climate of the past to change, because the same processes may operate in addition to the anthropogenic changes we see today. In this way the climate of the past helps us to understand how the various parts of the climate systems interact and what we can expect in the future."

Explore further: Aging Africa

More information: www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

CO2 was hidden in the ocean during the Ice Age: study

Mar 29, 2012

Why did the atmosphere contain so little carbon dioxide (CO2) during the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago? Why did it rise when the Earth's climate became warmer? Processes in the ocean are responsible for this, says a new study ...

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on Antarctica

Dec 01, 2011

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on AntarcticaAtmospheric carbon dioxide levels plunged by 40% before and during the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet 34 million years ago, according to a new study. The finding helps solv ...

Ice cores map dynamics of sudden climate changes

Jun 19, 2008

New, extremely detailed data from investigations of ice cores from Greenland show that the climate shifted very suddenly and changed fundamentally during quite few years when the ice age ended. Researchers ...

Wind shifts may stir CO2 from Antarctic depths

Mar 12, 2009

Natural releases of carbon dioxide from the Southern Ocean due to shifting wind patterns could have amplified global warming at the end of the last ice age--and could be repeated as manmade warming proceeds, ...

Recommended for you

Aging Africa

Aug 29, 2014

In the September issue of GSA Today, Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont–Burlington and colleagues present a cosmogenic view of erosion, relief generation, and the age of faulting in southernmost Africa ...

NASA animation shows Hurricane Marie winding down

Aug 29, 2014

NOAA's GOES-West satellite keeps a continuous eye on the Eastern Pacific and has been covering Hurricane Marie since birth. NASA's GOES Project uses NOAA data and creates animations and did so to show the end of Hurricane ...

EU project sails off to study Arctic sea ice

Aug 29, 2014

A one-of-a-kind scientific expedition is currently heading to the Arctic, aboard the South Korean icebreaker Araon. This joint initiative of the US and Korea will measure atmospheric, sea ice and ocean properties with technology ...

User comments : 33

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Birger
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2012
"That is why it is even more important that we have a good grip on which processes caused the climate of the past to change, because the same processes may operate in addition to the anthropogenic changes we see today."

But the urgency will be dismissed by the denialbots.
randith
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2012
Meanwhile, nobody investigates the relationship between the sun's increasing output and increasing temperatures. This is because the sun has no effect on the climate.
CuriousMan
3 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2012
Typical denialies argument there Randith - falacious on multiple fronts. A) Aside from the normal 11 year solar cycle there is no increase output from the sun, and of course B) you use a strawman - no climate scientist ever said the sun has no effect on climate but you nicely punched that strawman right over.

But temperatures are a side effect. Please explain the 20 percent increase in CO2 since measurements begain in the lte 50's.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2012
Poor Randith. He just don't know that the sun over the last several solar cycles has had a modest decline in total irradiance.

Yet the Globe continues to warm.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2012
The graph from the article is fascinating. Not only does it show temperatures in perfect lock-step with CO2 concentrations, but it also shows the historic ranges of CO2 concentrations 260ppmv to 200ppmv. Of course just in the last 50 years, modern CO2 concentrations went up from ~280ppmv to 400ppmv. When temperatures finally catch up to that much CO2 increase, wow! Its really going to get hot.

Another point is how rapidly the temperature responds to CO2 changes. I think it shows how urgent it is for modern man to get a handle on all CO2 emissions.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2012
Poor Randith. He just don't know that the sun over the last several solar cycles has had a modest decline in total irradiance.

Yet the Globe continues to warm.
Poor Venditard. He just don't know that the sun over the last several solar cycles has had a modest decline in total irradiance.

And the Globe continues to cool.

http://www.woodfo...98/trend
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2012
And the Globe continues to cool.

Your delusional!

Let's here it from the horses mouth:

http://www.youtub...Gh89bvp0
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
@Howhot:
Another point is how rapidly the temperature responds to CO2 changes. I think it shows how urgent it is for modern man to get a handle on all CO2 emissions.
The rising CO2 followed the warming, not the other way around.

This article is nothing more than an attempt by "scientists" to smudge the two data sets together, 'cause they can't explain the discrepancy of CO2 rising after, and not before, temperature increases.

They don't even discuss how long it takes atmospheric samples to become trapped, or any of the other problems associated with ice core data.

Here's an article that might open your eyes a little (but I doubt you'll read it):

http://tucsonciti...dioxide/

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
Your delusional!
No, you're delusional.

Let's here it from the horses mouth:
Indeed:

"The new book ...will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened, (James) Lovelock said.

The climate is doing its usual tricks. Theres nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now, he said.

The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that, he added."

http://worldnews....e-change
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
The rising CO2 followed the warming, not the other way around.


And just how sure are you of that? The problem with that, is that it's wrong. You deniers keep ignoring the fact that CO2 is a major green house gas. A very effective green house gas too. Are you just going to put blinders on and ignore the hundreds gigatons of carbon dioxide mankind has pushed into the atmosphere?
CO2 that is not normally 400ppm. Nothing like this CO2 rise has ever occurred in earths history. Not in 50 years. I don't even think a comet strike could kick up as much CO2 into the atmosphere as man has done with fossil fuels.

So lets listen to Michael Mann, the father of the Hockey stick deniers hate so so much.

http://www.youtub...Gh89bvp0


ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
And just how sure are you of that?
100% sure. They even state so in the article. Didn't you read it?

The problem with that, is that it's wrong.
Apparently then, you DIDN'T read the article.

You deniers keep ignoring the fact that CO2 is a major green house gas. A very effective green house gas too.
No, it's not.

Are you just going to ...ignore the hundreds gigatons of carbon dioxide mankind has pushed into the atmosphere?
Yes.

CO2 that is not normally 400ppm. Nothing like this CO2 rise has ever occurred in earths history. Not in 50 years.
So?

I don't even think a comet strike could kick up as much CO2 into the atmosphere as man has done with fossil fuels.
Sure it can. Try doing a little fact checking before you spout.

"the K-T impact, raising CO2 to ~1700-6500 ppm;"

http://www.counte...0212.pdf

So lets listen to Michael Mann, the father of the Hockey stick deniers hate so so much.
Why? He was wrong.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
And just how sure are you of that?


100% sure. They even state so in the article. Didn't you read it?

Yeah, and here are the facts; in arctic ice, warmer temperatures allow the capture of more CO2 in the ICE. That is just saturation limits of the chemistry. You will also notice, that the authors of the article state;
The composition of the ice also shows what the temperature was when the snow fell, so the ice is an archive of past climate and atmospheric composition.


What it shows is in the past, temperatures and CO2 levels where pretty normal. That's it with respect to Anthropogenic global warming as we are experiencing now. If you want to compare the heat trapping capabilities of an atmosphere with 400ppmv vs 260ppmv, I think you will have to agree that 400ppmv has a heat trapping capability much higher.

From the article, with 200ppmv vs 260ppmv, you might see a response just as you see in the 14-15 x-axis range of the graph in the article. Interesting

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
Yeah, and here are the facts; in arctic ice, warmer temperatures allow the capture of more CO2 in the ICE. That is just saturation limits of the chemistry. You will also notice, that the authors of the article state;
So I see you didn't read my earlier reference. It can take thousands of years for the atmospheric samples to become trapped in the ice.

If you want to compare the heat trapping capabilities of an atmosphere with 400ppmv vs 260ppmv, I think you will have to agree that 400ppmv has a heat trapping capability much higher.
Then why, as the CO2 has risen from 365ppm to <395ppm,...

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

...has the temperature decreased?

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
Then why, as the CO2 has risen from 365ppm to <395ppm,..[..has the temperature decreased?


Well ubavontuba, for one thing, from the solar input, Earth's temperature should be decreasing. The scary part for mankind, is it is not. While global average temperatures have only increased ~1.1C since say 1950, in the upper northern and southern hemispheres that change is much more dramatic. I recall in the arctic it was more like ~4C. You can't attribute that kind of increase to a lower solar flux input. That just doesn't make sense, does it?

Don't show me woods from forests 1998. Thats just BS and you know it. In fact it's a dishonest republican ploy politicians love to use.

Right now the CO2 concentration is 400ppmv. How do you think that will be recorded in the ice sheets of the Antarctic? When do you think the 400ppmv CO2 bubbles will be trapped? It will certainly lag temperature in the ice core, but not by much, just as the article states.

the K-T impact, cool.
RazorsEdge
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2012
The only urgency is getting another grant to live on.
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012
The only urgency is getting another grant to live on.

And yours will be getting dinner to eat from the D4 droughts in the central USA.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2012
UbVonTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

He is using hadcrut3 which is an outdated temperature data set that omits large areas of the poles - which are the areas of the globe warming most rapidly.

Hadcrut 4 adds more of the polar regions to it's average and here is the result...

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

"And the Globe continues to cool." - UbVonTard

Now UbVonTard has been caught telling the same lie of omission over and over and over again. Literally dozens of times.

When he is posting under his alternative name "ParkerTard" he also repeated the same lie over and over again.

He is mentally diseased of course.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2012
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

http://www.guardi...techange

"The only urgency is getting another grant to live on." - RazorsTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2012
Oh.. That is simple to explain...

You are a congenital liar.

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

As has been repeatedly shown.

"Then why, as the CO2 has risen from 365ppm to <395 ppm,... has the temperature decreased?" - Ubvontard

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2012
(Uba) is using hadcrut3 which is an outdated temperature data set that omits large areas of the poles - which are the areas of the globe warming most rapidly.

Hadcrut 4 adds more of the polar regions to it's average and here is the result...
Venditard's lie is easy to expose. HadCRUT4 data ends in late 2010. As this data was specifically developed to "prove" global warming, one wonders why it's so difficult to update? Perhaps they've come upon an inescapable data cliff?

But no matter. Even HadCRUT4 shows slight cooling for the past 10 years (even though the last year and a half are missing!).

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

And indeed, the Globe continues to cool...

Now VendiTard has been caught telling the same lie of omission over and over and over again. Literally dozens of times.

He is mentally diseased, of course.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2012
Oh.. That is simple to explain...
Oh.. That is simple to explain...

You are a congenital liar (whatever that means).

As has been repeatedly shown:

HadCRUT4 data ends in late 2010. As this data was specifically developed to "prove" global warming, one wonders why it's so difficult to update? Perhaps they've come upon an inescapable data cliff?

But no matter. Even HadCRUT4 shows slight cooling for the past 10 years (even though the last year and a half are missing!).

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Get a clue.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2012
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
And here I've been doing it for FREE, because the 2007 IPCC report is laughable!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2012
"Venditard's lie is easy to expose. HadCRUT4 data ends in late 2010." - UbvonTard

Then we can use another data set that captures the entire globe.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

Poor UbvonTard. He just can't stop lying.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2012
"But no matter. Even HadCRUT4 shows slight cooling for the past 10 years (even though the last year and a half are missing!)." - UbVonTard.

But a slight warming over the last 8 years.

http://www.woodfo...04/trend

Even a higher rate of warming over the last 5 years...

http://www.woodfo...07/trend

And over the last 22 years....

http://www.woodfo...90/trend

And over the last 32 years - the minimum time span over which climate is defined.

http://www.woodfo...80/trend

Poor UbvonTard/ParkerTard. He just can't seen to post anything without telling a lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
That makes you a sucker as well as a liar.

"And here I've been doing it for FREE" - UbVonTard

Your mommy must be so proud.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
UbVonTard's latest idiocy is easy to expose by simply supplementing hadcrut4 with GISS. As the following plot indicates, hadcrut4 closely mirrors GISS, and GISS fails to show this reason to believe the conspiratorial ranting of UbVonTard.

http://www.woodfo...rom:2000

"HadCRUT4 data ends in late 2010. As this data was specifically developed to "prove" global warming, one wonders why it's so difficult to update?" - UbvonTard/ParkerTard

http://www.youtub...2Tflw9BE
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
"But no matter. Even HadCRUT4 shows slight cooling for the past 10 years." - UbVonTard/ParkerTard

But a slight warming over the last 8 years.

http://www.woodfo...04/trend

Poor UbVonTard/ParkerTard. His mental disease is terminal.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2012
Regarding HadCrut4

Q: Why does the data set end in 2010?

A: The paper describing the HadCRUT4 data set was submitted in 2011 and 2010 was the final complete year of data available at the time. Regular updates will follow...

http://www.metoff...faq.html

Sadly, UbVonTard/ParkerTard's mental disease is terminal.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
Then we can use another data set that captures the entire globe.
Sure, why not?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Hmm... same result as before.

Poor VendiTard. He just can't stop lying.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
But a slight warming over the last 8 years.
Again:

HadCRUT4 data ends in late 2010. As this data was specifically developed to "prove" global warming, one wonders why it's so difficult to update? Perhaps they've come upon an inescapable data cliff?

But no matter. Even HadCRUT4 shows slight cooling for the past 10 years (even though the last year and a half are missing!).

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

But HadCRUT3 (a current data set) shows over all cooling since 1998:

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

Poor VendiTard. He just can't seen to post anything without telling a lie.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
Uba's latest (intelligent observation) is easy to expose by simply supplementing hadcrut4 with GISS. As the following plot indicates, hadcrut4 closely mirrors GISS, and GISS fails to show this reason to believe the (the temperature is falling).
VendiTard's latest idiocy is easy to expose by simply plotting GISS since 2002. As the following plot indicates, GISS shows the over all temperature has been falling since the end of 2001:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

But the long-held worldwide temperature standard HadCRUT3 shows cooling since the end of 1997:

http://www.woodfo...98/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
But a slight warming over the last 8 years.
Moron. This isn't even relevant, and you're essentially admitting there's been no global warming during this period.

Poor VendiTard. His mental disease appears terminal.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
Regarding HadCrut4

Q: Why does the data set end in 2010?

A: The paper describing the HadCRUT4 data set was submitted in 2011 and 2010 was the final complete year of data available at the time. Regular updates will follow...
But they haven't. Why is that?

Following the links from your reference to the CRUTEM4 data we find:

"Data are available for each month from January 1850 to December 2010, ...We are in the process of updating CRUTEM4 to include data following December 2010, and will soon begin monthly updates of the dataset. Recent temperature data is available in the CRUTEM3 dataset. ...Last updated: 25/01/2012"

So in more than six months, they couldn't keep their promise to update HadCRUT4, and even they state to use HadCRUT3 data, instead!

http://www.metoff...crutem4/

Sadly, VendiTard's mental disease appears terminal.