News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

Ice Bubbles May Solve Carbon-Temperature Paradox

Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.

In a new analysis of bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, published Thursday in Science, lead author Frederic Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics of the Environment, in Grenoble, France, and his colleagues write that at the end of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, “. . . Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of CO2, as has been suggested in earlier studies.”

Figure 5 from Shaken et al., 2012 illustrates the seeming disparity between temperature and CO2 changes.
Click to enlarge. Credit: Shaken et al., 2012.

“Scientists had been saying the CO2 was an amplifier of global warming, but not the initial cause,” Parrenin said. “Now we’re saying it could be the cause.”

This doesn't mean CO2 isn’t an amplifier as well. If the oceans warm, basic chemistry says that some of the carbon dioxide dissolved in the water will emerge into the atmosphere. And if the permafrost that covers about a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s land surface melts, it will put enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (plus methane, an even more powerful greenhouse), into the atmosphere as well.

This new analysis only applies to the most recent period of natural warming, which brought the planet out of the last ice age starting about 20,000 years ago.

“I think they’ve taken a big step toward getting this right,” said Edward Brook, a paleo-climatologist at Oregon State University, in an interview. Brook also wrote a commentary on the research for Science, and he cautioned in that commentary that “We . . . do not know whether the results can be generalized to other time periods.”

Still, if there remained any doubt that CO2 itself could initiate global warming, this paper — along with a 2012 paper that also showed no time lag — should go a long way toward putting that doubt to rest.

The time lag suggested by those earlier studies didn’t call into question the well-established relation between CO2 and warming, and did nothing to lessen scientists’ confidence — and fear — that without curbing human greenhouse-gas emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise dangerously through the rest of this century. Nevertheless, the new research emphasizes that the CO2-warming relationship could be somewhat more straightforward in some ways than previously thought.

NEEM: Ice Cores Tell of Climate History

The idea that warming came before CO2, rather than simultaneously, comes from ancient ice drilled from Greenland and Antarctica. The ice itself reveals what the temperature was at a given time (it has to do with the relative amounts of different types of oxygen atoms) and the air bubbles trapped within the ice show how much CO2 was present in the atmosphere.

But the bubbles are actually younger than the ice that traps them. That’s because the bubbles start out as air spaces between snowflakes on the surface, and gradually become entombed as new layers of snow compress the old, eventually turning it to ice. That doesn’t happen, however, until the snow is between 200 and 300 feet deep, and until it does happen, air circulates within the snow. “We have an ice archive,” said Parrenin in an interview, “and we have a gas archive, and they don’t have the same age.”

Ice-core experts estimate and correct for the age difference, and the general consensus had been that temperature increases at the ends of ice ages stretching back at least 400,000 years preceded CO2 increases by about 800 years. Some triggering factor — a change to the angle of summer sunlight at the poles, for example, or a change in ocean currents, or both — began warming the Earth, triggering the release of CO2 from the oceans, which warmed the planet further, in an upward spiral. Some sort of opposite spiral, went the argument, plunged us back into an ice age.

Still, there was plenty uncertainty in the timing, so Parrenin and his colleagues came up with a new way to estimate the age difference between ice and air: they looked at a heavy, naturally occurring form of nitrogen that sinks to the bottom of the air circulating within snow. Since this is where ice finally solidifies, the bubbles are always richer than average with this heavy nitrogen, and depending on how rich it is, the scientists were able to measure how thick the snow was — and thus how long the air had been circulating before being entombed.

When they used this new age-correction factor, Parrenin and his colleagues recalculated the lag between temperature and CO2, and it more or less vanished.

Related Content 
Climate and Carbon: The Link Just Got Stronger 
Nearing a Tipping Point on Melting Permafrost? 
Greenland's Ice Sheet More Stable Than Once Believed 
Tiny Frigid Bubbles Get to the Core of Climate Change


By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on February 28th, 2013

Although there are detailed puzzles, common wisdom has it that the timing of the glacial/interglacial periods is so highly correlated to the Milankovitch cycles that one cannot help but conclude that long term variations in insolation of the northern hemisphere via changes in planetary orbital characteristics were indeed typically the primary trigger – at least of the later cycles. This would imply that there necessarily was a small initial temperature increase, first evident in the northern hemisphere due purely to this at the start of this particular interglacial which would then have led to increased CO2 and hence there would have to have been a global temp-CO2 time lag on that basis. On first take it does not seem that this particular work challenges that view since it instead speaks specifically to the synchronization of Antarctic temperature and CO2 concentration.

However, it is puzzling that Parrenin seems to think it could be otherwise.

“Scientists had been saying the CO2 was an amplifier of global warming, but not the initial cause,” Parrenin said. “Now we’re saying it could be the cause.”

BTW: the assertion made here that the 2012 paper showed “no time lag” is misleading in that the results in that paper instead claim to have reduced the constraints on the time lag to an uncertainty range of something like a potential small lead to a possible lag of up to four centuries.

Reply to this comment

By geohydro2011
on March 1st, 2013

Not sure that Milankovitch fully explains global climate changes—indeed some workers have noted that there are problems with orbital forcing, e.g. 100k year problem. Too recent work by some show that radioactive decay for unstable isotopes might not be constant but rather affected by season and solar activity—thus time scales derived from such isotope decay could be errant. I have to wonder if stable isotopes have been affected.

Reply to this comment

By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on March 4th, 2013

Geohydro: Re decay rates, you are referring to the work of two US scientists at Purdue about 5 or 6 years ago in which they claimed to have measured a 0.1% modulation in the decay rate of Si-32 versus changes in solar activity. It created a brief stir in the physics community and then fueled some less disciplined imaginations. Sometime in the 1980’s one of that pair of authors had also claimed to have discovered a 5th force of nature. That wasn’t confirmed by others either….



Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.