Ice Cores Tell Their Secrets
As I mentioned last week, Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Penn State, has taken the time to answer some of my questions about paleoclimatology. In today's post, he talks more specifically about the information that can be gleaned from an ice core.
Question: Specifically related to ice cores, can you explain what information is captured in glacial ice and how you "read" it? How can you tell the difference between a cold year and a year with higher than average precipitation, for instance?
Dr. Alley's Answer: Temperature, I explained earlier (Trees and Ice are Links to Past Climate).
Another we use (a "fuzzy" one--doesn't reveal short-lived temperature changes a long time ago, but is reliable) is the physical temperature of the ice. If you throw a frozen turkey in the oven, turn on the heat and then leave, and your significant other comes home and wants to know how long the turkey has been in but doesn't have your cell phone number, why, drill a hole in the turkey, measure the temperature, and the colder the inside, the shorter time the turkey has been cooking. The Greenland ice sheet a mile down is colder than the surface is, and is colder than the bedrock two miles down, because the ice is still warming from the cold of the ice age, and we can estimate how cold the ice age was in central Greenland from this.
Another is related to the isotopic composition of the water in the ice. If you have a bunch of water molecules, a few of them will have an extra neutron or two ("heavy water"). The heavier water is still water, but just a tad heavy. The heavier stuff rains or snows out of a cloud first. As an air mass moves over an ice sheet and cools, the heavy falls out, so the remaining vapor comes closer and closer to being all "light", so the next rain or snow becomes more and more "all light". The colder the air mass, the lighter the isotopic makeup of the rain or snow. So, the isotopic history in an ice core is a temperature history. If you look at isotopes, and isotopes of gases, and borehole temperatures, you can start to get a reliable history of temperature at the site.
In favorable ice cores, we date by counting annual layers (summer snow and winter snow look different, are isotopically different, chemically different, electrically different, etc.). We check as far back as we can using known time markers (find the fallout from historically dated volcanic eruptions, or from atomic-bomb explosions), and it works really well. We have several people count several things several times, try really hard not to "cheat" by checking on the answers of others, and then compare our ages to those for correlative climate events in other records (tree rings, etc. from elsewhere). The thickness of an annual layer (after a correction for thinning from compaction under weight of snow above and from ice flow) gives the snow accumulation rate. Changes in "dirtiness" of ice (how much dust) either represent changes in the dust delivery, or in the delivery of water to dilute the dust; know the accumulation rate, and you have the dilution.
A refrozen-meltwater layer shows it was warm. Fallout of odd nuclides made by cosmic rays in the atmosphere tell how many cosmic rays were getting in (and because the magnetic field and the sun's activity help protect us from cosmic rays, tell about the magnetic field and the sun's activity). One can find micrometeorites, pollen, sea salt, etc. and learn about those. And, the trapped bubbles are our only reliable samples of old air and the greenhouse gases in that old air. So, there is plenty to learn.







Comments (5)
There must be some plant physiologists out there who can add their two cents to this global warming issue. I think that growing trees,or any thing that produces green leaves, would be one solution to counter global warming. Doesn't the process of photosynthesis found in plant life utilize carbon dioxide (a known causal agent of global warming) and water and sunlight combine to produce glucose (yum,yum) and oxygen? So, when atmospheric co2 levels increase we should see an increase in the amount of greenstuff growing out there(perhaps even bigger tree rings)...shouldn't we? Now when I chop down that old dead elm tree (they're dying from dutch elm disese) and burn it in my woodstove to keep my derierre warm aren't I burning the glucose that was produced by that plant from the co2 it sucked up from my tractor and chainsaw. How much co2 did it take to grow that 2000 lb. hunk of wood?
By the way, I subjected myself to about 15 mins. (that was more than enough) of C-span,NASA's Dr. Hansen was presenting his side of the global warming issue. It didn't take long to realize that he was driven by a political agenda...I think he wants to be a political policy maker and for him the end justifies the means.
Conrad
Posted by conrad | February 27, 2007 2:57 PM
I wish I could have watched that, the truth is like a breath of fresh air in this locked down "debate". From what I've read of Lindzen, I think he would like to see no unrealistic action taken to curb CO2 that would hurt our economy and send money to China and Russia which would do absolutely nothing to slow or stop this natural climactic progression. It's good for the U.S. to be able to hear his side of the story. Maybe it will prevent some lemmings from jumping off the cliff. If more politicians like Inhofe were around, this wouldn't be an issue. AGW proponents are like hard-core alcoholics...they will have to hit rock bottom before getting off the booze and coming back around to reality. And when they do, they'll be ashamed of all the money they spent and how many people they hurt and abused while under the influence. They will finally see the light and won't be nearly as eager to jump on the next bandwagon again.
Posted by Chris | February 27, 2007 7:57 PM
Conrad,
This is no doubt that it is politically/monetarily driven! Good observation, come on over and discuss it...
Posted by Discuss Global Warming | February 27, 2007 8:52 PM
"send money to China and Russia which would do absolutely nothing to slow or stop this natural climactic progression."
Please post some links proving that this is an exclusively natural process.
Posted by Mark | February 28, 2007 1:51 PM
The big problem with this whole debate is that scientist/activists are acting like lawyers (and bad lawyers at that) instead of scientists. They have in mind a desired outcome and they have to mold the "evidence" to get that outcome. A good example is the IPCC report, which is just a political summary and NOT a scientific report; the "scientists" are still working on the "science" to corrollate with the report.
Posted by Michael | March 1, 2007 11:17 AM