I'm going to venture a guess-
Increased evaporation leads to higher 18O concentrations, and also higher salinity (density), and to greater precipitation over land/ice.
Looking forward to the next installment.

Okay, but again the problem is the rate at which things happen. With processing system like the ocean something is input and something is output and something determines the rate of processing: But which is which here?



Lisiecky and Raymo may have used the ice core dating to fine tune their Benthic stack dating, so a little leading or lagging is of little meaning. The benthic spikes however are equally quick but shorter of duration and I consider this as tell tale evidence that this happen in the ocean first. But what.

Foraminifera d18O may react on local temperature (but that's pretty constant either in the Ice sea or around the equator), on local isotope ratio, on free oxygen, salinity, acidity, pCO2, etc. but no matter what it is, it needs to be quick and first.

Now let's make a side jump and talk mammoths for a while, but we are back in the oceans pretty quickly. For Pleistocene paleo climate science, woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) are lice in the fur because they could not have existed on places where the ice age dictated large ice sheets. So, we have the impression of giant lonely behemots dragging through hauling blizzards, with packs of vicious hungry wolves in their wake.

In reality we have plenty of evidence that Mammoths were animals of the cold steppe like the North American prairies or the Mongolian steppes. Cold and dry but not cold enough to prevent the growing of ample fodder for large herds of horses, antilopes (Saiga), aurochs and Mammoths as high north as the coast of the Taimyr peninsula in Siberia less than 1000 miles form the North Pole. For climate science the destruction of that habitat and the extinction of many of those species is another, not understood, enigma.

For our Non-Calor-Sed-Umor hypothesis however, it is a sheer pleasure to have solved that crime in the same process.

I proudly present the presentation that my friend held at the Conference of the World of Elephants in Hot Springs South Dakota in Sept last year:

Advise to download both, print the notes and then run the powerpoint at the prompts in the notes.

The speaking notes (doc)

And the (1.8 Mb) powerpoint presentation.

Enjoy!

There must be plenty of questions now, why not pitch in a number:

1. But what about the ice core borehole temperatures?

2. What is this with that 15N/40Ar thinghie in the ice cores that the opening post mentions?

3. What has the CO2 spikes got to do with it and the other 'proxies'?

4. So you think that this is wrong? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227

5. What's that with that 100,000 years cycle of those spikes, you did not explain that?

6. I have a study here that proves that the Younger Dryas was cold after all, so why do you think you are right?

7. Now where there ice ages or not? I have a lot of geologic evidence here that says so.

8. How about the Younger Dryas in the Southern hemisphere?

Which shall it be first?

So I lost everybody?

For whatever it's worth, for instance for nr5:

Here it is: yet another explanation for the 100,000 years cycle, a cycling clathrate gun:

However I would change:

The last slide (Mienert et al 2005) also suggest a reaction on some millenium timescale clathrate destabilisation that caused the changes in precipitation patterns every 100,000 years.

Also interesting is:

Multiple geologic studies and ice core trace evidence suggests that 15-8,000 years ago, the complete Earth was tectonically hyperactive. In West Europe we had multiple eruptions in the "Volcan Eiffel" area in Germany as well in the "Massif Central" in France. Both area's are completely dormant ever since. So possily the story gets even a lot more complicated.

As the number of hits is well above SF average on this thread, the discussion is a bit single sided. Well if it has to be.

Anyway, let's get to the real point of all of this, that would be nr3,

This is about the refutation and subsequent re-explanation of the correlation between the alleged but wrong paleo-climatal temperature and CO2 as casn be seen in the Ice cores like Vostok:



Disclaimer: the alleged temp graph is processed Deuterium isotope; hardly temperature and mostly precipitation related.

Could the clathrate decompostion to CH4 and then the oxidation to CO2 account for those large CO2 spikes in the atmosphere?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227 thinks not and I agree definitely. The mass of clathrate in the storegga area could have amounted only to some 1-2 ppmv maximum, not 100 ppmv and yet it did, but how?

Why don't you guys try and think about that, perhaps open a bottle of beer/coke (fill in your favorite) and observe!!! while thinking.

Andre, I am still here,studying and analyzing your theory. Iknow this will add some confussion to the matter, but: "have you considered the effect of pH in the CO2 balance as acid rains (by volcanic suplhurs, for instance).

According to an input in Climatechange forum by "bchem" he states:

"One thing I am a bit concerned about in the environment is pH. Small changes in atmospheric pH and oceanic pH may have some unintended consequences. An enormous amount of the surface of the planet is covered by carbonate minerals and I would expect that changes in pH would tend to dissolve those minerals and release carbon dioxide. I am not sayin that this is a problem but do believe it a consideration.

Acidic emissions would logically reduce the pH of precipitation. It follows that carbonate minerals such as limestone, would be dissolved and release carbon dioxide. Following up on this line of thought, the enormously acidic emissions of volcanoes offer potential to upset carbon dioxide balances. Aside from the direct emissions of CO2, the sulphur oxides will tend to increase acidity and release even more CO2 that has been sequestered in minerals. It would seem reasonable to be concerned about the pH of the oceans as well as rivers and streams.

Taking this line farther, let us consider that biological systems tend to control their own pH within extremely narrow limits. The earth itself has buffering mechanisms for pH in the form of mineral deposits which are released if a pH swing is above a certain size.

I would be very interested in plotting pH of ice core samples versus presumed temperatures. I do believe that pH may be as important as CO2 in the global balance as it affects so many chemical and biological systems. This is simply a matter of curiosity. I have no agenda and no foregone conclusions. Let us see what the facts show and learn.

Hi Edufer

No doubt that pH has to do with it but perhaps only marginal since the precence of both lime and weak acidity of dissolved CO2 provide a buffer that stabilizes the pH over a wide range. That's Catastrophes terrain. Where is he?

No what I was thinking about is the opening of the coke bottle and the CO2 bubbles start to form as the pressure is released. Now picture a fishtank with an air bubble streamer. See how the water is forced up in the bubbles, creating a strong upward current. Now picture that effect on the ocean floor as a result of the clathrate destabilisation in the massive CH4 bubble stream.

Thus deep sea water under high pressure is forced to the surface, and during the uplift, de pressure decreases and the CO2 comes out of solution as in the coke bottle. Now as David Archer argues in his article on realclimate that the CH4 bubbles dissapear during the ascent, that may be so (if no saturation) but they are quickly replaced by CO2 bubbles from the oversaturated water during the depressurisation.

This is how -on a millenium scale- the ocean discharges a big mass of CO2 in the air (it contains already some 60-80 times the amount in the atmosphere anyway), not from the clathrate destabilisation but from the coke bottle type of depressurisation. I call this the coke botle hypothesis.

Dazzling isn't it?

Are there more clues for such a scenario?

Well, that the clathrate coke bottle hypothesis may have left some traces in the ocean. This may be clear from this one. It’s not my speciality to call this proof. But if that was what had happened, the CO2 pumping out of the ocean due to the vertical streaming, then this is the place to explain all that carbonate behavior:

Note the copy paste trips over the carbonate ion notation: CO3 electron -2 charged.

Hi, Andre,

I guess you’ve already seen Benny Peiser’s comment at climate Sceptic forum about the new paper questioning the severity of the Younger Dryas, but it could be of some interest for the rest of people at Sciforum. Here it is:

"Here comes yet another paper that questions whether the Younger Dryas was really that 'catastrophic.' Given recent re-assessments, it would appear that the YD wasn't that extreme, wasn't global and was perhaps not even an 'abrupt' event.

Benny"

--------------------------------------------

How extreme was northern hemisphere seasonality during the Younger Dryas?

Quaternary Science Reviews. Article in Press, Corrected Proof
http://tinyurl.com/d9ol8 <http://tinyurl.com/d9ol8>

Øyvind Lie, and Øyvind Paasche Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Allégaten 55, N-5007 Bergen, Norway

Abstract

In explaining the rapid transitions associated with the Younger Dryas cooling, a reduced meridional overturning circulation has traditionally been invoked, but such a scenario has been difficult to reproduce in model studies without adding excessive amounts of freshwater to the North Atlantic. More recent studies challenge this view and indicate that the role of an extensive sea ice cover may have been as important in promoting abrupt climate change as reorganisations of the North Atlantic Ocean [Gildor, H., Tziperman, E., 2003. Sea-ice switches and abrupt climate change. Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society Of London Series A-Mathematical Physical And Engineering Sciences 361, 1935-1942].

Based on glacier evidence from eastern Greenland [Denton, G.H., Alley, R.B., Comer, G.C., Broecker, W.S., 2005. The role of seasonality in abrupt climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews 24, 1159-1182] suggest that the seasonal temperature amplitude increased by about 20 °C during the Younger Dryas. Such a 'switching of seasonality' lends support to the idea of a fast-expanding sea ice cover, because it allows for extremely cold winters that are balanced by relatively mild summers.

However, climatic interpretations based on the geometry and length of glaciers under such conditions as in Scoresby Sund is not well understood, and equilibrium-line-altitude (ELA) estimates should, therefore, be regarded as tentative. Here, we discuss the absolute seasonal amplitude during the Younger Dryas by taking winter precipitation into account and show that the changes in seasonality may have been limited to 10 °C.

We propose that by reducing the seasonal response in Greenland compared with western Europe we better understand the hinged-door modus operandi [COHMAP, 1988. Climatic changes of the last 18,000 years: observations and model simulations. Science 241, 1043-1052] of the polar front and sea-ice cover, where the absolute southward migration of sea-ice is highest in the East Atlantic region.

Thanks Edufer, I noticed it indeed.

Now finally what is the extra force of the Non Calor Sed Umor hypothesis:

It also explains the extinction of the Woolly mammoth and contemporanies, whereas common climatology ignores this completely.

Have a look at the links in the second publication here:

http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/studies2005.htm