Ice Age Cycles Revealed from Antarctic Ice Cores(Analysis of Antarctica Ice Sheet )
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- This episode introduces the ice age cycle found in Antarctic ice.
00:11 Introduction
02:03 Since when did ice form in Antarctica?
05:02 The curtain rises on Antarctic ice core research
10:54 Finding the key to climate change at the Vostok station
13:21 Dusty Ice age
#antarctica #iceage #greenland
200 ppm is scary close to the 150 ppm of plant death. Let's hear it for co2 pollution!👍
Yawn... That's getting old.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Really? The death of plant life is getting old. What is old is the tiresome reiteration of decades long tales of false woes that never come to fruition.
Admit it. You had no idea of the 150 ppm danger did you?
@@trojanthedog
We live in a time of rising CO2 levels, right" So your low CO2 comment is a strawman argument. Grow up, grow a pair and get back to us.
Also, some past climate models proved to be quite accurate.
@@hosnimubarak8869 CO2 caused temperature change is the strawman, projectocrat.
Petitio principi: the graph shows CO2 increases lag temperature changes, the reverse of what should be seen if CO2 is driving temperature change.
In school we are taught that, in the Quaternary, there is an increase in temperature due to orbital forcing (the Milankovich cycles). This causes a release of CO2 (degassing from the oceans and permafrost melt). Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas this compounds the warming forming a feedback effect.
The conspiracy theorists know that not everyone is scientifically literate and point this out (omitting the whole feedback thing) and say: see? co2 lags temperature! Then play with peoples intuition saying "if Y can cause X then X can't cause Y". But the argument that "if Y can cause X then X can't cause Y" does not make sense if you think about it for more than just a second. If this was the case there would be no feedback phenomenons anywhere.
Troll who Parrots the obvious Crap that they can't be mutually reinforcing. Troll Parrot. Polly want a cracker ? Polly want a cracker ?
@@nunofoo8620 "The conspiracy theorists know....". LoL. It IS a random conspiracy theorist (aka money practicalist if you want to GET REAL). They ALL are. They ALL are Trolls and They ALL ALWAYS will be.
@@nunofoo8620
CO2 has had zero effect on climate in the last 600 million years, until the last 20, when carbon tax was invented!
Does that tell you anything?
.
@@niklar55 "CO2 has had zero effect on climate in the last 600 million years, until the last 20, whe carbon tax was invented!"
You don't even have the ability to understand that, while you may think that statement is correct, me, a different person than you, do not believe that statement is correct.
That statement is true in your mind. In my mind that is nonsense that you consumed in conspiracy theory videos and are spewing like it was facts.
So to me, that tells me that you don't understand other people have a different mind than yours, other information, and value different information/data sources than you.
That tells me that you don't understand "Theory of mind".
So what came first? Did the temp increase and then the CO2 increased or was it the other way round and can the sequence be proven? Or, was there geological activity, volcanoes/CO2 released from oceans/etc, that had significant influence?
The Milankovitch cycles drive the ice ages but his takes thousands of years and their effect is too weak to cause the shifts between glacials and interglacials on their own. Ice cores show us quite clearly that as orbital changes start the warm up phase after an ice age ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. Of course many prominent "deniers " try to cherry pick this information and claim CO2 "lags" temperature change and thus cannot be a driver but the science is clear.
@@hosnimubarak8869 so CO2 release follows warming … got it!
@@hosnimubarak8869
No they don't, a wandering planet causes the Iceages,
The Floods tipped the planet off it's Axis..
Milancovitch's theory is irrelevant.
You saw that here, remember that all these channels will be saying that very thing.
watch this space.
Icecores at The Arctic an Antarctica would be 8.5k yrs old, app'.
@@user-li5vr6cd6o
About 800,000 years old.
Interglacial warming was caused by 10,000 years of dust on the ice sheets.
The dust was caused by a lack of CO2, which caused CO2 deserts - mostly in the Gobi region.
The dust covered (ie: low albedo) ice sheets easily melted.
See paper ‘ModuIation of lce Ages by Dust and AIbedo’.
R
Thank you.
Drivel you have, I heard it before. It's summer sunshine at circa 65N, i correlates perfectly, The ice-snow albedo feedback that causes is a huge feedback. There's bound to be more dust but that ain't a hill of beans.
@@grindupBaker 536 a.d. catastrophe repeats and cosmic events are ACTUAL DANGERS... and FREEZING STARVATION!
The ice cores do not show CO2 lag, because the increased CO2 cooled things. Not lag but driver of the cooling. Satellite data have recently revealed that between 2002 and 2019, the mesosphere and lower thermosphere cooled by 3.1 degrees F (1.7 degrees C ). Mlynczak estimates that the doubling of CO2 levels thought likely by later this century will cause a cooling in these zones of around 13.5 degrees F (7.5 degrees C), which is between two and three times faster than the average warming expected at ground level.
Those vocal falling sentence endings are extremely irritating. Hopefully a cheap AI affectation. Had to click away to find the same data more comfortably presented in any number of similar sites. Still a sub, albeit disgruntled. ( south Florida )
This affectation is unbearable. I would be interested in the content, but I can't listen to this cringe style of speaking.
Thank you for saving my sanity.
Go out and enjoy the sun, and let the little things go. We’re all deeply irritating to someone out there. Be kind
And are these ice cores coming from areas of blue ice in Antarctica? Where the ice has pressed bubbles and impurities out?
GET IT CORRECT!
The polar ice caps are formed by an Ice Age, that commenced some 30-40 million years ago.
The variations in the ice records are the GLACIAL periods, or ages.
.
Впервые вижу канал на подобную тематику.
Wow amazing and complete video 16:07
So, CO2 rises after a temperature rise. Not the other way around... which is quite obvious as its an extremely low potency greenhouse gas and its atmospheric concentration is mostly irrelevant.
Also, lower temperatures mean a more desertic planet, both cold deserts and warm deserts, so more dust particles in the atmosphere, hence why ice ages are more dusty.
"So, CO2 rises after a temperature rise. "
Yes, that can happen
"Not the other way around"
Wrong. A rise CO2 will lead to rise in temperatures
If your justification is "if Y can cause X then X can't cause Y" we would not have ANY feedbacks or a vicious cycles in nature. This is how conspiracy websites brainwash people with no scientific training. By playing with your intuition.
A small increase in temperature causes release of co2 from the oceans. This initial temperature increase doesn’t have to be a lot. When the co2 is released, this causes a warming effect, which releases more co2, which will in turn increases the temperature. This is the main driving force behind the interglacial periods, that is started by what’s called the milankovitch cycle, where the earth’s obliquity (the tilt of the earth) changes, in a cycle that’s about 80,000 years, when the tilt is back to the same degree again.
Tl;dr: an increase in temperature releases co2, after that an increase in co2 raises the temperature.
@@Twinrehz CO2 in the concentrations we have in our atmospheres is mostly irrelevant, otherwise we would have a snowball effect where the planet would warm up to oblivion and stay there, the planet instead follows the cycles and CO2 comes and goes as a consequence, not as a driving force.
@@sjwarialaw8155 It would only warm up to oblivion if the supply of CO2 was infinite, which it for very obvious reasons is not.
@@Twinrehz therefore CO2 being mostly irrelevant.
So what was the percentage of c02 back then cuz the percentage now is around 0.00002 percent
I thought the Allan Hills Ice Core revealed 2.7 million years of carbon data.
Is this mistaken?
Except the CO2 density graph shows a radically strong correlation between CO2 levels and Temperature when CO2 levels are less than 250ppm, and a radically weak correlation when CO2 levels are between 250 and 300 ppm - where Temperature skyrockets. This suggests that CO2 levels are not tightly bound to Temperature, which means something else is responsible.
When I was in Jr high, my geology teacher told us that we were thousands of years overdue for an ice age, thank God for global warming
Your Geology teacher was an ignorant fool!
This planet is IN an Ice Age, that started 30-40 million years ago, and has many tens of millions of years to go before it finishes.
Ice core data is bunk and here is why. Blue ice occurs when snow falls on a glacier, is compressed, and becomes part of the glacier. During compression, air bubbles are squeezed out, so ice crystals enlarge. This enlargement is responsible for the ice's blue color. Small amounts of regular ice appear to be white because of air bubbles inside and also because small quantities of water appear to be colorless. In glaciers, the pressure causes the air bubbles to be squeezed out, increasing the density of the created ice. Once blue ice is exposed to warmer air, cracks and fissures appear in surface layers, and break up the large blue crystals of dense, pure ice. Within hours these air filled fissures cloud the surface making the ice appear white. So they are measuring CO2 that has been pressed out by who knows how much pressures of how many thousands of years. That's why we see less and less gas in ice the older it gets and as it presses the gases and impurities out.
The Yukon has mountains as well; In my book they are both the same place in the north pole area and are really the ice walls area beyond the poles.
It's only a "cycle" if it has clear regularity. That doesn't appear to be the case. This data also lacks any real means of distinguihsing cause from effect. Thirdly, it leaps from data gathered entirely from Antarctica to make an assertion about global temperatures - and since we know that there is a tendency for one pole to cool while the other warms it is hard to see what this extrapolation is based on. Fourthly, over such long time periods continental drift changes sea currents, prevailing winds and solar warming profiles which makes it even harder to draw clear conclusions about anything. Sadly, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, science is still far from understanding the climate. All that we know for sure is that nature has a way of correcting itself - else we would not be here to discuss it.
All excellent points! Extrapolation can only provide a rough guide. There is a huge amount of energy flowing through the Earth. With so many inter-related feedback cycles in operation, including the Milankovitch cycles, nature will always tend toward an equilibrium state but will never reach it. The equilibrium state is a moving target.
The recent glacial - warming "cycles" over the recent 800,000 years has proven a range of safe (for us) conditions. We can only hope that a similar pattern emerges after the ongoing release of previously and naturally sequestered carbon. To keep that hope alive, we should reduce emissions of the fossil carbon (dioxide) as much as possible. We should replace the energy being derived from burning that fossil carbon with the source of energy that has the lowest full life cycle carbon footprint
Nature will indeed correct itself in its inevitable trend towards equilibrium - even if that requires flipping into a very different state. Chaos is lurking out there somewhere. We also have the means to correct our actions and reason to hope that our corrections will have some regard for humanity.
@@virgilfenn2364 Well first you agree with me and then you seem to immediately return to the assumption that carbon driven global warming is a real and serious concern. So far as I can see, convincing evidence of impending carbon driven catastrophe is entirely lacking. We know that at least one third, and possibly more, of recent warming has been caused by the reduction in particulate and sulphur emissions due to such things as clean air acts, the switch to alternative fuels (including north Atlantic shipping) and of course Lockdown. In other words, anti-climate change legislation is actually causing warming. Even so, predicted sea-level changes and other catastrophes have dramatically failed to come true. Isn't that sufficient evidence to re-examine all assumptions and delay Draconian legislation that is threatening the very stability of the world economy?
@@kubhlaikhan2015 The prediction that no action is needed has even more uncertainty than my warning that we should at least replace the energy we are getting from fossil fuels with the source of energy that emits the least amount of CO2. We should do our best to NOT push the global climate even further from the relative stability of the recent 800,000 years.
Convincing evidence that there will NOT be an impending carbon driven catastrophe is entirely lacking. Complacency in the face of a 50% increase in at least one of the materials involved in a crucial feedback loop is not wise.
Great !!
Keep going
Thank you.
CO2 concentration changes lag climate by 800 years. 800 years just happens to be how long the global ocean current takes to complete one cycle.
CO2 reacts to climate, not a driver of climate. There are dozens or hundreds of factors that effect climate, most we don't understand or even know about. CO2 is minor and it's small effect is almost completely expended.
ok, like a beer commercial or the voice over in Teken.
Great presentation! I enjoy your accent
Thank you
Sceptical on time-lines. Nothing can confirm these.
Question: if Noah's flood happened shouldn't there be evidence in the ice core samples? Is there evidence of floods? Does the ice trap evidence of meteors hitting the earth?
If it happened? There is no proof of that afaik.
We should be finding pairs of frozen effelumps in the ice. Maybe they're there but they thought they were Mammofs.
There were multiple floods.
.
@@niklar55 I agree with that statement. I believe there were floods all around the world at different times, but not one worldwide flood.
Noah’s flood was caused by a septic tank breach that washed all the religious crap downstream. He whole thing stinks
WHY? Now that's a very annoying voice that ruins the whole experience with this video! The last video about the ice age in Europe has a voiceover that is perfectly ok and human speaking! Why switch to Computerized voice or sick pronunciation???
Before, I used AI voice-over, but now I'm using human voice-over from a professional voice actor.
No mention of Earth heat of ice from below . Rate and periods of melt increase or decreased. This, as it is happening now., is all ice is melting , mountain and North and South polar regions plus Greenland. Surely this must be a new occurrence. Solar excess heat and shields declining. Important to know is it out of our hands to do much but hope for Solar reducing heat energy to Earth.
536 a.d. catastrophe repeats and cosmic events are ACTUAL DANGERS... and FREEZING STARVATION! b.s.
Australia owns a large part of Antarctica, It's called the Australian Antarctic Territories! Our Alaska, we will give it up when the US gives Alaska back to Russia!
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Low CO2 kills green plants.
The temperature graphs of Greenland and Antarktika show a high degree of agreement, proving that although the measurement is local, the ice core recordings can be considered globa. Why is nobody interested in testing M. MANN's hockey stick by focusing on the last 1000 years??l.
There is only one thing colder than ice in nature and that is melting ice 😮
HAHAHAHA
JASON BRESHEARS
ARCHAIX
WILL EXPLAIN
AND YOU AIN'T GONNA
LIKE IT
Antarctica is not a continent on the bottom of a ball.