3
$\begingroup$

It is stated in https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html that the temporal uncertainty for the glacier $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ records is less than $\small\mathsf{5~\%}$ at any given moment. That means ‒ for example ‒ ca. $\small\mathsf{5,\!000}$ years at $\small\mathsf{100,\!000}$ years ago. Could there have been peaks in the $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ record that rose and fell back so quickly we wouldn't be able to detect them? Is there some paper or perhaps a monography that lists all the possible events in Earth's history that could have occurred in the last $\small\mathsf{800,\!000}$ or more years, which would lead to a likewise fast $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ increase as today's, but also showing that, on the other hand, any such events would leave a long-lasting trace in the $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ that should be easily detectable in the record?

I've found out that part of the answer is already in answers to this question.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's not clear what the remaining part of your question is. Could you edit it? The resolution of the record is annual layers. I think the "temporal uncertainty" refers to the cumulative uncertainty due to disturbed/missing sections of the core. $\endgroup$ – Keith McClary Nov 8 '19 at 3:50
  • $\begingroup$ I believe Degauss is asking about the detectability of hypothetical short-lasting peak in the CO₂ record. I don't know if such peaks (rising and falling very quickly) are physical, but the question of detectability is a valid one. $\endgroup$ – gerrit♦ Nov 8 '19 at 9:25
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Degauss, welcome to the site. We were not entirely sure what you meant. I have edited your question for clarification, please edit it again if this was not was you intended. $\endgroup$ – gerrit♦ Nov 8 '19 at 9:29
  • $\begingroup$ You had edited it so well I didn't spot the difference at first. :D First I thought it would be too dumb to ask for peaks that were just "quick" but I admit that now it is more readable. $\endgroup$ – Degauss Nov 8 '19 at 23:14
2
$\begingroup$

$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ does not fall back quickly:

graph shows the IPCC 2007 $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ liftime from a computer model run that shows what happens to a single instantaneous pulse of $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ emitted to the atmosphere. One thousand years after the $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ is emitted to the atmosphere 20% is still there according to this model.
only zero carbon enter image description here

The decline shown is mostly due to $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ dissolving in the oceans.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.