What Caused the Glacial to Interglacial CO2 Change?
Scenarios put forward to explain the 80 µatm glacial to interglacial change in atmospheric CO2 content are evaluated. The conclusion is that no single mechanism is adequate. Rather, contributions from temperature, sea ice, biologic pumping, nutrient deepening, and CаCOз cycling must be called upon. The observation that the 13C/12C ratio for Antarctic foraminifera was 0.9±0.1‰ lower during glacial than during interglacial time constitutes a huge fly in the ointment for all scenarios proposed to date.
KeywordsBiomass Phosphorus Dioxide Phytoplankton Calcite
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Broecker WS, Peng T-H (1986) Carbon cycle: 1985. Glacial to interglacial changes in the operation of the global carbon cycle. Radiocarbon 28:309–327Google Scholar
- Charles CD, Fairbanks RG (1990) Glacial to interglacial changes in the isotopic gradients of southern ocean surface water. In: Bleil U, Thiede J (eds) Geological History of the Polar Oceans: Arctic Versus Antarctic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp 519–538Google Scholar
- CLIMAP PROJECT MEMBERS (1981) Seasonal reconstruction of the Earth’s surface at the last glacial maximum. Geol. Soc. Amer., Map and Chart Series 36Google Scholar
- Craig H, Gordon LI (1965) Deuterium and oxygen-18 variations in the ocean and the marine atmosphere. In: Tongiorgi T (ed), Stable Isotope in Oceanographic Studies and Paleotemperatures. Consiglio Nazional delle Richerche Laboratorio de Geologia Nucleare, Pisa, Italy, pp 9–130Google Scholar
- Opdyke BN, Walker JCG (1991, in press) The return of the coral reef hypothesis: Glacial to interglacial partitioning of basin to shelf carbonate and its effect on Holocene atmospheric pCO2. GeologyGoogle Scholar
- Volk T, Hoffert MI (1985) Ocean carbon pumps: Analysis of relative strengths and efficiencies in ocean-driven atmospheric CO2 changes. In: Sundquist ET, Broecker WS (eds) The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric CO2: Natural Variations Archean to Present. Geophysical Monograph 32, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp 99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar