(Right-click on the image and choose "View Image" to see full
size image)
First of all, the results demonstrate clearly that the
relationship between climate and CO2 that had been
deduced from the Vostok core appears remarkably robust. This is
despite a significant change in the patterns of
glacial-interglacial changes prior to 400,000 years ago. The
'EPICA challenge' was laid down a few months ago for people
working on carbon cycle models to predict whether this would be
the case, and mostly the predictions
were right on the mark. (Who says climate predictions can't be
verified?). It should also go almost without saying that
lingering doubts about the reproducibility of the ice core gas
records should now be completely dispelled. That a number of
different labs, looking at ice from different locations,
extracted with different methods all give very similar answers,
is a powerful indication that what they are measuring is real.
Where there are problems (for instance in N2O in very
dusty ice), those problems are clearly found and that data
discarded.
Secondly, these results will allow paleoclimatologists to really look in detail at the differences between the different interglacials in the past. The previous 3 before our current era look quite similar to each other and were quite short (around 10,000 years). The one 400,000 years ago (Marine Isotope Stage 11, for those who count that way) was hypotheisied to look more like the Holocene and appears to be significantly longer (around 30,000 years). Many of the details though weren't completely clear in the Vostok data, but should now be much better resolved. This may help address some of the ideas put forward by Ruddiman (2003, 2005), and also help assess how long our current warm period is likely to last.
More generally, since the extra interglacials that are now
resolved have very different characteristics from the previous
ones, they may allow us to test climate theories and models over
a whole new suite of test cases. To quote Richard Alley "Whether
you're a physicist, a chemist, a biologist, a geologist, or any
other "ist" studying the Earth system, there is something in
these data that confirms much of your understanding of the
planet and then challenges some piece of your understanding".
It's all very exciting (for us 'ists' at least!).