Meanwhile today while CO2 is increasing, the Antarctic ice cap is also increasing.
Bill Illis writes about it:
Ice sheets formed in Antarctica about 35 million years ago when CO2 was about 1,200 ppm. Ice sheets also formed in Antarctica about 350 to 290 million years ago when CO2 was about 350 ppm. Ice sheets also formed in Antarctica about 450 to 430 million years ago when CO2 was about 4,500 ppm. The more common denominator is when continental drift places Antarctica at the south pole.
Below, Antarctica today.
New data illuminates Antarctic ice cap formation
From a Bristol University Press release issued 13 September 2009
A paper published in Nature
New carbon dioxide data confirm that formation of the Antarctic ice-cap some 33.5 million years ago was due to declining carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A team of scientists from Bristol, Cardiff and Texas A&M universities braved the lions and hyenas of a small East African village to extract microfossils from rocks which have revealed the level of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere at the time of the formation of the ice-cap.
Geologists have long speculated that the formation of the Antarctic ice-cap was caused by a gradually diminishing natural greenhouse effect. The study’s findings, published in Nature online, confirm that atmospheric CO2 started to decline about 34 million years ago, during the period known to geologists as the Eocene – Oligocene climate transition, and that the ice sheet began to form about 33.5 million years ago when CO2 in the atmosphere reached a tipping point of around 760 parts per million (by volume).
The new findings will add to the debate around rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere as the world’s attention turns to the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen which opens later this year.
Dr Gavin Foster from the University of Bristol and a co-author on the paper said: “By using a rather unique set of samples from Tanzania and a new analytical technique that I developed, we have, for the first time, been able to reconstruct the concentration of CO2 across the Eocene-Oligocene boundary – the time period about 33.5 million years ago when ice sheets first started to grow on Eastern Antarctica. “
Professor Paul Pearson from Cardiff University’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, who led the mission to the remote East Africa village of Stakishari said: “About 34 million years ago the Earth experienced a mysterious cooling trend. Glaciers and small ice sheets developed in Antarctica, sea levels fell and temperate forests began to displace tropical-type vegetation in many areas.
“The period culminated in the rapid development of a continental-scale ice sheet on Antarctica, which has been there ever since. We therefore set out to establish whether there was a substantial decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as the Antarctic ice sheet began to grow.”
Co-author Dr Bridget Wade from Texas A&M University Department of Geology and Geophysics added: “This was the biggest climate switch since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
“Our study is the first to provide a direct link between the establishment of an ice sheet on Antarctica and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and therefore confirms the relationship between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global climate.”
The team mapped large expanses of bush and wilderness and pieced together the underlying local rock formations using occasional outcrops of rocks and stream beds. Eventually they discovered sediments of the right age near a traditional African village called Stakishari. By assembling a drilling rig and extracting hundreds of meters of samples from under the ground they were able to obtain exactly the piece of Earth’s history they had been searching for.
Further information:
The paper:Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition. Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster & Bridget S. Wade. Nature online, Sunday 13th September.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What if because antarctica it is located at the south pole. Wouldn’t it be a simpler explanation?
While I don’t believe (I’m Christian) in the geologic timescale of billions of years this does put a rather big dent in the idea that the world has never been warmer and CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been. Let the factories continue to output CO2 then, by the time we reach 760 PPM we will actually have green technology worthy of replacing coal and oil.
Seriously though, does that mean that man is to blame for the MWP and the Romans and early Chinese culture contributed enough CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere to create the Roman Warm Period. Still based on an idea that CO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas at the current level then it actually is really.
Ice sheets formed in Antarctica about 35 million years ago when CO2 was about 1,200 ppm.
Ice sheets also formed in Antarctica about 350 to 290 million years ago when CO2 was about 350 ppm.
Ice sheets also formed in Antarctica about 450 to 430 million years ago when CO2 was about 4,500 ppm.
The more common denominator is when continental drif t places Antarctica at the south pole.
I had to double check my calendar – no, it’s definitely not April 1st.
If true, and one will need a bit of convincing about the accuracy of the techniques to that distance in time, then this is the first proven case in which CO2 declines plausibly caused temperature declines. So very interesting, and an argument in favor of the concept that reducing CO2ppm will actually have the desired effect.
Interesting. 760ppm of c02 led to a freeze over tipping point. Not a global warming scenario exactly, given such a high level of potent heat trpping gas
Very careful wording here, very unfortunate that it will be used to fuel climate change legislation.
In particular interest, this line
“Our study is the first to provide a direct link between the establishment of an ice sheet on Antarctica and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and therefore confirms the relationship between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global climate.”
The only relationship that this study actually establishes is that the Antarctic sheet formed when Co2 dipped to roughly double current levels.
Now assuming that’s causal, which the tone of the Nature article leans toward ( as for the research paper, I couldn’t comment ), it actually disproves the need for any climate change legislation to prevent the ice caps dissapearing, as we’d have to roughly double output to get the greenhouse effect to above Antarctic forming, and it certainly disproves the need to cut emissions to accomplish the same thing.
Though, that’s falling into a trap, as you are then agreeing with the premise that Co2 is causal.
Looks like we’re only half way there to getting CO2 levels back to their normal pre-Eocene levels. With the icecaps melted think of the vast expanses of land available for cultivation and settlement on Greenland and Antartica as well as the improvement in climate for northern Canada, Europe and Siberia.
Can anyone estimate with whether the addition of these lands will offset those that get flooded due to the sea level rise?
I’m not sure wiping out Wall Street and Washington DC would necessarily be a bad thing. We could make the capital of the USA Topeka, KS. It would make it easier for everyone in the USA to attend protest marches there and the politicians would save on Jet fuel getting to work.
Thanks
William
So CO2 declined and caused temperature decline and ice caps 35 million years ago, but in recent millions of years CO2 declines and advances follow temperature changes. When did the flip-flop happen?
It will be interesting to study this paper to see which came first – the chicken or the egg.
In other words – did the drop in temperature cause the CO2 to drop or did the drop in CO2 cause the temperature to drop.
What about the non correlation with previous ice ages? Why is the Greenland ice cap 160K years old? A CO2 drop 34mya caused an ice age starting 2mya? Maybe declining temperature caused CO2 to drop? Wouldn’t that better fit the data?
Sorry knee jerk questions. It must be right it gives an answer that we wanted.
Can any geologists out there confirm that “geologists have long speculated that the formation of the Antarctic ice-cap was caused by a gradually diminishing natural greenhouse effect”.
It is comforting, however, to know that there is an upper tipping point for CO2 at 760ppm, after which global warming will be replaced by global cooling!
So the wolf was right, and it was that blessed lamb drinking in the water down stream that muddied up his water.
Well CO2 goes down, Ice goes up, presumably temperature goes up, surface is warm and muggy, clouds are high and ethereal, I see a patetrn !
CO2 causes warming; high clouds cause warming and mugginess; not a snowball’s chance in hell, that it happens the other way round, even if the cause doesn’t happen till after the effect.
George
PS Yes climate “Science” is better referred to as “Climatology”; rhymes with “Astrology”.
John G, your post is related to my question.
How good of resolution and accuracy do they have in the CO2 dates? How good of resolution and accuracy do they have in the dates of ice formation in Antarctica?
Do we really know that the CO2 drop caused the cooling rather than the other way around?
Hmmm, are they trying the reverse engineering argument?
The tipping point was lack of sunspots but the researchers were unable to find proxy fossils to match the criteria so instead went for CO2.
Science is settled on a deep pit’s floor and WUWT pendulum oscillating above it is menacing “new age” science.
This is completely off topic, so I apologise in advance. I am a 110% sceptic on the AGW and climate change stuff. I broadly understand the science and the nonsense that’s being put out and the truth that’s being suppressed. So for me, something has to be wrong with it all. But, a non-scientist asked ‘So who benefits from the lies?’ My answer seems so multi-headed; – green religion, scientists ensuring grants, politicians tuning into public opinion to get re-elected, capitalists devising trading schemes etc etc. And is not very convincing to the non-scientist. Has anyone put together a coherent history/framework of how this came about and just who benefits and to what end and extent? I’d appreciate a link or other pointer. Thanks.
Mike A UK
Well, on a first pass, we could say, if this paper is correct, that we are around halfway towards a situation where there might be serious danger of Antarctic melt if, all other things being equal, the level of CO2 is the most important factor. This would seem to imply that there are maybe 3 centuries to go before things become critical.
Perhaps we don’t need knee-jerk responses now and can take a more measured view?
“By using a rather unique set of samples from Tanzania and a new analytical technique that I developed, we have, for the first time, been able to reconstruct the concentration of CO2 …..”
Do the words “unique set of samples” and “new analytical technique” seem familiar?
It was the “progressive” decrease which made everything down.
As Anthony commented in the opening paragraph, if the antarctic ice-cap is growing, does this mean that we can expect sea levels to drop globally?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
…suggests that CO2 levels fell from 2400 ppm 180 M yrs ago to today … but temperatures started falling 33 M yrs ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
… shows falling temperatures for 540 M yrs … with lots of fluctuations. 60 to 30 M yrs ago shows the greatest fall.
Both temperature plots show very poor correlation with CO2 concentrations.
Despite these, the key issue is that MAN’S fossil fuel burning is supposed to be causing “alarming” warming. Fossil fuel burning increased dramatically after 1945 but the rate of temperature rise declined, instead of increasing as claimed by alarmists.
http://www.q-skills.com/tmpvff2.jpg
I am amazed why this graph is not published more widely. I am still waiting for an alarmist to point out exactly when the recent “alarming” warming is supposed to have happened.
This study “confirms” that formation of the ice cap was caused by declining CO2?
Really? Confirms?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
Where have I heard that before?
Somebody should tell that hero Dr Gavin Foster, who braved the lions and hyenas of a small East African village (tho’ what lions and hyenas are doing in the village is anybody’d guess), that there is no such thing as “rather unique”. The set of samples are either unique or they are not unique.