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.
Correlation is not causation…… [snip]:
“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.”
[Followed by statement of disapproval, but snipped. ~ Evan]
Mike A UK (14:19:54) : You might want to start with Red Hot Lies , by Chris Horner . It deals with the US , but it’s a beginning . Also , reading this blog will prove useful – this subject gets discussed from time to time and folks from the UK have plenty to say about it .
I can only assume that Nature now is in editorial denial over plate tectonics.
This article is absolute BS and should never have gotten past the gatekeeper. That it did says more about the standards of Nature that I wish to put in print.
Mike A UK. “Has anyone put together a coherent history/framework of how this came about and just who benefits and to what end and extent?”
Try this: Global Warming:How It All Began by Richard Courtney
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
The late John Daly’s website contains quite a lot of interesting material.
The first reponse sort of sums it very well:
If the Antarctic land mass was migrating to the nether southern regions, and losing so much heat, would that not be at least a strong part of why the ice sheets formed?
The truly negative impact of CO2 seems to be its ability to lower reasoning skills in its believers.
These fossils, I am sure, do not show if the ancient land mass moved a great floating ice cap system, does it?
The accolites keep on producing petty theories hoping the Prophet will choose theirs for his next powerpoint.
Mike A UK (14:19:54) : You asked for:
coherent history/framework of how this came about
Try this: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf
Could there be a reversed effect in the past where oxygen concentration increased and CO2 decreased, mainly through increasing vegetation and then causing the ice ages?
There seems to be evidence, that the mix of gases was once like that.
However, we don’t know anything about the energy output of the early sun and it can very well been the reason for the ice ages.
Nor do we know, if not the wobble of the earth axis was causing the climate change.
(moving land mass, building of ice caps,…)
Therefore everything is speculation, unless we have all the facts!
“unique set of samples” … “a new analytical technique that I developed” … “we have, for the first time, been able to reconstruct” ….
déjà vu, isn’t it?
“The new findings will add to the debate around rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere”
there is a debate? science not settled?
Peter Plail (14:08:41) :
“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”.
From the Wikipedia:
“The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun’s orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth’s surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.
Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth’s atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).
Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 “scrubbers” with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 “scrubbing” capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years.”
The current Icehouse is believed to have commenced following the formation of the Panama Peninsula, isolating the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The Strait Magellan was also closed prior to this period. The formation of the circumpolar current in the Southern Ocean probably also played a role.
I keep reading how complicated climate science is, but it seems quite simple, based on their own statements…greenhouse gases, especially CO2 is reponsible for every climate event, change, effect, disaster, etc. How complicated is that? /sar
“The accolites keep on producing petty theories hoping the Prophet will choose theirs for his next powerpoint”
Oh dear, time to wipe the coffee off my monitor screen again. Too funny! I assume that should be “pretty” but “petty” also works.
All they are promoting is the infantile notion that low CO2 levels represent “cold” and high “CO2” levels represent heat. It’s childish AGW propaganda.
Unbelievable that this garbage is written by grown up scientists…!
And what about the faint sun paradox?
Vaguely.
One thing is an analytical technique, and other a new statistical technique, or analysis.
Anyway, It would be interesting to see the paper where this new technique has been described and validated. I would be more suspicious if the paper where the technique is described for first time is this one.
“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.”
Repeat after me. Association is not causation. Relation is not causation.
Talking about childish propaganda:
Though stalled, C&T still alive and well.
Keep calling those Senators, because they represent the last stop before Copenhagen.
If we fail to stop the C&T bill in the US there will be a Copenhagen Treaty.
If the US Senate rejects the climate bill, the Copenhagen outlook to close a Climate Treaty will be dire.
http://www.cleanskies.com/articles/gop-beware-though-now-stalled-cap-and-trade-alive-and-well
“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.”
I imagine Mann said essentially the same thing when he ran into BCPs.
Det,
One thing to keep in mind is the ratio of the very minor trace gas CO2 to the major atmospheric component O2. CO2 is about 387 parts per million, while O2 is about 209,500 parts per million.
As a professional exploration geologist, I can safely state that we have no idea what causes ice ages. They seem to be associated with mass species extinctions but this paper seems to good too be true, and it took a new analytic technique to verify the AGW thesis as well – this smacks of producing data to support the brief.
Try this in the mining business – paraphrasing it “we have shown deposit ABC to now be economic as the result of a new analytical technique”. Same old moose pasture but dressed up differently.
And who is going to get funding to replicate their work – and could take years to do, so it’s another timely announcement, too timely me thinks.
Robert Coté (15:39:52),
There is no verifiable “direct link”, either. There is, however, a direct link between articles like this and financial grants.
Smokey (15:50:27) :
There is no verifiable “direct link”, either. There is, however, a direct link between articles like this and financial grants.
Inflammation equals financialization? Good one.
Does the paper publish the R-squared coefficient, giving the level of correlation between CO2 and ice area?
If I remember right, the hockey-stick paper authors refused to publish their R-squared, and it was subsequently found to be near zero.
Haven’t any of the authors or reviewers of this deluded paper looked at the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the Antarctic ice cores? As temperatures decrease, the CO2 stays high for centuries before dropping, a delay of about 2,000 years. There is no way that technique used in the rocks has anywhere near a 2,000 year resolution. One just can’t date old rocks to such a precise level. Based on the Pleistocene sequence of events the most likely scenario is that as it got colder, CO2 was absorbed by the cooling oceans.
If less CO2 caused an increase in the ice of Anarctica, why has the ice increased in the Anarctic during an increase in CO2 the past number of years?
The consensus pre-global warming hysteria was that the reason Antarctica got colder was primarily its growing isolation for other continents, which allowed ocean currents to circulate around it rather than up toward the tropics. Antarctica was initially connected to both Australia and South America, which meant that the currents were forced up around the equator. Australia broke away first. I don’t recall the exact timing, but it was after the die-off of the dinosaurs. Antarctica apparently got somewhat colder after Australia broke away, but the glaciers didn’t really start heading for continental scale until the connection to South America was broken around 20-25 million years ago. At that point the ocean currents could flow around Antarctica without heading to the tropics and collecting heat before coming back down.
Antarctica actually had a collection of land mammals for quite some time. Based on very limited fossils they were basically cold country versions of the old island South America mammals. Antarctic fossils have been found of Marsupials, the group that includes armadillos and sloths, and some now-extinct South American hoofed animals. They also apparently included very large flightless carnivorous birds.
I get the feeling that the Global Warming types are stomping in sciences they don’t understand enough that eventually there is going to be a backlash. Let’s see: stomp around in Paleontology. Yep, the chronology of Antarctic glaciers gets redone to fit the theory. Yep, the history of the Medieval period has to be revised to get rid of the warm period and the little ice age. Yep, economic predictions have to be reinvented so we can tell you how much CO2 the world will be emitting a hundred years from now. Yep, statistics has to be reinvented so that dirty, high uncertainty data can fuel a degree of certainty high enough to justify tossing away hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure.
If you look at the reactions of the fields these guys are tromping around in closely you’ll see quiet indirect, I don’t want to get attacked by a bunch of global warming nutballs, expressions of what is basically contempt from a lot of them, mixed with attempts to cut off a slice of the global warming grant pie for the fields involved.