I find this paper (PDF) interesting, but it still does not address the temperature/CO2 800 year time lag seen in ice core records. h/t to Leif Svalgaard – Anthony
Fossil soils constrain ancient climate sensitivity
Dana L. Royer 1
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459
Global temperatures have covaried with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over the last 450 million years of Earth’s history (1). Critically, ancient greenhouse periods provide some of the most pertinent information for anticipating how the Earth will respond to the current anthropogenic loading of greenhouse gases. Paleo-CO2 can be inferred either by proxy or by the modeling of the long-term carbon cycle.

For much of the geologic past, estimates of CO2 are consistent across methods (1). One exception is the paleosol carbonate proxy, whose CO2 estimates are often more than twice as high as coeval estimates from other methods (1). This discrepancy has led some to question the validity of the other methods and has hindered attempts to understand the linkages between paleo-CO2 and other parts of the Earth system. In this issue of PNAS, Breecker and colleagues (2) break important new ground for resolving this conflict.
The paleosol carbonate proxy for atmospheric CO2 is based on the analysis of carbonate nodules that precipitate in soils in seasonally dry to dry climates. These nodules incorporate carbon from two sources: atmospheric CO2 that diffuses directly into the soil and in situ CO2 from biological respiration. Because the stable carbon isotopic composition of these two sources is distinct, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 can be inferred if the concentration of soil CO2 and the isotopic compositions of the two sources are known (3). Atmospheric CO2 estimates scale directly with soil CO2 concentration: If the soil term is wrong by a factor of two, the inferred atmospheric CO2 will be off by a factor of two.
Estimates of soil CO2 concentration for fossil soils have been based on measurements taken during the growing season in equivalent living soils. However, Breecker et al. (2, 4) demonstrate convincingly that the window of active carbonate formation is restricted to the warmer and dryer parts of the growing season. Carbonate formation is simply not thermodynamically favorable during cooler and wetter seasons. Critically, biological productivity and respiration are low during these dry periods. As a result, soil CO2 concentration during the critical window of active carbonate formation has been overestimated in most soils by a factor of two or more (2).
What does this mean? CO2 estimates from the paleosol carbonate proxy can be cut in half (or more). Doing so snaps the paleosol-based estimates in line with most other approaches (2) (Fig. 1B) and produces the most precise view to date of Earth’s CO2 history. We are now better equipped to answer some important, basic questions. For example, what is the quantitative relationship between CO2 and temperature? That is, for every doubling of CO2, what is the long-term (103–104 years) equilibrium response of global temperature (termed here climate sensitivity)?
Most assessments of climate sensitivity for the present day hover around 3°C per CO2 doubling (5), although if the longterm waxing and waning of continental ice sheets are considered it is probably closer to 6°C (6). Less is known about climate sensitivity during ancient greenhouse periods, simply because having poles draped in forest instead of ice represents a profound rearrangement of climate feedbacks.
Records of CO2 and temperature are now sufficiently robust for placing firm minimum constraints on climate sensitivity during parts of the Cretaceous and early Paleogene (125–40 Mya), a well-known globally warm interval. Indeed, owing to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature, the geologic record is ideally suited for establishing minimum thresholds. This is because, to accommodate a declining sensitivity, other boundary conditions of the Earth system need to shift exponentially, for example, unreasonable oscillations in atmospheric CO2. Policywise, establishing a basement value for climate sensitivity is a critical step for addressing our current climate crisis (5).
With few exceptions, CO2 during the Cretaceous and early Paleogene was<1,000 ppm (2) (Fig. 1B). Global mean surface temperature is very difficult to establish for these ancient periods. However, temperature change in the tropics today scales at roughly two-thirds the global change (5, 6).
If we assume a similar relationship in the past and a climate sensitivity of 3°C perCO2 doubling, a rise in atmospheric CO2 to 1,000 ppm results in a 3.6°C warming in the tropics (relative to a 280-ppm baseline).
Given that tropical sea surface temperatures range from 27° to 29°C today, tropical temperatures exceeding 30.6°–32.6°C (red band in Fig. 1A) during the Cretaceous and early Paleogene likely correspond to a climate sensitivity >3°C. This threshold was commonly surpassed during the Cretaceous and early Paleogene (Fig. 1A). For times when CO2 was <1,000 ppm, the tropical temperature threshold for a 3°C climate sensitivity would shift to correspondingly cooler values.
Further, there is abundant evidence for flatter latitudinal temperature gradients during greenhouse periods (7, 8), meaning, again, that the tropical temperature threshold used here is probably a maximum. Together, it is clear that during the Cretaceous and Paleogene climate sensitivity commonly exceeded 3°C per CO2 doubling.
Although further work is needed, the geologic evidence (2) (Fig. 1) is most consistent with long-term, future climate change being more severe than presently anticipated (5). Also, global climate models tuned to ancient greenhouse periods commonly have emergent climate sensitivities of <3°C and they fail to simulate the shallow latitudinal temperature gradients (9). Thus even for times with little ice, there are important positive feedbacks that are presently not captured adequately in climate models. Processes for warming the high latitudes without a change in CO2 include more vigorous heat transport (10, 11), more widespread stratospheric clouds in the high latitudes (12), and climate feedbacks from polar forests (13). and their study highlights the value of a clearly resolved paleo-CO2 record. However, a limitation is that they uniformly apply a “best guess” value of 2,500 ppm for soil CO2 concentration.
They recognize this as an oversimplification and is an area for future work. Better modeling of the term, perhaps through independent proxy (14), may result in a further tightening of the paleo-CO2 record.
1. Royer DL (2006) CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 70:5665– 5675.
2. Breecker DO, Sharp ZD, McFadden LD (2010) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for 2100 A.D. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:576–580.
3. Cerling TE (1991) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: Evidence from Cenozoic and Mesozoic paleosols. Am J Sci 291:377–400.
4. Breecker DO, Sharp ZD, McFadden LD (2009) Seasonal bias in the formation and stable isotopic composition of pedogenic carbonate in modern soils from central New Mexico, USA. Geol Soc Am Bull 121:630–640.
5. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
6. Hansen J, et al. (2008) Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmospheric Sci J 2: 217–231.
7. Bice KL, Huber BT, Norris RD (2003) Extreme polar warmth during the Cretaceous greenhouse? Paradox of the late Turonian δ18O record at Deep Sea Drilling Project Site 511. Paleoceanography 18:1031.
8. Bijl PK, et al. (2009) Early Palaeogene temperature evolution of the southwest Pacific Ocean. Nature 461: 776–779.
9. Shellito CJ, Sloan LC, Huber M (2003) Climate model sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels in the Early-Middle Paleogene. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 193: 113–123.
10. Korty RL, Emanuel KA, Scott JR (2008) Tropical cycloneinduced upper-ocean mixing and climate: Application to equable climates. J Clim 21:638–654.
11. Ufnar DF, González LA, Ludvigson GA, Brenner RL, Witzke BJ (2004) Evidence for increased latent heat transport during the Cretaceous (Albian) greenhouse warming. Geology 32:1049–1052.
12. Abbot DS, Tziperman E (2008) Sea ice, high-latitude convection, and equable climates. Geophys Res Lett 35:L03702.
13. Beerling DJ, Nicholas Hewitt C, Pyle JA, Raven JA (2007) Critical issues in trace gas biogeochemistry and global change. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 365:1629–1642.
14. Retallack GJ (2009) Refining a pedogenic-carbonate CO2 paleobarometer to quantify a middle Miocene greenhouse spike. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 281:57–65.
15. Bice KL, et al. (2006) A multiple proxy and model study of Cretaceous upper ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Paleoceanography 21: PA2002.
16. Bornemann A, et al. (2008) Isotopic evidence for glaciation during the Cretaceous supergreenhouse. Science 319:189–192.
17. Forster A, Schouten S, Baas M, Sinninghe Damsté JS (2007) Mid-Cretaceous (Albian Santonian) sea surface temperature record of the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Geology 35:919–922.
18. Forster A, Schouten S, Moriya K, Wilson PA, Sinninghe Damsté JS (2007) Tropical warming and intermittent cooling during the Cenomanian/Turonian oceanic anoxic event 2: Sea surface temperature records from the equatorial Atlantic. Paleoceanography 22:PA1219.
19. Moriya K, Wilson PA, Friedrich O, Erbacher J, Kawahata H (2007) Testing for ice sheets during the mid-Cretaceous greenhouse using glassy foraminiferal calcite from the mid-Cenomanian tropics on Demerara Rise. Geology 35:615–618.
20. Norris RD, Bice KL, Magno EA, Wilson PA (2002) Jiggling the tropical thermostat in the Cretaceous hothouse. Geology 30:299–302.
21. Pearson PN, et al. (2001) Warm tropical sea surface temperatures in the Late Cretaceous and Eocene epochs. Nature 413:481–487.
22. Pearson PN, et al. (2007) Stable warm tropical climate through the Eocene Epoch. Geology 35:211–214.
23. Schouten S, et al. (2003) Extremely high sea-surface temperatures at low latitudes during the middle Cretaceous as revealed by archaeal membrane lipids. Geology 31:1069–1072.
24. Tripati A, et al. (2003) Tropical sea-surface temperature reconstruction for the early Paleogene using Mg/Ca ratios of planktonic foraminifera. Paleoceanography 18:1101.
25. Wagner T, et al. (2008) Rapid warming and salinity changes of Cretaceous surface waters in the subtropical North Atlantic. Geology 36:203–206.
26. Wilson PA, Norris RD (2001) Warm tropical ocean surface and global anoxia during the mid-Cretaceous period. Nature 412:425–429.
27. Wilson PA, Norris RD, Cooper MJ (2002) Testing the Cretaceous greenhouse hypothesis using glassy foraminiferal calcite from the core of the Turonian tropics on Demerara Rise. Geology 30:607–610.
28. Wilson PA, Opdyke BN (1996) Equatorial sea-surface temperatures for the Maastrichtian revealed through remarkable preservation of metastable carbonate. Geology 24:555–558.
29. Sexton PF, Wilson PA, Pearson PN (2006) Microstructural and geochemical perspectives on planktic foraminiferal preservation: “glassy” versus “frosty”. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 7:Q12P19.
30. Pagani M, Lemarchand D, Spivack A, Gaillardet J (2005) A critical evaluation of the boron isotope-pH proxy: The accuracy of ancient ocean pH estimates. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 69:953–961.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Carl Chapman (23:08:23) :
“There is absolutely no evidence that feedback is exactly 2/3. If it was, the temperatures couldn’t have fallen since 1995, as Phil Jones now admits they have.”
Temperatures on any measure have increased since 1995:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/plot/wti/from:1995/trend/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/offset:-.15/plot/gistemp/from:1995/offset:-.24
Jones stated this increase was not statistically significant. That’s hardly an admission that temperatures have fallen since 1995. Their rise could be consistent with some measure of positive feedback.
Over at unreal climate they have fully explained the temperature/CO2 800 year time lag:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
tty (23:34:20)
A calibration curve for TEX86 for temperatures above those found in the modern ocean has been derived from culture experiments, see Schouten et al 2007 Towards calibration of the TEX86 palaeothermometer for tropical sea surface temperatures in ancient greenhouse worlds. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Schouten_TEX86Calibration-tropics_OG%2707.pdf
Oxgen isotopes are not without their difficulties – to estimate temperature from the d18O of calcite, you need to know the d18O of the water.
Robert (21:56:42) :
(…)
Imagine a vase on the top of a stand. As long as you leave it alone, nothing. But push on it, even with one finger, it will tip over and then fall. Positive feedback takes over, in the form of gravity. (…)
Preliminary testing completed. Small test group of randomly-selected empty vases, all with circular reasonably-flat bottoms, with a rounded edge going from bottom to side (main body). Light pressure from a single finger did not result in tipping over. Upon removal of pressure, vases returned to sitting flat on test surface, normally after briefly wobbling back-and-forth. Going from basic physics, assuming insignificant momentum (slow and steady application of pressure with negligible velocity during movement), the vase would not be expected to fall over unless the center of gravity was allowed to move beyond the point of contact near the base. [From contact point on rounded edge, figure the size of a circle measured from vase axis, project that perpendicularly to the test surface (will yield an ellipse given the tilt of the base). The center of gravity projected perpendicularly to the surface cannot go beyond the edge of the ellipse.]
Further, the vases exhibited a tendency to roll away from the tip of the finger then resume sitting flat (as above), or as flat as possible if the finger was still in contact with the vase. Sometimes the vases would not tilt, but were pushed along while still sitting flat (they slid).
Initial results indicate that the mere act of pushing on a vase with a single finger will not automatically result in the vase tipping over and falling. When the vase tilts instead of slides, gravity will act to keep the vase upright and yield a force acting against the pressure from the finger, up to where the center of gravity moves beyond the point of contact, i.e. the tipping point. Gravity also acts to allow the vase to slide instead of tilt. When enough pressure is applied during a tilting condition to cause the vase to tip over, gravity will then act to place the vase in a new equilibrium state that ceases the influence of the finger on the vase, i.e. it tips the vase away from the finger.
Therefore pushing the vase with a single finger does not guarantee it will tip over and fall. And since gravity acts to counter any effect from the finger, it cannot be considered to yield a positive feedback.
Physics 2, Robert 0.
No further testing is indicated as necessary. Unless one wishes to consider the anecdotal reports that a frequent cause of vases falling off of stands is the stands being disturbed (moved, bumped) and verify that a vase “left alone” on a stand can also fall.
Re: Richard Telford (Feb 15 23:24),
“it still does not address the temperature/CO2 800 year time lag seen in ice core records”
There are numerous papers that explain the lag between orbitally-forced climate change and the CO2 rise which was initiated by the warming and led to further warming. It would be far more surprising if CO2 preceded orbitally-forced climate change!
These numerous papers are thermodynamically wrong and should be scrapped.
Time to show the free energy oven: once more.
The confusion comes by mixing two physical bases: quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Thermodynamics appears as a limit in quantum statistical mechanics but if the systems are mixed, double counting happens, as the oven linked above shows.
There is no way in thermodynamics, which is a physics system that works extremely well in macroscopic systems, for example in combustion engines, to filter green house gases on an individual basis. In the thermodynamic equations a deltaX of one green house gas is indistinguishable from another, except in how much the heat capacity is changing. And the deltaX coming from H2O is much larger in quantity and in effect.
If there were a mechanism by which a small change in a greenhouse gas would induce runaway warming it would have happened with water vapor at the first orbital change, mllions of years ago, and we would not be here now typing.
Robert (21:56:42) : Obviously just one paper, needs confirmation, etc., but nicely dovetails with other research. I’d like to address this point:
“it still does not address the temperature/CO2 800 year time lag seen in ice core records.”
Natural cycles seem most often to start with a weak change in solar forcing. After a certain point, positive feedbacks take over, among them, very importantly, CO2.
Imagine a vase .. blah blah..
Thanks Robert I think we know what positive feedbacks are.
More CO2 .. more water vapour.. more warming… so the AGW hypothesis goes
Question: – why does this not carry on? What stops it? Why do temperatures eventually start plunging even as CO2 continues to rise? Why are warm interglacials brief and glacial periods long?
Nature does not seem to behave as the theory goes.
Policywise, establishing a basement value for climate sensitivity is a critical step for addressing our current climate crisis (5).
What crisis?
“Thus even for times with little ice, there are important positive feedbacks that are presently not captured adequately in climate models.”
Just a semantic niggle and I don’t know if it’s relevant here (although I think it does reveal a certain mindset): a model can take observed facts into account and perhaps give a new slant on them, but I don’t see how it can “capture” anything, let alone “important positive feedbacks”.
I’m having a little difficulty seeing how these guys can measure CO2 sensitivity long long ago, but today we can’t agree on what it is when we can see everything that is going on, TSI, clouds, albedo, ice coverage, SSTs. Indeed we can’t even agree on whether the concept of CO2 sensitivity is a sound one except in isolation.
I think we can all agree, more research is needed. Funny how all papers end that way.
As previously mentioned, there does not seem to be much control for the location(s) of the continental land masses at this time. Antarctica was barely impinging upon the south geographic pole, there was no isthmus of Panama (so the “Atlantic” and “Pacific” were virtually the same ocean), and oceanic/atmospheric circulation patterns were substantially different from the ones we see today.
Most of the paleogeographic reconstructions I have seen have a high degree of confidence that the Arctic was largely ice-free year-round, but again, was it CO2 or was it something to do with circulation patterns of that time period?
O/T : Anthony or Moderator — — —
There is a website I visit occasionally, very strongly in the IPCC camp, which has some great data, charts, etc. My suspicion is that they [whomever ‘they’ might be] do not realize that much of their archive directly refutes their belief in AGW. If ‘they’ should figure out, these valuable data might be lost. Without violating copyright laws, and what-not, is there a way for WUWT to capture at least some of their data, and preserve it for posterity?
Best wishes to all, and Thnx,
Mark H.
Reply: Your question is unanswerable without details, such as what website? ~ ctm
Robert
As Carl Chapman has already pointed out, the concept of significant positive feedback is an unlikely and unsupported concept. The fact is that that the worlds climate has been relatively stable over many millions of years despite major events that have pushed it to extremes of temperature. It as has always recovered. Your vase analogy is not a good one; the earth is more like one of those wobbly toys that always bounces back to upright eventually.
Also I suggest you check the climate records in detail before you repeat the mantra that the climate first warms as a result of orbital factors and then the increasing CO2 amplifies the effect. The ice core records show that after a period of warming the temperature begins to fall again whilst the CO2 concentrations are still rising. In some cases the temperature anomoly has dropped all the way back to zero before CO2 concentration begins to fall significantly. Rapidly falling temperatures whilst CO2 levels are at a maximum is not consistent with positive feedback unless the primary drivers completely overwhelm the feedback. If this is the case we should be looking for what makes these orbital effects so powerful.
The same is true when the earth is in the depths of an ice age. CO2 concentrations are at a minimum and albedo at a maximum and yet the earth recovers!
Indeed if I were to look at the graphs without any knowledge of what the plots related to I would say that the line representing CO2 was consistent with negative feedback!
How did/does Gore get away with claiming that CO2 causes warming in ‘an inconvenient truth’ by just splitting the two lines in the ‘graph’ to hide the fact that temperature rises first and then CO2 conc? Why wasn’t he hounded and vilified by the media for such an obvious attempt to mislead? I really can’t understand it at all.
WRONG. The authors of this paper have left out one of the major differences between 120 Mya and today – the position of the continents which change because of continental drift. If warm currents can get to the poles, which they could in the past, the poles (and average global temperatures) would be much warmer than when polar ocean currents are blocked as they are today. The two barriers today are the Americas which extend from the Arctic nearly to the Antarctic and Siberia down to South Africa.
Leaving aside any changes of atmospheric pressure or to plant life via evolution, assigning higher paleo temperatures entirely to paleo CO2 as the authors do will give a higher sensitivity to CO2 if any of the temperature difference is due to other causes (such as continental drift). I think I’m right here. If Leif or Anthony knows any of the authors perhaps they would care to comment.
Howdy Charles,
Sorry to be so vague. Most likely you know the website:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com
I made a ‘paper and pencil’ composite of three of the graphs from their archive, then did some TI- 30 Solar processing on it (so as to not offend Mr. Gore) and found interesting cross-correlations.
Looking forward to your input,
Mark H.
Reply: Oh…That’s “Hano”‘s site. Interesting backstory here. He has different content licensed with various restrictions, much under a GNU free use. Just check the copyrights on what you want and make sure you adhere to any restrictions on any redistributions. He is pretty clear. ~ ctm
As they refer to ‘our current climate crisis’, it’s pretty obvious where they’re coming from.
Although the ice cores cover a much small time scan ( around 600,000 years) they’re probably the best data source that shows the natural relationship between temperature and CO2. As far as I’m aware, they very clearly show a roughly 800 year lag, and it has not been possible to demonstrate that CO2 had any effect on the climate at all over this 600,000 year period.
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, it seems likely that the relationship demonstrated by the ice cores will be true over much longer periods. Therefore, if any scientists assume that their data demonstrates CO2 driving the climate they’re going to need proof that it was not the other way around.#
Unless they provide proof that the temperature changes were driven by CO2, any conclusions about CO2 forcing based on their data are worthless.
Science should be based on proof and not on blind faith.
By the way, as far as I’m aware, the NOAA, on their web page, still states specifically that the ice cores show that the temperature was driven by the CO2 (it says something like ‘As the CO2 goes up, the temperature goes up’, virtually a direct quote from Gore). Either the NOAA is unaware of the 800 year lag or they’re still trying to ‘hide the decline’.
Ironically, I would think the ice cores provide one of the strongest arguments against AGW, as they appear to show that CO2 has essentially no effect on the climate.
Chris
anna v (22:08:14) :
I wonder if there is somebody who has calculated how much CO2 will boil out of the oceans…
CO2 solubility in water data from brown.edu
radiusEarth and sea% from wikiPedia
Assuming warming top 1 meters from 17C to 22C
CO2 vented =
4/3**(^3 – (-1)^3) * 70%
to * (0.001845 – 0.001590)
= 9.1e+13 kg
anna v (22:08:14) :
Well the formatter didn’t like the sharp brackets around units in the equation. The data & answer survived.
(Knew better than that!)
Note from Fig 1 that (a) estimates of [co2] vary so wildly at any given time, even among those taken by similar methods, so as to be meaningless, and (b) estimates of temps seem to occur at times where fewest co2 estimates are made. So how can you correlate one with the other in any meanigful way?
anna v (00:39:31) :
If there were a mechanism by which a small change in a greenhouse gas would induce runaway warming it would have happened with water vapor at the first orbital change, mllions of years ago, and we would not be here now typing.
The next planet in towards the Sun from Earth immediately comes to mind.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have the runaway cooling case of Mars.
If we had spent more $$$ on Mars exploration instead of the $$$ wasted on chasing climate disaster theories, we’d not be in here typing about the latter. There is still the spectre of Life on Ancient Mars yet to be resolved.
So we might be typing about how Life on Mars failed to maintain the biosphere/atmosphere.
Hey, they found the leak!
So that’s where that linear co2 is coming from. 🙂
Scientists Discover Liquid Carbon Dioxide ‘Champagne’ Bubbles At Hydrothermal Vent
– ScienceDaily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050104114942.htm
RE: Carl Chapman (23:08:23) : “The assumption is positive feedback causing sensitivity. The author quotes 3 degrees centigrade per doubling of CO2, which as about 3 times the first order rise. How can a positive feedback cause 3 times the effect, without going off to infinity? The feedback would have to be finely balanced.”
I think you are confusing closed-loop gain with open-loop gain. A closed loop gain of three with positive feedback is obtained with a net open loop gain of 2/3 (0.666…) with a basic forward gain of unity. The final closed loop gain of three is the result of an infinite series of the form 1 + 2/3 + 4/9 + 8/27 + 16/81 + ….
Yes, the feedback would have to be finely balanced, however to be dangerous, the linear feedback gain would have to increase as the CO2 concentration increases to match the decreasing rate of temperature rise per each additional ppm increase in CO2 concentration. This decreasing sensitivity is implied by the logarithmic doubling relationship.
AlanG:
Nothing new. Christopher R. Scotese has had the data posted for years:
http://www.scotese.com/
My favorite quote: “During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.”
from here: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
and check the graph. Note that the high point in the early Eocene is where the bio folks tell us primates and grass eaters got their hold in life’s web.
Warmer is beter.
Earth’s surface plate drift moves land in and out of the polar regions over geologic times. Whenever the land area is large enough near the poles, glacier formation lowers sea level and results in lower temperatures and even ice ages. Add to this the planetary variation in tilt and orbit, Solar activity, and periods of massive volcanic activity (Siberian traps, etc) and biological activity, and the drivers for temperature change are many. As the temperature changes, rock erosion, sea water release of CO2, and variation in biological activity change the atmospheric CO2 level. There is NO evidence the CO2 itself caused any significant temperature change, but it is clearly logical that temperature change results in a change in CO2 level. Positive feedback is assumed, but totally without proof, and in fact seems to be falsified with present direct data. It has also been observed that the small temperature rise over the last 150 years is mainly due to higher low temperatures, not higher high temperatures. This also removes the claim of extreme high temperature problems as a result of the warming.
Richard Telford (00:30:07) :
From the paper you cite:
“…however, the crenarchaeol regioisomer in the GDGT distribution obtained from the incubation experiments is substantially less than in sediments deposited in exceptionally warm oceans of the geological past, so our laboratory results cannot be directly used to convert TEX86 values from these sediments into temperature.”
So as I said, the TEX 86 / temperature correlation is decidedly shaky.
I have a hard time with this study because it starts with the assumption that there is a baseline concentration of 280ppm CO2. The history of the Earth has been to SEQUESTER CO2, not release it. From a starting atmosphere that was dominated by CO2, with no free oxygen, the concentration fell to less than 0.02% at the end of the last glaciation. Without the activities of man, digging up peat bogs, burning fuels, processing carbonate rocks, very little CO2 would be released into the atmosphere. The historical record shows that our currently cold world releases very little CO2 on its own. There is no equilibrium state. If temperatures were to remain at the very cold pre-Industrial level with no increase in CO2, is it not possible that we might find ourselves living in a nutrient-starved desert?