From the University of Leicester press office: An ancient Earth like ours
Geologists reconstruct the Earth’s climate belts between 460 and 445 million years ago
An international team of scientists including Mark Williams and Jan Zalasiewicz of the Geology Department of the University of Leicester, and led by Dr. Thijs Vandenbroucke, formerly of Leicester and now at the University of Lille 1 (France), has reconstructed the Earth’s climate belts of the late Ordovician Period, between 460 and 445 million years ago.
The findings have been published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA – and show that these ancient climate belts were surprisingly like those of the present.
The researchers state: “The world of the ancient past had been thought by scientists to differ from ours in many respects, including having carbon dioxide levels much higher – over twenty times as high – than those of the present. However, it is very hard to deduce carbon dioxide levels with any accuracy from such ancient rocks, and it was known that there was a paradox, for the late Ordovician was known to include a brief, intense glaciation – something difficult to envisage in a world with high levels of greenhouse gases. “
The team of scientists looked at the global distribution of common, but mysterious fossils called chitinozoans – probably the egg-cases of extinct planktonic animals – before and during this Ordovician glaciation. They found a pattern that revealed the position of ancient climate belts, including such features as the polar front, which separates cold polar waters from more temperate ones at lower latitudes. The position of these climate belts changed as the Earth entered the Ordovician glaciation – but in a pattern very similar to that which happened in oceans much more recently, as they adjusted to the glacial and interglacial phases of our current (and ongoing) Ice Age.
This ‘modern-looking’ pattern suggests that those ancient carbon dioxide levels could not have been as high as previously thought, but were more modest, at about five times current levels (they would have had to be somewhat higher than today’s, because the sun in those far-off times shone less brightly).
“These ancient, but modern-looking oceans emphasise the stability of Earth’s atmosphere and climate through deep time – and show the current man-made rise in greenhouse gas levels to be an even more striking phenomenon than was thought,” the researchers conclude.
Reference: Vandenbroucke, T.R.A., Armstrong, H.A., Williams, M., Paris, F., Zalasiewicz, J.A., Sabbe, K., Nolvak, J., Challands, T.J., Verniers, J. & Servais, T. 2010. Polar front shift and atmospheric CO2 during the glacial maximum of the Early Paleozoic Icehouse. PNAS doi/10.1073/pnas.1003220107.
Contacts: (Mark Williams and Jan Zalasiewicz at the Department of Geology, University of Leicester: Respectively tel. 0116 252 3642 and 0116 2523928, and e-mails mri@le.ac.uk and jaz1@le.ac.uk).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Error in title: The report says that CO2 levels were not 20x higher, more like 5x higher
Was the sun really that much dimmer ?
REPLY: Actually both 20x and 5x were stated in the article, but I’ve added emphasis so that readers see both points – Anthony
If anyone can find a statistically significant correlation on that graph between CO2 and Average temperature, then be my guest.
There is not a single direct correlation over the past 500 million years directly linking the two imho.
There are times when they move in the same direction and times when they move in opposite directions.
I’d love to have a look at the raw statistical data and do a full statistical analysis.
I’d bet that mathematically speaking there would be no significant correlation.
First, their conclusion was that the pCO2 was five, not 20, times as high as today. Plus their gratuitous green comment that the current rise is more extraordinary than realized, is both irritating and nonsensical. The variance of 1850 and 2010 is not possible to detect through geological studies of even “shallow” time: the mechanisms are not that good (even glacial ice is questionable over thousands of years, due to possible changes in pCO2 in ice-encased bubbles). As a geologist, I am very aware of the plus/minus of geological conclusions. But the gratuitous comment places this fellows in a chummy camp and shows their social concerns and values. Bully for them.
Completely clueless paper.
They assume that the difference in temperature during the Ordovician was due to “5X CO2” and negate their own reasoning about the Ordovician ice age.
How is it that all the corals and sea shells didn’t dissolve? Romm tells us that a few ppm is all that is needed to turn their shells soft. Have the chemical properties of Aragonite changed?
CO2 does not warm the planet, the sun does.
CO2 can only help to insulate the planet, and that is only very little.
Obviously it’s not even good at it, because when CO2 levels were sky high, the planet still went into ice ages.
You couldn’t even find 0.038% of anything.
They have fallen into the oldest trap in science. “The hypothesis is right therefore the data must be wrong.”
Sorry chaps – try again.
“How is it that all the corals and sea shells didn’t dissolve?”
===================================================
Steve, because corals are lazy. They let their symbiotic algae/dinos change the pH which makes CaCarb precipitate out of solution.
They don’t have to do a thing but sit there and let it happen.
Changing the ambient pH, either up or down, will have very little effect on them at all.
lol, CO2 levels have to be lower than thought to fit our preconceived notions regards CO2 and the effect it has on our climate. Nice bit of science work there. How many CO2 molecules can dance on the tip of a needle?
The study was even more brilliant in that now we can apparently quantify CO2’s effect by comparing the temps and CO2 levels of then to the solar radiance of then compared to now. Very nice.
This ‘modern-looking’ pattern suggests that those ancient carbon dioxide levels could not have been as high as previously thought, but were more modest, at about five times current levels (they would have had to be somewhat higher than today’s, because the sun in those far-off times shone less brightly).
My question is, did these people get paid for this? Did we foot the bill?
Tabulate corals occur in the limestones and calcareous shales of the Ordovician and Silurian periods, and often form low cushions or branching masses alongside Rugose corals. Their numbers began to decline during the middle of the Silurian period and they finally became extinct at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago. The skeletons of Tabulate corals are composed of a form of calcium carbonate known as calcite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral#Evolutionary_history
That was THE LOST PARADISE And we lost it because somebody ate from the tree of WRONG KNOWLEDGE, and some levogyred people gave him the Paleo-Nobel-prize!!…
Scientists of that time investigated the issue and determined that all those who ate from the fruit of that wrong tree, drinking its juice, since then called Kool-Aid juice, got their DNA chain turned to the left in them and in all their descendants. That peculiarity of theirs was afterward known as the “Original Sin”.
It seems that they moved down to 5 times current CO2 on the basis that CO2 is such a villain that the climate couldn’t have been as they found it to be, with 20 times the CO2. That is, they buy the CO2 story totally, and adjust other estimates in light of the CO2 orthodoxy.
Proves nothing, given the estimation difficulties around all this, except that we find what we want to find, and/or want our grants to continue….?
How long I wonder before that graph – from 2001 – gets changed….
Yet another paper attempting to report on important research but is shackled by its funding source: Likely provided by “green grants”, which specify what the grants can be used for. If you wish another grant, your published research must show that the grant was used for its stated purpose: investigations into global warming. It is most likely the only large sums of money available so you play the game to continue working in your chosen field.
Which leads me to this issue: Pacs and politicians on the stump are supposed to declare where they get their money, and money sources can’t be in the form of “laundered fronts”. Why? Because we have the right to know what compromises might be possible between these bed partners. Science has now also shown its willingness to compromise based on who is funding it. Therefore it may be time for laws to be passed about declaration of funding sources for any published paper providing research results, peer reviewed or not. Notice that currently, we must pay in order to read most research articles, including the bottom of the article that usually includes gratuitous mention of funding sources. The tax paying citizen is being forced to accept and even pay for a horse without being given the chance to look at its teeth before forking over money. A simple solution? Require published abstracts to also include funding sources.
Those who hate CO2, should consider the following:
They eat CO2 everytime they swallow that junk food of their choice., as carbohydrates, made by plants which breathed in CO2 making it react with water and sunlight.
They eat CO2 everytime they enjoy candies and chocolates, coffee,etc.
They eat CO2 while they eat meat, the muscles of cattle which ate grass, in turn, made of water, sunlight and CO2.
They wear CO2 everyday, as the polymer of glucose called Cotton,
They exhale CO2, after every breath of oxygen. The CO2 YOU exhale is breathed by plants to give you back oxygen you breath.
Without CO2 NO F## YOU….!!!!!!!!
Doug Proctor says:
August 10, 2010 at 8:31 am
Plus their gratuitous green comment that the current rise is more extraordinary than realized, is both irritating and nonsensical.
Glad it was not just me. This final sentence struck me as completely incongruous with the rest of the article, sticking out like a sore thumb. It seems there is very little modern science that doesn’t get tainted with by the AGW cult.
“These ancient, but modern-looking oceans emphasise the stability of Earth’s atmosphere and climate through deep time – and show the current man-made rise in greenhouse gas levels to be an even more striking phenomenon than was thought,” the researchers conclude.
Man-made CO2 a more striking phenomenon? A natural rise in CO2 levels of, say, 1200 ppm more striking than 80 ppm of anthropogenic rise?
And no “runaway effect”, neither.
Lenin re-wrote history, Stalin did it, Hitler did it, all Socialists of sorts & anti-capitalist/free-enterprise! What’s new when money is on the table. Heck, if they paid me enough I’d believe in AGW, but they haven’t got enough money!
Below the graph, it reads: “This image provided for timeline reference and is not from the study cited below”. Hmmm. Ok. Perhaps it should be emphasized a bit more?
> latitude says:
> August 10, 2010 at 8:41 am
> You couldn’t even find 0.038% of anything.
My house is approx 250 cubic metres.
Therefore 0.038% of my house of approx 95 litres.
95 Litres is approx 180 bottles of beer.
I’m sure I could find 180 bottles of beer.
Gee, a huge cycle in global temperatures every 150 million years…..sounds like something to do with the solar system and the rotation of our galactic arm and the presence or absence of cosmic fields and forces.
[CO2] can go where it wants to, apparently, without major consequence as far as the planet’s temperature is concerned. Unless we increase our atmospheric density a few dozen times or so, temps won’t depend on [CO2].
The fault, my friends, may be in the stars and not in ourselves…
….and show the current man-made rise in greenhouse gas levels to be an even more striking phenomenon than was thought…..
So Professor, let me see if I have this correct: Your saying a 100ppm “man-made” rise in CO2 (if the “man-made” CO2 IS what has caused the “rise”) coupled with a .6C degree rise in temp, compared to a 1500ppm “natural” decrease in CO2 coupled with a 10.0C rise in temp during the Silurian Period – is a “striking phenomenon”??
Well, who am I to disagree???
There are some items that are inferred or directly mentioned that require some clarification.
Re: “Climate’s changed before”
2. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time, which now is dominated by humans.
Re: “It’s just a natural cycle”
21. Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.
Re: “There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature”
43. There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.
Re: “CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician”
104. The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.
These succinct and true rebuttals are courtesy of:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/09/rebutting-climate-science-disinformer-talking-points-in-a-single-line
They are therefore complete and un-contestable.
For the uneducated and ignorant among you, please consult realclimate.org for the supporting diatribes.
This discussion is over, move along.
/sarc
It turns out that it is not surface temperature but the sun which controls the level of specific humidity at the tropopause, where the atmospheric climate action is. So the rice growers can stop worrying.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/interesting-correlation-sunspots-vs-specific-humidity/
460 MYA the earth was probably in a different orbit, continents as we know it didn’t exist.
I thought the sun as a forcing was pretty much constant? Or is that true when convenient?
Slightly off-topic, but isn’t EVERYBODY (warmists in particular) missing the point about CO2…?
If you read Kyoto, it talks about reducing CO2 EQUIVALENT – it doesn’t actually require CO2 itself to be reduced. However, the ‘alarmists’ have jumped on CO2 as the ‘bete noir’ and all the politicians have followed like lambs – or tax opportunists, if you like – because its pretty difficult to tax water vapour, etc.
So now we have the loony situation where we all have to suffer artifial reductions in a gas which is essential to plant growth, etc – because, like speed and speed cameras, it can be MEASURED – so therefore becomes a soft target. Never mind whether it will have the slightest effect on the climate…