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).
[ok I wasn’t around for this. snipping after that fact. GM, you were warned previously~ ctm]
stevengoddard says:
August 10, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Tom C
Venus barely rotates and has a completely uniform heat distribution.
Reply;
Neptune rotates lying on its side, and the pole that is away from the sun (at the time sampled) is the warmest part.
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:29 pm
“Why is that I am the only one realizing the deep irony of a bunch of anti-science lunatic wackos criticizing me for not providing references for well known facts when in the rare cases that they do provide references, it is from other anti-science lunatic wacko blogs and sites. ”
Way to make friends and influence people, GM!
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Reply;
You managed to say “lunatic wacko” twice in one run on sentence, I am impressed.
But I just think you are projecting, blaming others for the lack of a continually expanding knowledge base.
[ok I wasn’t around for this. snipping after that fact. GM, you were warned previously~ ctm]
Stevengoddard,
Yes, because of a highly efficient greenhouse effect and incredible atmospheric pressure.
On Earth, however, the heat sink isn’t the atmosphere, it’s the oceans. Rate of rotation effects heat transport immensely here.
The faster Earth rotates on axis the greater the Coriolis force the stronger ocean currents flow. Meridional currents would carry heat to the high latitudes at a much faster rate. Jet streams would move faster. Tropical waters wouldn’t be as warm at depth. There’d be less hurricanes and more in the way of derecho-like thunderstorms (think of the shear the atmosphere would have).
GM:
Your series of postings are inflammatory, insulting and juvenile. Importantly, they are completely mistaken.
At August 10, 2010 at 9.29 pm, you say:
“Why is that I am the only one realizing the deep irony of a bunch of anti-science lunatic wackos criticizing me for not providing references for well known facts”
OK. If that is your view then – in hope that you will start to discover the magnitude of your misunderstanding – I will present a series of “well known facts” and leave you to find the pertinent references (but I can provide them to you if finding them proves too difficult for you).
In science the null hypothesis is that nothing has changed unless a change is observed to have occurred.
The null hypothesis is the governing assumption unless and until empirical evidence of a change is obtained. Adoption of any other assumption is not science.
(In fact, adopting an assumption other than the null hypothesis in the absence of empirical evidence of a change is a denial of the scientific method).
So, what do we observe concerning climate change?
The global temperature seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other. The cause(s) of these cycles is not known but some are associated with known phenomena (e.g. ENSO, NAO and PDO) although the causes of these phenomena are not known.
There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that provided
the Roman Warm Period (RWP),
then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP),
then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP),
then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and
the present warm period (PWP).
And there is an apparent ~60 year oscillation that provided
cooling from ~1880 to ~1910,
then warming from ~1910 to ~1940,
then cooling from ~1940 to ~1970,
then warming from about ~1970 to ~2000,
then cooling since.
These oscillations form a pattern of climate change over time.
And if this pattern continues then either
(a) cooling will continue until ~2020 when the ~60 year oscillation will change phase and warming will resume until global temperature reaches the levels it had in the RWP and the MWP
or
(b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and LIA.
There is no observation that indicates there has been any change to this pattern.
And, therefore, the only scientific conclusion is that the null hypothesis applies:
i.e. nothing has changed global climate behaviour in recent decades or centuries.
Only “anti-science lunatic wackos” and the mentally deranged would dispute this conclusion.
Richard
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:19 pm
^
Mods – how did you let this guy through? Please remove – obvious issues here.
Estimations of atmospheric CO2 levels over the past millions of years is fraught with problems, all adding errors. Some Ordovician level estimates are 8000ppmv. CO2 levels had to be higher because it is plants which convert CO2 to oxygen and they had to evolve, after the cyanobacteria, to reduce this to any extent. CO2 levels in the archaen were 20%. There was no free oxygen in the atmosphere, it is far too reactive to have survived the fiery start of the planet’s formation. There was also a substantial anoxic event during the proterozoic, removing atmospheric oxygen to form the banded ironstone layers from the iron in solution in the oceans. This iron would have been poisonous to plant development so it was after this that plant evolution would have taken off.
The estimates that recent atmospheric CO2 levels have been 285ppmv for 1000 years. This is a pure guess and not held to be true by measurements taken in the 1800’s showing CO2 levels to be up to 500ppmv. They used the same system of CO2 measurement that is used today, though not by NOAA which use an infra red system not accepted by all.
Roy Weiler says:
August 10, 2010 at 2:18 pm
0.038% would be .ooo38 x 250 = .095 litres or a little over 3 ounces, not even worth finding!
Roy, that’s 0.95 cubic metres, not litres, i.e. you’re out by x1000.
Add yourself to the list of those mentioned in the deleted postes
groper says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:45 am
460 MYA the earth was probably in a different orbit, continents as we know it didn’t exist.”
A very relevant remark .
The right formulation being “was certainly in a different orbit .
The planetary orbits in the solar system are chaotic and the Lyapounov time (time beyond which no prediction can be done) is around 10 millions of years .
This is 46 times shorter than the time periods considered in this paper .
Our luck is that even if the Earth’s orbit is chaotic , all different orbits are qualitatively similar .
For those who want to know more about the Chaos in the Solar system and in the Earth’s orbit : http://chaos.if.uj.edu.pl/~karol/pdf/solar.pdf
Richard S Courtney says:
In science the null hypothesis is that nothing has changed unless a change is observed to have occurred.
The null hypothesis is the governing assumption unless and until empirical evidence of a change is obtained. Adoption of any other assumption is not science.
Thank you for your concise definition of the null hypothesis. Essentially, it is the same as Dr Roy Spencer’s:
“No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
The scientific method is the only way out of the self-serving fog generated by the promoters of climate pseudo-science. To the extent we abandon the scientific method, we abandon rationality to the Elmer Gantrys ensconced in their positions of self-imposed authority.
Again, words are insufficient to accurately describe the situation where a bunch of global warming (and probably other things too) [SNIP] are trying to educate me about the scientific method. Simply unbelievable. That’s coming from people who are violating the first lesson of proper scientific practice a few hundred times a day, namely, that you do not decide what the truth is before you have seen the evidence. The same people who use alleged political affiliations 3/4 of the time to discredit climate science, and who aren’t even trying to hide their own political agenda.
Absolutely disgusting
GM is going out with a whimper. And as usual, by hurling his impotent invective, rather than by providing verified observations and empirical evidence. Does GM even understand the concept of testable, empirical evidence? Or the Scientific Method? Based on his previous posts, he demonstrates that he does not understand. Karl Popper shows the way for those interested in the best method extant for prying the truth out of a world of false assumptions.
The only ‘political agenda’ is that of the climate alarmists, who always have their eyes on the wallets of taxpaying citizens. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove, and make no profit from their insistence that the assertions of runaway global warming must be backed by convincing evidence based on the Scientific Method.
But the climate alarmist crowd consistently fails to provide any testable evidence to support their belief system. The challenge to provide such evidence is unmet for a very good reason: there is zero testable, reproducible evidence showing that an increase in a harmless and beneficial trace gas will lead to climate catastrophe.
Despite that, the challenge is still there; the gauntlet has been thrown down by scientific skeptics at the feet of the alarmist contingent. But the craven alarmists will not pick up the gauntlet. They must provide real world evidence of their CO2=CAGW conjecture — or admit that they are trying to sell an increasingly skeptical world a pig in a poke.
The following is pure conjecture and musings…
After doing some thinking about why the CO2 lags behind precipitous temperature drops I would propose that this is due to plant decomposition. That fraction of CO2 and hydrocarbon that is not buried decomposes and becomes part of the atmosphere. By reduced plant uptake due to cooler temperatures the CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. This would be true of both terran and aquatic organisms, including corals utilizing CO2 for their carbonate structures.
Just a thought.
““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.”
________________________
Anyone can be intimidated, bought, sold, cowed into submission. Is the ‘Human Nature’ Bell Curve turning upside down?
GM:
It seems I owe you an apology for a misundertanding.
Your post at August 11, 2010 at 4:44 am says:
“Simply unbelievable. That’s coming from people who are violating the first lesson of proper scientific practice a few hundred times a day, namely, that you do not decide what the truth is before you have seen the evidence. The same people who use alleged political affiliations 3/4 of the time to discredit climate science, and who aren’t even trying to hide their own political agenda. ”
Clearly, you are complaining at Messrs Al Gore and James Hansen. My error was to think that your earlier posts were complaining at people who have posted here. Obviously, none of what you have asserted (above) matches people who post here (they have a wide range of political views form right-wing libertarians to left-wing socialists) so my misundertanding was profound.
Richard
Just so everyone knows the error bars for the CO2 level on the top chart are HUGE.
Here is the exact same graph with uncertainty shown:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
I ran some numbers for fun.
According to the unrelated graph, T was 22 deg C, 7 deg C warmer than 1976, and co2 was about 4200ppm. Clear sky co2 absorption increased by about 15 w/m^2 due to the increased concentration over the 1976 value. Putting in a doubling of h2o vapor – that seems to be rather generous with the temperatures and absolute humidity, the absorption increased to 23w/m^2. Using 0.22 deg C per w/m^2 sensitivity (based on todays overall average sensitivity of 33 deg C per 150 w/m^2 total cloud+ghg absorption), this results in a 5 deg C expected warming – leaving 2 deg C in need of some additional ‘forcing’ of 9 w/m^2. One might expect a lower albedo due to melted polar caps and higher sea levels (albedo for h2o tends to be below 0.04 while current surface albedo tends to be 0.08 with 0.22 cloud albedo making up the difference). A reduction in overall albedo loss of 0.028 would make up for the extra 9w/m^2. This loss could come from loss of snow and ice areas and from a loss of land area due to ocean rise and from a loss of desert area – such as the sahara – were it lush and green, it’s albedo could drop by a third.
Other potential contributors to the needed 9w/m^2 include much higher methane levels (relatively speaking) and additional relative humidity levels which could further increase the absolute humidity.
Of course, if one want’s to drop the amount of co2, it becomes even more difficult to account for the missing forcings.
Anthony,
There is a much more complex and complete graph of the various aspects of paleoclimate in Veizer and Shaviv, 2003, which can be found here:
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
The chart also shows planetary climate states (Icehouse v Greenhouse) and periods where there is evidence of continental glaciation and polar ice caps. Curiously, a copy of the paper is also available at Stephen Schneider’s web site.
Here is a few other charts showing the South Pole:
at about 460 Mya:
http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Maps/Dapingian.gif
at about 450 Mya:
http://www.palaeos.com/Earth/Geography/Images/Cadomia.gif
Two simulations of how much glacier built up at about 440 Mya:
http://jgs.lyellcollection.org/content/vol166/issue2/images/large/277FIG1.jpeg
And then a previous climate model simulation of ocean conditions:
http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Images/AshgillGCM.jpg
Duster says:
August 11, 2010 at 10:11 am
IPCC, do you DENY the implications of the paper by Shaviv and Veizer?
I find the figure with the caption: “Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time ” at the site: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html especially interesting. Does anyone have the skills to superimpose on to this figure the data for the sun’s 11 year and 206 year cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity ), the 21,000 year cycle of earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the sun ( precession of the equinoxes ), the 41,000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt ), the 100,000 year cycle of the variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity ), and the time periods of the different ice-ages ??
I would like to see if there is an obvious connection.
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:29 pm
“Why is that I am the only one realizing the deep irony of a bunch of anti-science lunatic wackos criticizing me for not providing references for well known facts when in the rare cases that they do provide references, it is from other anti-science lunatic wacko blogs and sites. ”
whew. i am with you man. it sure is tough putting up with a bunch ignorant people who believe in silly things like continents moving, solar variability, and worst of all, that the earth itself actually moves! preposterous!
what a bunch of lunatic anti-science wackos allright!
/sarc
and welcome to WUWT, joe.