Evidence that early Antarctic Circumpolar Current development affected global climate

From NSF: Significant Role of Oceans in Onset of Ancient Global Cooling

Aerial view of the drillship JOIDES Resolution, workhorse of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program.Aerial view of the drillship JOIDES Resolution.

Credit and Larger Version

May 26, 2011

Thirty-eight million years ago, tropical jungles thrived in what are now the cornfields of the American Midwest and furry marsupials wandered temperate forests in what is now the frozen Antarctic.

The temperature differences of that era, known as the late Eocene, between the equator and Antarctica were half what they are today.

A debate has been ongoing in the scientific community about what changes in our global climate system led to such a major shift from the more tropical, greenhouse climate of the Eocene to modern and much cooler climates.

New research results published in this week’s issue of the journal Science, led by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute scientist Miriam Katz, are providing some of the strongest evidence to date that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) played a key role in the shift.

“What we have found is that the evolution of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current influenced global ocean circulation much earlier than previous studies have shown,” said Katz. “This finding is particularly significant because it places the impact of initial shallow ACC circulation in the same interval when the climate began its long-term shift to cooler temperatures.”

There has been a debate over the past 40 years on what role the Antarctic Circumpolar Current had in the past cooling trend.

“These climate changes are one of the most significant shifts in Earth’s history, from early Cenozoic ‘greenhouse’ climates to the mid- to late Cenozoic ‘icehouse’ that saw repeated massive glaciations of the polar regions,” said Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences.

The research was funded by NSF in partnership with the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, and its predecessor programs, the Ocean Drilling Program and Deep Sea Drilling Project.

“The work by Katz and colleagues is the first to demonstrate that the basic structure of currents associated with modern ocean circulation has existed for the past 33 million years,” said Major.

Previous research had placed the development of the deep ACC–greater than 2,000 meters water depth–in the late Oligocene, approximately 23-25 million years ago.

That’s well after the global cooling pattern had been established.

Katz and colleagues have placed the global impact of the ACC at approximately 30 million years ago, when it was still just a shallow current.

Oceans and global temperatures are closely linked.  Warmer ocean waters result in warmer air temperatures and vice versa.

In the more tropical environs of the Eocene, ocean circulation was weaker and currents more diffuse.

As a result, heat was more evenly distributed around the world. That resulted in fairly mild ocean temperatures worldwide.

Today, ocean temperatures vary considerably and redistribute warm and cold water around the globe.

“As the global ocean currents were formed and strengthened, the redistribution of heat likely played a significant role in the overall cooling of the Earth,” Katz said.

No current is more major than the ACC, scientists believe.

Often referred to as the “mixmaster” of the ocean, the ACC thermally isolates Antarctica by preventing the warm surface waters of subtropical gyres from passing through.

The ACC instead redirects some of that warm water back toward the north Atlantic, creating Antarctic Intermediate Water.

This blocking of heat enabled the formation and preservation of the Antarctic ice sheets, according to Katz.

The circumpolar circulation, Katz concludes, was responsible for the development of the modern four-layer ocean current and heat distribution system.

Katz looked at the uptake of several elements’ isotopes, or variants, in the fossil skeletons of small planktonic organisms found in ocean sediments.

Using the drillship, the fossil organisms, known as benthic foraminifera, were brought up from beneath the sea-floor in long cores of sediments.

The foraminifera incorporated certain elements and isotopes, reflecting environmental conditions at the time.

By analyzing the ratios of these elements and isotopes, researchers were able to reconstruct past environmental conditions. They looked at isotopes of oxygen and carbon, along with ratios of magnesium versus calcium.

Analysis of these isotopes showed the earliest evidence for Antarctic Intermediate Waters, which circulates as a consequence of the ACC.

This finding is the first evidence of the effects of shallow ACC formation.

The results place the ACC’s global impact much closer to the time when Antarctica separated from South America, creating a gateway.

It had previously been thought that currents moving through this gateway could not be strong enough at such shallow depths to affect global ocean circulation.

“By reconstructing the climates of the past, we can explore Earth system responses to current climate change,” Katz said.

Katz is joined in the research by Benjamin Cramer of Theiss Research; J.R. Toggweiler of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab/NOAA; Chengjie Liu of Exxon Mobil Exploration Co.; Bridget Wade of University of Leeds; and Gar Esmay, Kenneth Miller, Yair Rosenthal, and James Wright of Rutgers University.

-NSF-

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
phlogiston
May 28, 2011 8:54 am

Jer0me says:
May 26, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“By reconstructing the climates of the past, we can explore Earth system responses to current climate change,” Katz said.
Whooops!
So the conclusion that the climate change WAS caused by the oceans, but we can now, having proved this, examine how the oceans will ‘respond’ to climate change which is NOW caused by us?
Fail!

Jerome summed it up very accurately, and the substantial posts above confirm his conclusion. The paper – whether its authors really understand this and like it or not – underlines the pivotal influence of ocean currents – yes including the deep ones – on global temperature and climate. The thermodynamics and heat capacity arguments dont need repeating.
The article says this in a slightly contradictory way …
“In the more tropical environs of the Eocene, ocean circulation was weaker and currents more diffuse.
As a result, heat was more evenly distributed around the world. That resulted in fairly mild ocean temperatures worldwide.
Today, ocean temperatures vary considerably and redistribute warm and cold water around the globe.
“As the global ocean currents were formed and strengthened, the redistribution of heat likely played a significant role in the overall cooling of the Earth,” Katz said.

So … In the Eocene ocean currents were weak, thus even heat distribution worldwide, thus warmer climate. Then with the ACC we have stronger ocean currents and circulation, also leading to redistribution and even mixing of heat around the world, this time causing cooling. Huh? How can even heat distribution cause both warming and cooling?
Despite this confusion (functional epistemology and logical clarity are not survival traits in modern climate related academia) the empirical point is clear, increased ocean circulation led at that time – and thus probably leads generally – to cooler climate.
Why would increased mixing of the oceans alone, driven by ocean circulation (the THC), influence temperature and climate? It is not hard to see why this should be the case if you consider the strong thermal stratification of the oceans. Temperatures are maximal at the surface, but drop sharply at the thermocline, and everywhere on earth whether surface temperatures are 30 degrees or near to zero, the deep temperatures below the thermocline are 2-4 C. Most surface water is warm, all deep water is cold.
Thus ANY vertical mixing of the water column, on a significant scale, is going to bring cold water up and warm water down, and result in a downward movement of heat. It is the temperature of the water at the surface which influences climate, and mixing reduces stratification and cools the surface water.
So having an ocean with strong temperature gradient – getting much colder with depth, any overall increase in mixing is going to result in downward movement of heat.
Therefore I agree with the conclusion of the article and of others here such as Bill Illis, that the starting of the ACC plus increased ocean deep circulation in general, is causative of global cooling.
Furthermore, reports that indicate that OHC and overturning circulation have recently strengthened (links below) are consistent with the current levelling off of global warming and even the start of climate cooling:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081129/full/news.2008.1262.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/22/atlantic-conveyor-belt-current-still-going-strong/

Brian H
May 28, 2011 12:26 pm

Gneiss says:
May 26, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Jerome writes,
“So the conclusion that the climate change WAS caused by the oceans, but we can now, having proved this, examine how the oceans will ‘respond’ to climate change which is NOW caused by us?
Fail!”
The failure is in your head, not the science. Climate changes for many reasons, on many time scales. This particular article describes change on the time scale of continental drift!
The failure is in your head, not the science. Climate changes for many reasons, on many time scales. This particular article describes change on the time scale of continental drift!
Right now, on a time scale of decades and less, we’re the ones poking the atmosphere with 6 new gigatons of CO2 per year.

Yeppers, and it will have about as much influence as peeing in the ocean will have on its alkalinity.
The orders of magnitude are similar: trivialities.

Paul Vaughan
May 28, 2011 6:43 pm

Not one mention of the westerlies, nor of polar-equatorial heat contrasts, in either the article or comments.

keith at hastings uk
May 29, 2011 2:17 pm

re heat distribution changes not having any net effect, as many have pointed out, surely the implied mechanism is albedo change as Antarctica iced over, so reducing the net global heat uptake.
However, I do worry that since the poles are good places to dump heat to outer space, cutting one off from warmer waters would dilute the albedo effect but’ not being a scientist’ I can’t work out the offset. (have always thought tho’ that the Arctic, if going ice free, would lose a lot of heat because of the warmer water not being insulated by the ice anymore… negative feed back I suppose)

JimF
May 31, 2011 8:42 am

@phlogiston says:
May 28, 2011 at 8:54 am
Go read the article I posted, which addresses to some extent your questions of this nature:
“…Huh? How can even heat distribution cause both warming and cooling?…” and “…Why would increased mixing of the oceans alone, driven by ocean circulation (the THC), influence temperature and climate?…”
ALARMIST GLOBAL WARMING MODELS VS THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD
Pierre Jutras
http://www.smu.ca/academic/science/geology/bios/documents/ALARMISTGLOBALWARMINGMODELSVSTHEGEOLOGICALRECORDHongKong2007.pdf
I’m not wedded to this concept, but some cursory checking shows that the big pieces of his idea fit together. The guy is an active field geologist too, so he’s fitting in field observations with the geologic record. For example: why are there such massive, organic-laden black shale basins in the Cretaceous (which are the source rocks for many of the world’s largest oil deposits?). Perhaps the THC stopped in the Cretaceous? According to him, the THC is what today oxidizes the sea bottom, so black shales are not forming on a large scale.
Anyway, have fun.

phlogiston
June 4, 2011 6:00 am

JimF says:
May 31, 2011 at 8:42 am
Jim, thanks, great article. The more one looks at the palaeo record the more it seems that the currently dominant CAGW perspective on CO2 as harmful is totally 180 degrees in the wrong direction, as wrong as it is possible to be wrong. This figure:
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
Also shows that we are currently at the dangerously low, not dangerously high, end of a wide and safe range of CO2 concentrations.
Yes the biosphere is currently stressed by low temps and low CO2. It has been argued that humanity itself evolved from the stresses of the unstable and oscillating climate of Africa, with alternation of forest and grassland, wet and dry, placing a survival premium on adaptability and intelligence.

Brian H
June 6, 2011 6:32 am

phlogiston says:
June 4, 2011 at 6:00 am

Prezakly!
The flora have eaten themselves into near-famine conditions. It’s time for we fauna to do our bit.
My motto:
“2,100 ppm by 2100 or bust!”
Not joking.

Verified by MonsterInsights