CO2, destroyer of entire continents at the touch of a knob

CO2_knobFrom the University of New Hampshire  and the department of “CO2 controls everything with a single big red knob” (as stated in the article) comes this modeling inanity. Never mind that after the continental breakup the continent of Antarctica is now on the bottom of the world and gets dark for months and super cold, nooooo, it’s CO2 wot dun it. Climate models can’t even get the present right,  so I have serious doubts they’ll get 34 million years ago, where we have far less data, right either.

Antarctic ice sheet is result of CO2 decrease, not continental breakup

DURHAM, N.H. – Climate modelers from the University of New Hampshire have shown that the most likely explanation for the initiation of Antarctic glaciation during a major climate shift 34 million years ago was decreased carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The finding counters a 40-year-old theory suggesting massive rearrangements of Earth’s continents caused global cooling and the abrupt formation of the Antarctic ice sheet. It will provide scientists insight into the climate change implications of current rising global CO2 levels.

In a paper published today in Nature, Matthew Huber of the UNH Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space and department of Earth sciences provides evidence that the long-held, prevailing theory known as “Southern Ocean gateway opening” is not the best explanation for the climate shift that occurred during the Eocene-Oligocene transition when Earth’s polar regions were ice-free.

“The Eocene-Oligocene transition was a major event in the history of the planet and our results really flip the whole story on its head,” says Huber. “The textbook version has been that gateway opening, in which Australia pulled away from Antarctica, isolated the polar continent from warm tropical currents, and changed temperature gradients and circulation patterns in the ocean around Antarctica, which in turn began to generate the ice sheet. We’ve shown that, instead, CO2-driven cooling initiated the ice sheet and that this altered ocean circulation.”

Huber adds that the gateway theory has been supported by a specific, unique piece of evidence—a “fingerprint” gleaned from oxygen isotope records derived from deep-sea sediments. These sedimentary records have been used to map out gradient changes associated with ocean circulation shifts that were thought to bear the imprint of changes in ocean gateways.

Although declining atmospheric levels of CO2 has been the other main hypothesis used to explain the Eocene-Oligocene transition, previous modeling efforts were unsuccessful at bearing this out because the CO2 drawdown does not by itself match the isotopic fingerprint. It occurred to Huber’s team that the fingerprint might not be so unique and that it might also have been caused indirectly from CO2 drawdown through feedbacks between the growing Antarctic ice sheet and the ocean.

Says Huber, “One of the things we were always missing with our CO2 studies, and it had been missing in everybody’s work, is if conditions are such to make an ice sheet form, perhaps the ice sheet itself is affecting ocean currents and the climate system—that once you start getting an ice sheet to form, maybe it becomes a really active part of the climate system and not just a passive player.”

For their study, Huber and colleagues used brute force to generate results: they simply modeled the Eocene-Oligocene world as if it contained an Antarctic ice sheet of near-modern size and shape and explored the results within the same kind of coupled ocean-atmosphere model used to project future climate change and across a range of CO2 values that are likely to occur in the next 100 years (560 to 1200 parts per million).

“It should be clear that resolving these two very different conceptual models for what caused this huge transformation of the Earth’s surface is really important because today as a global society we are, as I refer to it, dialing up the big red knob of carbon dioxide but we’re not moving continents around.”

Just what caused the sharp drawdown of CO2 is unknown, but Huber points out that having now resolved whether gateway opening or CO2 decline initiated glaciation, more pointed scientific inquiry can be focused on answering that question.

Huber notes that despite his team’s finding, the gateway opening theory won’t now be shelved, for that massive continental reorganization may have contributed to the CO2 drawdown by changing ocean circulation patterns that created huge upwellings of nutrient-rich waters containing plankton that, upon dying and sinking, took vast loads of carbon with them to the bottom of the sea.

###

The article is available to download here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7511/full/nature13597.html.

=============================================================

Gotta love the “brute force” quote in bold. Translation: we pushed the model in the direction we believed it should go.

It should be noted that this is version 2.0 of this meme. Huber also had a paper in 2011 saying basically the same thing:

Pagani, M., Huber, M., Liu, Z., Bohaty, S.M., Henderiks, J., Sijp, W., Krishnan, S. & DeConto, R.M. (2011): The Role of Carbon Dioxide During the Onset of Antarctic Glaciation. Science, 334, 1261-1264

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

83 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 30, 2014 7:52 pm

… and they call this scientific research ?

July 30, 2014 7:53 pm

I wonder how they managed to get funding for this?

July 30, 2014 7:54 pm

… how many academics does it take to “monster” the past climate? Answer, 8.

July 30, 2014 7:56 pm

July 30, 2014 at 7:53 pm | Jimmy Haigh. says:

I wonder how they managed to get funding for this?


They’re part of the cartel, Jimmy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/30/breaking-senate-report-exposes-the-climate-environmental-movement-as-being-a-cash-machine-controlling-the-epa/

clyde william
July 30, 2014 7:57 pm

Some sort of intellectual version of the Keystone Cops…?

TobiasN
July 30, 2014 8:07 pm

Climate-modelers are the new scientific crack-addicts. Evidence? nah! we have a computer.
Mind, they did not just use any model, but one to which “brute force” is applied
“For their study, Huber and colleagues used brute force to generate results”
Sounds to me like they figuratively banged on the the code until it gave them the answer they wanted.
and this is in Nature. I used to think of that publication as the ultimate in prestigious. Apparently the crap has floated to the top. I mean I could be wrong but .. wow.

JimS
July 30, 2014 8:15 pm

It appears that in the last 18 years, all this additional CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere is making the sea ice surrounding the Antarctic to grow. Has anyone looked into that possible scenario, in that CO2 may actually be causing more cooling?

July 30, 2014 8:17 pm

A long time ago I put it to Gavin Schmidt over at RC that modelling was becoming the science. He assured me it wasn’t. He was wrong.

gallopingcamel
July 30, 2014 8:18 pm

It does not have to make sense if someone is ready to fund it.

Mike from Carson Valley a particularly cold place that could benefit from some warming
July 30, 2014 8:22 pm

Sure the atmosphere drives the oceans, I get it. What’s not to like ? We have our ultimate culprit, a small trace gas with reach beyond reason. Yet they still can’t predict a hurricane movement beyond 10 days. So some brute force in the Southern North Atlantic seems to be needed.

July 30, 2014 8:43 pm

Huber is on the right track. Brute force climate modeling and data adjustments are the new way.

Ken L.
July 30, 2014 8:56 pm

The red knob gave me a tech idea that Jeremy Rifkin would love. All devices that emit CO2 would have emission thermostats networked to a central server( or servers) with a program to maintain optimum world temperature. Think about the implications for political parties – there could be an Arctic Party, a Tropical Party, a Temperate party, etc. Such an idea might actually become feasible long before we develop new energy sources at current rates!

Bill Marsh
Editor
July 30, 2014 9:04 pm

I don’t often refer to research as ‘weapons grade stupid’ but, I am ‘brute forced’ to make an exception.
Where would they get the idea that CO2 levels might be 1200 ppm within the next 100 years?
How exactly do you draw a conclusion that the initiation of glaciation was caused by the interaction of the already formed ice sheet and CO2 levels? And they used unvalidated models to boot.

July 30, 2014 9:06 pm

that once you start getting an ice sheet to form, maybe it becomes a really active part of the climate system and not just a passive player.”
Well if that be the case, we had best start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as we can to fight the monster. Considering how much we’ve pumped into the atmosphere in the last 34 years or so, it looks like the monster is unaffected and just continues to grow:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
We’re in a war with the ice sheet and we’re losing! It is worse than we thought!

Mervyn
July 30, 2014 9:06 pm

These people are desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to concoct data to prop up the IPCC’s shaky supposition that CO2 emitted from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming and is the key driver of climate change.
Its bull!

dp
July 30, 2014 9:09 pm

The only thing that comes between this claim and world fame is a hint of truth. They seem well suited to their day job and should keep them because that way we’re always only one election away from defunding the morons.

Bill Illis
July 30, 2014 9:11 pm

I have the biggest database of paleoclimate Temperature and CO2 estimates of anyone I guess. 17,000 individual temperature estimates going back 2.4 billion years and 2600 CO2 estimates going back 750 million years.
This is the last 40 million years of both (with CO2 represented as 3.0C per doubling). Sorry, CO2 did not fall until 2.5 million years after the initial glaciation of Antarctica (actually the fourth initial glaciation since Antarctica has has the unfortunate fortune of being placed at the south pole by continental drift at least 3 other times previously when it became fully glaciated).
http://s27.postimg.org/rcd80vq03/Antarctic_Glaciation_33_6_Mya.png
A chart showing some of the important geographic and temperature changes over the last 45 million years.
http://s22.postimg.org/804qp4xo1/Temp_Geography_45_Mys.png
Antarctica glaciates over, no change in CO2. Then CO2 finally falls below 280 ppm for perhaps the very first time in history and Antarctica promptly unglaciates. CO2 stays flat for another 13 million years while Antarctica is only half glaciated. Then 14 million years ago, the glaciers advance and CO2 does not change. etc. etc. CO2 has nothing to do with it. It is whether the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is fully operating or not. And that is determined by continental drift and whether individual continental landmasses or even small cratons between South America and Antarctica are blocking it.
Climate scientists cannot be objective it seems.

July 30, 2014 9:17 pm

Bill Illis says:
July 30, 2014 at 9:11 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Aww, gee Bill. You had to muddle up the discussion with the facts. Here I was trying to convince everyone that the paper was right and the ice monster was coming after us. Everyone do your part, leave your SUV idling all night!
Seriously thanks. I was about to embark on a research mission to see if glaciation correlated with CO2. You’ve saved me hours and hours and hours.

FrankK
July 30, 2014 9:24 pm

……;;;the most likely explanation for the initiation of Antarctic glaciation during a major climate shift 34 million years ago was decreased carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. ….. It will provide scientists insight into the climate change implications of current rising global CO2 levels.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Now hang on a tick chaps. We know that temp changes preceded CO2 variation. So to assume the reverse happened 34 million years ago just follows the fanciful upside-down Gore “theory”. So how is this going to provide “insight” to determine how CO2 would determine temps in the future?
How do these dingbats get away with this nonsense?

rogerknights
July 30, 2014 9:37 pm

TobiasN says:
July 30, 2014 at 8:07 pm
. . . and this is in Nature. I used to think of that publication as the ultimate in prestigious. Apparently the crap has floated to the top.

Actually it was in Science. Neither of them was that great. Here’s a quote from a NYTBR of Nobel prize-winner (for the polymerase chain reaction) Kary Mullis’s autobiography:

Mullis submitted his paper to the two most prestigious science journals in the world, Science and Nature. Both rejected it.

Bill Illis
July 30, 2014 9:43 pm

The most detailed representation of Antarctica continental drift (and especially all the small cratons which form west Antarctica and inhabit (have inhabited) the Drake Passage between South America and Antarctica. From the University of Texas plates project (a Microsoft PowerPoint animation of every million years over the last 200 million years).
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/movies/akog.ppt
This is what the Ocean currents were like 45 million years ago before there was enough deep water separation between Antarctica and Australia and South America . Basically subtropical Gyres kept Antarctica warm enough so that continental glaciers did not develop. It was still brutally cold in the winter and in the 6 months of darkness in the winter but the snow melted in the summer.
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8862/antoceancurrents35m.jpg
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Bijl_etal_09.pdf
And then some of the issues which occured in the Drake Passage as the small cratons between South America and Antarctica were jostled around, Think the Antarctic Peninsula and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands cratons.
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8785/drakepassagerestricted.jpg

Andrew N
July 30, 2014 9:54 pm

I just love the way that in these models the Earth’s temperature is reduced to a single variable equation. That is, carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide alone is the only variable that has any effect. Nothing else matters, continental positions, ocean currents, ocean volume, solar intensity, axial tilt, rotation rate, tides caused by the Moon being closer. There are a myriad other variables that were different 34 Ma ago. It all distills down to one single trace gas.
Computer models can only predict what you program into them. They cannot come up with alternative hypotheses or results.

NikFromNYC
July 30, 2014 10:11 pm

Science is beautiful and terrible. Just check in on Lubos Motl’s blog to see that. It’s a fine balance forevermore between dumb logic and empiricism. As if art itself isn’t good enough, or music, some buffoons must push for an alternative to old religious books in physics. But the only alternative is in CHEMISTRY, baby!

Lance Wallace
July 30, 2014 10:13 pm

Bill Illis says:
July 30, 2014 at 9:11 pm
Bill, are your data available? Sounds like a useful resource.

1 2 3 4
Verified by MonsterInsights