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
mpainter
July 31, 2014 5:25 pm

This study is sheer speculation and attempts to invent a role for CO2 that does not exist. It is hand-waving at its very worst, an invention, a fairy tale. It is so speculative that one resigns in the attempt to study the errors.Then there is the monstrous claim of “having resolved whether CO2 or gateway opening initiated glaciation” by the egoistic Huber. This is science at its worst, disgustingly so.

mpainter
July 31, 2014 5:35 pm

Mosher:
Do you buy into this rank speculation? Note that Huber confesses that he can offer no explanation for the CO2. What kind of science is that? I will tell you… it is called bald assertion.
But perhaps you do not care.

July 31, 2014 9:33 pm

davidmhoffer says:
July 30, 2014 at 10:16 pm
Bill Illis says:
July 30, 2014 at 9:11 pm
>>>>>>>>>>
Bill, in the first link, I am baffled by what the orange line represents. At first glance, I thought it was simply CO2 concentration anomalies. But on closer inspection, it seems to be some sort of quantification of warming due to CO2 based on a sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling. Can you expand on this? As written, it makes little sense.
+++++++++++++
David: I am glad you pointed this out. I thought the same thing, “it seems to be some sort of quantification of warming due to CO2 based on a sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling. ”
My guess was that he was showing what the temperature should be if the theory “on a sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling” were correct.

July 31, 2014 9:55 pm

CO2 is just following temperature as it always has, but it is not the continents either. It has been a long slow slide into our current ice age and its ridonkulous fluctuations since the Eocene. It got cold. Cold and crazy. But it got equally cold in the Carbo-Permian glaciation (and there is evidence that it was equally crazy in the Honaker Trail formation in Utah); when the trans Antarctic current was completely shut off.
It is abundantly clear that glaciations occur regardless of CO2 concentration and continental configuration.

Vince Causey
August 1, 2014 1:39 am

Which model they used for this study? The one that gives 1.5k temperature increase per CO2 doubling, or the one that gives 10K? Just wondering.

accordionsrule
August 1, 2014 9:21 am

July 30, 2014 at 7:53 pm | Jimmy Haigh. says:
I wonder how they managed to get funding for this?
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0902882
ARRA Amount: $472,346.00
Collaborative Research: Integrating proxies and Earth System Models to elucidate water cycle dynamics:Did global warming cause an enhanced hydrological cycle in the Eocene?

August 2, 2014 10:50 am
CRS, DrPH
August 2, 2014 6:31 pm

Carbon dioxide….destroyer of planets. Just ask Jim Hansen:

“The Venus syndrome is the greatest threat to the planet, to humanity’s continuing existence… In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn all the tar sands and tar shale (aka oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.”
-Dr. James Hansen, NASA climatologist

Verified by MonsterInsights