Guest essay by Jim Steele
Reference link: Déformation professionnelle
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
For the past 55 million years the global surface temperature has declined by more than 10°C from a “hot house” condition into an “ice house” with increasing temperature variability as depicted in Figure 1 (Mya = millions of years ago). During the Cretaceous and Early Cenozoic, glaciers and ice caps were absent from both Antarctica and Greenland. Antarctica was covered in para-tropical vegetation and Greenland was home to crocodiles. More importantly for millions of years the oceans had been storing enormous amounts of heat. In contrast to near freezing temperatures today, Antarctic bottom waters averaged about 11°C, suggesting Antarctic coastal temperatures never dropped below 11°C even during the long polar nights. Amazingly the equator to pole surface temperature difference averaged just 10°C compared to the 30°C gradient measured today. Of particular interest, changes in carbon dioxide fail to explain the greatest proportion of these ancient temperatures.
For decades the consensus had been that ocean heat transport had ultimately maintained the polar regions’ ancient tropical conditions. Models had demonstrated without heat transport from the tropics, the poles would be 110°C colder than the tropics (Gill 1982, Lozier 2012). It was commonly believed, and is still believed by most, that as plate tectonics rearranged the continents, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) formed and strengthened. Models now simulate that as drifting continents opened “gateways” and allowed for uninterrupted circumpolar flow, surface temperatures began cooling significantly (Bijl 2013). A strengthening ACC created a barrier inhibiting intrusions of warm tropical waters and minimizing both oceanic and atmospheric heat transport resulting in the Refrigerator Effect. The Refrigeration Effect radically cooled the southern ocean and altered the vertical temperature structure of all the earth’s oceans. (As discussed here, the ACC barrier to ocean heat transport is a major reason why Antarctic sea ice has currently increased in contrast to decreasing Arctic sea ice.)
However a few climate modelers began arguing CO2, not heat transport, was the ultimate climate control knob. They argued that high CO2 concentrations explained the polar warmth and the decline in CO2 explained the advent of polar ice caps and the 55 million year trend towards our icehouse climate. This debate between heat transport and greenhouse effects not only reveals a lack of climate consensus; it also reveals the subjectivity that influences how climate sensitivity is estimated. Proxy evidence increasingly suggests that ancient CO2 levels were far lower than what climate models require to simulate ancient warmth. In stark contrast to current research that is increasingly suggesting lower climate sensitivity to CO2 (i.e. Lewis & Curry 2014, and a growing list here and here), paleoclimate researchers who argue CO2 controls climate change, are forced to suggest climate sensitivity must have been much, much greater than anyone currently believes.
In contrast, researchers examining the Paleocene‑Eocene maximum temperatures concluded, “At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5°C of the [5-9°C] warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.” [Emphasis added] Zeebe (2009).
However if “unknown feedbacks” and other forcings can explain an even greater proportion of past temperature changes, then researchers would be forced to suggest climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower. The Antarctic Refrigerator Effect is such an effect and parsimoniously explains Cenozoic global cooling without invoking a CO2 contribution.
The Case Against a CO2 Climate “Control Knob
By creating a well‑mixed global “blanket”, the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect should act on a global scale. However as illustrated in Figure 1, initiation of Antarctic glaciation happened 35 million years ago, more than 30 millions years before Arctic glaciation ever began. Clearly Antarctic glaciation was not part of a global event, but a regional one. Although this gross time difference does not rule out a limited contribution from diminishing CO2 concentrations, the evidence most assuredly demands a different and more regional explanation for the drivers of Antarctica’s observed climate change.
Furthermore, in order for a CO2 greenhouse effect to have created the near‑tropical conditions observed in Antarctica’s fossil evidence, it requires CO2 concentrations far greater than what the growing number of paleo‑proxies are suggesting. Huber (2011) argued that their models could simulate tropical warmth in polar regions if CO2 reached 4480 ppm, an 11‑fold increase above today’s concentrations. However Huber 2011 also admitted their estimate of CO2 concentrations should not be taken literally. Instead it was his approach “equivalent to “tuning” climate sensitivity to a higher value, but is much simpler in practice.” They argued that the “4480 ppm CO2 concentration used here should not be construed literally: it is merely a means to increase global mean warmth.”
Huber 2011 was wise to admit CO2 concentrations of 4480 are unrealistic. Based on growing proxy evidence, CO2 concentrations during the past 350 million years have not exceeded 1000 ppm (Franks 2014). However Huber 2011’s suggestion of greater CO2 climate sensitivity proves to be equally inappropriate and most likely a case of déformation professionnelle.
Deformation professionnelle is a French term referencing how one’s profession narrows and distorts one’s viewpoint and thus biases conclusions. For example if researchers whose funding and status has been driven by a paradigm that CO2 drives all climate change, any contrary evidence will be reinterpreted to maintain that viewpoint.
One major avenue of research strives to determine climate sensitivity by comparing varying CO2 concentrations with past climate change. Although Franks 2014 determined past CO2 variations only accounted for 20% of what Huber’s models required, they too felt obligated to suggest there must be a much greater climate sensitivity to the smaller changes in CO2. But they obviously ignore much more parsimonious inferences. Very simply, there are other dynamics that drive climate change, and current models driven by CO2 have failed to incorporate additional and alternative explanations. Similarly CO2 variations are insufficient to explain the Dansgaard‑Oeschger extreme warming events of the last Ice Age. But as discussed here, changes in ocean heat storage and ventilation offer a superior explanation. Likewise Antarctica’s Refrigerator Effect completely altered ocean heat storage and ventilation and can parsimoniously accounts for Cenozoic global cooling.
Unfortunately evaluations of CO2 climate sensitivity typically only compare varying CO2 concentrations with other estimated radiative effects to explain fluctuations in global mean surface temperatures (GMST). However there are other powerful non-radiative effects that also contribute to a varying GMST as well as the increasing equator to pole temperature gradient. For example examining changes in Cenozoic climate Thomas (2014) concluded, “Stronger vertical mixing within the oceans potentially reconciles several long-standing greenhouse paleoclimate problems. Stronger vertical mixing invigorates the MOC [Meridonal Overturning Circulation] by an order of magnitude, increases ocean heat transport by 50–100%, reduces the zonal mean equator-to-pole temperature gradients by up to 6°C, lowers tropical peak terrestrial temperatures by up to 6°C, and warms high-latitude oceans by up to 10°C.”
Given that just the upper 3.5 meters of the oceans hold more heat than our entire atmosphere. And that average depth of the oceans is an order of 3 magnitudes greater, about 3600 meters; changes in ocean heat storage and ventilation have humongous impacts on global climate. Research that ignores contributions to GMST from ocean heat storage, ventilation and vertical mixing, CO2, will greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to CO2. Today we witness global warming from heat ventilation during an El Nino and global cooling due to increased upwelling of cooler waters during La Ninas. On time scales varying from a few years to millions of years, storage and ventilation of ocean heat has been the earth’s true climate control knob.
The Antarctic Refrigeration Effect
Our modern freezer and refrigerator appliances are all based on 2 simple principles. 1) A compressor‑refrigerant apparatus pumps heat out of the refrigerator’s interior. 2) The refrigerator is insulated to minimize any heat transfer into the refrigerator from the outside.
The Antarctic analogy to a refrigerant/compressor apparatus has been ever present. Due to the earth’s spherical shape and orbital effects, annual incoming solar radiation at the poles is so low, polar regions always radiate more heat back to space than is ever absorbed locally. Without a constant flow of heat from the tropics, polar regions would naturally descend into permanent ice house climates. Forcing by CO2 is not a significant factor, if a factor at all. Thus variations in Antarctica’s climate are governed by changes in heat transport versus the steady radiation of heat back to space. Although Antarctica sat over the South Pole for hundreds of millions of years, it remained ice free for most of the Mesozoic and early Cenozoic because the “refrigerator door” was left open. However as continents began to shift and opened “ocean gateways”, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) formed and intensified. The ACC closed the refrigerator door and resisted poleward heat transport from the tropics. The ACC also generated more intense westerly winds and invigorated upwelling that increased vertical mixing. Most importantly as the ACC shut the refrigerator door, sea ice began forming in the southern seas. That initiated deep ocean cooling and a total reconfiguration of the global ocean’s vertical heat structure.
Before the ACC formed, Antarctic bottom waters were about 11°C. Bottom waters formed from competing regions. In shallow seas that dominated subtropical regions, warm salty water became dense enough to sink to the bottom. Elsewhere warm salty subtropical waters that were transported poleward cooled and sank. In contrast, once the Antarctic refrigerator was established, cold salty brine was now extruded during sea ice formation. The sinking of cold brine either penetrated to the abyss forming near freezing bottom water, or slowly cooled the subsurface waters as the brine was turbulently mixed with its surroundings. Thus global oceans began a 35 million year cooling trend starting from the ocean abyss and working its way to the surface.
In Figure 13 below (from Kennett 1990), the bottom frame labeled Proteus, illustrates a simplified vertical structure of the Atlantic Ocean around 60 million years ago. Warm Salty Deep Water (WSDW) dominated the ocean depths. Much of that warm bottom water is believed to have been generated in shallow equatorial seas, like the Tethys, where evaporation exceeded precipitation. Our modern Mediterranean Sea is a remnant of the Tethys, and still contributes warm salty water to the Atlantic.
The surface waters around Antarctica were much fresher because cooler polar regions experience greater precipitation relative to evaporation. Antarctic Intermediate Water (AAIW) forms as upwelling bottom waters mixed with fresher surface waters. Subsequently, climate change has been greatly affected as Antarctic Intermediate Water have cooled and exerted a tremendous effect on tropical sea surface temperatures for millions of years via “ocean tunneling”.
The middle frame of Figure 13, labeled Proto-Oceanus, illustrates how the ocean’s vertical structure evolved over the next 10+ million years after the formation of a strong Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Due to the refrigerator effect, cold saline Antarctic Bottom Water (proto‑AABW) began to dominate the ocean floor. Contributions of Warm Saline Deep Water (WSDW) diminished, and the influential Antarctic Intermediate Water (AAIW) was increasingly cooled by much colder Antarctic Bottom Water. As the colder AAIW flows back towards the equator it modulates the global temperature by cooling subsurface waters that would potentially reach tropical surfaces via upwelling.
The upper frame labeled Oceanus, represents a simplified illustration of the Atlantic’s modern vertical structure. Due to the Antarctic Refrigerator Effect, the deep oceans continued to cool, and the thermocline that separates warm surface water from cooler deep waters became increasingly more shallow.
Between 2 and 3 million years ago the cooling of the deep oceans reached a tipping point, and modern upwelling regions ogf cold deep water off the coast of Peru, California and the west coast of Africa were established. There had always been upwelling along those coasts along with the associated increases in marine productivity. But now upwelled subsurface waters were cooler by 4 to 9°C. (Dekens 2007), corresponding to the cooling by Antarctic Bottom waters and its effect on subsurface waters. Analogous to the drop in global temperatures during La Nina events caused by upwelling of colder waters, upwelling of colder waters 2 to 3 million years ago also cooled global temperature to the point it initiated Arctic ice cap and glacier formation. The cooler Arctic then promoted formation of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW in the upper frame of Figure 13) as salty Atlantic waters transported poleward cooled and brine rejection increased as more Arctic sea ice formed.
Declining CO2: A Result Not A Cause.
The Cretaceous Period (145 to 65 million years ago) was named for huge widespread chalk deposits that developed during that time period, especially in the Tethys Sea. Those chalk deposits were the result of sinking plankton that produced calcium carbonate shells like foraminifera and coccolithophorids, As discussed in Natural Cycles of Ocean Acidification, the creation of calcium carbonate shells pumps alkalinity to depth but produces CO2 at the surface thus adding to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2. More enlightening and contrary to catastrophic CO2 assertions that rising CO2 will decimate calcium carbonate shell producers, the greatest proliferation of calcium carbonate shell producers occurred during this period with the high temperatures and high concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Quite likely, high CO2 concentrations did not produce detrimental acidification, and were the result of coccolithophorids and foraminifera pumping CO2 to the surface.
The development of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current forever altered the carbon biological pump by increasing upwelling in the southern oceans, and later along continental west coasts by cooling upwelled waters. When the ACC caused upwelling in southern oceans to intensify, a more reliable supply of nutrients supported the evolution and proliferation of diatoms. As discussed in Natural Cycles of Ocean Acidification, diatoms are large, produce siliceous shells, and more rapidly shuttle CO2 from the surface to ocean depths. As evolving diatom populations expanded, a more efficient biological pump buried more CO2 at depth that is now detected as siliceous ooze or as biogenic opal deposits. In contrast CO2 emitting coccolithophorid populations and their chalk deposits dwindled. Changes in the biological pump contributed to observed declines in atmospheric CO2. Diatoms are also associated with explosive increases in ocean productivity, so it should be no surprise that the earliest appearance and evolution of whales also coincides with increased ACC upwelling and the evolution of diatoms.
In summary, due to continental drift, the formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current blocked intrusions of warm tropical waters that warmed Antarctic and initiated the Antarctic Refrigerator Effect. Cold polar regions are a natural result of inadequate solar radiation. Reduced forcing from diminished levels of CO2 is not required to explain global cooling. The resulting formation of Antarctic sea ice expelled colder, salty waters that filled the abyss and began cooling the deep oceans. After 30+ million years of cooling, 2 to 3 million years ago, colder ocean waters eventually upwelled in the mid latitudes along the west coasts of major continents as well as along the equator. The resulting global cooling, allowed the growth of Arctic ice caps, glaciers and sea ice. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current also increased global upwelling and the efficiency of the biological pump. Decreases in atmospheric CO2 are associated with reductions in populations of CO2 producing coccolithophorids along with increasing populations of diatoms that pumped CO2 to depth. If the Antarctic Refrigeration Effect can account for the changes in global temperatures, it suggests the global sensitivity to varying levels of CO2 is relatively insignificant.
Jim Steele is author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Why doesn’t saltwater erode limestone?
Best Answer: All elements and compounds dissolve into water up to a certain point called the saturation point. The amount that can be dissolved is dependent on temperature, usually the hot the water the higher the amount that can be dissolved goes up (sugar in coffee for example).
But there are exceptions and calcium (limestone) is one of them Salt water already holds a lot of dissolved limestone. Its maximum solubility occurs at about 2 degrees above 0 centigrade. As sea water temperature goes up above 2 degrees the solubility of CaCO3 goes down, it starts to precipitate. So, in brief, limestone can not dissolve in seawater because the sea water is already holding the maximum amount of it.
This, by the way, is why coral reefs thrive in warm tropical oceans, and is a good indicator in the fossil record of shallow warm seas.
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090727031955AAL12j6
As sea water temperature goes up above 2 degrees the solubility of CaCO3 goes down, it starts to precipitate
===============
so warming of the oceans will increase coral and other shell formation, not decrease it.
Good point.
More CO2 in warmer water, thus yet again we see that Mother Earth is self-regulating.
Dr. Steele, does it make sense to state that CO2 changes could not precede temperature changes, because most of the organisms which produce CO2 have a survival expectancy which increases with global temperature? It also appears to me that natural processes that produce CO2 are similar.
Therefore, it should take a significant drop in temps to reduce the CO2, if there is not some sudden acceleration of the CO2 sinks.
Am I way off, here?
I would hesitate to state cooling must precede CO2 reduction, even though cooler temperatures clearly contribute by increasing the solubility pump. Less upwelling can decrease CO2. An enhanced biological pump can reduce atmospheric CO2. increased weathering of granite type rocks reduce CO2, as well as increased vegetation. Reduce ventilation of CO2 from volcanic activity and cause a net reduction.
But all those factors contribute to the observation that CO2 variability lags temperature change.
Thanks, that is a widening of my perspective!
Doc, if you’re still here, you’ve only addressed CO2 reduction, what about the biological influences on the production of CO2 due to warming of the planet?
There are those who think that Cretaceous heat and low gradient from low latitude to high might have a biological basis.
The idea is that tropical Cretaceous seas were so hot that biological productivity was low, leading to a dearth of CCNs, hence fewer clouds, making for even more heat in a vicious or virtuous circle, depending upon how you feel about hot tub temperature oceans, in which large marine reptiles are happy, happy, happy!
FYI Dawg – a post from (cold) 2009:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/mauna-loa-co2-record-posts-smallest-yearly-gain-in-its-history/#comment-72540
Allan M R MacRae (04:01:04) :
Annualized Mauna Loa dCO2/dt averaged ~1ppm/year from 1958 to ~1978, then ~1.5 ppm/year from ~1978 to ~2001, then >2ppm/year from ~2001 to ~2006, and since then has dropped below 2ppm/year (consistent with strong global cooling since January 2007).
However humanmade CO2 emissions have continued to increase over the past few years, as they have every year over the past century or more. Why then is atmospheric dCO2/dt not also increasing?
Mauna Loa (and global) dCO2/dt correlates well with the Lower Troposphere temperature anomaly, but as I noted in my January 2008 paper*, CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months.
The impact of global temperature on atmospheric CO2 concentrations is apparent.
The impact of atmospheric CO2 concentration on global temperature is much more difficult to demonstrate, probably because it is insignificant.
Regards, Allan
_________________________
Annualized Mauna Loa dCO2/dt has “gone negative” a few times in the past (calculating dCO2/dt from monthly data, by taking CO2MonthX (year n+1) minus CO2MonthX (year n) to minimize the seasonal CO2 “sawtooth”.)
These 12-month periods are (Year-Month ending):
1959-8
1963-9
1964-5
1965-1
1965-5
1965-6
1971-4
1974-6
1974-8
1974-9
[end of excerpt]
Is the CO2 level merely a [biological] response to global temperature?
Make that biological and I have slapped my right hand for that
All us biological forms are going to boil!
Thanks mods, I will gladly pay you on Tuesday…
Jim
Thanks, a wonderfully refreshing cool upwelling of climate sanity. From the oceans – where else?
So, it is time to stop putting taxpayers money into so called ‘universities’.
…or maybe time to stop putting taxpayers money into so called “human caused climate change” research at public institutions. Many universities are privately funded, so they can take money from who they will, but research that the public pays for should not break the ethics of sound science.
If public funded higher ed ceases to exist, so does any opportunity for advancement for the middle and lower class.
Not to mention GISS and NCAR.
Perhaps it’s all about great scientists having a small ego and a huge curiosity!
Or should i say a restrained ego and an unrestrained curiosity?
A query for Jim Steele if I may. To show people the continent positions around Gondwana over the last 200 M.y. I use “Antarctica Keystone of Gondwana By L.A. Lawver, I.W.D. Dalziel and L.M. Gahagan
(Copyright 1999), University of Texas Institute for Geophysics June 25, 1999”
which was available on the web.
Considering the piece by rgb showing the “With adequate mixing of tropical and polar temperatures (with lots of heat transport between equator and poles) a higher average temperature is required to balance a given insolation. With less mixing, the tropics actually warm as the poles cool, but because of the T(4thpower) one can balance exactly the same insolation, given exactly the same atmospheric chemistry, at a lower average temperature.” the mixing of heat into the Artic region is similarly important.
There warm water goes in past Iceland and Scandinavia with the Gulf Stream and cold comes out through the Bering Strait.
Do you know of a similar presentation showing the changes in continent positions for the Arctic region over the last 100+ M.y.?
http://australianmuseum.net.au/image/map-of-world-late-cretaceous
Thanks for the Cretaceous piece.
However the powerpoint I referenced abobe has the position changes for Gondwana in 1 M.y. steps.
The 200 M.y. is in 200 images and allows people to see the gradual changes over time.
But Gondwana isn’t the Arctic. The Antarctic is however part of Gondwanaland, along with South America, Africa, Madagascar, Indian, Australia and New Zealand.
Marsupialworld, if you will.
Johndo. Continental drift is pretty slow. One million years resolution is probably overkill. And there are additional factors influencing Cretaceous climate such as a much narrower Atlantic and a continental sea that ran through North America from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic during the Cretaceous. The seaway covered the area from the Mississippi to the Eastern Great Basin. To further complicate things, we’re not always very certain where the shorelines were at any time in the past. There’s a series of paleo maps at http://www.scotese.com that show land and ocean areas, and another that shows climate estimates and marks the sites that were used to guess at climate.
Johndo,
First, Gulf Stream water does not go out via the Bering Sea. Here is a good illustration from Woods Hole showing Arctic circulation. A lot of heat is ventilated as the north atlantic current crosses the shallow Barents while the remaining warm inflows will circulate at depth for about 15 years in the various basins finally returning back to the Atlantic at greater depth.
http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/108049954.gif
The only graphic I have of the paleo Arctic comes from the Higgins 2006 paper Beyond methane- Towards a theory for the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. They show an illustration of the continental configuration 60 million years ago with a focus on the shallow epicontinental seas (light blue). The Arctic at that time only had 2 narrow connections to the forming Atlantic and the Tethys. Fossils of freshwater ferns suggest the Arctic at best was a estuary and maybe more of a freshwater lake. The Arctic still receives an disproportional inflow of continental freshwater relative to its size and a lot of that flows out to the Atlantic in the upper layers.
To the south the ACC has still not formed as the Tasmanian and Drakes Passage gateways have not opened yet.
http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/108049957.jpg
Jim, a little surprised
“First, Gulf Stream water does not go out via the Bering Sea.” seems the opposite of the position of the 10 C isotherm extending to 50 degrees, the image above I linked from the wuwt reference pages. It would seem to be from cold water exiting the Bering Strait to the Bering Sea.
For DonK, thanks for the scotese site although the projection and time resolution is not sufficient to really see the Atlantic and Arctic Sea opening. The suggestion there would be the Atlantic opened to the south 80 M.y. ago and to the north around 25 to 30 M.y. ago (Miocene warm?).
I wonder if the spreading centre south of Svalbard only opened between Greenland and Sweden more recently?
The time series I refered to above showed the ACC only became fully possible around 3 M.y. ago.
Perhaps just coincidence that the recent series of ice ages and interglacials started around then?
The winds do blow surface water out through the Bering Strait and the extent of winter sea ice is associated with the strength of southward winds. But the inflowing Atlantic water does not make a circuit from the Atlantic to the Pacific
Johndo says, “The time series I refered to above showed the ACC only became fully possible around 3 M.y. ago.”
The weight of numerous recent studies all have the ACC gradually to fully opening between 55 and 35 million years ago.
Seasonal and tidal effects (both in the oceans and atmosphere) run on two external mutually incompatible clocks; variability in the velocity and trajectory of the ocean currents (responsible for energy transport) sets the climate’s nonlinear internal clock. It is no surprise that I have no idea what is going on, hopefully some of the ‘experts’ do.
> The suggestion there would be the Atlantic opened to the south 80 M.y. ago and to the north around 25 to 30 M.y. ago (Miocene warm?).
Maybe a bit earlier than 80 million years ago in the South and closer to 200 million years ago in the North. There are extensive “redbed” and shield lava flows from Newfoundland to Georgia (The “Newark Traps”) that are thought to be associated with a rift valley where the Atlantic started to open. Those deposits are pretty solidly dated to the latest Triassic and Early Jurassic.
I’ll say it again, this is an excellent article. It sets out “climate 101” – the oceans are the true drivers of global climate including climate change. I’m a believer in the fractality of climate. What drives climate over tens of millions of years – ocean 3D circulation changes die to tectonic movement, also drives climate patterns on many shorter timescales due to other sources of ocean forcing such as the Milankovich orbital cycles and others including internal resonant and nonlinear oscillations.
Jim’s article makes a point that I have argued many times on this site: that changes in ocean deep vertical mixing, alone, can dominate climate both locally and globally, due to the very strong temperature stratification of the oceans, where tropical seas can be 30C at the surface and near zero a kilometre and more below. Jim has provided an excellent historical context for hpw this stratification has come about, essentially due to the deep chill of Antarctica that followed the establishment of the ACC – the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
If Antarctica is analogous to a global refrigerator, one wonders if it could be ripping the guts out of the co2 – water vapour positive feedback loop by precipitating any extra water vapour that might be emitted. I do not think that the maths adds up though, that is the extra precipitation Antarctica has been experiencing v the theoretical increase in warming globally from Co2.
Most of the planet acts as a dehumidifier at night. When the sun sets, and temps fall, the rel humidity goes up, when it gets up in the 80 and 90 % water is condensed out, while some reevaporates the next day, some is lost to the water table, this ultimately limits surface humidity.
What causes the 100,000 year glacial cycle?
100,000 years is certainly long enough to be Solar System orbital around the galactic center, or tectonic.
You’re right I was sloppy, I meant it’s long enough to have moved far enough around the center to not be basically in the same place in its orbit. Like the difference between a few hours in Earth’s orbit around the Sun and a week or two. If you watch the stars, one days hard to notice 5 days or see it starts to matter. As you can see what I meant was a much longer explanation than what I originally wrote.
Jim
The eccentricity Milankovich cycle – at least approximately. The classic view is that from 3 to 1 Mya the ~40k year timing of interglacials followed the obliquity 41 kyr Milankovich cycle; then followed the mid Pleistocene revolution (MPR) the timing of interglacials abruptly changed to 100 kyrs, corresponding to the eccentricity Milankovich cycle.
However this paper:
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/247/1/19.short
by Maslin and Ridgewell argues that the apparent 100 kyr timing post-MPR is a more complex mix of forcing by precession (22kyr) combined with “pacing” by eccentricity.
Overall the picture seems to indicate a transition at the MPR from strong to weak forcing of a periodically forced nonlinear oscillator. In the context of the gradually but steadily deepening glaciation of the Pleistocene – the last (Wisconsin) glacial maximum was the deepest yet. Thus 100 kyr pacing of interglacials will likely continue until the next transition which will be to permanent deep, possibly global glaciation.
Just saying…
There is a great debate regards the causes and timing of glacial/interglacials. As the oceans cooled,and colder water was upwelled, about 2.5 million years ago the first glacial interglacials in the Arctic exhibited 41,000 year cycles. As the planet continued to cool the glacial/interglacial cycle exhibited a 100,000 year cycle. However no one believes it is due to the 100,000 eccentricity cycles as eccentricity does not asymmetrically affect the poles and globally only adds or subtracts about 2 W/m2. The debate is whether the new 100,000 cycle is driven by multiples of the ~23,000 precessional cycles or ~41,000 obliquity cycle. Those orbital cycles do not affect global insolation but can cause up to 60 W/m2 changes in seasonal insolation. Greater summer melt can thin the Arctic sea ice making ice loss and deglaciation more possible.
I suspect that the switch to 100,000 year cycles was driven by increasingly thicker Arctic ice that was more resistant to orbital driven summer melt. However as Arctic ice thickened sea level dropped which closes the Bernig Strait preventing fresher Pacific Water from entering the Arctic and thinning the freshwater barrier as discussed in the Arctic Iris Effect. Thicker ice required a greater accumulation of subsurface heat.
Once oceans cooled, about 2.5 million years ago the Arctic is balanced on a tipping point making the Arctic more sensitive to changes in insolation and heat transport that can flip the Arctic between ice and no ice.
Phlogiston, I just read your post and I am in general agreement
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
Executive summary: Due to continental drift, the formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current blocked intrusions of warm tropical waters that warmed Antarctic and initiated the Antarctic Refrigerator Effect. Cold polar regions are a natural result of inadequate solar radiation. Reduced forcing from diminished levels of CO2 is not required to explain global cooling. The resulting formation of Antarctic sea ice expelled colder, salty waters that filled the abyss and began cooling the deep oceans. After 30+ million years of cooling, 2 to 3 million years ago, colder ocean waters eventually upwelled in the mid latitudes along the west coasts of major continents as well as along the equator. The resulting global cooling, allowed the growth of Arctic ice caps, glaciers and sea ice. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current also increased global upwelling and the efficiency of the biological pump. Decreases in atmospheric CO2 are associated with reductions in populations of CO2 producing coccolithophorids along with increasing populations of diatoms that pumped CO2 to depth. If the Antarctic Refrigeration Effect can account for the changes in global temperatures, it suggests the global sensitivity to varying levels of CO2 is relatively insignificant.