From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – DAVIS
What the ancient CO2 record may mean for future climate change
Deep-time reconstruction shows tropical forests can deeply impact climate change

The repeated restructuring of tropical forests at the time played a major role in driving climate cycles between cooler and warmer periods, according to a study led by the University of California, Davis and published today in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Using fossilized leaves and soil-formed minerals, the international team of researchers reconstructed the ancient atmospheric carbon dioxide record from 330 to 260 million years ago, when ice last covered Earth’s polar regions and large rainforests expanded throughout the tropics, leaving as their signature the world’s coal resources.
The team’s deep-time reconstruction reveals previously unknown fluctuations of atmospheric carbon dioxide at levels projected for the 21st century and highlights the potential impact the loss of tropical forests can have on climate.
Climate Change Feeding Off Itself
“We show that climate change not only impacts plants but that plants’ responses to climate can in turn impact climate change itself, making for amplified and in many cases unpredictable outcomes,” said lead author Isabel Montañez, a Chancellor’s Leadership Professor with UC Davis Department of Earth and Planetary Science. “Most of our estimates for future carbon dioxide levels and climate do not fully take into consideration the various feedbacks involving forests, so current projections likely underestimate the magnitude of carbon dioxide flux to the atmosphere.”
Similarly to how oceans have served as the primary carbon sink in the recent past, tropical forests 300 million years ago stored massive amounts of carbon dioxide during these ancient glacial periods. The study indicates that repeated shifts in tropical forests in response to climate change were enough to account for the 100 to 300 parts per million changes in carbon dioxide estimated during the climate cycles of the period.
While plant biologists have been studying how different trees and crops respond to increasing carbon dioxide levels, this study is one of the first to show that when plants change the way they function as CO2 rises or falls, it can have major impact, even to the point of extinction.
“We see great resilience in vegetation to climatic changes, millions of years of stable composition and structure despite glacial-interglacial cycles,” said co-author William DiMichele, a paleobiologist with the Smithsonian Institution. “But we’ve come to understand that there are thresholds that, when crossed, can be accompanied by rapid and irreversible biological change.”
Co-leading author Jenny McElwain, professor of paleobiology at University College in Dublin, Ireland, said the study indicates that shifts in atmospheric carbon dioxide impacted plant groups differently.
“The forest giants of the period were hit particularly hard because they were the most inefficient of all the plants around at the time, likely losing water like open hose pipes” McElwain said. “Their forest competitors, like tree ferns, were able to outcompete them as the climate dried.”
Background: Unprecedented Rise of CO2
Over the past million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been generally low and fluctuated predictably within a window of 200 to 300 ppm. This, the researchers explain, has sustained the current icehouse – a time marked by continental ice at the polar regions – under which humans have evolved. This trend has been abruptly interrupted by the pronounced rise of carbon dioxide over the past 100 years to the current level of 401 ppm — one not seen on Earth for at least the past 3.5 million years.
The current unprecedented rate of rising atmospheric CO2 raises concerns about melting ice sheets, rising sea level, major climate change, and biodiversity loss – all of which were evident more than 300 million years, the only other time in Earth’s history when high CO2 accompanied ice at the polar regions.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They forgot to consider the primary greenhouse gas, H2O. Compared to H2O, LWIR absorption band absorption and radiation by CO2 is trivial. There is also no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and they have not presented any. There is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really 0.0. If CO2 really effected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a detectable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.
Since a cold climate is drier than a warm one, H2O fell during the onset of the Carboniferous glaciation. This had a profound effect on land vertebrate evolution, ie the rise of amniotes, shelled-egg-laying ancestors of today’s reptiles (including birds) and mammals.
The evolution of amniotes was spurred by the increasingly cold, dry climate of the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian in the US). One of the earliest reptiles yet identified, Hylonomus, appeared in Nova Scotia about 315 million years ago, and the giant (almost ten foot-long) Ophiacodon in North America and Europe only a few million years later.
Amazing what you can come up with when you have a bone to pick…
Present CO2 of ~400 ppm is not “high”. In the Early Carboniferous Period, before the onset of glaciation, CO2 concentration was around 1500 ppm. As global climate cooled, this fell to perhaps 350 ppm by the Middle Carboniferous.
Average global temperature fell from about 20° C in the hot Early Carboniferous to some 12° C during the Middle Carboniferous, ie a little cooler than today’s interglacial climate.
Colder climate lowers CO2 levels. As so often, the authors have confused cause and effect.
Here’s a recent study on coal bed formation during the eponymous Carboniferous Period. It attacks the popular hypothesis that because fungus capable of metabolizing lignin hadn’t yet evolved, massive quantities of plant matter built up to form the coal seams.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4780611/
Oxygen levels were extremely high during the Carboniferous.
As much as 35% compared to today’s 20%. The air was also heavier or thicker and flying insects could have four foot wing-spans.
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lookandlearn-preview/B/B010/B010010.jpg
But with the extremely high Oxygen content, if a lightning strike started a forest fire, it would not stop.
Forest fires could literally burn right across a whole continent. Days and days of rain might have been able to stop them, but for the most part, they only stopped when they ran out of fuel.
Most of the coal is, in fact, the remains of these burned down forests. Yes, they are lots of fossils of tree stands, fronds etc in some of the coal deposits but they are mostly the burned out remnants of the incredibly prolific forests of the time.
Yup. Took some time for this hypothesis to be embraced. Critical evidence is fusain, fossilized charcoal found in Carboniferous coal deposits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusain
A drier climate could have made fires more common and extensive.
“We show that climate change not only impacts plants but that plants’ responses to climate can in turn impact climate change itself, making for amplified and in many cases unpredictable outcomes,” said lead author Isabel Montañez
*
Gosh, not another feedback loop out of control.
Does this mean somebody needs more funding? Again?!
Last I heard, Antarctica is gaining ice massively. Then today on NoTricksZone, I read that Greenland has also gained ice massively since the 1940’s as CO2 has rocketed upwards.
Our Ice Age continues unabated. Model that, UC Davis.
Be afraid; be very (ho, hum) afraid…
BTW, exactly where is that very important study that shows unequivocally on the basis of hard data that carbon dioxide actually causes global warming…? What? You need more time…? No, no, heavens no! I’m NOT calling it an “assumption…,” but exactly where is that very important study…, What? Why would you call me that, of all things? Oh, dear…