New insights emerge on what drives long-term climatic trends

Sources and sinks

From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA BARBARA

For the entire history of our species, humans have lived on a planet capped by a chunk of ice at each pole. But Earth has been ice-free for about 75 percent of the time since complex life first appeared. This variation in background climate, between partly glaciated and ice-free, has puzzled geologists for decades.

Now a team of scientists led by UC Santa Barbara’s Francis Macdonald has published a study suggesting that tectonic activity may be the culprit. They found that long-term trends in Earth’s climate are set by the presence or absence of collisions between volcanic arcs and continents in the tropics. The results appear in the journal Science.

“There’ve been a few hypotheses but no agreements as to why we have warmer or colder climates on these very long timescales,” said Macdonald, a professor in the Department of Earth Science.

And when Macdonald says “long timescales,” he’s talking about 10 million-year periods, at a minimum. These are broad climatic trends, the backdrop against which natural and human-made fluctuations play out. Scientists have a relatively good understanding of what factors influence the climate on a thousand-year timescale, according to Macdonald.

On any scale, though, the primary agent of climate change is carbon dioxide (CO2). The question is what factors influence the amount of CO2 in atmosphere. Some processes produce CO2, while others absorb it. Scientists call these sources and sinks.

The debate among geologists is whether sources or sinks affect the climate more. “Some have argued that CO2 sources, like volcanism, have driven climate change on long timescales, while others have argued that, no, it’s the sinks that have caused climate change on these timescales,” said Macdonald.

He believes it’s mostly the sinks, specifically vast deposits of rock that absorb CO2 through chemical reactions. But these carbon sinks are not distributed evenly across the surface. For instance, greater Indonesia is only 1-2 percent of the Earth’s exposed land area, but accounts for roughly 10 percent of the current geologic carbon sink.

The activity of these sinks depends on a number of factors. Water is important for the chemical reactions and also washes the end results away into the oceans, where they consume CO2. Mountain-building increases the reactions by uplifting and exposing new rock. In flat terrain, the soil shields the underlying rock.

Rock type also plays a key role. Stone rich in iron and magnesium has simpler chemical bonds that are more easily broken down. This makes these mafic rocks, like basalt, better carbon sinks than rocks such as granite, which have more complex bonds.

Plate tectonics is what drives this geologic carbon cycle. When one tectonic plate slides under another — usually a dense ocean plate under a continent — the melting rock fuels a row of volcanoes on the top plate called a volcanic arc. The Cascade Range of the Pacific Northwest is one example of this.

Macdonald and his colleagues reckoned that when these volcanic arcs collide with another continent, the collision uplifts mafic rocks. These rocks are readily eroded, particularly in warm, wet, tropical latitudes, and the sediment is sent out to oceans where it consumes CO2. So, he reasoned, when these collisions happen in the tropics, they drive the climate toward cooling.

“The tropics are where the rocks weather best because it’s the warmest and wettest,” explained coauthor Lorraine Lisiecki, an associate professor also in UC Santa Barbara’s Department of Earth Science.

To test their hypothesis, the team used reconstructions of the continents and mountain-building events that scientists had built up over the past decades. This gave them an idea where and when arc-continent collisions happened. They limited themselves to the last 500 million years, since the geologic record is much less complete, and reconstructions less certain, before that time.

Temperature is harder to get a read on than geography, so the team used a simple metric: Was there ice on the poles at a given time or not? They reconstructed this information from the literature by looking at data on rocks that form only in the presence of ice. What they found was that Earth had significant ice cover during only four periods in their time window.

Combining the geographic and temperature data, the team found that over the last 500 million years, glacial climates occurred during periods of extensive collision between continents and volcanic arcs in the tropics. There was less than a 1 percent probability that the match was due to chance.

“Given how many things are changing on Earth at the same time, it’s amazing that it all came out really clean and matched so well,” said Lisiecki.

The collisions have the added effect of shutting down volcanic arc activity, which cuts off that source of CO2. “But if it was a volcanic effect, it wouldn’t matter where the volcano was,” Lisiecki said. It’s only the weathering effect where latitude makes a difference. And the team found a much stronger relationship between the climate and collisions that happened in the tropics, rather than those that were outside the tropics.

“These hypotheses are not necessarily entirely independent,” said Macdonald, “but our analysis suggests that the strongest relationship is with the weathering piece.”

Macdonald embarked on this large compilation project after several of his colleagues had pushed back on results from studies with smaller scopes. “I thought, ‘You’re absolutely right. We need to look at this more broadly,'” he recalled. Now the team hopes this paper challenges their colleagues to make a more rigorous case for their own hypotheses.

Macdonald and Lisiecki also know that this paper is not the last word. “The database is open,” Macdonald said, “so I’m hoping that this is an iterative project. And as more constraints come online, they can be entered and the model can be refined.” To that end, he is currently investigating how strong an effect rock type has on this hypothesis.

Humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years with little concept of the dramatic changes the planet has witnessed over the eons. Although the subjects it studies are ancient, modern geology developed relatively recently. The theory of plate tectonics, for example, was not widely accepted until the 1960s. “We often think of Earth as always being like we’re seeing now,” said Macdonald. “But it’s been a totally different planet throughout its history.”

###


From Eurekalert

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 17, 2019 7:04 am

“On any scale, though, the primary agent of climate change is carbon dioxide (CO2).”
As with other commentators here, I can find no basis for this statement. I suggest that it was included to ensure funding and the approval of their UN masters whose ambition is to achieve “One World Government”, with them in charge, of course.

In my analysis of CO2 time series from stations across the globe, I have yet to find a correlation between CO2 and satellite lower troposphere temperature. However there is a significant positive correlation between the temperature and the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration. As the Tropics has the greatest average temperature, it is the zone that generates most of the atmospheric CO2 which moves out towards the Poles, which are the sink for the CO2 due to the increase in solubility of CO2 with decreasing temperature.

The time series for the CO2 rate of change for the South Pole station matched the Tropics temperature but not the South Pole temperature.

Hence the study has mistaken cause and effect in defining their four periods of low temperature. The larger areas of ice provided a greater sink for the CO2 not the lower CO2 concentration being the cause of the lower temperature.

For detail see: https://www.climateauditor.com

My guess is that it is the land based life forms which proliferate in the warmer, wetter climate of the Tropics and are the major source of atmospheric CO2. Thus it is reasonable for the study to find that tectonic activity in the Tropics has an effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

As for the proposition:
“…. glacial climates occurred during periods of extensive collision between continents and volcanic arcs in the tropics. “….. could it be that the tectonic activity was driven by the loading of continents by the increased area and thickness of ice sheets ?

John McKeon
Reply to  Bevan Dockery
March 17, 2019 9:19 am

The CO2 thing is driven by confirmation bias from the discovery that the Venusian atmosphere is both super hot and comprised mostly of CO2. Hansen’s focus of study was Venus before he became a climate ignoramus https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-climate-scientist-james-hansen-quits-to-fight-global-warming/

I think it is worthy to note that one of the greatest scientific predictions of the twentieth century was that Venus would be found to be a young, superheated planet by – ahem – Velikovsky. Someone should have told Hansen.

astonerii
March 17, 2019 7:42 am

“On any scale, though, the primary agent of climate change is carbon dioxide (CO2).”
I always have to wonder why these kinds of articles happen to show up on this website without any comments ridiculing them in the main body. Seriously? You want some people to take this seriously?

Not Chicken Little
March 17, 2019 8:10 am

Just remember, there is absolutely NOTHING that CO2 cannot do! Except anything good, of course. Someone had a webpage for all that CO2 going from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules per 10,000 in the atmosphere, is supposed to be able to do, even before breakfast and coffee. He had to stop updating it because there were just too many wild and contradictory claims, he could not keep up – it read like poor satiric comedy. King Canute was a piker compared to CO2 (yes I know he didn’t really think he could stop the tide, unlike our current crop of “scientists” and politicians)!

MarkW
March 17, 2019 8:27 am

“Scientists have a relatively good understanding of what factors influence the climate on a thousand-year timescale”

They do? Since when?

chemman
Reply to  MarkW
March 17, 2019 9:04 am

Yep, I saw that and just shook my head. We are doing well if we know 1% of the factors that influence the climate on a thousand-year timescale.

Reply to  MarkW
March 17, 2019 6:38 pm

Scientists have a relatively good understanding of what factors influence their ability to attract grant funds.

MarkW
March 17, 2019 8:28 am

The one problem with proclaiming that CO2 is the master control knob of climate is the fact that on geological scales, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. None, Zip, Nada.

Prjindigo
March 17, 2019 8:33 am

Again with this “CO2 is the primary actor” bullshit.

CO2 has ZERO control over Climate changes because of it’s near uniformity above 6000m and climate changes are caused by ground level thermal and moisture interactions. Climate is driven by water, sunlight and cosmic bombardment resulting in localized prevailing wind and weather systems.

If you go find the CO2 concentration at altitude over time you’ll find the actual global signal is the opposite of the yearly Mauna Kea hysteresis and NEVER as strong as the concentrations measured at ground level.

March 17, 2019 8:53 am

How about continental drift changing ocean currents? That affects whether or not parts of the world can get snow and ice cover. That affects the planet’s overall albedo. Then, the ratio of atmospheric to oceanic CO2 is a positive feedback. Then, if a lot of ice accumulates somewhere, sea level drops, and that reduces ocean currents that bring warmth to cold places. Conversely, the reverse if the world warms.

Of course that’s not the whole story, because there was CO2 removal when vegetable matter was changed to fossil fuels after being built from CO2.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 17, 2019 10:54 am

DLK
And global air currents are disrupted by mountain ranges. Mountain ranges cause orographic precipitation, which will be predominantly snow for very high mountains, meaning little or no chemical weathering. Often there are deserts on the leeward side of mountains, again meaning little chemical weathering compared to mechanical erosion.

John McKeon
March 17, 2019 9:24 am

Given the vast body of evidence there is 1% probability that ice will float

Jon Alldritt
March 17, 2019 10:16 am

Over simplification of earths processes without any factors of grand scale geological change over millions of years and their effect. Never mind lack on real understanding that dosen’t look like dry lab experiments.

March 17, 2019 10:35 am

It’s Sun ! !
On decadadal scale TSI varies about 0.1, on Megaannum scale the variability could be much greater, + or – 1% with associated feedbacks might easily do it.

Clyde Spencer
March 17, 2019 10:49 am

“These rocks are readily eroded, particularly in warm, wet, tropical latitudes, and the sediment is sent out to oceans where it consumes CO2.”

The situation is not as simple as the authors portray. The removal of a mountain range proceeds by a mixture of chemical weathering and mechanical erosion. The chemical weathering predominates at high temperatures, with abundant water (low elevations). However, it doesn’t take long (geologically speaking) for a growing mountain range in the tropics to get to an elevation where the chemical weathering is dominated by stream erosion, frost wedging, and even glacial erosion. Therefore, the mafic and ultramafic rocks are no longer more highly susceptible to removal than sialic rocks. More importantly, with high mountains being reduced primarily by mechanical weathering, the ferromagnesian minerals are not acting as sinks for CO2 because they are not releasing magnesium and calcium ions, just grains of sand. Additionally, ophiolite blocks tend to be unusual situations, not the normal surface-exposed rocks produced by subduction. Once the mountain range ceases growing, it will be reduced to a peneplain in about 50 million years. At that point, it is developing a deep lateritic soil profile that (as the authors) acknowledge protects the bedrock from chemical weathering. There is a lot that has been overlooked in this paper!

Geologists are renowned for hand waving when promoting new hypotheses. However, these two seem to have added a propeller beanie to their distractions for a not very well thought out scenario.

Matt G
March 17, 2019 1:29 pm

Plate tectonics is what drives this geologic carbon cycle. When one tectonic plate slides under another — usually a dense ocean plate under a continent — the melting rock fuels a row of volcanoes on the top plate called a volcanic arc. The Cascade Range of the Pacific Northwest is one example of this.

1) This geologic carbon cycle is only 0.1% for volcanism. Hence, it is way too small for it to have any affect. 2) Why not ice free now with no ice caps when volcanic activity has been active for thousands of years recently. Only recent decades volcanic activity had declined that effected the stratosphere.
3) Plate tectonics change the ocean currents and ultimately decide where most of the planets energy is going.
4) Plate tectonics hugely alter the planets albedo based on our 3) affects the glaciers and ice caps.
5) CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, especially thousands and millions of years ago referring to this article.
6) Points 3) + 4) largely determine where vegetation can exist on the planets surface and affect about 28% of the carbon cycle on this vegetation alone.

This article only confirms that some scientists are still learning how the behaviour of a complexed system behaves and still stick by claims that are in fact incorrect.

Ronald Bruce
March 17, 2019 7:11 pm

This came out of the university of california, if they hadn’t pushed the CO2 Barrow then they probably would have been fired. there would certainly have been no follow up grants to do any research.

March 18, 2019 12:55 am

This obsession with CO2, is it the requirement for yet another government
grant.
Its all very simple, the continents float on the molten core. So as they move
around so the seas also move in different directions, transporting the heat
from the Equater to both North and South.

For example when the North and South of America were two seperate land
masses, the transportation of this hat energy would have been very different
from today.

Throw in the factors affecting us from Space, and any combination of climate
is possible,

But never fear, it all happens so slowly that we adaptable human beings can
manage, and just as long as we can access energy in all of its forms, we will
prosper.

MJ E VK5ELL

matthew dalby
March 18, 2019 6:21 pm

Interesting that no one has mentioned galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and the effects they can have on cloud formation. Very basically the more GCR’s that enter the atmosphere the more clouds form which leads to cooling and vice versa. When talking about climate change on a time scale of 1000’s of years it can be assumed that the number of GCR’s reaching the solar system is constant, but the number reaching the Earth varies due to changes in the strength of the sun’s magnetic field. This leads to cooling during periods of low solar activity, e.g during the little ice age and warming during periods of high solar activity, e.g the late 20th century. However on time scales of millions or 10’s or 100’s of millions of years the number of GCR’s reaching the solar system changes as the Earth’s position in the galaxy changes and we move from areas with a lot of stars to areas with fewer stars, as well as being affected by nearby super nova explosions. This is likely to be the main factor in determining the onset of ice ages or warm periods, although the location of land masses and their effect on ocean currents may well have some role.
For a book length discussion of the above I recommend The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder. For what it’s worth, in my opinion it is the best book on climate change yet. Not sure if it’s been published in the U.S. but well worth tracking down, ISBN-13: 978-1840468-15-1.

Peter D. Tillman
March 18, 2019 8:14 pm

CTM: DId this one get lost in moderation? Or ? Posted at around 4PM Calif daylight time
2nd try:

I’m sorry to see that the response to this interesting proposal is (as far as I read) carping about the mention of CO2 warming. Folks, there isn’t any debate over WHETHER CO2 is a GH gas, the $64 Trillion question is, by how much? Much weaker than water vapor, for sure!

UCSB has a long history of innovative thinking about plate tectonics and climate, led by my colleague Tanya Atwater. And the idea that ice ages may be driven by the rise of the Himalayas was originated by B. Clark Burchfiel, my old structural geology prof at Rice.

Anyway, the point is, this is (sfaict) a serious scientific proposal, and treating it as Yet Another Michael Mann-style folly makes us, the skeptics, look silly So stop it .
My comments (of course) don’t apply to the more serious responses later in the thread.

Peter D. Tillman, certified skeptic
B.Sc., Geology & Chemistry, Rice Univ.
M.Sc., Geochemistry, UNC -CH

“Perhaps the earliest widely-held theory for the Tunguska
explosion was that the world was about to end. As the minutes
passed, this theory was dropped in favour of other, less final
theories, until today one is hard-pressed to find anyone who
truly believes the world ended on the morning of 30 June 1908..”
–K. Zahnle, Nature_383_, 674-75 (1996)