Nimble CO2 versus plate tectonics
It has been achingly and painstakingly documented by geologists that over an incredibly long time, first Africa broke off from Antarctica about 200 million years ago, then India ripped away at a blistering pace around 100 million years ago… then Australia began to separate from Antarctica around 70 million years ago. About this time, the ice sheet began to form on the eastern side of Antarctica, its cold position at the bottom of the world and surrounded by cold hostile seas of great assistance.
And then finally around 35 million years ago, South America and Antarctic went their separate ways – South America to warmer climates and Antarctica to stay wrapped in its cold grey foggy blanket of mystery at the bottom of the world. With nothing but open ocean now surrounding a continent hovering over the south pole, enduring a 6 month night with no sunshine, it was just the penguins and snow – and the ice began to pile up and spread to cover the rest of Antarctica.
That has probably been accepted in the geologic community now for about 20-30 years (oddly despite its now utter acceptance in geologic law, Plate Tectonics still took 40 years to gain universal acceptance – the final nail in the coffin for skeptics possibly being satellites measuring the movement of the plates on the earth in the 1980s?. Or maybe one would argue the geologists were also thinking at the human equivalent of geologic time…).
And then suddenly, some scientists, keen to get funding for something, come blazing out of Tanzania and say “Yahoo! We’ve found that CO2 was linked to the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet!” Or at least, that is what an article by a ‘Climate Change Correspondent, Asia” recently detailed to the world media. No mention of the collision of India into China at that time causing massive amounts of CO2 being locked up in the formation of the Himalaya’s… no mention of the completion of the coldest ocean in the world finally being able to complete its express circuit around the inner circle of Dante’s Hell – Antarctica. No. Clearly the ice sheet of Antarctica expanded (expanded – remember folks, that ice sheet had been pootling away gathering strength on the east side for a good 35 million years before when Australia toodled off to the tropics…) because CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere fell.
Now… it may indeed be possible, nay even probable, CO2 concentrations fell in the atmosphere at that time. But they fell because of 2 rather cataclysmic geologic events which dramatically affected the compostion of the atmosphere (India/China) and the climate around the South Pole (Antarctica becoming a free agent). Geologic events of such a mind boggling scale, I’m afraid if such a thing were to happen today, we human would have somewhere in the ballpark of zero power to control it.
This is an important point – because if the scientists were hoping to garner accolades for proving CO2 concentrations fell and the Antarctic ice sheet formed, its misleading. The ice sheets formed because of geologic events beyond CO2’s control – but those geologic events certainly affected CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere! Furthermore, the formation of mountain ranges and oceans are things which are likely to affect CO2 concentrations and climate in general far far above and beyond anything humans can do burning – or not burning – fossil fuels.
And to add a level of hysteria to the article which gave its somewhat miselading claims even more invalidity, the scientist from Cardiff University in the UK, Paul Pearson, then goes on to say, “Those models could be used to predict the melting of the ice. The suggested melting starts around 900 ppm (parts per million),” he said, a level he believes could be reached by the end of this century, unless serious emissions cuts were made.
Did you really Professor Pearson? Did you really add that last half of the scentence, not written as a direct quote? I hope not because 900 ppm is awfully high given we are only at 387ppmv right now! You are asking for a near trippling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the next 90 years and it would have to be at the extreme exteme high end of the most catastrophic mathematical modelling that would predict that! You certainly seemed more rational in your earlier years according to this BBC Online article (or the journalist knew where to stop quoting you and add their own interpretation without dragging you down into their way of thinking)
Admitedly, it would appear the highly contraversial and scorned-by-many-in-the-science-community IPCC has said CO2 concentration could be between 540ppm and 970ppm by 2100 – but most climate scientists don’t get it up above 700ppm – and thats only if we continue to increase our use of fossil fuels exponentially over the next 90 years, which seems unlikely in light of the diminishing reserves out there and a great desire to find alternative, cleaner sources of energy.
Looking at your university profile, Professor Pearson, it seems you are a bonafide Earth Scientist with an interest in paleooclimate. But that means you of all people should recognise the entire picture of all the factors which influence paleoclimate. I can only hope the journalist in this article, how shall we say, embellished your beliefs and underneath, you remain a scientist dedicated to finding the truth and not exaggerating and misleading with your results in order to obtain NERC funding.
It is interesting to note CO2 fell at the same time the Antarctic ice sheet spread to cover the continent. But it is bad science to not point out that was not the sole cause of falling temperatures. Just as a rise in CO2 is not the sole cause of rising temperatures.
