The hockeystick of 600 million years

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Years
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels over a span of 600 million years, exploring the implications for understanding climate change and ice ages. Participants examine historical data, propose models, and consider various factors influencing climate over geological time scales.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests creating a "hockeystick" graph to illustrate the relationship between global temperatures and carbon dioxide over 600 million years, referencing various historical data sources.
  • Another participant argues that the complexity of variables over such a long time frame makes it unreasonable to analyze data from 600 million years ago, advocating for a focus on the past 100,000 years instead.
  • Some participants acknowledge the presence of numerous variables affecting climate, including tectonic shifts and oceanic conditions, which complicate the analysis of long-term climate patterns.
  • There is mention of potential correlations between CO2 spikes and ice ages, with one participant noting that current CO2 levels are unprecedented compared to historical data.
  • Questions are raised about the timing and causes of ice ages, with references to Milankovitch cycles and the need for further investigation into the onset of these periods.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that changes in land mass and ocean depth may have influenced past climate conditions, suggesting that warmer oceans could have contributed to the absence of ice ages in earlier geological periods.
  • Concerns are expressed about the impact of human activity on climate, particularly regarding fossil fuel consumption and urbanization, which may alter local and global weather patterns.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance of long-term historical data versus more recent climate patterns. While some agree on the complexity of climate variables, there is no consensus on the best approach to analyze the relationship between CO2 and temperature over geological time scales.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the available data, including uncertainties regarding the accuracy of historical CO2 levels and the influence of various geological and environmental factors on climate. The discussion remains open-ended with many unresolved questions.

Andre
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
73
In the other thread we were discussing the http://www.unc.edu/~sstaff/images/hockeystick.jpg as valid proof for global warming due to anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gasses. However the purpose of that thread was more philosophycal, intended to identify the truly important. And it was centered around Rich Muller priceless remark:

When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards

But we strayed to ice ages when as intermezzo, I showed a (old) carbon dioxide graph going back 600 million years with seemlingly little correlation between ice ages and carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere.

So why don't we try and make our own 600 million years hockeystick, the relation between global temperatures and carbon dioxide.

For starters I found a more recent carbon dioxide graph from the same author:

http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

and the http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/Science/Earth\The_Ice_Age-36240.htm or rather global temperatures. Here is something:

evidence of glaciation
has been found in at least five stretches of geologic time:
in the middle of the Huronian era in Precambrian time; at
the end of the Proterozoic Era; the middle of the Paleozoic
Era between the Ordovician and Silurian Periods; the late
Carboniferous and early Permian Periods in the late
Paleozoic Era; and in the Pleistocene Epoch

Also good ref:
Pre Mesozoic Ice Ages John, C Crowell 1999 GSA
ISBN 0-8137-1192-4

Note that the Ordovician – Silurian 440 Mya is about 18 times more CO2. The Devonian – Carboniferous border 350-360 million years (Mya) correspond with 3-4 times times the current carbon dioxide level while the Late Carboniferous - Early Permian era boundary, 290-286 Mya, is about level with nowadays. We also have the http://geog.hku.hk/undergrad/course/2038/2038cycl.htm that shows the lack in correlation of CO2 especially in the 450 - 480 Mya time frame and a remarkable correlation around the 300 Mya. On the other hand, between 200 - 100 Mya an inverted correlation seems to exist with temps gradually rising and CO2 gradually lowering.

But how accurate is all of this? Can we make a more accurate approximation and see how the Carbon dioxide - greenhouse correlation really looks like.

There are however several more noise factors, the tectonics send the continents all around the globe. Formation of a big cluster of continents will affect global temperature, also when a sizeable continent passes the poles, a ice sheet will likely be formed, although one might wonder if that could happen with 18 times the current CO2 if the global warming idea was right. We also have no idea about the variability of the sun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
There are far to many variables and it is absolutely rediculous to go back 600 million years the structure content shape patterns winds were completely different. It is best to look at the past 100,000 years and check the correlation of ice ages with the present topography. This will yeild far more accurate results. There has been supposedly spikes in CO2 in all recent ice ages according to core samples. Since we are pesently off the charts this is a potentiality in the not so distant future.

On a side note of something which I have thought of was it may be that part of the reason an ice age occurs is the sudden loss of land mass due to rising waters. In the distant past the oceans were not as deep so the oceans would have been warmer regardless of the carbon dioxide content.

There is also the theory that the deeper waters in the atlantic which are heated by an undertow of warm water are impeded by the excess waters. These things may trigger different wind patterns etc... and all these things working in conjunction creates the ice age. The question is when did the first ice age happen and the second and so on.
 
There are far to many variables

Well I agree about that and indicated already some problems but perhaps we could take those caveats into consideration.

It is best to look at the past 100,000 years and check the correlation of ice ages with the present topography.

More than happy to do that (have been peeking already) but we would restrict ourselves, missing the relevance of the long cycles. Some milankovitch but the most important one definitely not. 1,000,000 years would be better to have a full view on the 100,000 year cycle.

and all these things working in conjunction creates the ice age. The question is when did the first ice age happen and the second and so on.

First ice ages may be billion of years. If we limit ourselves to the middle to late Pleistocene ice ages there are several ideas about the onset. Particulary when we see that http://www.glaciology.gfy.ku.dk/ngrip/billeder_eng.htm are found under 3 kilometres of ice in Greenland we seem have a lot of mysteries to solve.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice pictures. So did you carbon date the plant matter you brought up and at what depth was it in the ice. How much deeper is the ice from where the plant matter was extracted? Also is there a fairly linear time line for ice depth and time passage? What is the time per depth for this ice?

Note: I do think the shallow seas and different topography along with a warmer planet due to it's younger stage of development are why there was no ice age in the distant past. Plant coverage per surface area may also be a factor. Green plants capture the suns energy and transforms it into latent potential. Deserts flip flop like the wind due to low humidity/less plant density which helps towards humidity since plants capture water. The more of the planet we make into a concrete jungle the more potential of the temperate swings. This is presently not an effect because of the massive amounts of fossil fuel burned. What would happen if you cooled all the areas without the burn of fossil fuels or electrical energy? What is the total sum of fossil fuel output accoss the planet for a single year? What does that average per surface area is it negligable or is the presence of a city causing the shift of wind patterns which cause other things. To many varaibles all working in unison. Planets core, volcanic activity, meteors/comets strikes.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
8K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K