Angela's Blog

Global Warming, Naturally
Posted by: Angela Fritz, 10:48 PM GMT on September 16, 2011 +16
The Earth has undergone many episodes of natural global warming and cooling and by various causes. The Earth's most common mechanism for climate change are Milankovitch cycles—variations in the Earth's orbit that change its distance from the Sun, which spur ice ages and subsequent warming. Other changes in Earth's past climate were caused by the same processes causing today's warming. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred around 56 million years ago, is the most recent event that we can compare today's warming to. Global temperatures rose at least 5°C (9°F), and the PETM warmth lasted 200,000 years before the Earth system was able to remove the extra CO2 from the atmosphere. The resulting impact on Earth's climate was so severe that a new geological era was born—the Eocene. Earth's ecosystems were able to adapt to the PETM because the warming was gradual; however, the warming we're causing today is about 10 times as fast, and Mother Nature might not be able to keep up with the changing climate this time around.

Global Warming 56 Million Years Ago

After years of research, the PETM is now thought to have been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, similar to how the earth is warming today. 56 million years ago, at the end of the Paleocene epoch, the supercontinent Pangaea was in the final stages of breaking apart into the continents as we know them today. As the land masses split apart, volcanoes erupted and molten rock bubbled toward the Earth's surface, literally baking carbon-rich sediments and releasing the greenhouse gas into the air. During this time, atmospheric temperature probably increased by a couple of degrees.

The initial increase in temperature triggered events that led to more greenhouse gas emissions and more warming. Climate scientists generally agree that the feedback with the most impact on the atmospheric temperature increase was the melting of methane hydrates in the ocean seabed. As the atmosphere warmed the ocean surface, currents (probably not unlike the thermohaline circulation we know today) would have funneled the warm water to the ocean floor, where it melted the frozen methane hydrates (also referred to as methane clathrates), releasing the potent greenhouse gas into the ocean and eventually the atmosphere, a process called outgassing. Hydrates could have also been outgassed via other mechanisms—tectonic uplift, volcanic activity, or changes in deep ocean temperature from the closing off of certain gateways due to shifting continental plates. No matter how the process started, methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas that has 20 to 25 times more warming power than carbon dioxide, although it degrades to carbon dioxide after about ten years in the atmosphere. However, a steady influx of the gas would have been sufficient to warm the planet by more than a few additional degrees.

PETM versus modern greenhouse gas emissions
Rate of temperature change today (red) and in the PETM (blue). Temperature rose steadily in the PETM due to the slow release of greenhouse gas (around 2 billion tons per year). Today, fossil fuel burning is leading to 30 billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere every year, driving temperature up at an incredible rate.

Many of the other climate feedbacks that we either already observe today or expect to experience probably took place during the PETM warming, as well. Severe drought would have led to increased wildfires, injecting more carbon into the atmosphere. Some research shows that permafrost on a then glacier-free Antarctica thawed, which would have also released carbon dioxide and methane. Another interesting source of carbon that some scientists hypothesize is the burning of peat and coal seams. Peat is decayed vegetation and has a very high carbon content. Peat, which is found in the soil beneath the surface, can be ignited by something like a wildfire and continue to smolder for as long as centuries. Coal seams can be ignited in a similar way, and burn for decades to centuries, releasing huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

PETM Warming vs. Current Warming

During the PETM, around 1.5 billion tons of carbon was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years. In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes release 0.2 billion tons of carbon per year. How fast carbon enters the atmosphere translates to the how fast temperature increases, and the environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a break-neck speed could be devastating.

Environmental Impacts

• Ocean Circulation
Environmental impacts of the PETM were similar to the impacts that are warned of today. There is some evidence that during the PETM, large-scale ocean circulation reversed, which would have led to enhanced warming. Ocean circulations are largely by temperature and salinity (salt concentration), and warming of ocean water at high latitudes would have acted to at least slow, if not totally reverse, the "global conveyor belt."

• Sea Level Rise
Since the PETM occurred in an already warm climate (another thing that sets the PETM apart from modern warming), there was very little sea ice and glacial cover to melt, so sea level did not change dramatically. However, there is plenty of ice to melt on our modern planet, and we expect sea level to rise anywhere from 0.2 to 0.6 meters (0.7 to 2 feet) by the year 2100. We've already seen sea level rise at a rate that would support the higher end of that range (0.6 meters/2 feet).

• Permafrost and Methane Hydrates
Scientists agree that a major contributor to the PETM warming was the melting of methane hydrates on the seafloor and permafrost at high latitudes. Both of these store immense amounts of carbon and constitute a tipping point for the climate—once hydrates and permafrost begin to melt, the process will be irreversible. The reservoirs of methane hydrate stored in marine sediments (500 to 10,000 billion tons of carbon) and in permafrost (7.5 to 400 billion tons) are being constantly monitored. Melting of methane hydrates and permafrost enhanced the PETM warming, and could tip the scales of modern warming, too. Already we see that permafrost is degrading, and scientists suspect that methane hydrates are melting near the Arctic Shelf.

• Ocean Acidification
The most disruptive impact during the PETM was likely the exceptional ocean acidification. The ocean naturally absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and also from the sea floor (in the form of calcium carbonate). When excess carbon enters the atmosphere, the oceans try to balance the system by absorbing more. Numerous studies have shown that this was the case during the PETM. The effect of this is a decrease in the pH of the water, or "acidification." Unfortunately, this has a devastatingly negative impact on calcifying creatures like foraminifera, molluscs, and coral. Coral bleaching is caused by a number of environmental changes, including ocean acidification and increased water temperature.


On the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia, bleached coral in the foreground, healthy coral in the background. Source: Wikipedia.

Ecosystem Impacts

Ecosystems adapted remarkably well to the PETM warming, likely because it was gradual enough for life to adjust to the new environment. The only species extinction that scientists have found were some foraminifera that lived on the sea floor. It's hypothesized that these foraminifera could not adapt to the new warmth at such great depths (bottom waters warmed 4 to 5°C). As excess carbon dissolved in the ocean, the water acidified which likely resulted in coral bleaching. Marine life adapted by migrating poleward toward cooler water. On land, mammals not only migrated to find more sustainable environments, but they also decreased in size, likely because it is easier for smaller animals to dissipate heat. Hoofed animals and turtles were confined to the tropics before the PETM, but during the warming this animals made the trek northward into North America and Europe. The PETM did not cause mass extinctions of plants and animals on land, but a major turnover in mammalian life occurred at that time. Many of today's major mammalian orders emerged in the wake of the PETM.

penguins and climate change
Emperor Penguins are particularly susceptible to a warming climate. Source: Wikipedia.

Modern ecosystems are already struggling to adapt to their new, warmer environments. Penguins, polar bears, whales, seals, salmon, and orangutans are just a few of the mammals being impacted by anthropogenic climate change. Foraminifera have already decreased markedly in some areas. Coral is bleaching at a very rapid rate. While it was possible for land mammals to migrate to cooler regions in the PETM, manmade infrastructure (roads, railways, cities, etc) will prevent them from doing so this time around. Given the rate of warming the globe is experiencing, it is likely that many ecosystems will be totally incapable of adapting.

The Takeaway

There are a lot of uncertainties surrounding the PETM—this extremely warm geologic period has been notoriously difficult to recreate, but recent advancements in understanding the warming have been made. Uncertainties should not be interpreted as misunderstanding. Instead, they should be treated a testament to how sensitive the climate system could be, and how influential humans are on the delicate global energy balance. It is clear that the earth dumped almost all of its stored carbon into the atmosphere, and now we are doing the same by pulling fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them. Just like the previous great global warming did, we are likely catapulting ourselves into a new geologic era: the Anthropocene.
Categories: Climate Change
  Permalink | A A A
Reader Comments
Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted
Viewing: 51 - 56

Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index

51. presslord 9:28 PM GMT on September 27, 2011    
I keep hearing about all these thousands and thousands of climate change scientists getting filthy rich from grants...maybe they oughta plow a little of that cash back into the political system.... ;-)
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10377
52. Patrap 9:36 PM GMT on September 27, 2011    
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 370 Comments: 111244
53. starfish45 4:35 AM GMT on September 30, 2011    
Quoting iceagecoming:


Well, lets just say I hope your right. The thought of New England under mile of ice really could put a damper on your living conditions. Some (science)
to ponder.

Sudden climate transitions during
the Quaternary

Jonathan Adams,1 Mark Maslin2 and
Ellen Thomas3
1Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
TN 37831, USA
2Environmental Change Research Centre, Department of Geography, University
College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK
3Center for the Study of Global Change, Department of Geology and Geophysics,
Yale University, PO Box 208109, New Haven, CT 06520-8109, USA, and
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, 265 Church
Street, Middletown, CT 06459-0139, USA
Abstract: The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid
climate transitions, most of them on timescales of centuries to decades. The most detailed
information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change aro u n d
11 500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is
probably representative of similar but less well studied climate transitions during the last few
hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm
events (interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian
interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however,
be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost
certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.
Various mechanisms, involving changes in ocean circulation and biotic productivity, changes
in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and haze particles, and changes in snow and
ice cover, have been invoked to explain sudden regional and global transitions. We do not know
whether such changes could occur in the near future as a result of human effects on climate.
Phenomena such as the Younger Dryas and Heinrich events might only occur in a ‘glacial’ world
with much larger ice sheets and more extensive sea-ice cover. A major sudden cold event,
however, did probably occur under global climate conditions similar to those of the present,
during the Eemian interglacial around 122 000 years ago. Less intensive, but significant rapid
climate changes also occurred during the present (Holocene) interglacial, with cold and dry
phases occurring on a 1500-year cycle, and with climate transitions on a decade-to-century
timescale. In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of the Little Ice Age
at about AD 1650) probably occurred over only a few decades at most. All evidence indicates
that long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes.

Link


Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I hope that you are correct, iceage. Should we be moving towards another ice age then we already know how to reverse or weaken its progress. We already have the political and economic will to pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We already have the science to do this.

The historical climate changes have always been through natural forces of nature. The climate we are experiencing now is not only from natural processes but, also, through our own activities. We are dealing with the science to reverse or weaken these changes. We are doing so without the political will or convincing economics to do so. We tend to look at the short term profits as opposed to the viability of the long term progress we could make. Certainly another ice age would be disastrous to our economies and our ability to survive as a species. The same is true of a warming planet. We are already seeing this through failed crops, damaged farm lands, and forced to make expenditures to combat a warming world. Relocation of farm lands, as climate changes dictate that we must eventually do so, is not an easy process and probably less fruitful. Certainly there will be "winners", in a warming climate but, the "losers" will probably far outpace the "winners".

Let us hope that you are correct, iceage, in that we will soon face a cooling climate. We have the technology now to reverse or limit its effects. I hope that you are able to discover the observable evidence that the climate is actually cooling and that is a long term trend. I will praise you in this discovery.


I just finished reading this article in its entirety. It left me with a rather different impression than just the abstract. The authors of the article are not greenhouse gas skeptics. It is a rather sobering read for those of us who take greenhouse gas warming seriously, suggesting as it does that large amounts of CO2 emissions could trigger a dramatic change in the world's climate in a matter of a few decades rather than a matter of centuries and that there's plenty of evidence in the earth's record to support this possibility.

While the range of possible explanations for these sudden changes in climate are not definitive by any means, what becomes quite clear is that the earth's climate system is very sensitive to small changes, with points eventually reached at which dramatic "phase changes" (my words) occur. They have happened before and will in time happen again. These quick changes are driven by factors internal to the climate system and not external to it. Both dramatic warming and dramatic cooling can take place. Which one do we take seriously at present? The push toward cooling, for which there is no evidence whatever? Or the push toward warming, for which the evidence continues to accumulate? The warming scenario might possibly (though not necessarily) result in dramatic localized cooling, but the trigger would still be greenhouse gas warming.
Member Since: February 2, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
54. Some1Has2BtheRookie 2:49 PM GMT on September 30, 2011    
Quoting starfish45:


I just finished reading this article in its entirety. It left me with a rather different impression than just the abstract. The authors of the article are not greenhouse gas skeptics. It is a rather sobering read for those of us who take greenhouse gas warming seriously, suggesting as it does that large amounts of CO2 emissions could trigger a dramatic change in the world's climate in a matter of a few decades rather than a matter of centuries and that there's plenty of evidence in the earth's record to support this possibility.

While the range of possible explanations for these sudden changes in climate are not definitive by any means, what becomes quite clear is that the earth's climate system is very sensitive to small changes, with points eventually reached at which dramatic "phase changes" (my words) occur. They have happened before and will in time happen again. These quick changes are driven by factors internal to the climate system and not external to it. Both dramatic warming and dramatic cooling can take place. Which one do we take seriously at present? The push toward cooling, for which there is no evidence whatever? Or the push toward warming, for which the evidence continues to accumulate? The warming scenario might possibly (though not necessarily) result in dramatic localized cooling, but the trigger would still be greenhouse gas warming.


I am afraid that we have not seen anything yet, concerning a warming climate. Once the methane begins to release to the atmosphere, there is not anything we can do to prevent an even more accelerated warming of the climate. There will be no time to adjust and no chance to correct. How far are we from this point now? We are already seeing the unsettling reality of the permafrost beginning to melt. The clock is ticking and, for us, there are few ticks left on it. Will Earth become another Venus? Probably not to that extreme but, extreme enough that we do not want to see it happen. This is in my opinion, anyway.

Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102
55. iceagecoming 6:11 PM GMT on September 30, 2011    
I submit the that the energy driving the temps + or - 6 C far exceed any co2 or methane factors alone. In the past these higher temps than current must have
Released released enormous volumes of methane and then it all froze. Like trying to put out volcano with a squirt gun. All about scale.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852
56. reiven 12:29 PM GMT on October 02, 2011    
They will continue to slow until the molecules simply...stop moving. If you happen to have a thermometer handy at that point, what would it read? research paper
Member Since: October 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 3

Viewing: 51 - 56

Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index

New Comment
Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.
Post Your Comments
Please sign in to post comments.
Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.
About angelafritz
Atmospheric Scientist here at Weather Underground, with serious nerd love for tropical cyclones and climate change. Twitter: @WunderAngela

Community Activity