Raymond T. Pierrehumbert The University of Chicagogeosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/outbox/MBI2006.pdf ·...
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Raymond T. Pierrehumbert The University of Chicagogeosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/outbox/MBI2006.pdf ·...

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
How does biology manage the Climate Commons?
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
The University of Chicago
1

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
The basic statement of the problem
• The Earth’s climate is a commons that affects all species
• It is in turn strongly affected by these species
• The managers of this commons have very little foresight, and no realidea of what kind of climate change they will cause, and whether ornot it will be good for them
• What happens if an innovator species changes the climate in a waythat makes the Earth much less habitable for itself?
2

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
A few possibilities
• Fouling the nest: population grows, carrying capacity goes down, ev-erybody survives (barely), in misery.
• Catastrophe strikes, all die, and Gaia says ”Game over, Try again?”
• Make life worse for yourself, hang on in misery, but make life better forsomebody else (who can’t maintain the ”improved” climate on its own).
• Make life worse for yourself, but brethren emerge who are betteradapted to the altered climate and can maintain it without relying onyour miserable skin-of-the-teeth existence
3

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Two examples
• Transition from anaerobic methane greenhouse world to O2/CO2
world
• Effect of land plants on planetary climate
4

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Faint young sun and climate regulation
• Sun was 30% dimmer 4 billion years ago
• Gets gradually brighter over time
• With present atmospheric composition, Earth would have been frozenover during most of its history (in fact, would still be frozen!)
• Greenhouse gases must have been higher in the past, and adjustedover time to maintain equable temperatures
• Main players: CO2, CH4,H2O
• Water vapor is a feedback amplifying climate change due to changesin longer-lived GHG’s
5

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Silicate weathering and CO2
6

Inorganic C process #5: carbonate metamorphism
(emits CO2, balances loss by silicate weathering)
CaCO3 + SiO2 --> CaSiO3 + CO2 (released by volcanoes)

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
How the feedback loop works: Walker, Hayes and Kasting, muchelaborated by B.La.G.
• Weathering increases with T or continental runoff
• Continental runoff also tends to increase with T
• CO2 builds up until corresponding T and runoff yield a weathering ratethat balances outgassing rate
• Phanerozoic outgassing rate is now believed to be rather constant.Rate may have varied more in the deeper past.
7

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Enter methane
• Per molecule, a stronger GHG than CO2
• Most important source is methanogens (now and in past)
• Methanogens can be primary producers, given H2 as a feedstock
• Could also live off organic CH2O produced by non-oxygenic photo-synthesis on the Early Earth
• Climate still driven by CO2 outgassing. Methanogens intercept CO2
and convert it into CH4
8

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
More methane, less CO2
• Temperature adjusts until silicate weathering equals CO2 outgassing
• The more methane there is in the atmosphere, the less CO2 neededto maintain this temperature
• This process can even drive CO2 to zero.
9

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Oxygen vs. Methane
• Without O2, CH4 is slowly destroyed by photochemical processes andtholin formation.
• In presence of O2, CH4 rapidly oxidizes to CO2 (12 year time con-stant)
• With any plausible methanogen ecosystem, high amounts of CH4 canonly be maintained if the atmosphere is nearly anoxic
• If oxygenation is gradual enough (1 million years or so), CO2 has timeto accumulate and make up for methane loss
• Rapid oxygenation is a climate peril
10

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Snowball Earth
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
OLRL=1517L=1685L=1854L=2865
Flux
(W
/m2 )
Surface Temperature
H
Sn1
Ice covered Ice Free
Sn2
Sn3
AB
A'
B'
11

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
220
240
260
280
300
320
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Surf
ace
Tem
pera
ture
Solar Constant (W/m2)
prad
= 670mb
220
240
260
280
300
320
350400450500550600
Surf
ace
Tem
pera
ture
Radiating Pressure (mb)
L = 960 W/m2
12

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
The snowball is important because it introduces a catastrophe into thesystem, making it harder for climate and biology to evolve gradually
towards a mutually agreeable solution.
13

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
In other words: Finding an optimum by hill-climbing doesn’t work too wellwhen the hill has cliffs!
14

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
How to recover from Snowball Earth?
• Silicate weathering shuts off because all precip is snow
• CO2 builds up until it gets warm enough to deglaciate.
15

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
But how much CO2 does it take to get out?
Pierrehumbert, Nature 2004, J. Geophys Res 2005.
16

160
180
200
220
240
260
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90
January Ice-masked air Temperature
100ppm400ppm1600ppm12800ppm.1bar.2bar
Tem
pera
ture
(D
egre
es K
)
latitude

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
And then...
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90
Jan T (200mb)Jan T (100mb)
Oce
an T
empe
ratu
re (
K)
Latitude
17

Ascona Neoproterozoic Conference: July,2006.
Land temperature becomes very high
18


Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
A freeze-fry cycle
Biology has to cope with:
• 10 million years of deep-freeze with ice-covered ocean
• Followed by 10 million years of 320K surface waters at the tropics, with300K at poles
• Deep ocean critters are sheltered from freeze-fry but what about pho-tosynthesis?
19

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
• Photosynthesizers poison anaerobic methanogen ecosystem (re-duces competition)
• However, they can cause a methane collapse if they do it too fast
• Freeze-thaw cycle could wipe out cyanobacteria
• Later on, by Neoproterozoic, we also have to worry about how fragilephotosynthetic eukaryotes could survive a snowball
20

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Oxygen and snowballs: A rough start
Mak
gany
ene
SturtianMarinoan
21

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Banded Iron Formations also indicate a rough start
22

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Part II: Land plants and the CO2 world
• High temperature and precipitation increase silicate weathering, andstabilize CO2
• Vascular land plants greatly increase silicate weathering rate, all otherthings being equal, leading to a colder climate.
• No snowball when land plants evolved!
– Because plants start to die off when it gets too cold?
– Because the fully vegetated state is cooler than unvegetated, butstill too warm to permit a snowball?
23

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Results without vegetation feedback Donnadieu, Fluteau andPierrehumbert, G3, in review
• Coupled geochemical climate model (weathering,CO2,climate)
• Time slices of paleo-geography over Phanerozoic
• CO2 outgassing rate held constant
• Vegetation cover fixed (conifer forest)
• Breakup of Pangea greatly increases weathering
24

Late Permian Early Triassic
Middle Late Triassic Early Middle Jurassic
Late Cretaceous
Middle CretaceousEarly Cretaceous
A) B)
C) D)
E) F)
G)
DONNADIEU ET AL., 2005
FIGURE 5

Late Permian Early Triassic
Middle Late Triassic Early Middle Jurassic
Late Cretaceous
Middle CretaceousEarly Cretaceous
A) B)
C) D)
E) F)
G)
DONNADIEU ET AL., 2005
FIGURE 6

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
25

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
What would vegetation feedback do?
• Dry hot climates would reduce vegetation cover, reduce weathering,get warmer
• But what is happening in the Cretaceous, when predicted CO2 is toolow?
• Interactive vegetation model might reduce Cretaceous vegetation, in-crease CO2
• However, we need to learn a lot more about how vegetation affects soilchemistry and silicate weathering
• ... and how this depends on the ecosystem structure
26

Mathematical Biology Institute, Columbus 2006
Conclusions and prospects
• Microbial ecology of methanogens and early cyanobacteria is cruciato understanding climate evolution
• What determines the rate of oxygenation? (And when did cyanobac-teria really evolve?)
• How does evolution respond to catastrophes that wipe out innovators?How is an equilibrium achieved between ecosystem and climate?
• Essential to learn how to model vegetation effects on weathering; Cre-taceous CO2 is too low with fixed vegetation effects
• For both methane and land plant problems, what are the prospects forcoupled climate-ecosystems-evolution modeling?
27