Issue 11.1 Intentionally Recreating the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum

Around 52 million years ago, the Earth was about 10F to 15F (5C to 8C) warmer and CO2 was about 2.5X higher than today.  When this was first discovered, this period of time was called the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum.  While the term has not been completely abandoned, it has largely been replaced by Eocene Maximum or Eocene Hyperthermal, presumably to eliminate the connotation that a world 10F to 15F warmer than today would be a good thing.  I do actually favor the use of non-values charged descriptors in scientific literature, but I still suspect the motives in this case.

Today, atmospheric CO2 is a little over 400 parts per million (ppm) and during the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum atmCO2 is estimated to have been around 1,100 ppm.  The reasons for higher atmCO2 are uncertain.  An increase in volcanism has been proposed and, to a degree, supported.  There is, however, also a positive feedback loop where higher global temperatures will warm the oceans which will force dissolved CO2 out of its water and into the atmosphere.  The planet may have, at least in part, warmed due to changes in orbital characteristics that led to this positive feedback.  However, these two explanations are unlikely to be the only reasons for the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum.

While downplayed, higher atmCO2 causes 'fertilization' of the planet causing vegetation to grow more quickly and to require less rainfall.  Some plants benefit from CO2 fertilization more than others.  AtmCO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to 410 ppm since the late 19th century when global industrial activity started increasing and satellite data has seen this greening.  NASA has reported on this phenomenon.   At first they claimed that the measurably greener Earth was the result of India and China planting more trees.  This was clearly disingenuous and contrary to the evidence. They have now changed their page to what is herein linked. We can only question if they are poor scientists or if they were trying to ‘pull one over’.

---

During the EECO, the majority of warming was experienced at higher latitudes with the arctic and antarctic regions as much as 30F (17C) warmer than today. The equator was only slightly warmer.  This would have resulted in a much milder climate because the pole to equator temperature differential is what energizes most weather systems and during the EECO, it was substantially less.  While less supported, the higher ocean temperatures of the EECO may have increased the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.  Current data, so far, have not supported this.

During the EECO, subtropical climates dominated most of the mid-latitudes that, today, are seaonal, temperate climates.  If a similar global climate were to return, over 25 million square kilometers, primarily across Canada, Alaska and Siberia, now sparsely populated and of very low utility, even for indigenous flora and fauna, would likely evolve into subtropical to lower latitude continental climates with hot summers and mild winters.  The Earth's arable land area would more than double that of today.  In combination with a wetter climate, longer growing seasons and CO2 fertilization, food production capacity would likely increase more than that. The Hadley Cells would expand, increasing the size of tropical and subtropical high rainfall areas while moving the bands of deserts northward and, likely,  compressing them. 

The high income, Information Age populations, freed from geographic constraints are moving to lower latitudes and closer to shores.  South Florida, Los Angeles, Marbella, Spain, the French Cote d'Azur, are all gaining population and people are demonstrating a preference for beaches and palm trees.  Rather than being limited to below the 35th parallel these will likely reach 45th parallel in North America and even higher in Europe.  So, the Hamptons will be a tropical beach destination.  No need to go to Florida.

These are some of the benefits of global warming.  Of course, there are problems that will arise in transition and these are well covered.  Some of them are artifacts of the climate models and aren't likely accurate predictions.  For example, many models are predicting that with higher global temperatures will come larger deserts.  That simply violates common sense and isn't consistent with either current climate or paleoclimates.  

However, one inescapable consequence is that ocean levels will rise about 200'.  Clearly, the fear that all the coral reefs will drown also fails the common sense test.  Oceans rose about 400' between 21kya and 7kya and the reefs survived.  Also, there were massive pulses of meltwater in very short periods of time, so the argument that this rise will be too fast fails as well.  The 'Chicken Littles' imply that there will be cities flooding in catastrophic events. In truth, the ultimate rise will contain pulses, but in general will be gradual and take centuries.  So, while current ocean front cities cannot remain over the long term, they have plenty of time to move to higher ground.

It is true that a 'mass extinction' is taking place and, if the planet moves toward a climate similar to the Eocene Optimum, it will continue and perhaps accelerate.  There are two important factors.  First, any time a species comes to dominate a biome, that biome tends to simplify.  Humans are not unique in that.  We modify the environment and push out species that are not directly beneficial to us.  Second, when the Earth's climate changes, so does its flora and fauna.  The extant species become extinct prior to new species emerging to capitalize upon the new biomes. A good example of this is plankton. There are many species and as ocean temperatures, salinity and ph change, some species nearly disappear while others become common. In other words, the world’s climate has changed dramatically over the whole of the Phanerozoic and life has evolved to handle these climatic changes.

There is an important difference this time; humanity is injecting itself into the process.  From roses to dogs to corn, humans are quite intentionally causing a radiation of phenotypic variations that will, over time, result in substantial speciation.  In other words, pleasing humans is now a major survival trait. That won't stop the extinction of old species, but it will accelerate their replacement. Also, humans are nostalgic and will proactively attempt to conserve species that have become extinct in their terminated biomes.

It is not obvious that, if an intentional return to the EECO looks attractive, burning fossil fuels alone can reproduce it.  AtmCO2 is increasing at a rate of 0.45% per year.  At that rate, it will take over 200 years to reach EECO levels.  As fossil fuels are exploited, recovery will become progressively more expensive.  Simultaneously, technologies will improve for alternative energy sources, such as tapping geothermal and ocean based energy.  There is a natural point at which the cost benefit ratio of fossil fuels turns negative and that point is likely to be well before 2222.  To be fair, recovery technologies for fossil fuels will also improve.  Still the crossover point will be reached and likely prior to 2100.

Also, there are two other factors to consider.  First, as the Information Age progresses, energy use becomes a smaller component of the economy.  Old, low efficiency products, from automobiles to refrigerators to air conditioners are replaced by more high efficiency versions.  Consumption moves from high energy intensity physical products to low energy intensive information products.  Lastly, beginning around 2070, world population stabilizes and then, based upon current trends in fertility rates, will fall off a demographic cliff soon thereafter.  At current trends, world population will fall by 70% by 2200.

On the other hand, the albedo of the Earth is likely to fall which will warm the planet.  Right now, for several months per year, much of the winter hemisphere is covered with high albedo snow and ice.  As the planet warms, these areas will be covered with forests which have much lower reflectivity.  Also, if deserts do decrease in size, as they are doing right now, the albedo falls dramatically as they turn, primarily, into meadows and other grasslands.  These processes are taking place right now, but they will likely accelerate with future warming.

Lastly, as the panic over climate catastrophes being generated by the Chicken Littles fades in the face of contrary evidence, it may become popular to intentionally modify the Earth to more closely match the climate of the EECO.  That, obviously, can be done by intentionally increasing the albedo of portions of the planet.  One way of doing that would be to use orbital reflecting mirrors to bring more solar energy to the surface.  A particularly useful way of doing that would be to increase light on portions of the ocean which would directly warm the sea, but also increase evaporation which could be directed and used to increase rainfall in arid places.  Not only would this improve water availability, it would transform desert into meadow or forests, thus, again, decreasing albedo.

Today, the Chicken Littles have so propagandized the population that it is difficult to question the validity of the fear porn surrounding Climate Change.  Yes, the planet is warming.  Some is likely natural, but some is undoubtedly anthropogenic. No, that is not a really bad thing.  Over the remainder of the 21st Century populations will eventually notice that food riots, climate refugees, massive heat related die-offs are not happening.  Yes, it is getting a bit warmer, but all of the related catastrophes aren't happening.  Once this can no longer be hidden, we, collectively, can start having an honest discussion about what the planet should look like.