Sumanta, the question is interesting and there might be several theories on that. However, I doubt than one can reproduce detailed results from the past. Several factors are interacting: a) movement of plates changes global topography, and for the given volume of liquid water the surface covered with continents will change over time; b) distribution of natural zones (forest, field, desert) as % of land territory will also change depending on latitude distribution of land area; c) the volume of biomass will also evolve on the basis of many factors; d) tectonic activity will change intensity of volcanic eruptions, and the dust concentration in the atmosphere, which is also responsible for global warming/cooling dynamics. Hence, theory can also be complicated.

Sumanta, the question is interesting and there might be several theories on that. However, I doubt than one can reproduce detailed results from the past. Several factors are interacting: a) movement of plates changes global topography, and for the given volume of liquid water the surface covered with continents will change over time; b) distribution of natural zones (forest, field, desert) as % of land territory will also change depending on latitude distribution of land area; c) the volume of biomass will also evolve on the basis of many factors; d) tectonic activity will change intensity of volcanic eruptions, and the dust concentration in the atmosphere, which is also responsible for global warming/cooling dynamics. Hence, theory can also be complicated.

There were apparent cycles in CO2 levels on history in reading ice history, so perhaps someone has figured this out.  But be prepared for the barrage of comments, opinions, science based, or not.  In my opinion, and that does not buy much, the continent positions would have had effect on the ocean circulation patterns.  There were many disturbances of historical significance such as meteors or asteroids hitting, volcanoes erupting, ocean levels rising and falling depositing marine terraces, rapid burial and preservation of dinosaurs and other fossils, sedimentary materials on mountains, faulting and folding of stratigraphy, glaciers expanding and contracting, signs of paleofloods, etc.  There are indicators of change, and a continuing need to document and fit evidence together.  It would be interesting to fit the climate CO2 with continent positions through time.  I forgot to mention magnetic shifts, such as reversing poles, what effect that might have.  Definitely, you have hit on an interesting subject in my opinion.  It will be interesting to see if this expands like the climate change question.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

Sumanta:

How exactly the subtle Earth System changes influence Climate change could be understood through modeling. This link would provide you with basic parameters:

http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0495555061_137169.pdf

Best

Syed

Yuri Yegorov, Kenneth M. Towe, William F. Hansen, and Syed Abbas Jafar,

Thanks for your valuable addition.

@Syed Abbas Jafar,

Sir, my academic background and my specialization is also Physical Geography. Though I am at my early stage of academic carrier and know much less than the experts in the field. But I am aware of the complex interactions among the components of lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere.

In scientific research, the long term role and impacts of plate tectonics and tectonic geomorphology (result: the Evolution of Continents and Oceans -the world as we see today) to study the paleoclimatology and the recent climate change dynamics is being ignored. Probably not attempted till date in full global scale. Though in last few years scientists have been working on modelling the regional tectonics (the causes and outcomes) as well as able to establish the methods of paleoclimatic research but still not able to link this two important dynamically variable components together at global scale.

I would appreciate if you or anyone could highlight some research work which have incorporated both at global scale. The outcome of which may open-up a new dimension to study our climate change problems. 

Sumanta:

This link and the references therein would provide you with essentials of Plate Tectonics broadly controlling Climate Change.

 https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/deconto_tectonics&climate.pdf

Best wishes.

Syed

There is no doubt that continental drift influence the climate. As Yuri Yegorov explained previously, there are many interactions between climate and  position of continents. We have many proofs in the past. An example studied by my research group: the approach of Gondwana to Laurussia during the Mississippian turned the equatorial current in the Palaeotethys towards the South and created a refuge for reefal organisms (corals, algae, etc) in the epicontinental seas of northern Gondwana. Many species dissapeared in equatorial zones (Europe) affected by tectonic movements and cooling at the end of the Viséan, but they persisted in the Saharian platforms up to the Bashkirian.

This influence is tremenduous. Just think to what implies a Pangea, i.e. all continents being bound into a single huge terrestrial area.

Kenneth M Towe, 

Sir, If we could able to establish the parallel links between the two then only we could understand the past reality. Who knows, we may find a missing link of the causes of climatic anomaly and the regional variability of the past and the present. If we could know the past and clearly understand the present dynamics then only we will be able to predict the future of the earth system.

I don't think by looking only the very recent regional temperature and CO2 variations is going to solve the real problems of future. The history of human civilizations has a much much longer root than the instrumental record of current atmospheric parameters, forget about comparing them with history of origin of life on earth. Why not give a try to understand nature in a better way before get defeated by it. Which is bound to happen in future, if not tomorrow.

I agree with your opinion about the large scale attempt of geo-engineering of the earth may not solve the problem rather will create danger for the sustainability of our earth.

Further to add, if we compare the landmass movement and climate variability then nobody can say with confidence about which one change faster! 

A very interesting question... but with a multi-variable response, each factor depending of the geological moment. An example: for most of us, the concept of continental drift was used to explain major patterns of evolution. Increasing the resolution of sedimentological and paleoclimate studies we are realizing that tectonics is not allways enough and the shape and connection/disconnection of landmasses could be driven by sea level variations... as at the end of the Cretaceous.

Dear Sumanta: the question you posed is a very complex one! The supercontinent cycle has been operating since at least the Paleoproterozoic or Neoarchean, assembling and disrupting continental masses, creating -and destroying- orogenic belts and ocean basins, volcanic belts, and the like. So it is unquestionable that such tectonic variarions had a strong influence on past climate, just as they have been doing since the Pangea disruption in the Jurassic. The problem is relatively easy to resolve in Mesozoic terrains, a bit more difficult in Paleozoic, and really a hard one in the Precambrian. Conditions for deposition of evaporitic basins were widespread during the Permian, but also in the Devonian and Proterozoic, where large evaporitic basins are found, also aeolian sandstones are frequent in this very dry period, and in older times too. Climate changes so profound as to be unimaginable to us happened when continental blocks collided to form supercontinents. Pangea was covered possibly by a desert three times larger that the actual Sahara, and by an enormous ice cover in its southern parts. The uplift of the Appalachian-Caledonian belt surely had a profound effect in the climate of this supercontinent and global Earth. Before this, in the Neoproterozoic, the uplift of the world-wide Greenvillian system of orogenic belts, which was probably even higher than the Himalaya and longer than the Andes..., due to the assembly of Rodinia, certainly had a marked influence in atmospheric and oceanic circulation, as to eventually lead he planet to the "Snow-ball Earth" global glaciation, just as the uplift of the Andes and Himalaya has done in more recent times, creating large deserts in South America and Central Asia. The problem in older terrains is the large uncertainties in the relative shape, positions and paleolatitudes adquired by land masses, this is relatively easy to solve during the Jurassic, but increasingly difficult to ascertain in older times. With regards, Sebastian.

Marcelo Leppe and Sebastian Grande,

Well said sir, thanks for your valuable response. Sebastian sir, thank u very much for a definitive view about our geologists observation and encounters in different geological time scale.

Kenneth M Towe,

Sir, I was talking about understanding the complexity and the co-relation between two major parallel (or semi parallel) consecutive (and auto-triggered) events that our earth has experienced. At this stage I am not in support of altering continental position. I am not in support of such foolish approach without any concrete deliverables. 

Interesting question and I have a hypothesis regarding that, a hypothesis which I have not yet been able to test properly. It states that the Ice Age Periods are created by a certain distribution of continents which gives rise to a certain deep ocean circulation pattern which is unstable, and that the cycles of said deep ocean circulation gives rise to the Ice Ages. The start of the present Ice Age Period would then be the closing of Central America, cutting off the Pacific Ocean from the Atlantic ocean in the tropics, which gave rise to the Florida Current and the Gulf Stream which creates high salinity, extremely cold water north of Iceland, where it sinks and forms the densest bottom water. This draws the Gulf Stream north, pulling warm Caribbean water to the west coast of Norway and thus warming Europe. This causes the rapid warnings that characterize the terminations of the Ice Ages. As the bottom water gets denser the potential for more bottom water formation decreases, the sinking rate decreases, the Norwegian current loses intensity, the climate gradually gets colder over tens of thousands of years, which is how Ice Ages start. The deep water has a residence time in the order of 4,000 years, which hypothetically is related to the fact that an interglacial tends to last about 10,000 years, i.e., the same order of magnitude. The point of sinking is moved south of Iceland since there exists an instability, and full Ice Age conditions will have been established. It fluctuates north and south of Iceland during the Ice Ages, reflecting this instability. This lasts for about 100,000 years, an order of magnitude larger than the interglacial. But something causes there to eventually be such a strong and such a saline Florida current that reaches north of Iceland, at a time when the hyper dense bottom water has already been mixed up (less saline) after tens of thousands of years, that another super strong sinking event starts, which establishes a the interglacial circulation pattern in the North Atlantic Ocean, and warms Europe and eventually North America so the ice sheets disintegrate and disappear.

I have proposed a method for the mechanism that could trigger the end of the Ice Ages in the present Ice Age Period, which I enclose here, but I have not tested the rest of the hypothesis, i.e. that there is a deep ocean cyclicity of salinity with the same period as the Ice Ages. The origin of that hypothesis is that all Ice Age Periods seem to have had individual Ice Ages, and that the present Ice Age Period was initiated at about the time when the Central American Isthmus was closed, and since the closing of that isthmus is necessary for the creation of the globally unique circulation pattern with the Florida Current - Norwegian Current, with it super high salinity and high heat content being directed from the tropics to the polar region, and the subsequent creation of the bottom water; and on top of that the observation that the deep water in the oceans is different in some way between ice ages and interglacials. 

Article A jokulhlaup from a Laurentian captured ice shelf to the Gul...

Dear Sumanta Dandapath,

You have made an interesting question about a theory which is taught at university  like a false theory…. In a simply response the future of Earth you can observe: first on to Mars, a far Future at Moon and more far future at surface on Ceres and in neighbour asteroids (“continental plates”)…

http://planeterosion.blogspot.hu/ (the gravity explained in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277364319_Tenyekkel_igazolhato_a_gravitacio_valos_oka

Article Tényekkel igazolható a gravitáció valós oka

Laszlo-Attila Horvath,

It is still not clear from your message about what point you want to make? Can you make it clear please? Do you accept/support the plate tectonic theory or seafloor spreading? I would appreciate any explanation from you, if you really have! Otherwise it seems that your comment is out of context.

Ulf Erlingsson, 

Though you have made a hypothesis, restricted more in North Atlantic and based upon closing of opening of free flow of oceanic water through central america region. You have made some relevant points too. However, some of your point do not stand by its arguments including the cause of termination of ice age or the reason of initiation of it either. Lets see what others think about this. Personally I am not convinced. I think you must be knowing that oceanic water do not easily freeze because of their salinity and density. And yes off-course the bottom current and the thermohaline circulation has a role on global circulation.

Kenneth M Towe,

Sir, the question was more about opinion from individuals working in the field. My expectation includes whether on not the researchers have considered the continental drifts into consideration while predicting the paleoclimate of earth, while reverse condition was reported by many in support of continental drift hypothesis-theory.

Is the impact of tectonics big enough to bring (reversing the trend of) long term change of climate? If yes, then why can't researcher establish a co-relative scenario between them? Say for example, development of a model that can be indicative of expected global (and regional) climate condition with variability of landmass distribution.... or something like that? I understand it will become a complex one but not impossible either considering the vast availability of past records. Which may be helpful to develop a model of possible future outcome.

Most importantly, how researcher can re-analyse the paleoclimatic records while considering the geography (distribution of land and water) of the past?

Dear Professor (assistant)

I have never forgotten when a shepherd gave a mineralogical lection onto terrain (Apuseni Mountain) better like my teachers (place where a ocean spreding zone can be analised onto surface Like in Albania. Serbia too)… I have remembered about it after reading your answer and sold some of Chinese clothes…     

It seems that you are sure what have you stated… But my simple question is that: is true in reality?… First when before we are making question we have to know something well about what we are asking?

Let’s begin with the text under your main question:

1.   “The continental drift is a reality now, supported by the dynamics of plate tectonics and seafloor spreading.” (Yes has existed a continental fragmentation after Jurassic. In my opinion that was not caused by a dynamics of a theory (such a dynamics which has no explanation… I was supporter of plate tectonics when you were borne” and trying to explain a situation in Europe… Only in 2007 I have understood what the problem was: only in smaller globe was work… I have found the dynamics in case of planet erosion (process of destruction of planet’s surface forming asteroid belt and dwarf planet) like “space of spreading”

2.    “Continuous convergence (collision) and divergence (separation) of continental and oceanic plates from each other has been reshaping our Earth since the initiation of the process.” (“Collision” such a process as the PT is stating do not exist if we are taking in consideration the reality… The better name of process is “uplift” (for it needs a vertical movement) in time of expanding process of planet  (which are common with a spreading phenomenon) very easy can be explained

3.   “Therefore, the absolute location (latitudinal and longitudinal) of places has been changing with the change of associated biotic and abiotic environments (tropics shift to equator, or polar regions being shifted to mid latitudes for example).”- Over simplified conclusion: Do not exist “absolute” locations their relations are in continuous changing to each other! (all parameters are relative!) I know well where you are going, but you are not counting with the magnetic pole …

4.   “Then, how the shape of the earth arises due to the continuous movement of the continents and oceans is impacting the global climate? Does it also impact the paleoclimatic records which are being considered to understand the climate of the past? “- Here you have got a very good response from Venezuelan   Sebastián Grande: “Dear Sumanta: the question you posed is a very complex one! The supercontinent cycle has been operating since at least the Paleoproterozoic or Neoarchean, assembling and disrupting continental masses, creating -and destroying- orogenic belts and ocean basins, volcanic belts, and the like. (…)”… and from the rest of answer…  As I mentioned the PT is a fake theory (it can be testified example onto Mars, Mercury, Moon)… You are counting with plate in continuous moving, but it seems that you accept an Earth with a radius constant (constant distance from sun) after its formation… if you are thinking truly you will observe a basic contradiction… If you want to get a good response (“points”) about Earth try to perceive it as it is!... Best regards…

Dear Laszlo-Attila: Plate Tectonic is nowadays much more than a "theory", it is the  "working means" of geologist the world over in all branches of Earth Sciences. Evidences for it are overwhelming, and increasing every day. Surely, not all the aspects of such a complex mechanism are fully understood, but everyday research comes up with new discoveries and models. In one thing I utterly don't agree with you, when you state:  

Do not exist “absolute” locations their relations are in continuous changing to each other! (all parameters are relative!) I know well where you are going, but you are not counting with the magnetic pole …

There is an absolute reference frame with has never changed since the Earth formed: the location of the polar rotation axis. Past positions of continents are resolved by paleomagnetism, for sure, but the rotation axis has not changed in 4.5 Ga (I think it was at the beginning orthogonal to the plane of the orbit, but the huge collision with Theia, which formed our big Moon, tilted it to its actual 23,5° position), and paleolatitudes refer to geographic poles, NOT to magnetic poles. So an "equator", two tropics, and two polar regions have existed ALWAYS, no matter where continental masses are located; also the magnetic poles have changed position, but very little, so they always stayed quite close to the polar regions, never migrated to ecuatorial regions. If during continental drift a continental mass happens to be near the equator, then its climate will be tropical; if the continent is near one of the poles, then its climate will be very cold. The small variation in the tilt of the rotation axis is almost negligible, less than half a degree..., so even during the Hadean and Archean tropical regions existed, located some 23-24° norh and south of the equator, just as it happens today. I'll tell you a very interesting example: bauxite is an aluminum enriched residual soil formed in tropical to subtropical weather. The name of this ore comes from a town in southern France, called Baux, it doesn't come from Brazil, India or Ghana... How is this possible? Simple, Eurasia during the Cretaceous was located more to the south as where it is located now, and then enjoyed a subtropical weather, similar as Yucatán and Florida... Indeed the "Mediterranean Bauxite Belt" encompassed all the Mediterranean Sea, from France to Albania, these are the so called "karstic bauxites", formed by desilication of clay-rich debris trapped in collapse cavities in limestone... And how did this limestone formed along the shores of all the Mediterranean? Simple too, this was, during the Cretaceous, a tropical sea, similar to the actual Caribbean or Sunda seas, and was connected to the east to the know subducted Thetys Sea, both enjoying tropical weather, as the rich coral and algal fossil record shows! Famous and rich karstic bauxite deposits are crucial for the economy of the island of Jamaica, but these formed during the Late Tertiary... Latitude is fixed on Earth, because it depends on the rotation axis, which has never changed. It is the continents that, during drift, pass from one climatic zone to another, as when plates separate they don't do it linearly, but following curved paths (on the Earth's surface), so the "latitude" in which a part of a continent is located, changes steadily with continental drift. Also, continental collisions exist, for sure they exist! Look at the Himalaya, the Alps, and the Balcans, and you will find there enormously wide and long belts of folded, thrusted, metamorphosed and deformed rocks, which can only be produced by gigantic events such as continental collisions. Regards, Sebastian. 

Dear Sebastián Grande,

Thank you for your very well made response. You have right when you have made critics of my sentence:

“Over simplified conclusion: Do not exist “absolute” locations their relations are in continuous changing to each other! (all parameters are relative!) I know well where you are going, but you are not counting with the magnetic pole … “- In time of writing it I also think a bit about that is not so god as it is… You have made it better and gave valorous acceptable arguments but do not forget what you have stated:

-The small variation in the tilt of the rotation axis is almost negligible, less than half a degree...

It cannot be demonstrating a small slowly changing of it- as I stated in my “to general” sentence… But in case of your next explication is negligible: but not “almost”!

About your example it can be explain with other arguments too… The Clime of Cretaceous was warner than nowadays… Exist good explanation of Dinosaur extinctions which can be connected to your example (and has strong influence too to the climate, I do not refer to the impact theory) … and such of changing can be also (better) explained with an expanding process, too…

The situation is similar in case of Earth’s tides… The Earth’s tides can be better explained with a thermodynamic changing in outer core than the taking in consideration gravity force of Moon… There is exist a stronger explanation of Moon forming from a single (Earth-Moon) proto-planetary system…

Thank you again for your very important example (Such a Bauxite exist in Hungary and Romania too)… Exist a neighbour planet Mars same properties with Earth (only it does not have a similar twin like Earth)… From these two similarities we can decide that Mars had had same twin planet like Earth (refer to Moon)… It can be demonstrated with tides of Mars… The Mars have to had a Tide effect similar like Earth (It can be determined too, onto a simple algorithm counting with its rotation and planet orbiting around the Sun)… Only a very interesting question: Exist Bauxite onto Mars? My response is Yes, exist! (as exist possibility of Earth like life-formation in Mars condition! This life may be present under surface).    Best Regards Attila  

Laszlo-Attila Horvath,

Sir, I think lot of your misunderstandings and wrong pre-assumption has been addressed by Dr. Sebastian Grande.

The reason you mentioned for disagreement with seafloor spreading and plate tectonic theory is not acceptable to any researcher working in this field. See global map of dating of seafloor you will definitely get some clarification unless you think all research in the field are fake.

You have accepted the fact that uplifting of landmasses was there. You have also mentioned that continents were separated in past. Then what was the possible reason behind such large scale movement? Yes, the plate tectonics is a continuous tectonic process however the topographic changes may happen in blocks or sequence of small to medium visible change.

You are advocating with possibilities of change of volume of Earth. But not explained from where the mass will come from? If it was gradual expansion of earth as like universe (!) which is also possible, but can not justify vigorous changes being experienced mostly along orogenic belts of continents and spreading ridges of oceans. Hope you understood my point.

Regarding planetary bodies, there is no evidence that can support your assumptions. One more thing to add, I am not telling that our earth will survive forever. I have read about star's life cycle. The sun will possibly follow the same cycle. Therefore, earth and other planets of solar system will go through major changes in distant future.

About absolute location, the proposition given in the question is not wrong, rather depends on the ability to understand the true meaning of it. I have mentioned lat. and long. as indicative reference grids of absolute location in earth. Continents are drifting but not the reference grids of lat. and long. as also mentioned earlier. It was to understand past changing location of continents and associated environments with time.

The original question is simplified, but not oversimplified. The question is more objective but require explanatory answer. Thanks for your time and opinion.

Dear Sumanta Dandapath,

Thank you for answer..

I think you do not give back reality (the geological phenomena) as you reflected my response.  A “good real” scientist is not blinded by corrupt theories, and never rigid in perception, trying to get a “honest” interpretation of our surroundings…-Dr. Sebastian has made a critics only one of my sentence not “ lot (of your misunderstood queries or rather pre-assumption (…)” and with it, the critics of your sentence become more clear, like teaching which act for the healthy imaginations of students…  The theory cannot be better that real facts present in our soundings (in other case it seems works well the occidental scientifically brainwash)!…   

 Here needs honest examination of Plate Tectonics and Expanding Earth Theory, inclusive Alfred Wegener’s works… Why the Expanding Earth theory is so dangerous? The theory (which gives better explanation to the geological events after Jurassic!…

You have made some good points too but your critics of my points are weak without any clear proves. The gradually expanding process may be explained with the new mantle formation at the boundary of mantle and outer core from core.. connected to the cycles of Subduction Theory… here is important arguments of Russian Yu. V. Chudinov  (Global Education Tectonics of the Expanding Earth)

“This book is a new approach in the development of global tectonics. It deals with a new variant of the Earth's expansion concept: the model of 'eduction', i.e. of lifting up the mantel material onto the Earth's surface in the active margins of oceans and non-closed character of the mantle currents. The author developed a thorough and comprehensive scientific scenario of tectonic evolution of the Earth using the idea of its radius increase. The most significant and interesting part of the book is a critical analysis of the history of development of plate tectonics. Another remarkable part of the book is the explanation of existing seismicity --- its specific and geographical distribution from the point of view of tectonic evolution of the lithosphere. This book should serve as a trigger for a critical review of contemporary tectonic concepts."

http://www.read4freebooks.com/recommendations-book/global-education-tectonics-of-the-expanding-earth

https://books.google.hu/books?id=DBe4C-Is48cC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=Global+Education+Tectonics+of+the+Expanding+Earth&source=bl&ots=BSjTcnJ09W&sig=3c7qsn7uZ45pkaaGCzhXYC7U5Z0&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSls6jtKrPAhUiIpoKHQVoDs8Q6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=Global%20Education%20Tectonics%20of%20the%20Expanding%20Earth&f=false

... I have mentioned that I had had accepted PT tectonics 22 years (same concept of gravity) until 2007… But the interpretations of the asteroid belt formation lead to abandon the foxy PT which was created to save existing basics of theoretical physics (here main place: is gravity... Interesting thing is how the gravity waves was discovered by authorities of LIGO last year…)

The actual form of PT (A of PT) cannot explain the energy which needs for plates! It works only in condition of constant radius. It has no clear explanation for the period before Jurassic.. When have begun the present situation… Why we do not find similar situation onto Mars, Moon, mercury, Moon?... The situation of rift systems around the Africa and Australia without a needed seduction zone… The lithological origin of asteroids which shows well that them was formed in a rocky planetary condition… The rocky planet formation-dead… How does the Earth NI-FE core formed!...  The connection between Subduction Theory and A of PT… The example of Dr. Sebastian (Bauxites)… If you make critics of my points (annexe example minimum three case) from practical geology…Best Regards Laszlo-Attila Horvath  

  P.S. you can find very good explanation at Giancarlo Scalera, Vedat Shehu,…

Sumanta:

This is how our Planet is going to broadly look after 50Ma from now. You need to test and sharpen your analytical skills to imagine distribution of Climate Zones in the then drastically changed Plate Tectonics set up.

Best wishes.

Syed 

According to Laszlo's ideas there has never been neither sea-floor expansion nor the oceanic crust has bands of paleomagnetic polariry inversions nor India ever collided with southern Asia to form the Himalaya, among other things... Refusing ALL the overwhelming evidences (geophysic, geographic, paleonthologic, paleoclimatic, geologic, and so on) of Plate Tectonics nowadays is almost like believing in a hollow or flat Earth, or the Geocentric theory of the Universe, of course...  forget the BIg Bang too! Besides all the evidence contrary to the theory of an expanding Earth, simply think about one thing: if the opening of the Atlantic Ocean has created some 6000 km of new oceanic crust, the amount of matter needed "to fill the hole" left in the mantle after such expansion is simply ENORMOUS, in the order of TEN times the total mass of all the crust! Something like that is physically impossible! Also, surely all of we geologist know very well that the Cretaceous was a very warm period, probably NO ice was left in the polar regions, and sea level was a lot higher that now. But even this "Creataceous global warming" is not enough to explain the formation of Mediterranean and Balcanic bauxites, a change in the paleolatitude of Eurasia is paramount too: this large continent was closer to the equator, so the bauxite laden regions enjoyed tropical to subtropical, that is, monzonic weather! Regards. Sebastian. 

Dear Sebastian,

You have made some great jokes!: “according to Laszlo ideas (…)  “has created some 6000 km of new oceanic crust” (…) ” the amount of matter needed "to fill the hole" left in the mantle after such expansion is simply ENORMOUS, in the order of TEN times the total mass of all the crust! “…

Best regards!  Laszlo

It seems to be clear that both biotic and abiotic factors affect both the rate and the trajectory of evolution. Abiotic factors such as plate tectonics, climatic variations, and atmospheric composition changes, according to the TE-Thrust hypothesis would stress the biota, which would result in an increase in transposable element activity, resulting in an increase in adaptive potential and  in evolutionary potential, thus saving many of the extant lineages of the biota from becoming grossly maladapted and in danger of extinction. Of course more traditionally recognised factors of biotic variation  and adaptation could also play a part as well.

On re-reading your question I can see that what I have written is rather a long way off of being an answer to your question, but it may be useful information in itself - if not you can ignore it.      

Dear Sumanta,

As other colleagues explained to give answer to your question, there are number of factors which all interact with each other and what the nature records or what we see is the final result of these activities and in fact you can not name single or combination of two- three factors as a possible candidate responsible for all these changes. There is no doubt that the Earth's feature, its atmosphere, environment, ecology, water cycle, and biodiversity have affected climate during its life span and under this circumstances, the reconstruction of palaeoclimate is not simple job and you will need to have an idea about number of variables and their share which were present and have interacted with each other to produce net result that has been recorded. Therefore,any attempt to reconstruct palaeoclimate condition have to use multi proxy approach.

With best wishes,

Habib.

KMT:

Episodes of Oceanic Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) and several subaerial Large Igneous Provinces, for instance probably also played a significant role during Greenhouse world of Cretaceous, with ice free poles; we do not know what caused exceptionally long period of Cretaceous Normal-Polarity Superchron. Igneous activity definitely played a key role in the crustal evolution of the planet including Climate Change.  

Best

Syed

http://aos.wisc.edu/~aos915/Robock_2000.pdf

Dear Sumanta,

Plate tectonics is well recognized and measured, but what initiates movement in the crust is not well defined. If you read the work by Neville Price: "Major Impacts and Plate Tectonics" he proposes that plate movements are initiated by comet impacts of much larger size than presently believed, leaving craters in the thousand+ kilometer size - one potential example is the Amazon Basin. If he is correct as I expect he is, then the planet is dramatically heated and covered in dust from such impacts, leading to extinction events and changing the climate far more than we could imagine. The motion of the continents after that would have very little impact in comparison.

Using the Amazon Basin as an example, the first kilometer thick layer of sedimentary deposits in the Amazon on top of the bedrock is barren of any fossils. Try to imagine a climate in which the Amazon is a sterile desert and you are starting to see how much the climate has varied in the Earth's past. The present climate change worries over a potential change of a few degrees is trivial compared to past climate changes.

And yes, of course moving a continent from the equator to the poles will change the climate - but usually such movements are matched by continents moving from the poles to the equator - so the world's variation is about what we have noticed has happened in the last few million years - lots of ice ages and lots of in-between periods of warmth. Generally these minor variations do not lead to extinctions.

Syed and Kenneth..., Yes probably...and I will add that 50 Ma ago Earth underwent intense lateritic weathering processes under warm and humid climatic regimes (particularly the tropical belt at that time) with pervasive formation of bauxite and bauxitic provinces, weathering process that consumed large quantities of atmospheric CO2 (particularly from the weathering of basaltic provinces or Traps) contributing with other geological events (ex: Himalayan orogenesis among others) to Cenozoic global cooling (Early Oligocene) after the Global Eocene Climatic Optimum. Best wishes, Anicet

Such geological evolutionary changes would not have retro-active effects. However, such changes in the past may have distinct modifications of the earth's topography and thereby cause changes in the physical properties of regional geology and by implication affect regional geography. Changes in physical properties such as temperature, moisture and landscape pattern would have secondary effects on vegetation, species distribution and biodiversity richness, distribution and density. Any significant form of vegetation size, distribution, structure and other attributes of the vegetation may effect modification of the climate.

Sumanta and All, see this paper among many others on the issue. Best Anicet

Interesting observation of bauxite formation sent by Anicet Beauvais: precisely iron (hematite-goethite) and aluminum (gibbsitic bauxite) rich laterite deposits in the northern and NW Guiana Shield, in Venezuela, were formed at the beginning of the Paleocene, and relate to an erosion surface called Cerro Bolivar-Los Pijiguaos Surface, which nowadays is located some 600-700 m above sea level... It was the same event worldwide, as it seems! Regards, Sebastian.

Yes, Paleocene Eocene climatic optimum was propitious (greenhouse effect) to pervasive formation of laterites and bauxites worldwide, particularly in Africa (mostly West Africa), Peninsular India, South America (mostly Brasil and Venezuela, Guiana) and even Australia. At that time, all continents were individualized and oceans were opened (see Parrish, Scotese and Ziegler P3, 1982 for continental plates distribution); If you are also interested by Eocene laterites and bauxites (Sumanta, may be, who is located in Kholapur upon highly weathered Deccan Traps), see (for example) articles from Prasad (1983) and Retallack (2010) among many others. Best wishes, Anicet

Changes in the relative position of the continental and oceanic plates as a result of continental drift are the main basis for global climate changes. Their relative position determines the distribution of heat and moisture by ocean and atmospheric currents. The secondary importance are vertical tectonic movements, the emergence of mountain ranges, opening and closing the straits, which affect the regional climate.

Sumanta-  Like they say - " a picture is worth a thousand words" - so I've attached two figures that explain how changing continental positions, due to plate tectonics, controls global climate (temperature).   Just follow the arrows.  The conditions in the rectangles are the different "forcing functions" created by plate motions.  Depending on the position of the continents and important plate tectonic events (collisions/rifts), the Earth's climate is driven towards either "hothouse" or "icehouse" conditions". The small, circular arrows with a "+" sign, indicate "positive feedback" loops. which accelerate climate change. I hope this is helpful. I would be happy to answer yur questions and explain in more detail.  You can contact me at [email protected].      -Chris Scotese

Unfortunately I only read the question and did not read the answers. The fact that different scientists have the same opinion confirms their point of view.

Sumanta - you may like to visit my website at: www.expansiontectonics.com to see modern global data (including climate) modelled on spherical models of the ancient Earth. Unlike models by others my series of models extend from the early-Archaean to 5 million years into the future. They show an evolutionary development of the supercontinents leading to post-Permian breakup of Pangaea to form the modern continents and opening of the modern oceans. A comprehensive range of modern data is plotted on each of the models, including data from geology, geophysics, geography, biogeography, paleontology, metallogeny, fossil fuels, and climate. 

All, 

Thanks for the overwhelming response and your expert opinion.

@ Kenneth sir, I think each and every response/opinion are unique with regard to the their objectives. I can see lot of differences in opinion here over the subject. Some of them seems to be more or less related, but mostly are not. For example, if you see last 10 messages you will find the three set of opinion here:

(a) Based on geological evidences about past earth experiences (links between paleoclimate and past environment of earth)

(b) Also there are logical conclusion of past and future possible events and the expected outcomes (modeling of earth system) 

(c) And, justification of expanding earth concept for the anomaly being documented/observed now.

@ Chris Scotese Sir,

Thanks for your valuable input and the details given in PALEOMAP webpage. Regarding Hothouse or Icehouse concept: I have a different question: (https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_ever-changing_Global_Climate_maintain_its_Dynamic_Equilibrium_with_Global_Water_Cycle_Which_one_is_the_initiator_of_Change_Any_evidence) (see the responses too)  ...I would like to have your opinion there.

@ James Maxlow, thanks for your reference webpage and argument in support of expanding earth hypothesis.

I am also thankful for the valuable addition by Ashkan Vafadar, Keith Robert Oliver, Habib Alimohammadian, John Burgener, Julian Osuji, Max Semenovich Barash and Anicet Beauvais sir besides others mentioned earlier.

Some of the inputs are really interesting.

Regards,

-Sumanta

Sumanta, beyond the fruitful contributions and exchanges (thank you All), please find in this paper, a review of continental drift influence on the variations of atm. CO2 and climate over geological time scales, emphasizing the need for the modelling of the climate response to continental drift with implications on the Global water cycle. All the Best, Anicet 

Mr. Sumanta, Its a great question. I think the evolution of the continent affects the climate of any region. As we know that the seafloor is spreading in different parts of the world. Day by day the latitude and longitude of every place are also changing  but in a negligible unit. 

Interesting review Mr. Ancient, about continental drift influence on the variations of atmosphere CO2 and climate over geological time scales and implications on the Global water cycle.

The present and ancient Earth has defined climate zones dependent on the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation. If a continent migrates into or out of a particular climate zone then the climate dependent stratigraphy and biology will change accordingly. This may give the false impression in the rock record that there has been significant changes in climate. You are invited to download the attached draft manuscript to read further.   

It looks like Kenneth and Anicet are right

The answer to the original question - "How does plate motions affect paleoclimate" - is complex, so as an answer, I have included two diagrams that show the climatic forcing that moves the Earth from hothouse to icehouse conditions, and vice-versa.  Positive feedbacks play a very important role.

Ken, Thanks for taking a close look at the diagrams.  "more CO2" doesn't that mean photosynthesis stops, but just that there is a relative decrease in coal production (due to continental flooding) so that less carbon is sequestered in the rock record and more CO2 is free to accumulate in the atmosphere. - Chris 

Ken - short answer is "yes" . If we flood the continents CO2 will increase, partially because we stop burying carbon, but a more important affect will be the decrease in albedo (oceans are darker) which will warm the oceans.  Warmer oceans will release more CO2. - Chris

Yes - Think of a can of Coke left out in the sun.  Gases exsolve from liquids more readily at higher temperatures. - CRS 

Ken -  I think we are talking at cross-purposes.  I am completely agnostic when it comes to "solutions" to the current episode of Global Warming.  We will just have to see how it all plays out.  I think a strategy of adaptation is the only reasonable approach. There is not much we can do to either stop it, or even mitigate the effects. - Chris

If global warming were a one off event then perhaps we could just adapt to it. But unless something is done to reduce or eliminate the present global warming it just continues and continues far into the future, and sooner or later beyond the powers of us, and many other species, to adapt to it. This is a very serious situation, and not one to be brushed off with a thoughtless 'lets just adapt to it'.

Keith,

Global warming will not "continue & continue" far into the future.  Our hydrocarbon resources - the source of the warming - will be expended in ~500 years (with coal the last to go). (A mere instant from a geological perspective.) The excess warming that burning these resources will cause has been estimated at ~ 6˚C temp increase (to ~21˚C).  We might loose all of the Arctic icecap, but not the Antarctic ice cap. After we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the system will re-equilibrate at something like 17-18˚C. The world will be a slightly warmer, more verdant place to live.  We just have to adjust to the negative effects, and take advantage of the positive effects.

I think 500 years is far into the future from OUR perspective, as it is twenty generations or thereabouts. A slightly warmer more verdant earth may seem to be acceptable, but what about the chaos (mass extinctions for one) before this happy equilibrium is reached? Or doesn't other life count in your perspective? 

Kenneth,

The South-West of Western Australia (where I live) has become hotter and drier in the last 20 or 30 years, in line with the prior predictions of climate change studies, which I heard way back then. As this area is surrounded by ocean on two sides and by desert on the other two sides and has many angiosperms that are restricted to this area, the threat of extinctions is very real, with this hotter and dryer climate  stimulating the frequent occurrence of wildfires. The widespread probable occurrence of extinctions is very real. Recovery from mass extinctions is known to be very slow. Extinctions matter to me, if not to you.

Many wildfires are also caused by lightning, and a hotter drier climate (around Perth) makes them much more widespread, fierce and destructive, and likely to cause extinctions. I know that humans, since their widespread colonisation of the  earth, have caused very many extinctions, and are still causing many extinctions, but that doesn't make it right, or excusable. 

You are very good at 'cherry picking the data' Kenneth M Towe and seemingly a strong believer in doing absolutely nothing about climate change. I disagree, and suspect that there are monetary motivations behind your 'scientific' attitudes.  

Keith,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Ken wrote "60% of the top-10 most tragic and destructive wildfires in the US were caused by people, accidental or deliberate." That means that 6 fires out of the hundreds that happened in 2012 were started by people.

The truth is that all the fires were made possible or made worse by people. AGW is, by definition, a man-made phenomenon.

What we should do about it is obvious. Stop burning fossil fuels and begin recreating them by burying wood and other biota in anoxic conditions. It is also important that we encourage the formation of limestone by the precipitation of calcium carbonate in the oceans. Ocean acidification will not only upset the marine food chain, it will also prevent the oceans from absorbing the increase in atmospheric CO2 that we are already producing.

In the geological past (Paleocene - Eocene times) precipitation of calcium carbonate in the oceans was correlated to intense rock weathering on continents (e.g., bauxite formation worldwide). Combined together these two processes had consumed high quantities of atmospheric CO2, absorbed by both oceans and continents. Was the ocean acidification less pronounced in these geological times than today? Mery Christmas and Happy Holiday  to All.

"Destroy our standard of living? Back to the horse-and-buggy? Spend trillions on something that cannot work in any reasonable human generational lifespan? And demand that others? pay for it?"

The alternative is a world reduced to rubble. Syria is an example of what happens with no birth control and the effects of global warming. The current population of the world is not sustainable, and even less so if we all had the standard of living enjoyed by US and European citizens.

That is just simple arithmetic, and if you are going to call me and alarmist then I will call you  a denier. By refusing to take action, you are condemning the people of the world to horrors far worse than the Holocaust.

What is our opinion about Impact of the Evolution of Continents and Oceans on Climate of the Past? The most constructive answers have been provided earlier. Even if  not irrelevant matter the actual debate; given the last exchanges; is quite off topic, isn't it ? However, improving the scientific knowledges  of past geological processes may also contribute to eleborate solutions for mitigating actual climatic changes and human impacts on our vital biotic-abiotic resources, mainly, air, soils, water and biodiversity too. And we should also certainly encourage establishment of global models integrating couplings and feedbacks between demographic development/expansion, societal evolutions, climatic changes and decrease of World resources in water and soils. Best wishes, A. 

Ken,

What you are in denial about is that the effects of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are going to be catastrophic for civilization and perhaps the human race.

Anicet,

Sorry about drifting off topic.

Surely the original question is what the the science of geology is trying to answer. I can't see how it can be answered here in a post of a couple of paragraphs. It would need a book to answer the question fully.

For instance, the drifting of India from Gondwanaland into the Asian continent produced the Himalaya. That seems to have caused the Earth to cool from from peak temperatures during the Paleo-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) to the Pleistocene ice age. But that only discusses the effects of one subcontinent during only 2% of the Earth's history.

I was going to ask you if you had any references regarding the "the geological past (Paleocene - Eocene times) precipitation of calcium carbonate in the oceans was correlated to intense rock weathering on continents (e.g., bauxite formation worldwide)." I was not aware that there was anomalous precipitation of calcium carbonate during the PETM. However, if there was, it was probable due to the calcium carbonate compensation zone deepening due to the rise in ocean temperature, rather than because more calcium ions were being added to the oceans. At present, it is not widely recognized that calcium carbonate production in the oceans is limited by lack of carbonate ions, not calcium ions.

Alastair, Thanks for your answer. I was just suggesting that intense lateritization and bauxitization during PETM, but rather between ~ 65 and ~ 36 Ma, based on radiometric and paleomagnetic dating (see e.g., review syntheisis from Rettallack, Econ. Geol, v. 205, 2010) well correlated with carbonate formation, mainly in offshore passive continental margin outer shelf domains, (extensional continental margin represent about 11 % of the total Earth surface), and particularly, in the intertropical belt, which represents about 33% of the total Earth surface. Intense rock weathering during million years has released high quantities of fluvial dissolved matters (Ca2+, Mg2+, HCO3-, among other) to oceanic river outlets.

Anicet,

Thank you for the reference which I have briefly looked at; Rettallack (2010, http://blogs.uoregon.edu/gregr/files/2013/07/economicgeology2010laterites-1ct3lba.pdf ). What I was looking for was evidence that I am wrong. I do not believe that CO2 is drawn down out of the atmosphere by silicate weathering, which is performed by dilute carbonic acid in rain water. The acid draws calcium out of the silicate rocks but does not change the carbon content of the rain water. It is only when the water enters the ocean and the calcium carbonate is deposited on the ocean floor that the carbonate leaves the ocean-atmosphere system.

The paper argues that intense rainfall caused laterisation and bauxionitation, and so intense silicate weathering must also have taken place. But there is no evidence that I can find in the paper that the production of carbonates was limited by lack of calcium ions. Currently they outnumber bicarbonate and carbonate ions by a factor of about 10. Calcium in the oceans is conservative at 422 ppm whereas carbon is only 28 ppm http://marinebio.org/oceans/ocean-chemistry/ Is there any evidence that it was different in the Paleogene?

Dr Towe wrote:

"Alastair is alarmed, continually, that more CO2 in the atmosphere will be "catastrophic" to us all. His faith? is founded on climate models that have failed so far."

Alastair Is well aware that the climate models have failed us so far. That supports his idea that the reason they cannot reproduce abrupt climate change is because they are wrong. That also explains why they are not predicting the rapid melting of the arctic sea ice which is occurring nor the abrupt warming that will happen when the sea ice disappears within the next year of two.

Here is the sea ice at record low extent since October. https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

and here is the temperature north of 80 degrees which last winter was 5 C above normal and this year is running 10 C above normal.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2016.png

The loss of the Arctic sea ice will cause a significant decrease in the planetary albedo which will require a large increase in cloud cover to restore the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere(TOA). Clouds also produce a greenhouse effect so in order to cool things at the TOA we may need a considerable change in temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere where we live.

Correct again Ken! You wrote: 

"The carbonate in the oceans is almost entirely of biogenic origin...dependent on photosynthesis and sunlight...it is the chief drawdown of CO2"

Silicate weathering is irrelevant!

And here:

"Carbonate that is deposited leaves the [lithosphere] system when it is dissolved...returning the CO2 to the [ocean-atmosphere] system."

Addition of CO2 to the ocean-atmosphere system causes ocean acidification which causes the carbonate compensation depth to shoal, returning CO2 to the ocean-atmosphere system and increasing the acidification (i.e. a positive feedback.loop).

I agree with last input from Ken, and I am please to post this paper.

Kenneth,  I think that you raise an important issue about volcanism. Its increase contributes to global cooling. An important event just 200 years ago is described here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora .

The volcanic activity has increased in the last 15 years and the trend of increase in global temperature has slowed down despite continuing increase in CO2 emissions.

We know about natural temperature cycles of about 110,000 years. (I took the picture from this discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_ever-changing_Global_Climate_maintain_its_Dynamic_Equilibrium_with_Global_Water_Cycle_Which_one_is_the_initiator_of_Change_Any_evidence  ). Now we have also anthropogenic contribution but not in the past. It is important to understand the triggering mechanism between global warming and cooling. If CO2 increase (or other mechanism - which?) would provoke higher volcanism, we would have the natural cycle.

Note that the average temperature cyclicity has a wide spectrum. There are periods of temperature change in about 100 years (see another picture) and of the scale of millions of years. Who knows the mechanism behind that?

Kenneth, I took those pictures from internet. I am not very much concerned with the validity of each number, but with the pattern as a whole. Uncertainty of older measurements can be even higher, but the wave structure of the pattern is important for me. A wave emerges when we have both positive and negative feedback: reinforcement in the beginning of the process and then return to old values.

Here we have the spectrum of waves in temperature, and its spectrum is very rich having periods starting from hundreds of years and ending in millions. As for millions, I also saw some pictures from Paleozoj when both the temparature and CO2 were much higher than today. Here the movement and reshaping of continents is indeed important; geography of the Earth changes a lot during millions of years. But what is negative feedback mechanism for shorter periods?

Distinguishing between the effects of low frequency (106-107 yr.) vs. high frequency (10-102 yr.) changes of similar magnitude or not on continents geomorphology and shape is  relevant but difficult to decipher the positive and negative feedback mechanisms for different time periods and different forcings. see for example some Molnar's papers.

That is a pity that we cannot decipher that. Feedback mechanisms are very important for our correct vision and action today.

Another factor influencing geography of continents (apart from their slow motion) is the level of ocean. It depends on the volume of ice. During the ice age, ocean level was about 100 meters lower than today. But melting of Greenland (and especially Antarctic)  gives a potential of 60-70 meters rise. This rise may occur slow of fast. For example, despite temperature rise by 1 degree in the 20th century, ocean level rose just by 20 cm. However, in just 100 years it may rise by several meters, followed by critical increase of temperature just by 2 degrees, that is sufficient for melting of Greenland. "Meltwater pulse 1C between 8,200 and 7,600 calendar years ago...produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 year".   See more here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

May i suggest you visit my website at www.expansiontectonics.com to see detailed spherical models of the ancient geological earth. Additional geographical and climate date are layered on these models suggesting that climate and changing configuration of the ancient seas and supercontinents are more predictive than conventional plate tectonic assemblages.