The Mid-Cretaceous Super Plume, carbon dioxide, and global warming
Key finding. A carbonate-silicate cycle model with four different silicate-weathering formulations gives mid-Cretaceous atmospheric CO2 of 3.7 to 14.7 times the pre-industrial value of 285 ppm from super-plume tectonics, implying 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius of warming — but CO2 released from oceanic plateaus alone is unlikely to account for more than 20% of that CO2 increase.
What question did this research address?
The mid-Cretaceous, about 120 to 100 million years ago, was 6 to 14 degrees Celsius warmer than today. A super plume rising from near the core-mantle boundary and erupting beneath the Pacific — building the Ontong-Java Plateau — had been proposed as the cause, through the CO2 it degassed.
That was a qualitative suggestion. This paper asked how much warming the plume's carbon could actually deliver, given that silicate weathering removes CO2 faster as the planet warms.
What did we find?
The calculation is run with four different formulations for how silicate-rock weathering responds to atmospheric CO2, so the spread of answers reflects genuine disagreement about the negative feedback rather than one modelling choice.
Super-plume tectonics — faster sea-floor generation and subduction, not just the plateau eruption — gives CO2 between 3.7 and 14.7 times pre-industrial, and 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius of warming above today's global mean.
The plateau itself is a small part of it. CO2 from oceanic plateau eruptions alone is unlikely to have been directly responsible for more than 20% of the mid-Cretaceous CO2 rise; the rest comes from ridge degassing and subduction-zone decarbonation tracking the higher sea-floor generation rate.
Geography contributes about 4.8 degrees Celsius independently, through altered continental positions and higher sea level.
Together, palaeogeography and super-plume CO2 give 7.6 to 12.5 degrees Celsius, which sits inside the 6 to 14 degrees previously estimated for mid-Cretaceous warmth — so the hypothesis survives quantification.
Why does it matter?
It converted a plausible story into a number, and the number came out compatible with the geological record. That is the useful outcome either way: a mechanism that could not produce enough warming would have been eliminated.
The 20% result is the part that changed the framing. The dramatic event — the plateau eruption — is not the main carbon source; the sustained increase in sea-floor spreading that accompanies it is.
It is an early demonstration that deep-Earth processes and surface climate have to be modelled as one system, which is the approach the group's later palaeoclimate work continues to take.
Citation
Ken Caldeira and Michael R. Rampino (1991). The Mid-Cretaceous Super Plume, carbon dioxide, and global warming. Geophysical Research Letters 18, 987-990.
Related
- How long does a carbon dioxide emission go on warming the planet?
- What does the deep-time record reveal about how the Earth system behaves?
- Carbon dioxide emissions from Deccan volcanism and a K/T boundary greenhouse effect (Caldeira and Rampino, 1990)
- Continental-pelagic carbonate partitioning and the global carbonate-silicate cycle (Caldeira, 1991)
- Sixteen mass extinctions of the past 541 million years correlated with 15 pulses of Large Igneous Province volcanism and 4 large impacts (Rampino et al., 2024)