Origin, signature and palaeoclimatic influence of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current

Abstract

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) is today the strongest current in the world's ocean, with a significant influence on global climate. Its assumed history and influence on palaeoclimate, while almost certainly equally profound, are here called into question. In this paper, we review 30 years of accumulated data, interpretation and speculation about the ACC, deriving mainly from DSDP and ODP drilling in the Southern Ocean. For most of this time, a conventional view of ACC development, signature and influence has held sway among palaeoceanographers and marine geologists. In this view, the ACC began at about 34 Ma, close to the Eocene–Oligocene boundary, the time of onset of significant Antarctic glaciation and the time of creation of a deep-water gap (Tasmanian Seaway) between Australia and Antarctica as the South Tasman Rise separated from North Victoria Land. This is the “smoking gun” of synchroneity. The Southern Ocean sediment record shows a latest Eocene development and subsequent geographic expansion of a siliceous biofacies, its northern limit taken to indicate the palaeo-position of the ACC axis. In addition, the ACC was considered to have caused Antarctic glaciation by isolating the continent within a cold-water annulus, reducing north–south heat transport. A different (and later) date for Antarctic–South American opening (“Drake Passage”) was proposed, but the timing of ACC onset there was disputed, and the simple story survived. Recent developments, however, call it into question. Modern physical oceanography shows that all or most of present-day ACC transport is confined to narrow jets within deep-reaching circumpolar fronts, and numerical modelling has suggested that a steady reduction in greenhouse gas concentration through the Cenozoic could cause Antarctic glaciation, with or without a contribution from ocean circulation change. The rapidity of Antarctic glacial onset at the Eocene–Oligocene boundary and coeval creation of a deep-water gap south of Tasmania both survive but, in light of the new information, the presence of a siliceous biofacies cannot be claimed as evidence of the existence of a continuous, deep-reaching oceanic front and therefore of an ACC, and the possibility arises that cool and cold sea-surface temperatures were effects of Antarctic glaciation rather than evidence of a major contributor to its cause. In considering future work, we emphasise the importance of additional information from ancillary fields—better definition of the necessary and sufficient properties of oceanic fronts, additional determinations of Cenozoic atmospheric pCO 2 and further developments in models of Antarctic glaciation—but also suggest the way forward in marine geology. Our knowledge of the development and palaeoclimatic significance of the ACC will be best served by grain-size studies of bottom current strength at selected locations, and geochemical or mineralogical studies of clays and IRD as a way of examining provenance and therefore surface and bottom current directions and the existence of interocean connections. Studies of biogenic assemblages within the same sediments may be able to recover a value for the many such studies undertaken in the past and interpreted, probably erroneously, as evidence for an ACC. Mainly in view of the timing uncertainties, we propose the region south of South America as the best initial focus of future investigation.