Study finds that the Arctic was once as warm as Florida:

[jread]

Throws a wrench in the global warming theory and gives us an idea of what happens after the earth warms up. The temperature is increasing at the moment but will probably quickly be followed by the next ice age:



The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic was much warmer than anyone had thought ? a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees Fahrenheit.




"Something extra happens when you push the world into a warmer world, and we just don't understand what it is,"




At the same time, he said, the new work reveals no tendency in the polar climate system to turn things around, from warming to cooling. Some scientists have suggested that warming may be a self-limiting process."There is nothing pointing in the other direction," Dr. Brinkhuis said.




The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed to a remarkable degree 55 million years ago and that the warming was driven at least in part by an explosive buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases ? one far greater than the current human-caused rise.




The samples also chronicle the subsequent cooling, with many ups and downs, that the researchers say began about 45 million years ago and led to the cycles of ice ages and brief warm spells of the last several million years.



Another significant discovery came in layers from 49 million years ago, where conditions suddenly fostered the summertime growth of vast mats of an ancient cousin of the Azolla duckweed that now cloaks suburban ponds.




The researchers said the sediments held hints that earth's long slide to colder conditions and the recent cycle of ice ages and brief thaws began quite soon after the hothouse days 50 million years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/science/earth/31cnd-climate.html?ex=1306728000&en=456787587521b3e6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Claverhouse]

This isn't something new... the remains of Palm trees and Elephants and Crocodiles were discovered in the British Isles as far back as the 19th century.


Throws a wrench in the global warming theory

No, it doesn't; it just exemplifies the on-going shifts in the planet's axis.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jread]

This isn't something new... the remains of Palm trees and Elephants and Crocodiles were discovered in the British Isles as far back as the 19th century.



No, it doesn't; it just exemplifies the on-going shifts in the planet's axis.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Nobody cares about the British Isles.

Yes, it does throw a wrench in the "sky is falling" attitude of people freaking out over global warming. It shows that we don't have a fucking clue what has happened or what will happen in regard to climatic changes. Many of the doomsday folks think that the earth will continue to warm up until the oceans rise and we all burn up and die. The higher evaporation, etc., could have the opposite effect and cause more cloud cover, cooler temperatures, and eventually another ice age.

The article states that changes in the climate have less to do with the earth's proximity to the sun and more to do with greenhouse gases.

[joft]

50 years from now, the average global temperature 130+F, people passing out and dying everywhere, and some guy is still going "we really don't know what's going to happen, any second now this could all reverse and plummet us into the next ice age"

[Nemesis]

Nobody cares about the British Isles.
The person who wrote that article probably would have.

Yes, it does throw a wrench in the "sky is falling" attitude of people freaking out over global warming.
You just keep thinking that.

It shows that we don't have a fucking clue what has happened or what will happen in regard to climatic changes.
So we should continue to treat the earth like trash until we DO finally get a clue? Sorry, I'd rather not find out the hard way.

Many of the doomsday folks think that the earth will continue to warm up until the oceans rise and we all burn up and die.
Not even close.

First off, doomsday would be saying "this is the end of the earth." What these "doomsday folk" are saying is that if we don't do something soon, it will be the end of the earth as we know it.

Second, the problem isn't that the oceans will get too hot. The problem is that the polar ice caps will melt (which they are, and are getting smaller actually). That will cause a multitude of problems for lowlying areas, because more water means higher levels, and the excess fresh water will mess up the ocean's convection currents, which will in turn make weather patterns insanely unpredictable.

No one ever said anything about us "burning up and dieing."

The higher evaporation, etc., could have the opposite effect and cause more cloud cover, cooler temperatures, and eventually another ice age.
So you're basically saying that, we can just keep going the way we are, because the only thing that will happen is that hurricans and typhoons will get more intense, weather patterns will become increasingly more erratic and unpredictable and we'll eventually get flung into an ice age, so who cares? Right.

The article states that changes in the climate have less to do with the earth's proximity to the sun and more to do with greenhouse gases.
Ah. Yes. I learned that in 5th grade. That's what the "doomsday folk" have been saying since the late 70's too.

[ptGatsby]

Yes, it does throw a wrench in the "sky is falling" attitude of people freaking out over global warming.


Actually, the two have nothing in common.

The artic being a certain way 55 million years ago has very little to do with the effects that global warming will have.

The debate is currently what is causing global warming and what will those effects be. This answers neither question, offers no guidance or advice and is totally irrelevent to the argument.



The article states that changes in the climate have less to do with the earth's proximity to the sun and more to do with greenhouse gases.


And the earth is closer to the sun during winter. The axis is what changes the temperature in regular intervals. Greenhouse, except on a huge scale, would not impact on the overal climate significantly.

The question is what defines 'huge scale', since there are already huge 'large scale' fires/volcanoes/whatever. Do 5+billion humans burning things count as 'huge scale'? No one knows for sure.

[booyalab]

Ah. Yes. I learned that in 5th grade. That's what the "doomsday folk" have been saying since the late 70's too.

except, in the 70s, the hype was over "global cooling"

[jread]

So we should continue to treat the earth like trash until we DO finally get a clue? Sorry, I'd rather not find out the hard way.


No, I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth.


Second, the problem isn't that the oceans will get too hot. The problem is that the polar ice caps will melt (which they are, and are getting smaller actually). That will cause a multitude of problems for lowlying areas, because more water means higher levels, and the excess fresh water will mess up the ocean's convection currents, which will in turn make weather patterns insanely unpredictable.


More water can also mean more evaporation as the global temperature rises. More evaporation could result in thicker cloud cover as stated above.



No one ever said anything about us "burning up and dieing."


There are plenty of people with this mentality.



So you're basically saying that, we can just keep going the way we are, because the only thing that will happen is that hurricans and typhoons will get more intense, weather patterns will become increasingly more erratic and unpredictable and we'll eventually get flung into an ice age, so who cares? Right.


Wrong. I think we have a lot of work to do on preventing environmental damage that is within our control. I think we are giving ourselves way too much credit for how large our role is in climatic changes, though. As for weather patterns cbecoming more erratic, I never said anything about that and I don't know what you're referring to. If we cannot even predict what the weather patterns will be for TOMORROW, then there is no way we can know what may have happened millions of years ago or what will happen in the future.



Ah. Yes. I learned that in 5th grade. That's what the "doomsday folk" have been saying since the late 70's too.

Well it looks like you've got it all figured out. Maybe you should share your knowledge so all these scientists can quit wasting their time.

[Arcades]

I rember seeing a study a few years back stating that our contrabution to global warming has been countering the earth sliding into another mini ice age. I also rember some report on how much mt st.hellens eruption affected the world compaired to the evil gas burning north american people. It pretty much stated that compaired to 1 volcaino going off, we do very little. In the 1700's we evedently were in a mini ice age. One item people refer to is the picture of washington crossing the patomic. They were not paddling, they were pushing themselves though ice blocks. That river hasnt even tried to freeze over in a VERY long time.

It has actuly come to a point that I dont care anymore. Both side keep creating these studies that counter each other. Who are you suposed to go with?

[last_caress]

It has actuly come to a point that I dont care anymore. Both side keep creating these studies that counter each other. Who are you suposed to go with?

I always trust the side with the most corporate funding.

[ptGatsby]

I also rember some report on how much mt st.hellens eruption affected the world compaired to the evil gas burning north american people.


This argument is flawed.

There is a major volcanic eruption roughly ever 20 years. There are dozens of small ones every 20 years. There are constant 'eruptions' in seabeds in most sectors of the world.

Their contribution is part of the natural balance that has came before us.

Besides that, it is also false. The measurements to figure that out focus on SO2 and other trivial environmental effects. The damage done by St Helens is largely localised and naturally absorbed. Yes, it is a significant amount of toxins, no it would not influence global climate. There are only a few greenhouse emissions; CO2, Methane, Nitrous oxide and then a bunch of non-natural ones (-carbons and -florides).

In 2001, the US burned 113 billion gallons of fuel, which produces about 19 pounds of CO2 each, for a total of 2,147,000,000,000 pounds of CO2. Even if you shave that by a factor of ten... or a hundred...

Mount St Helens, during the peaked out at 22,000,000kg/day. Even if this ran 365 days at full tilt, it would of produced only 8,030,000,000 kg of CO2. To put it in perspective, this means that the US alone produced nearly 122 times more than Saint Helens running at full peak for a year, something that was running a whole lot lower most of the time!



Who are you suposed to go with?


It isn't easy and I don't have the answers. However, you can measure the human contribution fairly easily. Just pull out a pen and a basic physics book. Look up some statistics... just basic ones. Even fudge them down. Then work back and add it up over a hundred years, before all of this really took off.

Look up where you live on google maps;

(this is me! here! (http://maps.google.com/?t=k&om=1&ll=49.197859,-122.972717&spn=0.342347,0.63858) I was in asia and visited these islands here (http://maps.google.com/?t=k&om=1&ll=34.893816,128.547592&spn=0.429717,0.63858) I know a few are from Europe+, so heres one for you! (http://maps.google.com/?t=k&om=1&ll=52.402419,1.120605&spn=0.639284,1.277161))


As far as impact goes, the question is 'how much'. I don't think there can be any rational conclusion that isn't 'significant'. The question is if it is enough to threaten our existance... and that is something I can't answer.

[Arcades]

PINATUBO (1991) -- Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

No, This is not st. helens but it is the same time period and was measured. This is only to counter your argument that a volcano is localised.

The web page also talks about how a volcano's spew + the cfc's built up in the atmosphere can do insain amounts of damage to the ozone.

I am not trying to argue warming or cooling or anything like that. Though I connot link volcanos and natural order. A volcano has as much to do with the natrul order as a child stomping on an ant hill. The ants eventuly fix all the damage but in no way was it planed on by mother nature.

Yes we through a wrench in the works, I dont tink anyone can realy argue with that. But what effect it realy has and to what ammount is the question that needs answering the most. I will state firmly that I dont think the atlantic current failing will cause a earth shattering storm in 3 or 4 days though. The problem is that people need some sort of crusade these days for some reason and damn the logic.

Im shure im missing sompthing.....

[ptGatsby]

This is only to counter your argument that a volcano is localised.


Fair enough, I've never seen that before!

I'd also point out that it wasn't significant in the long term; it returned to normal within two-three years. It also happened to be two huge eruptions back to back...

The human contribution exceeds those volcanoes every year, increasing all the time, by a significant factor. The main damage those volcanoes do is more aerosole and toxic damage than anything else - its true that they damage the ozone layer and what not, but their overall contribution of long term effects isn't that huge. That is, year after year, the ability for humans to pump out more greenhouse emissions than we have sinks for causes a constant gradual environmental change.

And yes, volcanoes are natural and part of the contribution to global warming. They have been since the beginning of earth and play a major function in the changing of our climate.

I don't agree with the doomsday predictions; I do take exception to most arguments that say "see, its not us!".

[earwax]

There are too many variables. We really don't have a clue as to how much is us and how much is due to natural cycles. But if you believe that we are a product of our environment (i.e. - evolution) then it's probably best to err on the side of caution.

[Carebear]

There are too many variables. We really don't have a clue as to how much is us and how much is due to natural cycles. But if you believe that we are a product of our environment (i.e. - evolution) then it's probably best to err on the side of caution.

My thought exactly.

And no matter why it happens, there is a possibility that we will get global warming and ice caps melting, which could in turn make large parts of the earth inhabitable (hot and dry or flooded), which would in turn lead to hunger and death before people started thinking "fuck this shit" and moved to more temperate zones. This would not be the end of the world, but it would put a strain on the habitable land and it would have huge implications for the society as we know it.

I think it'd be better to try to do something before it's too late than do nothing. If it's indeed something we have no control over, I still don't see why having tried would be so bad.

[airjaw]

I think the global warming scare is good because it forces us to really take a more active role in reducing pollution and finding new, clean sources of energy, like solar power, wind power, hybrid engines, etc.

That said, I don't completely believe in Global warming, there's not enough evidence either way. Just because temperatures have been rising for the last 50 years doesn't mean sh** in my opinion; this earth is 5 billion years old; and 50 years is a very very small percentage of the overall age of the earth, which has probably seen a billion climate changes over its lifetime.

It's still not an excuse to pollute, however. We definitely need to clean up our act.

[Nemesis]

I rember seeing a study a few years back stating that our contrabution to global warming has been countering the earth sliding into another mini ice age. I also rember some report on how much mt st.hellens eruption affected the world compaired to the evil gas burning north american people. It pretty much stated that compaired to 1 volcaino going off, we do very little. In the 1700's we evedently were in a mini ice age. One item people refer to is the picture of washington crossing the patomic. They were not paddling, they were pushing themselves though ice blocks. That river hasnt even tried to freeze over in a VERY long time.
The 1700's. We then started to come out of it around the time that industrialization began.

It has actuly come to a point that I dont care anymore. Both side keep creating these studies that counter each other. Who are you suposed to go with?
Alot of the counter arguments have actually been found to be the result of the "burning industries." Exxon Mobile was actually found to have been spending millions on spreading misinformation on the subject.

[Nemesis]

More water can also mean more evaporation as the global temperature rises. More evaporation could result in thicker cloud cover as stated above.
I understand the concept but it doesn't matter. By the time the light energy hits the clouds, it's already in the earths atmosphere, and the greenhouse gases will keep it in the atmosphere.

Besides that, regular clouds are pretty much transluscent as par for the course, alot of light energy can still get to the surface. It can be hot on a cloudy day. I know what you're saying that it's not as hot, but it's not cold enough to make a difference.

I think that what you're thinking of are supervolcanic eruptions, whose ash emissions completely blacken the sky, or something on line with the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.

What would conceivably fling us into an ice age is too much fresh water in the ocean. The fresh water would change the heat capacity of the ocean, and change the major surface and bottom level currents. The north flowing surface currents that come from the equator in the atlantic that bring water to North America and Europe, and basically keep us from freezing over would stop. Same for the currents that go from the equator to southern South America and Africa, except the southern hemisphere has always been warmer due to the fact that it proportionally has more water. This is not entirely agreed upon though.

There are plenty of people with this mentality.
Well I'll be happy to bitch slap them and tell them to get a grip.

Well it looks like you've got it all figured out. Maybe you should share your knowledge so all these scientists can quit wasting their time.
Erm. All of what I'm saying is what I know based on what scientists tell us.

[Architectonic]

except, in the 70s, the hype was over "global cooling"

Not at all. In comparison to the current discussion about 'global warming', 'global cooling' was barely discussed at all.
(Secondly, even global warming was discussed in the 70s, so...)


There are too many variables. We really don't have a clue as to how much is us and how much is due to natural cycles. But if you believe that we are a product of our environment (i.e. - evolution) then it's probably best to err on the side of caution.

Exactly.

Jread needs to realize that those who blindly believe there isn't a problem at all and we don't need to do anything about it, are just as ignorant as those who think there will be massive climate changes in the next century. Yes, our current prediction models are incomplete - so until we have more accurate models, we should err on the side of caution.

(Also, it is unfortunate that many skeptics base much of their arguement by discrediting obsolete models, which were developed around 15+ years ago.)

[jread]

Jread needs to realize that those who blindly believe there isn't a problem at all and we don't need to do anything about it, are just as ignorant as those who think there will be massive climate changes in the next century.

I'm not saying that either side is right. Blindly believing in anything (religion) will always make you miss at least some of the truth.

I'm simply saying that there is too much evidence showing that we don't have a fucking clue what is going to happen, nor do we know how much humans are contributing to this. I hear lots of crying about global warming these days and everyone attributes it entirely to human activity... bashing cars, power plants, etc. I'm sorry but EVERYONE is a part of it... even the hippies who drive around in hybrid cars, smoking pot and "saving the Earth". Unless we give up all our modern comforts and go back to a hunter-gatherer society, we will always pollute the earth. Is minimizing the impact only going to delay the inevitable? Or is it simply that mother nature is going to follow its course regardless of what we puny humans do? I tend to side with mother nature... especially after seeing things like the Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.

[Tolbruk]

This is old news...they found tropical reefs in areas that are under glaciers a century ago. Its plate techtonics.

Even if we don't have enough information on the subject or 'don't have a clue' as its said, wouldn't the wise thing be to eliminate those things that we do know have some effect on the environment? We don't have to eliminate everything or modern comforts, but being a little more judicious about the things going on would help...