The Arctic's Tropical Past 54
140Mandak262Jamuna writes "The BBC reports on findings that the arctic/polar region was tropical some 55 Million years ago." From the article: "Although the data tells us how the world changed from one with green house conditions to one with ice house conditions millions of years ago, it may also help scientists to predict what will result from the present changes in climate. Appy Sluijs points out that the data reveals that some of the climate models used to detail the Arctic's history got things wrong, and as they are the same models that predict our future climate they may need adjusting. " The reader pointed out that this may have had as much to do with continental drift as it did climate change.
I knew it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Global cooling... (Score:2, Funny)
Models are just that (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides which when it comes to global warming, humans are either helping it along, or not. If we cut pollution and other environmental damages, then we could help slow or stop global warming if its the former. If its the latter, then we still get the benefits of a cleaner environment. So why not take the steps?
Re:Models are just that (Score:4, Insightful)
CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are not particularly toxic. If we're only concerned about pollution, we should probably focus on things which are a bit more toxic e.g. mercury in the water which enters the human body through tuna, etc. And remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you do impose heavy restrictions on companies in the "developed world," they'll simply move whatever tiny amount of manufacturing is still left to China or any other country which is business friendly and does not limit CO2 production of companies.
the motivation issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a friend who has terrible motivation. Whenever he has a problem, it totally makes him freeze up... and it really hinders him in life. I tell him: "Well, why don't you try [solution X]?" To which he always responds, "Oh, if I do that, then all that will happen is [new speculated obstacle Y]."
Sometimes I want to grab him and yell, "Maybe. Maybe not. But you could at least try!? Why talk yourself out of trying? If you try and fail, you're certainly no worse off than if you just sit around on your ass wishing the problem would disappear!!"
.... and this is how I feel about many of the arguments against environmentalism. People poo-poo any specific action that is proposed, saying: "Oh, if you do that, then companies will just do this" or "If you do that, then you'll just see these other problems" or (my favorite) "If you do that, it might not make a difference." But why spend all this energy talking yourself OUT of even trying to solve a problem that needs (ultimately) to be solved, anyway?
Sure, manufacturing companies might move oversees to China. But not all of them can afford to, and for some of them, they might calculate that the cost of moving overseas exceeds the cost of complying to environmental regulation. And in the end, more companies will still be more compliant, than if you just throw your hands up in the air and say "oh noes! nothing can be done-zo!"
Re:the motivation issue (Score:2)
"If you try and fail, you're certainly no worse off than if you just sit around on your ass wishing the problem would disappear!!""
This is true in theory. This is different though in practice because if you try and fail, then not only are you indecisive but a failure as well. Failing at things depresses most people, so the lesson, as homer simpson put it, is not to try.
I dont really know if or how that applies to global
It's not about motivation (Score:2)
Re:It's not about motivation (Score:2)
Re:the motivation issue (Score:2)
Re:the motivation issue (Score:1)
Well, this is wrong. If you try, you lose whatever effort you expend trying. If you fail, that's wasted. Therefore you shouldn't try unless you are reasonably sure the expedted outcome is better than the expended effort. If you're not sure, you should gather more information. Don't forget that any poorly understood "solution" might actually make the problem worse. There come
Re:the motivation issue (Score:2)
Re:Models are just that (Score:2)
That depends on how you define "toxic". Sure, folks in the US who have a temperate climate reasonably far above sea level with a food surplus may be more concerned about some heavy metal toxins in their high-protein diet, but if you are a subsistence farmer in Bangladesh whose very life is sensitive to the monsoon schedule and how far above sea level you are, you might have a different set of priorities.
Re:Models are just that (Score:2)
If it's the latter, then our pollutants might be what is stopping another little ice age. An ice age that will seriously hurt food production.
Also, nothing is without cost. If we cut on CO2, we'll have to do something else to compensate. We could, for example, move closer and live in high r
Why is it... (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know if GW is really occurring or whether humanity is contributing to it if it is happening, and I recognise the obvious fact that outfits such as Bush Inc will lie and cheat to deny at all costs that it's ha
Re:Why is it... (Score:1)
That it's occuring is not in any significant doubt, and the strong scientific consensus is that humanity is contributing to it.
Are there alternative possibilities advocated by so
No! (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, had to condense anti-global warming people's stuff down to a few lines. =P
Re:No! (Score:2)
Are you (though your trollish post) trying to insinuate that humans are responsible for converting the North Pole into an ice filled zone without tropical temperatures?
Re:No! (Score:2)
I understand what you're implying -- if the climate could change without us then, surely it can change now without human input. But the fact of the matter is that we're contributing to some extent, which may or may not have dire consequences.
Re:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
a) "This proves that global warming is a natural phenomenon! We're free to burn all the fossil fuels we want! We need change nothing!"
b) "It's worse than we thought! This proves that runaway greenhouse gases will thoroughly devastate the planet! We have to take drastic steps at once!"
TFA actually concludes by mentioning both points:
"Today's warming of the Arctic can, in all likelihood, be att
Re:No! (Score:2)
The trick is to figure out how to do these things without destroying (or even temporarily devastating) human civilization.
Re:No! (Score:1)
Asteroids plunging into the earth destroying all life as we know is a natural phenomenon! We're free to do anything we want! We need change nothing!
... for the less tuned in ...
A natural phenomenon is not an excuse to do nothing when it impacts human life.
Re:No! (Score:1)
Re:No! or don't watch An Inconvenient Truth (Score:1)
Sorry, had to condense anti-global warming people's stuff down to a few lines. =P
I'll go tell that to all the glaciers that melted in the last 20 years here in WA, OR, ID, MT, and BC.
Oh, wait, they're gone - only 40 percent of these glaciers that have existed since wooly mammoths roamed here are left now.
Now, if we were looking at such changes over
Not continental drift (Score:2, Informative)
Also, it is ridiculous to suppose that the region moved towards and away from the pole to match the wild temperature fluctuations revealed in the data.
Some of the other speculation I have read on this story is also suspect to me. Namely, trees ringing the Arctic Ocean. I find it difficult to believe that trees would flourish w
Re:Not continental drift (Score:3, Informative)
Why is that? Deciduous trees in temperate areas now thrive without photosynthesis for many months each year. I'd even speculate that extremely northern (or southern) origin of deciduous trees helps explain their seasonal metabolic extremes -- whereas coniferous trees probably evolved an a latitude with less seasonal variation (and less moisture).
Re:Not continental drift (Score:1)
The evidence you cite is for deciduous trees in sunlight and cold temperatures--a very different scenario.
Then there are other factors to consider. Even in the Summer when there is light all day long, the light is generally sideways, not from above. The trees on the edge a forest would shade those on the inside all day lo
Re:Not continental drift (Score:5, Informative)
Using the lower number gives us a distance of 2850 kilometers in 50 million years. Not quite far enough for major climate change just based on distance. However, this amount of drift could severely alter the Atlantic Conveyor [soton.ac.uk], a heat pump that moves tremendous amounts of heat from the equator to the poles. It is also enough distance to affect the amount of light available to trees.
It should also be noted that using the higher figure would result in a movement of 8600 kilometers, nearly the distance from the equator to the poles.
Re:Not continental drift (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the lower number that is the relative speed between two plates that are moving away from each other?
Read what you posted again:
South America and Africa are moving apart at an average of 5.7 cm per year
The implication is that South America is moving 2.85 cm west each year and Africa is moving 2.85 cm east each year.
Since you are dealing with the absolute speed of a single plate (not its relative speed to another), you could "get away" with 2.85 cm per year.
However, since we are talking about either North American plate or the Eurasian plate [usgs.gov], you should use 1.15 cm/year or 0.95 cm/year. [hypertextbook.com] This would be a worst case of around 600 km.
- Tony
D'oh! (mod parent up, my gp down) (Score:2)
Re:Not continental drift (Score:2)
Re:Not continental drift (Score:1)
trees grow in soil (Score:2)
So where were these trees growing?
Re:trees grow in soil (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not continental drift (Score:2, Interesting)
Continental drift occurs much too slowly to have the effects indicated by the core samples in this study. Over the last 55 million years, the arctic has been about where it is now.
Probably very true, but: until about 55—40 million years ago Australia and Antarctica were joined together as the last piece of the supercontinent Gondwana (itself a piece of the former Pangea, which slowly broke up over the course of the Mesozoic). When Australia rifted off [wikipedia.org], the first Antarctic ice sheet started forming
pole shift (Score:2)
The Chandler_Wobble [wikipedia.org] is the name given to the unstable rotation on the axis.
Atlantis found? (Score:1)
Re:Atlantis found? (Score:2)
Re:Atlantis found? (Score:1)
That gets me wondering how the Greek knew about it though.
Calling Mr. Methane... (Score:1)
Re:Calling Mr. Methane... (Score:2)
That doesn't work for me in the bathtub, so I don't see why it should work for the Earth.
Re:Calling Mr. Methane... (Score:2)
IIRC that was what took methane to become gas-hidrate.
Re:Calling Mr. Methane... (Score:1)
Re:Calling Mr. Methane... (Score:2)
Thanks. Take an LOL - that was awesome.
Scientific Term? (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't know that fart was a scientific term. I'll have to include it in my next science assignment.
Re:Scientific Term? (Score:2)
Is it anything like a 747 Full Of Encyclopedias crashing into a Football Field per Second? (and if so, is it a European or American Football Field?)
In other news (Score:1, Informative)
Duh!, I could have told you the Arctic was once a tropical region. I live in Canada and in school we discussed and saw videos of how there are petrified remains of entire large tropical trees in the artic, proof that there once was a tropical environment up there. Continental drift IS the exlpanation for it being a tropical region, along with changes of the tilt of the Earth's axis o
Re:In other news (Score:2)
if arctic was tropical. then tropical was...? (Score:2)