Major Climate Change 5,200 Years Ago Could Repeat

An anonymous reader writes "The climate was altered suddenly some 5,200 years ago with severe impacts. Famouse glaciologist professor Lonnie Thompson have found clues that show history repeating itself. Thompson has spent his career trekking to the far corners of the world to find remote ice fields and then bring back cores drilled from their centers. Within those cores are the records of ancient climate from across the globe. He outlined his fears today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. 'The evidence clearly points back to this point in history and to some event that occurred. It also points to similar changes occurring in today's climate as well,' he said."

Comments

More information from osu

[djplurvert]

here...http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelpla nt.htm

Re:Climate Change

[malsbert]

i do not think climate change is junk science.
that aside i would like to see a more balanced view in mainstream research. all to many simply view human society as the culprit and leave it at that. this paper says it happend 5200 years ago and now its happening again. well human outlet of green house gases were not responsible then, are they now? i reasonly watched a television program on the subject and the most interesting thing was that several of the researchers cliamed that when looking at temperature raise in atmosphere (as opposed to ground level) only a 1/3 of the projected raise was seen! they further claimed the reason for this discrepancy was the fact that many of the early temperature measuring stations was set up in or around citys dos measuring not global warming but local warming as a result of city expansion. now this is not to say the green house thing is wrong just that it may be more complex then "green house gases did it!!".
just my 2 cent (euro cent!)

Re:I'm sorry to say this

[Cally]

Actually, even the Bush government now accepts the worldwide scientific consensus that human CO2 emissions are causing global climate change - google for 'Bush accept climate change' and pick your preferred source. He just doesn't think the US should join Kyoto or tajke any significant action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Please take note, all the nay-sayers posting ill-informed reasons why they think the theory is bunk.

Hello it's me again

[Cally]

I posted on the last Slashdot climate change story saying I was sick of reading the same tired old straw-man arguments trotted out by idiots who trust the scientific method to feed them, work their computers, fly their spaceprobes etc etc until the subject of climate change comes up at which point blind hysteria kicks in and they start trotting out ludicrous assertions that 'prove' that all the world's climatologists are wrong.

Thanks to all those who responded. It now turns out that some much more authoritative and better-informed people than I are already doing this! Please, if you're posting some pet theory about why all this peer-reviewed science is baloney to this story, do yourself a favour and check one of these sites out before you make a fool of yourself in front of your peers.

• RealClimate.org/a>
• http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c

Thank you.

Re:fp?

[Cally]

> I'll believe in global warming the minute "scientists" find something to agree on.

Hey, fella, guess what? You're in luck!The consensus on human CO2 emissions causing climate change is about as solid as you can get - despite what the oil-lobby, uninformed trolls and assorted net.kooks would have you believe.

• RealClimate.org
• The Discovery of Global Warming
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c
• International Panel on Climate Change

Re:Gaia

[Decessus]

Read this... The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons; Facts versus Myths It shows that even if the US and Russia had gotten into nuclear war, the probability of life ending on earth is pretty much zero. It would be incredibly devestating for sure, but it wouldn't be the end of life as we know it. It wouldn't even be the end of human life as we know it. I didn't know any of this until you mentioned it. I got curious and looked up some info on it.

Biblical Truth

[EskimoJoe]

Cool, more scientific proof that the Biblical story of Noah is true.

Re:Climate change predictions

[Cally]

Too late. The climate change is already under way. Increased heat waves in Europe, increased hurricane frequency, thinning of ice caps, retreating glaciers. Whether or not this is due to human activity, its happening. Now.

Just to back this up... Glacier in Greenland duiobles spped unexpectedly Hey, it's those hippy tree-huggers at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre again, what do they know? Pffftt!!
Arctic climate is changing much more rapidly than models predicted.

And some slightly older random stories from my bookmarks file.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast07sep_1 .htm?list98953 http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1643000/1643156.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/england/newsi d_1661000/1661560.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1706000/1706823.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1664000/1664887.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/americas/n ewsid_1375000/1375089.stm http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-01k.htm l http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1718000/1718183.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1779000/1779619.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1782000/1782691.stm http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/15jan_gree nhouse.htm?list98953 http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1804000/1804467.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/americas/n ewsid_1820000/1820584.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/in_depth/sci_tec h/2002/boston_2002/newsid_1825000/1825283.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1528000/1528348.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1833000/1833902.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1899000/1899150.stm http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/s tories/20020327/463946.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1940000/1940117.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1951000/1951084.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1993000/1993832.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/europe/new sid_2019000/2019349.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/americas/n ewsid_2137000/2137205.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/2168145.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/2188407.s tm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/asia-pacific/220 2919.stm http://www.whoi.edu/home/about/whatsnew_abruptclim ate.html http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40977& cid=4354856 http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/schmit01/node8.htm l http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2333133.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2369333.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2385591.stm http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,69 03,837058,00.html http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/10/202123 6&mode=nested&tid=134 http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/1 1/1436214&mode=nested&tid=134 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2 161625,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2525041.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2558319.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2559633.stm

laugh while you can, monkey boy

[jeif1k]

Did you even bother to read the story? This study shows that abrupt climate change can and does occur. Maybe it was triggered by a volcanic eruption. Maybe it was triggered by unusually strong forest fires. Maybe it was those in combination with some other factors. Maybe it was a surge in solar output, as the story suggests. The point is: short-term climate change can happen and it can have devastating consequences. As the author of the study says:

"The climate system is remarkably sensitive to natural variability," he said. "It's likely that it is equally sensitive to effects brought on by human activity, changes like increased greenhouse gases, altered land-use policies and fossil-fuel dependence.

"Any prudent person would agree that we don't yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don't, we should be extremely cautious in how much we 'tweak' the system," he said.

"The evidence is clear that a major climate change is underway."

You know, people like you are one reason why the possibility of climate change wiping out the human race is perhaps not such a bad thing: investing as many resources in maintaining a big brain as the human body does is only worth it if it leads to better survival. But a species that ignores such serious warning signs as we have had about global climate change perhaps just doesn't have an evolutionary advantage compared to, say, rats or cockroaches. And they will survive climate change because their needs are more modest; they don't need to maintain big brains and all the complications that entails.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[The Wannabe King]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you here. I'm just pointing out a critical flaw in your reasoning. You say the assertion that volcanoes put out more CO2 than mankind is false, then you say that mankind puts out more CO2 than all volcanoes except the super-large ones.

Do you see any erupting super volcanoes? Perhaps not?

Fortunately for us, they erupt very rarely. Wikipedia is your friend.

Re: Dumb Democrat?

[Long-EZ]

show me a solution to the problem and will back it

The problems are:

1) Convention. We have infrastructure in place to burn fossil fuels, and inertia being what it is, we continue along that course. Maintaining the status quo is bad for the environment. It also results in an unfavorable balance of trade for the US. I was amused by the public service announcements equating drug use with funding terrorists. The US is addicted to oil from the Middle East, and that addiction is the real source of funding for Middle Eastern terrorists.

2) Subsidies. There are pseudo-subsidies which make it difficult for alternative energy to compete with fossil fuels. These aren't direct government subsidies to the oil industry, although some amount of that wouldn't surprise me. Many of the costs of burning fossil fuels are not paid by the fuel infrastructure. Pollution is paid for in a number of other places, including everything from the EPA budget, to the increased cost of insurance and health care relating to environmentally related illnesses, to the increased maintenance costs we all pay for tasks such as repainting because smog damages almost everything it touches. And who pays for medical care of coal miners with black lung? How much of our taxes does the US government contribute to cleaning up oil spills? If fossil fuels paid for all the problems they cause our society, solar and wind power would be more than cost effective in a fair comparison.

3) Fuelish Government Policies. As one example, the US government offers a substantial tax break to businesses who buy trucks of a certain size. The idea was ostensibly to encourage small businesses to buy delivery trucks and farmers to buy farm related vehicles. But the policy was almost instantly exploited. It encouraged automakers to produce the land barge sized SUVs. Almost every auto maker has a model large enough to qualify, and they're sold to businesses that provide them as company cars. So the government is encouraging auto makers to build 12 mpg SUVs, by offering tax incentives for businesses to buy them.

GM created the EV1 electric car. They leased them to many customers, and the customers loved them. They were very low maintenance, requiring no oil changes and even reduced brake wear because they employed regenerative braking. Best of all, there was never a need to stop for gas. It charges automatically while parked in the garage at night when the off peak electric rates are low. It's easy to imagine solar charging for the EV1. But GM decided to focus 30+ years down the road on the hope of hydrogen cars. Despite angry protests from their customers, they pulled the EV1 off lease. Some of their customers wanted to absolve GM of all liability and support for the EV1 and purchase it outright, after essentially already buying it during the lease period. GM refused. It sure looks like an attempt to suppress technology.

So, here are the solutions to the problem. Start backing them.

We could have electric cars today that pollute much less than internal combustion engine cars, even when they're ultimately powered by coal powered plants as an interim solution. Solar power is available almost everywhere and even though Moore's Law does not apply to solar cells, a similar effect seems likely. Once we converted our energy system to mostly solar, huge economies of scale apply and the price drops enormously. Solar panels have proven to be low maintenance with long term reliability. If we get the initial cost down, the payback period will be shorter and this technology will appeal even to short sighted American businesses.

We need less expensive solar cells, more efficient energy storage devices, and a change in our infrastructure to support alternative energy solutions.

Finally, one obviously simple technique that would have the single largest impact in our energy policy would be to drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burned for space heating and water heating.

Re:I'm sorry to say this

[delong]

The Administration disagrees that any warming is conclusively caused by human activity, and that any policy actions by governments would have any effect whatsoever.

Honest people can agree that some marginal climate change is occurring. On this point, no climatologist seems to disagree. However, it is not either clear or obvious that human activity is responsible, and on that honest people can disagree. Climate is not static, which should be plenty obvious to the non-zealot.

This finding, by the way, supports that view. The few million human beings that lived 5000 years ago were not burning fossil fuels.

Re:It was clear 20 years ago we would be dead by n

[Cally]

it was clear that the oceans would die by the turn of the century, the ozone hole would be so large it would cover parts of Africa, people would be dieing of radiation poisoning from the sun... etc etc etc.

No-one ever suggested any of this would happen. The ozone hole has stabilised and perhaps started to shrink because the world took notice of warnings from atmospheric physicists and chemists and agreed to phase out the use of CFCs. It was called the Montreal Protocol and is an excellent examlpe of worldwide action to counter an imminent threat to the whole planet.

Weren't the ice caps supposed to be all gone soon?

I defy you to find a single reputable scientist who made this prediction. Just because your eyes glaze over when the subject comes up so that yuo hear the equvialent of radio static when peiople use words with more than two syllables doesn't mean that people talk bollocks you know.

Proof has been constantly cited since the 70s and yet all the dire predictions have come to naught.

Look, this is just bullshit. You keep on making these wild assertions that have no basis in fact and then knocking them downas if that proves something. These are what we call 'straw man' arguments.

A few good volcanoes provide visible effect that the public can see and in some cases experience.

This is just not true, and if you're so stupid as to regurgitate such outright crap it indicates you haven't bothered doing the most cursory attempt to research any, like,... 'facts'. You have humiliated yourself in public, well done. I'm not sure I can be bothered going thru' the rest of your post. Go away and read some facts about the subject, then come back and apologise for spouting nonsense on a subject yuo know nothing about. A google search for 'FAQ climate change science' would be a good start. Otherwise I recommend:

• RealClimate.org
• The Discovery of Global Warming
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c
• International Panel on Climate Change

Black Sea flood debunked

[Democratus]

This theory has been largely debunked since its release in 1998.

While it makes for a good story, the evidence simply doesn't back up the claim.

From the conclusions of the ocenographers, Dr. Abrajano and Dr. Aksu:

For the Noah's Ark Hypothesis to be correct, one has to speculate that there was no flowing of water between the Black Sea and the Marmara Sea before the speculated great deluge. We have found this to be incorrect."

Evidence was found of sustained, non catastrophic interaction between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea for the past 10,000 years.

However the flooding of the Persian Gulf is still a compelling theory as to the Great Flood stories.

Re:Possibly a good thing

[Shadowlore]

thirty years of research by peer-reviewed scientists

What really frightens me is that since I started following the science of this stuff in the mid 80s,

Ah, so you missed the 70's when the same groups of people were telling us about the cooling we were supposedly causing.

Here is a Newsweek article from 1975:
Global Cooling Newsweek Article

And that's not all. "Peer reviewed" journals also had calls to herald the global drops in temperatures. Presidents and leaders were warned to start stockpiling food for the comming shortages. Check Wikipedia
for a starting point. Science, Nature, National Academy of Science, are all examples. And even then, we were told to stockpile food and that aerosols and pollution were to blame.

But that didn't pan out. So they got a new gig. Now it is warming (that in 99 they said would cause an ice age). Has science gotten better in the last 30 years in this field? Hardly. Now they just make up computer models, say the models predict it and call it science fact. It's like a "psychic" making mass predictions. Of course something will eventually stick. Make a thousand "models" and you can pick them over for "confirmation" as you need. Then again, a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Yet they still can't tell us next year's weather any better then the Farmer's Almanac does.

Further, doing research into Global Cooling tells you some interesting data. Such as the drop of global temperature from the 30's through the 70's amounted to a drop that is strikingly similar to the amount we are told the Earth will supposedly warm (or has depending in which peer rviwed article) as a result of "man"; or according to the link you gave, is exactly the same.

Yet, somehow we are supposed to beleive that if the Earth returned to the temperatures we had in the thirties civilization will end. That is clearly demonstrated to be bunk when looking at somewhat recent history.

Indeed, in the 1999 "study"'s conclusions the 'Greenland ice shelf falling into the sea' would introduce mass cold water into the ocean, particularly the gulf stream. This would then reduce global temperatures to the tune of (IIRC) 7-15 degrees F as it disrupted the flow of warm water.

Yet, we are supposed to believe that we can honestly conclude global average temperatures from the 1800's to today. But only when they support dire predictions. When they show a cooling, well that's just "old data". When people point this out the disasterbators say they simulated the difference in global coverage and found no difference. So, they are basing their claims of historical temperatures based on simulations, and we are to believe they can produce models to simulate temperatures to accuracy within .05 degrees C a hundred+ years ago, but can't even get within a few degrees C for next week.

Ask yourself this:
If over the course of 70 years (1930s to 1970s) we saw a .6o C drop w/o disastrous effect, why should a .6o C increase cause it?

If an increase of .6o C puts us in dangerously high temps, then where were all these dangers in the 1920's and before?

Even the FAQ you link to should give you cause for concern regading the claims' veracity. They say that urban islands "only" account for .05o C less of a warming. As if we are to say "oh well .05 isn't much" while not connecting they are talking about close to 10% of their noted differences. Accounting for urban heat islands using their own data puts their rise in temperature to be less than the drop we had in the early to mid-late 1900's.

Other data shows as much as a .3oC difference when urban centers are accounted for in thermal variations (NASA GISS) resulting in a