Slashdot Mirror
The Arctic's Tropical Past
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.
That's how that polarbear fits into Lost!
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
anyone?
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?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Climate changes aren't caused by humans! So it's irrelevant to study them, whether they are happening or not! There's no proof humans are causing them! ARGH!!!!
Sorry, had to condense anti-global warming people's stuff down to a few lines. =P
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 with long periods of darkness annually. But I could be wrong here; there are some plants native to the region today--but they are dormant for most of the year.
Climate changes aren't caused by humans! So it's irrelevant to study them, whether they are happening or not! There's no proof humans are causing them! ARGH!!!!
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 many centuries, one would expect adaptations, but even the salmonids are dying off, as they can't migrate north to colder streams in time.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So, that guy claiming Atlantis is in the North Sea may be right after all?
"Basically, it looks like the Earth released a gigantic fart of green house gases into the atmosphere..." But seriously, the Earth is "farting" all the time. And the oceans used to be able to filter it and make it smell more...um...pleasant.
What?
FTA - "'Basically, it looks like the Earth released a gigantic fart of green house gases into the atmosphere - and globally the Earth warmed by about 5C (9F).'"
:-)
I didn't know that fart was a scientific term. I'll have to include it in my next science assignment.
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." --Barry Goldwater
The thing that puzzles me is this whole bit about reeds and trees. Where where they growing. Unlike Antratica, which is built on rock, the arctic is an ocean with no rocks above the water. Or so I have read. Hence the term artic ocean.
So where were these trees growing?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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!"
The BBC finally figured out this Internet thing and found it to be a wonderful resource for news. information and education.
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 over time. This is hardly a mystery or news.
I don't understand where the BBC is coming from, they keep posting stories about the Arctic like it is going to melt and destroy the world (to be fair, England won't fair that well in that scenario, but the world WILL live on without the Queen) and now new and mysterious evidence that the Arctic was once tropical. Someone over at the BBC must have some facination boner for the Arctic.
I think that BBC reporters should be forced to look at Wikipedia before they start posting stories like "This just in: The Arctic was once a tropical paradise! It could happen again!".
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
...that if anybody questions the Global Warming model, it's some kind of heresy, yet any kind of study, evidence or experimental result which could possibly be construed as contradicting at least some aspects of the Global Warming model is always instantly dismissed by GW fans as a mere...model?
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 happening, but I also note that GW-proponents are some of the least fucking tolerant of alternative possibilities.
There's already evidence for the snowball earth hypothesis, which states that at certain times in the distant past, the earth kicked over into a qualitatively different equilibrium state, where everything was covered with ice and snow, and the high reflectivity of the ice and snow kept it extremely cold for millions of years, since so much sunlight was reflected back into outer space. I wonder if this is something similar to that (kicking into yet a third type of equilibrium, a hot one), or just a fluctuation about the planet's normal equilibrium.
Find free books.
"The reader pointed out that this may have had as much to do with continental drift as it did climate change."
No, not really. As others have mentioned, continents in the Arctic polar areas haven't changed their latitude that much in the last 55 million years or so. Much of the motion has been east-west rather than north-south.
If you want to see the past positions, check out this plate reconstruction service. Set the time to 55My (million years ago). The other defaults are fine, but if you want a polar view, pick "Polar Orthographic" as the map projection, and change the "Boundaries" so that "South" is "0" degrees latitude. You might also want to turn on the present-day shorelines for reference ("Blue" looks better than "Red"). Set the time to 0My for comparison to the modern situation.
The choice of reference frames (I'm not explaining them -- read the info on-line at the site) could make a slight difference, but even with that, the change in latitude since the Eocene is small, for most of the surrounding continents, perhaps 10 or 15 degrees latitude or so.
No, the whole Earth was warmer back then.
Looks like I should have thought that through a little more. Mods will buy anything, though. "Looky! Numbers and linkies and like, facts and stuff! He must be right!"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The problem is that doing something significant about global warming involves very strict controls which will cripple the economies of developing nations. It's not "do this or nothing", it's "do this or do that".
when I first read this story today, I thought it evidence of a pole shift. That's the theory that the north pole shifts around every so often. The last time it shifted, the new artic flash-froze a bunch of wooly mammoths that used to be in a much warmer area.
The Chandler_Wobble is the name given to the unstable rotation on the axis.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/engr321/preis/pir i_r~1.htm