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.

Comments

Models are just that

[Shadow Wrought]

They function based on the input they have. The more input they have the better they work. Just because the current models don't work with a piece of information totally new and unexpected doesn't mean that they are broken. It means that they need to be updated.

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

[Distinguished Hero]

If its the latter, then we still get the benefits of a cleaner environment. So why not take the steps?
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.

Re:No!

[MrFlibbs]

The sad thing about all this is that both sides are pointing to the same data and claiming it proves their point:

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 attributed to mankind's impact on the planet, but as our data suggest, natural processes operating in the past have also resulted in a significant warming and cooling of the Arctic."

It sure would be nice if someone could figure out exactly what causes the natural temperature swings. Maybe then we'd know how best to stop or reverse the human factor.

the motivation issue

[GregStevensLA]

"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."

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!"