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

I knew it!

[Ligur]

That's how that polarbear fits into Lost!

Re:I knew it!

[CRCulver]

The blast door map Locke discovered in the episode "Lockdown" explains why the polar bear was there.

Global cooling...

[HankYarbo]

anyone?

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.

No!

[bahwi]

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

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.

Not continental drift

[uncleO]

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.

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.

Re:Not continental drift

[Red Flayer]

"I find it difficult to believe that trees would flourish with long periods of darkness annually."

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

[spun]

From the wikipedia article on continental drift: "South America and Africa are moving apart at an average of 5.7 cm per year, due to the seafloor spreading along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This is comparable to the growth speed of a fingernail. The fastest recorded seafloor spreading takes place along the East Pacific Rise at 17.2 cm per year"

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, 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

[Pfhreak]

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, the first Antarctic ice sheet started forming. Australia-Antarctica together had formed a longish, north-south oriented continent that deflected east-west ocean currents, forcing warm and cold water from the various latitudes to mix. (This is similar to how North America today deflects the Gulf Stream—a warm current—north, until it ends up wrapping around a little and points at Europe from the north-west, which contributes a lot of the moisture that the British Isles are so famous for.) As the two were separated, the currents were no longer deflected, and a cold current was allowed to form around Antarctica.

Of course, that means that Australia's moved as far as it has in 40—55 million years, but I vaguelly remember reading somewhere that that particular plate is a world-record holder as far as speed of drift goes.

Re:Not continental drift

[tdemark]

Using the lower number gives us a distance of 2850 kilometers in 50 million years.

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, you should use 1.15 cm/year or 0.95 cm/year. This would be a worst case of around 600 km.

- Tony

Scientific Term?

[rmjohnso]

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. :-)

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!"

Re:trees grow in soil

[MrFebtober]

The northernmost parts of Canada, Russia, and Alaska, as well as all of Greenland are considered to represent the Arctic Region of the Earth. The Geographical pole itself is just ice, but there is plenty of Arctic Tundra up there.