UK GUARDIAN:
AND IT'S ICE SHEET IS MORE STABLE THAN WAS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.Scientists have uncovered evidence that within the past million years southern Greenland was warmer than previously thought, and even covered in lush forests, a discovery suggesting its ice sheet could be more stable than previously thought against climate change temperature rises.SO, LET'S SEE NOW... ER UM... GREENLAND WAS WARM ONE MILLION YEARS AGO WHEN THERE WERE NO FRIGGIN' SUV'S. AND 5C WARMER THAN TODAY WITHIN THE LAST HUNDRED OR SO THOUSAND YEARS. NO SUV'S THEN, EITHER
An analysis of DNA found at the bottom of ice cores drilled to a depth of more than a mile (2km) in south Greenland, and dated to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, has shown a surprising variety of plant and insect life was present then.
There were trees such as alder, spruce, pine and members of the yew family, and invertebrates related to beetles, flies, spiders, butterflies and moths.
"We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland, which is currently hidden under more than 2km of ice, was once very different to the Greenland we see today," said Eske Willerslev, an archaeologist at the University of Copenhagen. "Back then it was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects."
The results of the studies are published today in the journal Science.
Over geological timescales the Earth's temperature rises and falls, leading to ice ages and periods of relative warmth.
Between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago it would have been about 10C in summer and -17C in winter. When temperatures later fell the area was covered in ice and this ice sheet seems surprisingly to have remained in place when temperatures rose again about 130,000 years ago.
During this last interglacial period temperatures were 5C warmer than today.
"If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Professor Willerslev. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming."
SEEMS TO ME TO BE ANOTHER REASON FOR THE AGW CROWD TO STFU.
3 comments:
I recommend reading what the authors are actually saying about their own study. The study connects past warming to natural variations in Earth's orbit—obliquity, or how tilted the planet is in relation to the sun. Author Martin Sharp points out "One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account." In other words, their study "really has nothing to say about the mechanisms driving the current warming."
They discovered the Greenland ice shelf is at least 400,00 to 800,000 years old. Certainly it was around the time Erik the Red named the island. According to author Eske Willerslev, the Greenland ice shelf "has not contributed to global sea level rise during the last interglacial. Importantly, it does not mean that we should not be worried about future global warming as the sea level rise of five to six meters during the last interglacial must have come from somewhere."
Finally, Martin Sharp warns the study "does not prove the current global warming trend is not human induced". If anything, "we may be heading for even bigger temperature increases than we previously thought".
I also suggest turning the caps lock off :-)
warming and cooling cycles are natural and this proves once again that fact.
there is nothing about the current observed phenomena - melting here and there and increase in local/regional temps that falls outside that.
in fact, CO2 itself has been higher than it is now without higher temps, and higher C)2 is a lagging indcator.
anyone and everyone who BELIEVES that there is AGW ids a dupe.
IN FACT... global temps have not increased for a few years. AND... it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that we are headed for a global COOLING era because if the Scwabe Solar Cycle.
JC: you are a dupe.
I find it interesting that AGW is embraced by the Postmodern Left and feel that they love it because it dovetails PERFECTLY with their ideology: anti-industria/anti-capitlist/anti-free trade pro-regulation/pro-taxes etc.
before gore dies he will be seen as one of the biggest dupes/con-men of ALL TIME.
reliapundit, I am neither postmodern left (I've voted conservative my whole life) nor am I anti-capitalist (my wife and I both own our own businesses) nor do I believe AGW for ideological reasons nor do I believe it because Al Gore says so. I've made it my approach to read what scientists are saying about this matter - which is why when I heard of the Greenland study, the first thing I did was find what the scientists themselves were saying about their own research. And they went to great pains to stress this study didn't disprove AGW - I'm sure they were aware that global warming skeptics would twist the study to say what they wanted it to say. Unfortunately despite the scientists' best efforts, that happened anyway.
Re heading for global cooling, that's not a fact but a prediction (and a prediction that has absolutely nothing to do with what's causing global warming over the past 30 years). Predicting solar behaviour is notoriously difficult - I find it interesting that you'll rigorously question thousands of peer reviewed studies showing CO2 drives global warming but accept unquestioning the word of one scientist who's published one study predicting something that will happen 30 years in the future.
You're right that CO2 has lagged temperature in the past. Which begs the question - does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or does CO2 rise cause temperature rise? The answer is both. When temperature rises, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. So temperature rise causes a CO2 rise.
When there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat. Shortwave radiation from the sun passes straight through our atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth. Then the earth emits it as longwave radiation which is absorbed by atmospheric CO2. This is the greenhouse effect. CO2 lets energy in, doesn't let as much get out.
Looking over the past 100,000 years, rising carbon levels have been observed to lag temperature rises. In the past, "wobbles" in the earth's orbit cause global warming - not dramatic warming like present day but gradual warming over thousands of years. As the earth warmed, CO2 levels also went up but 200 to 1000 years later. What is observed then is the atmospheric CO2 amplifies the temperature rise. The models predict the very temperature rises observed. The CO2 lag is exactly what climatologists expect and if anything, confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Post a Comment