Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed.DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest.
That contrasts sharply with the prevailing view that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago, according to a summary of the study, which is published Thursday in the journal Science.
The samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 C (1 F) in the winter.
They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.
"These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken," said Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a co-author of the paper.
"What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought."
Discoveries of a butterfly species' DNA in the Far East and Western Europe may rewrite the known history of the Pleistocene Ice Age.Italian researchers Valerio Sbordoni and Paolo Gratton of the Rome Tor Vergata University said traces of the species' DNA have been found beyond the range once associated with the insect's history, the Italian news agency ANSA said Wednesday.
The Italian duo, along with Polish Academy of Sciences researcher Maciek Konopinski, used the new data to create an updated map of the world's greenery during the global ice age more than 10,000 years ago.
"The evidence from the mitochondrial DNA strongly suggests that large patches of the world's forests survived the impact of the last Ice Age and were alive and well as far back as 150,000 years ago," Sbordoni told ANSA. "There were definitely oases in which the Parnassius mnemosyne butterfly thrived, especially in the Carpathians and the ancient German region of Pannonia."
I'm shocked!
You mean, the frenzied climate changed crowd has their heads ensconced firmly up their asses?!?!
See, we MUST control the earth's climate NOW or we're all DOOMED!
Kyoto is the only way!
AAAAAAAH!!!!
Global Cooling!!!! We're all gonna diiieeeeee!!!!!
The science was in on the Titanic too.
Meanwhile, IPCC Report Mocks Own Findings
This would suggest that Hans Island was really a tropical paradise.
Moreover, there were no Dane's with Viking tendencies, laying claim to the "True North, Strong and Free".
Now where is my daquiri and my maple leaf shade tree to accompany my ocean view?
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden (Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
No real surprises here for me. We have barely touched some of the particulars hidden in the *earth's history* that directly impact on the present debate regarding AGW. As more and more of these historical facts are unearthed (sorry for the pun) they seem to make the AGW claims increasingly untenable.
(Transfered from another thread)
Well, look what happens when a Finn actually crunches the numbers for a specific area (Helsinki). I wonder what would happen if this was done in this detail for many more sites around the globe.
http://www.tilmari.pp.fi/tilmari5.htm
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm
I wonder how many conservatives are going to point to this as evidence of prior warming periods while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago. Just wondering out loud. Carry on as you were.
Well, gee, I don't know, Ted.
Kate links regularly to science articles and never to religious ones, yet she maintains Canada's most popular blog thanks to thousands of conservatives.
I realize this must present a cognitive disconnect for you, but if you sit down a quiet room, turn off the lights and mull it over for a few hours the answer just might come to you.
Good luck!
Are you guys idiots? The fact that the earth was warmer 900,000 years ago has nothing to do with the current phenomenon of Global Warming.
Some of you seriously need to rethink that decision to drop out of high-school.
Ted...LOL
Brad...So if the earth was warmer 900,000 years ago,then it must now be cooling? Otherwise,it would just be getting warmer. So you believe in global warming? Not a problem. Just send your money to Al Gore,idiots pay here,USA. He will be so happy. Twit.
"The fact that the earth was warmer 900,000 years ago has nothing to do with the current phenomenon of Global Warming."
No Brad, but it does point out rather well that forces other than manmade carbon dioxide has driven temperature higher in the past. But then you know that, it's just doesn't fit with your premise that mankind is the evildoer. So carry on with your "theory" presented as fact mindset.
Chip, relax.
I think I have read somewhere here evidence that Kate is in the scientific realist camp so I have no reason to believe she thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old (although she has posted a number of times on articles questioning evolution, at least as us pedestrians understand it).
So I don't think Kate is being hypocritical in using such dating science to try to undermine global warming claims. My comment is more directed at those who would go "ra ra, way to go Kate" and then claim that the earth is way younger (by a few billion years) than the science they just supported.
Justthinkin, do you actually know anything about climate science?? Your specious reasoning makes me wonder whether you were actually drunk when you wrote the last comment. Think about it! Whether or not you believe in man made Global Warming is besides the point, the temperature of the earth 900,000 years ago is not an issue. The earth has been through several ice ages since then. It has cycled through hot and cold several times.
We can argue until we're blue in the face about the current warming trend, but don't serious accept anyone to take you seriously if you are using "this" as evidence.
Ignorans caecus est.
"No Brad, but it does point out rather well that forces other than manmade carbon dioxide has driven temperature higher in the past. But then you know that, it's just doesn't fit with your premise that mankind is the evildoer. So carry on with your "theory" presented as fact mindset."
geothermal, No scientist would suggest that human beings are the only cause of climate change! Scientists have known for the better part of a century that the earth has been warmer in the past.
Where did i state that mankind is an "evildoer". You don't know anything about what my opinion is on Global Warming, so don't try to pigeon hole me. I am simply stating that is is NOT evidence for either side!
{irony]
Those scientists, always trying to upset people by searching and finding black swans. Troublemakers, all of them. Just cut 'em off.
[/irony]
Brad...my point exactly...the earth cycles through both cold and warm stages. I just do not understand why so many people are upset and screaming global warming. It is a natural cycle. Neither you,me nor anybody else can change that fact. For us humans to think that we can control nature is just plain idiotic. Drunk? Yes I used to be,but have been sober for 12 years now,one day at a time. I may not express my opinions that well,but at least we have a free foroum here at Kate's,and I thank her for that.
"You don't know anything about what my opinion is on Global Warming, so don't try to pigeon hole me."
We know you un-necessarily capitalize it, and attack like an ad-hominem Pigeon-Holer, Brad.
@ Ted,
Th latest survey from Decima shows that conservatives in Canada are the LEAST likely to believe that God created the universe, especially the ones in Alberta.
www.clangmann.net
But hey, keep stereotyping away. That's how you liberals win arguments.
"We know you un-necessarily capitalize it, and attack like an ad-hominem Pigeon-Holer, Brad."
Touché.
"I am simply stating that is is NOT evidence for either side!"
Huh? Brad, if this is not evidence in the global warming "phenomenon" then what evidence is allowable in your obviously not so humble opinion? Brad, you there? Or is the debate to hot for you now, now that you might have to put up some supporting evidence for your view instead of just calling people names.
As for pigeon holing you, your term "idiots" gave you away. You do believe in Global warming don't you?
On the same topic of the wonders of science they've just announced that the world's diameter is 5mm smaller than when they last measured 5 years ago. Lets review, we been circuling the globe for about 500 years and we can't get a simple measurement down but the IPCC and algore know that in 100 years time, with all the uncertainty involved in climate and the sun, that we are in big trouble. Makes a believer out of me.
While the title of the article states the Earth was warmer, the authors of the research make no such claim. They only say Greenland was warmer.
This is no way negates the AGW point of view. In fact the part of the world most affected by warming these years is precisely the Arctic. Whatever the cause of the warming, the effect is very notable with glaciers melting, sea ice receding and permafrost thawing (now that's an oxymoron). We see that a small amount of global warming results in a large amount of warming in the Arctic.
That climate has always changed during Earth's history is obvious. What is special about our times is the speed of the change.
"As for pigeon holing you, your term "idiots" gave you away. You do believe in Global warming don't you?"
I actually maintain a healthy skepticism towards the subject, but to debate the shades of grey of my beliefs among non-specialists is pointless.
However, you do nothing to strengthen your case by pointing to a warmer period in the past as some sort of smoking gun, or damning piece of evidence. The fact that the Earth has natural cycles of hot and cold, which no scientist denies, does not necessarily disqualify man-made global warming. That's like suggesting because mother nature "naturally" allows some species to go extinct from time to time, mankind has never been responsible for any species to go extinct. Both phenomenons could co-exist, and in fact, could both be contributing to global warming. You would have to be a zealot to not at least acknowledge the possibility.
The 'climate-fanatics' often use the 'it-is-different-this-time' arguement.
Snake-oil salesmen of many stripes use this ploy on subjects that are hard (initially, at least) to disprove.
The NASDAQ bubble of 2000 was OK because we were in a new paradym.
Y2K will crash computers and automobile's brains because of the "scary" 1000 year event. This is different.
Genetically enhanced foods are dangerous because we have never eaten them before. Never happened before.(Even that was untrue, random modification takes place naturally.)
It is different this time because climate "modelers" and their computers can now predict. (Junk in -- junk out)
No matter how deeply the John Crosses of the world are buried by a mountain of indisputable scientific fact, they will wiggle an arm out and say ---- yabut, this time it is different. And they will keep it up until the inevitable 'best-by-date' passes.
This 'new secret-formula' is different --- now your hair will grow. (So secret nobody knows where it is.)
Brad ...
The fact that we now have evidence to support the claim that the worlds average temperature was far (FAR) higher in the past is reason enough to re-examine the evidence, claims and conclusions of the "Global Warming Doomsayers." Certainly, we should still take action to reduce the ammount of energy we use (which will in turn reduce the quantity of CO2 emmited) but we should do that regardless of whether the world is warming or not; the ammount of energy we use causes so many problems associated with polution, security and various other issues that it doesn't make sense to continue to use it at the current rate.
Brads comment - "Are you guys idiots? The fact that the earth was warmer 900,000 years ago has nothing to do with the current phenomenon of Global Warming.
Some of you seriously need to rethink that decision to drop out of high-school."
Well Brad I guess you have been outed as a lefty troll and and a member of the Cult of Climatology espousing their Universal Plan. As soon as the science contradicts your beliefs you are out calling names and hurling insults, just what we expect from Trolls. You do know what the acronym works out to for your plan right - "COC UP".
Funny how the Cult of Climatology denied any possible affect from previous warming and cooling periods during the height of the frenzy and dropped the Medieval Warming Period right off the hockey stick. Now when it is turning around and biting them in the rear they start waffling. Who was it that said "The Truth will out", what is being pointed out here is that members of the Cult denied that Greenland had ever had this type of climate, that it was always covered in Ice miles deep, now that has been shown as being false. What else amongst their faith/believe systems is false?
Interesting how easy it is to spot Trolls like you and Ted who drop by to fling their ad hominem attacks and run away, now if only we could build a filter to take care of that....
“My comment is more directed at those who would go "ra ra, way to go Kate" and then claim that the earth is way younger (by a few billion years) than the science they just supported.”
Can somebody help me out here? Has somebody’s comment been deleted?
Or is Ted charging in to do battle with a figment of his own imagination?
Cal:
A recap (which is all off topic, but some people like to drag this out, so...):
- Kate posts an article that uses dating science showing hundreds of thousands of years ago Greenland was warmer
- lots of conservatives and global-warming-ridiculing readers cheer her on including (partly a guess, partly observed fact on other blogs) social conservatives who also happen to believe that the earth in the figment of their imagination is was created in 144 hours some 6000 years ago
- I wondered whether there was a bit of oddity in someone who believes in that kind of, ahem, "science" but relying on a study like this
- someone (Chip) makes a claim that I'm attacking Kate which was profoundly stupid because I'm clearly not, as I pointed out
Minor point from an erstwhile sh*t-disturber that is almost wholly off topic.
Like I said... just wondering out loud. Carry on as you were.
"Mankind against what mother nature allows"
Whew!
Let me guess.
Only those Brad enou,...er uh "brave" enough to laud their highschool credentials, are able to decipher what "mother nature allows."
"The fact that the Earth has natural cycles of hot and cold, which no scientist denies, does not necessarily disqualify man-made global warming"
But it does counter the continuous AGW notion that the 20th Century Global Warming is Unprecedented
Demonstrating past instances of natural climate change should at the very least reinforce the need for a full debate. Nature's part in climate change must be fully explored to determine whether or not CO2(man made) is really the major contributor or not.
GreenNeck, as to the speed of change, I really believe that it has not been conclusively determined whether this change is any faster or slower than previous changes. I think the speed is being based on computer models and not concrete evidence. I've seen information that the change in temperature based on satellite date in not outside natural parameters. NASA Satellite Temperature Measurements
Maybe you have a link to some literature other than brash statements by activists.
Sorry Cal no support from this quarter. I'll let Ted tilt at his own windmills and hope he doesn't get hurt when the windmill dumps him on his head.
Personally I would like to know how the "scientific community" knows that the world is heating up. I've heard numbers being tossed about except no one is actually using the same thermometer in the same place under the same conditions to get an accurate reading. Secondly I hear about verdent plant life on Greenland thousands of years ago as being indicative of climate change. Yet it could also indicate geological change instead. Tectonic plate theory indicates that Greenland was not always that far north. Dinosaur bones in the high artic indicate that either the world was warmer, the tectonic plates shifted or the rotational axis of the earth moved a few degrees one way or another. In other words all we know is that if you dig under a glacier you often find dead plant and animal matter.
Ted's just trying to stir the pot. He was refering to the comment at the start of his post.
Interesting how evolutionists can't accept that Darwin's Theory is still a theory and get upset when someone attempts to discuss it from a theoretical point of view.
Now a law is something different, for example the law of gravity: if a brown envelope stuffed with cash slips out of Ad Exec's hand in a Montreal restaurant I know it will fall to the ground rather than float up to the political organizer's hand.
Ted, Who claims, besides you, that all conservatives believe the earth is only 6,000 years old? Kind of a reach don't you think? Have you seen thye petrified forest up in the arctic? I didn't think so.
Brad, Quit chucking excretera around and assuming all of us here are either drunk, drop outs or both. This degree toting conservative thinking canuck is not amused by your antics. Most of the commentors here know how to debate a position without ad hominem attacks.
The interesting thing about natural climate change is that scientists don't understand what causes it. There are lots of theories, but they often conflict and all have flaws and inconsistencies.
Geologists are usually the most skeptical of the current global warming hysteria. They understand that the earth's climate is always changing - often dramatically.
In geological terms we are still in an ice age.
I really honestly do find it funny how extreme partisanship can interfere with basic reading skills. It is a disease that inflicts all sides, of course, but today's example happens to be brought to us by Texas Canuck who claims without a molecule of supportive evidence and despite directly contradicting statements that I've stated or even believe all conservatives think the world was created in 144 hours 6000 years ago.
Heck, I don't even believe all social conservatives believe that, especially when stats (if you can rely on them) show that only a quarter of Canadians hold that non-scientific view of the earth.
Honestly, give your partisan head a shake.
Brad,
You are correct that this on its own doesnt mean AGW is or isnt happening.
What it does do is cut at the argument
1) That it has never been warmer....it has
2) That the melting of the Greenland ICE Sheet will cause a 28 ft rise in sea level....much much less than that
3) That something other than CO2 is causing the increase in temperature. unless you can find the C02 source that preceeded this
So lets see, Kilimanjaro is melting due to sublimation not heating
Greenland ice cap has been half as big in the past wothout sea levels being 28 ft higher
CO2 increases follow temperature increases not the other way round
Sea Surface temperatures have cooled in the last few years
Hurricanes are less last year and dont seem to be shaping into a bad year this year either...oh and no trend has been seen over time in them worsening
HMMM so whats left of an inconvenient truth, other than CO2 levels are rising, a documented fact. Not too much it would seem.
So lets all recycle, because it is a good thing to do, not fouling the nest and all that, enjoy the music at Live Earth and ignore the message because there really isnt one.
ICT should be redited down to about 5 minutes once all the half truths and untruths are removed.
enjoy Live Earth, I know I will
"That climate has always changed during Earth's history is obvious. What is special about our times is the speed of the change."
[Posted by: GreenNeck at July 6, 2007 1:11 PM]
GreenNeck:
Would you, by any chance, have a citation or two that definitively proves that the rate of change of climate is markedly different at the present time,as say compared to the time during the retreat of the last continental glaciation from the northern hemisphere.
I would really like to know what data this important claim for AGW is based upon. I see many AGW proponents claim that the present increase is the fastest ever. Where is the proof for that, and over what time period is that comparison being made?
"I actually maintain a healthy skepticism towards the subject, but to debate the shades of grey of my beliefs among non-specialists is pointless."
[Posted by: Brad at July 6, 2007 1:15 PM]
Based on the results of the last study run by Kate that inquired as to the "specialities* of the denizens of SDA this response by Brad is LOL funny. Clueless a fair description?
Ted said:
"...while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago."
"Minor point from an erstwhile sh*t-disturber that is almost wholly off topic."
Well at least Ted admits he is a "sh*t-disturber".
Nowhere in the post did anyone from the conservative camp suggest a literal creationist account as an explanation for the appearance of mankind on earth.
For all we know conservatives secretly harbor the proposition that the earth was populated by alien invasion per Van Daniken. Because after all PMSH has a 'secret agenda' which can't be proved because well, it's secret.
I don't think PMSH has ennunciated official government policy on the origins of mankind, which is still the subject of some scientific debate and research. Ted's assertion might hold true when PMSH cuts off funding for geology,anthropology, and astronomy research. Watch for strange crop circles to appear whenever the Prime Minister visits farming communities.
Gee where did that 9.2 billion in science and technology funding just disappear to?
Thanks for the attempted insertion of a red herring.
Presumably Ted, you found this red herring while trolling the waters about HANS ISLAND between Ellesmere and Greenland.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden (Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
And here I was thinking that it was only my fellow liberals who tended to be too tightly wound up. Thanks for showing me that that's not the case Hans, Chip, Texas, etc.
"I wonder how many conservatives are going to point to this as evidence of prior warming periods while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago. Just wondering out loud. Carry on as you were."
[Posted by: Ted at July 6, 2007 11:41 AM]
'Conservative'
'Creationist'
Well... both words do have essentially the same letters, just arranged differently.
Yes Ted, behead all those who question Global Warming(tm)! Those who slander the Prophet Gore-hammed (concert royalties be upon Him) will be butchered by believing Environmentalislamists! Gaia Akbar! Gaia Akbar! Gaia Akbar!
to ignore the geological record is bad science. how long it takes for the earth to warm or cool during any cycle is important only if you are concerned about snow to ski on or going to the beach for a swim.
JP, what the frig are you talking about? Haven't mentioned a single critical word about environmentalists or anti-environmentalists or global warming questioners.
What is it with some of you folk? 'Look, der a libral, must spew attack, must regurgitate talking points'.
GreenNeck posted "That climate has always changed during Earth's history is obvious. What is special about our times is the speed of the change."
Could GreenNeck please provide an explanation of the frozen mastodons many found with grass in their mouths as is eating one minute frozen to death and buried under an ice sheet the next? Is that what he means when he speaks of rapid climate change? Enquiring minds want to know.
Now kiddies, be kind to Ted. After all, he IS just a lawyer, poor thing.
He comes over to someone else's blog and raises a straw man guaranteed to make Ray Bolger look metallic -- then pretends to be shocked by the negative reactions of others. Must be Friday.
I'm a real live Conservative Christian(tm) and have never, ever, EVER met a single human being who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old.
It would be like me joking about a bunch of wacky leftists who believe, say, that one in four women have been raped -- oh, wait...
"Geologists are usually the most skeptical of the current global warming hysteria. They understand that the earth's climate is always changing - often dramatically."
Exactly...hike any government or other funded nature trails and you might come across info. posters like:
"100,000 years ago this was a lake bed"...or "these massive boulders were slowly moved by glaciers in the last ice age"...
Get in touch with nature, go outside, go hiking...
"What is it with some of you folk? 'Look, der a libral, must spew attack, must regurgitate talking points'."
[Posted by: Ted at July 6, 2007 3:06 PM]
Ted:
Since I'm obviously a bit slow out of the starting blocks, and confuse rather easily, maybe you can explain, in little words that I can comprehend, what you actually meant by this statement:
"I wonder how many conservatives are going to point to this as evidence of prior warming periods while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago."
Or, was this actually meant to be a pithy comment that would draw attention away from a *scientific* discovery that was/is going to give the most ardent AGW proponents a bit of a problem with their AGW *history*?
Kathy...LOL...stirring the pot. I love it.
Brad...my point was that what happened all those years ago may be just a cycle. No I am not a climatoligist,but in the 50 years I have been around,guess what? The weather changes! Neither you,me,or Gore,or Dr Fruitfly have any say about it! The weather varies.Ask texascanuck about the the petrified forest in the Arctic. I have a piece of it right here in my house,from Ellsmere Island(before it became a park). If you cannot come here and debate honestly and seriously,without attacks against those who post here,then please just don't show up. Even Ted is honest in his point of view,and respects others,something you should learn.(No disrespect meant Ted)
See, now you folk have gone and raised Kathy's ire over a minor comment. Kiddies, you could learn a lot from her as she's clearly someone who knows how to give and take a humourous poke or two, and doesn't feel the urge to regurgitate anyone's talking points and knee-jerk reactions.
I guess though I will have to explain it really carefully and type r e a l l y s l o w l y (slow speaking is a skill you learn in law school to stretch out those billable hours).
Extreme conservative and liberal partisans are alike in using whatever bit of information dispells that which the other side holds dear. In fact, so rabid are some that they will regurgitate a nifty counter argument that in fact undermines other core beliefs they have espoused. You still with me, kiddies?
This is an example. I'm not commenting in favour of or against the data provided by Kate. Seems pretty sound and interesting information. I've read other similar old earth studies that raise questions about global warming. I've also read social conservatives (Texas, Chip, JP, other slow readers: let me repeat for the umpteenth time - that does not mean "all". Ironically, you can consult Kathy's recent post on "some" vs. "all") who do believe the earth is only 6000 years old also use those studies to try to disprove global warming. A little odd doncha think. Multiple choice test on today's lesson will be on Monday. Bring an HB No. 2 lead pencil. No calculators.
As an aside, Kathy: honestly, you've never met anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old? Honestly? I know Catholics take a much saner approach to science and religion but our American evangelicals poll out at 54% believing the world was created sometime in the last 10,000 years (in the same poll, only 21% of Catholics thought so). No, I'm not talking about evolution, but age of earth stuff here. I've had lots of arguments with them, online and in person. Did my MA in North American Christian history with a bunch of them. They exist and they, not Mr. Bolger and his like were the only intended target of my slight, little barb that has the proverbial knickers of all of these kiddies in a knot.