Another Ice Age on its way?

Status
Not open for further replies.

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,815
104
Newport News, VA
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_sc/hot_arctic

Scientists say Arctic once was tropical
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 54 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peak at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

And what a watery, swampy world it must have been.

"Imagine a world where there are dense sequoia trees and cypress trees like in Florida that ring the Arctic Ocean," said Pagani, a member of the multinational Arctic Coring Expedition that conducted the research.

Millions of years ago the Earth experienced an extended period of natural global warming. But around 55 million years ago there was a sudden supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.

Scientists already knew this "thermal event" happened but are not sure what caused it. Perhaps massive releases of methane from the ocean, the continent-sized burning of trees, lots of volcanic eruptions.

Many experts figured that while the rest of the world got really hot, the polar regions were still comfortably cooler, maybe about 52 degrees Fahrenheit.

But the new research found the polar average was closer to 74 degrees. So instead of Boston-like weather year-round, the Arctic was more like Miami North. Way north.

"It's the first time we've looked at the Arctic, and man, it was a big surprise to us," said study co-author Kathryn Moran, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island. "It's a new look to how the Earth can respond to these peaks in carbon dioxide."

It's enough to make Santa Claus break into a sweat.

The 74-degree temperature, based on core samples which act as a climatic time capsule, was probably the year-round average, but because data is so limited it might also be just the summertime average, researchers said.

What's troubling is that this hints that future projections for warming, several degrees over the next century, may be on the low end, said study lead author Appy Sluijs of the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Also it shows that what happened 55 million years ago was proof that too much carbon dioxide — more than four times current levels — can cause global warming, said another co-author Henk Brinkhuis at Utrecht University.
Purdue University atmospheric sciences professor Gabriel Bowen, who was not part of the team, praised the work and said it showed that "there are tipping points in our (climate) system that can throw us to these conditions."

And the new research also gave scientists the idea that a simple fern may have helped pull Earth from a hothouse to an icehouse by sucking up massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, this natural solution to global warming was not exactly quick: It took about a million years.

With all that heat and massive freshwater lakes forming in the Arctic, a fern called Azolla started growing and growing. Azolla, still found in warm regions today, grew so deep, so wide that eventually it started sucking up carbon dioxide, Brinkhuis theorized. And that helped put the cool back in the Arctic.

Bowen said he has a hard time accepting that part of the research, but Brinkhuis said the studies show tons upon tons of thick mats of Azolla covered the Arctic and moved south. "This could actually contribute to push the world to a cooling mode," Brinkhuis said, but only after it got hotter first and then it would take at least 800,000 years to cool back down. It's not something to look forward to, he said.
 
Last edited:
...The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally...
I wonder how much methane an Azolla-grazing bronto could put out in a day?
And of course we all know that the current situation is all man's fault for burning the fossil remains of those prehistoric polluters...
 
I wonder if we would stop poluting as we do today how much worse things would get. I also wonder how many plants / trees it would take to suck up enough carbon dioxide to prevent catastrophic changes.
 
Dang, before I read your post BobMurdoch I was going to type "We're all gonna die" but you took the words right outta my mouth!

This is just like trying to predict where technology is heading. Would we have been able to predict what we have today ten to twenty years ago? Most likely what we think will happen is what will not happen.
 
It's like nuclear "waste." Does anybody REALLY think we won't have a use or solution in 100 or 200 years? So plan on storing for 500 and be happy.

"...took the words right outta my fingers." ?
 
I get a little tired of all the "WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!!" stories. But I guess it sells papers.

1970's - We'll all freeze in the new Ice Age.
1980's - We're going to burn up due to Global Warming.

-Butter was good, then bad, now good.
-Saccharine was good, then bad, now good.

1980's - Electromagnetic fields are good, even healthy.
1990's - Electromagnetic fields cause cancer.
2000 - Electromagnetic fields can heal so buy a bracelet.

From Michael Crichton: "Is this really the end of the world? Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods? No, we simply live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It’s nothing new, it’s right on schedule. At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.

Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world."
 
Stargazer said:
Dang, before I read your post BobMurdoch I was going to type "We're all gonna die" but you took the words right outta my mouth!

This is just like trying to predict where technology is heading. Would we have been able to predict what we have today ten to twenty years ago? Most likely what we think will happen is what will not happen.

Hey, whether humans have 20 years or 20 million years left as the dominant species, enjoy your life as best as you can and quit worrying. It will just make sure that you give yourself a heart attack well before Mother Earth can "smite thee".
 
Eggs - bad for you, good for you
Coffee - bad for you, good for you

I think everything is good for you and bad for you, it is just a matter if it is more good for you than bad for you. Mother nature is more good to us than bad for us because we are breathing and living aint we?
 
Chocolate - bad for you, no, wait, good for you.

Then they go and change the taste of "junk food" to make it "healthy" for us to eat, but it tastes crappy now so we don't eat it.

If I wanted "healthy junk food", I'd go buy carob at the health food store!!

I get so tired of this "WE'RE DOOMED!" nattering. For cryin' out loud, death is a sure thing - 100%. 1 out of every 1 will experience it. Some sooner than others. So what if the Arctic was a nice, warm spot 55 million years ago? I don't think I'll see it turn into "Miami North" again in what's left of my lifetime (or yours), or anyone else I know for that matter.

Guess I better get some extra fans to keep my 622 cooler. :D ;)
 
Some of these examples are terrible. How can they possibly know if eggs or coffee are good for you unless it's ALL you consume. Hard to say it's the eggs that clog your arteries when you're eating cheesesteaks and chili the rest of the week, ya know?

We need a complete overhaul of how we spend our medical money. Enough of the donating money to research getting rid of acne. Pop a zit and be done with it. I'd rather pop a zit and not have to worry about cancer than be zit-free and have to sit through chemo 3x a week...
 
Damn....I got excited...When I saw the title of this thread I thought there was going to be another ICE AGE Sequel hitting theaters.
 
bhelms said:
I wonder how much methane an Azolla-grazing bronto could put out in a day?..

Not to take away from your point, but the brontosaurus along with 60% of all life forms on Earth were extinct 10,000,000 years before this last warming "spike".

It is interesting that there is a "snowball Earth" theory for 600,000,00 to550,000,000 years ago or so that was only broken by millions of years of volcanic activity with no surface plant life to absorb the CO2 causing a fast warming which lead to the cabrian explosion at about 540,000,000 years ago. Ever since the Earth has been cycling back and forth between ice age and super-tropical planet. Man (Homo sapiens) has only occupied the planet for 100,000-250,000 years. In that time there have been 3 ice ages. One of them is responsible for "our" global spread (if current theory is proved).

See ya
Tony
 
Stargazer said:
I wonder if we would stop poluting as we do today how much worse things would get. I also wonder how many plants / trees it would take to suck up enough carbon dioxide to prevent catastrophic changes.
Tree's Create carbondioxide
 
juan said:
Tree's Create carbondioxide

Some one needs to take biology over again in school :) Plants absorb the C and expell the O2 in Carbon Dioxide.

Two interesting excerps about research of mounting CO2 in the atmosphere. Both of theses are easy reading and simple concepts. One points out the problem and the other a real simple solution to help nature take care of it. Imagine the progress if it becomes a tangible issue.

http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2001/07/12.html
After you've been exercising for an hour or two, you really know how to appreciate oxygen. Hi, I'm Bryan Yeaton and this is The Weather Notebook. Humans couldn't live without oxygen. And plants couldn't live without the gas humans exhale--carbon dioxide or CO2. That's why some scientists and politicians are studying trees to mitigate global warming which is caused in part by CO2.

They hope that if we plant enough trees, maybe the forests will soak up all the CO2 that cars and factories spew out each day.

It's been an idea with promise. Research has shown that when plants are raised in a greenhouse with extra carbon dioxide, they grow more quickly. But results from a newly completed study by Duke University researchers may have thrown a wrench in the works.

These scientists gave locally-grown pine trees twice the usual amount of CO2. In the first two years they grew up to 25 percent faster. But the extra growth came at a cost because the trees used more of the nutrients in the soil, particularly nitrogen. This depleted the soil more quickly than usual, and in the next two years, the trees went back to growing at an average level.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282026.html
Like all plants, trees need nitrogen. This gas makes up most of the air we breathe, but in its chemical form it isn’t useful to plants. First it needs to be “fixed,” converted into a form that can be taken up by plants. Jason Kayne of Colorado State University says nitrogen deficiencies could be easily overcome by planting forests with species including Albizia falcataria, a type of mimosa tree that adds missing nitrogen compounds to the soil. The trees themselves don’t do this work. It is done by soil bacteria that take up residence in tree roots. The bacteria turn nitrogen into ammonia, a compound that fertilizes the tree.

In his paper in Ecology, Kayne reported on experiments he and his colleagues conducted on a former sugar cane plantation in Hawaii. Instead of planting it with only a single species of eucalyptus trees, as is the normal forestry practice, he added mimosas. Carbon uptake of the eucalyptus trees doubled

See ya
Tony
 
Dark chocolate is the chocolate that is good for you and if you do not eat TOO much of it.

Yes, trees create oxygen, we create carbon dioxide. I wonder if an increase in the human population alone is causing enough of a difference in the carbon dioxide content to make any difference. Also I seen on the NASA channel where some methane from the farms would cause more greenhouse gases.

I wonder if scientists would eventually try to change the trees to where they would intake more carbon dioxide and produce more oxygen.
 
I don't think there's any money in making better, more efficient trees, so it's not going to happen...

And I'd be very sure in saying that all these damn people running around are producing more co2 than the trees can handle. I think china has the right idea in limiting children. How irresponsible is it that a couple (that's 2 people...) in rural america has 8 kids, honestly? Have 1, maybe 2 if you have to. That's enough. You're putting back what's going to come off the planet, anything more is just a little irresponsible. I know the "I don't care what happens when i'm dead..." attitude is #1 to most people, but you can't think that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)