Ancient records confirm Arctic warming due to man

Discussion in 'Environment' started by RollingThunder, May 22, 2010.

  1. RollingThunder
    Offline

    RollingThunder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,398
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +886
    Here's some recent research on the Arctic melt-off showing that it caused by mankind. This is only the most recent of numerous scientific studies showing that this melting is very unusual and is linked to mankind's carbon emissions.


    Ancient records confirm Arctic warming due to man

    Environmental Research Web
    May 20, 2010

    If Arctic warming continues at its current rate, the Arctic Ocean could have ice-free summers by 2040 or even earlier, modeling studies suggest. The last time the ocean may have had ice-free seasons was around 10,000 years ago, when the region was getting much more sunlight than today due to Earth's orbital fluctuations. By using geological records to piece together the history of Arctic sea ice over the last 50 million years, scientists have shown that the combined magnitude and abruptness of the recent ice loss is likely higher than ever before and can't be explained by any known natural variables.

    Leonid Polyak, from the Byrd Polar Research Center of Ohio State University, US, and colleagues employed marine sediment cores and ice-core and terrestrial Arctic temperature records. Palaeoclimate proxies found in these sediments, such as ice-rafted debris, microscopic organisms, driftwood, whalebone, and plant material, indicate the presence or absence of sea ice in a particular region. Historical records and satellite data complete the picture for modern times.

    The proxy records show that around 50 million years ago the Arctic was a balmy place, with summer temperatures as high as 24 °C and subtropical aquatic ferns basking in the warm waters. Then around 47 million years ago sea ice started to form, most probably encouraged by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide and an accompanying drop in temperatures.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide continued to decrease – caused in part by weathering of rocks as the Earth reorganised its continents – and temperatures fell. Then around 3 million years ago the carbon dioxide decline slowed and regular glacial cycles started to dominate temperature changes, driven by orbital variations which alter the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. Since then the Earth has swung predictably from glacial to interglacial and back again, every few tens of thousands of years. Emerging data suggest that Arctic sea-ice was probably much reduced during the major interglacials.

    For the last 11,000 years or so we have been enjoying a relatively warm, low-ice interglacial period, with a gentle cooling as we head towards the next glacial. "From orbital variations, we'd expect the Arctic to continue to slowly cool as it has done so for the past several thousand years, eventually slipping into a new ice age," said Mark Serreze director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado.

    But the last 100 years have bucked the trend in a big way. "We've lost about 30% of the summer ice extent and as much as 85% of the multi-year ice volume since the 1970s," Serreze told environmentalresearchweb. And this decrease can't be explained by natural variations alone. "If you ignored our recent atmospheric carbon dioxide rise, the recent reduction in sea ice in the Arctic would look highly anomalous, because it comes at a time when orbits favour extensive sea ice," said Richard Alley from Pennsylvania State University.

    Publishing their findings in Quaternary Science Reviews, Polyak and his colleagues conclude that the recent decrease in Arctic sea ice doesn't fit any of the natural variabilities known from existing paleoclimatic data. This conclusion implies that the most plausible trigger for this warming is rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels coming from human activities. "Orbital variations, which are currently slowly cooling the Arctic, are still there, it's just that climate warming due to human activities is now dominating and operating on a much shorter timescale – about 100 years – than orbital variations – [which operate over] thousands of years," explained Serreze.

    The implications of ice-free summers in the Arctic within a few decades are of great concern. Coastal erosion will likely increase and many ice-adapted species will struggle, which will inevitably affect the human inhabitants of the Arctic. Out beyond the Arctic, weather systems will alter as atmospheric circulation patterns adjust to the effect of an ice-free Arctic Ocean.

    As the geological record shows, the Arctic has occasionally been ice-free in the past. However, the current speed of on-going change is exceptional. "In the past, one went from heavier ice to milder, or ice-free, conditions over the span of thousands of years," said Serreze. "Now we are talking about doing it in 100 years, or less. Can species like polar bears adapt to such rapid change? We'll see."

    Copyright - Institute of Physics and IOP Publishing 2010

    (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,949
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,688
    I don't know how serious I can take a report that neglects to tell the reader that the reason the conditions in the antarctic changed was because the continent moved! Kind of missing an important piece of geologic history there!
     
  3. RollingThunder
    Offline

    RollingThunder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,398
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +886

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......ROTFLMAO....literally...

    # 1 - The article is about the Arctic, not the Antarctic. It boggles my mind just how stupid you have to be to miss that.

    # 2 - "More than 170 million years ago, Antarctica was part of the supercontinent Gondwana. Over time, Gondwana gradually broke apart and Antarctica as we know it today was formed around 25 million years ago."

    Tell us all your denier cult myths about the "movement" of Antarctica, walleyed.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  4. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,949
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,688


    So I mispoke, my point still remains however the whole region moved you dipstick. That is an inconrovertible fact. You are the only person I've ever run across who doesn't seem to understand cause and effect. To get something to move...something else has to move now doesn't it? For all of your smart ass rejoinders you still don't answer the basic questions now do you?
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
    OK, Westwall, some basics, just for you;

    The Basics of Plate Tectonics

    Plate tectonics animations
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
    Damn. I didn't think anyone was still this ignorant! Where the hell have you been living since 1960? Perhaps you failed to notice the paradigm change in geological theory? It is called Plate Tectonics.
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,949
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,688



    Actually plate tectonics has been left in the dust by tectono stratigraphic terrane theory but you wouldn't know a thing about that now would you. And my point still remains the researchers don't mention plate shifting at all now do they? They also don't mention the hundreds of pole shifts that occurred in the same period etc. etc. etc. They only mention what they want to. As they allways do. That's why it is called JUNK SCIENCE.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
    Crap, Walleyed, you are just a dumb fuck throwing out whatever words you can find without any understanding of what they mean.

    Structural Geology 019 Primer - Professor Merguerian, 2002

    Tectonostratigraphic Units



    In metamorphic terranes, tectonostratigraphic units can best be described as large-scale tracts of land underlain by bedrock with similar age range, protolith paleoenvironment, and structure. Such terranes are generally bounded by ductile-fault zones (mylonites), surfaces of unconformity, or brittle faults. Unravelling the collisional plate-tectonic history of mountain belts is greatly facilitated by identifying former cratonic (ancient crustal), continental-margin, continental-slope-, and rise, deep-oceanic, and volcanic-island tectonostratigraphic units. The major distinction in unravelling complexly deformed mountain belts is to identify former shallow-water shelf deposits (originally deposited on continental crust) and to separate them from deep-water oceanic deposits (originally deposited on oceanic crust). The collective adjectives miogeosynclinal (for the shallow-water shelf deposits) and eugeosynclinal (for the deep-water oceanic deposits) have been applied to the products of these contrasting depositional realms.


    It is a unit, not a theory. And is part of the story in Tectonics.

    Numerous posters here have presented interesting articles on the reality of the present warming. You have presented the work of known charlatans and liars like Watts. Grow up, quit lying, get a life.
     
  9. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,949
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,688




    I suggest you try going to a university and speaking with a geology professor. Plate Tectonics was first proposed in a poem by Harry Hess (which was merely a continuation of the theory presented by Alfred Wegener and ridiculed by the scientists of the time BTW) and was the unifying theory of modern geology from then till the late 70's when the theory of tectono stratigraphic terranes was brought forward to deal with the difficulties found in California among other places TST's are indeed a part of plate tectonics but they have become the dominant method in decribing geomorphic provinces. Plate tectonics is not detailed enough to tell us what is happening in any one particular area. It is a general description of the engine that drives the car.

    And old fraud the charlatans of AGW theory have everyone else beat hands down. Please show me where Watts is lying about anything. Just one thing please. I can show dozens of things the AGW frauds are lying about...it's no longer just junk science, now it is criminal you twit.
     
  10. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Before I write anything else I want to thank people like trollingblunder and his alter ego Oldsocks, for their tireless efforts to show the truth in their AGW theorists pseudo-science.. Without their efforts and continued posting of flawed and obvious twisted half truths and garbage derived from SOME science. I would not have been able to out them as frauds so easily... THank you guys!

    Okay looking above you may have noticed I bolded and underlined some points of interest... As I have said in the past repeatedly; the politics of AGW takes the science and twists it to give a desired outcome. Oldsocks and his army of ditto head pseudo-scientists trolls have proven this time and time again... We will now show this once more using their own source to do it...

    1. The article headline states;"Ancient records confirm Arctic warming due to man" And upon reading the article we find nothing of the sort... THats right nothing... They say repeatedly as you can see in the bolded and underlined parts above what they actually say. Words like "modeling study suggests" start the whole thing giving the reality behind it. modeling studies... As in computer models... The same types which told us a few years ago we would have an Ice free arctic by 2050... Notice they upped it to 2100 now? yeah convenient because the warming they claimed has already been proven inaccurate..

    So by their own admission this was made using computer models that are all too often wrong and usually geared to give a desired outcome... The climate gate scandal and the hockey stick graph shows this all too well... Computer models can be manipulated to show any desired result. And that has been a part of the AGW crowd history already..

    2. Notice I also bolded the words "orbital variations" a great deal... yeah you remember that, thats the kind of thing they try to dismiss as being milankovic cycles whenever its mentioned... You mention orbital variations to any of the AGW pundits and you will get to hear milankovic cycles and then a complete dismissal of everything else you say about it.. Isn't that right OLSOCKS? yep you just tired that the other day with me didn't you douchebag.....

    I have said repeatedly how they do not take into account this very concept and try to attribute all past, present and future climate changes to CO2 and greenhouse gases. They attributed ice ages to the lack of CO2, and warming periods to the abundance of them like a broken record... And yet here we see them citing scientists who tell us point blank the previous ice ages and warmings were caused by orbital variations..... WTF? Talk about an abrupt about face..... LOL if you ever needed any evidence of this being more a political agenda than a scientific one, there you go... One hand they deny the suns importance and dismiss it as milankovic cycles, and then when it suits them they suddenly do a 180 and use those factors to make another claim... no shame at all... only politicians try this shit.......

    SOOOOO.... Trolls what happened? Why the about face all of a sudden? Just the other day you two tried to portray orbital variations which are a apart of overall solar variance, as being dismissed by milankovic cycles, and attributed past, present and future warming to CO2 and GG almost exclusively... yet now you suddenly turn it all around and pretend nothing is different....

    YOU fucking people are beyond pathetic....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
     

Share This Page