Overlord Glacier – click image to enlarge
Tree stumps at the feet of Western Canadian glaciers are providing new insights into the accelerated rates at which the rivers of ice have been shrinking due to human-aided global warming.
Geologist Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster found the deceptively fresh and intact tree stumps beside the retreating glaciers of Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 km) north of Vancouver, British Columbia. What he wanted to know was how long ago the glaciers made their first forays into a long-lost forest to kill the trees and bury them under ice.
To find out, Koch radiocarbon-dated wood from the stumps to see how long they have been in cold storage. The result was a surprising 7000 years.
“It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time,” Koch said. “From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years.”
The Oil Patch Boys will find some greedy pedant who will say the stumps don’t exist. Politicians will “take a stand” for ennui. Fools will believe ’em.
Its nice to see the forest returning from the ice fields. O.K. so thats enviro-heresy…
Maybe this idea?
I wonder how well a scourge made primarily of carbon would sell? Sequestering the carbon and periodically whipping yourself with it to remind you of your warming sins! What a combo! It seems it should work with the carbon offset/indulgence schemes anyway.
Boy the sheer ignorance and misinformation in this thread is mind boggling. #17, #25, and #26 seem to be the only ones with a clue.
But why should I bother. The big global changing disaster is not Global Warming but Peak Oil.
#17- Thank s Phillep, and others, for bring up those obscure facts about earth’s ancient climate. I find it interesting that kids are taught more about the ancient history of dead things, like Dinosaurs, than how the world’s climate has changed over the centuries. So now, they’re mostly clueless about it’s natural, non-manmade, cycles and trends. So when some big bag of wind, like Al Gore, jumps up and makes a cause out of it. They all believe he’s right, and that something has to be done. This is pretty much how Hitler came to power, and started the Hitler youth. So we’d better keep a wary eye on this Al Gore fella. Or history might just repeat itself.
As for those ancient frozen tree stomps. Apparently it was much warmer up there prior to 7,000 year ago. That was centuries after the native americans had migrated across the Bering Straits, from Siberia, into what is now Canada and then down into the rest of the Americas. They did this 10 – 20,000 years ago. When it was fair more pleasant walking weather up there. AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, that Al Gore fails to bring up. Long after that migration, the climate cooled and forced all but the more hardy and stubborn from living up there.But before the north got all frozen up, native man had little problem with life on a slightly warmer earth. As did thousands of other living things. So what is the big whoop all about? I think the Oil Patch Boys are secretly worried that the northern states (and Canada) will someday NOT need so much heating oil to stay alive thru winter. So naturally, they would prefer the top third of the world stayed cold too.
#25 & #27- BTW, I also think we should do more (all we can) to improve and clean up the environment. Hell, I want an all electric car, that I can afford, RIGHT NOW! And not have to wait another 20 years or more. All Al Gore can dream up is “alternative fuel” cars, which still pollute nearly as much as gasoline and diesel. And keep the Fuel Producing industry alive and wealthy. They’d have a much harder time trying to monopolize the electric power industry.
But all that said, we have to be careful how much environmentalism we go in for. The poop on what was ultimately responsible for the California fires, was preventing ALL natural occuring fires thining out the dead undergrowth. Which just provided more fuel, during a dry spell, to burn everything up.
#30- I think that Rush Limbaugh is just an reverse propagandist. Like what someone accused movie director Oliver Stone of being. Rush’s job is to cause more people to believe in Global Warming, by ranting out against it. Because he (and his handlers) know, that he’s not taken seriously by anyone but rednecks. So by his expressing of his lame ass opposition to G.W., he only manages to lend credence to it. And naturally he blame it all on the Liberals. He must really want the democrats to win next time.
Glad to see that there are so many others out there who aren’t being brain-washed into believing the global-alarmists. Nice! As for me. I’ll be the one buying all the cheap coastal land, where everyone one else wants to leave because they think they’ll be flooded out.
#6 UTH – We pop up only to point out the fucking obvious to the braindead.
I love the “just in case” crowd. Reducing pollution and becoming more efficient energy users is a good thing and a noble goal. However, destroying our economy and giving up everything that makes life worth living “just in case” is absolutely ridiculous. Give up what you want, but DO NOT force those same things on others.
Gore and his buddies are not interested in cleaning up the environment. They want to enhance their social prestige, the amount of privilege they enjoy compared to the rest of us, their power, and their wealth.
Actually cleaning up the environment means they could not take off in their private jets, or run around in their stretch limo’s and SUVs. They don’t want that.
Scot, I certainly hope we can delay onset of the next glaciation, but continue to regard claims that we can as wishful thinking. There is a maximum CO2 level beyond which CO2 no longer acts as a greenhouse gas. Know what it is?
Doing what the activists want is a completly different subject.
Consider Kyoto:
Little or no actual reduction of CO2.
Relocating industries that could pollute from countries where polluting was discouraged (if not very well) to countries where laws are passed solely for the purpose of gathering bribes from people who wish to break the laws.
Massive payments to 3rd world governments without oversight of what they do with the money.
I had several other points at one time. Kyoto was a scam. So are “carbon credits”.
The people behind the activists are in it for power, not the environment.
#44 – Phillep,
There is a maximum CO2 level beyond which CO2 no longer acts as a greenhouse gas. Know what it is?
Well, given that Venus actually gets less sun at the surface than Earth due to its higher albedo, I’d suggest asking the Venusians that don’t exist because their planet is too hot due to runaway CO2 as a GHG.
Consider Kyoto:…
You mean to say that the fact that they gave out too many carbon credits in Kyoto and hence failed to reduce CO2 is evidence that we shouldn’t try to do it right?
Carbon credits are not a scam. They need to be auctioned. A minimum price needs to be set so that they do not trade near a zero price. This way, the market will not be flooded. And, corps will be encouraged to come in below the cap.
The people behind the activists are in it for power, not the environment.
Unlike the corporations that sold you the bill of goods that you are now spouting? Always consider your sources. Always recognize that of the 100 largest financial entities in the world, 51 are corporations, only 49 are nations. When the corporations try to sell you almond flavored Kool-Aid, don’t drink it.
In the grand power scheme of the world, the activists are mere ants to be stepped on by the corporate powers that be world-wide.
Misanthropic Scott –
All this proves is that things were hotter in Greenland 7000 years ago.
#46 – Frank IBC,
Thanks for helping to confirm the point I made in post #43. Do you think this is a lone data point? Do you not see that there is an enormous pattern of data corroborating and re-corroborating and re-re-corroborating the existence of anthropogenic global warming? What do you think you get by denying reality until it smacks you in the face?
Is there a possibility that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong and the few crackpots on the fringe are right? Of course.
Are you willing to bet the future of civilization and humanity on a very very long shot? Apparently you are.
Those forest fires in the West Coast were caused by not enough global warming. More global warming leads to more hurricanes, which means moister conditions, making it harder for fires to spread. This year was particularly low for hurricanes.
#44 “There is a maximum CO2 level beyond which CO2 no longer acts as a greenhouse gas. Know what it is?”
,a href=”http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/”>Bull Crap
Why electric cars and higher gas mileage don’t work:
Well, with higher gas mileage, people will drive more as their cost of driving is now lower. So you won’t get the emissions reductions you think you will get. It’s possible you may even get more emissions.
If in fact you get less emissions, then this means less money for government in the form of gas taxes. Governments are not going to take that lying down. We’ve already seen plans for monitoring cars driving, and there are plans afoot for charging people based on how many miles they drive. So then you would instead of just signing up for a new sticker, you would have to get inspected every year, or perhaps submit your car for regular tracking.
#33, Frank,
… why is the area at the Equator, the hottest part of the Earth, almost entirely rainforest?
You have to look at more than just the equatorial regions. Just north and south of the equatorial regions are all deserts and dry areas. Bands stretch around the globe and include the Sahara and Kalahari in Africa; most of Australia; Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Pakistan & India, and the Gobi Desert in Asia; Northern Mexico and South-Western US and Southern Argentina and Chili in the Americas.
Basically, the moist air from these regions are sucked up, move towards the equator in the upper atmosphere, dump their rain and then move back to the dry regions to pick up more moisture in a circular cycle.
Past these bands are the Temperate Zones where most people live and most of the world’s food is grown. During the last Ice Age, the Temperate Zones were pushed closer to the Equator by the advancing Polar (Arctic) Zones. This caused trees to grow quite well in the Sahara among other deserts.
If the cooler Polar Zones retreat than the dry zones can be expected to grow too. That would mean the corn belt would be too dry to grow crops. And not just in North America but all Temperate regions.
NOTE: This is a very simple explanation, local geography and ocean currents also influence the various zones too.
#20 – Tucson Geek
“Just because the majority of so-called experts says it’s so doesn’t make it true. Most often, it’s the little guys with the “crackpot” ideas that are right. You know, nutjobs like Einstein, Hawking, etc.”
Jayzus, what a fucking idiotic statement.
Here’s a clue for you from the Real World; every hour of every day, all over the planet, scientists, going on the findings of the majority of experts in their respective fields, advance science further. That’s how it works. Millions and millions of theories that mesh thoroughly with what is already known are formulated, tested, and accepted for every ONE radical departure from the consensus.
Once in a very, very great while, a lone wolf will champion a theory that turns the accepted wisdom on it’s head – but 99.9999999%+ of the time, the consensus of experts is correct. And no matter what the consensus is in regard to, there are ALWAYS naysayers, cranks, frauds and fools who say differently. And they are virtually ALWAYS WRONG.
The are people who claim that perpetual motion is possible, and “the experts are all wrong.” There are people who claim that the Earth is flat, and “the experts are all wrong.” There are people who claim that HIV doesn”t cause AIDS, and “all the experts are wrong.”
And I could go on all day with citations of the clowns who insanely imagine their pet lunacies trump the collective knowledge and experience of the community of science.
Another thing that morans who denigrate science never seem to notice is that when a radical theory is espoused, if those promoting it put up, in the form of scientifically credible evidence, they will be listened to – and if their theories have any validity, they will be taken seriously.
And I’d really like to know where you get the bizarre idea that Einstein and Hawking are out-of-the-mainstream radicals; they are reknowned as two of the greatest scientists in human history, not fringe, tinfoil-hat enemies of the scientific establishment. And that’s because they could – unlike the crackpots and frauds – back up their theories.
This bullshit “one brave radical genius against the ignorant, hidebound establishment” schtick is OK fodder for science fiction stories and Hollywood movies, but it doesn’t happen once in ten million times. You are truly one naïve fool. The very highly-paid, very slick, very professional propagandists for the denialists have snowed you.
Like others have already said in so many words, if the scientific consensus is wrong, then so what? The flow of incalculable sums of money to a tiny number of incredibly wealthy people will be slowed down slightly, having been diverted from profit to socially responsible expenditure. Boo-fucking-hoo. What a catastrophe. No, let’s dismiss what the people who know the most about the topic have to say, and take a chance on mankind’s future existence so we don’t interfere with the ultrarich’s God-given right to get even richer.
I’ve asked it before and I’ll ask it again – and not a one of you apologists for the greedheads can ever answer the question; One side and one side alone on this issue has trillions of dollars to be made or not be made. Do you actually believe that that side is going to tell the truth? Scientists say one thing and moneygrubbers say the opposite. Who’s got the motive to lie? Cui bono?
C’mon, prove you’re not a sucker for capitalist propaganda.
Powergrabbers are on one side of the issue, while people who enjoy driving cars say another.
Thanks Unspeakable, it really just seems like the logical choice to me. Better to err on the side of caution. If the energy bill goes through it will be a step in the right direction.
MikeN. What are you talking about? A higher fuel economy standard would not result in more driving, that is a ridiculous notion. At the end of the day a fuel economy standard of 35 mpg could only help.
Do you really know people who would just go out joyriding because their cars would go furhter on a gallon? Doesn’t seem to make any sense.
Hi,
I’m of the opinion that a meteor strike sometime between 15-20k years ago started the ice age. Since then it has been warming as the earth’s precession arc grows wider.
Reason for ice age? Strike caused rapid presession changes that caused the earth to freeze up. Think of it as striking a top as it’s spinning. Rapid changes can cause the poles to get LESS light than they do now.
Think,
use that brain you have.
Significant strikes near the poles may cause this rapid precession
I stand by this.
Mike +