Log in

View Full Version : DNA reveals Greenland's lush past


speechlesstx
Jul 6, 2007, 09:36 AM
Man, this global warming thing sure is getting complicated...


DNA extracted from ice cores show that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576.stm) in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago.

Writing in the journal Science, the researchers say they believe the DNAs are the oldest pure samples obtained.

The ice cores also suggest that the ice sheet is more resistant to warming than previously thought, the scientists say.

"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 Professor Eske Willerslev from the University of Copenhagen and one of the authors of the paper.

"What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought," said Professor Martin Sharp from the University of Alberta and a co-author of the paper...

"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."

All this ice we want to shield from a meltdown destroyed entire ecosystems teeming with plant and animal life, so why wouldn't we want Greenland to be lush and green again? Oh that's right, "a complete melt of the ice sheet would cause a global sea level rise of about 7m."

The article described the southern ice sheet in Greenland as "more resistant to warming than previously thought," "more stable than previously thought," and noted that "while some regions are thinning, others are apparently getting thicker." And yet, the BBC pointed out other recent findings:


Research by Australian scientists has suggested that a 3C rise in global temperatures would be enough to trigger the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

In 2006, research conducted by researchers at Nasa suggested that the rate of melting of the giant ice sheet had tripled since 2004.

While in February 2006, researchers found that Greenland's glaciers were moving much faster than before, meaning that more of its ice was entering the sea.

And in 1996, Greenland was losing about 100 cubic km per year in mass from its ice sheet; by 2005, this had increased to about 220 cubic km.

A complete melt of the ice sheet would cause a global sea level rise of about 7m

So what's up with the ice in Greenland? Does anyone know? And here's a question, at these allegedly alarming rates of thawing, how much of that will contribute to sea levels and how much is lost to evaporation? And what would significant evaporation mean - more hurricanes, deserts turning green, no more water rationing in California - is that why there's so much flooding right now?

tomder55
Jul 6, 2007, 09:42 AM
I'm trying to recall a time when cold harsh and ice covered has been generally hospitable to life . Sure some life forms adapt to it but generally it is not the best climate to foster and abundance of life .

speechlesstx
Jul 6, 2007, 09:48 AM
I'm trying to recall a time when cold harsh and ice covered has been generally hospitable to life . Sure some life forms adapt to it but generally it is not the best climate to foster and abundance of life .

You would think the environmentalists would be highly in favor of giving so much fauna and flora the opportunity to make a comeback.

ETWolverine
Jul 9, 2007, 06:52 AM
According to my basic biology classes in high school, the most hospitable environment for developing lifeforms is a hot, humid swampy environment.

Why would we assume that cooler is better for the environment?

For that matter, and as I have asked in the past, where did the environmentalists get the idea that the environment we currently have is the optimal environment for life? What makes think that the current environmental condition needs to be "protected" as opposed to some other, possibly better environment?

There's nothing complicated about this issue at all. The science of global warming is fuzzy at best and completely fudged at worst. There is nothing about the science that we need to support. And all the worlds efforts to control global warming have increased the amount of "greenhouse gasses" produced by the very people who claim to wish to decrease greenhouse gas production. We should therefore stop it.

Elliot

iAMfromHuntersBar
Jul 9, 2007, 07:21 AM
I was listening to the radio last night, and they said a couple of things that made me think.

1. There are so many facts and studies out there on a whole raft of information that you can manipulate them to show pretty much whatever you want, no-one actually KNOWS what is going to happen, or what effect we're having on the globe. A lot of the data shows that the warming and cooling of the Earth has happened numerous times throughout the course of history (Greenland obviously being prone to this!)

2. This won't be the end of the world - it will just become less and less hospitable for human beings, the world will adapt and overcome, it always has before, once we're all wiped out (probably from flooding - bloody rain!) the earth will start healing itself.

3. As the OP said, this warming is actually better for the Earth and for many econimies as more plants and crops grow in the hotter, wetter climates.

Anyway, nothings going to happen until about 2050 - my parents left it to their kids to sort out - I think that's what I'm going to do! Lol!

J

speechlesstx
Jul 9, 2007, 07:42 AM
And all the worlds efforts to control global warming have increased the amount of "greenhouse gasses" produced by the very people who claim to wish to decrease greenhouse gas production. We should therefore stop it.

Thanks Elliot. Did you happen to see any coverage of The Goracle's Live Earth festivities (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/08/arts/NA-A-E-MUS-US-Live-Earth.php)?


Critics have faulted the Live Earth concerts for lacking clear-cut, achievable goals, and for lauding rock stars whose jet-setting, high-consumption lifestyles can often send a different, less environmentally friendly message.

Ya think? But hey, at least The Goracle took "mass transit from Washington" to New Jersey,


In London, after fans went home, the stadium's floor was covered with discarded plastic cups and litter.

Sounds like a real "green" crowd to me. What's spooky is The Goracle "appeared onstage in Tokyo as a hologram." Just think, we can now get The Goracle's presence any time, anywhere.

iAMfromHuntersBar
Jul 9, 2007, 07:48 AM
I think Chris Rock summed up the Live Earth proceedings pretty well when he said;

"I pray that this event ends global warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger."

He went on to say something else, but I won't repeat it for fear of being called a racist! Lol!

speechlesstx
Jul 9, 2007, 08:41 AM
"I pray that this event ends global warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger."

Yep, that was a HUGE success, lol. Here's one more quote from the AP article I forgot to add:


The concerts are backed by Gore, whose campaign to force global warming onto the international political stage inspired the event.

I think that my be the first time the MSM has described it correctly, a campaign to "force" it down our throats.