AGW Update: AGW on Ellesmere Island - 2 Million Years Ago

[jbg]

Two million years ago, Al Gore would have had a field day. Apparently, at some point, the climate warmed enough to allow foresting of Ellesmere Island.

2-Million-Year-Old 'Mummy Trees' Reveal Harsh Climate

(link)

SAN FRANCISCO - When rangers came across mummified wood uncovered by a melting glacier in the northernmost Arctic reaches of Canada, they had no idea they were staring at an ancient forest dating back millions of years. Researchers eventually found a twisted tangle of preserved trees that reflects a harsh struggle to survive during an ancient global cooling period.

The spindly trees would have barely hung on during a time when the Arctic climate changed from greenhouse to icehouse, on top of enduring darkness for half of each year. Signs of stress are evident in narrow tree rings and undersized leaves that were preserved at the time of death - when a landslide may have buried the trees alive. [image of mummy leaf]

"We know the climate was really hitting the fan for these guys," said Joel Barker, a biogeochemist at the Byrd Polar Research Center of Ohio State University.

Barker discussed the find here at the 2010 fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. His group's discovery in Ellesmere Island National Park represents the northernmost mummified forest site in Canada.

In other alarming climate news, both Heathrow and Gatwick Airports are closed for heavy snow.

Snow brings travel gridlock on busiest weekend before Christmas

(link)

Blizzard conditions brought large parts of Britain to a standstill on Saturday as major airports closed their runways and roads became impassable during the busiest weekend before Christmas.

Millions of people hoping to make an early getaway faced travel misery as the big freeze brought renewed chaos.

All planes were grounded at London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports.

Forecasters warned that Britain was heading for the coldest December on record, with a current average temperature of minus 0.7C – five degrees below the long-term average.

Blizzards and plummeting temperatures on Friday night, coupled with heavy snow on Saturday, crippled a huge section of the nation's road, air and rail networks, with little sign of the situation improving.

[waldo]

Al Gore is fat!... thawing permafrost and retreating glaciers driven by AGW have helped reveal mummified trees... winter blizzard weather conditions affect Britain

[wyly]

the ellesmere find was great it'll be interesting to see what kid of stuff they can dig out...

[Michael Hardner]

I think I identified this as the #2 common fallacy that's quoted, i.e. carbon CAN'T cause warming because other things cause warming.

[bloodyminded]

I think I identified this as the #2 common fallacy that's quoted, i.e. carbon CAN'T cause warming because other things cause warming.

Add to that record snow levels in the UK.

(Which, just incidentally, is the sort of "extreme weather" that could be used to undermine the anti-AGW arguments, if one were to adopt these anecdotal standards of debate).

[Michael Hardner]

Add to that record snow levels in the UK.

(Which, just incidentally, is the sort of "extreme weather" that could be used to undermine the anti-AGW arguments, if one were to adopt these anecdotal standards of debate).

I really should start a thread listing them.... let's see - the ice age, climategate, the MWP, citing recent weather as proof of something...

[bloodyminded]

I really should start a thread listing them.... let's see - the ice age, climategate, the MWP, citing recent weather as proof of something...

Yeah.

I guess the trick is to separate the wheat from the chaff; to distinguish between those with a genuine wish to debate the matter from those who have plucked talking points without thinking them through. Not that simple a task!

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah.

I guess the trick is to separate the wheat from the chaff; to distinguish between those with a genuine wish to debate the matter from those who have plucked talking points without thinking them through. Not that simple a task!

I believe that policy debates, and debates about some claims of AGW activists have a great potential for a lot of discussion, which is why it's disheartening to see ancient and buried chestnuts resurface again and again.

[Slim]

I believe that policy debates, and debates about some claims of AGW activists have a great potential for a lot of discussion, which is why it's disheartening to see ancient and buried chestnuts resurface again and again.

Yeah, that's what puts me off the discussion sometimes as well.

[wyly]

Add to that record snow levels in the UK.

(Which, just incidentally, is the sort of "extreme weather" that could be used to undermine the anti-AGW arguments, if one were to adopt these anecdotal standards of debate).

extreme winter is more than likely caused by the jet stream shifting the arctic climate...the excess snow would be rain if not for the arctic air mass shift...

[jbg]

I believe that policy debates, and debates about some claims of AGW activists have a great potential for a lot of discussion, which is why it's disheartening to see ancient and buried chestnuts resurface again and again.

And yet every single heat wave is taken as evidence of AGW. A double standard?

[Moonlight Graham]

How is this Ellesmere find AGW?? Did cavemen drive hummers back then?

AGW = HUMAN caused global warming.

Anyone who knows some basic climate history of the earth knows that the planet has gone through many cycles where it's been much hotter and much colder than it is now.

[wyly]

How is this Ellesmere find AGW?? Did cavemen drive hummers back then?

AGW = HUMAN caused global warming.

Anyone who knows some basic climate history of the earth knows that the planet has gone through many cycles where it's been much hotter and much colder than it is now.

it's not it's just jbg trying to make a point and failing badly...

[Shady]

And yet every single heat wave is taken as evidence of AGW. A double standard?

Exactly. That's why Michael continues to be the double standard king around here.

[jbg]

How is this Ellesmere find AGW?? Did cavemen drive hummers back then?

AGW = HUMAN caused global warming.

Anyone who knows some basic climate history of the earth knows that the planet has gone through many cycles where it's been much hotter and much colder than it is now.

it's not it's just jbg trying to make a point and failing badly...

Moonlight Graham gets the point. Wyly doesn't.

[Wild Bill]

I believe that policy debates, and debates about some claims of AGW activists have a great potential for a lot of discussion, which is why it's disheartening to see ancient and buried chestnuts resurface again and again.

That's one way to look at the situation but not the only way, Michael. How about this view?

Some people disagree with the Global Warming Argument, or at least a major facet of it like the premise that it is man-made and therefore within man's ability to control. (I realize that these are two entirely separate premises but dammit! Those who believe in Global Warming seem invariably to think one means both so I'll take them at their word, for the purposes of argument.)

They bring up some contradictory evidence that either attacks their opponents' position or furthers their own. Their opponents refuse to accept it and never do actually refute it, except in their own minds. The evidence or reasoning is dismissed as 'anecdotal', not 'peer-reviewed' or just plain old ad hominem attacks.

Time goes by. More evidence that appears to support the anti-Global Warming evidence appears. What's the response from the GW 'church'?

"What? Are we arguing those old chestnuts again? We decisively disproved that stuff long ago! Didn't you get the memo? We're not wasting our time going over that again!"

See the trick? They judged themselves to be the winners of the argument and then seize the right to declare it "old and proven", thus no longer subject to debate!

"And the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle. What does the turtle rest on? You can't catch me with that one! It's turtles all the way down!"

[lukin]

That's one way to look at the situation but not the only way, Michael. How about this view?

Some people disagree with the Global Warming Argument, or at least a major facet of it like the premise that it is man-made and therefore within man's ability to control. (I realize that these are two entirely separate premises but dammit! Those who believe in Global Warming seem invariably to think one means both so I'll take them at their word, for the purposes of argument.)

They bring up some contradictory evidence that either attacks their opponents' position or furthers their own. Their opponents refuse to accept it and never do actually refute it, except in their own minds. The evidence or reasoning is dismissed as 'anecdotal', not 'peer-reviewed' or just plain old ad hominem attacks.

Time goes by. More evidence that appears to support the anti-Global Warming evidence appears. What's the response from the GW 'church'?

"What? Are we arguing those old chestnuts again? We decisively disproved that stuff long ago! Didn't you get the memo? We're not wasting our time going over that again!"

See the trick? They judged themselves to be the winners of the argument and then seize the right to declare it "old and proven", thus no longer subject to debate!

"And the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle. What does the turtle rest on? You can't catch me with that one! It's turtles all the way down!"

Wild Bill, you are the master of common sense.

[jbg]

They bring up some contradictory evidence that either attacks their opponents' position or furthers their own. Their opponents refuse to accept it and never do actually refute it, except in their own minds. The evidence or reasoning is dismissed as 'anecdotal', not 'peer-reviewed' or just plain old ad hominem attacks.

Exactly.

First of all, "peer review" puts publicly funded scientists under immense pressure not to cut off their source of funding. If they find that climate is naturally quite variable, why th enee to fund studies at university, governmental and U.N. levels? There wouldn't be any such need. No problem = no money.

Time goes by. More evidence that appears to support the anti-Global Warming evidence appears. What's the response from the GW 'church'?

"What? Are we arguing those old chestnuts again? We decisively disproved that stuff long ago! Didn't you get the memo? We're not wasting our time going over that again!"

Similarly, if the "problem" of climate change is cyclical, trying to change it is not feasible. For example, if we do have a new Ice Age, and the glaciers do get to their old extent of places like Long Island (east of New York City and including NYC's eastern boroughs) the dislocation will not be some nomadic hunter/gatherers. It will be close to 200 million people. Why? Because areas such as Washington D.C. would have climates akin to Kugluktuk or at best Iqaluit if NYC is glaciated. Think Ellesmere Island's proximity now to Kugluktuk or Iqaluit. If contrariwise warming of that magnitude kicks in, sea level cities such as New York, New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Franciso and Vancouver will, as Al Gore points out, be submerged. There isn't much we'd be able to do about either development, one or both of which in some historical sweep is almost inevitable.

The point about the Ellesmere forests is that the most likely explanation is either some earlier warming, or perhaps another location for the North Pole. Neither was caused by nor preventable by man. And that's why I posted the article.

[Shady]

Exactly.

First of all, "peer review" puts publicly funded scientists under immense pressure not to cut off their source of funding.

Yep. The biggest con perpetrated by alarmists is the peer-review process. It's completely corrupt, as the CRU emails illustrate. Peer-reviewed only really means alarmist approved.

[Slim]

That's one way to look at the situation but not the only way, Michael. How about this view?

Some people disagree with the Global Warming Argument, or at least a major facet of it like the premise that it is man-made and therefore within man's ability to control. (I realize that these are two entirely separate premises but dammit! Those who believe in Global Warming seem invariably to think one means both so I'll take them at their word, for the purposes of argument.)

They bring up some contradictory evidence that either attacks their opponents' position or furthers their own. Their opponents refuse to accept it and never do actually refute it, except in their own minds. The evidence or reasoning is dismissed as 'anecdotal', not 'peer-reviewed' or just plain old ad hominem attacks.

Okay, I'm going to try and examine your reasoning here. You say that evidence presented by those trying to disprove AGW is usually dismissed as 'anecdotal' or 'not peer-reviewed', correct?

Your opinion is that those reasons are insufficient to legitimately dismiss the evidence, I gather?

Now I'm not a scientist, but I would say that if someone presented evidence that they claimed challenged a well-established and overwhelming accepted theory (such as AGW) and their evidence IS actually anecdotal that's a pretty damn big problem.

In the same vein, if a study comes out that challenges the main theory of AGW, and it isn't peer-reviewed, that's a pretty damn big problem too. From what I understand, if a study isn't peer-reviewed than it loses a lot of credibility (it may not be wrong per se, but it needs to stand up to a review before we can seriously consider it).

That seems to be how science works... you can't just say that your study doesn't have to be peer-reviewed in order to be legitimate.

[jbg]

Yep. The biggest con perpetrated by alarmists is the peer-review process. It's completely corrupt, as the CRU emails illustrate. Peer-reviewed only really means alarmist approved.

To call them alarmists is kind. What is really happening is that these people are willful fraudsters. Little better than Bernie Madoff.

[jbg]

Now I'm not a scientist, but I would say that if someone presented evidence that they claimed challenged a well-established and overwhelming accepted theory (such as AGW) and their evidence IS actually anecdotal that's a pretty damn big problem.

But if a theory does not withstand the test of known, major, real-life events then what good is the theory?

[Shady]

To call them alarmists is kind. What is really happening is that these people are willful fraudsters. Little better than Bernie Madoff.

Good point. And their fraud involves a lot more money than Mr. Madoff.

[jbg]

To call them alarmists is kind. What is really happening is that these people are willful fraudsters. Little better than Bernie Madoff.

Good point. And their fraud involves a lot more money than Mr. Madoff.

And keep in mind I'm coming at this with a left-wing ideology.

[Saipan]

In the same vein, if a study comes out that challenges the main theory of AGW, and it isn't peer-reviewed, that's a pretty damn big problem too. From what I understand, if a study isn't peer-reviewed than it loses a lot of credibility (it may not be wrong per se, but it needs to stand up to a review before we can seriously consider it).

That seems to be how science works... you can't just say that your study doesn't have to be peer-reviewed in order to be legitimate.

It's fairly simple, follow the money. Without this panic thousands of scientists and other alarmists would be looking for job.

Al Gore isn't as dumb as some claim. He made himself filthy rich selling the fear. And fear sells very well. See Hollywood movies since the beginning. We've been attacked by aliens, birds, giant rats, asteroid... ( and I didn't see them all) "Ice age" of the 70's spooked the hell out of lot of people. Florida swamps were selling like hot cakes.

Logically, if this snow and freezing weather is caused by global warm up, then hot and dry summers must be caused by global cool down.