Giant Ant Fossil and Climate Change

[betsy]

The recent discovery of a Giant Ant fossil also reveals that man may have little part, if any at all, in the climate change we're having now.

Fossil of a giant ant found in North America

The fossil of a gigantic ant, similar to ones that lived 50 million years ago in Europe, has been found for the first time in North America.

The new North American species was named Titanomyrma lubei and is believed to be closely related to the German giant ant species.

The climate in both Germany and Wyoming during the Early Eocene was hot and steamy "like the kind of heat you'd find today in Panama or Central America," Archibald said.

The similar fossils on both sides of the Atlantic suggest giant ants somehow travelled between Europe and North America.

On one hand, that was plausible because there was a land bridge near Greenland connecting the two continents. There was just one problem — it wasn't very hot there.

"The mystery is how [they] could have passed through this temperate climate region," Archibald said.

A closer examination of climate patterns in the Arctic shows that there were brief periods of global warming during the Early Eocene when the climate may have reached tropical temperatures.

"A physiological gate of climate could have opened periodically and allowed tropical adapted organisms to pass between continents," Archibald said.

Similarly, he said, recent reports of dragonflies in northern Canada, where they haven't been seen before, suggests that insects can expand their ranges in response to climate change in a very short amount of time.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/05/06/science-giant-ant-archibald.html

I saw this news on tv (either CBC or CTV). The guy they interviewed (I don't know if it's the same guy in this article) - an ardent environmentalist I guess - couldn't resist adding his own spin. After explaining that there were periods of climate changes in history "like what we're having now," he also added, "of course ours is man-made!"

Partisanship is entrenched in science now....one needs to be careful sifting through the *BSs*.

Just give us straight science, please. Don't make conclusions, especially when it's contradicted by your own discovery! Anyway that's another topic for another section!

Earth is going through a cycle. Ancient history had shown peoples abandoning their homes and moving to other places...suggesting they were forced to, perhaps by nature.

Federal tackling of climate change must concentrate on adaptation to that change. As this discovery suggests, we cannot afford to waste money on something we can not reverse.

Edited May 7, 2011 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

I think global warming is a combination of several factors, some of them out of our control, but some of them in our control. I think the wise thing to do would be to aware of what is and isn't in our control and act accordingly, rather than just dismiss it all as 'nothing we can do about it.' Makes sense to at least lessen the effects if we can.

Just watched "Arctic Mission, the Great Adventure" about the effects of climate change in the Arctic. Very interesting how it will affect the whole world, and it will affect the whole world.

Note that your source shows that things have become extinct due to climate change; if we can help prevent that from happening again, wouldn't it be beneficial to do so?

[betsy]

I think global warming is a combination of several factors, some of them out of our control, but some of them in our control. I think the wise thing to do would be to aware of what is and isn't in our control and act accordingly, rather than just dismiss it all as 'nothing we can do about it.' Makes sense to at least lessen the effects if we can.

What is actually within our control when it comes to climate change?

Practicality is the answer.

Just watched "Arctic Mission, the Great Adventure" about the effects of climate change in the Arctic. Very interesting how it will affect the whole world, and it will affect the whole world.

Of course it will affect the world.

Note that your source shows that things have become extinct due to climate change; if we can help prevent that from happening again, wouldn't it be beneficial to do so?

Some things will become extinct. How many undiscovered species have come and gone right under our noses as we speak? If they can't adapt, they die. That's nature.

If we need to prevent anything from extinction....it's mankind.

Edited May 7, 2011 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

What is actually within our control when it comes to climate change?

Plenty of knowledgeable people have put that information out there, so I won't get into it again. I'm sure you're already aware of it as you seem to be dismissing what they've had to say with this find, with this thread.

Practicality is the answer.

How so? Not sure what you mean by that. Are you agreeing with those who say that man is the cause? I don't believe man is the total cause, but certainly a contributing factor.

Of course it will affect the world.

So it shouldn't be dismissed with a 'there's nothing we can do about it' attitude.

Some things will become extinct. How many undiscovered species have come and gone right under our noses as we speak? If they can't adapt, they die. That's nature.

Sometimes it's not a matter of not being able to adapt, of "that's nature." Man's actions and "nature" are two different things. For example, cutting down the rain forests isn't "nature," it's man.

If we need to prevent anything from extinction....it's mankind.

Not only mankind. If we don't care about anything else, if we don't respect nature and the earth we live on, we diminish our chances of survival; we increase our chances of extinction. It's all important, not just mankind.

[betsy]

Plenty of knowledgeable people have put that information out there, so I won't get into it again. I'm sure you're already aware of it as you seem to be dismissing what they've had to say with this find, with this thread.

I'm dismissing those rabid environmentalists who - for crying out loud - insists putting corks on cows!

Or those whose ideas would mean hurting our economy!

Or those whose ideas would mean us doing all the fruitless efforts of saving....since some parts of the world aren't going to do their share!

How so? Not sure what you mean by that. Are you agreeing with those who say that man is the cause? I don't believe man is the total cause, but certainly a contributing factor.

Yes man contribute with pollution, unplanned and indiscriminate cutting down trees....but how do you make those countries who do that to stop it?

So it shouldn't be dismissed with a 'there's nothing we can do about it' attitude.

What with all the complications going on trying to come up uniting all nations to agree and be on the same page....time's running out, don't you think so?

By accepting the fact that there's hardly anyone can do to stop it....we'll tend to focus on adaptation!

Investments should be made on adaptation. Future job-creations will be in the technology/process/science of adaptation!

Sometimes it's not a matter of not being able to adapt, of "that's nature." Man's actions and "nature" are two different things. For example, cutting down the rain forests isn't "nature," it's man.

Not only mankind. If we don't care about anything else, if we don't respect nature and the earth we live on, we diminish our chances of survival; we increase our chances of extinction. It's all important, not just mankind.

Getting the other countries to agree that something has to be done is one thing. Getting them to actually do their share is another.

If situation is getting so dire, and that time is ticking so fast.....well we better not wait for the rest of the world. We better think and act how to survive this and still live well. Fast.

Edited May 7, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

The recent discovery of a Giant Ant fossil also reveals that man may have little part, if any at all, in the climate change we're having now.

You're actually trying to say that, because climate change took place over 50 million years, the climate change witnessed over the last 100 years is definitely not influenced by human industry? Wow.

[betsy]

You're actually trying to say that, because climate change took place over 50 million years, the climate change witnessed over the last 100 years is definitely not influenced by human industry? Wow.

Note that the article indicated more than one episode of climate change.

Let me ask you this: What do you think caused those past climate changes?

[Guest American Woman]

I'm dismissing those rabid environmentalists who - for crying out loud - insists putting corks on cows!

This is what you said (emphasis mine): "The recent discovery of a Giant Ant fossil also reveals that man may have little part, if any at all, in the climate change we're having now." "Little," "if any." Sounds to me as if you're dismissing most, if not all, environmentalists, not just those rabid ones you now refer to.

Or those whose ideas would mean hurting our economy!

This attitude is what I'm talking about. Concerning ourselves with this problem will ultimately do more to save mankind than only being concerned with hurting the economy will. Furthermore, being shortsighted will, I believe, ultimately hurt the economy, too. If we put some effort into trying to deal with the problem now, we will benefit all the way around in the long run. It just makes sense.

Or those whose ideas would mean us doing all the fruitless efforts of saving....since some parts of the world aren't going to do their share!

I agree that expectations, such as Kyoto, should apply to the whole world equally. I don't believe it will do any good to put restrictions on our country only to in fact encourage corporations to take their business, and their pollution, elsewhere. I think the same standards should apply no matter where the corporation is operating out of.

Yes man contribute with pollution, unplanned and indiscriminate cutting down trees....but how do you make those countries who do that to stop it?

Do you think we're not doing it? It wasn't the people of the Amazon cutting all of those trees down. We start with making us stop, and then not buying products from those who do - just as many nations have stopped the importation of seal products from Canada. Same with ivory products from Africa. If we're not doing it and not providing a market for it, the diminished demand will help improve the situation.

What with all the complications going on trying to come up uniting all nations to agree and be on the same page....time's running out, don't you think so?

The clock is ticking, no doubt about it. I don't understand why there isn't a uniform expectation. We can't get all countries to agree, but seems to me the developed nations should be able to agree that the same expectations should apply to all - and apply those expectations within their own nations, and that includes regarding imports.

By accepting the fact that there's hardly anyone can do to stop it....we'll tend to focus on adaptation!

I think we need to also put some of the focus on preserving what we can.

Investments should be made on adaptation. Future job-creations will be in the technology/process/science of adaptation!

Why can't there be both? Investments in doing what we can to save what we can and investments on adaptation?

Getting the other countries to agree that something has to be done is one thing. Getting them to actually do their share is another.

I agree, but we do have the power to react to what they do or don't do. Doing nothing ourselves isn't the answer, and it's shirking our responsibility by shifting the blame elsewhere.

If situation is getting so dire, and that time is ticking so fast.....well we better not wait for the rest of the world. We better think and act how to survive this and still live well. Fast.

I agree, as discussed above. But "living well" will involve changes in order to ultimately not destroy what we have, and I don't see taking the 'we do little, if anything, to cause what's happening' attitude as productive along those lines.

[g_bambino]

Note that the article indicated more than one episode of climate change.

Yes; they're called ice ages.

Let me ask you this: What do you think caused those past climate changes?

It doesn't matter. The question is: are humans and their carbon-belching industries causing it (or, at least, putting it into hyperdrive) now? Climate change over tens of thousands of years is not the same as similar changes in climate occurring over 100 or 200 years. When what's shown itself to naturally only happen very slowly is seen to be happening at a hitherto unknown, relatively rapid rate, it's obvious something that was never present in the past is related to the unique events being witnessed today.

[Molly]

Let me get this right: A creationist is introducing fossil ants as evidence of climate change having occurred in the early part of the eocene epoch ( hoping thereby to refute the human role in the current climate shift....)

Excuse me while I just... back away... slowly...

[yarg]

I think global warming is a combination of several factors, some of them out of our control, but some of them in our control.

It's nice that you think that, good for you, but so what?

There is no proof that we are responsible or even if a climate change is occurring, plenty of theories, lots of data, but no real proof.

[BubberMiley]

If they can't adapt, they die. That's nature.

You mean "survival of the fittest?"

[betsy]

Yes; they're called ice ages.

The article indicated "global warming"....not global freezing.

It doesn't matter. The question is: are humans and their carbon-belching industries causing it (or, at least, putting it into hyperdrive) now?

How much carbon is belched by one forest fire alone? Taking out all the cars would hardly make a dent!

Climate change over tens of thousands of years is not the same as similar changes in climate occurring over 100 or 200 years. When what's shown itself to naturally only happen very slowly is seen to be happening at a hitherto unknown, relatively rapid rate, it's obvious something that was never present in the past is related to the unique events being witnessed today.

Who sez?

[betsy]

Let me get this right: A creationist is introducing fossil ants as evidence of climate change

And? Is there any problem with that?

Edited May 7, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

And?

Didn't you know the fossils were a ruse to test your faith?

[Shwa]

Let me get this right: A creationist is introducing fossil ants as evidence of climate change having occurred in the early part of the eocene epoch ( hoping thereby to refute the human role in the current climate shift....)

Excuse me while I just... back away... slowly...

Come off it Molly, we all know that the ant fossil is only 6 thousand years old!

[betsy]

This is what you said (emphasis mine): "The recent discovery of a Giant Ant fossil also reveals that man may have little part, if any at all, in the climate change we're having now." "Little," "if any."

Well take it anyway you want....but as the discovery suggests this seems to be a natural cycle!

Unless off course those ants and other humongous beasts are like gas-emitting cows!

I don't think there's anything irrational with my quoted statement, "man may have little part, if any at all in the climate change we're having now.

How many forest fires do we have in a year? Do other fires (house fires) give the same effect? What about volcanic eruptions?

Environmentally-wise I'm more concerned with pollution in our waters.

This attitude is what I'm talking about. Concerning ourselves with this problem will ultimately do more to save mankind than only being concerned with hurting the economy will.

Let's say we go along with the enviuronmentalists' demand and do all they suggest - hoping this will reverse the situation - that eventually hurt the economy. What happens if and when we find out it's not reversible. And we're broke?

Economy means money. Without money, where will we be?

Furthermore, being shortsighted will, I believe,

Preparing to adapt is not shortsighted by any means.

ltimately hurt the economy, too. If we put some effort into trying to deal with the problem now, we will benefit all the way around in the long run. It just makes sense.

Adaptation opens up a door to massive job creations. Furthermore...the implementation can come handy if ever the fear of climate-change disaster doesn't materialize as feared. Hypothetically, provinces that are projected to become dessert-like can benefit from adaptation-method should they be hit by regular drought.

Do you think we're not doing it? It wasn't the people of the Amazon cutting all of those trees down. We start with making us stop, and then not buying products from those who do - just as many nations have stopped the importation of seal products from Canada. Same with ivory products from Africa. If we're not doing it and not providing a market for it, the diminished demand will help improve the situation.

It's a nice thought.....but runs along the same lines as Lennon's "Imagine." Wish it were that simple. Do you think we're the only ones buying the Amazon trees, ivory from Africa, etc..?

We cannot rely on other countries, that's the bottom line. Can you really take countries like China seriously when they say they'll do something about it? Heck, they poison their own people. They can't even control hazardous substances from their toys, their babies' milk, food...

The clock is ticking, no doubt about it. I don't understand why there isn't a uniform expectation. We can't get all countries to agree, but seems to me the developed nations should be able to agree that the same expectations should apply to all - and apply those expectations within their own nations, and that includes regarding imports.

Corruptions runs in all places....and most rampant in others. That's the sad reality.

I think we need to also put some of the focus on preserving what we can.

Especially what we'll need for our own stress-free survival. Like our forests, our waters, our agriculture etc.., Let's have none of that Mad Max apocalyptic scenario.

Why can't there be both? Investments in doing what we can to save what we can and investments on adaptation?

We have to remain focused. Better to plan for the worst scenario. We cannot afford to make half-baked plans with no rooms for corrections should we make some mistakes along the way.

Besides, as pointed out...what's the point of investing in the prevention when you can't get or rely on the other countries to do exactly as planned. So are we just going to throw money away just so we can say we're doing our part to prevent it?

With our aging population, the economic problems etc.,....we can only afford so much.

Edited May 7, 2011 by betsy

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Well take it anyway you want....but as the discovery suggests this seems to be a natural cycle!

Unless off course those ants and other humongous beasts are like gas-emitting cows!

I don't think there's anything irrational with my quoted statement, "man may have little part, if any at all in the climate change we're having now.

How many forest fires do we have in a year? Do other fires (house fires) give the same effect? What about volcanic eruptions?

Environmentally-wise I'm more concerned with pollution in our waters.

Let's say we go along with the enviuronmentalists' demand and do all they suggest - hoping this will reverse the situation - that eventually hurt the economy. What happens if and when we find out it's not reversible. And we're broke?

Economy means money. Without money, where will we be?

Preparing to adapt is not shortsighted by any means.

Adaptation opens up a door to massive job creations. Furthermore...the implementation can come handy if ever the fear of climate-change disaster doesn't materialize as feared. Hypothetically, provinces that are projected to become dessert-like can benefit from adaptation-method should they be hit by regular drought.

It's a nice thought.....but runs along the same lines as Lennon's "Imagine." Wish it were that simple. Do you think we're the only ones buying the Amazon trees, ivory from Africa, etc..?

We cannot rely on other countries, that's the bottom line. Can you really take countries like China seriously when they say they'll do something about it? Heck, they poison their own people. They can't even control hazardous substances from their toys, their babies' milk, food...

Corruptions runs in all places....and most rampant in others. That's the sad reality.

Especially what we'll need for our own stress-free survival. Like our forests, our waters, our agriculture etc.., Let's have none of that Mad Max apocalyptic scenario.

We have to remain focused. Better to plan for the worst scenario. We cannot afford to make half-baked plans with no rooms for corrections should we make some mistakes along the way.

Besides, as pointed out...what's the point of investing in the prevention when you can't get or rely on the other countries to do exactly as planned. So are we just going to throw money away just so we can say we're doing our part to prevent it?

With our aging population, the economic problems etc.,....we can only afford so much.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

You're actually trying to say that, because climate change took place over 50 million years, the climate change witnessed over the last 100 years is definitely not influenced by human industry? Wow.

[Battletoads]

Let me get this right: A creationist is introducing fossil ants as evidence of climate change having occurred in the early part of the eocene epoch ( hoping thereby to refute the human role in the current climate shift....)

Excuse me while I just... back away... slowly...

*Claps*

I swear, I'd think he was high or drunk or both if I didn't know better.

[ninjandrew]

Note that your source shows that things have become extinct due to climate change; if we can help prevent that from happening again, wouldn't it be beneficial to do so?

In a manner of speaking, but historically extinction is a natural process that would occur without morons creating it, just nature. So some extinction is fine (but still kinda sad), but other extinction is the result of brainless ignorance. If you ever watch any Discovery documentaries youll be aware of them tracking an animal dying of dehydration/starvation or something, than just letting it die. Its just the order of things.

SO. As much as I like nature, I also think it's important for us to distinguish between things that can be prevented/remedied from things that SHOULD be prevented/remedied. That way we're minimizing our impact on the environment, without wasting money interfering with the natural order of things (more than we need to).

Also, why did carbon emissions take all the attention away from all the other emissions? Like the ones that mess people up. On the east side of Edmonton is the eastend industrial area. East of that is Sherwood Park where all the emissions are blown, and which also happens to have the most cases of asthma in at least the province. Oh yes. Than theres the case of the oil sands poisoning the whole population of Ft. Chipewyan, which has the most cases of stomach cancer in Canada.

[cybercoma]

Let me get this right: A creationist is introducing fossil ants as evidence of climate change having occurred in the early part of the eocene epoch ( hoping thereby to refute the human role in the current climate shift....)

Excuse me while I just... back away... slowly...

QFT!

[Bonam]

Some things will become extinct. How many undiscovered species have come and gone right under our noses as we speak? If they can't adapt, they die. That's nature.

Surprised to hear this from you. I thought you didn't believe in evolution?

[cybercoma]

How many undiscovered species have come and gone right under our noses as we speak? If they can't adapt, they die. That's nature.

This is a trick question. The answer is ZERO. God didn't create any new species after man. They couldn't possibly have "come and gone right under our noses." Edited May 7, 2011 by cybercoma

[BubberMiley]

This is a trick question. The answer is ZERO. God didn't create any new species after man. They couldn't possibly have "come and gone right under our noses."

Sometimes you gotta argue the Creationist dogma to convince yourself you believe it, even when deep down it's clear you don't.