Fossils show Antarctica much warmer and wetter 14.1 million years ago?

[Moontanman]

Moderation note: The first posts in this thread were moved from “My belief in Global Warming is getting shakey”, because it’s not about questioning whether global warming is occurring, but about new scientific data.

 

Hey guys, has anyone read the report of the fossils that show Antarctica to have been much warmer and wetter 14.1 million years ago? It cooled down very fast and stayed that way. Does this have any bearing on the theory that the global set point should be colder rather than warmer?

[freeztar]

Global set point?

[Eclipse Now]

Not as far as I can tell, because one of the more enormous and slow moving forcings is continental drift. Antarctica could have drifted there in that time... I can't be bothered looking it up. Or the Himalayas and Andes mountains could have risen, causing changes in climate.... I know Africa was meant to have become a Savannah because of changes in weather due to the Himalayas rising... but these are LONG term trends.

 

Interestingly most of us apparently use the term 'ice age' incorrectly. 12,000 years ago was a 'glacial period' and now we're back in an 'interglacial period'. The term 'ice age' technically applies to whether or not there is ice on the planet. So technically, we're in an ice age now. Weird hey? So I think the term 'ice age' appears to apply to the long term forcing of continental drift affecting ice patterns on the globe.

[Moontanman]

Not as far as I can tell, because one of the more enormous and slow moving forcings is continental drift. Antarctica could have drifted there in that time... I can't be bothered looking it up. Or the Himalayas and Andes mountains could have risen, causing changes in climate.... I know Africa was meant to have become a Savannah because of changes in weather due to the Himalayas rising... but these are LONG term trends.

 

Interestingly most of us apparently use the term 'ice age' incorrectly. 12,000 years ago was a 'glacial period' and now we're back in an 'interglacial period'. The term 'ice age' technically applies to whether or not there is ice on the planet. So technically, we're in an ice age now. Weird hey? So I think the term 'ice age' appears to apply to the long term forcing of continental drift affecting ice patterns on the globe.

 

14.1 million years isn't enough time for Antarctica to have moved that far. The global set point? Has it been that long since I posted to this thread? The theoretical norm of the Earth's temperature. With out a set point the whole idea of the Earth getting too warm or too cold makes no sense. It was just a thought guys, go back to your routine, I didn't mean to disturb.

[Zythryn]

There is no global set point. Life that currently exists on the planet has adapted to the current temperature range. If that temp changes more rapidly than species can adapt there will be many species that die out. Ecosystems will shift and much economic hardship will be had.

The point isn't 'what should the temperature be'. The point is, how much pain will be involved in the temperature shifting rapidly.

[Moontanman]

There is no global set point. Life that currently exists on the planet has adapted to the current temperature range. If that temp changes more rapidly than species can adapt there will be many species that die out. Ecosystems will shift and much economic hardship will be had.

The point isn't 'what should the temperature be'. The point is, how much pain will be involved in the temperature shifting rapidly.

 

Species will continue to adapt and die out, the change to cold was abrupt and species died out, all climate changes are not gradual. the real problem is harm to human civilization, do we have the right to decide what the temps are? Can we decide? Do we know enough to even think of being able to decide? I'll say it again, are we contributing to climate change, yes, can we stop it, maybe, should we try to stop our contributions? yes. Do we have the right to decide what the Earths temps should be? No. Do we even have the ability to make that decision? No. We are living in a charmed time, the climate has been good for humans for a long time, will it change, yes it will, can we stop any change, No! we might slow it down but the change will happen, cold, hot, what ever, we are along for the ride.

[freeztar]

The recent report on Antartica said that the change happened in a relatively quick time (geologically speaking). Iirc, they stated 200,000 years. That's not exactly "abrupt" like we know it today.

[Zythryn]

Do we have the right to decide what the Earths temps should be? No.

 

Yet we are?

Would not this statement of yours indicate that we should cease all industrial activity (and possibly individual) that adds CO2 to the air?

 

Personally I wouldn't go that far. But I do believe we need to do the best we can to limit the damage to our own civilization.

[Eclipse Now]

Too warm or too cold for whom? A global set point depends on your perspective.

 

Hot seems good for dinosaurs and algae production, but bad for the seas. (Acidic). Good for oil production though.

 

Watch the free movie Crude by the ABC.

 

Crude - the incredible journey of oil - Broadband edition - ABC Science

 

It's got an incredible sting in the tail. 3 parts, 30 minutes each part, well worth a look. And watch all 90 minutes for that sting in the tail! :shrug:

[Moontanman]

Too warm or too cold for whom? A global set point depends on your perspective.

 

Hot seems good for dinosaurs and algae production, but bad for the seas. (Acidic). Good for oil production though.

 

Watch the free movie Crude by the ABC.

 

Crude - the incredible journey of oil - Broadband edition - ABC Science

 

It's got an incredible sting in the tail. 3 parts, 30 minutes each part, well worth a look. And watch all 90 minutes for that sting in the tail!

 

The seas were just as productive for fish and other metazoans during the 100's of millions of years the Earth was much warmer than it is now, Oil has nothing to do with the climate, it's produced by abiogenesis not by fossils of swamp trees or any other fossil process.

 

The deep, hot biosphere.

 

Thomas Gold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Amazon.com: The Deep Hot Biosphere : The Myth of Fossil Fuels: Thomas Gold, Freeman Dyson: Books http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535

 

Geological processes have in recent times, since the time of the dinosaurs, caused the Earth to go cold several times. Personally I think these changes have some connection with the Earth being smacked by the asteroid 65 million years ago, (no proof guys so don't go nuts) such a hit could have had long term internal effects we are not aware of. It does seem the cold spells started after the hit, maybe coincidence, maybe not. I'm not saying we do not have an effect or we are not speeding things up. I just think the Earth is naturally tending toward it's earlier warmer conditions, our influence may be speeding things up but the trend is still upward. Human civilization has developed during a charmed time, few volcanic eruptions few earth quakes, few weather extremes. How much longer can our luck hold out until there is a super volcano eruption or a major glaciation or more likely the total melting of the polar caps. Total melting of the polar caps would bring about another age of shallow seas and a very productive ocean environment like when the dinos ruled. What is bad for us and the cold adapted creatures would be good for all the warm adapted animals. We might prefer the cold adapted Earth but the Earth cares not for our preferences.

[Zythryn]

...Oil has nothing to do with the climate, it's produced by abiogenesis not by fossils of swamp trees or any other fossil process...

 

Sounds like a subject for another thread;) Or feel free to resurrect one of the old threads on abiogenesis of oil. I would be happy to discuss this elsewhere.

On the climate side though, regardless of its source, are you claiming burning oil does not produce CO2?

 

The deep, hot biosphere.

...I'm not saying we do not have an effect or we are not speeding things up. I just think the Earth is naturally tending toward it's earlier warmer conditions, our influence may be speeding things up but the trend is still upward.

 

This is such an odd position. It really doesn't seem internally consistent.

A. Earth has been warmer in the past.

B. Earth is getting warmer.

C. We are helping speed along the process.

D. No need to do anything about it as it is inevitable.

 

This seems akin to driving a car towards a cliff and hitting the accelerator:doh:

[Moontanman]

Sounds like a subject for another thread;) Or feel free to resurrect one of the old threads on abiogenesis of oil. I would be happy to discuss this elsewhere.

On the climate side though, regardless of its source, are you claiming burning oil does not produce CO2?

 

Read my posts, I never said burning oil was a good idea, I've already participated in the whole oil is fossil fuel debate, I won :hyper:

 

This is such an odd position. It really doesn't seem internally consistent.

A. Earth has been warmer in the past.

B. Earth is getting warmer.

C. We are helping speed along the process.

D. No need to do anything about it as it is inevitable.

 

This seems akin to driving a car towards a cliff and hitting the accelerator:doh:

 

I never said any of these things, (whoops, sorry, I never said the last thing..) do not get so carried away that you assume that because I don't agree with everything you say that I must disagree. No matter how you look at it the Earth must get warmer over time, it was warmer far longer than it has been cool since the arrival of complex life. To assume that a cool earth is the natural way of things ignores a lot of data to the contrary. I only question the idea the Earth should be cooler, I do not question the idea we are causing it get warmer at a rate higher that it might without our influence. No, it's more like being in a car with no brakes and assuming we can stop it by not using the accelerator. It might not go faster if we don't use the accelerator but it is going to go down hill no matter what we do. I simply question all the people who seem to think the earth is somehow supposed to be cool, or cool is best, and has been cool most of the time. We haven't been on the Earth long enough to say what is best, and it definitely hasn't been cool most of the time. No matter what we do the earth will get warmer over time, I honestly question how much control we really have, Even if we were to vanish from the earth right now would it get significantly cooler before resuming the warming trend? what is significantly cooler? At what point in time do you look back and say this is how the Earth is supposed to be, if it wasn't for us the Earth would be this way? There is even reason to think our actions might spark another ice age if we don't cut back. So I'll say again yes we should cut back as much as possible but will we get the results we are looking for. at this point it's anybodies guess.

[Eclipse Now]

Read my posts, I never said burning oil was a good idea, I've already participated in the whole oil is fossil fuel debate, I won

 

The vast majority of geologists and oil experts I written to and spoken with disagree with this position. It really is a minority rubbish position propagated by the wonders of the internet! (It must be true because I researched it on the net! :)) Insisting it's true because you 'won' an internet forum debate is some new standard of evaluating a scientific theory! :confused:

 

I only question the idea the Earth should be cooler, I do not question the idea we are causing it get warmer at a rate higher that it might without our influence.

 

The climatologists insist they know why the earth was warmer back in deep pre-history. It appears continental positioning and extra Co2 due to higher volcanic activity influenced climate.

 

So the 'norm' or 'temperature set point' does change over time. The basic facts are that the new norm happens to be quite convenient for human life and agriculture, and we are messing around with that. Raising theoretical objections about 'norms' over tens or hundreds of millions of years introduces data that is now irrelevant to today's climate debate, and quite frankly sounds more like a denialist semantic game rather than contributing anything substantial.

[Moontanman]

The vast majority of geologists and oil experts I written to and spoken with disagree with this position. It really is a minority rubbish position propagated by the wonders of the internet! (It must be true because I researched it on the net! :)) Insisting it's true because you 'won' an internet forum debate is some new standard of evaluating a scientific theory! :confused:

 

No your sources are wrong, abiognesis was the original theory about the origin of oil, you need to look beyond teh internet. I was kidding about winning the argument, it's an untestable assertion, no one can really win.

 

The climatologists insist they know why the earth was warmer back in deep pre-history. It appears continental positioning and extra Co2 due to higher volcanic activity influenced climate.

 

There are other factors at work, do some research.

 

So the 'norm' or 'temperature set point' does change over time. The basic facts are that the new norm happens to be quite convenient for human life and agriculture, and we are messing around with that. Raising theoretical objections about 'norms' over tens or hundreds of millions of years introduces data that is now irrelevant to today's climate debate, and quite frankly sounds more like a denialist semantic game rather than contributing anything substantial.

 

I'm not a denialist, global warming is real, all I wanted to know was if anyone had read the Science news about the warmer past for Antarctica and if it had any bearing on this discussion. Go back to arguing the same data over and over again, I'll keep trying to get people to realize we don't have the power to stop global warming and we need to make other plans.

[CraigD]

Hey guys, has anyone read the report of the fossils that show Antarctica to have been much warmer and wetter 14.1 million years ago?

I’ve been hearing lately from several popular science news sources about some recently published work by Adam Lewis and David Marchant involving a serendipitous (they were measuring volcanic ash sediments, not looking for fossils) find of fossil remains in the Antarctic strata of some tiny marine organisms dating about 14 million years old that shouldn’t have been able to exist there according to other measurements of ancient climate. Tiny Fossils Reveal Warm Antarctic Past is an example of such a news article.

 

What this and related contemporary Antarctic finds indicate is still uncertain, I think. It’s possible they indicate a warm spot due to unusual local conditions. It’s possible they were carried there by migrating birds. Most likely, I think, they indicate that for the past 30 million years, all parts of Antartica have not been as cold as they are now, and that the region where they were found had a thriving warm local ecosystem then, which has since been rendered extinct by continent-wide glaciation.

It cooled down very fast and stayed that way.

From what I’ve read, Antarctica has been very cold compared to the other continents for about 30 million years, when it physically separated from Africa, and became isolated from the ocean currents that carry heat from the equator to the higher latitudes. However, I believe it has still experienced warming and cooling cycles similar to other places on Earth, having been effectively completely covered with glaciers only for about the past 5 million years. (source: wikipedia article “Climate of Antartica”)

Does this have any bearing on the theory that the global set point should be colder rather than warmer?

As several previous posters have noted, I don’t think the concept of a “global set point” for temperature is meaningful – Earth’s temperature has varied greatly over its history, both long and short term, and barring extreme artificial influences, is almost certain to continue to do so.

 

Concerning Lewis and Marchant’s and others recent finds, at present, I’ve not heard any serious paleoclimatologists suggest that these finds hint at anything wrong with the orthodox models of global climate indicating that average global temperatures for the past 3 million years is much (about 2 C) colder than the present day average (eg: as described in the wikipedia article “geological temperature record”).

[CraigD]

The seas were just as productive for fish and other metazoans during the 100's of millions of years the Earth was much warmer than it is now, Oil has nothing to do with the climate, it's produced by abiogenesis not by fossils of swamp trees or any other fossil process.

 

The deep, hot biosphere.

Although Gold’s “deep hot biosphere” petroleum origin theory is commonly grouped with abiogenic petroleum origin theories, this is something of a misnomer, as his theory is not abiogenic. Rather, Gold’s hypothesis asserts

"Hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology (as the traditional view would hold) but rather geology reworked by biology."

This assertion itself somewhat misstates conventional theories, which require bacterial metabolism of sedimented organic remains (mostly plankton) into petroleum precursors, so are really “biology reworked by biology and geology”.

 

 

Read my posts, I never said burning oil was a good idea, I've already participated in the whole oil is fossil fuel debate, I won :evil: :)

The vast majority of geologists and oil experts I written to and spoken with disagree with this position. It really is a minority rubbish position propagated by the wonders of the internet! (It must be true because I researched it on the net! :doh:) Insisting it's true because you 'won' an internet forum debate is some new standard of evaluating a scientific theory! :hihi:

Though Eclipse makes a valid point, I think – there’s a strong consensus among geologists, geophysicists, and biologists that the conventional, converted organic sediments theory of petroleum formation is correct – calling Gold and others’ theories “rubbish positions” strikes me as inaccurate. These ideas, while largely rejected in their original forms, have I think been thought-provoking and influential in the field of geology, to the extent that mainstream theory disagrees with abiogenic and “hot deep biogenic” theories of petroleum formation more in degree than in principle. Modern theories, I believe, accept that most of the hydrocarbons in petroleum come from sediment sources, but that some comes from deep Earth sources, and that trace elements such as helium almost certainly have a deep Earth source.

 

It’s important, I think, to note that Gold was not a geologist or an oil prospector, but primarily a speculative astrophysicist. His reputation and legacy is largely one of having made valuable contributions to the field in the course of being consistently wrong in many of his major positions, such as the “continuous creation theory of cosmology, and the prediction that much of the Moon would be found to be covered with a many-meter thick layer of pulverized rock dust. On the other hand, his early theoretical explanation of pulsars as rapidly rotating neutron stars is now almost unanimously accepted. His Cornell faculty obituary, which remembers him fondly as a “brilliant scientific gadfly”, gives a good and accurate description of him and his work, and an example that one must not be agreed with, or even ultimately correct, to be valuable to science, nor confine oneself to a single scientific discipline or even complete a conventional course of study (despite filling important academic leadership roles at Harvard and Cornell, Gold never completed a PhD, receiving an honorary doctorate from Cambridge only in 1969, years after many of his best know publications) to make valuable contributions to science.

 

It’s important, however, to note that, while valuable, people in the role of “gadfly”, “maverick”, or, as his obit puts it “world-class contrarian” are more often wrong than right, and should not be considered authorities or spokespeople of the scientific consensus. So, while it’s valuable to consider the ideas of people like Gold, it’s important to consider their source, and treat them with due skepticism.

[Thunderbird]

I think that it is obvious that global temperature have, and will fluctuate. Ecosystems have evolved to cope with these changes and I would say even help the evolutionary process along by providing a cyclical dynamic environmental process that are in a rhythmic flux. The problem is the changes we are bringing about may be to fast for ecosystem to cope with. This could lead to a domino effect releasing massive amounts methane into the environment from the arctic circle, combined with deforestation on the land, acidic oceans. These changes could indeed be way to fast for the self regulating global climate system to adapt too. The feed back systems may not keep up and collapse completely. These feedback system have their own frequency that allow for incremental steps.