FReepmail me to get on or off
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
yeah, right.
Posted on 10/26/2009 1:08:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SEDIMENT cores from a small Arctic lake in Canada stretching back 200,000 years show unprecedented gains in global warming since 1950, indicating human activity is the likely cause.
"The past few decades have been unique in the past 200,000 years in terms of the changes we see in the biology and chemistry recorded in the cores,'' University of Colorado glaciologist Yarrow Axford said.
"We see clear evidence for warming in one of the most remote places on Earth at a time when the Arctic should be cooling because of natural processes."
Mr Axford is the chief author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
For thousands of years, environmental changes in a remote lake on Canada's Baffin Island closely matched natural, cyclical climate changes such as those caused by the Earth's periodic wobble as it swings around the sun, the researchers said.
However, lake sediment cores dating from 1950 show that expected climate cooling was overridden by human activity like greenhouse gas emissions.
Researchers were able to reconstruct the local climate over the past 200,000 years by analysing algae, insect fossils and geochemical traces in sediment cores extracted from the 40ha lake.
The cores stretch back 80,000 years further than existing Greenland ice cores, revealing environmental conditions prevalent during two earlier Ice Ages and three interglacial periods.
Researchers found that several types of mosquito-like midges that for many thousands of years thrived in cold climate surrounding the lake suddenly began declining at around 1950; two midge species adapted to the coldest weather disappeared altogether.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
like ?
ap perhaps?
AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2371328/posts
Midges starting to disappear around the same time that Canada is increasing its’ wheat production and use of pesticides. Who is this clown and is his office next door to Ward Churchills?
They can tell that much difference between cores involving 80,000 years and a core involving 50 years???
Ummmmmmmmmm...yeah...riiiiiiight...
Oh boy more junk science from those with an agenda
I always love it when they revise something by 20 million years or so. Let’s face it....One of these folk has probably hit upon the truth by some accident...We just don’t know which one.
So these midges flourished through the Medieval Warm Period? And survived the Global Warming scare of the 1930s? Only to fall victim to AGW in 1950. Too bad they couldn't have held on to the Coming Ice Age of the 1970s!
Is it just me or are the champions of AGW getting nuttier and nuttier?
Sorry, ain’t buying it based on that evidence. Try again.
Expected objective scientific thought was overridden by stupid political b.s.
Forgot to add: Correlation is not causation.
To a liberal; Gads, I sneezed after the sun came up. Ergo, the sun caused the sneeze.
(It’s why they’re in politics, not physics.)
Poor leftists... the gig is almost up. More people are on to their nonsense every day.
Despite every Tom, Dick, Harry coming out with their own study, the public is beginning to see this global warming for the fraud that it is.
Something smells very funny here. I believe Baffin was completely glaciated during the last ice age - so how did lake sediments older than 18,000 years survive?
“...on Earth at a time when the Arctic should be cooling because of natural processes.”
Natural processes? These butt nuggets don’t have a clue what the natural processes are or how they affect anything.
More convoluted science from the contrivers of contentious climate. We’d like to believe, therefore we do believe, and our data will demonstrate what we like, because even if it isn’t true, it should be.
Let’s don’t call it Global warming.
Let’s call it an “ Interglacial Period “
since we’ve had several already, and now another.
No, we're still warming from the last glacial period. Plus, we're still warming from the Little Ice Age.
Researchers were able to reconstruct the local climate over the past 200,000 years by analyzing algae, insect fossils and geochemical traces in sediment cores extracted from the 40ha lake. The cores stretch back 80,000 years further than existing Greenland ice cores,
200,000 years is 80,000 longer than Greenland??? The Greenland cores actually go back more than 400,000 years and through four cycles. Is this guy lying or is he that ignorant?
How do they assume we caused it? Maybe it just occured about that time and we got blamed for it.
“Yes officer, that’s more or less what he looked like. He was muttering something about Florida at the time...”
Heh heh heh... I like it.
In the 1970s they were doing their best to scare us all about the coming ice age. Looks like we saved ourselves from freezing to death with all of our human activity.
Or were they wrong about the ice age? Or are they wrong about human activity causing climate change?
Personally, I think they need a diaper change. It's clear they have nothing but sh1t for brains and they've pooped themselves all the way to imbecility.
Unprecedented? That’s an outright lie on the face of it. The Medieval Warm Period was still warmer than it is today.
But the sun always makes me sneeze. It’s a neurological phenomenon that doctors can’t really explain. I think it’s a natural reaction to keep one from staring at the sun. Or maybe it’s limited to people with light eyes.
Hah! What about the middle ages warming period that lasted from the 1100’s thru the 1500’s?
Is it just me or are the champions of AGW getting nuttier and nuttier?
Nuttier by the hour.
I wonder how many thousands of things beside Al Gore's global warming could have been responsible for the demise of the midges?
It's certainly not limited to people with light eyes - my eyes are quite dark and sunlight triggers sneezes in me. I seem to recall it being referred to as a "photic sneeze" (triggered by light).
I've read some speculation that it's a holdover response to first seeing the sun after emerging from a dark cave. The sneeze would supposedly clear the nose of accumulated junk from being in the cave.
1.) How do they determine "GLOBAL" trends from the experience of one isolated place. They always said you can't tell how hot it's getting whenever there's a cold snap.
2.)They have 200,000 years of sediment cores they have taken. There is no way they can devine a 60 year trend in that. 1,000 years maybe, 10,000 years probably, yet they only have the current records going back 60 years.
People see what they want to see.
Details Details!
now that was a chunk of ice .. a big one, the one that covered part of europe.. brrrrr
—
http://www.metatech.org/07/ice_age_global_warming.html
Ice ages happen with regularity every 11,500 years. The last mini ice age ended almost 11,500 years ago
I’ve always thought it might be that the sensors or nerves for the sinuses and the eyes are so close together that sometimes the signals get “crossed”. And an eye irritant (the bright sun) sometimes gets picked up as nasal irritation. I often will look at a ceiling light to get out a hesitant sneeze to give it an extra “push”!
Please fill us in on which of the Greenland stations went as far back as Vostok.
a holdover response to first seeing the sun after emerging from a dark cave. The sneeze would supposedly clear the nose of accumulated junk from being in the cave.
cool. an auto-hock-a-loogie gene..
Yep, helps me to (i.e., light inside helps to get a sneeze out).
Note that they are actually measuring isotopes.
Oops, I was misreading the thread. Thought you were referring to the ice cores. My mistake.
Be sure to ignore all the contradicting evidence. Look ONLY at our new cores, because only THEY are right!
LOLOLOL!
It all depends on what the definition of "global" is. :-)
If Global warming is a done deal, the Debate is Over.....Why does the GW crowd keep changing the subject from the OLD ARGUMENTS and bring up NEW ARGUMENTS ?
With missing sunspots for the last year or so, this Winter is going to be a hard sell.....Ice on the ground trumps Sediment in the lake.
How dare you imply that there could be such a thing as a global warming!? The peanut gallery insists that global warming is false!
I hope the snow is 2 feet deep and falling fast when al gore and obama and schwarzenegger fly to Copenhagen for Hopenhagen.
Alternative explanation: Someone was growing pot around the lake.
200,000 yrs is a blip on the geological scale. Bet they don’t want to go back further.
They have had this stuff a planned out for quite a while now.
They should have planned the meeting for summer months because we are due for some cold weather that will fly in the face of their theories.
Did anyone else note the glaring peculiarity of this information?
That is, the headline is about *geology*, sediment samples, and suddenly there is a segue right into *biology*, about midges.
This sounds suspiciously like looking for data to support the conclusions they have already reached. So let’s look further.
They say that they have data in the sediment going back 200,000 years, and yet the last 60 years have been markedly different. Since they did this with a core sample, how much of that core sample is the last 60 years?
1/3,333th and a third of however large that core sample. 200,000 divided by 60. So how big is that core sample?
For the sake of argument, let’s assume it is a really big one, 10 meters in length. That’s about 32.8 feet. About 1/3rd the length of a football field. Even at that scale, the last 60 years is about 3 millimeters in thickness.
And that 3 millimeters, of an improbably long core sample, is the *last* 3 millimeters, far less affected by compression than a sample, say, 7 meters down.
But how about them midges, huh?
"We see clear evidence for warming in one of the most remote places on Earth at a time when the Arctic should be cooling because of natural processes."
Mr Axford is the chief author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
For thousands of years, environmental changes in a remote lake on Canada's Baffin Island closely matched natural, cyclical climate changes such as those caused by the Earth's periodic wobble as it swings around the sun, the researchers said.
However, lake sediment cores dating from 1950 show that expected climate cooling was overridden by human activity like greenhouse gas emissions.
Researchers were able to reconstruct the local climate over the past 200,000 years by analysing algae, insect fossils and geochemical traces in sediment cores extracted from the 40ha lake.
Interesting.
At the Institute we have been vocal about putting any faith in the Global Climate Models for many reasons - all modeling assumes one knows all the angles and all the pathways; and that is total hubris, especially as far as Earth's climatic variation. In the philosophical sense modelling is hardly science at all, but to a degree humanistic fantasy, like movies or Christmas train gardens.
In this report however if it is legitimate, and one can't dismiss PNAS, there is evidence something is recently environmentally out of whack with Earth's precessional (wobble) period. If one looks at 200,000 years of reliable periodic association then sees something incongruent, then there is apparently something unique happening.
But this statement:
However, lake sediment cores dating from 1950 show that expected climate cooling was overridden by human activity like greenhouse gas emissions.
is really ignorant and quite annoying; hopefully it wasn't the scientists who made it. It exposes the bigotry associated with the whole anthropogenic claim. There is little reason whatsoever to associate the incongruent happening to anthropogenic causes when such dramatic variations have occurred during other era's when SUV's did not exist - if of course such incongruent happenings did indeed occur when SUV's did not exist.
Which means to make any argument at all for "human activity like greenhouse gas emissions," a greater geological perspective is needed to rule out non-anthropogenic causes. That is to say no one is denying global warming occurs or that it has occurred during humanity's industrialization; but to say that industrialization is the cause of global warming is bogus until proven; and given that CO2 has been significantly higher in the geological past with its subsequent reduction and while life on Earth prospered, there is no reason to react unscientifically (as so many politicians routinely do).
Johnny Suntrade
Where is the PROOF?.....
.....Correlation is NOT CAUSATION.
The title is misleading and/or dishonest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
