Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows . . .

I don't know what to make of your 'blame' question, but rapid changes of state are probably a major shortcoming for global circulation models. This high-resolution work is making the future seem less predictable, and I don't think anyone will see that as good news.

Anyway thanks for mentioning it because I had missed it.

 

If you have not seen the History Channel show/DVD "How The Earth Was Made," you should definitely watch it. Summarizing it up, there have been about a dozen major phases of life in earth's history, each lasting a few hundred million years. In every phase since life has existed, a population grows to a maximum sustainability, and during their time, they somehow alter the earth, which is (intentional* or consequential) in preparation for the next phase of earth's history. The show/DVD provides evidence for each phase. It's absolutely fascinating. My postulation is that the purpose of the human race (in this context) is to release buried crude oil back into the atmosphere. To fully understand, you must see the show on television or view the DVD. It's fascinating.

*If you believe in a God, everything that has occurred in earth's history is intentional. If you do not believe in a God, then assume it to be consequential.

 

It is interesting how they are changing the name, now that facts on the ground are changing.

 

Based on what little I know of how humans came to North America, I'm pretty sure you have your causality wrong. As I vaguely recall, they traveled over a land bridge from Asia across what is now the Bering Strait. The bridge was there because sea levels were low. Sea levels were low because it was the end of the last ice age and a lot of water was locked up on land. So I think humans got here because the ice age was peaking, not the other way around. And, of course, it was a global change in temperature, not specific to North America.

But, in general, the fact that something did or did not happen in the distant past has little bearing on what's happening now. Yep, the earth surely did warm and cool in the past. Many factors can warm or cool the earth. It doesn't always have to be the same factors involved. The fact that we had ice ages and warm periods in the past does not somehow negate the heat trapping ability of C02 in the atmosphere.

FWIW, here's a good discussion of what you can and can't infer from the historical data:

RealClimate

That said, the conclusion of rapid warming is is an interesting development, and I look forward to seeing validation of it, and seeing an intelligent analysis of it in some form that is accessible to me.

Ah, it's also worth quoting the people who actually did the research, with regard to the stability of the climate in the modern era:

"We are changing the climate," with greenhouse gas emissions, said study co-author Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, an ice and climate scientist at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. "We are moving out of that stable state now."

It will also be interesting to see what the antarctic cores show for that same exact time period.

Well, now I'm thoroughly confused. See this 1998(!) article on the correlation of these events in the arctic and antarctic cores.

Antarctic Ice Core Hints Abrupt Warming Some 12,500 Years Ago May Have Been Global

So, what, anybody know the real story here? Or am I confusing two separate issues? Same guys (UC Boulder). Shoot, I think that's the same author. So these guys have been saying this for better than a decade. I guess the newest one was new because they used high(er) resolution microscopes to date the changes. But as I read this, most of this information has been around for quite a while.

 

Along the same lines I liked "How Life Began", in particular the theory about life being preprogrammed into the grand scheme of the universe. That its creation is as inevitable as the formation of stars and planets.

 

The migration date of humans to North America is still up in the air but many scources of evidence keeps pushing back the actual migration period beyond 13,000yrs. In fact, estimates are being pushed back closer to 20,000 with a small amount even begging for 30,000yrs. Many believe there was more than one migration and it could have came in the form of boats and coastline hoping. The original idea of the ice free corridor (through Canada) is not holding much favor in recent years. Between archaeological evidence and genetic haplogroup details the migration of humans to North and South America is getting very interesting.

i will not comment on the OPs link or postulation until I've had a chance to read it.

 

Check out "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery. Fascinating bit on the history of climate change including pre industrial to current consequences of climate change. He used to be a disbeliever.

Here's an NPR interview:

'Weather Makers' Seeks to End Climate Debate : NPR

 

Thanks for that. The last time I studied that was probably high school.

 

Reminded me of Schweddy Balls bit..:first:

 

You have to watch the land ice in Greenland. That's the ice which will raise the Atlantic sea level if it melts into the ocean.

 

NP mate

There is a great new book out that talks a lot about the subject by Charles C. Mann titled "1491 - New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" I bet you'd enjoy it. It is only a book by a non-scientist but all the information jives with studies I have read.

http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X

The author's site

As for the sea ice vs land ice raising or not raising sea level directly, has anyone seen studies showing how sea ice could raise sea levels by melting and eventually warming more. Thus raising sea level due to thermal expansion and overcoming displacment?

 

That's not exactly true. A deterministic, omnipotent God, yes, but there are other varieties out there.

Interesting stuff. Not particularly comforting though? Just shows how little we understand and highlights the risks associated with the status quo.

 

F8L, there's a thread on here somewhere about fresh water vs saltwater and sea levels. I can't recall the details but it was something to the effect that melting the sea ice would indeed raise sea level a touch. Had something to do with densities I think.

 

Along these lines, there was a flurry of doom-and-gloom alarmist stories last week about how there MAY be no ice at the North Pole this Summer, suggesting that IF it happens, it would be a result of (fill in the fairy tale here).

IBD checked a little further and adds reason with a healthy dose of skepticism to the mix:

FTA:

From a media standpoint, this is another sign of the apocalypse — proof positive of man-made climate change. But we've heard this before.
In August 2000 the New York Times ran a piece claiming the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years, long before SUVs roamed Earth. As earth scientist Patrick Michaels noted, "It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer."


Icebergs breaking away and polar bears supposedly drowning are good theater, but they do not reflect reality. In April, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) published a study, based on last September's data, showing Arctic ice has shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million.
What the WWF didn't mention was that by March of this year the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at its highest level ever recorded. Ice freezes. Ice melts. That's what ice does.
At the other end of Earth, we're told the Larsen B ice shelf on the western side of Antarctica is collapsing. That part is warming and has been for decades. But it comprises just 2% of the continent. The rest is cooling.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Are Volcanoes Melting Arctic?

 

I think that anyone interested in the extent of arctic and antarctic ice should probably visit realclimate.org and get a few basic facts in hand.

First, the antarctic is expected to remain cold -- no warming -- for about another 50 years. All the mainstream climate models predict this. A good brief summary of that can be found here:

RealClimate

I think there has been press coverage because any melting there is unexpected. And because the media are looking for sensational stories. Whether or not the net ice balance at present is positive or negative is not clear, as I read the evidence -- not clear whether, on net, antarctica is gaining or losing ice mass. The prediction of most climate models is that there should be a modest gain (due to more moisture in the air combined with stable low temperatures there).

For a brief and reasonable discussion of the arctic ice, it's worth reading this one, including most of the posted comments:

RealClimate

People often confuse extent (surface covered) with amount (area x volume). Yes, the extent of the ice recovered (apparently temporarily), but the total mass of ice did not. The new ice was -- new ice, about a third as thick as the older ice it replaced. And hence, as we're now seeing, prone to melting rapidly. People also tend to confuse "open water at the North Pole", which happens frequent as the ice shifts, with vast open stretches of water in formerly ice-locked areas, which is happening now. Quite different, as the climate scientists on realclimate point out, for example, here:

"This is very different from the notoriously over-excited story in the New York Times back in August 2000. In that case, the report was of the presence of some open water at the pole - which as the correction stated, is not that uncommon as ice floes and leads interact. What is being discussed here is large expanses of almost completely ice-free water. That would indeed be unprecedented since we've been tracking it."

So, basically, the fact of large stretches of open water at the North Pole, if that happens, that's a new development, that's unexpected, and that's worth paying attention to.

If you want to see what's not worth paying attention to, see the comments to that article, regarding the theory that the polar ice cap melting is due to undersea volcanoes. This explanation has been endorsed by famed climatologist Rush Limbaugh. (So, the denialists are being proactive on this one, because they know it'll make the news if it happens.)