Without getting into a ongoing debate about the scientific merits of global warming theory I'd just like to post just one example of the vast media hype which surrounds this subject. This hype, in my opinion, threatens to make any rational debate of the subject nigh impossible, if it is not the case already. The report in question was on the BBC news and concerned the Inuit people of northern Canada. I normally rely on BBC reports to be fair and balanced, rather than, say ITV, which tends to veer far too much towards sensationalism for my liking, especially when a meaty subject like global warming is on the ajenda. However, in this case the beeb stepped too far over the line for my liking by making tenuous links between global warming in the Arctic and social upheaval in the Inuit community. As far as I could see in the BBC news report the assertions being made that climate change was causing hunters to give up their traditional way of life and move to larger communities had little or no validity. The arguement being made in the report being that due to difficulties in catching their prey hunters were leaving their families to move to larger settlements and towns where drink and drugs were major a problem. Unfortunately whilst this certainly a sad state of affairs climate change could not be said to be the direct cause of the problem. The Inuit's way of life IS under threat though but that threat comes from a clash of cultures due the influx of our westernised way of life into area. This type of social upheaval has happened time and time again all over the planet and the result is, unfortunately, the same in all but a few cases, the near extermination of the indigenous peoples concerned. By making a direct leap from two vastly different problems the reporter only succeeded in highlighting how shoddy reporting and media hype are skewing the climate change debate and, until the two opposing views are proven or the media become bored with the subject(the latter is probably more likely) we will have to put up with this kind of tosh being rammed down our throats.
yeah i agree with what have to say about the bbc i saw the report and had similar thoughts. like global warming isnt a difficult problem to deal with already we have the media to thank for making it more compex than it should be already. Because like most people in this country they belive everything that they hear from the bbc and itv. Itv news is more like a game show than a news programme! im not the one to tut channel 4 or anything but it is the best news rather than sky news which is even worse than bbc. Unforunely it is the same story with global warming with the newspapers!
Yes - I saw the BBC report and was absolutely gob smacked at its naivety. If it wasn't for the fact that the BBC is so fair and reasonable I wouldn't have believed it. I'm worried that if it gets any warmer, which other peoples will hit the bottle and start to do drugs? It must be the CO2 that takes away people's self control and sense of identity as if it was the warmth they'd all go crazy each summer.
'As far as I could see in the BBC news report the assertions being made that climate change was causing hunters to give up their traditional way of life and move to larger communities had little or no validity.' badboyburtyb
On the other hand, of course, there may actually be something behind the reports... It pays to check other media sources too.
*Steiger led the first confirmed dogsled journey to the North Pole without resupply in 1986, the first dogsled voyage across Antarctica from 1989-1990, and the first dogsled crossing of the Arctic Ocean in 1995. Since his 1988 traverse of Greenland, Steger also claims the longest unsupported dogsled expedition in history, at 1,600 miles.
I have enjoyed reading the various postings on this particular thread and some of the more heated exchanges elsewhere. Can someone explain to me why it was that at the start of the Silurian Period there was extensive glaciation, a cool climate along with CO2 about 16 times the present level? I know the continents were different in area and distribution, and atmospheric oxygen was far less than today, but with such a high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere what went wrong?
I have enjoyed reading the various postings on this particular thread and some of the more heated exchanges elsewhere. Can someone explain to me why it was that at the start of the Silurian Period there was extensive glaciation, a cool climate along with CO2 about 16 times the present level?
As a former astrophysicist, I do know that the Sun very steadily gets warmer as it gets older and will have been a few percent cooler then. Also, at this period, there was very little life on land which means the climate could be very different. As it was such a long time ago, do we really know what it was like?
Originally posted by Steve_M: ... As it was such a long time ago, do we really know what it was like?
I think the geological data gives us a pretty good idea, and its gets more confusing! Throughout the Silurian the CO2 level slowly falls while the temperature rises, and in the middle of the Devonian Period CO2 levels are about 12 times todays level with a global climate thought to be a little warmer than today. Of course by then the continents had re-arranged themselves a little, so there could be some effect of air and ocean currents to consider.
However, the way the high atmospheric CO2 levels and associated global temperature behaved in the Paleozoic do not appear to conform with todays hypothesis on climate change. I do not think the cooler Sun is the answer. The first vascular land plants appear just after half way through the Silurian Period.
I believe we know more about our past than our future.
Why not? If 16 times CO2 has a radiative forcing of 30 Watts/sq metre, then this would be balanced by the sun being 2.5% cooler. The only figure I have in my head from undergrad days is that the sun has heated 50% since it first joined the main sequence 4.5 billion years ago, so a linear increase implies the sun was about 4-5% cooler 440 million years ago.
I beg to differ with your assertions Shefftim... Yes, climate change will inevitably cause a great deal of problems for the Inuit people in hunting for food in their traditional manner. But the problems such as alcholism and drug taking are caused by a clash of two very different cultures which is the result of an "invasion" of the area by a more technologically developed people. Solving the problems caused by global warming won't necessarily solve the social problems that are occuring in the Inuit population, some kind of social program and education will. And, by the way, these kind of problems pre-existed long before anyone started banging on about global warming, as is the case for many other tribal peoples going way back in time, i.e. tribes in Africa during the British Colonial period, South American Indian tribes during the Spanish conquests of that region.
However, in this case the beeb stepped too far over the line for my liking by making tenuous links between global warming in the Arctic and social upheaval in the Inuit community.
You are alleging that the beeb is making these arguments, when it turns out that the Inuit are making them. I've seen documetaries in the past that talk about the pressures on Inuit civilisation as it comes into contact with other civilisations. But can you provide more detailed information about the scale of these pressures in comparison with the scale of the current pressures caused by climate change?
However, the way the high atmospheric CO2 levels and associated global temperature behaved in the Paleozoic do not appear to conform with todays hypothesis on climate change. I do not think the cooler Sun is the answer.
Much googling later, I think I've found the Nature papers that relate to this which make interesting reading. First the science paper:
which suggests that interpretation of the proxy data that has been used to calculate the CO2 levels may be difficult this far back, and also describes out some of the geological changes that could be important factors in climate.
The main argument seems to be not about the absolute levels of the CO2, but the time pattern of the variation of CO2, which, if the reconstructions are correct do not match the temperature.
It says:
quote:
Solar physicists argue that the Sun was then some 5% less luminous than it is today,
to argue the point that glaciers could form despite any high level of CO2.
Geoman, Do you know if there are any follow-up papers to these?
Originally posted by Shefftim: ... On the other hand, of course, there may actually be something behind the reports...
Yeah, right, like the stories of drowning polar bears, esquimos walking around in bermuda shorts, and penguins with heat stroke.
I just checked the weather in Qaanaaq Greenland (Far North) current Hi temp -30degsC low temp -36degsC ! Blimey its hot !!
Nuuk, the Capital, in South East Greenland spent from Jan - June & Nov - December 2006 below zero. The rest of the time the temperature averaged approx 7degsC.
After our annual "sprinkling" of snow in the hills where I live in Feb/March this year, it took a whole week of temperatures around 7-9degsC to shift it (measurements taken from my car instrumentation as I dodged the drifts).
On the face of it, I don't think the Greenland Ice Sheet is going to disappear that rapidly.
On the face of it, I don't think the Greenland Ice Sheet is going to disappear that rapidly.
I understand the Inuit are more dependent on the sea-ice rather than the whole of the Greenland ice sheet. Sea ice is seasonal, so shorter winters have an impact on hunting.
Incidentally, ignoring ice sheet dynamics (which might accelerate the rate of melting) Greenland is expected to take a 1000 years to melt once greenhouse gas levels reach the equivalent of 450ppm (expected before 2050).
Can someone explain to me why it was that at the start of the Silurian Period there was extensive glaciation, a cool climate along with CO2 about 16 times the present level?
Your referring to the ice age that had been dated to the end of the Ordovician and start of the Silurian.
It’s been found (2005) that the dates of this ice age and the CO2 levels don’t coincide after all: “This particular ice age didn't begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128223438.htm
That also helps solve the mystery of why no evidence for glaciation had been found for Silurian and Devonian Periods. (Caputo & Crowell, 1985).
Given the Silurian was when the first clear evidence of life on land has been found (centipedes, fungi, vascular plants etc.); whilst the seas saw the first corals, the appearance of jawed fish as well as the first appearance of freshwater fish, it was clear these didn’t really tie in (support) the idea of an Ice Age or the aftermath of an ice age. Corals and a cold sea?
Can you point this out to all the blogs that also repeat this assertion, but don’t follow the science press?
On the face of it, I don't think the Greenland Ice Sheet is going to disappear that rapidly.
I understand the Inuit are more dependent on the sea-ice rather than the whole of the Greenland ice sheet. Sea ice is seasonal, so shorter winters have an impact on hunting.
Incidentally, ignoring ice sheet dynamics (which might accelerate the rate of melting) Greenland is expected to take a 1000 years to melt once greenhouse gas levels reach the equivalent of 450ppm (expected before 2050).
So my holiday in Bognor is safe!
If its that cold in the north of Greenland in mid April does the temp not extend to the surrounding sea?
Or is it warmer ocean currents that see off the sea ice?
If its that cold in the north of Greenland in mid April does the temp not extend to the surrounding sea?
Or is it warmer ocean currents that see off the sea ice?
Because it's north of the arctic circle, it will soon have continuous sunshine. According to Weather Underground it is above freezing pretty much all day (and "night") during August for example.
If its that cold in the north of Greenland in mid April does the temp not extend to the surrounding sea?
Or is it warmer ocean currents that see off the sea ice?
Because it's north of the arctic circle, it will soon have continuous sunshine. According to Weather Underground it is above freezing pretty much all day (and "night") during August for example.
Only just tho and as I observed for myself, the meagre drifts on the North Cotswolds took a week to clear at similar temperatures.
If its that cold in the north of Greenland in mid April does the temp not extend to the surrounding sea?
Or is it warmer ocean currents that see off the sea ice?
Because it's north of the arctic circle, it will soon have continuous sunshine. According to Weather Underground it is above freezing pretty much all day (and "night") during August for example.
Only just tho and as I observed for myself, the meagre drifts on the North Cotswolds took a week to clear at similar temperatures.
Incidentally, my Swiss friends tell me its rain that shifts the snow from the Alps not high temperatures.
The Beeb is particularly adept at linking any 'environment' story to global warming They had a story a few weeks ago (about which I lodged a formal complaint) linking coastal erosion in Norfolk to sea level rise and
I'm worried that if it gets any warmer, which other peoples will hit the bottle and start to do drugs? It must be the CO2 that takes away people's self control and sense of identity as if it was the warmth they'd all go crazy each summer.
