Remember the gawd-awful movie The Day After Tomorrow from 2004? Gore used footage from the movie in his now bullet hole riddled An Inconvenient Truth for “dramatic effect”. In an odd twist, an event that inspired that movie turns out to be more about geology than climatology.
From the New Zealand Herald:
University of Canterbury research indicating a glacial ridge in the South Island was formed by a landslide could pour cold water on evidence that climate change happened simultaneously around the world. Scientists had believed the Waiho Loop moraine was created during a brief cold snap about 13,000 years ago that also affected Europe and North America.
Located 100m above the plains on the foreland of the Franz Josef Glacier in South Westland, between the township and the sea, the glacial moraine had been the focus of much international research.
The Waiho Loop moraine was widely used as evidence for direct inter-hemispheric linkage in climate change.
Professor Jamie Shulmeister, who worked on the research with Associate Professor Tim Davies and honours student Daniel Tovar, said the discovery was made as a result of a study of the Waiho Loop glacial moraine.
Professor Shulmeister said there had been huge scientific debate on the climatic implications of the Waiho Loop.
The sudden climatic event had inspired the Hollywood blockbuster movie The Day After Tomorrow, he said.
But no one had ever studied the Waiho Loop sediments. “But these new findings suggest the loop – which sits near the South Island’s Alpine fault line – was the result of a landslide, not climate change.”
“When graduate student Dan Tovar had a look, he discovered to our surprise that it was mainly made up of a rock type known as greywacke, which is different from the rocks that make up all the other moraines in front of the Franz Josef Glacier.”
Professor Shulmeister said greywacke occurred about 13km up the valley from the Loop.
All the other moraines were predominantly composed of schist which outcropped near Franz Josef township.
“The greywacke was also rather more angular than the rocks in the other moraines, suggesting it had not been transported in water or at the base of a glacier.”
As a result of the study, Professor Shulmeister’s team believes a large landslide dumped a huge volume of rock on top of the glacier, causing it to advance and, when the advance stopped, the moraine was created.
Professor Shulmeister said the findings, to be published this week in the international science journal Nature Geoscience, were like “throwing a cat among the palaeoclimate pigeons”.
See the abstract here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
James Sexton (17:19:11) :
> Does CO2 naturally bind together with other CO2 molecules?
No, at least certainly not like water, and certainly not at Earthly temperatures.
> And is CO2 lighter or heavier than the air that we breath?
Heavier by about 30% per molecule.
> Does it elevate to a specific height or does it just float high or low?
Winds mix it pretty well.
> Other than photosynthesis, does CO2 exist in perpetuity or is there another mechanism that changes the molecule?
It dissolves in water making carbonic acid. Shellfish and other critters use it to make shells, chalk (think the White Cliffs of Dover), limestone, and marble (metamorphosed limestone.)
timprosser
There has never been a time since the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania in the 1850s until today when (a) oil wasn’t running out and (b) reserves haven’t increased. Get yourself a copy of “The Prize” by Daniel Yergin for a good history of oil.
MikeEE:
Unfortunately, Governor Crist does not realize that the wind is too variable in Florida to be a good source for wind power:
Source: Miami Herald.
Sorry for the long quote and you can remove it if you wish, but you have to log in to read the story.
Reply to Ric Werme
Thank you very much for the information. I assume that the information provided is accepted fact….will check when time is available. If CO2 is heavier, why doesn’t it gravitate to the earth, eventually? Maybe these are simplistic questions but…. if they don’t bind and they don’t have a specific layer and assuming they will gravitate down, then what’s the problem? How does this affect refraction or reflection?
Apparently, this scientific work was done on a $1,000 budget. Obviously these guys are not on the AGW gravy train. The two glaciers that flow West, Franz Joseph and Fox (there are others flowing East) from the Main Divide are fast moving/retreat/advance. Keep in mind they start at around 10,000 feet and terminals are close to sea level and only a few miles from the coast. Latitude is around 45 S. Because of the maritime climate they exist in, they are influenced more by rainfall/snow accumulation rates than temperature.
The nearest weather recording station is at Hokitika, about 200 miles North. It is one of the Hansen rural reference sites for Wellington, the subject of discussion on CA.
Swampie,
My sympathies, here in Kansas, we have a similar situation. We had people willing to build to coal plants in our state. The Governor used a health clause to block the building of said plants. While cost of generation varies, coal electricity general costs about 2 cents/kwh to generate. We got windmills instead. What isn’t generally known is that electric wholesalers have to have backup facilities to wind generation plants. Coal and nuclear are excluded because one can’t change their output very quickly. So, they use the next best thing, hydro or gas depending upon their location. Hydro, when available is efficient and cheap. But we have to go back to the “can’t mandate climate” thing. Natural gas is the next alternative. Cost….17 cents a kwh and rising, just to supply it. Wonder what is the cost that will be passed on to the consumer? Depends on where you live. Add to the cost of 2 power plants being built as opposed to one and well, we see we have a long road in front of us. It has been said, “a lie told enough times will be believed.” But if the truth is stated loud enough,……..
Best to all
Interesting read. Your Weblog intrigues me.
If CO2 is heavier, why doesn’t it gravitate to the earth, eventually?
There are two processes at work. One is gravity which tends to concentrate CO2 at low altitudes and hence there is proportionally more CO2 (relative to O2 and N2) on the floor of Death Valley than the nearby mountain peaks. The other is the tendency of mixed gases to evenly distribute themselves, such that all areas have equal proportions of each gas.
There is a bit more to this when we get high up in the atmosphere, but the above applies near to the Earth’s surface.
So the simple answer is CO2 does gravitate to the Earth’s surface over time where is consumed by biological processes and by dissolving in water.
James Sexton (19:22:20) :
> Thank you very much for the information. I assume that the information provided is accepted fact….will check when time is available.
Worth doing – my answers came off the top of my head and I didn’t have time at the moment to expound on things.
> If CO2 is heavier, why doesn’t it gravitate to the earth, eventually?
Consider this analogy – the next time it’s foggy, go outside and look at the fog droplets. Each droplet weighs a microgram – billions of times heavier than a CO2 molecule – and the viscosity of the air makes it difficult to impossible to see droplets fall.
CO2 molecules do fall, but the slightest convection will keep things mixed.
> … assuming they will gravitate down, then what’s the problem? How does this affect refraction or reflection?
I’m not sure what problem you’re referring to. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small I can’t have much affect on atmospheric refraction. Temperature changes (and hence density changes) and pressure gradients cover the vast amount of refractive physics in the atmosphere.
The main concern environmentalists have with CO2 is the Greenhouse effect, and that appears overstated for current and greater concentrations. Plants in general appreciate extra CO2.
Commenting on the topic,And The Winner Is: Climate Catastrophe by a Landslide, Zeke Hausfather (15:15:54) said:
“This actually may make the explanation of Thermohaline Circulation (THC) shutdown effects more sensible…”
I understand why someone would want to engage in self-promotion of his blog. However, the claimed science in that statement is unsupportable.
The thermohaline circulation will not “shut down.” The implication is that “climate change” could cause the circulating ocean currents to shut down. That is extremely unlikely, if not impossible; to understand why ocean currents will not shut down, I refer Mr. Hausfather to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I also note that Mr. Hausfather’s blog carries a subtle anti-skeptic article on his home page entitled, Why Are So Many TV Meteorologists and Weathercasters Climate ‘Skeptics’?
Among other terms in the article, skeptical meteorologists are labeled ‘naysayers.’ The author asks, “At a time when most climate scientists – as reflected in the IPCC’s 2007 reports – express growing certainty that Earth is warming, that humans are largely responsible, and that consequences may be severe, why do so many television weathercasters appear to think otherwise?”
Mr. Hausfather’s blog is funded by a somewhat left-leaning organization, the Grantham Foundation [which may contribute to some good causes], but regarding climate issues, their financial support is given overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, to AGW believers such as the World Wildlife Fund; and Treehugger; and Hausfather’s blog [“We’re extremely pleased to announce a generous multi-year gift from The Grantham Foundation for Protection of the Environment to support this site and related journalism training programs…”], and to many similar agenda-driven organizations. That is not science. That is advocacy.
There is nothing wrong with someone using their own money to support organizations such as the WWF or Treehugger. But folks should be aware of their agenda. If the Grantham Foundation was truly interested in answering climate questions, it could easily fund a series of debates over the validity and extent of AGW in a neutral, moderated venue such as a major university, allowing each side to select its own debating team. Instead, it gives out cash “journalism” awards. Note that the media is where the entire global warming “debate” takes place.
As we have seen repeatedly, not only do people like James Hansen refuse to debate their AGW hypothesis in a neutral, professional forum, but they refuse to publicly archive the taxpayer-funded data and computer algorithms that they used to arrive at their catastrophic global warming conclusions — which the media by and large accepts unquestioningly.
Perhaps Mr. Hausfather could prevail upon his benefactor Jeremy Grantham to arrange a series of debates over AGW… if folks like Al Gore and James Hansen would be agreeable to publicly defend their AGW hypothesis. It would certainly be an interesting and educational event, no?
James, it is so frustrating. It doesn’t matter what the state of Florida wants, there just isn’t enough wind to generate any meaningful power. FPL will just have to go ahead and sink millions into a project that it knows will not work and we know will not work, and we the consumers will ultimately have to pay for it.
As you will recall, Florida is not exactly suited to solar power. Our rainy season is in the summer, as is our peak demand for electricity. *sigh*
Luckily, my power comes from Georgia.
With oil pricing itself out of the market, does anyone think that the coal burning steam train might make a come-back in an updated form?
Philip_B
Workable and productive Fusion might be a bit closer than we think. If you ignore the huge Tokamak designs favoured by some physicists, the work of the late Dr Robert Bussard is being carried on by Dr Richard Nebel, who is getting some interesting data off a thing they call a Polywell. Specifically the WB-6 and latterly the WB-7. Drop by at IEC Fusion Technology for up to date news.
Even students are building reactors that do work (But not enough to produce power) for $3000. Go take a look.
I would love some people to comment on this item in the Australian Press:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080702-The-changing-state-of-the-climate-system.html
I notice that when the global temperature starts cooling the Climate Change Bandwagon starts rabbiting on about sea ice (and never mentioning Antarctica).
My gut feeling (no science involved!) is that the sea ice is a lagging indicator. If we got warm for 30 years and now its getting cooler (or leveling of) then the seas (including the Arctic) would be slower to respond
” I think you may need to check your computer configuration. There appears to be some unknown problem between the keyboard and the chair.”
TechSupport Here=> No footprint can be found for The separately provided Carbon Unit on that SiCPU.
CASE status:No problem found!
Mister Jones, I deliberately ommited refering to fusion as ‘hot fusion’, which is what I was referring to above.
I’ve read the cold fusion papers and there is definitely something there and its hard to avoid the conclusion that its low temperature fusion.
Now whether there is a viable energy source there is a whole different question. Although I do think that the billions spent on ‘climate science’, 90% of whose output is just junk, would be much better spent on looking into cold fusion.
Greg Spurkin, at Climate Audit this phenomena is referred to as the ‘retreat to the ice’. The Warmers know the surface temperature record is deeply flawed, and ice is a relatively unambiguos measure. Unfortunately for them, the ice aint cooperating.
We shall see what happens over the next 6 months, but if I were a betting man, I’d say the NH won’t make a record sea ice minimum and the SH will make a record maximum (for the satellite era).
Otherwise, It’s rather sad that a SH news source focuses on what is happening in the NH and ignores the SH.
Um, the article doesn’t have all that much to do with current climate change as far as I can tell. I’m not sure why the discussion is revolving around CO2.
From the article:
“University of Canterbury research indicating a glacial ridge in the South Island was formed by a landslide could pour cold water on evidence that climate change happened simultaneously around the world.”
Well you only have to open a first year geology book to discover that “Global Climate” is really just the sum of more local climates, that all may respond to the same stimuli (increased sunlight, changing atmospheric conditions, etc.) in different ways. Try Earth’s Dynamic Systems Tenth Edition, by Hamblin and Christiansen p.242
So my guess is that this glacier in the S. Hemisphere was thought to react to Global climate change triggers in a similar way to certain N. Hemisphere glaciers. This new evidence might mean that we can’t automatically assume that.
The sediment specifically referenced was thought to have been laid in the glacier 13,000 years ago, not long after the height of the last ice-age 18,000 years ago. So doesn’t really have anything to do with the climate change currently taking place, other than making it slightly harder to measure. Also, the curernt climate change has been forecast independantly on each continent around the globe, using indicators other than glaciers.
Yes, it would be inconvenient if we can’t correlate glacial trends easily across the hemispheres without having to account for any uncertainties, but usually a finding like this wouldn’t make the mainstream newspapers?
I’m still an Earth Sciences student so if anyone has something intelligent to say on the subject, I’m keen to learn – thedavidmeister@gmail.com
Boulders on the surface of the Waiho Loop moraine have recently been dated by a surface exposure method (cosmogenic isotope dating). The work was carried out by Tim Barrows of ANU (Canbera). It turns out that the moraine is younger (by up to about 2000 yrs) than previously thought. Not sure if the article is published yet but if not it should be out within a few months. So its outside the window of the “13,000 yr” event as well as having a rather atypical composition.
Here is what appears to be the official non Hansen-ised temperature record for Mt Cook village slightly on the eastern side of the divide. Mt Cook itself feeds Franz Joseph Glacier. Also is the record for Milford Sound about 200 km to the south on the Western Side of the divide.
http://www.mediafire.com/?xmilfjj3e3h
The previous document link had an error in the Lattitude
Here is what appears to be the official non Hansen-ised temperature record for Mt Cook village slightly on the eastern side of the divide. Mt Cook itself feeds Franz Joseph Glacier. Also is the record for Milford Sound about 200 km to the south on the Western Side of the divide.
http://www.mediafire.com/?xmyfcz93unz
The Latitude in this one has been corrected
Greg Spurgin said:
“I would love some people to comment on this item in the Australian Press…”
Greg is correct to note that, as usual, the southern ice cap is conveniently disregarded. This is cherry-picking from the overall global record.
Moreover, I question the reliability of the maps of sea ice provided in that somewhat hysterical article. The current extent of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is pictured here. Note that it shows a much greater extent of sea ice — in the Northern Hemisphere’s summer season — than the map of sea ice shown in the linked article.
Since we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of years of hydrocarbon supplies, I don’t see why some people think the need to find something else is so urgent?
The poet writes:
OT, I guess, but I remember reading somewhere that the reason the earth does not have a thick atmosphere like Venus is because of the Moon. Its gravitational attraction offsets that of the Earth enough to allow gas to escape into outer space.
—–
This must explain why Mars has such a thick atmosphere.
You really need to work on developing your ability to think critically about the things you read. Otherwise you will fall for any type of nice sounding nonsense.
With oil pricing itself out of the market, does anyone think that the coal burning steam train might make a come-back in an updated form?
——-
It’s much more likely that coal to gas conversion plants will be built.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/NP%20ice%201987.jpg