From the University of Chicago and the “I didn’t know Jaws lived near the North Pole ” department:
Shark teeth analysis provides detailed new look at Arctic climate change
A new study shows that some shark species may be able to cope with the falling salinity of Arctic waters that may come with rising temperatures.
The Arctic today is best known for its tundra and polar bear population, but it wasn’t always like that. Roughly 53 to 38 million years ago during what is known as the Eocene epoch, the Arctic was more similar to a huge temperate forest with brackish water, home to a variety of animal life, including ancestors of tapirs, hippo-like creatures, crocodiles and giant tortoises. Much of what is known about the region during this period comes from well-documented terrestrial deposits. Marine records have been harder to come by.
A new study of shark teeth taken from a coastal Arctic Ocean site has expanded the understanding of Eocene marine life. Leading the study was Sora Kim, the T.C. Chamberlin Postdoctoral Fellow in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, in coordination with Jaelyn Eberle at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and their three co-authors. Their findings were published online June 30 by the journal Geology.
The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate. According to Kim, past climate change in the Arctic can serve as a proxy to better understand our current climate change and aid future predictions. The Eocene epoch, she said, is like a “deep-time analogue for what’s going to happen if we don’t curb CO2 emissions today, and potentially what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like.”
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: Sora Kim has analyzed oxygen 18 and oxygen 16—two isotopes of the oxygen atom that contain only slight subatomic variations — of fossil and modern sharks teeth for insights into…
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
Before this study, marine records primarily came from deep-sea cores pulled from a central Arctic Ocean site, the Lomonosov Ridge. Kim and Eberle studied shark teeth from a new coastal site on Banks Island. This allowed them to better understand the changes in ocean water salinity across a broader geographic area during a time of elevated global temperatures. Shark teeth are one of the few available vertebrate marine fossils for this time period. They preserve well and are incredibly abundant.
To arrive at their results, Kim isolated and measured the mass ratio of oxygen isotopes 18 to 16 found in the prepared enameloid (somewhat different from human tooth enamel) of the shark teeth. Sharks constantly exchange water with their environment, so the isotopic oxygen ratio found in the teeth is directly regulated by water temperature and salinity. With assumptions made about temperatures, the group was able to focus on extrapolating salinity levels of the water.
The results were surprising. “The numbers I got back were really weird,” Kim said. “They looked like fresh water.” The sand tiger sharks she was studying are part of a group called lamniform sharks, which prefer to stay in areas of high salinity.
“As more freshwater flows into the Arctic Ocean due to global warming, I think we are going to see it become more brackish,” said Eberle, associate professor of geological sciences at CU-Boulder. “Maybe the fossil record can shed some light on how the groups of sharks that are with us today may fare in a warming world.”
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 IMAGE: Both graceful and docile, this modern sandtiger shark swims through a school of round scad fish in the coastal waters off North Carolina. Modern sand tigers prefer waters of high…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Because the teeth are 40 to 50 million years old, many tests were run to eliminate any possible contaminates, but the results were still the same. These findings suggest that sharks may be able to cope with rises in temperature and the subsequent decrease of water salinity. It has long been known that sharks are hardy creatures. They have fossil records dating back some 400 million years, surviving multiple mass extinctions, and have shown great ecological plasticity thus far.
Additionally, these results provide supporting evidence for the idea that the Arctic Ocean was most likely isolated from global waters.
“Through an analysis of fossil sand tiger shark teeth from the western Arctic Ocean, this study offers new evidence for a less salty Arctic Ocean during an ancient ‘greenhouse period,'” said Yusheng (Chris) Liu, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s Division of Earth Sciences, which co-funded the research with NSF’s Division of Polar Programs. “The results also confirm that the Arctic Ocean was isolated during that long-ago time.”
While Kim has hopes to expand her research both geographically and in geologic time in an effort to better understand the ecology and evolution of sharks, she remarked that “working with fossils is tricky because you have to work within the localities that are preserved. “You can’t always design the perfect experiment.”
sand tigers can be found in rivers, bays, etc….anything from low salinity to fresh water
these people are idiots
“A new study shows that some shark species may be able to cope with the rising salinity of Arctic waters that may come with rising temperatures.”
Holy lord liftin’ dyin’ crap. A double-may. This basically says absolutely NOTHING.
If anyone really wants to know whether certain species will survive global warming, rather than make gross estimates and guesses, why not just observe which species weathered warm periods in the past? Seems a much more accurate and straightforward approach to me.
“The Eocene epoch, she said, is like a “deep-time analogue for what’s going to happen if we don’t curb CO2 emissions today, and potentially what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like.”
Surprisingly there was no industry and no cars in the Eocene. What caused the C02 emissions then? Also if the Eocene was a runaway greenhouse effect, who stopped it?
Modern-era shark species occupy every ocean on the planet from the equator to the arctic, enduring a wide range of temperature, pressure and saline differences. They are probably THE world’s best adaptable survivors – why is this only now a surprise?
No cars in the Eocene? What about the Eocene Edsel?
“The Eocene epoch, she said, is like a “deep-time analogue for what’s going to happen if we don’t curb CO2 emissions today, and potentially what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like.”
Funny, they always seem to imply that it’s a hellscape, but from what I understand, during the Eocene there was a lush green rainforest from pole to pole. Seems like a paradise to me. I wonder why the ecoloons are not pushing for more CO2 then.
“The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate”
Is there a list anywhere where all the areas that are warming at twice the global rate are listed?
The Eocene epoch, she said, is like a “deep-time analogue for what’s going to happen if we don’t curb CO2 emissions today, and potentially what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like.”
That’s the next grant funding secured, then! As Mike Bromley says, this is nonsense (crap imho).
When there was 7000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere there was no “runaway global warming”, so what pray tell does she think is going to cause it now after 500 million years? How on Earth is 400 or even 600 ppm CO2 going to cause it? Sheesh!
“The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate. ”
Or perhaps it’s 1000 times the global rate. This is divide-by-zero territory.
Neil says:
July 9, 2014 at 9:50 am
“The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate”
Is there a list anywhere where all the areas that are warming at twice the global rate are listed?
Since the global rate at present is zero, twice that is not too worrisome.
Sorry but WTF?
“A new study shows that some shark species may be able to cope with the rising salinity of Arctic waters that may come with rising temperatures.”
““As more freshwater flows into the Arctic Ocean due to global warming, I think we are going to see it become more brackish,”
The tagline doesn’t match up with the information in the article. The Arctic Ocean would become less saline with more freshwater added…
I have the same question as Eric. How does more freshwater due to global warming cause the Arctic waters to become more saline? How does that work? Is it along the same lines as global warming causing more extreme winters?
Quit reading as soon as I saw “may” twice in the first two sentences.
Latitude
sand tigers can be found in rivers, bays, etc….anything from low salinity to fresh water
Hard to be sure. But apparently there are two externally somewhat similar sharks identified popularly as “sandtigers”. Judging from the text and the teeth pictured, the Arctic teeth they were working with are from the genus Odontaspis — which is a common fossil at US East Coast Eocene sites. Modern Odontaspis is said to prefer fairly high salinity. The other “sandtiger” is a Carcharinid. Some species of Carcharinid are quite tolerant of low salinity. If memory serves, the freshwater sharks of Lake Nicaragua are carcharinids (albeit a different species)
So maybe there is a naming confusion here.
For more data than almost anyone wants on Odontaspis, see http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:_xLYvrKq_ZcJ:http://www.redmic.es/bibliografia/Docum_01985.pdf%2Bodontaspis+salinity&gbv=1&as_q&spell=1&&ct=clnk
caveat. I did not read, and do not intend to read every word of the document I cited. Neither am I an expert on sharks. But I have some familiarity with fossil shark teeth and I’m pretty sure that the teeth pictured are from Odontapsis sp.
But can the delicate Arctic environment handle the inevitable Sharknados?
“The results were surprising. ‘The numbers I got back were really weird,’ Kim said.”
I was taught that when the result is ‘weird’ you need to go back and question your assumptions.
I think when you are dealing with a species whose modern forms go back about 100 million years, it’s a safe assumption they can cope with “climate change”.
Louis says:
July 9, 2014 at 10:16 am
“I have the same question as Eric. How does more freshwater due to global warming cause the Arctic waters to become more saline?How does that work? Is it along the same lines as global warming causing more extreme winters?”
___________________
It really isn’t all that complicated and 97% of climate scientists understand the process. Warmer air holds more moisture, so it is probable that more snowfall might occur in the Arctic, causing the ice to be insulated from the extra- warm Arctic air, increasing possibilities that even more ice may form, expelling salt and causing brackish Arctic water. The extra- salty water could interfere with and might change responses within the Arctic food chain and thus, models suggest that vast ecological disruption could occur on a scale unimagined before and which requires more study.
And who or what paid for this study, and why?
Don K says:
July 9, 2014 at 10:30 am
caveat. I did not read, and do not intend to read every word of the document I cited. Neither am I an expert on sharks. But I
have some familiarity with fossil shark teeth and I’m pretty sure that the teeth pictured are from Odontapsis sp.did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.There, FIFY 🙂
For anyone who is curious about how isolated the Arctic was in Eocene times, there are paleomaps readily available on the Internet. Here’s a link to a Middle/Upper Eocene reconstruction. Other time periods can be accessed from links at the site. http://www.scotese.com/lateeoc1.htm
Did someone say shark?
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=116569
Sharknado 2… coming soon to a TV near you.
Eric says:
July 9, 2014 at 10:02 am
If I remember correctly, “brackish” refers to the slightly salty water of estuaries and bayous, as opposed to sea water.
more soylent green! said:
July 9, 2014 at 10:36 am
But can the delicate Arctic environment handle the inevitable Sharknados?
————
Even worse: shark polar vortices!
Col Mosby says:
July 9, 2014 at 9:20 am
/////////////////
Any creatures that can trace its ancestory back millions of years have experienced significant change.
Don’t forget that the Holocene Optimun was just 8,000 years ago, and the Arctic may have been ice free or substtantially ice free then. All Arctic species that are still here today, survived that event, so why won’t they cope should there be a return to temperartures last seen during the Holocene Optimum? No one is yet forecasting temperatures greater than that, so nothing to reseach or worry about.
As regards migratory species, heck they migrate.
The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate.
My math is weak, what is 2 X nothing?
James Strom says:
July 9, 2014 at 11:12 am
Eric says:
July 9, 2014 at 10:02 am
If I remember correctly, “brackish” refers to the slightly salty water of estuaries and bayous, as opposed to sea water.
////////////////
In shipping that is definitely the case.
It is relevant for assessments of draft, and sometimes vessle stability.
Specific gravity is commonly cited:
Water, pure 39.2degF (4degC) 1.000
Water, sea 77degF 1.025
It is temperature dependent.
There is no standard for brackish water, Theoretically, it being above 1.000 and below 1.025, but it is commonly regarded to be more in the region 1.006 to 1.015.
All ports (and significant waterways) will provide details of the specific gravity, and there can be seasonal variations. When precise figures are required (which can be the case when a ship is near to its limits) samples are taken for measurment.
There are reference/conversion tables such as those found at http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/pdf/NOAA_conversion_table_tm-139%5B1%5D.pdf
So if one is suggesting that there is a tendancy for sea water to become brackish, one is suggesting that the saltiness is decreasing, and thereby the specific gravity is decreasing.
The reverse is so, if fresh water is becoming brackiish then its saltiness is increasing so too, its specific gravity.
If you want funding to study Eocene shark teeth, you have to hang your grant application on global warming from CO2, obviously.
Some think the Azolla Event, a plant bloom in the Arctic Ocean, drew down the high CO2 levels of that epoch. Carbon dioxide concentration crashed catastrophically from around 3500 ppm in the early Eocene (c. 56 Ma) to 650 ppm during this alleged event (c. 49 Ma), which may have lasted about 800,000 years. Estimates of course vary.
As noted above, the Arctic was even more landlocked in the Eocene than now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event#mediaviewer/File:Early_Eocene_Arctic_basin.PNG
Do not eat the meat of this Arctic shark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_shark
There was a runaway greenhouse effect during the Eocene?
Kim’s argument seems to be that a warmer world means a less saline Arctic Ocean, and woe to the poor sand sharks, but their own research confirms “…that the Arctic Ocean was isolated during that long-ago time.” The simplest explanation would appear to be that isolation is what caused the decrease in salinity. Even today, the Arctic is the most brackish of the world’s seas.
And if the Arctic Ocean was surrounded by temperate forests during the Eocene, how exactly would warmer conditions cause the Arctic Ocean to become more brackish during that epoch?
Col Mosby says:
If anyone really wants to know whether certain species will survive global warming, rather than make gross estimates and guesses, why not just observe which species weathered warm periods in the past? Seems a much more accurate and straightforward approach to me.
Since alarmists believe that current warming is somehow unlike past warming they wouldn’t think of doing that.
Whereas if you think that nothing unusual is happening such a thing is obvious.
Steve P says:
July 9, 2014 at 11:44 am
Some regard the proposed Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) as a GHG runaway, but the homeostatic earth quickly reined it in.
Duster says:
Since the global rate at present is zero, twice that is not too worrisome.
LOL!
..Azolla event…isolated Arctic……..stratified fresh water
Yep. may^2 means “not going to happen”.
Am I the only person who read the first line of the article and wondered what Jews living near the north pole has to do with sharks?
Anyone who has ever spent anty time in the Arctic in summer knows that top of the Food Chain is held by the mosquito. The Arctic Mosquito.
We had one land at the airport one day and we pumped 50 gallons of Jet A into that sucker before we realized it wasn’t a 747. And that was a juvenile.
Polar bears. . . pfffft. They fear the Arctic Mosquito.
Fred form Canuckistan says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Are there daily limits on the take? Assume season is open as long as they hatch.
I was confused by two contradictory statements in this piece. The first is a subheading near the beginning, and the second is in the body of the article, near the end. Notice the contradiction?
“A new study shows that some shark species may be able to cope with the rising salinity of Arctic waters that may come with rising temperatures.”
“These findings suggest that sharks may be able to cope with rises in temperature and the subsequent decrease of water salinity.”
Which is it, “rising salinity” or the “decrease of water salinity”? I think the error is in the subtitle, which doesn’t come from the original article. The original only talks about decreasing salinity. The opening paragraph in the original says this:
“…some shark species could handle the falling Arctic salinity that may come with rising temperatures.”
The subtitle here changed “falling Arctic salinity” to “rising salinity.” This mistake should be corrected to prevent confusion.
“””””…..The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate……”””””
“””””….. Leading the study was Sora Kim, the T.C. Chamberlin Postdoctoral Fellow in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago,…..”””””
So Mrs / Ms / Miss Kim, prior to your “study”, were you aware that the Arctic (also the Antarctic )
ARE SUPPOSED TO warm / cool at much higher than the global rate; so that is not any anomaly.
The secret to this is in Thermodynamics; not Sharks.
I don’t suppose your Doctoral (of what) thesis was in thermodynamics, was it ??
The total range of Temperatures (near surface / not near volcanoes) on earth, is over 150 deg.C; about 180 K to about 330 K, and a very large fraction of that range can exist simultaneously on any northern mid Summer day.
So the total surface emittance is likely to be about 11.3 :1 ratio from hotspots to cold spots. The ratio of peak spectral emittance is even higher; around 20.7 times.
And those coldest spots should emit, right at the peak of the CO2 15 micron LWIR band, while at the hottest spots, the peak wavelength is further into the atmospheric window, and is even below the Ozone absorption band.
So hey Sora; the hottest places on earth cool way faster than the coldest spots, so naturally, the arctic should warm faster than the global mean rate.
Also, both the atmospheric, and the oceanic currents pipe a whole lot of tropical “heat energy” to the polar regions, which aids in cooling the tropics, and gives the polar regions more work to do, in cooling, which they do a totally lousy job of.
So nothing new here Sora; we already knew the poles warm faster. And don’t forget it takes a whole lot more heat energy to raise the temperature of a hot spot (by say 1 deg. C) than it takes to do the same at a cold spot.
So take a course in thermodynamics Dr.Kim, and it will all make sense.
I see you’re a post doc fellow, at an institution. That’s the career terminus for 65% of USA Physics PhD graduates, who evidently did their theses, on something, nobody is interested in paying for.
But sharks, aren’t really Physics, so perhaps you did something else.
So maybe those sharks have learned to adapt, in the last 50 million years or so. They can be found way up in some fresh water rivers, in Australia, and other places.
Now as for rising temperatures, and rising salinity. It seems to me that when the arctic ocean waters freeze (every year they do that), the segregation coefficient for salt, favors the liquid phase (water) over the solid phase (ice), and vast amounts of salt are expelled into the still liquid arctic waters, so increased melting of Arctic sea ice , and also land run-off, would be expected to lower the salinity, of the Arctic ocean; not raise it.
“The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate.”
Twice nothing is still nothing.
“so the isotopic oxygen ratio found in the teeth is directly regulated by water temperature and salinity. With assumptions made about temperatures, the group was able to focus on extrapolating salinity levels of the water.”
If the salinity results make no sense, perhaps it’s because your assumptions about temperatures are off?
milodonharlani says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Fred form Canuckistan says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Are there daily limits on the take? Assume season is open as long as they hatch.
Not really, but they seemed to be satisfied with one or two adults, but if there were only teenagers around they might drag off 3 or 4 of them.
Fred form Canuckistan says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:52 pm
I’ll be sure to put on weight before heading north again. And load double 0 buck.
Sherman will be so pleased “http://shermanslagoon.com/”
🙂
“The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate.”
—
Wait a minute. Didn’t Cowtan and Way confirm just last November that “the Arctic is warming at about eight times the pace of the rest of the planet”? Has their research been retracted? Or did even other climate scientists have trouble swallowing their peer-reviewed nonsense?
Of course, since the rest of the planet isn’t warming and hasn’t during the entire lifetime of my 8 grandchildren, they could both claim to be right. (2 x 0) = (8 x 0) = (1,000,000 x 0) = 0. So they could say the Arctic is warming at a rate that is almost infinitely faster than the rest of the planet and still have zero warming taking place there. But that would mean they were deliberately being deceptive. Truth seeking scientists wouldn’t stoop to that level, would they?
“As more freshwater flows into the Arctic Ocean due to global warming, I think we are going to see it become more brackish,” said Eberle, associate professor of geological sciences at CU-Boulder.
WTF? Fresh water making the ocean more brackish? And this guy is a perfesser?
“Climate change” is a tautology (google is your friend). Climate is always changing. “Climate” means climate change. To talk about climate change is to advertise the fact that your IQ is about the same as your shoe size.
So sharks are adaptable !
We should care about this, for what reason ??
How does Dr Kim plan to make money, out of her earth shattering discovery ??
And Google is NOT anyone’s friend. Their plan is to take over control of EVERYTHING.
These statements don’t seem to be logical; phrase 1: “A new study shows that some shark species may be able to cope with the falling salinity of Arctic waters that may come with rising temperatures.” and
phrase 2: ““As more freshwater flows into the Arctic Ocean due to global warming, I think we are going to see it become more brackish,”” Perhaps I am missing something…a) how does adding more fresh water “increase salinity”? b) if I remember correctly “brackish” water is saltier than fresh water but not as salty as sea water, so phrase 2 contradicts phrase 1 as well as contradicting itself (phrase 2)
[Fixed. ~ mod.]
Mods,
Please correct the error in the subtitle… [done, thanks. ~ mod.]
“””””…..Admad says:
July 9, 2014 at 1:42 pm
“As more freshwater flows into the Arctic Ocean due to global warming, I think we are going to see it become more brackish,” said Eberle, associate professor of geological sciences at CU-Boulder.
WTF? Fresh water making the ocean more brackish? And this guy is a perfesser?……”””””
Um Admad;
Fresh water is “fresh” , and sea water is “salty”. Mix both of them and you get “brackish”.
Mix a lot of them both, and you get a lot more “brackish.”
How much is twice as much as zero?
The globe hasn’t been warming for over a decade, but that’s an average. It’s possible all the warming is in the Arctic, but then that would mean the rest of the world is cooling (because it’s an average).
So she’s proved that one of the oldest, most widespread and successful species on Earth can adapt to changing climate.
I’m impressed.
No, they’re not your friend. Especially if they don’t like your politics — http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/america-filmmakers-demand-know-why-717081
The “Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002” is still below average. Just like last year.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Yes they certainly “prefer to stay in areas of high salinity”, that’s why they stay away from freshwater.
With this last ability, is it any surprise that they will somehow make it through. Oh, I forgot their preferences.
How did sharks survive the last glaciation, a time of rapid climate change? Salinity went way down I think.
Ecoloons are interested only in Eco-lunacy and Eco-Funding. Everything else is a construct or subterfuge.
I say stick with studying the fishes of the sea and leave runaway alone.
I keep reading comments about the Sand Shark. I suppose we should care about the Sand Shark, but I am much more interested in what is to become of the Land Shark if the planet warms a 1/2 degree or so.
There is so much conjecture in this paper that it should not even be looked at as any for of scientific fact.. When will these warmists learn?
Hmmmn.
“The Arctic is of special interest today because it is increasing in temperature at twice the global rate.”
In the past 12 summers since 2003 (between days 150 and 250 of the year), the “Arctic ” summer time temperatures determined by DMI at 80 north latitude, has included only 16 weekly periods since 2002 when the Arctic daily average temperature has exceeded the “average” summertime temperatures for that date. In every other week than those, the Arctic summertime temperatures have been below the official “average” for that date.
Thus, by measurement, even that sentence is dead wrong.
Rough Math: Day 250 – day 150 = 100 days per year when the Arctic temperature is above 0.0 C.
12 years (2014 – 2002) x 100 days/year = 1200 days.
16 weeks x 7 days/week when temps are “above average” = 112 days ;
More than 90% of the summertime days the past 12 years, temperatures were “below average” in the Arctic at 80 north.
Not a lot of data for such broad conclusions.
“I’ll see your 1 tree in Yamal and raise you two bore sites in the Arctic.”
Did I miss something? Cores from some ridge area and then cores from the second area where she was working? Two locations to make pronouncements about the whole Arctic area?
H.R. says:
July 9, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Correct me if wrong, but didn’t Gavin claim that he could gin up a statistically significant Global Average Surface Temperature record from as few as 50 sites, ie one per 10.2 million square kilometers? That would mean one or two stations for the entire Arctic Ocean (14.06 million km²). And at most one for all of Canada (9,984,670 km²).
I have to wonder about the intellectual ability of scientists like Kim who make oxymoronic statements such the one stating that this gives us a picture of what “runaway global warming” will be like. It has clearly never happened – life on earth has not ended – thus an intellectually failed statement.
time to move the goal posts again:
10 July: Sydney Morning Herald: Reuters: Global warming requires more frequent rethink of ‘normal’ weather, WMO says
The baseline for “normal” weather used by everyone from farmers to governments to plan ahead needs to be updated more frequently to account for the big shifts caused by global warming, the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation said on Wednesday.
The WMO’s Commission for Climatology believes rising temperatures and more heatwaves and heavy rains mean the existing baseline, based on the climate averages of 1961-90, is out of date as a guide, the WMO said in a statement.
“For water resources, agriculture and energy, the old averages no longer reflect the current realities,” Omar Baddour, head of the data management applications at the WMO, told Reuters…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warming-requires-more-frequent-rethink-of-normal-weather-wmo-says-20140710-zt20z.html
double-barrel-named women come out with both barrels blazing:
9 July: Christian Broadcasting Network: Paul Strand: Worried Moms: Global Warming Endangers Our Kids
Moms who are hot to stop global warming came with their kids to ask Congress Wednesday to get behind whatever measures are needed to fight climate change.
They held a “play-in” instead of a sit-in because most kids won’t sit still for a sit-in…
As San Jose, California, mom Linda Hutchins-Knowles put it, “I’m worried that it’s not going to be sustainable for human life.”
Gretchen Dahlkemper-Alfonso, national field manager of the Moms Clean Air Force, helped organize this event…
But William Yeatman, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues not everyone agrees climate change will be horrific.
“A lot of what you’ll hear and certainly today were along the alarmist line,” he told CBN News. “But is there a consensus at to whether or not global warming is the end-all threat facing mankind? There is no such consensus.”
Hutchins-Knowles disagrees. And as a Quaker and environmentalist, she believes it’s a godly duty to fight climate change.
“I believe that God has gifted us to be stewards of the planet,” she said. “And it’s our responsibility – a sacred duty – to protect what God’s created.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., came to the event located a few hundred feet from the U.S. Senate, saying she was there as a lawmaker, but also concerned grandmother and mom…
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/July/Worried-Moms-Global-Warming-Endangers-Our-Kids/
According to Kim, past climate change in the Arctic can serve as a proxy to better understand our current climate change and aid future predictions. The Eocene epoch, she said, is like a “deep-time analogue for what’s going to happen if we don’t curb CO2 emissions today, and potentially what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like.”
If there was no runaway greenhouse effect during the Eocene epoch, what makes her think there will be one now? And if it was warmer during the Eocene epoch, what makes her think CO2 has anything to do with the current warmth? Like, couldn’t the current warmth have been caused by the same variables that made the Eocene epoch warm?
warmist MSM already debunking their own recent headline!
9 July: WaPo: Gail Sullivan: No, climate change is not driving redheads to extinction
So what did these “experts” have to say? Actually it was two experts — one who refused to give his name and another of uncertain expertise…
Who is this (“expert of uncertain expertise”) Alistair Moffat anyway?
ScotlandsDNA is one of those Web sites that claims to trace your ancestry if you send them a DNA sample. On the site, he lists his credentials: MA (Hons), M.Phil, Cert.Ed. but doesn’t say anything about a background in genetics. Nevertheless, he writes books on the subject, including “The British: A Genetic Journey” and “The Scots: A Genetic Journey.” You can find out about his other writing, mostly histories of Scotland, on his Web site.
Among his claims to fame: In 2012, he told BBC radio he’d discovered Eve’s (as in Adam and Eve) “grandson” and direct descendants of the Queen of Sheba. Some geneticists were skeptical.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/09/no-climate-change-is-not-driving-redheads-to-extinction/
pat says:
July 9, 2014 at 5:44 pm
There’s the PR problem in a nutshell. Apparently, some people have been convinced that a degree or two of warming will make the planet unfit for human life. I suppose the idea of runaway global warming has not been banished entirely from the popular imagination. Recall that the alarmist imagery in the mass media about CAGW has been quite striking and powerful, and will not be easily purged, imo, especially among the great masses of people who do not presume to question authority on matters of science.
We know very little about the Oceans and the Oceans floor, for example:
“Buried under thick ice and frigid water, volcanic explosions are shaking the Arctic Ocean floor at depths previously thought impossible, according to a new study.”
“Powerful eruptions sent a plume of carbon dioxide, helium, and liquid lava up into the Arctic waters.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-arctic-volcano.html
Don K:
Thanks for the link to Scotese’s Paleomap Project.
The maps of past climate and geology put the present in perspective.
Well, yeah – there are sharks on the east coast of the US who go a surprising distance upstream. I think it’s called “a c c l i m a t I z a t I o n”.
Pacific salmon spend some time near the mouth of rivers, to get somewhat accustomed to the different salinity and perhaps water temperature (since river water in late summer will be somewhat warmer than ocean water which may be as cold as in winter). They must start up the long rivers, like the Columbia, Fraser, etc. early to get to their spawning grounds
And I’ve nailed environmentalists for scare-mongering about Great Blue Herons – they adapt, for example now nesting beside the tennis courts and park offices in Stanley Park in Vancouver BC.
Oh, and in many towns in BC, plus the whole Victoria area, deer seem relatively accustomed to humans – better food and fewer cougars in town, though while they can handle those wolf-like creatures called dogs they don’t grasp the danger from cars.
Environmentalists do not give species enough credit for adaptability.
(And of course they will not recognize that some species die out because they do not adapt.)
oops, that’s of course to get to their spawning grounds before winter – both those rivers start in the Rocky Mountain trench in east central BC. (Some in NW BC and eastern AK/western YT are quite long, IIRC including the Skeena.)
IIRC sockeye start up the Fraser in late August, whereas in short streams on the coast they can wait until November.
This is ridiculous – apparently to the scientists “brackish” merely refers to a difference in salinity, whereas the use of “brackish” in the beginning of this article is talking of swamps (where alligators live, not sharks) – the water condition most people would apply the word to? (Swamp water having much more than salt fouling it, lack of water circulation being a primary factor.)
I dislike such terminology confusion.
(An example in a different field is the term “conscious sedation” that’s become popular in dentistry. It does not mean that your mind is conscious, only that your automatic physiology can keep breathing on its own, no external pump needed.)