
Here is the transcript
JUDY WOODRUFF: Scientists working in Greenland have identified the oldest samples of DNA ever found on Earth. By analyzing this two-million-year-old genetic material, they have revealed how Northern Greenland was once a wildly different environment than the cold polar region it is today, one teeming with ancient wildlife and plants, including some that scientists thought had never lived so far north. William Brangham is back now to explore this with one of the researchers who made this discovery.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For more on this remarkable discovery, I’m joined by one of the lead scientists on this project. Professor Eske Willerslev is an evolutionary geneticist and one of the early pioneers in studying ancient DNA. He’s director of the Center for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen’s GLOBE Institute. Professor Willerslev, so good to have you, and congratulations on this research. So you discovered this DNA in Northern Greenland. Can you just tell us a little bit about how you actually found the DNA?
ESKE WILLERSLEV, University of Copenhagen: So it’s some settings, big hills of two-million-year-old dirt basically lying in Northern Greenland. And what we did is we were digging into this dirt and we were drilling out some dirt core. You can’t see any biological material like bones or anything like that. It’s basically dirt, but the DNA from the past has stuck to this dirt. And this is because we’re shedding DNA all the time while we’re alive. And so did these animals and plants also two million years ago.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So you’re not drilling into an ancient carcass or an ancient tree. This is something that the animals or plants excreted during their lives?
ESKE WILLERSLEV: That’s correct. So it’s coming from skin cells. It’s coming from ancient feces, from urine, and stuff like that. If I touch the screen like this, right, my DNA will be on the screen. So we will basically — every person is shedding DNA to the surroundings, and some of this DNA will bind to these sediment particles and survive for two million years, basically.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: What you just said there is so striking, though, because I had no idea that DNA could survive for such a long period of time. How is that possible?
ESKE WILLERSLEV: Well, I was surprised about that too. So the oldest DNA until this study was one million years. And that’s basically what most people believed was possible. But apparently, I mean, when it binds to these mineral particles in the soil, it basically protects the DNA so it can survive much longer.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So once you have isolated the DNA and said, aha, this is ancient DNA, how do you go about then trying to figure out what it’s DNA from… what these organisms were?
ESKE WILLERSLEV: Yes, that was a challenge too because two million years is a long time in evolution, right? So whatever DNA we were finding is not identical to what we see today. But we can basically compare it to all known DNA sequences ever recorded from both the present and also what people have retrieved from bones and teeth of the past, for example. And then we can basically identify these fragments, and from these fragments, through the comparison, reconstruct what animals and plants they belonged to.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And tell us a little bit about what you discovered.
ESKE WILLERSLEV: It’s a total surprise. I mean, you have to understand that today this area up in Northern Greenland is what we called an arctic desert. There’s almost nothing. It looks like the Sahara, basically. And then what we can see two million years ago, it was a diverse forest of all kinds of trees and also animals like mastodon, these extinct big elephants, as well as the ancestor of reindeers. There were hares, there were lemmings, there were geese. I mean, so a very different ecosystem than what you see today.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And I understand as well you found some traces of horseshoe crabs as well. I mean, again, I’m no paleontologist, but it seems striking to think that you’re finding mastodons in some proximity to horseshoe crabs.
ESKE WILLERSLEV: Yes, but this is because if you had been there two million years ago and you were standing at the shore with your rubber boots at the water, right, you would see basically a river — facing a river that is coming out, bringing material with it into the bay, into the ocean. So therefore, it’s a mixture between the DNA from the terrestrial surroundings, right? You would have looked up again at this forest and seen the mastodon and so forth. And then you also get marine organisms, right, because the sediments fold into a marine setting. And that’s why we see the horseshoe crab. And all of these animals suggest a time where it was way warmer than today, probably 11 to 12 degrees Celsius warmer than today.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Well, walk me through the implications of that. If these species existed in that warmer world, what are the implications for modern-day man?
ESKE WILLERSLEV: Well, to me, there’s two major implications. One is that what we see is an ecosystem with no modern analogue. There’s nowhere in the world you find this ecosystem, which is a mixture between arctic organisms and temperate organisms. So what it tells us is really that climate change, when it’s getting warmer, is actually quite unpredictable. I mean, most models, if not all models, that are trying to predict how our surroundings, our biology will react to this moment, probably wouldn’t be able to have predicted this when you go back in time. So you can say the plasticity of organisms is different than what we think. And this is, of course, worrisome because if you’re bad at forecasting, it means you also have — it’s difficult to make a strategy to mitigate the consequences of global warming. On the other hand, I would say now we have a genetic road map, right? We have a genetic — it’s the building blocks of life. We have a genetic road map where we can find out how did these organisms back in time adapt to global warming.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I know that you have been studying ancient DNA for much of your career, but this does seem like a genuinely striking advancement in your own work. And I wonder how that personally resonates with you. When you realized what you had and what you discovered, what is that like for you?
ESKE WILLERSLEV: I mean, it’s amazing, right? I mean, sometimes I kind of divide our discoveries into what we call founding papers and then you can see the papers where we just build on what we found, basically. And this is definitely one of the founding papers. I mean, it allows us to go back to — for the first time back to before the last Ice Age, right, and to a climate which is very similar to what we are heading towards because of global warming. So it’s also a very important period because it tells us something about what we can expect to happen in the future.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Such a tremendous discovery here. Professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, thank you so much for talking with us.
ESKE WILLERSLEV: My pleasure.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So fascinating. I am in awe of these scientists.
H/T jz
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
________________________________________________________________
He almost says the models aren’t able to predict the future.
He could have admitted the models can’t get the past right, either.
I think he did…
“ if not all models, that are trying to predict how our surroundings, our biology will react to this moment, probably wouldn’t be able to have predicted this when you go back in time.”
“”predicted this””
That seems pretty specific.
He pretty much said that the global warming hype is models all the way down.
And climate models are unable to predict anything about the climate.
Almost or pretty much, what’s really a surprise is NPR aired the interview.
This isn’t a surprise at all. We’ve long known the Arctic Ocean coast was surrounded by boreal forest in the Pliocene and early Pleistocene. Tree trunks of that age are buried there.
OOPS! The climate now is very much like just before the last ice age because of global warming. Pretty much sums it up.
It really is a baseless, gibberish mantra statement, isn’t it !!
Gibberish is what NPR and PBS have become. But not only did they show that life thrived in local temperatures warmer than we have today, and did so while the arctic was generally ice free, but that warming was followed by an ice age.
“” It’s a total surprise.””
I find that hard to believe.
“A 280-million-year-old tree fossil … dried under the tundra for 32,000 years. A farsighted arctic ground squirrel had stored the fruit in its burrow. “
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/science/climate-change-archaeology.html
“”The Arctic hasn’t been this warm for 3 million years””
https://earthsky.org/earth/arctic-warmest-3-million-years/
“”Scientists stunned to discover plants beneath mile-deep Greenland ice””
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210315165639.htm
I suppose one has to big it up a bit.
“I suppose one has to big it up a bit.”
It’s also unprecedented & 97% worse than we thought !!!
““”The Arctic hasn’t been this warm for 3 million years”””
Then how come for most of the first 9000 years of the Holocene there was a lot less sea ice. !
How come current sea ice levels are in the top 5-10% of those 10,000 years.
He is talking anti-factual gibberish.
Well, I don’t endorse those links, but they do highlight the fact that it isn’t really a surprise at all.
That is not the figure from Stein et al’s paper it’s had additions.
So what….
…. the graph itself is exactly his, with text added so that gormless twits like you can understand its relevance more easily
Yes. Other than the location of the dna in dirt piles, I don’t see why it is surprising that they find that there were plants and animals in ancient Greenland. There’s oil in the arctic. News Hour needs to look in its own archives for their 2021 coverage of oil exploration beneath Greenland.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/greenland-suspends-oil-exploration-because-of-climate-change
Oil is a product of plant and animal decay and its subsequent compression under silt and sedimentation and high temps. If they are aware of oil beneath many polar regions, how is it a revelation that plants and animals, including the occasional sauropod covered the landscape millions of years ago. And speaking of dinosaurs…
Isn’t that one introducint this story: Judy Woodroofii?
Bollocks.
I think it would be fine for Greenland to be totally green again. Probably lots of resources there. What’s so awesome about a huge island buried under ice? It could have thriving forests, thriving humans, mines, farms, and perhaps a wealth of fossil fuels!
Steve.
A good, accurate technical summary.
You should receive a ‘No ball Prize’ (:-))
What he seems to be saying is that we are heading for a new ice age… because of global warming.
A very typical AGW-zealot statement.
Bollocks, exactly. It’s the kind of bollocks thinking that allows the following to occur.
Canada’s Ambassador for Climate Change billed more than $254,000 in travel expenses in less than two years on the job, accounts show. Catherine Stewart charged for stays at luxury hotels ranging up to $623 a night, according to Access To Information records: “Climate change will bring unprecedented challenges.”
Canada’s Ambassador for Climate Change
Does anybody know Where climate change has it’s offices and embassies?
I mean, right?
What was the atmospheric CO2 level back then?
What ever it was, it had absolutely nothing to do with the temperature.
It must not have been much, otherwise the Climate Alarmists would be citing the figure and claiming CO2 is the reason Greenland was so warm.
A truly fascinating look back in time which demonstrates how inadequate modelling is when it comes to what you think you do know but, very clearly in real terms, have no idea about! I am sure, in time, that the information gleaned from this DNA will be of immense benefit but one wonders when and what the real clue reveals will be.
“So what it tells us is really that climate change, when it’s getting warmer, is actually quite unpredictable.”
Looking at any glacial-interglacial cycle graph it becomes immediately obvious that, broadly speaking, contrary to the above statement, climatic warming is very stable and predictable once it begins, while cooling is actually very erratic and unpredictable.
”We have a genetic road map where we can find out how did these organisms back in time adapt to global warming.”
Wrong. 2 million years ago organisms were adapting to global cooling. The Ice Age we still live in today was just 600,000 years old.
“So what it tells us is really that climate change, when it’s getting warmer, is actually quite unpredictable.”
All’s of a sudden, he just started making [stuff] up. He was talking about it being much warmer 2 million years ago when there was a certain richness to life. I believe the
predictionconclusion from this evidence is that the world is now cold with “arctic desert” a reality, but on a “return to normalcy”.“So you can say the plasticity of organisms is different than what we think. And this is, of course, worrisome because if you’re bad at forecasting, it means you also have — it’s difficult to make a strategy to mitigate the consequences of global warming.”
Translation:
‘So life can cope just fine. The models are shite. We know they are shite. But I’m gonna stick with the global warming mantra because….reasons.’
“…if you’re bad at forecasting, it means you also have — it’s difficult to make a strategy to mitigate the consequences of global warming ”
Says it all.
This global warming is just astonishing isn’t it? Look back over say, the last 3000 years when we’ve been on a cycle of warm and cold periods lasting 1000 years. We’re naturally coming out of the coldest period since the last ice age ended 12 -14k years ago, and the warming we’re seeing could be part of that, and natural could it?
Last glacial, not last ice age. Words are important.
How were these samples dated and what is the uncertainty?
How can anyone guess that these sample of lifeforms from apparently different habitats are not actually samples separated in time by some hundreds of thousands of years?
Does this person know nothing abut geology? 2 million years ago is many glacial stages ago of the current ice age. The previous ice age ended around 250 million years earlier.
He may be a great geneticist but he doesn’t know much about Earth’s history. 2 million years ago was in the middle of the 4 million year long (and counting) Pleistocene glaciation. The climate has been up and down like a toilet seat all through those 4 million years.
Stretching the data far beyond what I should, this implies that at 2 million years, there was an interglacial when northern Greenland had a more or less temperate climate – far warmer than the present interglacial. From that, I might hypothesise that the Pleistocene Ice Age is getting deeper and colder over time, and that is the real concern about future climate. How could the earth sustain a population in the multi billions when the next glacial stage gets going?
Exactly! 2 million years ago organisms were adapting to global cooling.
It’s the oceans, what mechanism transferred the heat up there. The only answer is oceans were warmer. Why today isn’t the world transferring the energy today? Why is it being stuck in the tropics using the sun’s energy to evaporate water and cause deserts in the midlatitudes.
The oceans are 90% 0-4 degrees, it’s a very cold ocean. It WAS warm. What changed, what caused the shift to mid latitude ocean stratification energy storage with increased evaporation and desertification, a cold planet briefly warmed by interglacial cycles caused by ocean energy moving back up to the poles.
So, was it:
1) excessive atmospheric CO2, or
2) excessive global temperature, or
3) something else
that killed off the organisms that provided the two-million-year-old DNA?
Climate alarmists are in desperate need of ANY supportive evidence of their two main assertions.
From Eske Willerslev’s idiotic statement near the end of the above article’s quotes:
“I mean, it’s amazing, right? . . . I mean, it allows us to go back to — for the first time back to before the last Ice Age, right, and to a climate which is very similar to what we are heading towards because of global warming. So it’s also a very important period because it tells us something about what we can expect to happen in the future.”
to Judy Woodruff’s closing, fawning statement:
“I am in awe of these scientists.”
the whole charade is revealed for what it is.
Despite the hype, which everyone needs to do to keep the funds coming, using DNA should provide an excellent tool to firm up millions of ybp ancient dating of core samples.
“And all of these animals suggest a time where it was way warmer than today, probably 11 to 12 degrees Celsius warmer than today.”
Dang! I see it coming! There will be a big explosion of discovery of ancient DNA deep sea muds, bay bottom muds, glacier laminae, cave dirt… And you can date it. There must be millions of times higher likelyhood of finding DNA troves from Holocene sites, Eemian, etc, etc. We will be awash in data.
The Dark Side scientists can only flourish in equivocal, suspect data that they can fashion to their liking. They are going to hate this discovery. If this is borne out, 90% of Climate Fun Stuff will be weeded out, A million Journals go extinct. Millions of Global Climate Armageddon workers, NGOs, their heads, professors, asterisked PhDs cancelled, demissioned…. Those handily singled out by Desmog Blog will be appointed to head up fixing the whole mess.
..
The last time I investigated the subject, I found that DNA molecules in a warm environment last less than 200 years. In an frozen tundra, it can last up to tens of thousands of years. The idea that non-fossilized DNA material laying on dirt in a tropical environment could be buried and last millions of years, is completely against all observed decay rates for DNA. I can only assume that DNA was found in a dirt layer that is calculated as 2 million years ago, they also assume the dirt is the same age.
OK, I’m not a geologist, nor do I play one on TV… Two million years ago, given continental drift and plate techtonics and etc., where was that particular part of (what is now called) Greenland located? Latitude/longitude wise, more than anything, but also what was around it, how different would the ocean currents, prevailing winds, precipitation patterns, around it have been, etc. Because there’s a whole lot more that makes up climate than just the position on the globe.
I’ve never heard a scientist or engineer describe soil as “dirt”. Never.