Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Carlos

The Killing Cold

4 posts in this topic

The Killing Cold

"Our study indicates that at the time the Norse arrived in West Greenland, climate conditions were relatively mild and were favorable to the settlers” said Ribeiro. “However, in AD 1350 the settlement collapsed, the cause of which has long been debated.”

The marine perspective of the research is especially relevant as the Norse inhabited inner fjord areas. The team’s research compared robust air temperature reconstructions based on ice-core data with their own marine record. The results underline the regional complexity of climate patterns in the study area, which may vary from ice core reconstructions, and are strongly controlled by the fluctuating influence of “warm” Atlantic waters entrained by the West Greenland Current.

“Our study shows a major shift towards cooler conditions and extensive sea-ice which coincides with the estimated time for the collapse of the Western Settlement in AD 1350," said Dr Ribeiro. “The Norse were proud of being Europeans, farmers and Christians, and never adopted the hunting and survival techniques of the Inuit, so these temperature shifts would have caused significant problems for the colonists and their livestock.”

Agricultural difficulties are believed to have forced the Norse to rely on marine resources, yet the increase in sea-ice, the team suggests, would have had a major impact on species such as migratory seals, while blocking trade routes.

“We cannot attribute the end of the Norse civilisation to a single factor, but there is enough evidence to suggest that climate change played a major role in determining its collapse," concluded Ribeiro. "Harsh climate conditions made farming and cattle production increasingly difficult and the extensive sea-ice prevented navigation and trading with Europe.”

Despite the endless insistence that a warmer climate is bad from viro scientists. The cold kills, and for good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm hearing the argument that the ocean is becoming acidic, and, that the CO2 we produce, while it is only 3% of the natural, it is in addition to the natural. That it is cumulative. The natural keeps it's balance over time they say. This from a scientist here in Australia on a TV interview and discussion. (He died shortly there after).

I find it impossible to argue without sufficient information and knowledge, even though I remain to be convinced that their premises and models are correct. I do wish those who do have the knowledge could make themselves noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I'm hearing the argument that the ocean is becoming acidic, and, that the CO2 we produce, while it is only 3% of the natural, it is in addition to the natural. That it is cumulative. The natural keeps it's balance over time they say. This from a scientist here in Australia on a TV interview and discussion. (He died shortly there after).

I find it impossible to argue without sufficient information and knowledge, even though I remain to be convinced that their premises and models are correct. I do wish those who do have the knowledge could make themselves noticed.

If increasing the concentration of CO2 from 300ppm (parts per million) to 400ppm will render the ocean so acidic that life is destroyed, then you have nothing to fear, as everything in the ocean is already dead anyways, considering that CO2 concentrations routinely were a factor of 15-20 greater in the past. For example, between the Jurassic and Cretaceous period CO2 topped out at 2500ppm. In some periods it was 4000-7000ppm.

Obviously life wasn't wiped out by such "high" CO2 concentrations, or we wouldn't be here. The fact is that CO2 and global average temperature really don't correlate as strongly together as the viros would have you think. Al Gore's iconic graph of CO2 vs temperature in his film shows only a period over the last couple hundred thousand years where CO2 and temperature strongly trended together. Looking at a larger slice of time (on millions or hundreds of millions of years) the correlation becomes weak, and there are period of ultra-high CO2 with and without ultra-high temperatures.

Another thing that bears mentioning is that while saying "the ocean is becoming acidic" is technically true, it's immensely misleading to the audience. The ocean currently is slightly basic, and is becoming slightly less basic. Regardless, there are complex chemical buffer systems involving Calcium Carbonate (coming from shells of crustaceans) that more than likely will be very robust when it comes to moderating the acidity/basicity of the ocean.

With that said, more than likely the reason why CO2 and temperature have trended so strongly over the last several hundred thousand years is because the temperature is driving the CO2. Through the above mentioned chemical pathways the ocean can sequester tremendous quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere, but this depends on equilibrium chemical reactions which sensitively depend on ocean temperature. Qualitatively speaking, a warmer ocean releases CO2 like a hot flat soda pop, and vice versa. In fact, when one looks at high resolution plots of CO2 vs temperature over the last several hundred thousand years, there is a slight delay between when the temperature changes and when the CO2 concentration begins to follow. With the above said, this delay is explained in terms of the ocean having "thermal inertia", and requiring time to heat up in response to a warmer atmosphere; but once it warms up, the sequestering of CO2 is altered and atmospheric concentrations rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I'm hearing the argument that the ocean is becoming acidic, and, that the CO2 we produce, while it is only 3% of the natural, it is in addition to the natural. That it is cumulative. The natural keeps it's balance over time they say. This from a scientist here in Australia on a TV interview and discussion. (He died shortly there after).

I find it impossible to argue without sufficient information and knowledge, even though I remain to be convinced that their premises and models are correct. I do wish those who do have the knowledge could make themselves noticed.

If increasing the concentration of CO2 from 300ppm (parts per million) to 400ppm will render the ocean so acidic that life is destroyed, then you have nothing to fear, as everything in the ocean is already dead anyways, considering that CO2 concentrations routinely were a factor of 15-20 greater in the past. For example, between the Jurassic and Cretaceous period CO2 topped out at 2500ppm. In some periods it was 4000-7000ppm.

FYI:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocea...ion-and-corals/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocea...-strikes-again/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-...anic-acid-test/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-s...ld-more-shells/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0