Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Largest North America Climate Change In 65 Million Years, Study Shows
Science Daily ^ | February 8, 2007 | University of Florida

Posted on 02/08/2007 11:41:45 AM PST by rbookward

The largest climate change in central North America since the age of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, a temperature drop of nearly 15 degrees Fahrenheit, is documented within the fossilized teeth of horses and other plant-eating mammals, a new study reveals.

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalcooling; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 next last
To: rbookward
AIIEEE! GLOBAL COOLING!


81 posted on 02/08/2007 12:35:39 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

I may not read all the responses, I do read the original article however.


82 posted on 02/08/2007 12:35:47 PM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

ha ha.....super well done...


83 posted on 02/08/2007 12:38:57 PM PST by thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Guess they couldn't spell psychrometer, or used the term barometer to mean measurement.


84 posted on 02/08/2007 12:50:24 PM PST by Ed Condon (Wanted, newer tag line in good condition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Hardly anyone is getting wealthy from paleontology.

I'd wager that your average local dentist or orthodontist is making a lot more than your average paleontologist, with fewer educational expenses.

Yeah, your average dentist/orthodontist doesn't have to "dig up" his patients.

85 posted on 02/08/2007 12:50:42 PM PST by MooseMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

Massive climate change in the earth's history has been a well known fact for decades. That knowledge hasn't figured in the climate change debate and this bit of knowledge (which only reinforces previous knowledge and doesn't break new ground except as it relates to gathering the same info in different way) won't change anything.


86 posted on 02/08/2007 1:05:45 PM PST by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rbookward; All

What US "journalists" - educated in advocacy journalism at our universities - know, is that 80 - 90% of the people will read:

"Largest North America Climate Change In 65 Million Years, Study Shows" and then read no further.

The format of the title was chosen because the title fits the "humans cause global warming" agenda, whether the information in the article is relevant to that or not.

If the editors really wanted to convey the true meaning of what the article is about, they would have said:

"Largest North America Climate Change Was 34 Million Years Ago, Study Shows".

But, that would have been factual and not tied to any editorial agenda. That is not what "journalism" is for.


87 posted on 02/08/2007 1:09:03 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist; advertising guy; goodnesswins; SomeoneNeedsToSayIt; indylindy

Did any of you consider reading (and understanding) the article, before posting?


88 posted on 02/08/2007 1:21:50 PM PST by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 3niner; advertising guy; goodnesswins; SomeoneNeedsToSayIt; indylindy
Did any of you consider reading (and understanding) the article, before posting?

Yes, but what fun is there in that?

89 posted on 02/08/2007 1:26:55 PM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: rbookward

I'm not instilled with a lot of confidence in a Science website that takes ten minutes to load on my browser. I know I'm a dinosaur to have a 28.8 kpb dial-up (nothing else is available here) but I've downloaded YouTube videos in less time. How up on science can they be?


90 posted on 02/08/2007 1:27:28 PM PST by TigersEye (Ego chatters endlessly on. Mind speaks in great silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Brownie points for you on this one.


91 posted on 02/08/2007 1:28:01 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: rbookward

So the previous record 65 million years ago, was that due to SUVs?

Was it aerosol spray cans?


92 posted on 02/08/2007 1:33:29 PM PST by getitright (Liberalism is irresponsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

besides it's BS because NO PERSON can prove anything 65 million years ago. Carbon fiber dating is only good factually to 16 thousand years, the rest of the chart is actary assumptions.........


93 posted on 02/08/2007 1:34:05 PM PST by advertising guy (If computer skills named us, I'd be back-space delete.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Finally it loaded.

Donald R. Prothero, a professor of geology at Occidental College and an expert on the Eocene-to-Oligocene transition, said, "We have long known that there were some dramatic climatic changes in the earliest Oligocene based on the record of marine plankton and isotopes. But we didn't know how much change there was in degrees, although the plant changes suggested it was indeed about 15 degrees."

The bottom line of the article...dramatic climate changes have occurred tens of millions of years in the past. They don't really know why but they're guessing that changes in ocean currents may have caused it.

Did they try to determine what solar output was at the time? Nothing said in the article.

94 posted on 02/08/2007 1:38:51 PM PST by TigersEye (Ego chatters endlessly on. Mind speaks in great silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Where have you been? Global cooling is a sign of global warming! And for those who may be confused by that, simply substitute the term, 'abrupt climate change' for either of the above. Geeze! I thought everybody knew that! :)


95 posted on 02/08/2007 1:39:45 PM PST by Continental Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is what person went back in time and screwed up history?

Algore. He got lost in the petrified forest.

96 posted on 02/08/2007 1:47:58 PM PST by TigersEye (Ego chatters endlessly on. Mind speaks in great silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: rbookward
Since people here don't like to follow links, I've pulled in a little picture.

It came from here, by the way.

They are showing temperatures in Celsius, to convert to Fahrenheit, multiply by 9, divide by 5, then add 32.

Our recent (last 2 million years) temperature fluctuations, can't show on this graph, because the time scale is too great.

Over the last 1.8 million years, the Earth has been locked in a series of ice ages, alternating with interglacial periods. The ice ages are about 5-6 degrees (F) cooler than today's temperatures, and average about 4 times as long as the interglacial periods. (The Earth is currently in an interglacial period.)

The normal average temperature of the Earth is about 10-15 degrees (F) higher than today's.

97 posted on 02/08/2007 1:48:31 PM PST by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
1) There's big money in "disaster".
2) There's big money in "disaster research"

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken

Regards,
GtG

98 posted on 02/08/2007 1:51:25 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: advertising guy
besides it's BS because NO PERSON can prove anything 65 million years ago. Carbon fiber dating is only good factually to 16 thousand years, the rest of the chart is actary assumptions.........

And "carbon fiber dating" would be what? Determining the age of your fishing rod, maybe?

99 posted on 02/08/2007 1:58:21 PM PST by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: 3niner
That graph shows no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature at all.

Did Dan Rather draw that? /s

100 posted on 02/08/2007 2:13:55 PM PST by TigersEye (Ego chatters endlessly on. Mind speaks in great silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson