Skip to comments.
'Arctic hippo' hints at a once-balmy North Pole
New Scientist ^
| April 25, 2007
Posted on 04/25/2007 1:17:13 PM PDT by Zakeet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
To: Tallguy
Ummmm... Continental Drift?... That was my first reaction too, but the article says: "When Svalbard was hot, 55 million years ago, the islands were also closer to the North Pole."
21
posted on
04/25/2007 2:14:43 PM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Parker v. DC: the best court decision of the year.)
To: Zakeet
Funny, how you rarely hear much about this very hot period in earth history.
Climate is historically very unstable on this planet. From a geological standpoint, trying to “control climate” with our puny human efforts is absurd.
22
posted on
04/25/2007 2:15:07 PM PDT
by
Wiseghy
("You want to break this army? Then break your word to it.")
To: Zakeet
Old News. People have known for 100 years the arctic/antarctic were tropical. They found palm trees under 20 ft clear sheets of ice.
To: Joe 6-pack
Well it's pretty obvious to me....if the hippos were burning coal, there's little doubt in my mind that they had global warming back then, too.
Maybe they mined the coal for the armored bears to use in their forges.
24
posted on
04/25/2007 2:20:48 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: Zakeet
Gee... animals seemed to have thrived. And we have liberals hysterical over a warmer climate!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
25
posted on
04/25/2007 2:23:15 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: Zakeet
The poor polar bears, it must have been tough on them.
To: Red Badger
hippopotamus-like creature ................................You get the GOLD STAR for that one!
27
posted on
04/25/2007 2:29:58 PM PDT
by
litehaus
(A memory tooooo long)
To: chaos_5
28
posted on
04/25/2007 2:32:47 PM PDT
by
RetSignman
(DEMSM: "If you tell a big enough lie, frequently enough, it becomes the truth")
To: Zakeet
I wonder what the carbon footprint of a Krakatoa was (in addition to the obvious noise ordinance violation)?
I say we outlaw all future volcanic explosions.
29
posted on
04/25/2007 2:35:08 PM PDT
by
AmusedBystander
(Republicans - doing the work that Democrats won't do since 1854.)
To: Tallguy
Ummmm... Continental Drift?...
best I can tell going over maps, animations of continental positions, and texts, it appears Scandinavia was in nearly (maybe as little as ±5 to 10° latitude, but I'm not confident in that estimate at all) the same position then it was today, but rotated such that's long axis was in a roughly E-W direction, and squashed in closer to the continent. I'm going to see if I can't find some better information.
Also, sniffing around online it appears that Hippopotami were in fairly widespread in Europe as recently as less than 2MYA and as at least as far north as the british Isles; the ones in Africa also seem to do fine in zoos in colder climates as well.
30
posted on
04/25/2007 2:35:16 PM PDT
by
verum ago
(The Iranian Space Agency: set phasers to jihad!)
To: Zakeet
Very old news. The event 55 million years ago was known as the Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was one of the warmest spells in Earth’s recent geological history. While it is true that Alaska and Svalbard were much closer to the north pole, it’s also true that there was ocean between North and South America and a huge body of warm shallow water between Africa and Eurasia. All of that warm water circulating about might have led to the conditions at the thermal maximum. It’s also true that the thermal maximum is considered a minor extinction event. It’s all fascinating stuff.
What it tells me is that the Earth’s climate has some mighty powerful swings sometimes without any human impact whatsoever.
31
posted on
04/25/2007 2:40:15 PM PDT
by
redpoll
(redpoll)
To: Secret Agent Man
They grew until a giant ice cube whacked into earth.
32
posted on
04/25/2007 2:51:50 PM PDT
by
carumba
(The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. Groucho)
To: Zakeet
More hype from the causally challenged. High temperatures cause high CO2 levels, not the other way around.
33
posted on
04/25/2007 2:55:36 PM PDT
by
3niner
(War is one game where the home team always loses.)
To: litehaus
....and SHE lives in Florida, too!..........coincidence? I think not!........
34
posted on
04/26/2007 5:17:26 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, there's no need for consensus......)
To: Zakeet
55 million years ago, during the Eocene Thermal Maximum, there were no continents over the poles. Norway was probably close to where it is now but ...
Antarctica moved over the south pole in the next 10 million years (and promptly froze over) and Greenland moved closer to the north pole about 30 million years later (and promptly froze over.)
The continental positions have a huge impact on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth. Think of the sunlight that is reflected by the glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland today. Move those two landmasses, 200 miles away the poles and there is no glaciers there anymore. The Earth would be about 3 degrees warmer and we would be approaching the conditions of the ETM.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson