Mummified Forest Reveals Climate Change Clues, Discovered On Ellesmere Island

LOS ANGELES — On a remote island in the Canadian Arctic where no trees now grow, a newly unearthed mummified forest is giving researchers a peek into how plants reacted to ancient climate change.

That knowledge will be key as scientists begin to tease out the impacts of global warming in the Arctic.

The ancient forest found on Ellesmere Island, which lies north of the Arctic Circle in Canada, contained dried out birch, larch, spruce and pine trees. Research scientist Joel Barker of Ohio State University discovered it by chance while camping in 2009.

"At one point I crested a small ridge and the cliff face below me was just riddled with wood," he recalled.

Armed with a research grant, Barker returned this past summer to explore the site, which was buried by an avalanche 2 million to 8 million years ago. Melting snow recently exposed the preserved remains of tree trunks, leaves and needles.

About a dozen such frozen forests exist in the Canadian Arctic, but the newest site is farthest north.

The forest existed during a time when the Arctic climate shifted from being warmer than it is today to its current frigid state. Judging by the lack of diverse wood species and the trees' small leaves, the team suspected that plants at the site struggled to survive the rapid change from deciduous forest to evergreen.

"This community was just hanging on," said Barker, who presented his findings Thursday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

The next step is to examine tree rings to better understand how past climate conditions stressed plant life and how the Arctic tundra ecosystem will respond to global warming.

Since 1970, temperatures have climbed more than 4.5 degrees in much of the Arctic, much faster than the global average.

Barker also plans to conduct DNA tests on the remains.

___

Online:

American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org

Ohio State University: http://www.osu.edu

Comments

[Publicola]

04:37 PM on 12/21/2010

StuffMoreS­­tuff: "I don't, however, accept that humans alone or even close to alone are responsibl­­e for the recent changes."

That's nice, but the scientific evidence strongly indicates that humans are responsible for the bulk of recent warming.

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significan­­­tly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years if not far longer.

* Greenhouse gases including anthropoge­­­nic CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases the average temperatur­­­e of the Earth would be below freezing.

* Satellite measuremen­­­ts demonstrat­­­e that increasing atmospheri­­­c CO2 has increased heat energy retention in the atmosphere­.

* Atmospheri­­­c CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years, if not far longer.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheri­­­c CO2 is due to anthropoge­­­nic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatio­­­n for said atmospheri­­­c CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlatio­­­n between said atmospheri­­­c CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropoge­­­nic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific

[Publicola]

04:38 PM on 12/21/2010

... evidence supporting anthropoge­­­nic global warming is overwhelmi­­­ng.

[Ockham57]

12:04 AM on 12/25/2010

Overwhelming ... if you repeat the meme enough times.

Here is a 2010 link to 800 peer review papers in the scientific literature that question at least some aspect of the 'settled' AGW hypothesis.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

[Publicola]

10:46 AM on 12/27/2010

Ockham57: "Here is a 2010 link to 800 peer review papers in the scientific literature that question at least some aspect of the 'settled' AGW hypothesis­."

First off, AGW is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis­.

Second. it helps if you understand what you are citing. The article you cited -- created by a science denier who doesn't even understand high school-level statistics -- cites hundreds of articles from ECONOMISTS. Which is to say, hundreds of those cited articles have nothing to do with AGW theory at all.

Third, that list is includes redundant submissions. For example the first citation is to a study that was riddled with errors - the second citation is thus a correction of the first. The third citation is a letter in reference to the second one.

Fourth, that study includes citations that are riddled with errors - I refer you to the first citation as an example. How did papers as riddled with errors as that one get into "peer reviewed" literature? Because they were published in an energy industry trade journal calle "Energy & Environment" - a journal whose lead editor isn't even a physical scientist and who has an admitted anti-AGW poltical agenda. Many of the citations on that list are from "Energy & Environment".

Fifth, the science denier who published that list was publically rebuked by one of the authors on that list for using misleading wording - said author also made clear that he beleives in AGW theory.

HTH.

[StuffMoreStuff]

12:23 PM on 12/21/2010

This is my biggest problem with the people that are SO SURE that humans cause all or most of climate change....it's that we KNOW it's happened before, sometimes before the arrival of humans, and sometimes after, though, not always with a written record of it.
I see people mention solar activity, volcanic activity, and releasing of buried deposits, among others. How bout polar shifts and tectonic plate movement (over the very long term, of course).

[Publicola]

01:13 PM on 12/21/2010

StuffMoreStuff father StuffMoreStuff Sr. a century ago:

"This is my biggest problem with the people that are SO SURE that smoking causes all or most of cancer....­it's that we KNOW it's happened before, sometimes before the arrival of cigarettes, and sometimes after, though, not always with a written record of it."

By the way, StuffMoreStuff: AGW theory doesn't say that man-made greenhouse gases cause "all or most of climate change" what it says is that man-made greenhouse gases cause most of RECENT climate change. HTH.

[StuffMoreStuff]

01:31 PM on 12/21/2010

That was just plain dumb. I don't accept that parallel, I think think I may actually be more dumb for having read it. Thanks a lot.
I am willing to accept that humans cause an increasing amount of the climate change as the population has increased exponentially, it would tend to make sense that if our activities produce climate change then they ought to be causing more of it, since there are more of us. I don't, however, accept that humans alone or even close to alone are responsible for the recent changes. In other words, I am still quite skeptical...

[Publicola]

01:36 PM on 12/21/2010

Meant to write:

"StuffMoreS­tuff father StuffMoreS­tuff Sr. a *generation* ago..."

[Bill Bushing]

08:17 PM on 12/23/2010

Some of the events you describe above would be occurring over much longer time frames than the abrupt rise we're seeing in atmospheric CO-2 levels. Others like solar activity or volcanoes could (and do) occur over similar time frames but have been largely eliminated as causes by serious climate scientists.

[Rosewren]

12:31 AM on 12/21/2010

If I am understanding the climate change correctly, it is the warming of our oceans that is going to cause changes in wind patterns which will then change the type of climate we have in various parts of the world, like the recent simmer snow in Australia, or freezing temperatures in states that were once warm all year and pretty much snow free. That where we once had one amount of snow the warming temperatures will cause much more snow etc. This could be extremely disruptive to the food chain that we are accustomed to and some of the changes are natural cycles but human activity now contributes to cause a more unstable cycle. If not for any other reason, I would think that humans would want to slow these changes so we can adapt more easily, it makes sense economically as well as protecting our well being.

Why would a population want more flooding, more deserts forming, more catastrophic weather if it could be controlled or avoided?

[miloiki]

09:12 PM on 12/18/2010

So this means it was warmer at that time than it is now. So how can we be facing catastrophe now as the Earth warms a bit? We know very little about the global climate as it occurs over eons.

[martintillier]

11:04 AM on 12/19/2010

miloki -- Yes, it was warmer, and we were not here, if we had been we would have faced enormous environmental problems, the atmosphere at the time for instance was radically different in constituent ratios than it has been during the advent of human mammal civilisation, you say that "we know very little" about global climate-cycle changes over the period of time since the appearance of land-based flora, I have to differ, we actually know quite a lot now about the various cycles of change that this planet has undergone and contrary to popular misconception have begun to realise the layers and levels of complexity involved regarding change-cycles and their precursors and causes. Solar activity, volcanic activity and the varied releases of buried affective deposits, as well as the effects of human industrial activities are the most understood in climatological circles. Industry, agriculture, deforestation, and ocean acidification are all playing their respective parts in the change-cycle we call global warming, we have accelerated this cycle and are continuing to do so by the methods we employ in the running of modern civilisation. I suggest reading " The Limits To Growth" a book by The Club of Rome first published in 1974 and also the more recent reports by the IPCC, these may bring you up to speed on the realities of our current knowledge regarding climate change.

[mikeyaz17]

05:16 PM on 12/20/2010

omg, are you like, 9?

[mikeyaz17]

05:17 PM on 12/20/2010

btw that comment above was meant for miloiki

[mamacat]

05:05 AM on 12/18/2010

Very interesting. There have also been articles detailing how dinosaurs used to be able to live in the polar regions. Pretty amazing. I wonder if there was such a thing as a temperate zone back in that time.

[foolonthehill]

02:31 PM on 12/18/2010

Don't forget that the continents, and today's 'polar regions,' have moved. Compounded by climate changes that complicates things.

[Bill Bushing]

08:23 PM on 12/23/2010

It would be a great idea for school classes in paleogeography and paleoclimatology to be required. There is so much about our planet that most people assume, yet much of their understanding is based on a projection of how things are on Earthy today. Few can fathom the complexities of plate tectonics and climate change over time scales of millions to billions of years.

[dwhuston]

01:16 PM on 12/17/2010

The doubters of climate change should realize that there is not any question that there have been cooling and warming cycles on the earth numerous times over the millions of years it has been here. Meteor strikes on the earth and in the seas, landmass movements changing ocean currents over time and probably even warming and cooling cycles caused by the increase of plant life and co2 release over millions of years.

We can't do much at this point about meteor strikes and other cataclysmic events that might occur, but we can do something about having our actions significantly speed up global warming or cooling events.

A warming cycle that might take 20,000 years could possibly be induced by our actions to only take 100 years. We need to try to lessen our impact in a case like that. While we would probably have time to adapt in one way or another to a change that happens gradually over 20,000 years we might not be able to adapt to in a much shorter period of time. The more our civilizations expand and cover the earth the more effect we have on its climate.

[jimboy71]

05:05 PM on 12/17/2010

Exactly. It's about rate of change. Always has been. When the rate of change outstrips a species' ability to adapt, it perishes.

[maxfax]

01:05 PM on 12/17/2010

Just like Washington, "mummified Congress" reveals what we're in for in the next two years.  Good Grief.

[martintillier]

09:27 AM on 12/17/2010

The people at the top of the climate-change denial pyramid are engaged in the promotion of this denial because if a majority were to realise that the ownership and recovery of necessary, usable resources is being consolidated by some of the biggest multi-national companies in the world, with the complicity of their respective nations governments and bought-media, they would also realise that they themselves are deemed expendable by their own governments and by the corporations involved in resource reclamation. Denial is, in other words, the main tactic of those who so obviously want to bequeath to their familial and political progeny, the ownership and control of all and any resources that are left by the end of this century. The reason that the attempts at creating artificial biospheres have been so well funded and are considered so important is that the powers that be realise that life here will be untenable for any sizeable civilisation, long before we have the ability to strike-out into outer space, if ever.

[therealpixie]

12:36 PM on 12/17/2010

My goodness, Mr. Tillier, you almost took my breath away with these two comments. No wonder you have 135, no 136 fans. Count me as one.

[martintillier]

01:25 PM on 12/17/2010

therealpixie ---- Thank you very much, both for the compliment, and for becoming a "fan" I am heartened that you describe your reaction as you did, there are many who have dismissed such statements as paranoid, though I think that those reflect fear and ignorance more than they do understanding and attention to detail.

[martintillier]

09:09 AM on 12/17/2010

The human race is entering the age of severe-to-catastrophic resource-decline, deforestation, agricultural despoiling and the ongoing acidification of the oceans, combined with an exponential increase in carbon and methane emissions are resulting in a loss of carbon absorption capabilities by the decreasing levels and amounts of land-based flora and by oceanic acidification. The algal bloom has shrunk dramatically over the last decade and looks to be continuing to do so. Reefs which form a protective barrier as well as a habitat are disappearing at a tremendous rate, so leading to further coastal erosion, Agricultural and Industrial waste and spoilage are making rivers and land toxic thereby reducing agricultural capacity, leading to further deforestation, decreasing the rate and capability of carbon absorption even more and subsequently increasing ocean acidification. These self-increasing cycles of ecological destruction are the major threat to human civilisation, which is why governments and multi-national companies are busy consolidating their ownership and exploitation of necessary resources, using military force where necessary, to back-up this resource-grab, that is occurring at the expense of the poorest peoples of the world, as well as the environment itself. Global warming is a natural event-cycle, but human civilisation is accelerating it and adding several layers of complexity to it, the next one hundred years will be a real challenge, the wars for access to water have already started in Africa, India and the middle-east, forget oil, water access will define the next century.

[Wendy Chambers]

02:07 PM on 12/17/2010

basically we are ##cked !

[martintillier]

02:20 PM on 12/17/2010

Wendy Chambers ---- Your prognosis is probably correct, even if we halted deforestation, switched to permaculture and made strenuous efforts to stop carbon and methane emissions, as well as trying our best to reverse ocean acidification and reef erosion, we are very likely going to run out of usable land, soil erosion desertification and ocean acidification are most likely irreversible trends. The carbon and methane already released seems to be having serious effects on weather patterns, the Atlantic conveyor and the spread of deserts, I think the tipping point has already been passed and that although the planet itself will be fine and the flora and whatever fauna can survive and will evolve will variously recover and emerge, humans may well find it difficult, though not maybe impossible to survive in large enough numbers to restart civilisation. With our propensity for warfare and iniquitous behaviour towards each other, any pockets of surviving humans may be seriously challenged as per recovery, there is also the question of a large enough gene pool amongst all the other adversities to consider.

[jimboy71]

05:08 PM on 12/17/2010

I am pleased to be living in Canada. Horrified for billions of people who will suffer. I just hope you don't invade us.

[martintillier]

10:01 AM on 12/18/2010

jimboy71 --- That's pretty unlikely, I am Scottish, living at home in Scotland so I wont be invading you, although I am considering emigrating to Canada when my widowed octogenarian mother dies because I have close family in Alberta, so, no invasion, but maybe emigration. What the currently urbanised Americans might do over the next few decades though, we can only guess.

[blueken]

09:05 AM on 12/17/2010

Yes, climate has fluctuated over and over again on Earth in the past. These climate changes always lead to massive migration, starvation and death. These climate changes usually happened over hundreds of thousands of years, and there were winners and losers. Will humanity be able to adapt to a rapidly changeing climate? That's debatable. Will there be suffering and death on a massive scale, who knows. One thing seems fairly certain to me. This is the only planet that we know of that can sustain life, so we best take care of it.

[crayola 08b]

12:17 PM on 12/17/2010

i'm pretty sure humans will adapt. there may not be as many left when all is said and done but a healthy number will carry the species on.

[BlueGreen55]

02:22 PM on 12/17/2010

Soryy but it's going to be worse than that imo. The examples of great societies falling because of self-induced crisis - many environmental - are too numerous to ignore and were much more terrible than leaving a "healthy" number behind to carry on.

[whitewater]

09:01 AM on 12/17/2010

It was all the fault of prehistoric man, the neanderthals and those mealymouth cro-magnons. If they had a carbon exchange market in place, none of this would have ever happened.

[tmf945]

08:49 AM on 12/17/2010

For all you deniers out there, remember when you are tilling the soil with a human femur while the sky is raining fire, you are going to want a reliable supply of reddicio and mini squash available from Beck's Survivor Seeds, $140.00 a can.

[centered1]

09:48 AM on 12/17/2010

Don't forget that the huge deficit we are leaving future generations won't matter if they don't have food or any natural resources.

[fumes]

10:04 AM on 12/17/2010

omg!!!

see.. there's always a silver lining..

[intolleft]

08:40 AM on 12/17/2010

"The forest existed during a time when the Arctic climate shifted from being warmer than it is today to its current frigid state."

Hmmm, warmer than it is today. 2mm years ago....warmer than it is today.....

[Wanderland]

09:00 AM on 12/17/2010

We've known about "warmer than it is today" periods in Earth's history for a long time. Do you have a point?

[intolleft]

09:33 AM on 12/17/2010

Warmer than it is today.....

[Richard2]

02:23 PM on 12/18/2010

All the talk about 2010 being the "warmest year ever" seems to ignore evidence such as the forest in this article. The history of the earth has included a time when a forest could grow in the Arctic circle. It doesn't exist there today. It would appear the older period was warmer, not colder. So the animals that might have lived in these trees had to move south or die. Now people worry whether these animals can survive if they have to move back north a bit.

[Exusian]

03:31 PM on 12/17/2010

Yes, earth was warmer 2-8 million years ago during the late Miocene and Pliocene than it is today.
Sea level was also considerably higher than it is today.
And CO2 was at a similar level as today.

Is there a point to your obtuse comment?

[intolleft]

03:34 PM on 12/17/2010

Yes, there is.

[gallon]

05:32 PM on 12/17/2010

There may or may not be a point, but intolleft enjoys playing coy. Rather childlike.

[Lpeter]

08:37 AM on 12/17/2010

It's all dust in the wind baby!

[leftjab]

08:36 AM on 12/17/2010

Dear PTBL,
The deniers belong to a select group of humans that are the bane of just about everything logical,reasoning,intelligent,thoughtful people have in common. It is a guess that these folks survived by the fact that the human species tends to congregate in numbers and even in the event of war or natural disaster some survive. I doubt that if gathered together, they would survive long. I live in Texas and have been around these folks a looong time. They seem to do well in situations where science is a myth and a mythical being is fact. Get beyond a few social issues and their greed and just plain contrariness for it's sake jumps to the fore. It's a shame really, if all that malice could be harnessed. Unfortunately for the rest of the human race there will NEVER EVER be enough evidence to convince these people that climate change is made worse by human activity BUT a single sermon about the myth about the "pie in the sky" and it's magical owner and what ever comes out (name the topic) and it's gospel. My former church killed hundreds of thousands because of the birth of science and the other church hanged and burned witches for hundreds of years all in the name of control(religion). These deniers need to try and separate fact from fiction and maybe "we" humans could pull together instead of apart. So sad.

[Larry Motuz]

10:10 AM on 12/17/2010

They are contrary for the sake of being contrary because it gets them attention.

[therealpixie]

12:54 PM on 12/17/2010

No, ignorance breeds suspicion of all things unknown, which comprises a vast majority of the world for these folks, and that leads to a protective, contrary position on most subjects. I know. I came from that world. Here's a good example. I remember my sister, after her first trip to a dentist (in 1957 or so), accusing the hygienist of "scraping the enamel off her teeth, so they would rot and have to be filled." The one thing they do trust is their god, so if the bible or their preacher says it, it must be true. Oh, and their guns. They do trust their guns.

[gallon]

05:42 PM on 12/17/2010

leftjab, were you describing deniers or roaches?