Ice Age Froze Europe In Months

[Are_grits_groceries]

Freako-frakkin-nomics notwithstanding, climate change is a thing of violent swiftness. New research indicates it took only months for Europe to freeze solid 12,800 years ago.

The most precise analysis yet of the onset of the "Big Freeze" reveals that Europe froze not in a decade—as previously thought from analysis of Greenland ice cores—but in less than 12 months.

The Big Freeze was triggered by the slowdown of the Gulf Stream. It terminated the Clovis culture, the dominant culture in North America at the time. Once triggered, the cold persisted for 1,300 years.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months.html

They are now studying ice cores to determine if the reverse is true. Can the icecaps melt just as rapidly? Will the warming quickly change the climate.

If you thought you might miss all the major climate change effects, surprise!

[Delphinus]

1. Thanks for this.

I'll check it out.

[Heidi]

2. Recommended.

:kick:

[MiniMe]

3. Impossible, the earth is only 6,000 years old

heavy duty :sarcasm:

[Javaman]

4. Sounds like the republican party. LOL nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Well, it's just enough time to catch a plane south.

[sam sarrha]

7. oceans were about 400' lower last ice age, takes 5lbs red hot cast iron to vaporize 1lb of water..

something was go'n on down there, the ice over the great lakes weighed enough to depress the Earth's crust 1800 feet, it is still rising back up from the last one.. scientists say serious changes start in weeks.

i saw a program about thermo-cline death and hurricanes category 6-7, they get to 1600 miles across, 200+ mph winds. they travel up to new york and canada as a normal path.. really interesting program, they used pond sediments to date them. some ponds were over 20 miles inland with beach sand strata.

no place will be safe, only about 800-1200 humans survived last time

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. "only about 800-1200 humans survived last time"

On the entire planet?

Any source to back that up?

Sounds a wee tad low to me.

[glitch]

11. I believe that was the estimate from the Toba eruption, 70,000 years ago

http://www.google.com/search?q=toba+extinction&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

not the ice age 13,000 years ago.

[A HERETIC I AM]

14. Fair enough. n/t

[sam sarrha]

18. link>>>

http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/volcanic-eruptions-332449.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040127081754.htm

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geutdykAFLfycAluJXNyoA?p=toba+eruption++caused+last+ice+age&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&sao=1

[glitch]

22. Most interesting links, thanks.

I think the 1000 population estimate is from the beginning of the ice age, not the end which may be why Heretic balked at your post. The guy who did the initial genetic research determined there was a bottleneck in population 70k years ago. Which makes us cousins. :hi:

[sam sarrha]

27. CHECK THIS OUT.. link...>>

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Real_Eve/60023909?mqso=80020215&partid=The_Real_Eve

"snip...This intriguing documentary pieces together genetic and archaeological evidence to trace the migration of modern humans throughout the world. It now appears that, some 80,000 years ago, our ancestors left Africa as one group via a southern route to what is modern-day Yemen. Climatological clues also suggest that migration into Europe took place later than previously believed. These new discoveries are rewriting the history of humankind..snip"

facinating... they took 4 people off the street in new york.. did DNA and 3 were related, and they could tell where in the world their ancestors stopped and settled during the migration.. and when

[glitch]

32. Ha! I have it. Also check out PBS Journey of Man

http://shop.wgbh.org/product/show/9039
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Journey_of_Man/70017464?strackid=34dca5a22226893c_0_srl

I love this stuff.

[sam sarrha]

64. thanks... me too

:fistbump:

[glitch]

66. Figures! :) nt

[toymachines]

42. Either way...

we fucked.

[Kaleva]

12. I've read this before but foreget where.

DNA analysis shows that everyone on Earth today descended from a few thousand and that there was a major contraction in the human population sometime ago.

[Posteritatis]

24. You're thinking of the Toba eruption, not the ice age. (nt)

[Enthusiast]

56. Correct.

The scientific consensus is the Toba eruption was the cause of the human population bottleneck.

[sam sarrha]

28. link to DNA information>>

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Real_Eve/60023909?mqso=80020215&partid=The_Real_Eve
"This intriguing documentary pieces together genetic and archaeological evidence to trace the migration of modern humans throughout the world. It now appears that, some 80,000 years ago, our ancestors left Africa as one group via a southern route to what is modern-day Yemen. Climatological clues also suggest that migration into Europe took place later than previously believed. These new discoveries are rewriting the history of humankind"

[AlbertCat]

50. Any source to back that up?

Besides, what was the population then anyway? A fraction of what it is now.

A better indication is what percentage died.... or what the increase in deaths relative to the number of deaths that would have happened anyway.

[csziggy]

36. One theory is that a comet hit the Laurentide glacier

Melting it and causing all sorts of havoc.

Diamonds show comet struck North America, scientists say
The impact caused an ice age that killed some mammal species and many humans 12,900 years ago, researchers report. They say the discovery of tiny heat-formed diamonds is proof of the catastrophe.
January 02, 2009|Thomas H. Maugh II

A discovery of microscopic diamonds a few feet beneath the surface of North America reveals that a comet caused a cataclysm of fire, flood and devastation nearly 13,000 years ago that extinguished mammoths and mastodons and dealt a blow to early civilization, scientists said Friday. The nanodiamonds, so small that they are barely visible in an electron microscope, are thought to be remnants of that comet, which would have hit about 65 million years after the much larger collision that wiped out the dinosaurs.

According to the theory -- which has its critics -- as the comet broke apart, it rained fire over the entire continent, igniting the plains and the forests and creating choking clouds of smoke. Heat from the explosions and the massive fires melted substantial portions of the Laurentide glacier in Canada, sending waves of water down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico. That triggered changes in Atlantic Ocean currents, which ushered in a 1,300-year ice age known as the Younger Dryas.

Battered by fire and ice, as many as 35 species of mammals, including American camels, the short-faced bear, the giant beaver, the dire wolf and the American lion, either immediately vanished or were so depleted in number that humans hunted them to extinction.

More: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/02/science/sci-extinction2

[Mark D.]

45. Great Info

Enlightening, thanks for this. Of course the reduction in hurricane activity in the last two years did 'knock the wind' out of Gore's view on that aspect getting worse. It should be noted the 'Ice Age' alluded to in the original post was not the Ice Age. It was a small follow up age that lasted a 'mere' 1,500 years or less caused by the sudden emptying of Lake Agassiz into the Atlantic. Lake Agassiz was a product of the true Ice Age that lasted 10-20 times longer. None of it the result of man's activity either. But imagine if the resources wasted in wars for elite profit were used to prepare us for coming climate changes (not to mention many other things like Health Care, ending poverty, etc.).

[diane in sf]

51. Two years is a very short fluctuation and doesn't indicate a longer term trend.

[Mark D.]

63. No Debate

No debate that the climate is changing. It is. Yes, large parts of the world are warming, and the gulf and jet streams are changing. It's just my belief that it's not entirely or even largely 'man-made' change. Secondly, I believe that trapping or taxing CO2 as the main goal isn't good enough. The goal should be mandatory filtration on ALL emissions, to not only reduce CO2 but the thousands of other chemicals that are toxic to our world. And of course, a massive push, like what we had in the 50s with highways, to a solar, wind and tidal energy creation program (clean, renewable, no nukes needed) that would eventually end ALL fossil fuel use for energy. Japan has several small organizations now making cars, the same size and power as regular cars, that run on just water. Not even hydrogen. The cars make the hydrogen from the water.

The elite want hydrogen power, so they can replace gas stations with hydrogen stations, all under the same bosses (companies). Anyone paying attention the Exxon Mobil advertisements about their efforts to develop hydrogen power in cars will see that. They still want us buying it from them. Perish the idea one can take a gallon of water on the road and power their car for hundreds of miles on just that. Perish the idea that covering 1/4 of the uninhabited desert in Nevada with the new advanced solar panels could provide enough energy to shut every Nuclear plant. Double that, and shut every coal plant, permanently. But instead of a massive push for these things, only small efforts are made, while the brunt of the 'ecological' push is merely on CO2 emissions.

[Enthusiast]

57. The reduction of hurricane activity

the last two years knocks the wind out of Gore's view? Global warming is "Gore's view"? Is global warming a Gore exclusive? Are you suggesting Al Gore is alone or almost alone in the theory of global warming? Where did you come up with this, Rush Limbaugh? Or was it Glenn Beck?

Don't be alarmed but I am suspicious of anyone with a low number of posts promoting right wing talking points.

[Mark D.]

62. Believe Me

I can't stand Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, any of them. I'm well known as a Liberal, and any other post you'd read would show that. If you scroll down you'll see my longer post about the need for a broader ecological and anti-pollution push. My problem with Gore's approach and that of others is simple, their focus is almost entirely on CO2. For example, sure, Coal produces CO2. It's also the source of the 2nd largest waste stream in America (Coal Sludge), yet its totally unregulated. They can dump it just about anywhere and call it safely stored.

It's the top source of Arsenic and Mercury in our environment, and the 2nd highest source of radioactive material (yes, it's radioactive) besides depleted uranium. Now, finally, there is some inquiry into the sludge, but not one call for actual regulation of it in D.C.. There is finally a look at the mercury from it on a governmental level. I'm seeing a lot of the hysteria over CO2 as a bait and switch back-door policy by the far right wing. It sounds hard to grasp but think about it. They toss out that bone for the well meaning left folks who don't see the deeper roots of it.

They end up focusing most of their advocacy on the CO2 and back off other areas, for example, where is the major controversy about the sludge spill in Tennessee? The largest toxic spill in US history, eclipsing the Valdez many times over. Tucked away by a right leaning media too largely influenced by the elite, including GE that buys the energy these plants produce. GE, who creates 1/4 of the world's power. Created by an elite banker (Morgan) family that also founded Aetna (the largest health insurer, leader in the fight against real reform), the largest bank - of course (JP Morgan Chase), founded the Federal Reserve, Council on Foreign Relations, etc..

They want the target moved to mainly that one thing, it's easy to debate, since there is science both favoring and opposing the 'warming caused by man's activity' theory. There is almost NO science or debate against the fact that Arsenic, Mercury, etc., is harmful. That burning fossil fuels increases the risks of cancer, asthma and much more. My salient point is simple. Fight pollution, period. Regulate the industry better, make filtering what comes out of the smokestacks mandatory and broad-ranging (not just CO2, I mean the hundreds of other far more dangerous pollutants). Guess what? You'll be cleaning out the CO2 with the other stuff. But not just the CO2.

[dysfunctional press]

48. and much of the civilizations of the time were along shorelines as well...

so oceans rising 400' were a problem.

[Xithras]

25. Nobody would need to catch a plane for a very long time. They WOULD need to import food.

Northern Europe could become heavily glaciated again after a few centuries, but the primary and immediate impact of a new Ice Age would simply be increased snowfall, colder winters, and a much shorter growing season. The weather in Europe would be identical to the weather in Central Canada. Long cold winters, followed by shorter, mild summers. Agricultural production in Europe would plunge, but the people wouldn't exactly be fleeing in terror. You would probably see Northern Europe depopulate slowly over several generations as it gradually became a less pleasant place to live.

On the upside, an elimination of the Gulf Stream would allow the Jet Stream to carry more precipitation into Northern Africa, and the Sahara would probably revert to a farmable grassy savannah with lakes and rivers just as it did in the last ice age. That change would lead to a net increase in global farmland, even after factoring out the losses in Europe.

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. I love an optomist.

Of course, the fertile land means that there will be organizations out there supplying the tribes with guns so they never really do settle down and take advantage of it.

I'm not an optomist. That's why I love them.

[bjobotts]

53. nature doesn't give a shit about our politics or excuses.We're sorry don't mean sqat

[supernova]

6. Very interesting, thanks

It's interesting to get a glimpse of how we could find ourselves in an ice age.

[SidDithers]

8. K&R. Thanks for posting...nt

Sid

[FarCenter]

9. Hopefully we are pumping enough greenhouse gases into the atmospher to prevent the next ice age

Warm periods, like the present one, are fairly short and unusual during the last 500,000 years. Typiclly, the temperatures are 4 to 6 degrees Centigrage lower. Glaciers went as far as Northern New Jersey, Long Island and Cape Cod during the last ice age and the last glacial maximum was about 18,000 years ago.

The earth's climate over the last few million years is bistable, with long, persistent cold periods and short, temporary warm periods in between glacial periods. Recently, the warm periods have tended to become shorter.

[glitch]

13. That "could" only work if melting the arctic doesn't dump so much fresh water into the thermocline

that it halts the gulf stream Ooops! The realization of that potential caused the name change from global warming to global climate change.

But we're such clever monkeys, I'm sure will figure a way out of this. :silly:

[FarCenter]

16. The disruption of the thermocline was done by a massive pulse of liquid fresh water

The only comparable volume in the Arctic is in Greenland glaciers. These will take decades to melt, and are unlikely to cause any immediate change.

There are a couple of uncertainties, however. One is the effect of an Arctic Ocean that is not ice covered most of the year. This has been theorized (Ewing and Donn) to be the source of moisture for snowfall in northern Canada and Europe sufficient to build glaciers.

Second is the effect of deeper water over the shallow waters between Greenland and Iceland and between Iceland and Europe. As the ocean levels rise, more water may be exchanged between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans and the patterns of the currents may change.

I'd expect that some combination of these effects throws the "switch" back to a glacier building climate.

[glitch]

17. It looks like we may very well see. Us, not our kids, not our grandkids.

At this point the uncertainties will sort themselves out, we can only mitigate their effects. That's presuming we actually make any attempts whatsoever to do so.

[FarCenter]

21. Perhaps we'll run out of cheap hydrocarbon fuels or find some other cheaper source of energy

The possibility that scientific data, considered reason and timely, effective political action will overcome human opportunism strikes me as improbable.

[glitch]

23. Yeah, me too.

Still, gotta try, we could be wrong! I owe it to my sig line.

[sam sarrha]

31. if the ice melts to the point of no iceburgs, the thermocline will stop, it has already slowed down.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/virus/papova/2000/HUMBIO/el_nino.htm

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036705.shtml

[tavalon]

54. Well, either we figure out what to do or Gaia will do it for us

She's already started.

[Enthusiast]

58. Gaia would probably happily

rid itself of the human race.

[Ghost Dog]

59. Here in the Canary Islands where I live, we notice warmer waters,

where normally we receive the upwelling cooler southern leg of the Atlantic Conveyor / Gulf Stream current.

Also, this year, the Trade Winds (Alísios) have been weak-to-non-existent.

Weather definitely weird around here. Fortunately, as of right now, rain is falling - better late than never.

[hunter]

15. More ice is preferable to less ice.

According to most models the negative consequences of a warmer earth exceed the positive. Think of expanding deserts, less life in the ocean, reduced agricultural productivity, greater extremes of weather, tropical diseases, and starving refugees from low lying areas inundated by the sea.

Our culture with all its Northern European prejudices thinks cold icy spells are bad. The folks living nearer the equator would disagree.

[dysfunctional press]

20. past warm periods didn't have human activity to exasperate them...

which makes our current adventures in climate different than those that the planet has experienced in the past.

[The Doctor.]

38. I love it.

"Exasperate" rather than "exacerbate"... it's perfect.

I may have to use that.

[dysfunctional press]

47. i was going with definition number two...

obsolete though it may be.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/EXASPERATE

Main Entry: 1ex·as·per·ate
Pronunciation: \ig-ˈzas-pə-ˌrāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ex·as·per·at·ed; ex·as·per·at·ing
Etymology: Latin exasperatus, past participle of exasperare, from ex- + asper rough — more at asperity
Date: 1534

1 a : to excite the anger of : enrage b : to cause irritation or annoyance to
2 obsolete : to make more grievous : aggravate
synonyms see irritate

[Uncle Joe]

19. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Are_grits_groceries.

[2Design]

26. I was hoping to miss the worse parts and leave it for those

who continue to vote republican and for the spineless congress

[sam sarrha]

29. This is the Decumentory about the migration of the people left after Toba..>>Link>>

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Real_Eve/60023909?mqso=80020215&partid=The_Real_Eve
"snip...This intriguing documentary pieces together genetic and archaeological evidence to trace the migration of modern humans throughout the world. It now appears that, some 80,000 years ago, our ancestors left Africa as one group via a southern route to what is modern-day Yemen. Climatological clues also suggest that migration into Europe took place later than previously believed. These new discoveries are rewriting the history of humankind..snip"

[MellowDem]

30. Good thing we've got global warming to counter it!

But seriously, when people get all freaked out about global warming, I just remind them that the normal climate cycle will soon have a lot of us buried in glacial ice.

[gordontron]

43. Problem is, modern society can't wait around thousands of years

of geologic time that the earth needs to right itself. We are pushing the earth drastically in one direction, and obviously eventually Earths systems will stabilize. But the question is whether we want an Earth worth inhabiting for the next few thousand years. I would answer yes.

[MellowDem]

46. Oh I agree...

I was being tounge in cheek. ;-)

[tavalon]

55. Yep, everyone has been framing this as "save the earth"

But it's really save the species, including the bald ape. Gaia will right herself. The open question is whether we will still be here.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Gabi Hayes]

34. this is just about exactly the premise of that awful "Day After...." movie, and also, a very good SF

trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson: Forty Signs of Rain, in which the Gulf Stream slows down to the point that things start to freeze, including Washington DC, and most of the east coast

how it's dealt with, told mainly from a DC-insider-scientific-politico standpoint is decently reviewed here. well worth a read


http://trashotron.com/agony/reviews/2004/robinson-forty_signs_rain.htm

concludes like this:

The practice of science is the real subject here. Robinson shows a once-honored form of human activity now kowtowing to crass capitalism, and he does it with the kind of detail and finesse that makes the whole picture captivating. This is no simple axe grinding, but rather an honest re-assessment of where we are going with the way things currently work. Robinson is not afraid to tackle current politics in his scientific fiction, and here's where the science really works in favor of the narrative and the conclusions that Robinson reaches. It's pretty simple. Science is broken. Anyone who believes that science is an impartial pursuit of truths that will better the lives of common men and women is deluded. Science is now a cog in a machine that makes money. It gets all the lubrication it needs, or at least squeaks loud enough for.

'Forty Signs of Rain' shows a side of science fiction that needs more exposure in the realm of popular fiction. It's by no means escapist fantasy. Robinson takes a strong political stand here, and offers a perspective on science that's refreshing as well as an exciting plot device. It is clearly the first in a series, and readers need to be aware of that going in. But once you start, expect that you're going to finish the series. Robinson puts plenty of science in his science fiction - and makes it exciting enough to ensure that you'll want to come back for more.

[glitch]

37. Oooh, sounds very good. Thanks for the recommendation! nt

[InvisibleTouch]

40. I thought "The Day After Tomorrow" was excellent, actually...

...and was based on a book called "The Coming Global Superstorm" which has some very good research and thoughtful premises on just how climate could change so rapidly. Sure, the movie took the topic and dramatized it, but it was a movie, meant to entertain as well as inspire people to think. It had to be entertaining in order to bring viewers into the theaters, but hopefully they left with a bit of a new perspective.

The book's authors are not scientists, by their own admission, but they've done their homework. Some of their concepts are far-fetched (again by their own admission), but a lot of it has very well-documeted evidence behind it.

Check out the book, if you're curious:

The Coming Global Superstorm

[David Zephyr]

35. And I'd always thought that a mered decade for the Younger Dryas for fast.

This is really big news.

[XemaSab]

39. I have only one comment:

[Capn Sunshine]

41. what's the matter, froze up?

If you saw "Day After Tomorrow" it took weeks. And the part about the animals with freshly chewed undigested food in their stomachs, frozen where they stood, is partially true, right?

We're DOOOOOOOOOOOmed

[Mark D.]

44. Lake Aggassiz

The sudden collapse of Lake Aggasiz is believed to have caused it. The largest lake in history. Pretty much covering most of central Canada, and the upper midwest. That lake was created by the Ice Age. The Ice Age happened due to cyclical weather patterns for a multitude of non-man-made reasons. From axis wobble to magnetic or solar activity changes. It's very similar to what we'd seen recently, with fears of a global cooling in the mid 70s, and having the coldest July on record in many cities last summer. This activity is causing jet-stream changes that are altering weather patterns, yes, the Earth is getting warmer in areas as well. The current pattern of glacial loss in the Arctic we see can't possibly accelerate to that pace, and in even the worst projections would only lead to a more gradual and less severe change in Gulf Stream activity.

There is a vast history of many and far more severe temperature changes globally, all well before we could have an impact on climate with CO2. Given the massive improvement in air quality since the clean air act was enacted, it of course would make no sense that generally lower pollution would have a sudden greater contribution to this cyclical warming pattern. There's still far too much pollution and the sad thing is we on the left would have so many more allies if we could present the argument to reduce or eliminate fossil fuel burning as one that reduces the risks of cancer, asthma in children and so on. Just the potential hazard that coal ash storage causes. The 2nd largest waste stream in America, totally unregulated, caused the worst toxic spill in US history, in central Tennessee, eclipsing Exxon's Valdez spill... many, many times over.

That was the old way of doing it, fighting pollution in general. There's a lot worse in the pollution than CO2, both airborne, liquid, solid, gas / oil, and chemical. Plastic bags mistaken for jellyfish, killing off the jelly's most feared predator, turtles, helping their population explode with the help of agricultural waste causing plankton blooms. We need to get the masses and Gore back on the original target. "Trapping Carbon" is as stupid as the idea 'Clean Coal' could ever be possible. There's a very real chance the Earth will warm gradually then level off, and again, not all the time everywhere, changes are causing cooling in some areas, as mentioned. What then? Cancer and asthma and autism, and all kinds of things that are likely linked to toxins in our world will still be on the rise, while governments instead focused far too much on the CO2.

[WheelWalker]

49. I think I have to use the vomitorium now.

[DFW]

52. Well that's good news and bad news

The good news is that I may soon be able to afford a house on Cape Cod after all.

The bad news is that I'll need scuba gear to move in.

[rasputin1952]

60. If the Ice Caps melt, dumping cold fresh water into the Gulf Stream...

there will be catastrophic results.

Once the GS is changed, quite literally, everything changes.

From what I see, catastrophe may be just around the corner...:(

[Merchant Marine]

65. Buy ammunition

and those little chemical hand warmers

[glitch]

67. And prepare to be eaten

by anyone with a better stockpile. :silly:

[amborin]

68. global climate change can involve a big freeze in some locations; heat & drought in others n/t

[amborin]

69. BBC : 6 degree Cent (43 deg Fahrenheit) temp increase by 2099!

""Emissions rose by 29% between 2000 and 2008, says the Global Carbon Project.

All of that growth came in developing countries, but a quarter of it came through production of goods for consumption in industrialised nations. The study comes against a backdrop of mixed messages on the chances of a new deal at next month's UN climate summit.

According to lead scientist Corinne Le Quere, the new findings should add urgency to the political discussions. If we want to be staying below 2C then it's true to say we've only got a few years to curb emissions

"Based on our knowledge of recent trends and the time it takes to change energy infrastructure, I think that the Copenhagen conference next month is our last chance to stabilise at 2C in a smooth and organised way," she told BBC News.

"If the agreement is too weak or if the commitments are not respected, it's not two and a half or three degrees that we will get, it's five or six - that's the path that we are on right now."

Professor Le Quere, who holds posts at the UK's University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, is lead author on the study that is published in the journal Nature Geoscience...."

snip

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8364926.stm>