Evidence of species extinction due to Global Warming!

Scientists have recently discovered a tusk and some bones from what is believed to be a pigmy mammoth, descended

Reconstruction of the Channel Island Pygmy Mammoth, Mammuthus exilis, of Pleistocene California. (C) Stanton F. Fink.

Reconstruction of the Channel Island Pygmy Mammoth, Mammuthus exilis, of Pleistocene California. (C) Stanton F. Fink.

from full size mammoths – on Santa Cruz Island off southern California! It is believed mammoths roamed the group of islands which were once joined together into one large island. Evidence of rising sea levels!

As a prehistory buff I was very interested in the article by Associated Press titled Possible mammoth tusk found on SoCal island.  This island is in the mid 30’s latitudes. For those of us in the southern hemisphere, roughly the same distance from the equator as Sydney, Perth and Cape Town. In the northern hemisphere, the same latitude roughly as Casablanca, Jerusalem and Shanghai.

So, quite obviously, about 10,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered in snow and ice, probably all year round as these mammoths were on an island. Even more interestingly, it is believed pygmy mammoths were around the Mediteranean around 4,000 years ago. Al Gore et al are right – the Earth is warming, sea levels are rising!!!!

Channel Islands aerial view

Channel Islands aerial view

And have been on and off for millions of years. Man made CO2 did not cause the end of that ice age. Warmings and coolings are a part of the VERY long term climate cycles of this planet. Some things are more powerful than Man. Accept it.


13 Responses

  1. 1. Climate change has happened before, mostly caused by natural cycles.
    2. Therefore, current climate change is a natural cycle (or is not happening).
    3. Logical fallacy.

  2. This is just one post.

    4. CO2 levels have risen (over thousands of years) and temperatures have risen overall in past 200 years.
    5. Therefore CO2 increases cause all or most of global warming
    6. Logical fallacy

    7.There is greater correlation between solar activity and climate than CO2 levels and climate.
    8.CO2 levels rise after temperature rises on very long term trend
    9. Therefore logical that CO2 has little or nothing to do with recent climate changes.

    Logic goes which way?

  3. I don’t think any climate scientists actually say that the current warming is caused by an increase in CO2 levels over the last thousands of years, but rather over the last ~150-200 years (ie. about the time we started burning fossil fuels in a big way, and massively expanding agriculture)

    7. I don’t think that’s true. Solar activity has been fairly constant in the mid-term (multi-decadal trend). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg makes it fairly clear that there is more correltation between CO2 and temperature that with solar activity…
    8. True, in a number of cases, but this doesn’t lead to 9. For example: A number of historical warming events have been caused by one-off events (volcanoes, meteors, etc), which initially heat up the planet. This leads to large CO2 releases, which further warm the planet (basically, positive feedback, so more total warming than without the added CO2). In otherwords, in the past, CO2 has been a warming agent, but not a trigger. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be a trigger if we emit enough of it. More at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 .

  4. As an aside, do you stand by your original post, and/or do you agree that it uses a logical fallacy?

  5. The more I read the more I am convinced that man made CO2 is not a significant contributor to global warming.

    I am also against an emissions trading scheme – negligible change for a huge cost. More posts to come on this subject.

    I am researching clean technologies currently. Maybe a post or two coming on this subject.

    Happy to keep chatting. You may be able to answer some of the questions I have, especially as you have opposite views to me.

  6. Anyone who relies on Wikipedia for the whole and accurate facts, relies on Santa to bring his/her present at Christmas.

    It is evident to blind freddie that the intensity of Solar activity influences our climate/weather. The definition of climate is the sum of the weather over a given period. Weather changes as is evident by the FACT that the Romans once wore light clothing all year around when they occupied England.

    Anyone can make a post on Wikipedia without being required to furnish credentials or substantiation of the veracity of the material.

  7. Michelle, don’t misinterpret scientific reports. The mammoths were found on the Channel Islands at a time when yes, sea levels were lower. Sea level was lower because Earth was just emerging from the last glacial period, or ice age. The northern hemisphere has been in a cycle of glacial and interglacial periods for about the past 2.4 million years; certainly not forever, but geologically recent. This cycle of ice ages, which come and go on the timescale of tens of thousands of years, is driven largely by fluctuations in the planet’s orbital dynamics, and fed by cycles of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. They were triggered by oceanographic changes brought about by tectonic changes, such as the closure of the Panama Seaway by the emergent Central America.

    Current global warming is not caused by these processes. It is being driven on the timescales of decades and centuries by rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are the result of rapidly growing human use of fossil fuels and other industrial activities. We know this. We also know that solar activity simply cannot account for the warming. We really do know these things. Please, take it from a scientist.

    Final note to Bushie: that’s not a particularly good definition of climate. It’s more than just a “sum” over a period of time. It’s complicated by the fact that weather is just one component, whose variability and net value over certain scales of space and time, determines a climate regime.

    Climate Change Blog.

  8. Proopnarine,

    Thanks for leaving your comment and link. I have started to study some of the material on the blog. I found the post Unscientific Scepticism at



    As you seem to be part of the California Academy of Sciences, I am very interested in what you have to say.

    What I have not been able to find is how and why it is believed that MAN MADE CO2 is the main cause of global warming. There is a lot of criticism of the temperature data that has been published, so I am not even sure that the world is warming.

    You said “We know this. We also know that solar activity simply cannot account for the warming. We really do know these things.”

    I am a reasonably intelligent human being and capable of understanding most things. You also said “Please, take it from a scientist.”

    I respect that you are in a position to know what the evidence is. However, with the political and economic implications of this theory, I don’t want to take anyone’s word for it. I want to know the how and why. That is why I started this blog.

    I will continue looking through your website, but a reference to a summary explanation will speed up my research – can you help please?

  9. Happy to keep chatting.

    I might find it difficult though, if you don’t answer my questions 🙂 Maybe you missed that last one, I should have put it in the previous comment…

  10. naught101

    Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

    I still stand by it.

    Proopnarine provided food for thought.

  11. Hi Michelle,
    Right, never take anyone’s word without skepticism. But that is precisely why when 99% of scientists agree on something, folks should listen. We are an extremely skeptical bunch. There are a lot of empty vessels and bandwagoneers when it comes to climate change, and some hysteria. The problem of global warming is, however, very real, is being driven by rapid and recent increases in atmospheric CO2, and the major source is us. The literature on which these conclusions is based is HUGE, and there is no way that I could give you a summary in a blog comment, but here are some links to my own blog. I highly recommend that you dive into the popular science literature on this topic though, and follow up if you wish with primary scientific literature. Much of the latter can be very technical, but that’s the nature of the beast.

  12. Thanks for the links proopnarine. I meant a link, not a summary in the comments. I’ll check these links out and I’m sure some other readers will too!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: