Arctic Algea Shows Doom Or Something

More activist science

(Discovery) Bright pink algae that light up the Arctic seafloor like Las Vegas neon are also guides to hundreds of years of climate history, a new study shows.

From the medieval chill called the Little Ice Age to the onset of global warming in the 1800s, the coralline algae show how Arctic sea ice has responded to climate swings for the past 650 years. The findings were published Monday (Nov. 18) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (snip)

During the Little Ice Age, when volcanoes and sun cycle variations caused a global cooling from the 1300s to the 1800s, the coral’s underwater “tree rings” narrowed, suggesting extensive sea ice cover and short summers. Starting in 1850 — the onset of the Industrial Revolution — the algae’s growth rings doubled in thickness, in sync with the decline in the extent of Arctic sea ice. “The steepness of the decline is unprecedented in the entire record,” Halfar said.

Got that? The Little Ice Ace is natural, but the Modern Warm Period isn’t. Because the decline is unprecedented. And because we say so. Despite the study not including previous warm periods. So there is no actual comparison. But, hey, the decline of sea ice is unprecedented. Because we say so.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Arctic Algea Shows Doom Or Something”

  1. Trish Mac says:

    “Because we say so.” Now, stamp your feet and make two fists.
    You are correct Teach, they don’t need to have facts, just feelings about things. Pouty little temper tantrum babies.

  2. Jeffery says:

    wt typed:

    “The Little Ice Ace is natural, but the Modern Warm Period isn’t.”

    That’s exactly correct. It’s a logical fallacy to assume because something has happened one way, it will always happen that same way. For example, “People died of lung cancer before there were cigarettes, therefore cigarettes cannot cause cancer.”

    Why is the Earth warming now? According to the fossilists, it’s “natural” or “magic”. Climate realists, on the other hand, understand that long-term changes in the global heat content require a cause. Of course, that cause can be “natural” or “man-made”. Climate realists attribute most of the current rapid warming to “man-made” greenhouse gases. To what physical mechanism do the fossilists attribute the current warming?

  3. jl says:

    Jeffery, I see you’re still having trouble reading what you your self wrote. You ask “To what physical mechanism do the fossilists attribute the current warming?” But before that you write “long term changes in global heat can be natural or man-made.” The physical mechanism is the sun, which is of course “natural”. In other words, you answered your own question before asking it. Nice job. Here’s one for you- To what physical mechanism do the climate astrologers attribute the current “non-warming”, even as CO2 levels rise? And, as dense as you are, I’m sure you feel some smug self-satisfaction by calling us “fossilists”. But think about it (I know, it’s hard)- fossils are real, they what folks who practice real science call “evidence”, something your side does not have. By the way, a computer model is not evidence, especially one that’s wrong all the time. So I’ll end by thanking you, though I’m sure you didn’t intend it- by blindly stumbling upon writing something that for once is true.

  4. What physical mechanisms? Um, pretty much the same ones that have been creating warm periods and cold periods during the Holocene.

    And, again, if you Warmists really believed, you’d practice what you preach.

  5. Jeffery says:


    Natural does not mean “without cause”. So you’re maintaining that the current rapid increase in global heat content is because the Sun has been hotter the last century? Or is there some other characteristic of the sun that’s causing warming? In any event it should be very simple to show that evidence, thanks.

    You’re a bit confused about the temperature record. Although there is currently some controversy around the rate of surface warming the past decade or so, it’s clear that the oceans are still warming, such that the total heat content of the Earth is increasing. As the surface and oceans re-equilibrate (recall El Ninos and La Ninas) ocean warming will slow and surface warming will increase.

    Do you find it peculiar that the two warmest years in recorded history (and probably over the past 20,000 years) occurred in the past 10 years, since global warming “stopped”?

  6. Jeffery says:


    Your logic is flawed. That climate realists still drive cars and heat their homes doesn’t refute the theory of AGW.

    It may be hard for you to grok, but understanding the physical basis of this warming period is not based on “belief” but evidence.

    So what are the physical mechanisms you “believe” are causing the current rapid warming period?

  7. Jl says:

    “Natural doesn’t mean without cause.” It was hotter before, professor, also there were times when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. The cause now ( that’s stopped) could be the same cause as then. “So you’re maintaining that the current rapid increase in global heat content is because the sun has been hotter the last century?” First, there’s no current increase- the warming has stopped. Second, if it was warming, that’s still no proof of what’ s causing it. Third, by historical standards, it’s not rapid. Other than that, you got everything correct. Back to the sun- events such as sunspots do affect our weather, causing warmer or cooler periods. “It’s clear that the oceans are still warming such that the total heat content of the earth is increasing.” Ah, but the climate astrologers initially said the atmosphere would warm, not the oceans. That diversion came into being to try and explain the lack of warming. But nice try. Also, please show proof that the “total heat content of the earth” is increasing, and what total heat content is, and how it is measured. In any event it should be very simple to show the evidence, thanks. And the best for last- “do you find fit peculiar that the 2 warmest years in recorded history occurred in the last ten years…?” No, not at all. I find it peculiar that you don’ t know that “recorded history”, as far as temperatures go (the warmest year on record!), only go back to about 150 years. To put it another way, 2 out of 150, when the other 4.5 billion is unknown, does not a trend make. Lame Jeffery, lame.

Pirate's Cove