News & Commentary from the liberterrain...
Renamed by one witty website as "Paleo-clamatology," it appears that clams can tell us very accurate stuff about historical climate change.
William Patterson's specialty isn't clambakes but isotope chemistry, and he's using it to analyze clamshells buried for centuries off Iceland's coastline.
That and radiocarbon dating of the shells confirms what anyone who knows anything about climate change already knows: the Medieval Warm Period (AD 800 to 1300) and the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850) were real.
But the shellfish shell out more stories. Since changes in the chemistry of the shells reveal day-to-day changes in weather, Patterson was able to confirm the lesser known and little discussed Roman Warm Period (200 BC to AD 600) and the Dark Ages Cold Period (AD 600 to 800).
The walrus and the carpenter were not particularly
concerned with climate change when they studied the
clams they encountered. (Wikimedia Commons)
More warming worries
The clamshells also give credibility to the Norse Sagas that detailed year-to-year ups and downs in the weather during the Icelandic and Greenland Viking era that created social havoc among the inhabitants.
Patterson illustrated the problems this way: “A one-degree decrease in summer temperatures in Iceland results in a 15% decrease in agricultural yield. If that happens two years in a row, your family’s wiped out.”
This would indicate that cold periods are more to be feared (shorter growing seasons mean less food) than warm periods (longer growing seasons mean more food).
Today, as throughout history, the watchword is "adapt or die."
Citing a temperature chart (pdf) in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences report showing the history of climate change, the Paleo-clamatology article notes that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods will, "surely stick in the craw of many who think we are living in unprecedented times of warmth."
And global atmospheric CO2 levels were lower during those periods than now.
A comment posted on the NatureNews website puts Patterson's work in perspective:
"Very unlikely he'll get funding for those additional studies. He's already put the lie to many of the dominant funders' approved assumptions and conclusions, and will not be given any help in doing further damage to the orthodoxy. Sorry, Patterson. Time to clam up!" ;)
If nothing else, when planet-savers whine about the shrinking polar icecap killing the polar bears libertarians can answer with, "Hey, they obviously survived the other big warm periods or there wouldn't be any polar bears today, so don't sweat it."
Pun intended.
Libertarian contributors wanted! Have article ideas? Photos? News tips? News releases?
Join the fun here!
Comments
I have misgivings about libertarians arguing things on a scientific basis (or at least doing so AS LIBERTARIANS). When they do so, they're no longer representing libertarian philosophy; they're debating scientific results, and they're most likely doing so as laymen.
Libertarian philosophy says nothing about whether warming is happening or not, or whether it's man made or not. Libertarian philosophy can only talk about the public policy in the event warming is real and man made (no ethanol subsidies, stop protecting Arab governments, etc. - all things we advocate anyway, but we can emphasize how they make sense in the global warming context).
The challenge is convincing people our policies would be good in the end, which is the challenge we always face. But denying scientific evidence (or arguing it's fraudulent or in error - even if it is) is not a LIBERTARIAN argument. It's an evasion.
Exactly - cold periods not only decreased crop yields but probably increased the likelihood of sickness in populations experiencing increased stress. Crop dependent Europeans, unlike Eskimos, generally do not thrive in colder climates.
It was no doubt due to the Roman and Medieval SUVs, or leaving the door open when the heat was turned on. LOL
I disagree with Bob: Discussing global warming/global cooling/climate change is a libertarian issue when members of the government are attemting to use it to enact laws that will reduce the liberty of the people. While you appear to believe in man made climate change, I do not, either way it's worth discussing -- the science is far from settled on it.
JSmith, I neither believe in global warming nor disbelieve. I consider myself unqualified to judge the conflicting evidence.
But I think libertarians are denying global warming for political reasons. We don't like the big gov't policies offered to "solve" warming, so we attack the science. But when we do that, we go outside our areas of expertise and outside our philosophy's principles.
Frankly, it's like watching a Christian argue against evolution, not because he understands the science or has found legitimate flaws in it, but because he thinks his salvation depends on it.
If no one was pushing big gov't "solutions" for warming, it wouldn't be a libertarian issue. It's not the science that is a libertarian issue, it's the policies.
And we need a policy response. Because it's still possible that warming is real, man made, and serious. We need an answer to people who ask (just trying to understand our policies) "If warming were a real problem, what would libertarians do?"
Bob, I don't think that I actually argued for or against the science of global warming in this particular article. I labeled the article "news and commentary" because I reported on the news about the clamshell science and limited my commentary to a few observations already accepted by the science, such as previous warm periods actually did occur which could not have been manmade since they were pre-industrial, that the polar bears obviously survived those periods, that people did adapt, and pointed to another source that claims CO2 levels were just as high or higher during those periods. In past articles I have argued exclusively against the statist "solutions" to global warming without mentioning the science. My point here is that it doesn't matter. Millions have adopted GW as their ideology and/or their religion, and no amount of reason will dissuade them of their faith in it. As a friend recently said, you can't argue with a carrot.
Hi Garry. First, let me say I think you're doing a great job. I almost always agree with you, the times I disagree it's over minor points, your writing is entertaining (though I miss your over-the-top alliterations - I guess they're hard to pull off on a daily basis, and less appropriate in this medium) and you frequently bring to my attention interesting things I wasn't aware of.
And it would be unfair to lump you in with GW deniers (and downright insulting to compare you to a creationist - though for all I know, you may be one in which case you're probably feeling even more insulted now. :-) But I hope you realize I didn't; at no time did I specifically mention you as the target of my comments (though I understand it could be inferred).
But (there's always a but) you are a libertarian commentator and it's not as if you generally write about science. So this article (as interesting as it was - I hadn't seen the story elsewhere) is a peculiar addition to your body of work.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!