
In 2004, a scientific crew braced the cold and the odds to extract a sediment core from 400m below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean. The core showed that Fifty-five million years ago, deep in the Eocene, the North Pole was ice-free and enjoying tropical temperatures. It also told us that the temperature of the ocean was 20C, instead of the coolish –1.5C we see today, a truth that is hard to imagine today with all the hype around global warming -- even from bright folks like Al Gore.
The bottom end of that core helped explain the fossils found at Eocene sites around British Columbia, species commonly seen in more tropical environments today. The warmer temperatures seen at McAbee and around the globe were recorded in the core sample and reveal evidence for a global event known at the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Back in the Eocene, a gigantic emission of greenhouse gases was released into the atmosphere and the global temperature warmed by about 5C. 
When you look at graphs proving or disproving global warming, look closely at the time scale. Also remember that the term, "in recorded history" is a red flag when it comes to geologic time and the big picture. Humans have been around for a mere blink of the Earth's history and only recording data for a miniscule portion of that. The graph here shows the timescale back to 65 million years.
For the hotbed of the Earth's history, we look to the Eocene, around 50 million years. While the bookends of the geologic time scale slide back and forth a wee bit, the current experts in the geologic community set the limits to be 33.9 +_ 0.1 to 55.8 +_ 0.2 million years ago.
The fossil record tells us that this part of British Columbia and much of the Earth was significantly warmer around that time, so warm in fact that we find temperate and tropical plant fossils in areas that now sport plants that prefer much colder climes, or as is the case in the Arctic, snow and ice.
The Okanagan Highlands is an area centred in the Interior of British Columbia, but the term is used in a slightly misleading fashion to describe an arc of Eocene lakebed sites that extend from Smithers in the north, down to the fossil site of Republic Washington. The grouping includes the fossil sites of Driftwood Canyon, Quilchena, Allenby, Tranquille, McAbee, Princeton and Republic.

These fossil sites range in time from Early to Middle Eocene, and the fossils they contain give us a snapshot of what was happening in this part of the world. While the area around the Interior of British Columbia was affected. McAbee was not as warm as some of the other Middle Eocene sites, a fact inferred by what we see and what is conspicuously missing. We see spiders, dragonflies, fish and many, many march flies.
In looking at the plant species, it has been suggested that the area of McAbee had a more temperate climate, slightly cooler and wetter than other Eocene sites to the south at Princeton, British Columbia and Republic and Chuckanut, Washington. Missing are the tropical Sabal (palm), seen at Princeton and the impressive Ensete (banana) and Zamiaceae (cycad) found at Republic and Chuckanut, Washington.
While we are the likely culprits of much of the warming of the Arctic today, natural processes operating in the not too distant past have also resulted in significant temperature fluxuations on a world-wide scale.
Comments
Zmugzy (not verified) | 10/20/08 | 10:26 AM
- Reply to This »
- Link
Sure, man can survive. Anyone saying that we cannot is resorting to hyperbole. We are an extremely adaptable species, like Corvus, Vulpes, or Blattaria, and we'll get by no matter what the climate is. But many species will not be able to adapt to such a rapid shift (read mass extinction), and many works of man will be washed away. New Orleans, New York, Amsterdam, Boston, Galveston, even London could be inundated. Las Vegas and Sydney and Cordoba and Athens run out of water and bake under the dry sun.
The world of a significantly warmer climate is a very different world than the one we live in today. So it is disingenuous to say that because it has been warmer before, because we would probably survive, it is not a big deal that the world is heating up at a fantastic rate (geologically speaking).
Bob Briggs (not verified) | 02/20/09 | 10:02 AM
How do you like this Ideal Landscape of the Eocene Period?
It's from The World Before the Deluge by Louis Figuier (1872), and features Palaeotherium magnum, Anoplotherium commune, and Xiphodon gracile. However, no Grizzlies to disturb them, although I doubt if the Eocene was quite as placid as this picture suggests.
I am particularly interested in your descriptions of the plant life. The book indicates that Banksia is also found in the Eocene, and states
It's from The World Before the Deluge by Louis Figuier (1872), and features Palaeotherium magnum, Anoplotherium commune, and Xiphodon gracile. However, no Grizzlies to disturb them, although I doubt if the Eocene was quite as placid as this picture suggests.I am particularly interested in your descriptions of the plant life. The book indicates that Banksia is also found in the Eocene, and states
It is moreover a peculiarity of this period that the whole of Europe comprehended a great number of those plants which are now confined to Australasia, and which give so strange an aspect to that country, which seems, in its vegetation, as in its animals, to have preserved in its warm latitudes the last vestiges of the organic creations peculiar to the primitive world.
Robert H Olley | 02/20/09 | 17:37 PM
Heidi Henderson | 02/20/09 | 17:52 PM
An Earthling (not verified) | 02/24/09 | 00:47 AM
Heidi Henderson | 02/24/09 | 16:14 PM
danny (not verified) | 09/06/09 | 05:09 AM
tj (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 17:59 PM
I think you have a valid point Heidi. We should get the time scales correctly.
In recorded history, meaning when we have comparable meteorological data (recorded with 'modern' instruments), it is correct to conclude that temperature is rising. There is a consensus on that. What causes these changes people are fundamentally disagreeing on (many scientists and people in general support IPCC that conclude it is likely that warming is caused by humans). There is also a disagreement concerning what we should do about it. The warming and hence change of climate.
I totally support, what I conceive as your main point, sticking to the facts as best we can.
In it's own 'right' it is stupid to burn all fossils in one big 'fire' as we do today. Plus, it is polluting. That in itself is good enough reason to stop doing it. It reduces our quality of life.
Burning fossils is just one human rearrangement of the Earth. We have been doing a lot of other reshaping of the Earth as well (cutting down the rain forest, building huge hydrological installations etc), not to forget the fact we are a lot more people on this planet now compared to when we started our "recorded history".
Adapting to variations in our climate, handling the undeniable uncertainties, are yet another challenge we need to figure out.
Finally, in principle, nobody should be attacked for offering information that might go contrary to the negotiated truth. It is part of the scientific method. Even though some misuse this, I will defend the right to differ at all times.
So, you go girl! Even if I might disagree with you. :-)
(In this case there is nothing to differ on, though.)
In recorded history, meaning when we have comparable meteorological data (recorded with 'modern' instruments), it is correct to conclude that temperature is rising. There is a consensus on that. What causes these changes people are fundamentally disagreeing on (many scientists and people in general support IPCC that conclude it is likely that warming is caused by humans). There is also a disagreement concerning what we should do about it. The warming and hence change of climate.
I totally support, what I conceive as your main point, sticking to the facts as best we can.
In it's own 'right' it is stupid to burn all fossils in one big 'fire' as we do today. Plus, it is polluting. That in itself is good enough reason to stop doing it. It reduces our quality of life.
Burning fossils is just one human rearrangement of the Earth. We have been doing a lot of other reshaping of the Earth as well (cutting down the rain forest, building huge hydrological installations etc), not to forget the fact we are a lot more people on this planet now compared to when we started our "recorded history".
Adapting to variations in our climate, handling the undeniable uncertainties, are yet another challenge we need to figure out.
Finally, in principle, nobody should be attacked for offering information that might go contrary to the negotiated truth. It is part of the scientific method. Even though some misuse this, I will defend the right to differ at all times.
So, you go girl! Even if I might disagree with you. :-)
(In this case there is nothing to differ on, though.)
Bente Lilja Bye | 10/05/09 | 10:56 AM










