Two million year old DNA samples discovered, lodged in ancient sediment Scientists have recovered the oldest DNA samples yet, in sediment left over from the Ice Age in Northern Greenland, according to research published in Nature. ancient_Kap_Kobenhavn_formation_drawing Ancient Kap Kobenhavn formation drawing Image Credit: Beth Zaiken The tiny fragments of DNA molecules, preserved in clay and …
I'm looking forward to them finding a lost iPhone buried under a Mammoth fossil.
It's also cool from the dreaded Global Warming perspective, ie this is evidence that it was clearly warmer then that now, despite it being during the depths of the Ice Age. But that's why the real science gets fascinating, ie why? But that involves a lot of interconnected processes, like alteratiions in ocean and air circulation patterns due to sea level declines, terrain alterations, salinity variations etc etc. Curious if comparisons between Siberian and Alaskan Mammoth remains and flora will give clues about population and genetic drift for both the Mammoths, and the seeds they may have carried with them.
Oh no it's not -- that's pure clickbait.
They found some fragments that can be related to parts of existing complete DNA (rather in the same way that timber samples can be tree ring dated), allowing the source species of the fragments to be identified. No more than that. It's impressive and a valuable contribution to research in the field, but to represent it as "Jurassic Park" is grossly misleading (even supposing JP could actually work, which is most unlikely). I'd love to be party to the researchers' response to this interpretation of their findings.
I'd love to be party to the researchers' response to this interpretation of their findings.
I think it's just a sad reflection on the state of research funding. They've advanced our knowledge already, which is what science is supposed to do. We have data we didn't have before. Analysing and interpreting it will require more funding. That often means playing politics and following the money. Global Warming is the hot topic, so put out a supportive press release and you'll maybe have a better chance of attracting grants or other funding. Put out something that challenges the current consensus, and you'll be ostracised, even by people who are supposed to be your peers.
Which is all rather said, if you believe in the traditional view of science, ie tell me something I didn't know already. I love learning new things. But it also has some fairly open statements, eg-
"This is one of the reasons this scientific advance is so significant because it could reveal how to attempt to counteract the devastating impact of global warming."
Or maybe we don't need to. In the depths of the Ice Age, Mammoths and flora were thriving, just as they were in other parts of the world. Similar discoveries have been made in other areas where there's been glacial retreat where plant remains have been uncovered, dated to various periods in the past. An obvious inferrence is it must have been warmer then than now, or those plants couldn't have grown. Or some unknown process caused ice mass to increase, glaciers to advance, and either change the local climate or just bury the evidence. We fund scientists to answer those questions for us, because by our nature, we're generally inquisitive.
Then there's the awkward 'Little Ice Age'. One camp suggests this was global, another suggests this was local. I think there's arguably more evidence for global. But this may help provide evidence and understanding of how LIA-type effects might be localised. Obviously this one happened a lot longer ago, but the mechanisms and processes should still apply. Or apply to future localised but extreme climate swings. We're fixated on adaption and mitigation to 'Global' warming, but what if we end up with a 200yr, severely cold 'LIA' affecting a large chunk of Europe?
"but what if we end up with a 200yr, severely cold 'LIA' affecting a large chunk of Europe?"
Without ignoring the very evident atmospheric contamination that can be shown to raise temperatures and probably does, it's also worth wondering whether we've possibly reached (or at least are approaching) the peak of an interglacial as well.
Without ignoring the very evident atmospheric contamination that can be shown to raise temperatures and probably does, it's also worth wondering whether we've possibly reached (or at least are approaching) the peak of an interglacial as well.
Breaking News: Homeowners north of the Laurentide Extent may be facing negative equity. Keep reading for our top tips on finding your new home in the sun!
But yes, it's fascinating. Also one of those reasons I have doubt about that contamination being the prime mover, and why new discoveries are good. So not long ago, there were.. issues with the sea level. Like being around 150m lower than today. Plus quite a few gigatonnes of snow and ice accumulating. So a bunch of big news events. Some theories I've seen seem perfectly plausible, so BAU for Global Warming is heat transfer from the equator polewards. That gives us the ocean and air currents, circulation and weather. So sea levels fall, coastlines change, currents change with them and if that could explain localised warm spots. Or because the ice mass applies considerable pressure, if that triggers volcanic activity and localised warming. Or perhaps more likely, the climate just oscillates, glaciation isn't an overnight process, so there was an interval where this location remained more habitable for a time.
Science gives us plenty to think about, if we're allowed to, and scientists get funding to answer these questions.
Also it's possible we could prevent Laurentide 2.0. Just set up a line of wind turbines with heating elements in front, and melt the ice as it tries to advance. Or by the time it happens, we may have fusion cracked and could use that for a GlacierBgone defensive line. We have estimates for the ice mass, know how much energy it takes to melt ice, so it's plausible. It's just the energy required is.. quite a lot.
I'm (reasonably) sure you're being facetious but just in case the difference is time scales, yes the climate changes naturally but it takes a long time, long enough for populations to adapt and migrate.
The current climate change is happening over decades when a similar natural change would take centuries if not millennia, and it's far too fast for most natural systems to adapt.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
