Crocodile-like Reptiles Lived in the Arctic 55 Million Years Ago. Could it Happen Again?

Maybe not crocs, but the American Alligator is rather cold tolerant, given a warm season for metabolism. Turtles are even more so, making a pre-existant food source a given.

True, shorter metabolic seasons and longer hybernations does result in a natural dwarfing of the species. So, think 3-5', not the 10' Flordia brutes.

Prolonged ice cover would be an issue (unlike turtles, hybernating gators are not good at absorbing ambient O2 from the surrounding water, so they have to surface more often, even in cold water). Also, if the metabolic season is short, you would only get immigrating individuals, as ovation and fertilization are temp dependent and infant mortality would be especially high without enough metabolic season left to grow on before the first, very long, hybernation. (Again, turtles get arround this by laying/hatching late in the season and often overwintering in the nest, allowing them to emerge at the start of the next metabolic season).

So let me get this straight.... "the Canadian Arctic was as balmy as Florida" and we are freaking out about global warming. Does it not make sense that the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles? We know there was an ice age, and we know there was a warm balmy age. Than why do we think global climate change is something we can prevent. Or would want to, it seems to be a natural phenomenon. We know life can survive in both extremes, so what is the problem?

Is anyone else sick of being force fed the cool aid?

By the way the last time I checked, natural volcanic eruptions causes more "environmental damage" than all of mankind combined.

...the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles...
yes but we also have very accurate geologic records containing things like the temperature and contents of the atmosphere. We know that during the hottest times there was allot more co2 up there but in all these records show that the changes were gradual. Think of the tones of oil and coal now most of that oil is carbon and for each carbon burned there are two oxygens used up. It really dose make a difference and the science is solid.

But the point I like to make is why is it such a bad thing. A warmer planet wont make that much of hotter deserts or Floridas but hotter polls. This is a good thing as the polls don't currently support much life but during the hotter times they have supported lots of life. As sea levels rise and temperatures increase convection will work better making the world a more uniform and pleasant life supporting temperature.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-05/climate-change-report-day#comment-34893

The danger from global warming to human life is not the direct temperature change, but the change in sea levels (which would cover coastal and flood-plain cities like New Orleans or Venice) and the increasingly destructive changes in the weather pattern (stronger hurricanes and/or tornadoes, longer droughts). Of course the cause of global warming is debatable (I personally believe every major cited causes are just small pieces in the puzzle), but fact that humanity will be, and is being, impacted and forced to change certain lifestyles in a fact.

animemaster, "making the world a more uniform and pleasant life supporting temperature" is simply ignoring the negative impacts of global warming.

meh what negative impacts... its easier to move around the world now than it has ever been, we know when a hurricane is coming weeks in advance. We can irrigate, corn and other crops love higher temperatures. We might have to change ware we farm, can you imagine it Greenland the breadbasket of the world. Do you really think there will be net loss in usable land when Canada Greenland and the antarctic become comfortably habitable. OK so some of these things might be less than desirable I still think the net outcome will be overwhelmingly positive, people are just scared of change that's all. I'm not opposed to 'green' technologies but its not realistic for us to limit our use of carbon to the extent that would be required. Lets just prepare for the future. Gotta go now I'm buying up huge tracts permafrost land and hydraulically wedging some antarctic ice sheets out to sea.

My main point is that we assume that what we have right now is the best. Think about it, huge parts of the earth are covered with ice and can not easily support life. Is that the best? We are arrogant to think that what we currently have is the best.

Yes I agree that with the ice caps melting the sea level will rise, but what is wrong with that? Yes New Orleans may be underwater, but last time I checked a city that is built below sea level on the edge of the freaking sea SHOULD BE under water. Oh wait, lets spend tax dollars to help postpone the inevitable. Do we not have enough land in the US? I could see the logic in a place like Japan where they are running out of land, but in America? Come on?

We just like to have things to be scared of.....swine flu anyone???

Wow-Where to begin?

First, 55 million years ago, during the Eocene, it was hot. There were no humans. Mammals were small. Look it up. "It is assumed that the hot Eocene temperatures favored smaller animals that were better able to manage the heat." Being outside will be very uncomfortable for us, and intolerable for many animals. People die in heat waves. Not only that, studies show crime rates go up with air temperatures. And if you like animals like horses and cows, you'll have a harder time keeping them where you live now.

Second, warm, swampy areas that favor crocs are NOT conducive to agriculture, housing, or any other preferred human use. They breed mosquitoes and diseases that would kill us today were it not for our fossil-fuel based medicines. Malaria is not cool. Not to mention things like the Anacondas which are taking over south Florida. If you're a fan of babies and dogs, you might be concerned when giant tropical snakes start eating more of them.

Third, if the planet does get warm and swampier, it will be at the same time as we're running out of fossil fuels, the same things we need to run AC systems and pump water out of basements. We need alternative energy both to cope with these events and hopefully reduce their threat.

Fourth, do you know how expensive it is to move or dike all the coastal cities on the planet? How many millions of dollars worth of coastal property will be flooded? If you don't live near the coast, do you really think those people who lose their homes and jobs won't come to your neighborhood shortly thereafter, looking for food, work, shelter?

It's one thing to be skeptical. But to say that you don't CARE if the world becomes a giant festering reptile hole, then you're pretty antisocial. I'd suggest you move to a swamp in Vietnam. Bring some bugspray.

Nice job EParker! I have a good friend who's a committed skeptic of GW and it's frustrating. There is so much happening with the weather that it's easy to have enough material to support or deny GW. I do think that much of the anti material is bogus but I don't have the time to look up all of it. Attitudes are revealing though. Some people won't accept anything that indicates they might have to change their lifestyle. Change is inevitable though!

I see that civilizations have fallen because they didn't change and they feel that civilizations have fallen because they stopped doing what made them powerful.

I guess that we have to concentrate on talking about how any one of us can see the world has changed and how old solutions just can't deal with our new problems.

It's funny; we have to argue against 3 points of view; that GW isn't happening, that's it's going to be good for us, and that it can't be stopped. It's like being a murder prosecutor. The defense lawyer argues against the case by suggesting totally contradictory scenarios while never having to be settle on any one.

The most ridiculous part though, is how they just assume the world will work just fine for a few decades while it's rearranging itself for what's normally an eons long change. I guess its' easier if you don't believe that evolution and a whole lot of time got us where we are.

I had to laugh at the comment about how no life can live in the arctic so why not just let it all melt.

So sorry there isn't an arctic mall with a hot dog on the stick for you to visit after you buy jeans at the Arctic Gap! LMAO

The earth has been hot, and it has been frigid in the past. Obviously these things happen naturally. Some people may think that natural is good.......... my personal opinion, is no.

The point about losing coastline due to rising sea levels is a good one. What about hotter weather leading to more drought? Desertification of more inland areas?

And if the earth were to chill and enter another ice age, imagine all the croplands which would be lost. You'd have mass starvation. You talk about how easy it is to get around the world now, but what if you live in an undeveloped country. How are you going to "get out" of areas you might starve in?

The list goes on... There are many consequences of extreme climate change.

Humanity is overpopulating itself and placing stress on resources needed for life. If we add the complication of extreme climate changes, we may render null any solutions we have in place, threatening the lives of many.

The point is, although these changes may be natural, or even accelerated by man-made means (global warming), they are not good for the stability of our current lifestyle.

So while the earth may go happily on, humanity may face many hardships due to extreme climate stage.

It is THOSE hardships which we must concern ourselves with. Are they preventable, or how do we deal with them if not?

Stop arguing politics, stop arguing beliefs. See the forest for the trees.