Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,755 Year: 4,012/9,624 Month: 883/974 Week: 210/286 Day: 17/109 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oldest frozen DNA reveals a greener Greenland
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 1 of 14 (408912)
07-05-2007 10:38 PM


Source Link
Oldest frozen DNA reveals a greener Greenland
19:00 05 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic
Picture this: sweeping conifer forests, with pine, alder, spruce and yew trees, crawling with beetles, flies and spiders, and with butterflies fluttering through the sun-dappled branches.
It does not sound like a description of Greenland, but scientists say this is what the island looked like half a million years ago. They were able to paint the picture by extracting what is probably the oldest-known DNA from the ice at the base of the Greenland ice sheet.
Greenery is something you might expect to see on a land called Greenland, don't you think? I decided to look into this a little further, thinking it fishy that they would say half a million years ago it was green, when modern man chose to call it Greenland. Who would call an ice sheet "Greenland"? A practical joke?
Here is what I found on wikipedia:
Icelandic settlers led by Erik the Red (Norwegian exile who settled in Iceland)
found the land uninhabited when they
arrived c. 982. Around 984 they established
the Eastern and Western settlements
in deep fjords near the very
southwestern
tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries
, and then
disappeared after more than 450 years of habitation.
The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros.
In the article, are they calling this greenery that they found as being half a million years old when it may only be a thousand?

The approach fills a significant gap in knowledge, says lead researcher Eske
Willerslev at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark: "About 10% of Earth is
covered in ice, and we have really no idea of what the environment looked like
in these regions before the ice was formed."
Willerslev and his
colleagues extracted hundreds of DNA samples from the ice 2000 metres down at
the very base of the southern Greenland ice sheet, in a
location known as Dye 3.
The southern part of Greenland was inhabited 1,000 years ago and they were doing this study in the southern ice sheet. History and Science need to come together here.
Comparing the recovered fragments with
the DNA sequences of modern plant and animal species revealed the presence of
alder, spruce, pine, and yew trees. They also found DNA from beetles, spiders,
flies and butterflies. The best modern-day analogue is the forest in eastern
Canada.
Mammals possible
Willerslev does not exclude
finding frozen mammal DNA, if researchers were to process larger volumes of ice.
"We know from previous experiments to extract DNA from permafrost that plant DNA
survives better, probably because there is much more to start with," he told New
Scientist.
In 2003, Willerslev extracted horse DNA from permafrost.
Once the researchers extracted the frozen DNA, they set about
dating it - and more surprises followed.
A well-regarded modelling study from 2006 by Bette Otto-Bliesner
of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research suggested that the Dye 3 site was not covered in ice during the last interglacial period -
about 120,000 years ago (Science, vol 311 p 1751).
Disputed dates
But when Willerslev's team dated their recovered DNA, they found
that it was at least 450,000 years old. This would mean that the
Greenland site must have been completely covered in ice 120,000 years
ago
.
"We used four different dating
techniques
," says Willerslev, which returned overlapping date ranges.
He adds that the samples were also sent to other labs, which returned the same
results. "All the dating experiments suggest the DNA is older than the last
interglacial period," he says.
The researchers conclude that the ice at
the bottom of the ice sheet at Dye 3 is between 450,000 and 800,000
years old. This implies the 2006 modelling study is incorrect and Dye 3
was not ice-free 120,000 years ago.
This suggests that
the Greenland ice sheet is more stable than currently thought.

Temperatures in the Arctic during the last interglacial period were
significantly warmer than they are today - between 3C and 5C higher, according
to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
The IPCC
also says that sea levels are likely to have been between 4 and 6 metres
higher than today.
Sea-level clues
"We know the sea
level was higher in past and we know [that the extra water] had to come from the
ice sheets
," says David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey. Many
scientists think that this water probably came from Greenland, a
hypothesis that was strengthened by Otto-Bliesner's 2006 study
.
But if Willerslev's dates are correct, and the
Greenland ice cap extended all the way to southern Greenland during the last
interglacial period, then the sea-level rise could not have come from
melting ice in Greenland
, at least not in its entirety. "If it
wasn't Greenland then it had to be Antarctica
," says Vaughan.
Eric Wolf, also at the British Antarctic Survey says this may mean
scientists have underestimated the stability of Greenland's ice sheet.
"It may mean that we have been too dramatic about what is happening to
Greenland," he told New Scientist. "But the flipside is that if this
is true, then we have not been dramatic enough about what is happening to
Antarctica
."
Journal reference: Science (vol 317, p 111)
Climate Change - Want to know more about global warming: the science,
impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.
This is hilarious! "If this is true" then these other conclusions are incorrect, etc. They are going around in circles, not realizing that there dating techniques are the problem!


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 07-06-2007 4:05 AM graft2vine has replied
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2007 5:43 PM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 12 by anastasia, posted 07-07-2007 1:26 AM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 13 by anastasia, posted 07-07-2007 1:32 AM graft2vine has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 14 (408932)
07-06-2007 12:49 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 3 of 14 (408943)
07-06-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by graft2vine
07-05-2007 10:38 PM


The DNA is from site Dye 3. If you have Google Earth, punch in 65N, 43W. The viking settlers were at Eystribyg and Vestribyg
Now tell me, how are either of those two settlements at site Dye 3? Dye 3 lies far to the east and somewhat north of either settlement.
Also, there's a difference between "very southwestern tip" (from the wiki you linked) to the "southern" of the study.
If you got this wrong, how can I trust the rest of your post and/or reasoning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graft2vine, posted 07-05-2007 10:38 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by graft2vine, posted 07-06-2007 12:23 PM kuresu has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 4 of 14 (408992)
07-06-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by kuresu
07-06-2007 4:05 AM


I didn't say that they are in the same exact place, but all on the southern part. The Dye 3 site is on the east side and just slightly to the north of the western settlement. When Erik the Red sailed due west from Iceland, the Dye 3 site is the first part of Greenland that he came across, then sailed around the tip of the island where they settled. He called it "Greenland".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 07-06-2007 4:05 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2007 12:48 PM graft2vine has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 14 (408994)
07-06-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by graft2vine
07-06-2007 12:23 PM


When Erik the Red sailed due west from Iceland, the Dye 3 site is the first part of Greenland that he came across,
You might want to check on that. I'm not convinced that Erik went 200 miles inland to 8600 feet elevation while he was sailing around. In fact, I doubt that he did. I doubt it a lot.
403 Forbidden
403 Forbidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by graft2vine, posted 07-06-2007 12:23 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by graft2vine, posted 07-06-2007 4:08 PM Coragyps has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 6 of 14 (409011)
07-06-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
07-06-2007 12:48 PM


Dye 2 is 100 miles inland from the west coast. Dye 3 is another 100 miles east of Dye 2, so 200 miles inland from the west coast, not the east coast which I measured to be about 60 miles inland.
Point well taken none the less, as he would be viewing from the coast 60 miles inland at an elevation of 7600 feet (1000 ft of ice currently). At that elevation, I can see how it may still have had ice covering Dye 3 while the lower coastal lands were green.
Can't be sure though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2007 12:48 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by graft2vine, posted 07-06-2007 4:28 PM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2007 4:48 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 7 of 14 (409013)
07-06-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by graft2vine
07-06-2007 4:08 PM


I calculated how far Erik could see from the coast. Whether or not it was ice covered, it appears that he could see it.
How far can you see? Close report
You said:
Your height: 6 feet
Your elevation: 0 feet
Mountain height: 8600 feet
Mountain elevation: 8600 feet
Using these values, these are the distances you can see:
Your optical horizon is 4.24 miles (22410.19 feet) away.
You can see this mountain to a distance of 231.52 miles (1222403.21 feet).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by graft2vine, posted 07-06-2007 4:08 PM graft2vine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2007 4:53 PM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 07-06-2007 5:00 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 8 of 14 (409014)
07-06-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by graft2vine
07-06-2007 4:08 PM


Can't be sure though.
Well, they counted yearly layers back to at least 1899 BC there.
Link. That's pre-Viking, and seems to be at only 372 meters depth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by graft2vine, posted 07-06-2007 4:08 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 9 of 14 (409016)
07-06-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by graft2vine
07-06-2007 4:28 PM


Find a topographic map of Greenland. I really don't think the DYE3 site was on a mountain peak - more like a very gradual rise.
Guadelupe Peak is roughly 280 miles from here, and I have to get about 230 miles closer than I am now to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by graft2vine, posted 07-06-2007 4:28 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 14 (409018)
07-06-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by graft2vine
07-06-2007 4:28 PM


graft2vine writes:
I calculated how far Erik could see from the coast. Whether or not it was ice covered, it appears that he could see it.
I don't see the relevance in what Erik could see from the coast.
How does that relate to your claim in the OP?
quote:
They are going around in circles, not realizing that there dating techniques are the problem! Message 1
Where is there a problem with dating techniques?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by graft2vine, posted 07-06-2007 4:28 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 14 (409021)
07-06-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by graft2vine
07-05-2007 10:38 PM


From the cited paper, which is unfortunately behind a pay-per-view wall (though a pdf could be had from Coragyps by email):
The samples studied come from the basal impurity-rich (silty) ice sections of the 2-km-long Dye 3 core from south-central Greenland (4), the 3-km-long Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) core from the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (5), and the Late Holocene John Evans Glacier on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, northern Canada (Fig. 1). The last-mentioned sample was included as a control to test for potential exotic DNA because the glacier has recently overridden a land surface with a known vegetation cover (6). As an additional test for long-distance atmospheric dispersal of DNA, we included five control samples of debris-free Holocene and Pleistocene ice taken just above the basal silty samples from the Dye 3 and GRIP ice cores (Fig. 1B). Finally, our analyses included sediment samples from the Kap Kbenhavn Formation from the northernmost part of Greenland, dated to 2.4 million years before the present (Ma yr B.P.)
"The basal impurity-rich (silty) ice sections" tells me that's plowed-up crud from the basal rock.
And:
All four dating methods suggest that the Dye 3 silty ice and its forest community predate the Last Interglacial (LIG) [130 to 116 thousand years ago (ka)] (Fig. 2), which contrasts with the results of recent models suggesting that Dye 3 was ice-free during this period (28, 29). Indeed, all four dating methods give overlapping dates for the silty ice between 450 and 800 ka....
The modeling studies being wrong about 120,000 years ago doesn't do much to inform us about 1000 years ago.
AbE:
More-recent work (17) coupled new climate and ice-sheet modeling with Arctic paleoclimatic data to make a strong case that the central part of GIS was intact throughout the LIG and that the GIS and other Arctic ice fields likely contributed 2.2 to 3.4 m of sea-level rise during the LIG.
is from ref 28 in my last quoted bit - Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1747 - 1750 - which is free online at Science | AAAS
(emphasis is mine)
Edited by Coragyps, : fix tag
Edited by Coragyps, : Add link

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graft2vine, posted 07-05-2007 10:38 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5978 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 12 of 14 (409059)
07-07-2007 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by graft2vine
07-05-2007 10:38 PM


graft2vine writes:
Greenery is something you might expect to see on a land called Greenland, don't you think? I decided to look into this a little further, thinking it fishy that they would say half a million years ago it was green, when modern man chose to call it Greenland. Who would call an ice sheet "Greenland"? A practical joke?
I can't disect the entire post or its relevency all at once here, BUT, it has occurred to me that you may want to examine the source of the name before you take it too literally. In fact, there are Norse myths claiming that the naming of Greenland WAS, if not a joke, at least a ploy to get new inhabitants to Greenland. These are not modern speculations, but old myths, probably written around the same time as Erik did his exploring.
I am not giving you facts here, just suggestions. Can you look for clues elsewhere about the green-ness of Greenland, or the origin of the name, without doubting science? For instance, the Inuit were said to live in harmony with the Greenlanders. Would Inuit life style be compatible with Greenland climate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graft2vine, posted 07-05-2007 10:38 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5978 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 13 of 14 (409060)
07-07-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by graft2vine
07-05-2007 10:38 PM


graft2vine writes:
Greenery is something you might expect to see on a land called Greenland, don't you think? I decided to look into this a little further, thinking it fishy that they would say half a million years ago it was green, when modern man chose to call it Greenland. Who would call an ice sheet "Greenland"? A practical joke?
I can't disect the entire post or its relevency all at once here, BUT, it has occurred to me that you may want to examine the source of the name before you take it too literally. In fact, there are Norse myths claiming that the naming of Greenland WAS, if not a joke, at least a ploy to get new inhabitants to Greenland. These are not modern speculations, but old myths, probably written around the same time as Erik did his exploring.
I am not giving you facts here, just suggestions. Can you look for clues elsewhere about the green-ness of Greenland, or the origin of the name, without doubting science? For instance, the Inuit were said to live in harmony with the Greenlanders. Would Inuit life style be compatible with Greenland climate?
Oh, and you have to realize that these foks were comparing Greenland with Iceland, not some deeply forested retreat. 'Green' is in the eyes of the beholder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graft2vine, posted 07-05-2007 10:38 PM graft2vine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 07-07-2007 9:06 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 14 of 14 (409082)
07-07-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by anastasia
07-07-2007 1:32 AM


Hmmm. Similar to what Anastasia says, we have towns out here in West Texas named Garden City, Greenwood, and Gardendale. Exaggeration is too kind a word....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by anastasia, posted 07-07-2007 1:32 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024