Scientists Stunned To Discover Plants Beneath Mile-Deep Greenland Ice (sciencedaily.com) 157
KindMind shares a report from ScienceDaily: In 1966, US Army scientists drilled down through nearly a mile of ice in northwestern Greenland -- and pulled up a fifteen-foot-long tube of dirt from the bottom. Then this frozen sediment was lost in a freezer for decades. It was accidentally rediscovered in 2017. In 2019, University of Vermont scientist Andrew Christ looked at it through his microscope -- and couldn't believe what he was seeing: twigs and leaves instead of just sand and rock. That suggested that the ice was gone in the recent geologic past -- and that a vegetated landscape, perhaps a boreal forest, stood where a mile-deep ice sheet as big as Alaska stands today.
Over the last year, Christ and an international team of scientists -- led by Paul Bierman at UVM, Joerg Schaefer at Columbia University and Dorthe Dahl-Jensen at the University of Copenhagen -- have studied these one-of-a-kind fossil plants and sediment from the bottom of Greenland. Their results show that most, or all, of Greenland must have been ice-free within the last million years, perhaps even the last few hundred-thousand years. "Ice sheets typically pulverize and destroy everything in their path," says Christ, "but what we discovered was delicate plant structures -- perfectly preserved. They're fossils, but they look like they died yesterday. It's a time capsule of what used to live on Greenland that we wouldn't be able to find anywhere else." The findings appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Over the last year, Christ and an international team of scientists -- led by Paul Bierman at UVM, Joerg Schaefer at Columbia University and Dorthe Dahl-Jensen at the University of Copenhagen -- have studied these one-of-a-kind fossil plants and sediment from the bottom of Greenland. Their results show that most, or all, of Greenland must have been ice-free within the last million years, perhaps even the last few hundred-thousand years. "Ice sheets typically pulverize and destroy everything in their path," says Christ, "but what we discovered was delicate plant structures -- perfectly preserved. They're fossils, but they look like they died yesterday. It's a time capsule of what used to live on Greenland that we wouldn't be able to find anywhere else." The findings appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Obligatory quote (Score:2)
"Life, uh... finds a way." - Dr. Ian Malcolm
Re: (Score:1)
Over the last year, Christ and an international team of scientists
Nice to see the church adopting scientific methods at last, although having to bring in their founder just to get them adopted still implies there's a fair bit of resistance in there.
Re: (Score:2)
As for :
That may be an idea that people have in the first year or two of their geological training - it is hard for me to think back that far - but it shouldn't last long. A question aimed at disabusing students of that notion was in one of my high-school mock exams (for which the marking schemes are released to teachers, for discussion with the pupils some months b
keep that electric blanket away from ice block! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A comedy, masquerading as a horror? Care to put a name to it - it sounds hilarious.
some context (Score:4, Interesting)
Rud Istvan provides some context [wattsupwiththat.com]; Conditions have changed over the previous million years to make a repeat less likely
Re: (Score:2)
Lies from Rud Istvan. I double checked his article because I couldn't imagine Greenland moving that much in a million years. He is wrong. According to NASA, his whole thing is completely nonsense because it hinges on the incorrect statement (aka lie) of Greenland being super far south 1 mya (million years ago). It was further south 100 mya, not 1 mya.
Check the NASA video explanation. A million years ago Greenland was in what looks like vritually the exact same spot as today. 40 mya it was only a tiny bit fu
Re: (Score:2)
We knew that from the link to wattsupwiththat.
I was doing a counting-on-fingers exercise while reading the BS from wattsup, and getting a figure of about 60miles movement in a million years, and it's about 2 units E-W for each 1 unit N-S. For a commercial boat, that's 3-5 hours steaming in good sea conditions.
Now, if you go back 55 million years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - which was probably triggered by the elevation of the chain of hotspots including Mull, Skye, Anton
a boreal forest (Score:2)
...you say?
Almost like...that ice hasn't been there forever? That it was in fact quite temperate for a long while?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenland itself might have moved.
So how old are the plants? (Score:2)
Surely radio-carbon dating has an accuracy better than ~1 million years?
Re:So how old are the plants? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wanted to say thanks for the additional info. Really informative.
Re: (Score:2)
The presence of unoxidised organic matter suggests little flowing pore water, and so poor prospects for thorium-series dating. Their basic sample testing would have told them that - not a lot of authigenic carbonates.
Biologists being 'stunned' is not news ... (Score:2)
... it's how biology is done. It isn't a science it's just observation. Biology has no first principles on which to found theories of life, it's just rampant speculation where dominant 'theories' are more about the personality of the researcher than anything like science.
Wow! Evidence of the last 'climate crisis'! (Score:1)
And chillingly nothing of the civilization and the people who brought about that climate change remains. ... and if you believe that well then you have more to fear than climate change my friend.
I mean _clearly_ humans are responsible for climate change so _clearly_ humans must have been responsible BUT nothing remains of them.
Yes, folks, that is our fate as we repeat the mistakes of the past.
Re: (Score:2)
This planet has been evolving constantly. It has not been in a perfectly stable state for billions of years until humans turned up. Human activity is one reason for change, not the only reason.
What would be even more stunning (Score:2)
Project Iceworm (Score:2)
This core was drilled as part of the secret U.S. military project to investigate the feasibility of placing ICBMs in silos under the ice. The project had the really cool name "Project Iceworm".
Re: Dear God.... (Score:2)
Naming him Andrew was a missed opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Was it really?
Andrew. Andy. Andy Christ.
Re: Warming cycles (Score:4, Informative)
What a dumb comment. Of course the climate changes. The problem right now is the speed at which we are changing it.
Denial cycles (Score:2)
I suspect some people are of the school of thought; make me experience the consequences of our actions. Because clearly telling them isn't having any kind of effect.
Re: (Score:1)
Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
To illustrate your point
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Obligitory (Score:4, Interesting)
It also illustrates a counterpoint, namely what is detailed between the line at 16000BCE and the line at 15500BCE. That is to say, most of our long term models are based on artifacts (like ice cores) that either may not or even can not preserve shorter term changes, and may even erase them outright. Here, in TFA, we have an artifact that the current models don't explain very well. Given the way heat causes things to waste away or decay quicker, whereas the cold tends to preserve them, it's possible that our observations are highly biased towards what is seen during the colder periods as being what is normal.
Re: Obligitory (Score:5, Insightful)
You're simply angry because of how clearly it illustrates how foolish your science denial is.
Re: (Score:3)
This much is actually true. Skepticism and an open mind seem like opposites and yet are somehow both the core of science (alongside testing of course) but these aren't opposites of all. The problem is that some forget you are supposed to remain highly skeptical of what you think you know, your own results, and of course the prevailing consensus. This is where the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence nonsense comes from. Disregarding evidence and the preponderance of evidence and instead color
Re: Obligitory (Score:1, Interesting)
You win nothing because you're wrong and your evidence is an attack on China not climate change. I've posted countless times on China and almost never on climate change.
Better luck next time but it was a good effort.
Since you did actually try, I'll tell you what I actually think about climate change and why: I don't care. I'm old enough that by the time anything happens of note that might impact my life in a serious way I'll be long dead. I have no children. I don't care about anyone else's children. I
Re: (Score:3)
But using a stupid hand drawn cartoon and saying it's obligatory? Sigh... only in early grade school to keep it at the children's level. I prefer adult conversations where we use real data from real scientists to discuss science. Is that so much to ask?
The 'obligatory' thing is just an expression. It means that the poster has seen an opportunity to post an interesting comic that's topical and feels a personal obligation to. It does not somehow mean that you are obliged to read it. I'm not sure what kind of bizarro world logic you're using where somehow this is an affront to you. Whether you consider it to be at "children's level" does not change the fact that XKCD often presents data in ways that put it into clear perspective. The simple fact is that most
Re: Obligitory (Score:2)
Re: Obligitory (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes xckd guy is science literate, not a scientist.
Yes there are authorative charts of the same data.
I chose to share this image because I imagine people click through to read it more than if I posted data from a legitimate science organisation.
I'm not a fan of the fact that it's come to this, but when people still bring out the "climate has always changed regardless of what humans do" as a defence, it's like listening to "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes". It's not a lack of available scientific data that has stopped these people from understanding the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
He worked as a roboticist for NASA, that makes him a scientist in my book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Obligitory (Score:4, Insightful)
Omg, xkcd is *not* obligatory for any real science. Yes he has some mild background but he's a cartoonist not a real climate scientist. I have about as much _real_ science background as he does but I don't publish stick figure drawings so my nonsense isn't obligatory like his nonsense. Please just stop posting xkcd as evidence of anything.
There are zillions of charts and graphs available online for free creates by real scientists. If only they also did shitty stick figure art people would listen. .
The graph he illustrated is based on scientific observations. You can take a shot at his sense of humour and his drawing skills but the data is pretty hard to argue with anywhere except in American right-wing alternative fact La-La-Land.
Re: (Score:3)
Omg, xkcd is *not* obligatory for any real science. Yes he has some mild background but he's a cartoonist not a real climate scientist. I have about as much _real_ science background as he does but I don't publish stick figure drawings so my nonsense isn't obligatory like his nonsense. Please just stop posting xkcd as evidence of anything.
There are zillions of charts and graphs available online for free creates by real scientists. If only they also did shitty stick figure art people would listen. .
The point isn't that a cartoonist is doing real science.
The point is that the "science" done by climate denialists is so weak that it can be debunked by a cartoonist.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Ten times faster [royalsociety.org] than the end of an ice age, much faster than most paleological cases outside of "great dying" events, fast enough to make human adaption very expensive, and too fast for many ecosystems to adapt to at all. The problems with those should be obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Ten times faster [royalsociety.org] than the end of an ice age, much faster than most paleological cases outside of "great dying" events, fast enough to make human adaption very expensive, and too fast for many ecosystems to adapt to at all. The problems with those should be obvious.
Sounds scary. If you pay more tax will this scary thing go away?
Re: (Score:2)
No, not that anyone has asked you to. Though if polluters do [wikipedia.org], that would encourage them to pollute less - and likely save you money [wikipedia.org] overall.
But it's clear you've already made your mind up, and are not actually interested in the problem or any solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not that anyone has asked you to.
What? You linked to the exact page that describes Carbon tax. ie more tax to somehow prevent something unexplained but scary. You can't be that stupid surely?
Here's another example is case you are: https://www.energy.gov.au/reba... [energy.gov.au]
Where do you think that money comes from for these schemes? Unicorn farts?
Though if polluters do [wikipedia.org], that would encourage them to pollute less -
CO2 is not pollution. Rookie error.
and likely save you money [wikipedia.org] overall.
Yeah well 'likely' is your opinion based on thin air. The actual data tells us that energy prices have increased at 3x the rate of inflation. This is not all the fault
Re: (Score:2)
What? You linked to the exact page that describes Carbon tax
Yes. You asked if "you" pay more tax, will it go away - first, it won't (obviously taxes won't make it magically disappear), and second, carbon taxes are not paid by you or I, but by carbon emitters. This might cost the public more indirectly - but only if they choose to buy products from carbon-intensive emitters instead of low-emission alternatives (which is of course the point). As for "unexplained but scary", I'm not clear on which part you think is unexplained.
CO2 is not pollution. Rookie error.
Pollution [google.com]: /plu()n/ - (noun), the presenc
Re: (Score:2)
So paid for by you and I then
Except when we choose not to, as I pointed out.
What evidence do you have for harm [from CO2]?
I linked you to a huge collection of studies that detail the many negative (and a few positive) impacts from high CO2 emissions, but you're choosing to pretend I didn't.
quite often inflated far beyond reality. Exactly like the link you posted which is bunk
Something something "opinions based on thin air" was it? Which of the links I posted do you consider to be "bunk", why do you claim that, and what data do you have to back up this opinion of yours?
We could've moved away from coal 50 years ago when Nuclear was cheap
Arguably we might have been better off in some ways, yes. But we didn't know how bad coal truly was
Re: (Score:2)
more expensive and less reliable green energy
And still no data to back your opinions. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency tells us [iea.org] that "Solar becomes the new king of electricity" and "solar projects now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen".
same old debunked prophets of doom based on speculation and models that are continually wrong
So, your basis for dismissing decades of research by thousands of climate researchers all over the world is.. your opinion again. You dismiss more because you don't like the url, or because it has the word "modelling" in it.
This is textbook science denial. You have no clear understanding of w
Re: (Score:2)
if CO2 is the primary driver of climate warming
That's not what it says at all:
If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after.
There's no doubt expressed about whether CO2 is the primary cause (it absolutely is [wikipedia.org]), only whether CO2 levels will continue to rise unchecked. The uncertainty is not about CO2, but about our own response.
quite regular periods of warming and cooling
Yes, from Milankovich cycles [wikipedia.org]. These are well-understood, along with long-term solar variance. They're gradual changes, nowhere near fast enough to cause what we're seeing today.
We are currently at the peak of a warming side of the cycle
Citation needed. The evidence [wikimedia.org] actually shows the warming peak was 7000 years ago, and the global t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. That's the whole problem with the climate crisis narrative: all the evidence we can see for today's warming climate we can also see in the geologic records, and no, the rate of change does not look exceptional, it looks the same.
So, yes, there was vegetation in Greenland. The Arctic Sea was ice free. And yes, sea level has both risen and fallen in the past. It is currently rising at a rate unchanged for centuries.
We've done core samples of a lake in Eu
Re: So it is just about the money then? (Score:2)
So it's agreed: the climate changes naturally w/o humans
The problem: it's now touted as the _rate_ at which it is changing
The choices: we humans can adapt to that rate of change or try to influence it BUT like it or not the change will come sooner or later, got it? To the people and animals in the Arctic: sorry, but it is a statistical certainty that you will at some point face much higher average temperatures and your current way of life will be unsustainable.
The question: basically rather than helping
Re: (Score:2)
Technically this could reflect the kind of 'global warming', when say a very very large object strikes a planet, say like Venus, and sets in on fire, KABOOM. Changes it rotation and as a result must have changed it's orbit, if it had any moons, it would have lost them.
There are all sorts of 'global warming' possibilities, like major solar, really major, give the entire planet, especially one side, a really good toasting.
The current even, man made climate change through carbon dioxide dumped into the atmos
Re: (Score:1)
Technically this could reflect the kind of 'global warming', when say a very very large object strikes a planet, say like Venus, and sets in on fire
Right. Or Ice Ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it makes people feel extremely uncomfortable, I am sorry but you have to alter your probability outcomes over time, to not consider the probabilities of it occurring on this world but on any world amongst the billions of star in this galaxy, it goes from unrealistically rare to a total regular certainty. The ice ages and the warm periods are simply to regular to not be astronomical event, the returning debris with a set orbit five hits and then three misses. Man it would light up the sky to see it go
Re: (Score:2)
except for certain latitudes like say the whole of Canada, get another 20,000 odd year long ice age and Canada is gone,
What if AGW prevents the next Ice age and saves Canada? Should we embrace that outcome?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if AGW causes droughts to worsen, leading to even more trouble in Syria and Libya?
OMG that would be terrible! You should start paying more tax to ensure that never happens...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And if you phrase it as a statement, it might even be correct - kind of a dice roll if you're dumb, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the place full of climate change deniers? All the science points towards what is happening but then the counter argument her will be:
They're using the data wrong?
Gee, all the scientists? How about you run the numbers and post your results?
*crickets*
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody denies that climate changes. Would the word "climate" even exist if it was permanently static?
Re: Warming cycles (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Climate deniers are more likely to claim that there is no dog while continuing to be attacked, because acknowledging the existence of said dog would require some sort of action on their part. Much better to just pretend like nothing out of the ordinary is going on while slowly bleeding out. The whole mask debacle should show you that there's a staggering number of people who will just outright refuse to modify their behaviour for the benefit of others, especially if it's over something they don't understand
Re:Warming cycles (Score:4, Insightful)
So this says that global warming happens, [...]
We already know that global warming happens. For one thing we're seeing a particularly rapid instance now. But this is just Greenland. Because of the impact of ocean currents on the warmth of the North Atlantic, this could easily be a local rather than global warming.
[...] and has happened regardless of what humans do.
No, this doesn't say or imply that anything is regardless of what humans do. Humans weren't having the impact at the time that these trees were around, so nothing can be concluded about how our presence has affected it. It certainly doesn't overturn the basic facts that the greenhouse effect increases with greenhouse gas concentration, and that human activity has dramatically increase the greenhouse gas concentration.
Re: (Score:2)
Upon seeing lightening start a forest fire: "So this says that forest fires happen, and have happened regardless of what humans do."
Having disproved arson, he can also disprove murder by observing a natural death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a reasonable assumption that we would have found much in the way of evidence from any previous advanced period in our species history.
We have a pretty good CO2 record from air trapped in ice cores going back a few million years.
Studies that break global warming down into the response to Natural and the response to Anthropogenic forcing find that a discernible impact on global mean surface temperature starts around 1950. For instance Meehl et. al. [ametsoc.org]
So I think we're on pretty solid ground that the anthropogenic impact as at a few hundred thousand years ago would be minimal.
Re: (Score:2)
People can die crossing the road, regardless of what other people do. So let's speed all we want and ignore the road signs!!
Re: (Score:3)
One thing about right wingnuts is they never get mathematics. Discover the rate-of-change with respect to your wallet. You've probably been poor in the past, and will so again. Consider losing 1% of your wealth every year past age 65. Not so bad, eh? Now consider losing 50% of your wealth every year past age 65. Is that blindly stupid enough for you to understand?
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Pa (Score:5, Informative)
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This graph [nasa.gov] shows that it was warmer than today within the last 200,000 years, but not by much.
When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. Our current rate of warming [woodfortrees.org] is over 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past? [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
This rate of change is extremely unusual.
And where there have been steeper warming trends, like going into the Bolling Allerod or coming out of the younger Dryas, scientists have made a lot of progress in finding the cause.
The downside is that it might turn out that, in terms of impact on the climate, the industrial revolution ranks behind only an asteroid impact and the oceans turning upside down.
Re:Glacier girl (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite clearly, at least in that location, it was getting colder over the last 50 years.
Insufficient data -- all you know is that it's cold enough in that one spot to grow a lot of ice... But for all you know, it's still warmer than it used to be and it accumulated 90 meters in the 50 years prior... But even if it IS getting colder in greenland: Keep in mind that there is a difference between climate and weather - Wind and ocean flow patterns have been changing as well. Some regions get warmer, while other regions get colder, yet the global average is higher than what it used to be. That does not mean that you won't be able to find any spots that are still colder than you can imagine.
Re:Glacier girl (Score:5, Informative)
During summers from 1989 until 1992, I was part of a team drilling and sampling ice cores for the study of (among other things) the ratio of 18O/16O in the ice. The ratio varies according to the temperature at deposition, and provides a proxy temperature record (as long as the ice stays ice).
At the time of those measurements it was quite clear from the isotope record that central Greenland had been gradually warming over the previous half-century.
One thing people don't always think about is that, when a very cold area warms up (but still stays cold enough for snow), the overall amount of snowfall often increases. This is simply a matter of the water carrying capacity of the air, which increases with temperature. Increased snowfall does not necessarily correlate with lower temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
But mine was an Escort hatchback, 1983 model, and it died of rusted-out floor pan in 1995. Probably the battery leaking down the bulkhead while parked up for several months while I was abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Usually it snows more as things warm up, at least until it warms to above freezing. Cold air just can't contain as much moisture.
Re: (Score:2)
More like,
less ice, perhaps global warming
more ice, perhaps global warming
It's complex and you can't always generalize. Simplified, warms up from minus 30C to minus 10C, more snow, which may turn into ice. Warms up from minus 10C to plus 10C, ice melts. Works with smaller numbers, the closer to freezing while below freezing, the more snow, huge flakes here at times, adding up to feet pretty quick, when it is about zero. Once above freezing, rain falls as drops.
I take it that you live further south to not in
Re: (Score:2)
More like, less ice, perhaps global warming more ice, perhaps global warming It's complex and you can't always generalize.
Oh I'm with you only that one. Complex things are complex, hence why AGW alarmism is so easy to poke fun at. When it's hot it's AGW, when it's cold it's AGW etc... Everything is always AGW all the time, there's never any nuance to the headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it depends on where you get your news. You're likely American, which seems to have shitty news which is just interested in clicks to sell ads and headlines that drive clicks.
As a counter example, locally we went through about a 10 year period of little snow on the mountains. The news here kept stressing that it was unknown if it was global warming or just a cycle. They did say that after another 20 years of the same, we could blame it on global warming. On the 11th year the snow did come back.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it depends on where you get your news. You're likely American, which seems to have shitty news which is just interested in clicks to sell ads and headlines that drive clicks.
Not American, don't watch the news, hence why I might have a less alarmist/hystercial view of the world than most others.
As a counter example, locally we went through about a 10 year period of little snow on the mountains. The news here kept stressing that it was unknown if it was global warming or just a cycle. They did say that after another 20 years of the same, we could blame it on global warming. On the 11th year the snow did come back.
You have better media than us.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you fucking septic retard, quite clearly at that location the glaciers were flowing down hill from the crash site, and snow was accumulating - without saying anything about the local temperature change. It could have changed from an initial average temperature of -30degC to -40degC, or from -30degC to -20degC with pretty much the same effect on the rate of snow accumulation.
Actually, since colder air can carry less w
Re: (Score:2)
No, you fucking septic retard
Septic? Thank for the demonstration of poor logic. This tell us a lot about your thought processes...
quite clearly at that location the glaciers were flowing down hill
So the glaciers aren't receding then? Are you telling me Al Gore lied to me?
without saying anything about the local temperature change.
Well 80 metres of new ice indicates the something changed considerably doesn't it?
Actually, since colder air can carry less water vapour, increasing accumulation rates over time are suggestive of warmer air temperatures. Which rather shits in your frying pan.
Global warming = more ice
Also, global warming = less ice
Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don't understand how glaciers work. What do you think pulls them back up the hills? Little armies of dwarves?
I apologise to any retards I've insulted by associating you with them.
Re: (Score:2)
"septic is an expression of contempt - a short form of "septic tank", rhyming slang for "Yank".
Cool, now explain what logic you used to determine that I was American?
You clearly don't understand how glaciers work. What do you think pulls them back up the hills? Little armies of dwarves? Didn't answer the question. So the glaciers aren't receding then?
I apologise to any retards I've insulted by associating you with them.
The only person you've insulted is yourself with your public display of logical fallacies, ad hominem etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to treating climate change deniers as idiots in public, that is considered a public education success here. (Which is one of the reasons I have for believing that you are a Yank.)
Yes you have demonstrated repeatedly that logic is foreign concept to you, there is no need to keep reconfirming it...
Re: (Score:2)
Not a nice brush to tar our Neanderthaler cousins with. But I recognise the species of which you talk.
It's not a characteristic of the species.
Re: (Score:2)
Gorbal warming myth bites the ices...
This isn't evidence that global warming is false. It's evidence that plants used to grow in Greenland at some point, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many murders had Erik The Red committed before he got thrown out of Iceland? It must have been a good number because Iceland - and all the other Viking kingdoms the family got expelled from before arriving in Iceland - had a fairly wide range of acceptable "justifications" for homicide.
If you want to play "practical joker" with your average Viking, can I watch, using a reasonably good telescope. It's going to be entertaining, educational and informat
Re: (Score:2)
We know we are currently in the coldest period the earth has ever known.
Eh? The coldest period the Earth has ever known involved ice sheets 2 km thick over half of North America. That is ALL of Canada and well into what is now the US. We're a long way short of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and we are in the middle of that ice age. Hence the same PERIOD. Clearly it is hotter than is was 50 years ago and whenever than ice sheet existed, but we have not left that period yet. At least that is how they classified it 20 years ago when I went to school.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by quite a long measure. We're currently at the down side of a long-term cooling trend which began around 40-45 million years ago (as India hit Asia, pushing up the Himalayas, generating a lot of broken up rock which absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere and buries it in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal), but there was a prolonged warming period before then. Previously, there had been an extended ice age from about 300 to 350 million ye
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth and it's climate is considerably more complex than you seem to think it is.
What do you mean? You cannot take average temperatures and estimate out when the icecaps will melt?
And everyone has heard of the Cryogenian and the Himalayas.
Everything I am seeing is 10-20 years ago is as cold as it has ever been.
But looking into it the one source I found shows ice caps disappearing at 67-68 F [climate.gov] and Google says we are only at like 57 F. So we have a huge way to go. And yes, I do not think it was supposed to be over 10 degrees warmer than 2020 anytime in the last million. But I sort of though
Re: (Score:2)
These two statements are contradictory.
Perhaps you have not understood the concept of the Cryogenian, which posits glaciers down to sea level from the poles all the way to the equator of the time, coupled with extensive to nearly complete sea-ice cover from poles to equator. As a consequence, the atmospheric content of water vapour (it's major greenhouse gas [footnote]) falls
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry that should read 10-20K.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes I see my mistake. All the global temp graphs I was reading stop at like 530 million years ago which is not long enough back to include the Cryogenian.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite likely. I got interested in the question staring down an ore-petrography microscope (regular XPL, but in reflection mode not transmission ; nothing fancy) at samples of conglomerate rocks (deposited by vigorously running water) from the Witwatersrand of South Africa with, in the same field of view, flakes of gold (part of the exercise was to estimate the ore grade by microscopic examination - the class was "Ore Geology", not clima
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure I understand why this is an impossible mixture? Are you saying that they would not round the same in oxygen? Because it is not like any of these minerals are being created on the surface?
Re: (Score:2)