|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 24, 2010 22:36:48 GMT
No nautonnier The lesson is quite the opposite. Someone has suggested the idea of birch on Greenland is beyond ridiculous. Rather than believe it I try and check it. Sigurdur has talked about the fact that since burials were found in what is now permafrost it must have been warmer when they were buried. But there are also reports that houses have been dug out of glacial sand. If there is enough glacial sand to bury a house there is also enough sand to bury a burial ground! When the burials took place the ground may have been more exposed which allowed it to thaw at times. I don't think people realise how much landscapes can change over hundreds of years. I don't know, but I don't just accept what I'm told. But I don't really have a problem with Greenland having a warm period in and around the tenth century. The earth was closer to the sun during the Northern Hemisphere summer, so Greenland received much more sunshine in summer. The climate of the earth does seem to have been different from now. But established communities are adaptable and it is reasonable to assume that they would have survived when it got colder. For example, as noted by a greenlandexile, established communities moved to a fish diet which would have sustained them as the climate cooled (ps. I didn't just believe greenlandexile, I'd already seen a paper that studied this). Also people were tougher then - well people can still be tough now, but most of us don't have to be. All that writing and you still miss the point. The entire FARM was under permafrost. (Read it slowly) and when the permafrost melted (as it was doing) the smells of the farm were released. The paper also said that as the glacier advanced it pushed sand over the meadows - which is why some parts were buried in sand. In the permafrost. PERMA FROST - ALWAYS FROZEN --- but when the _Vikings_ were there it was NOT FROZEN to the extent that it was a working farm. Now I KNOW you want to discount any validation observations that disprove your claims that the MWP did not exist. But this one is difficult even for you. So you can now retire to the secondary position that: " it may have been warm at that farm in Greenland for a century or two but that does not mean it was warm in Australia - or even in Devon. Therefore, the MWP was only a local phenomenon for a century or two at that one fjord in Greenland."
A perfectly logical position  |
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Aug 25, 2010 0:53:50 GMT
Yeah.
Perfectly logical...
...in a pig's eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 25, 2010 2:31:10 GMT
Are there any papers that show the compaction or average mass of the Greenland Ice Sheet?
Papers that are credible? It would seem to me that during the MWP, Greenland had less ice mass than current levels of ice mass. The few papers I have been able to find talk about the thinning at the edges of the glacier. We know from forensic evidence(fossil digs) that there were settlements covered by advancing glaciers in Greenland as well as in the Alps.
So, with historical perspective in mind, should we as humans, be alarmed that the ice sheet is shedding now? Or is this a natural cycle? What documented evidence is there that co2 is playing any significant part in the health of the current ice sheet?
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 25, 2010 4:23:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 25, 2010 5:43:33 GMT
" Temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as those at mid-latitudes as greenhouse gases build up in Earth's atmosphere, due primarily to human activities like fossil fuel burning and deforestation, according to climate scientists."I suppose that is true if you believe GISS who have no sensors in the Arctic. It doesn't appear to be the case from actual temperature recordings. Perhaps its an overloaded definition of 'warming' being used.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 25, 2010 6:03:23 GMT
Yeah, this s something I noticed recently. If temperatures in the arctic rose by as much as we're told to believe (as opposed to the actual measurements) then during the cold period the entire arctic north of 80 degrees never even showed signs of melting at all (like melt water ponds) because it was always cold enough to refreeze even the ocean water...even at the height of the "melt" season.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 25, 2010 7:01:24 GMT
steve, So Greenland supports some remnant colonies of Birch. That is pretty cool. And you have still been sold a pile of bs. You're a poor loser. Are you 12 years old? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 25, 2010 7:40:56 GMT
No nautonnier The lesson is quite the opposite. Someone has suggested the idea of birch on Greenland is beyond ridiculous. Rather than believe it I try and check it. Sigurdur has talked about the fact that since burials were found in what is now permafrost it must have been warmer when they were buried. But there are also reports that houses have been dug out of glacial sand. If there is enough glacial sand to bury a house there is also enough sand to bury a burial ground! When the burials took place the ground may have been more exposed which allowed it to thaw at times. I don't think people realise how much landscapes can change over hundreds of years. I don't know, but I don't just accept what I'm told. But I don't really have a problem with Greenland having a warm period in and around the tenth century. The earth was closer to the sun during the Northern Hemisphere summer, so Greenland received much more sunshine in summer. The climate of the earth does seem to have been different from now. But established communities are adaptable and it is reasonable to assume that they would have survived when it got colder. For example, as noted by a greenlandexile, established communities moved to a fish diet which would have sustained them as the climate cooled (ps. I didn't just believe greenlandexile, I'd already seen a paper that studied this). Also people were tougher then - well people can still be tough now, but most of us don't have to be. All that writing and you still miss the point. The entire FARM was under permafrost. (Read it slowly) and when the permafrost melted (as it was doing) the smells of the farm were released. The paper also said that as the glacier advanced it pushed sand over the meadows - which is why some parts were buried in sand. In the permafrost. PERMA FROST - ALWAYS FROZEN --- but when the _Vikings_ were there it was NOT FROZEN to the extent that it was a working farm. Now I KNOW you want to discount any validation observations that disprove your claims that the MWP did not exist. But this one is difficult even for you. So you can now retire to the secondary position that: " it may have been warm at that farm in Greenland for a century or two but that does not mean it was warm in Australia - or even in Devon. Therefore, the MWP was only a local phenomenon for a century or two at that one fjord in Greenland."
A perfectly logical position I'm not discounting Greenland being warmer or more palatable and I don't think I ever have. The summers there were longer and sunnier due to the different orbit of the earth. Currently, Nuuk, which is quite close to this farm has two months with average temperature of 10C. What temperatures are required for subsistence farming? It seems that the farm was exposed due to river erosion, and may have been buried quite rapidly in sand. A permafrost layer can exist below a non-permafrost layer, and photos of the site show quite a lot of scrub and bushes indicating that the top layers are not permanently frozen. antiquity.ac.uk/ant/083/0430/ant0830430.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 25, 2010 16:18:35 GMT
steve, So Greenland supports some remnant colonies of Birch. That is pretty cool. And you have still been sold a pile of bs. You're a poor loser. Are you 12 years old? So Greenland is facing a climate crisis when it used to have significant Birch scrub, and farms buried under permafrost and glaciers are being found....and I am a bad loser? I would suggest you are playing a nice recap of the Black Knight: capturingfantasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/monty_python_black_knight.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 25, 2010 19:38:56 GMT
The question remains:
Is the Greenland Ice masss significantly lower now than it was 1,000 years ago?
IS there any reason to be alarmed now?
|
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 26, 2010 3:44:03 GMT
The question remains: Is the Greenland Ice masss significantly lower now than it was 1,000 years ago? IS there any reason to be alarmed now? No and no. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 26, 2010 8:41:42 GMT
" Temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as those at mid-latitudes as greenhouse gases build up in Earth's atmosphere, due primarily to human activities like fossil fuel burning and deforestation, according to climate scientists."I suppose that is true if you believe GISS who have no sensors in the Arctic. It doesn't appear to be the case from actual temperature recordings. Perhaps its an overloaded definition of 'warming' being used. UAH LT readings show the North Polar region is warming at ~0.47 deg per decade. What actual temperature records do you have that show the arctic isn't warming? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 26, 2010 10:11:00 GMT
This is showing up your attitude to evidence that conflicts with your understanding. If you find it so hard to accept that you were wrong in your extreme attitude to birch (deep sarcasm, multiple LOLs, reference to AGW bs and so forth even after some basic evidence suggest you may be wrong) why would I think that you were capable of taking a balanced view of other evidence.
I would expect that in the current climate Greenland would tend to grow in ice mass due to increased precipitation as this is what the models have shown for well over a decade. These same models tend to show that the balance between increased precipitation and melting is lost with another degree or two warming.
However, these models would not have modelled the thinning at the edges very well. I don't know whether there is enough evidence to dispute or prove the predictions about precipitation. I do not know what model experiments have been done with a different profile of sunshine reflecting periods 1000 years ago.
Allowing Greenland to warm another 2C sounds like a really really stupid thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 26, 2010 12:36:06 GMT
"Allowing Greenland to warm another 2C sounds like a really really stupid thing to do. " @ steve, Thinking that controlling CO2 is going to regulate Greenland's temperature sounds even dumber. One of the more entertaining aspects of AGW belief is the idea that we are able to manage the world climate- and you think we can even manage regional areas, apparently- by controlling CO2 My lol's are the appropriate response to finding out that AGW is an even more childish and ignorant than I had imagined. glc, The proper question is why should GISS, which has no sensors for vast areas it claims accurate temps to within 0.xo of, be considered credible at all? It is not up to skeptics to provide alternative temps. It is up to GISS to provide something that is not garbage, no matter how fond you have become of their garbage. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 26, 2010 14:02:30 GMT
Question because I haven't looked it up, but it is relevant with a point like this: Where were the lands where these fossils are now found located 50 million years ago? IIRC, the Atlantic ocean first appeared during the cretacious, so there has been a lot of drift during the last 50 or 60 million years. I'm just curious how much that drift has affected the climate of the specific land masses by changing their lattitudes. |
|
