|
Post by matt on Aug 26, 2010 17:45:03 GMT
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. The farm was buried in up to 1.5 meters of sand. This meant the farm was deep enough to be below the new permafrost line. The top layers of soil aren't permafrost now. It looks possible that the farm could be rebuilt and worked today.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 27, 2010 12:46:25 GMT
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. The farm was buried in up to 1.5 meters of sand. This meant the farm was deep enough to be below the new permafrost line. The top layers of soil aren't permafrost now. It looks possible that the farm could be rebuilt and worked today. Hmmmm.....below the frost line but it can be farmed today. That is an impressive bit of mental gymnastics, my friend. Clearly you are working towards competition level rationalizations.
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Aug 27, 2010 13:31:39 GMT
The question is: How long has Greenland been loosing ice mass? Is the current loss anything out of the ordinary for the past 8,000 years? This is interesting...though the full article is hidden behind a paywall Simultaneous estimation of global present-day water transport and glacial isostatic adjustment, Wu et al., Nature Geoscience Published online: 15 August 2010 www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo938.htmlA discussion can be found here: theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ice-sheet-loss-cut-half"Bottom line on the new work is that ice-mass loss has been overestimated by previous studies. “These findings confirm the ongoing shrinkage of the polar ice sheets,” state Bromwich and Nicolas. “However, and most importantly, the newly estimated ice-sheet mass losses represent less than half of other recent GRACE-based estimates for the same time interval: −230 ± 33 Gt yr−1 for Greenland2 and −132 ± 26 Gt yr−1 for West Antarctica.” According to Wu et al. “We conclude that a significant revision of the present estimates of glacial isostatic adjustments and land–ocean water exchange is required.” Perhaps this technique could be applied to the previous GRACE results for Himalayan glaciers as well. So, when the more exact measurement separation methodology of Wu et al. is applied to the GRACE geoid data, ice sheet shrinkage, which has been systematically overestimated, is cut in half. “The differences between the work by Wu and colleagues and earlier studies may reflect errors in present deglaciation models with respect to the ice-load history and response of the Earth's mantle,” conclude Bromwich and Nicolas. According to Wu et al. “significant revision” is required. The general result—the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets will be with us for a long time to come."
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 27, 2010 16:34:13 GMT
Hmmmm.....below the frost line but it can be farmed today. That is an impressive bit of mental gymnastics, my friend. Clearly you are working towards competition level rationalizations. Ha ha. As you know, the top layers of soil, which are not permafrost, is where the new crops would be grown. The old top of the soil is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 27, 2010 19:29:49 GMT
Hmmmm.....below the frost line but it can be farmed today. That is an impressive bit of mental gymnastics, my friend. Clearly you are working towards competition level rationalizations. Ha ha. As you know, the top layers of soil, which are not permafrost, is where the new crops would be grown. The old top of the soil is irrelevant. But the sand got there because it was pushed there by a glacier extending. The farm worked for centuries prior to this. Then the glaciation overtook the farm covering it in sand; the temperatures dropped and the farm was below the permafrost level. Now in the what we could call the Global Hysteria Warm Period the farm is exposed by a river cutting into the permafrost during the Greenland summer and it can be investigated. But this means that the Global Hysteria Warm Period is still not quite as warm _in that spot in Greenland_ as it was when the farm was active and the farm was active for centuries. So for centuries the area of that farm was warmer in what is called the Medieval Warm Period than in the current Global Hysteria Warm Period. Seems logical to me - indeed up until 1970 nobody would have seen anything amazing about it. Now of course it is important to funding to show that the Global Hysteria Warm Period is exceptionally warm or hysteria cannot be maintained.
|
|