All hail the great Sise. Our very own Einstein. Everything cimate scientists are reporting is BS 'cos Sise knows better. God we are so lucky to have him as a member here.
Glaciers in the Canadian Arctic have melted enough to reveal land that was hidden for the last 40,000 years or more, researchers say.
And one big takeaway is this: The Arctic might be having its warmest century in at least 115,000 years, according to a study published this month in the journal Nature Communications.
"It's not just a fluke," University of Colorado Boulder doctoral researcher Simon Pendleton, lead author of the study, told CNN. "These ancient landscapes are being revealed over a broad geographic region on Baffin Island."
For this study, scientists plucked 48 mosses and lichens -- still rooted in the spots where they were killed by expanding ice millennia ago -- from the edges of 30 retreating ice caps on Canada's Baffin Island during summers from 2010 to 2015.
Using radiocarbon dating, the researchers found that most of the plants had been under the ice for at least 40,000 years, Pendleton said.
....
The plants were found in and around the island's Penny Ice Cap region, in elevations ranging from several hundred meters to a mile above sea level. The recently exposed landscape, largely on plateaus between fjords, is dominated by boulders, bedrock and tundra vegetation.
"You'd normally expect to see different plant ages in different topographical conditions. A high elevation location might hold onto its ice longer, for example," Pendleton said in a statement from the university. "But the magnitude of warming is so high that everything is melting everywhere now."
Though they're ancient, the collected plants are the same species as those that are alive and growing on the island today -- not unusual, given that we're looking at a span of tens of thousands of years as opposed to millions, Pendleton said.
The findings about the plants' ages, combined with temperature data reconstructed from Greenland ice cores, suggest that this is the region's warmest century in about 115,000 years, the study says.
At what point will deniers accept current weather extremes are more than unusual.
Had it been written 'skeptics' instead I might've responded. But since it was written "deniers" which is a leftist inimidatory tactic akin to religion which this GW racket has become, I decided not to as what would be the point?
Plus Alisoncc gives a ref to CNN above which is a major fake news outlet for the socialist specie. Take for example its Kofi-Annan story about seeing "Global warming in action literally under my feet!" as ice broke away in the Antarctic in September years ago and more recently the "nasty" catholic boys who blocked that Indian liar and the bunch of semi-black foul mouths he was with. I hope the smirking kid sues that miserable CNN mob for all the sh!t he's put up from it afterwards.
That sort of stuff is not particularly unusual in a place like Australia, neither are super-cold spells in North America, in the grand scheme of things. It’s just got more noticeable with the advent of social media, the internet, and the 24 hour news cycle. It does, however, play right into the hands of those pushing the scare stories in order to transfer the vast wealth of western nations to the impecunious and ungovernable nations of the third world. And that’s called global communism. Congratulations on being sucked in Alison :YMAPPLAUSE
Of course Sise climate may well be changing despite these ups and downs in weather every so often. Here where I live everything is normal. What I object to is being called a "denier" iso a skeptic. Skeptic indicates Science. Denier indicates religion. And as a skeptic I do not see conclusive proof that Humanity is causing any climate change. That's simply Gore's racket to redistribute global wealth as you say.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:29 am
by Sisemen
Like I said, most of us on here, if not all, will not be around to be able to say “told you so” if their pet theory is proved to be correct.
Note: my take is only a theory - I’m prepared to be convinced. But so far the conflicting evidence does not prove, to me, any reason to believe in catastrophic climate change let alone that humans are causing it. Unlike those who do believe - for them it is undeniable positive proof that bears no further examination - end of.
Further note: humans push too much pollution into the atmosphere and that should be curtailed as much as possible - no argument from me there.
Further note: humans push too much pollution into the atmosphere and that should be curtailed as much as possible - no argument from me there.
Same here Sise. The desire for unpolluted air is a given - even for pope Gore's disciples and bishop heirachy. But why vote for a bunch of ballwashing leftist lying retards like Greenies to do it? It's like voting for the Taliban or Daesh if one wanted capital punishment restored.
Enough said.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:18 am
by Magnus
Alisoncc, if the arctic is having its warmest century in 115,000 years, how come the current glacial retreat is slowly exposing viking settlements from 800 years ago? It must have been warmer then to create viable settlements, no?
The global climate is changing, and even in our humble local newspaper there is an article concerning record breaking high temperatures over the past few years which the bird experts believe has resulted in the deaths of a lot of birdlife.
Regardless of the cause of this climate change, I believe that homo sapiens should make more effort into ensuring that we are not the cause, and if we are to clean up our act before it is too late.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:42 am
by BenThere
Yesterday it was -14F/-26C here in Detroit. Unusual. We have about 6 inches of snow on the ground which has been turned from soft wet snow into a block of ice in two days. A bit of warming would be quite welcome here.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:06 pm
by Sisemen
Climate change is a theory not a proven fact. As with many issues science struggles to prove or disprove a theory. Who would have thought cholesterol is not the main cause of heart disease. 20 years ago scientific dogma suggested the only safe amount of cholesterol would zero and sugar is 100% safe. Why? Because only one biased opinion was allowed to reign for close on 40 years so much so it was accepted as fact. Climate change is no where near proven and there are nearly as many sceptics as believers but the pro camp is way more vocal. In the meantime balanced argument is the only way forward. If the science is solid the truth will come out in the end.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:11 pm
by Boac
Sise - do you dispute the overall increase in sea temperatures and the loss of polar ice? Are they not happening? Surely this is a typical earth climate warming cycle (ie 'Global'), is it not?
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:34 pm
by Pontius Navigator
Typical and cycle do not fit with irreversible.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:37 pm
by Sisemen
There are as many counter arguments that say the opposite. I don’t know who to believe. All I do know is that there is no definitive (note that word) evidence that either proves one theory or another.
There are many eminent geologists and climatologists that now feel confident enough to come out of the closet and say that it’s all bollocks.
Note the above sources. Not bloody CNN, not Fox30, not Trump, and not that twit Pelosi.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:30 pm
by Alisoncc
For those who think that global warming is just a conspiracy to fleece people out of their hard earned money I can recommend a good forum where Chemtrails regularly get a good airing. Those along with the "All Apollo lunar missions actually took place on earth".
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:32 pm
by Pontius Navigator
Group 3 of course cites local climate extremes as proof positive of their view which is illogical as we are talking global and not local.
On a course I did NASA photographs of Mt Kilimanjaro were produced to show the changing snows. Unfortunately, on googling the images, I found NASA had reassessed the images and found they did not show change at all, but the damage was done - it was in black and white.
In the same book were images from space illustrating urban heat island effect in Atlanta. Again googling showed the photographs were taken from 32,000 feet at 0300 local. With the help of friend in Atlanta I analysed the IT photos. Quite correctly trees were dark and the road structure showed brighter.
Unexplained in the book were lots at dense black areas where light was expected and though the images was a thick band of a deep red showing heat. The black areas were shopping malls exhibiting cold not heating. It was aircon cooling. The unexplained extreme hot band was the Mississippi.
It showed that nature trumped man when it came to local temperature effect.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:37 pm
by Pontius Navigator
On chemtrails, one will remember the total ban on flying in Conus, and by extension the North Atlantic, after 9-11. The effect on the skies over NA were significant. It was clear that burning hydro carbons in the upper atmosphere and the generation of ice crystals caused a reduction in light transmission.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:53 pm
by Slasher
Very good points made on your above posts PN. Thanks. I might delve into further reading on them.
The GW racketeering would've started probably in the 1970s, but back then nobody knew how to make big money from it. It took ex-VP Al Gore to figure that one out. Afterwards the Left jumped seriously onto the bandwagon roughly 20 years ago IIRC as a means to redistribute Wealth on a global scale as per its manifesto. From there it took off and the rest is history.
Re: Climate Disruption.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:57 pm
by Boac
PN wrote:Typical and cycle do not fit with irreversible
- no, but I didn't say it did, and a basic knowledge of English tells us that a 'cycle' is most definitely reversible whereas 'typical' makes no claims either way! Were you replying to someone else but quoting me?
PN wrote:Typical and cycle do not fit with irreversible
- no, but I didn't say it did, and a basic knowledge of English tells us that a 'cycle' is most definitely reversible whereas 'typical' makes no claims either way! Were you replying to someone else but quoting me?
Aye, re reading what you wrote I see it was in response to Sise.
