Humble Clumps of Moss Yield Sobering Climate Surprises

[longknife]

By Tom Yulsman | October 24, 2013 11:55 pm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2013/10/Baffin_MK20891-1024x683.jpg
The University of Colorado's Gifford Miller holds samples of moss collected on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic. (Photo: TKTKTK)

The University of Colorado’s Gifford Miller holds samples of moss collected on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic. (Photo: Matthew Kennedy, Earth
Vision Trust.)

It has been something of an article of faith among skeptics of humanity’s role in global warming: The rise in temperatures observed in recent decades can’t be definitively pinned on humans because nature — all by her lonesome — has produced temperatures during the past 11,000 years that were just as warm.

The logic: Since nature has produced a warmer Earth during this period without any intervention from us, we can’t rule out nature as the cause of the warming observed since the dawn of the industrial age.

Read more @ Humble Clumps of Moss Yield Sobering Climate Surprises - ImaGeo | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[flacaltenn]

Now hang on a millenium there pardner....

Is it just me? Or is there WAAAAY too much glee in the authors tone? Like he's found the magic bullet to nail every last denying skeptic out there?

Seems to me -- the whole theory is one big logical fallacy...
I have little doubt that the poor moss died 5000 or 40,000 yrs ago as measured..

But there is nothing in evidence to say that the ice that just melted to REVEAL the dead bodies was that old.
Surely, NEWER ICE could have recovered that dead moss many times WAAAY after it died.

((Dead moss tells no tales. And will still be dead no matter HOW many times you bury it in ice))

Say NEWER ICE that was created between the MedWarmP and today.. Or NEWER ICE that reformed ANYTIME since the last Ice Age after a period of intense warming.

Unless you got proof that this is 1st time that dead stuff was exposed since those dates --- you ain't got jackshit. Gloating about that NOW before all that is settled is just obscene and wee bit desparate... Don'tcha think?

 

[Two Thumbs]

moss?

jezuz krist

 

[mamooth]

((Dead moss tells no tales. And will still be dead no matter HOW many times you bury it in ice))

Dead moss won't last long if not covered by ice. Hence the rush to get these samples.

 

[Zander]

Kate Moss?

 

[Old Rocks]

moss?

jezuz krist

No, older than that by a lot.

 

[flacaltenn]

((Dead moss tells no tales. And will still be dead no matter HOW many times you bury it in ice))

Dead moss won't last long if not covered by ice. Hence the rush to get these samples.

Gee. That must be why peat (dead moss) was the prized roofing and insulation material above 40 latitudes for centuries.. Whats the oldest peat bog yove seen?

Someone just revived some 400 yr old moss that was below a glacier and thought to be dead.

 

[flacaltenn]

Lots of issues here to be resolved.. BEFORE the author goes giddy with victory..

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contamination[edit]Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is: the effect is greater for older samples. If a sample that is in fact 17,000 years old is contaminated so that 1% of the sample is actually modern carbon, it will appear to be 600 years younger; for a sample that is 34,000 years old the same amount of contamination would cause an error for 4,000 years. Contamination with old carbon, with no remaining 14
C, causes an error in the other direction, which does not depend on age—a sample that has been contaminated with 1% old carbon will appear to be about 80 years older than it really is, regardless of the date of the sample

The assumption that ANY of these samples is from just ONE DATE --- is really a non-starter.
The only thing we know for sure is that a LARGE PART of the samples were from those dates..

Seems like there's no way of knowing how many times that ground was uncovered. Tell the author to take a chill pill....

 

[Abraham3]

You know whose really good at arguing against the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? The Young Earth Creationists.

You should have stuck with our first argument. I think all he can say is that it hasn't gotten warm enough for long enough to uncover the moss. It may have gotten as warm as it is these days, just not for long.

Though... I guess that says the same thing.

Oh, well, sorry, but you lose.

 

[flacaltenn]

You know whose really good at arguing against the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? The Young Earth Creationists.

You should have stuck with our first argument. I think all he can say is that it hasn't gotten warm enough for long enough to uncover the moss. It may have gotten as warm as it is these days, just not for long.

Though... I guess that says the same thing.

Oh, well, sorry, but you lose.

I have no idea what the args are from the Creationists. I quoted actual science fact.

Point is --- the author and his "teacher friend" are LEAPING to conclusions not in evidence.
Don't care if I win.. But BOTH OF them lose with their attempt to turn shoddy science into yet more Global Warming propaganda..

Their assertions and conclusions are motivated by DESIRE, not science. Can you say the same about those Young Whosits Creationists? Can I get an Amen from ya bro !!!!!

 

[mamooth]

Gee. That must be why peat (dead moss) was the prized roofing and insulation material above 40 latitudes for centuries.. Whats the oldest peat bog yove seen?

Why are you changing the topic to peat bogs?

If you want to claim an exposed piece of moss in a wet above-freezing (at least for part of the year) climate will last a thousand years, and that even more magically, no other moss will grow over it in that time, go right ahead. Just don't be surprised when nobody pays any attention.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gee. That must be why peat (dead moss) was the prized roofing and insulation material above 40 latitudes for centuries.. Whats the oldest peat bog yove seen?

Why are you changing the topic to peat bogs?

If you want to claim an exposed piece of moss in a wet above-freezing (at least for part of the year) climate will last a thousand years, and that even more magically, no other moss will grow over it in that time, go right ahead. Just don't be surprised when nobody pays any attention.

Thats what a peat bog is.. Dead moss that lasts hundreds of years exposed to the elements in WETTER and HOTTER enviros.

In fact, we have reports of dead ARCTIC MOSS regenerating after 400 yrs under ice. How many times was IT exposed? No one knows.

And "other moss" WILL regrow "over it". Thus contaminating the radiodating. And making it impossible to declare HOW MANY times it was uncovered. Or what percentage came from which era. That's all that is required to show the lack of logic and reason for these conclusions.

 

[Abraham3]

It does not appear to be a "piece" of moss, but an intact, entire moss plant.

 

[orogenicman]

You know whose really good at arguing against the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? The Young Earth Creationists.

You should have stuck with our first argument. I think all he can say is that it hasn't gotten warm enough for long enough to uncover the moss. It may have gotten as warm as it is these days, just not for long.

Though... I guess that says the same thing.

Oh, well, sorry, but you lose.

I have no idea what the args are from the Creationists. I quoted actual science fact.

Point is --- the author and his "teacher friend" are LEAPING to conclusions not in evidence.
Don't care if I win.. But BOTH OF them lose with their attempt to turn shoddy science into yet more Global Warming propaganda..

Their assertions and conclusions are motivated by DESIRE, not science. Can you say the same about those Young Whosits Creationists? Can I get an Amen from ya bro !!!!!

The fact is that radio isotopic dating methods are valid and are used by hundreds of labs worldwide with great success. Now, I know you want these results to be wrong, but unless you have ACTUAL evidence that they aren't, then all you are doing is beating a dead horse.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

. . . [M]oss grows fat on a rollin' stone
But that's not how it used to be
-- DON MCLEAN, "American Pie."

 

[polarbear]

Now hang on a millenium there pardner....

Is it just me? Or is there WAAAAY too much glee in the authors tone? Like he's found the magic bullet to nail every last denying skeptic out there?

Seems to me -- the whole theory is one big logical fallacy...
I have little doubt that the poor moss died 5000 or 40,000 yrs ago as measured..

But there is nothing in evidence to say that the ice that just melted to REVEAL the dead bodies was that old.
Surely, NEWER ICE could have recovered that dead moss many times WAAAY after it died.

((Dead moss tells no tales. And will still be dead no matter HOW many times you bury it in ice))

Say NEWER ICE that was created between the MedWarmP and today.. Or NEWER ICE that reformed ANYTIME since the last Ice Age after a period of intense warming.

Unless you got proof that this is 1st time that dead stuff was exposed since those dates --- you ain't got jackshit. Gloating about that NOW before all that is settled is just obscene and wee bit desparate... Don'tcha think?

There is lots more evidence, even way way farther north than where that moss was found just how temperate the climate has been for long periods.
I uploaded and posted some pictures I collected when I was stationed at the northernmost tip of Ellesmere Island, CFS Alert, next to the pole.
Like these tree stumps buried under just a few inches of sand:

Lower right, that`s Fort Conger at the Nares Straight looking across to Greenland. Lower left not far from AFB Thule are muskox skulls arranged in a circle. We found these all over the northernmost parts of Greenland.
Muskox need vegetation to survive, so do the rabbits...

and the Ellesmere Island wolves (lower right) would not even exist had there been no rabbits and no muskox to feed on....well sometimes we gave`m a "handout".
It`s amazing you can walk up to any of these animals and watch them dig up moss & roots under the snow or exposed sand.
Polar bears are the exception and I would not recommend to get any closer than that without some firepower:

PS.: None of us ever had to shoot one. A warning shot worked, but not the next time you run into the same bear. Unless you can escape with whatever you used for transportation it`s kill or be killed & eaten !

Anyway...that`s the way it is and has been long before "AGW" on the bare windward side.
The leeward sides are buried, often under kilometer thick ice.

The ice free regions have been like that even when the first arctic expeditions arrived there and that is well documented by Lieutenant Greely on the maps he drew.

Glaciers calve all the time

Even during the winter while it`s brutally cold. Sometimes so massively that it causes earth tremors. The rate at which they do is for the most a function of gravity and terrain gradient.
You won`t see any melt water running off most glaciers even during the summer:

To see that the best place is South Greenland which has an entirely different climate from the rest of Greenland.
I posted all that years ago...only to get stupid replies from the usual Wikipedia "experts" that claim to know the arctic better even though none of them ever even been there.

 

[flacaltenn]

You know whose really good at arguing against the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? The Young Earth Creationists.

You should have stuck with our first argument. I think all he can say is that it hasn't gotten warm enough for long enough to uncover the moss. It may have gotten as warm as it is these days, just not for long.

Though... I guess that says the same thing.

Oh, well, sorry, but you lose.

I have no idea what the args are from the Creationists. I quoted actual science fact.

Point is --- the author and his "teacher friend" are LEAPING to conclusions not in evidence.
Don't care if I win.. But BOTH OF them lose with their attempt to turn shoddy science into yet more Global Warming propaganda..

Their assertions and conclusions are motivated by DESIRE, not science. Can you say the same about those Young Whosits Creationists? Can I get an Amen from ya bro !!!!!

The fact is that radio isotopic dating methods are valid and are used by hundreds of labs worldwide with great success. Now, I know you want these results to be wrong, but unless you have ACTUAL evidence that they aren't, then all you are doing is beating a dead horse.

The radiodating won't TELL YOU when or how many times these remnants were exposed in the past. And moss that APPEARS dead for HUNDREDS of years can regenerate many times. Making the carbon dating process nothing more than a poor approximation of when these plants STARTED life.

You falsely accuse me of denying a valid tool of science. I'm just telling you the tools in the HEADS of these authors are defective.. I posted a section on "mixed date" samples. Did you understand the implications?

Will you miss the same points next time you decide to attack me?

 

[longknife]

How the Globull Warming theorists have kittens when anything threatens their beliefs!!!

 

[polarbear]

You know whose really good at arguing against the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? The Young Earth Creationists.

You should have stuck with our first argument. I think all he can say is that it hasn't gotten warm enough for long enough to uncover the moss. It may have gotten as warm as it is these days, just not for long.

Though... I guess that says the same thing.

Oh, well, sorry, but you lose.

So the author found some moss that is 44 000 years old and that is supposed to prove what?
With a little effort he could also have found moss that is 20 000 , 10 000, 5000, 1000 and 100 years old.
It all depends where on Baffin Island you want to look.
So where exactly did he look?

the team collected 365 samples from the edges of about 110 different ice caps

How could you expect to find moss there that has grown at any other time period? But you would find it over the entire age and distance range from the past ice cover to the present.
What an idiotic conclusion:

They were only recently uncovered as the ice retreated under the influence of warming temperatures.

He has no way of knowing if they have been covered by ice all that time or by the sand + the vegetation cover that has been there,long before we started to burn fossil fuel.
Baffin Island is a huge area and is an arid low precipitation region.
It never did have a thick ice cover and if it had 44 000 years ago that moss would have been crushed to a pan cake under it.
It`s been covered for the bulk of the time by a thin layer of sand, not by a thick layer of ice, like everything else is in that area and in areas way farther north that never did have a thick permanent ice cover for an entire 44 000 years counting back from today.

Eskimos have been living there for thousands of years and so have the muskox they hunt. Since as the name implies Baffin Island, it is isolated from the Canadian arctic mainland which makes it pretty clear that the muskox population on Baffin Island is not just a recent addition.
Muskox does not venture out and migrate over the arctic ocean ice cover.
Finding 44 000 year old moss means about as much as finding 44000 year old muskox remains in the same area where muskox have been grazing for thousands of years and still do today.
There are peat (moss) bogs way south of Baffin in Manitoba which are just as old and even older than the moss this guy found on Baffin.
And Manitoba has not been covered till just recently under permanent ice either.
If you keep digging around on Baffin Island long enough you would quite probably find moss that is over 100 000 years old also.
These dead since 44 000 years moss samples have no significance whatsoever other than proving that it was warm enough for moss to grow...and if anyone builds an entire "arctic amplification" theory out of a clump of moss then I wonder what he and the idiots that he managed to convince have been smoking.
All this this zealot is trying to do is to resurrect the Michael Mann hockey stick.

 

[Abraham3]

I disagree. I believe he knows, with great certainty, that the dated age of those samples is the last time they were exposed to air. I really think a sample that has been encased in snow and ice continuously for a thousand years and one that was thawed out in the middle of that time span for, what, a week? A year? A few years? I think they could be told apart very easily and with complete certainty.

Besides, do you have some OTHER paleoclimatological record that indicates Baffin Island has experienced a warm period during that span? And, please, we've heard enough about the MWP.