New evidence shows it was once possible to sail across...ANTARCTICA!

[westwall]

You think this Northwest Passage business is a big deal try sailing across the Antarctic!

New evidence that it was once possible to sail acrossAntarctica - Journal - Your Site Name

 

[konradv]

From the article:

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is the region through which this trans-Antarctic seaway must have traveled, is thought to be unstable and in danger of collapsing, partially as a result of climate change. If the ice sheet does collapse, it could increase global sea levels by 10 to 15 feet, which could displace billions of people from their homes. The bryozoan discovery could, however, help us better understand how a melting Antarctica fits into current climate change.

I guess that GW research IS important!!!

 

[Steerpike]

Interesting.

I think it was already known that the earth was a lot warming during that interglacial period than it is now, but this sort of finding really lets you envision that fact in a more tangible way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This can only mean that the SUV is far older than anyone can imagine

 

[Steerpike]

******* Neanderthals and their Hummers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.html

"The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC. "

 

[konradv]

Interesting.

I think it was already known that the earth was a lot warming during that interglacial period than it is now, but this sort of finding really lets you envision that fact in a more tangible way.

True, but you can't be blinded by "but it was warm or warmer in the past and there weren't any or very few humans spewing out CO2!!!" That assumes all warmings have the same cause and obscures the time element. People who disbelieve AGW often overlook the fact that they're talking about things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years, while believers are concerened about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting.

I think it was already known that the earth was a lot warming during that interglacial period than it is now, but this sort of finding really lets you envision that fact in a more tangible way.

True, but you can't be blinded by "but it was warm or warmer in the past and there weren't any or very few humans spewing out CO2!!!" That assumes all warmings have the same cause and obscures the time element. People who disbelieve AGW often overlook the fact that they're talking about things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years, while believers are concerened about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Sounds great.

Show us in a laboratory setting how a 200PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature

 

[Steerpike]

Interesting.

I think it was already known that the earth was a lot warming during that interglacial period than it is now, but this sort of finding really lets you envision that fact in a more tangible way.

True, but you can't be blinded by "but it was warm or warmer in the past and there weren't any or very few humans spewing out CO2!!!" That assumes all warmings have the same cause and obscures the time element. People who disbelieve AGW often overlook the fact that they're talking about things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years, while believers are concerened about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

The believers are still blinded. They discount what has happened before, as well as the time scale of the forces at work (as well as any evidence that might support a different view). If you are talking about climate and temperature, and you're only looking at the last couple of hundred years, you're looking at a miniscule sample.

 

[Steerpike]

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.html

"The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC. "

The Piri Reis map is cool. Seems to me it demonstrates that humans were traveling the oceans a lot earlier than we think they were.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.html

"The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC. "

The Piri Reis map is cool. Seems to me it demonstrates that humans were traveling the oceans a lot earlier than we think they were.

The ancient Chinese traveled cross the entire country; there are Egyptian burial sites in Arizona, the Phoenicians, the Vikings, the Romans were all here.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, there was a norse stone of some kind in the midwest U.S., wasn't there?

New world plants in ancient Egypt. The Phoenicians alone had great command of the oceans. The Chinese traveled around.

There's a theory that "antarctica" on Piri Reis is really South America.

But all in all there's plenty of evidence that humans traveled around a lot more than we give them credit for. Even in the new world, Aztecs appear to have been trading with native tribes in what is now the U.S., as well as far to the south.

 

[konradv]

Interesting.

I think it was already known that the earth was a lot warming during that interglacial period than it is now, but this sort of finding really lets you envision that fact in a more tangible way.

True, but you can't be blinded by "but it was warm or warmer in the past and there weren't any or very few humans spewing out CO2!!!" That assumes all warmings have the same cause and obscures the time element. People who disbelieve AGW often overlook the fact that they're talking about things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years, while believers are concerened about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

The believers are still blinded. They discount what has happened before, as well as the time scale of the forces at work (as well as any evidence that might support a different view). If you are talking about climate and temperature, and you're only looking at the last couple of hundred years, you're looking at a miniscule sample.

Believers don't discount what's happened before. It's the very reason why the cause of GW can be difficult to pinpoint, often requiring "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" due to other sources. It's the deniers that are blinding themselves to the time scale. We're asked to give lots of weight to things that happened over extended periods of time, but are pooh-poohed when more recent short-term possible causes are discussed. How can things that take extended periods of time have more influence than the rise in GHGs since the IR? The reason for looking at that "miniscule" sample is because that's what's being posited as the cause. What else do we have to lok at and at what other time have humans had the ability to emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year?

Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

 

[westwall]

Interesting.

I think it was already known that the earth was a lot warming during that interglacial period than it is now, but this sort of finding really lets you envision that fact in a more tangible way.

True, but you can't be blinded by "but it was warm or warmer in the past and there weren't any or very few humans spewing out CO2!!!" That assumes all warmings have the same cause and obscures the time element. People who disbelieve AGW often overlook the fact that they're talking about things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years, while believers are concerened about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

"Give all praise to the great Lord Al Gore Ommmmmmmmmm" Nice example of how the scientific method is meaningless to you all. Couldn't have said it better myself!

What was that about it not being a religion?

 

[westwall]

True, but you can't be blinded by "but it was warm or warmer in the past and there weren't any or very few humans spewing out CO2!!!" That assumes all warmings have the same cause and obscures the time element. People who disbelieve AGW often overlook the fact that they're talking about things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years, while believers are concerened about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

The believers are still blinded. They discount what has happened before, as well as the time scale of the forces at work (as well as any evidence that might support a different view). If you are talking about climate and temperature, and you're only looking at the last couple of hundred years, you're looking at a miniscule sample.

Believers don't discount what's happened before. It's the very reason why the cause of GW can be difficult to pinpoint, often requiring "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" due to other sources. It's the deniers that are blinding themselves to the time scale. We're asked to give lots of weight to things that happened over extended periods of time, but are pooh-poohed when more recent short-term possible causes are discussed. How can things that take extended periods of time have more influence than the rise in GHGs since the IR? The reason for looking at that "miniscule" sample is because that's what's being posited as the cause. What else do we have to lok at and at what other time have humans had the ability to emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year?

Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

However, natural CO2 production from ALL sources DWARFS mans contribution. Mn contributes less than 5% of the overall yearly inventory of CO2. I am just simply AMAZED at how much more powerful our CO2 is then that which is natural. Fascinating!

 

[Old Rocks]

Subtract what nature absorbs from what nature emits, and you have a negative number. The reason for that is that the oceans are at present absorbing a great deal of the CO2 that man emits.

Now Walleyes, show where that is wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

As Konradv has already pointed out, this article is hardly one that a denialist should pick to post. But then, as we have seen in the past, Walleyes has a problem with reading comprehension.

New evidence that it was once possible to sail acrossAntarctica - Journal - Your Site Name

"When we found groups of strikingly similar bryozoans hundreds of miles apart we knew we were onto something very interesting. Perhaps these species had survived the last ice age whereas in all other regions of Antarctica they were wiped out. We know that after the last ice age groups of bryozoans dispersed freely between many of the regions we studied. But because the larvae of these animals sink and this stage of their life is short – and the adult form anchors itself to the seabed – it's very unlikely that they would have dispersed the long distances carried by ocean currents. For the bryozoans on both the Weddell and Ross sea continental shelves to be more similar to one another than to any of those found in the waters in between is striking indeed. Our conclusion is that the colonization of both these regions is a signal that both seas were connected by a trans-Antarctic seaway in the recent past."

This seaway could have opened up as recently as 125,000 years ago, during an interglacial warm period in which the sea levels were about fifteen feet higher than they are now. We don't know the exact processes that caused this seaway to open up, but they created an opening through what's now over a mile of solid ice. The ancient seaway also calls into question how stable Antarctica's ice is today.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is the region through which this trans-Antarctic seaway must have traveled, is thought to be unstable and in danger of collapsing, partially as a result of climate change. If the ice sheet does collapse, it could increase global sea levels by 10 to 15 feet, which could displace billions of people from their homes. The bryozoan discovery could, however, help us better understand how a melting Antarctica fits into current climate change. Barnes explains:

"The West Antarctic Ice Sheet can be considered the Achilles heel of Antarctica and because any collapse will have implications for future sea level rise it's important that scientists get a better understanding of big deglaciation events. This biological evidence is one of the novel ways that we look for clues that help us reconstruct Antarctica's ice sheet history. Our new research provides compelling evidence that a seaway stretching across West Antarctica could have opened up only if the ice sheet had collapsed in the past."
........................................................................................

At the maximum of the last interglacial, the CO2 level was at 300 ppm. Today it is at 387 ppm, and rising fast. The CH4 level was at about 700 ppb. Today it is at 1800 ppb. And rising even faster than the CO2 rate of change.

 

[westwall]

As Konradv has already pointed out, this article is hardly one that a denialist should pick to post. But then, as we have seen in the past, Walleyes has a problem with reading comprehension.

New evidence that it was once possible to sail acrossAntarctica - Journal - Your Site Name

"When we found groups of strikingly similar bryozoans hundreds of miles apart we knew we were onto something very interesting. Perhaps these species had survived the last ice age whereas in all other regions of Antarctica they were wiped out. We know that after the last ice age groups of bryozoans dispersed freely between many of the regions we studied. But because the larvae of these animals sink and this stage of their life is short – and the adult form anchors itself to the seabed – it's very unlikely that they would have dispersed the long distances carried by ocean currents. For the bryozoans on both the Weddell and Ross sea continental shelves to be more similar to one another than to any of those found in the waters in between is striking indeed. Our conclusion is that the colonization of both these regions is a signal that both seas were connected by a trans-Antarctic seaway in the recent past."

This seaway could have opened up as recently as 125,000 years ago, during an interglacial warm period in which the sea levels were about fifteen feet higher than they are now. We don't know the exact processes that caused this seaway to open up, but they created an opening through what's now over a mile of solid ice. The ancient seaway also calls into question how stable Antarctica's ice is today.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is the region through which this trans-Antarctic seaway must have traveled, is thought to be unstable and in danger of collapsing, partially as a result of climate change. If the ice sheet does collapse, it could increase global sea levels by 10 to 15 feet, which could displace billions of people from their homes. The bryozoan discovery could, however, help us better understand how a melting Antarctica fits into current climate change. Barnes explains:

"The West Antarctic Ice Sheet can be considered the Achilles heel of Antarctica and because any collapse will have implications for future sea level rise it's important that scientists get a better understanding of big deglaciation events. This biological evidence is one of the novel ways that we look for clues that help us reconstruct Antarctica's ice sheet history. Our new research provides compelling evidence that a seaway stretching across West Antarctica could have opened up only if the ice sheet had collapsed in the past."
........................................................................................

At the maximum of the last interglacial, the CO2 level was at 300 ppm. Today it is at 387 ppm, and rising fast. The CH4 level was at about 700 ppb. Today it is at 1800 ppb. And rising even faster than the CO2 rate of change.

Why does it call the stability into question? If there is not enough ice to cover the continent there's not enough ice. That's a simple situation and one that no doubt occured many times through history. Try thinking like a scientist and not a drone some time. Talk about a denial of science. Sheesh you alarmists don't even know how to think like a scientist. You ask all the wrong questions and don't understand when they get answered most of the time.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. A channel melted all the way across Antarctic but one end of that channel remained stable and did not melt. Hmmm........

 

[Old Rocks]

Not only that, but the rise in sea level, from that articles that I have seen about the last interglacial period, were only 6 meters higher than today. That is the equivelent of Greenlands ice melting. Had most of Anarctica's ice melted, the rise would have been ten times that. In fact, were just the West Antarctic Ice Shelf to collapse, the sea level rise would equal that of the prior interglacial.