New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago

[jc456]

He predicted in his 1981 paper that we would see that Passage open occasionally by 2100. It first opened in 2007. In 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury cruise ship made the Passage. The scientists are correct in sounding the tocsin, even though fools will not listen. And these very same fools, when the inevitable c

why is this an issue exactly?

 

[jc456]

Over the past 20 years, Greenland, part of the North American Plate, has moved 0.9 inches to the Northwest. That would equal 270 inches in the last 6000 years, or 22.5 feet. Hardly enough to affect the whole climate of Greenland. One only has to look at the Milankovitch Cycles to understand why Greenland was warmer 6000 to 8000 years ago. However that seems to big a project for the dunderheaded deniers on this board.

how do you know?

 

[ding]

And what were the problems as a result of them besides a colorful graph?

You tell me.

 

[jc456]

You tell me.

I know of none and I added the question to the list you gave us, it should be included for them to answer.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What a silly post. It is not the fact that our actions are changing the climate that is the problem, it is the rate of change. Yes, there have been many climate changes in the past. And most were slow enough that animals, and even plants, were able to adjust, by migration or evolution, to the changes. And there have been periods where the change was too fast for that. They were known as periods of extinction. Today, the rate of climate change is exceeding most of the rates of those extinctions. The only rates that exceed what we are seeing today were from impacts. Denigrating the scientist's warnings hardly shows any intelligence on your part. Because the scientist's warnings, not journalists, but actual research scientists, have been too conservative considering what we are seeing today. A good example is Dr. James Hansen's warning concerning the melting of the sea ice in the Northwest Passage. He predicted in his 1981 paper that we would see that Passage open occasionally by 2100. It first opened in 2007. In 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury cruise ship made the Passage. The scientists are correct in sounding the tocsin, even though fools will not listen. And these very same fools, when the inevitable consequences come to pass, will point their fingers at the scientists and say "Why didn't you warn us!".

I see that after I schooled this inveterate liar that it opened up in earlier decades he goes on to claim it began in 2007.... DR. Hansen's paper was dead on arrival because he ignores the past of the region.

Meanwhile he fails to show that any melting back in the arctic is bad for the world.

 

[Mushroom]

You don't expect changes in the earth after 8000 years?

Nope.

Oh, they absolutely love to claim they worship and love science.

Unless you are talking about evolution or glacial cycles. Bring up that glacial cycles always cause extinctions before and after the advances and retreats, and they suddenly refuse to believe in evolution anymore. Point out this is an exceptionally cold interglacial and temperatures have always been warmer and they suddenly start spewing that is all a lie.

There is a reason I consider it far closer to a religion than anything else. What they "Believe" is all that matters, and you do not even dare point out that it is often contradictory. Like that warming climate would cause droughts. when it is in reality the exact opposite and warming brings more rain. It is colder temperatures that cause droughts.

Their anti-science minds simply can not comprehend the fact that colder = dryer, warmer = wetter.

 

[jc456]

Nope.

Oh, they absolutely love to claim they worship and love science.

Unless you are talking about evolution or glacial cycles. Bring up that glacial cycles always cause extinctions before and after the advances and retreats, and they suddenly refuse to believe in evolution anymore. Point out this is an exceptionally cold interglacial and temperatures have always been warmer and they suddenly start spewing that is all a lie.

There is a reason I consider it far closer to a religion than anything else. What they "Believe" is all that matters, and you do not even dare point out that it is often contradictory. Like that warming climate would cause droughts. when it is in reality the exact opposite and warming brings more rain. It is colder temperatures that cause droughts.

Their anti-science minds simply can not comprehend the fact that colder = dryer, warmer = wetter.

it's why there are deserts.

 

[Mushroom]

it's why there are deserts.

The fact that most deserts are that way has not a damned thing to do with "climate", other than in the broadest sense.

Most deserts are the way they are because of geology and geography. And places like the Great Basin are only not-deserts during the height of an Ice Age because of how far south the ice sheets move and the melt water from them can actually flow into that basin, water it otherwise does not get because it is in a rain shadow.

Most of the deserts on the planet (other than Antarctica) are caused by the region being in a rain shadow of either mountain ranges or distance.

And sure, I imagine some kind of magical changes done to the wind and ocean currents could suddenly start to reverse that, but only at the expense of making other areas of the planet deserts in exchange. Take some kind of magical voodoo that causes the equatorial winds to reverse and run west to east instead of east to west.

At that point, Western North America, Western Africa, the Middle East, and everything to Pakistan and Afghanistan would become incredibly wet and resemble Thailand. And cut off from the monsoons, everything from India to the East of there in addition to the North American East Coast would more closely resemble the Middle East and North Africa.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Well what do you know that Old Rocks completely ignored the post #1 article.

 

[Mushroom]

it's why there are deserts.

Those exist because of one of three things. Extreme cold like Antarctica (the largest desert on the planet), rain shadow effect from mountains (everything east of the Cascades-Sierra Nevada Mountains or everything west of the Andes), or distance from the source of rains (Pakistan through Western North Africa, most of Central Asia).

Warm temperatures do not make deserts. In fact, with sufficient rainfall the warmer climes are by far the most favorable towards plant life. The farther one moves from the warmth of the equator, the more plants struggle to survive. Just more evolutionary proof that plants evolved to live in climates much warmer than the planet is today.

 

[jc456]

Warm temperatures do not make deserts. In fact, with sufficient rainfall the warmer climes are by far the most favorable towards plant life. The farther one moves from the warmth of the equator, the more plants struggle to survive. Just more evolutionary proof that plants evolved to live in climates much warmer than the planet is today.

and yet you don't want that. weird. At least you admit you know you don't want that anymore.

 

[Mushroom]

and yet you don't want that. weird. At least you admit you know you don't want that anymore.

Where do I say that? Please discuss what I say, and not what you want to believe I said.

 

[jc456]

Where do I say that? Please discuss what I say, and not what you want to believe I said.

again, you posted it, I quoted it. read your quote.

 

[Mushroom]

again, you posted it, I quoted it. read your quote.

I was making a factual statement. That has nothing to do with your twisting of what I said into something else.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To those new to the world of hilariously stupid climate science denial:

This is a falllacy called, "cherry picking".

Climate science deniers -- often being generally science illiterate, and almost always being logically challenged -- favor this specious tactic above all other specious tactics.

As their specious diatribes are not reviewed and marked into oblivion by a professor or colleague, the deniers typically do not learn that their tactics are specious and would not pass any smell test in any classroom or serious, educated company.

So they persist.

 

[Mushroom]

This is a falllacy called, "cherry picking".

Climate science deniers -- often being generally science illiterate, and almost always being logically challenged -- favor this specious tactic above all other specious tactics.

Name where I have "cherry picked" anything out of the geological record.

 

[jc456]

I was making a factual statement. That has nothing to do with your twisting of what I said into something else.

Your facts aren’t mine