Roman artifacts and 4000 year old trees found in alpine glaciers

[polarbear]

Receding Swiss glaciers incoveniently reveal 4000 year old forests 8211 and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new Watts Up With That

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century.
Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago

The Coming and Going of Glaciers A New Alpine Melt Theory - SPIEGEL ONLINE

The Coming and Going of Glaciers: A New Alpine Melt Theory
The Alpine glaciers are shrinking, that much we know. But new research suggests that in the time of the Roman Empire, they were smaller than today. And 7,000 years ago they probably weren't around at all. A group of climatologists have come up with a controversial new theory on how the Alps must have looked over the ages.

Ulrich Joerin, a wiry Swiss scientist in his late twenties, is part of a small group of climatologists who are in the process of radically changing the image of the Swiss mountain world. He and a colleague are standing in front of the Tschierva Glacier in Engadin, Switzerland at 2,200 meters (7,217 feet). "A few thousand years ago, there were no glaciers here at all," he says. "Back then we would have been standing in the middle of a forest." He digs into the ground with his mountain boot until something dark appears: an old tree trunk, covered in ice, polished by water and almost black with humidity. "And here is the proof," says Joerin.
The glaciers, according to the new hypothesis, have shrunk down to almost nothing at least ten times since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. "At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today," says Joerin. Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army.
Joerin admits his theory goes against conventional wisdom. "It is hard to imagine that the glaciers, as we know them, were not the norm in past millennia, but rather an exception," he says while he and his companions dig out the tree trunk with shovels, axes and bare hands.

Indeed, critics accuse him and his colleagues of relying on a thin and ambivalent layer of facts. The Green Alpinists respond to the argument their own way: with a large orange chain saw. Kurt Nicolussi, a slender man in his late 40s, slices a slab of wood as large as a wiener schnitzel out of the trunk and analyzes it. "At least 400 annual rings, well preserved, perhaps the best sample we have ever had," he declares proudly.

Hey I wonder if these huge trees we found in the sand near Thule Greenland and Fort Conger/Ellesmere Island are from the same time period as the trees Schluechter found in the Swiss alpine glaciers

When we found them we should have sent them to Michael Mann so he could make hockey sticks out of them

 

[Billy_Bob]

Isn't it amazing that time and time again the cyclical nature of the earth is exposed. NO matter how the enviro wackos try to spin it the truth always comes out. They have spent so much time and so much money in populace control that they dont see the forest through the trees..

 

[TheOldSchool]

Isn't it amazing that time and time again the cyclical nature of the earth is exposed. NO matter how the enviro wackos try to spin it the truth always comes out. They have spent so much time and so much money in populace control that they dont see the forest through the trees..

Amen brother. I'm gonna go turn on a few lights in my house RIGHT FREAKIN NOW to piss off some libtards

 

[deltex1]

Those Romans were a tricky bunch....ayah.

 

[bodecea]

Isn't it amazing that time and time again the cyclical nature of the earth is exposed. NO matter how the enviro wackos try to spin it the truth always comes out. They have spent so much time and so much money in populace control that they dont see the forest through the trees..

Amen brother. I'm gonna go turn on a few lights in my house RIGHT FREAKIN NOW to piss off some libtards

As long as you are paying for it.

 

[teddyearp]

I was wondering how Hannibal got all those elephants across the Alps into Italy. I doubt it could have happened if the Alps were covered in glaciers.

And if it weren't true, then we probably wouldn't have the term, "Hannibal ad portus".

 

[Political Junky]

Receding Swiss glaciers incoveniently reveal 4000 year old forests 8211 and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new Watts Up With That

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century.
Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago

The Coming and Going of Glaciers A New Alpine Melt Theory - SPIEGEL ONLINE

The Coming and Going of Glaciers: A New Alpine Melt Theory
The Alpine glaciers are shrinking, that much we know. But new research suggests that in the time of the Roman Empire, they were smaller than today. And 7,000 years ago they probably weren't around at all. A group of climatologists have come up with a controversial new theory on how the Alps must have looked over the ages.

Ulrich Joerin, a wiry Swiss scientist in his late twenties, is part of a small group of climatologists who are in the process of radically changing the image of the Swiss mountain world. He and a colleague are standing in front of the Tschierva Glacier in Engadin, Switzerland at 2,200 meters (7,217 feet). "A few thousand years ago, there were no glaciers here at all," he says. "Back then we would have been standing in the middle of a forest." He digs into the ground with his mountain boot until something dark appears: an old tree trunk, covered in ice, polished by water and almost black with humidity. "And here is the proof," says Joerin.
The glaciers, according to the new hypothesis, have shrunk down to almost nothing at least ten times since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. "At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today," says Joerin. Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army.
Joerin admits his theory goes against conventional wisdom. "It is hard to imagine that the glaciers, as we know them, were not the norm in past millennia, but rather an exception," he says while he and his companions dig out the tree trunk with shovels, axes and bare hands.

Indeed, critics accuse him and his colleagues of relying on a thin and ambivalent layer of facts. The Green Alpinists respond to the argument their own way: with a large orange chain saw. Kurt Nicolussi, a slender man in his late 40s, slices a slab of wood as large as a wiener schnitzel out of the trunk and analyzes it. "At least 400 annual rings, well preserved, perhaps the best sample we have ever had," he declares proudly.

Hey I wonder if these huge trees we found in the sand near Thule Greenland and Fort Conger/Ellesmere Island are from the same time period as the trees Schluechter found in the Swiss alpine glaciers

When we found them we should have sent them to Michael Mann so he could make hockey sticks out of them

From your post:
Negating the effect of climate change?
Joerin is quick to explain that he is not trying to explain away the effects of man-made warming of the past few years: "Our findings so far could also be seen as giving the exact opposite of a climatic all-clear," he says. "If we can prove that there were ancient forests where the glaciers are today, it means one thing in particular: that the climate can change more suddenly than we thought."

 

[TheOldSchool]

Isn't it amazing that time and time again the cyclical nature of the earth is exposed. NO matter how the enviro wackos try to spin it the truth always comes out. They have spent so much time and so much money in populace control that they dont see the forest through the trees..

Amen brother. I'm gonna go turn on a few lights in my house RIGHT FREAKIN NOW to piss off some libtards

As long as you are paying for it.

I just turned up the brightness on my monitor Bode. TAKE THAT LIBTARDS WAHAHAHAHA

 

[mamooth]

OldSchool for some reason thinks he's pissing us off by acting like a teenage dumbshit. Nah. We just think he's a dumbshit for wasting his own money for no reason.

Meanwhile, those with common sense -- something instantly excluding almost all deniers -- understand that not all glaciers grow and recede at the same time. That's why their "aha, this disproves global warming!" claims look so 'effin stupid. The usual. Come on, glaciation in the Alps during the Holocene Optimum has been well studied. Otzi the Iceman ring any bells? Nobody was surprised by those results.

Dr. Schlucter's paper (actually, he was one of many contributors) has been widely read, quoted and accepted by mainstream science. Everyone said it was good work. WUWT is lying again when they claim he was a "target of scorn", or that any science was turned on its head. WUWT does that a lot, the lying, but its acolytes don't care, since they define any lie as good and holy if it aids the cause of the cult.

 

[TheOldSchool]

OldSchool for some reason thinks he's pissing us off by acting like a teenage dumbshit. Nah. We just think he's a dumbshit for wasting his own money for no reason.

Meanwhile, those with common sense -- something instantly excluding almost all deniers -- understand that not all glaciers grow and recede at the same time. That's why their "aha, this disproves global warming!" claims look so 'effin stupid. The usual. Come on, glaciation in the Alps during the Holocene Optimum has been well studied. Otzi the Iceman ring any bells? Nobody was surprised by those results.

Dr. Schlucter's paper (actually, he was one of many contributors) has been widely read, quoted and accepted by mainstream science. Everyone said it was good work. WUWT is lying again when they claim he was a "target of scorn", or that any science was turned on its head. WUWT does that a lot, the lying, but its acolytes don't care, since they define any lie as good and holy if it aids the cause of the cult.

I was pretending to be a conservative asshole that day. It was fun for the most part

 

[mamooth]

I was pretending to be a conservative asshole that day. It was fun for the most part

Well done! I shoulda figured it out.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I was pretending to be a conservative asshole that day. It was fun for the most part

Well done! I shoulda figured it out.

I had a confederate flag avie and a bunch of Reagan quotes as my siggy. I had it all planned out! I was hoping to carry it on for a long time and have a blast with it but it made me feel like such a huge asshole!

I couldn't do it

 

[Rikurzhen]

OldSchool for some reason thinks he's pissing us off by acting like a teenage dumbshit. Nah. We just think he's a dumbshit for wasting his own money for no reason.

Meanwhile, those with common sense -- something instantly excluding almost all deniers -- understand that not all glaciers grow and recede at the same time. That's why their "aha, this disproves global warming!" claims look so 'effin stupid. The usual. Come on, glaciation in the Alps during the Holocene Optimum has been well studied. Otzi the Iceman ring any bells? Nobody was surprised by those results.

Dr. Schlucter's paper (actually, he was one of many contributors) has been widely read, quoted and accepted by mainstream science. Everyone said it was good work. WUWT is lying again when they claim he was a "target of scorn", or that any science was turned on its head. WUWT does that a lot, the lying, but its acolytes don't care, since they define any lie as good and holy if it aids the cause of the cult.

I notice that you used the word "deniers" and that's a real faux pas on your part. The proper word is skeptic.

Two points.

1.) Liberals keep telling all of us that when a transvestite or transsexual man tells you that he is a woman, then you're supposed to call him a woman. Well, the same reasoning applies here, when skeptics tell you to call them skeptics, you should follow the rules you liberals laid down. Rules don't only apply in situations which make you happy.

2.) When you use the word denier you're trying to imply that deniers are on par with Holocaust Deniers. If you wish to play the game of parallelism then Deniers have a counterpart of Nazi Butchers. If there are deniers in these climate discussions then this game of parallelism makes their counterparts the Climate Nazis.

Do you guys really want to be called Climate Nazis? You're not really that smart, now are you?

 

[SSDD]

So about those forests and human artifacts found under retreating glaciers...what does that say about the claims of unprecedented warming in the present? Anyone?

 

[SSDD]

I was wondering how Hannibal got all those elephants across the Alps into Italy. I doubt it could have happened if the Alps were covered in glaciers.

And if it weren't true, then we probably wouldn't have the term, "Hannibal ad portus".

Anyone who has ever actually stood on a glacier knows that you couldn't get an elephant across one.

 

[Crick]

So, you believe the reports that Hannibal crossed the alps with his army and his elephants but you don't believe the exact same reports when they describe the climate of the area at the time.

Good thinking that.

From Wikipedia's article on Mr Hannibal

Hannibal recognized that he still needed to cross the Pyrenees, the Alps, and many significant rivers.[24] Additionally, he would have to contend with opposition from the Gauls, whose territory he passed through. Starting in the spring of 218 BC, he crossed the Pyrenees and, by conciliating the Gaulish chiefs along his passage, reached the River Rhône before the Romans could take any measures to bar his advance. Arriving at the Rhône in September, Hannibal's army numbered 38,000 infantry, 8,000 cavalry, and 38 elephants, almost all of which would not survive the harsh conditions of the Alps.[25]

After outmaneuvering the natives, who had tried to prevent his crossing, Hannibal evaded a Roman force marching from the Mediterranean coast by turning inland up the valley of the Rhône. His exact route over the Alps has been the source of scholarly dispute ever since. (Polybius, the surviving ancient account closest in time to Hannibal's campaign, reports that the route was already debated.) The most influential modern theories favor either a march up the valley of the Drôme and a crossing of the main range to the south of the modern highway over the Col de Montgenèvre or a march farther north up the valleys of the Isère and Arc crossing the main range near the present Col de Mont Cenis or the Little St Bernard Pass.[26] Recent numismatic evidence suggests that Hannibal's army may have passed within sight of the Matterhorn.[27]

By Livy's account the crossing was accomplished in the face of huge difficulties.[28] These Hannibal surmounted with ingenuity, such as when he used vinegar and fire to break through a rockfall.[29] According to Polybius he arrived in Italy accompanied by 20,000 foot soldiers and 4,000 horsemen, and only a few elephants. The fired rockfall event is mentioned only by Livy; Polybius is mute on the subject and there is no evidence[30]of carbonized rock at the only two-tier rockfall in the Western Alps, located below the Col de la Traversette (Mahaney, 2008). If Polybius is correct in his figure for the number of troops he commanded after the crossing of the Rhône, this would suggest that he had lost almost half of his force.
**********************************************************************************
Hardly a pleasant stroll.

 

[mamooth]

I notice that you used the word "deniers" and that's a real faux pas on your part. The proper word is skeptic.

For AGW scientists, skeptic is the correct word. For deniers, no.

Two points.

1.) Liberals keep telling all of us that when a transvestite or transsexual man tells you that he is a woman, then you're supposed to call him a woman.

I don't care. You can run from the science and try to make this about your politics, but I'm only interested in the logic and science. Whining about how the liberals have offended you is irrelevant.

Well, the same reasoning applies here, when skeptics tell you to call them skeptics, you should follow the rules you liberals laid down. Rules don't only apply in situations which make you happy.

I often refer to deniers as faux-skeptics, phony skeptics or pretend skeptics, being that they are the opposite of skeptics in most things. You'll have to settle for that.

2.) When you use the word denier you're trying to imply that deniers are on par with Holocaust Deniers. If you wish to play the game of parallelism then Deniers have a counterpart of Nazi Butchers. If there are deniers in these climate discussions then this game of parallelism makes their counterparts the Climate Nazis.

Nobody except you is bringing up holocaust deniers. If your mind works that way, so be it, but your bizarre thought patterns will not constrain my use of commonly accepted English.

Do you guys really want to be called Climate Nazis? You're not really that smart, now are you?

Your side does already that, has always done it, and will keep doing it no matter what. So don't pretend you'll quit using your favorite tactic if we bow to your PC mandates. You're going to behave as badly as possible no matter what we do, and we know that from long experience, hence we're not going to fall for your scam.

 

[jc456]

I notice that you used the word "deniers" and that's a real faux pas on your part. The proper word is skeptic.

For AGW scientists, skeptic is the correct word. For deniers, no.

Two points.

1.) Liberals keep telling all of us that when a transvestite or transsexual man tells you that he is a woman, then you're supposed to call him a woman.

I don't care. You can run from the science and try to make this about your politics, but I'm only interested in the logic and science. Whining about how the liberals have offended you is irrelevant.

Well, the same reasoning applies here, when skeptics tell you to call them skeptics, you should follow the rules you liberals laid down. Rules don't only apply in situations which make you happy.

I often refer to deniers as faux-skeptics, phony skeptics or pretend skeptics, being that they are the opposite of skeptics in most things. You'll have to settle for that.

2.) When you use the word denier you're trying to imply that deniers are on par with Holocaust Deniers. If you wish to play the game of parallelism then Deniers have a counterpart of Nazi Butchers. If there are deniers in these climate discussions then this game of parallelism makes their counterparts the Climate Nazis.

Nobody except you is bringing up holocaust deniers. If your mind works that way, so be it, but your bizarre thought patterns will not constrain my use of commonly accepted English.

Do you guys really want to be called Climate Nazis? You're not really that smart, now are you?

Your side does already that, has always done it, and will keep doing it no matter what. So don't pretend you'll quit using your favorite tactic if we bow to your PC mandates. You're going to behave as badly as possible no matter what we do, and we know that from long experience, hence we're not going to fall for your scam.

so what is the logic? The fact you have no evidence to support your claim? Yep that seems logical to me since you don't believe you need evidence to support a scientific modeled hypothesis.. LOL

 

[Crick]

The fact you have no evidence to support your claim? Yep that seems logical to me since you don't believe you need evidence to support a scientific modeled hypothesis.. LOL

We have the FAR, SAR, TAR, FAR and AR5. Thousands of pages of assessments of thousands of peer-reviewed reports on global warming whose reports almost universally support the IPCC's primary contention.

What have you got that compares?

 

[elektra]

wikipedia, the crutch of

The fact you have no evidence to support your claim? Yep that seems logical to me since you don't believe you need evidence to support a scientific modeled hypothesis.. LOL

We have the FAR, SAR, TAR, FAR and AR5. Thousands of pages of assessments of thousands of peer-reviewed reports on global warming whose reports almost universally support the IPCC's primary contention.

What have you got that compares?

Publish one, not a press release, not an abstract, publish or post one complete report