NationStates Jolt Archive

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the global temperatures of today has not occured in the past several thousand years. (maybe much longer) But we really didn't need all that.

The Ice, North of 60, is melting at an alarming rate and looks to be all but gone in the near future. If this had happened before, how come there is no lore from the Inuits that live up there? The Inuits are well known for passing down their family histories from generation to generation. They remember the trek across the Bering Strait some 30,000 or so years ago. But not one single tale, from one single Inuit, of a great ice melt and ice return.

Then of course if all the polar ice had melted before then the world's mountian glaciers wouldn't have stood a chance! That would have dried up several rivers around the globe. No lore from anyone of that ever happening either.

I think you will find they also have no lore about the land bridge across the Bering Strait disappearing under the waves.

The Ice, North of 60, is melting at an alarming rate and looks to be all but gone in the near future. If this had happened before, how come there is no lore from the Inuits that live up there? The Inuits are well known for passing down their family histories from generation to generation. They remember the trek across the Bering Strait some 30,000 or so years ago. But not one single tale, from one single Inuit, of a great ice melt and ice return.
And the Earth's history just spands that 30.000 year? I think not.
Then of course if all the polar ice had melted before then the world's mountian glaciers wouldn't have stood a chance! That would have dried up several rivers around the globe. No lore from anyone of that ever happening either.
And since when is lore so important hmm? The Earth exists longer then humans do.

What matters in science is data.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the global temperatures of today has not occured in the past several thousand years. (maybe much longer) But we really didn't need all that.

The Ice, North of 60, is melting at an alarming rate and looks to be all but gone in the near future. If this had happened before, how come there is no lore from the Inuits that live up there? The Inuits are well known for passing down their family histories from generation to generation. They remember the trek across the Bering Strait some 30,000 or so years ago. But not one single tale, from one single Inuit, of a great ice melt and ice return.

Then of course if all the polar ice had melted before then the world's mountian glaciers wouldn't have stood a chance! That would have dried up several rivers around the globe. No lore from anyone of that ever happening either.

On the contrary, generally speaking, melting polar glacial ice tends to increase high altitude glacial ice and vice-versa. Generally speaking. There are a few more variables involved.

On the contrary, generally speaking, melting polar glacial ice tends to increase high altitude glacial ice and vice-versa. Generally speaking. There are a few more variables involved.
:eek: OMG! A serious post from LG! :p

Well that would have been hard to do. If they were on it at the time then their corpse would be down in the water somewhere. (the most likely scenerio for the loss of the land bridge was and earthquake or volcano)
Bullshit, like that happend in 5 seconds. Simply sad, what you sad in the OP is complete and utter rubbish. Data is important, lore is not.

I think you will find they also have no lore about the land bridge across the Bering Strait disappearing under the waves.

Well that would have been hard to do. If they were on it at the time then their corpse would be down in the water somewhere. (the most likely scenerio for the loss of the land bridge was an earthquake or volcano)

:eek: OMG! A serious post from LG! :p

Shhh! Keep it down! If word gets out, they'll all want one. :p

On the contrary, generally speaking, melting polar glacial ice tends to increase high altitude glacial ice and vice-versa. Generally speaking. There are a few more variables involved.

Generally yes! But is that (will that) be the case as the earth continues to warm?

The polar bear will be extinct by 2070 because there will no way for them to hunt seals. The Inuits face the same fate. They are hunters and pass this training from generation to generation.

Caribou are falling through once-solid sea ice. Polar bears are moving farther north, as are seals, who need the shelter of pack ice to give birth to their young.

Rains and warmer weather are causing havoc on homes foundations.

Bullshit, like that happend in 5 seconds. Simply sad, what you sad in the OP is complete and utter rubbish. Data is important, lore is not.
"Lack" of lore was the issue!

So let's say most or all of the ice did melt. They obviously would have had to change their means of transportation and hunting. Then change it back after the ice returned. That's an awful lot of missing lore for such incredible events. (because it never happened)

Then of course if all the polar ice had melted before then the world's mountain glaciers wouldn't have stood a chance! That would have dried up several rivers around the globe. No lore from anyone of that ever happening either.

well the Nile dries up every now and again (invariably causing Egypt to fall to pieces like a menopausal women) and such is the case of most civilization of the classical period (hell the Mayan descendants still have festivals to keep the rain coming)

:eek: OMG! A serious post from LG! :p

I don't believe it, we have to divert several million dollars and a crack team of scientists to finding the joke. It's in there somewhere, it has to be.

Generally yes! But is that (will that) be the case as the earth continues to warm?

Eventually. As the ice caps melt and vapor in the atmosphere peaks, snow will fall more and more frequently at higher elevations. Over time, this will override the higher average temperaturs and high altitude glaciers will reverse their melting trend and begin to grow again. As they grow and more of the land's normally heat absorbing surface becomes more reflective, global temperatures will begin to decline and the runaway reaction will probably bring earth into an ice age. How long the period between now and the point where high altitude glacial ice begins to have an appreciable effect will depend on several factors including greenhouse gasses.

"Lack" of lore was the issue!

So let's say most or all of the ice did melt. They obviously would have had to change their means of transportation and hunting. Then change it back after the ice returned. That's an awful lot of missing lore for such incredible events. (because it never happened)

That's quite an asertion to make. Lets see lore, umm lore, we have lore, or if you prefer stories, myths, and legends about many things. King Aurthur, Robin Hood so by your stance, because we have such lore, then these thing must be real?

We also have lots of stuff in lots of holy text, so the aprting of the red sea must have happened, the great flood and Noah's ark must be real?

well the Nile dries up every now and again (invariably causing Egypt to fall to pieces like a menopausal women) and such is the case of most civilization of the classical period (hell the Mayan descendants still have festivals to keep the rain coming)

Mountian glaciers also feed rivers in South America, China, Russia, just about everywhere. It it had gotten so hot (like in the mideval warming period) that most of the polar ice dissapeared, ALL of the rivers that feed off these glaciers would have dried up at about the same time. (but of course about 2% of the world's mountian glaciers are so high in altitude, that they may never completly thaw.... maybe)

"Lack" of lore was the issue!

So let's say most or all of the ice did melt. They obviously would have had to change their means of transportation and hunting. Then change it back after the ice returned. That's an awful lot of missing lore for such incredible events. (because it never happened)
The lack of lore isn't an issue at all, modern humans are only arround pretty dámn short, and have only been collecting lore in one way or another for a pretty dámn short while as well. The earth exists for over 4 billion years, modern humans maybe 200.000 years and the oldest rock paintings are about 32.000 years old. See the difference?? Another thing, all that ice won't melt over night, that takes generations.

Eventually. As the ice caps melt and vapor in the atmosphere peaks, snow will fall more and more frequently at higher elevations. Over time, this will override the higher average temperaturs and high altitude glaciers will reverse their melting trend and begin to grow again. As they grow and more of the land's normally heat absorbing surface becomes more reflective, global temperatures will begin to decline and the runaway reaction will probably bring earth into an ice age. How long the period between now and the point where high altitude glacial ice begins to have an appreciable effect will depend on several factors including greenhouse gasses.

Can water vapor and the other greenhouse gasses block that much of the incoming shortwave raidation? It's sure not working very well right now. The greenhouse shield is doing an exelent job of keep the longwave radiation from making it's natural journey back into space though!

Well that would have been hard to do. If they were on it at the time then their corpse would be down in the water somewhere.The ones that made it to America might have noticed several thousand years later that there wasn't a way back to where their lore told them they came from.

(the most likely scenerio for the loss of the land bridge was an earthquake or volcano)No it's not. It simply became submerged when the earth warmed up and icesheets and glacier around the globe melted raising the sea level by a few hundred meters.
Which is also something the lore probably doesn't tell you, but actual scientific research does. The ice-age in which they crossed has long since ended. And where's that lore?

The lack of lore isn't an issue at all, modern humans are only arround pretty dámn short, and have only been collecting lore in one way or another for a pretty dámn short while as well. The earth exists for over 4 billion years, modern humans maybe 200.000 years and the oldest rock paintings are about 32.000 years old. See the difference?? Another thing, all that ice won't melt over night, that takes generations.

I'm not talking about modern humans. I'm talking about Inuits. They hunt, eat, talk, sleep and make more Inuits. That's why they are so good at passining down their history from generation to generation. They have nothing else to do!

Although I'm not going to deny that humans are accelerating global warming, I thoroughly believe it is a natural cycle. I'm fairly certain that our carbon emissions were not the cause for the ending of the ice age. Furthering that, what caused the ice age?

Again, I'm sure it's a cycle yet we're just accelerating it.

No it's not. It simply became submerged when the earth warmed up and icesheets and glacier around the globe melted raising the sea level by a few hundred meters.
Which is also something the lore probably doesn't tell you, but actual scientific research does. The ice-age in which they crossed has long since ended. And where's that lore?

An earthquake or volcano shatters ice like crystal.

Oh there is plenty of scientific research. And it fits with my theory.

what caused the ice age?


Space body strike. Super volcano. Take your pick.

One cycle we are in is the cooling effect of La Nina. But it's still hot as hell!

An earthquake or volcano shatters ice like crystal.

Oh there is plenty of scientific research. And it fits with my theory.[citation needed]

If it was an ice bridge, and shattered due to an earthquake, it would have simply reformed again later. You're completely ignoring the fact that 30000 years ago was a glacial period, and these days we're in an interglacial. The water level has risen, a lot of ice has melted since. And none of it was mentioned in your precious lore; correct?

[citation needed]
If it was an ice bridge, and shattered due to an earthquake, it would have simply reformed again later.
How exactly would that happen? All precipitation? a coulple dozen category 5 hurricanes?

You're completely ignoring the fact that 30000 years ago was a glacial period, and these days we're in an interglacial. The water level has risen, a lot of ice has melted since. And none of it was mentioned in your precious lore; correct?

A lot of ice melted. But not enough to disrupt the Inuit lifestyle. NOW their lifestyles are being disrupted and look to come to an end after all these years!

I will admit though that without the scientific evidence, the Inuit theory would have never occured to me.

what caused the ice age?


Fluctuations in the sun, most likely.

Also, lore often does have a core of truth in it, even though it's mystified and blown out of proportions. I'm fairly sure there must have been a serious flooding at some stage in the mediterrean/middle east, as the lore of various cultures mention it (Greek, Babylonian,...). I think I also saw an inuit story once about a great flood, but I'm not sure.

Can water vapor and the other greenhouse gasses block that much of the incoming shortwave raidation? It's sure not working very well right now. The greenhouse shield is doing an exelent job of keep the longwave radiation from making it's natural journey back into space though!

Greenhouse gases don't block short wave radiation. Ice however has a high albedo and reflects most of the shortwave radiation that contacts the ice back into space (shortwave is not absorbed and therefore never re-emitted as longwave which then gets held up by greenhouse gases).

Fluctuations in the sun, most likely.

Also, lore often does have a core of truth in it, even though it's mystified and blown out of proportions. I'm fairly sure there must have been a serious flooding at some stage in the mediterrean/middle east, as the lore of various cultures mention it (Greek, Babylonian,...). I think I also saw an inuit story once about a great flood, but I'm not sure.

Not fluctuations in the sun...
Fluctuations in the planets cause ice ages (including the one we are currently in)

Greenhouse gases don't block short wave radiation.
I didn't think it could.

Ice however has a high albedo and reflects most of the shortwave radiation that contacts the ice back into space (shortwave is not absorbed and therefore never re-emitted as longwave which then gets held up by greenhouse gases).

As more ice melts you get more water and the water absorbs the heat, rather than reflect it like the ice does. But yea, it still all gets trapped by the greenhouse shield! (well a little heat still gets through but not the normal amount)

I'm not talking about modern humans. I'm talking about Inuits. They hunt, eat, talk, sleep and make more Inuits. That's why they are so good at passining down their history from generation to generation. They have nothing else to do!
You don't understand, with modern humans I mean Homo Sapiens, the species. Inuit don't exist longer then modern man, because they are modern man. It would be nice if you would actually know what you're talking about.

I didn't think it could.



As more ice melts you get more water and the water absorbs the heat, rather than reflect it like the ice does. But yea, it still all gets trapped by the greenhouse shield! (well a little heat still gets through but not the normal amount)

Not really. Energy in equals energy out.

Inuit don't exist longer then modern man,
What does that have to do with it? They still have more time to talk about family history, more than any other race.

What does that have to do with it? They still have more time to talk about family history, more than any other race.
You still forget the rest:
Earth: 4.5-4.6 billion years.
Modern man: 195.000-200.000 years.
Oldest signs of culture: 100.000 years.
Oldest rockpaintings: 35.000 years.

Humans are only around for a reaaaaaaally short time.

Not really. Energy in equals energy out.

Only when a state of equilibrium is present. Not the case with global warming.

You still forget the rest:
Earth: 4.5-4.6 billion years.
Modern man: 195.000-200.000 years.
Oldest signs of culture: 100.000 years.
Oldest rockpaintings: 35.000 years.

Humans are only around for a reaaaaaaally short time.

Yes I realize that my Inuit theory only goes back some 30,000 years. It does however show that the mideval warming period was not as hot as today. And a logical assumption is that the MWP is about as warm as the Earth can get without the excess of greenhouse gasses than man has produced in recent decades.

Only when a state of equilibrium is present. Not the case with global warming.

The system is never in equilibrium... That said we are talking about minute changes in the energy balance of the earth. Its nothing like you said (a little heat gets through) because all the long wave radiation (not heat) gets through eventually. For all intensive proposes, incoming equals outgoing. Increased greenhouse gasses just increase the overall energy budget of the atmosphere.

Yes I realize that my Inuit theory only goes back some 30,000 years. It does however show that the mideval warming period was not as hot as today. And a logical assumption is that the MWP is about as warm as the Earth can get without the excess of greenhouse gasses than man has produced in recent decades.

What??? Have you ever looked at the Cretaceous? or the PETM or just about all of Earth's history? The Earth has almost never been as cool as it is today. In general it prefers to be much warmer...

look at a bathemetric map of the bearing straights and your theory is toast. There ocean is very shallow there. You lower sea level 100-200 meters its exposed. Its pretty much that simple.

Yes I realize that my Inuit theory only goes back some 30,000 years. It does however show that the mideval warming period was not as hot as today. And a logical assumption is that the MWP is about as warm as the Earth can get without the excess of greenhouse gasses than man has produced in recent decades.
It's not a logical assumption! The earth's history is WAY longer then that, you're apperantly excluding aaaaall that data.

The system is never in equilibrium... That said we are talking about minute changes in the energy balance of the earth. Its nothing like you said (a little heat gets through) because all the long wave radiation (not heat) gets through eventually. For all intensive proposes, incoming equals outgoing. Increased greenhouse gasses just increase the overall energy budget of the atmosphere.

Longwave radiation is what we feel as heat. Turn on the oven. Let it heat up! Open the door! WOOSH! Feel that? That is longwave radiation.

The changes are minute but the impact is very pronounced.

Longwave radiation is what we feel as heat. Turn on the oven. Let it heat up! Open the door! WOOSH! Feel that? That is longwave radiation.

The changes are minute but the impact is very pronounced.

its not heat until it gets absorbed by something. It might be a minor technicality in your book but its a major deal.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the global temperatures of today has not occured in the past several thousand years. (maybe much longer) But we really didn't need all that.

The Ice, North of 60, is melting at an alarming rate and looks to be all but gone in the near future. If this had happened before, how come there is no lore from the Inuits that live up there? The Inuits are well known for passing down their family histories from generation to generation. They remember the trek across the Bering Strait some 30,000 or so years ago. But not one single tale, from one single Inuit, of a great ice melt and ice return.

Then of course if all the polar ice had melted before then the world's mountian glaciers wouldn't have stood a chance! That would have dried up several rivers around the globe. No lore from anyone of that ever happening either.

Hate to say it, but lore means jack shit. Genesis is lore too, but you can't use it to draw accurate conclusions about the age of the Earth or natural history.

What??? Have you ever looked at the Cretaceous? or the PETM or just about all of Earth's history? The Earth has almost never been as cool as it is today. In general it prefers to be much warmer...

look at a bathemetric map of the bearing straights and your theory is toast. There ocean is very shallow there. You lower sea level 100-200 meters its exposed. Its pretty much that simple.

The Cretaceous (65-70 million years ago) When a large meteor struck causing massive deforestation from fire.

The heat from the PETM (55 or so million years ago) saw global temperatures rise by around 6 °C over a period of10,000 to 20,000 years (at our current pace we can beat that in a couple hundred years or less) At no other time after that is there any evidence for such a rapid change in temperature.

You lost me on that last part. What theory is is toast from the 100-200 meter sea level?

Eventually. As the ice caps melt and vapor in the atmosphere peaks, snow will fall more and more frequently at higher elevations. Over time, this will override the higher average temperaturs and high altitude glaciers will reverse their melting trend and begin to grow again. As they grow and more of the land's normally heat absorbing surface becomes more reflective, global temperatures will begin to decline and the runaway reaction will probably bring earth into an ice age. How long the period between now and the point where high altitude glacial ice begins to have an appreciable effect will depend on several factors including greenhouse gasses.

Alright, who are you, and what have you done with the REAL LG? :p

The Cretaceous (65-70 million years ago) When a large meteor struck causing massive deforestation from fire.

The heat from the PETM (55 or so million years ago) saw global temperatures rise by around 6 °C over a period of10,000 to 20,000 years At no other time after that is there any evidence for such a rapid change in temperature.

You lost me on that last part. What theory is is toast from the 100-200 meter sea level?


Your Inuit theory. So do the Inuits have lore about the march out of Africa? Or when the very first Homo Sapiens was born, and died, and where he/she died?

Hate to say it, but lore means jack shit. Genesis is lore too, but you can't use it to draw accurate conclusions about the age of the Earth or natural history.

Not lore! "Lack" of lore!

Genisis tells us the names of the people. And a basic idea of what they did.

You can argue about exactly what caused Noah's flood but it is still remembered today that there was a flood. I'm talking about something as incredible as a great ice melt and a great ice return, right out from under these people without one single story to survive today?... Impossible!!!

Your Inuit theory. So do the Inuits have lore about the march out of Africa? Or when the very first Homo Sapiens was born, and died, and where he/she died?

Dont know! (try google) I am refering to the past 30,000 years of Inuit history. (after they settled in the polar region)

Obviously the Inuit are covering up the truth to support the liberal conspiracy theory designed to steal our taxes and/or souls known as global warming.

Obviously the Inuit are covering up the truth to support the liberal conspiracy theory designed to steal our taxes and/or souls known as global warming.

The Inuit are tricky bastards. *nods*

But traditionally they were cool with you fucking their wives. Probably gave them a chance to go through your pockets.

Welcom back, btw.

The Cretaceous (65-70 million years ago) When a large meteor struck causing massive deforestation from fire.

The heat from the PETM (55 or so million years ago) saw global temperatures rise by around 6 °C over a period of10,000 to 20,000 years (at our current pace we can beat that in a couple hundred years or less) At no other time after that is there any evidence for such a rapid change in temperature.

You lost me on that last part. What theory is is toast from the 100-200 meter sea level?

well the meteor strike had nothing to do with pre-exsisting CO2 levels or temperature...

I guess you need to restate your hypothesis because now I am confused.

Obviously the Inuit are covering up the truth to support the liberal conspiracy theory designed to steal our taxes and/or souls known as global warming.

Maybe they got those Air Force folks from 1947, Roswell N.M. (the ones that went door to door to tell people to be quiet about the "weather balloon" they saw) to tell the Inuits to hush hush or else! :p

Not lore! "Lack" of lore!

Genisis tells us the names of the people. And a basic idea of what they did.

You can argue about exactly what caused Noah's flood but it is still remembered today that there was a flood. I'm talking about something as incredible as a great ice melt and a great ice return, right out from under these people without one single story to survive today?... Impossible!!!

Yes, and God creating the Earth in 7 days was also "remembered". Case in point, the Bible remembers the exodus out of Egypt as a calamity that nearly brought Egypt to its knees while Egypt has no written or archaelogical records that such castrophes happened. Lore is highly unreliable. It's interesting, no doubt, but it can hardly be considered "proof" and it does little to confirm or alter my beliefs.

Out of curiosity, do you have links for Inuit lore? I would like to see how they described the landbridge.

Living in the north for 5 years, I heard some interesting things from elders, both Inuvialuit and Gwich'in (Dene). Now, no need to go back thousands and thousands of years...just go back a few hundred, and it's an interesting picture. You have essentially static conditions in terms of temperature, migratory patterns etc...and then within the past 15 years, massive and startling changes. The migratory habits of the caribou herds, for example. The particular herd that sustains the people around the Aklavik/Inuvik region has been drifting further and further away from their traditional calving grounds, which is of great concern since it now takes two days to reach the main herd instead of half a day. The conditions in their traditional grounds are too warm, meaning that the kinds of bugs that plague the caribou are too extreme in the more southern areas (black flies drain about half a litre of blood a day from a caribou in the worst part of the summer season).

Not to mention the melting permafrost, which has a very real, and noticeable effect in the north. Most of the structures are built on stilts so as to avoid melting the permafrost below, causing structural instability. (Structures built on the ground have refrigeration units to prevent the same thing). Over the past 15 years, the temperature up north has increased enough to melt the top layer of permafrost (sort of making a lie out of the 'perma' part of the 'permafrost') which has caused a number of buildings to collapse, or shift enough to warrant massive repair.

Now whatever the cause, natural or man-made, the changes in the north are rapid, startling, and much more extreme than what people are facing (generally) in more southern latitudes. If it's entirely natural, well there isn't much we can do, which would be the preferred option of many companies and governments, for sure. But if there IS something we can be doing, sitting around going 'nu-uh! Wasn't me!' isn't at all helpful.

Your Inuit theory. So do the Inuits have lore about the march out of Africa? Or when the very first Homo Sapiens was born, and died, and where he/she died?

I hate your sig, that ManBearPig thing got me.

Out of curiosity, do you have links for Inuit lore? I would like to see how they described the landbridge.

I'd like to point out that what I've heard directly from the elders says nothing of a land bridge.

well the meteor strike had nothing to do with pre-exsisting CO2 levels or temperature...

I guess you need to restate your hypothesis because now I am confused.

All the burning forests added to the Co2 levels. (Co2 levels [that were present in the mid-cretaceous period] of which we could see in as little as 40 years from now)

I'm not talking about modern humans. I'm talking about Inuits. They hunt, eat, talk, sleep and make more Inuits. That's why they are so good at passining down their history from generation to generation. They have nothing else to do!

What an incredibly patronising and insulting picture of the Inuit.

"Non scientific proof" is, like "jumbo olive" or "military intelligence," unable to properly apply acne medication.

Living in the north for 5 years, I heard some interesting things from elders, both Inuvialuit and Gwich'in (Dene). Now, no need to go back thousands and thousands of years...just go back a few hundred, and it's an interesting picture. You have essentially static conditions in terms of temperature, migratory patterns etc...and then within the past 15 years, massive and startling changes. The migratory habits of the caribou herds, for example. The particular herd that sustains the people around the Aklavik/Inuvik region has been drifting further and further away from their traditional calving grounds, which is of great concern since it now takes two days to reach the main herd instead of half a day. The conditions in their traditional grounds are too warm, meaning that the kinds of bugs that plague the caribou are too extreme in the more southern areas (black flies drain about half a litre of blood a day from a caribou in the worst part of the summer season).

Not to mention the melting permafrost, which has a very real, and noticeable effect in the north. Most of the structures are built on stilts so as to avoid melting the permafrost below, causing structural instability. (Structures built on the ground have refrigeration units to prevent the same thing). Over the past 15 years, the temperature up north has increased enough to melt the top layer of permafrost (sort of making a lie out of the 'perma' part of the 'permafrost') which has caused a number of buildings to collapse, or shift enough to warrant massive repair.

Now whatever the cause, natural or man-made, the changes in the north are rapid, startling, and much more extreme than what people are facing (generally) in more southern latitudes. If it's entirely natural, well there isn't much we can do, which would be the preferred option of many companies and governments, for sure. But if there IS something we can be doing, sitting around going 'nu-uh! Wasn't me!' isn't at all helpful.

Those black flies, are they in Michigan too? My family up there keeps telling me horror stories about them.

Those black flies, are they in Michigan too? My family up there keeps telling me horror stories about them.

You'll find black flies mostly in the northern parts of Canada (speaking only of North America obviously), but yes, there are black flies in some of the northern states as well. And they are absolutely fucking horrendous. They bite chunks of your skin off. There are a number of stories about men during the goldrush going mad because of the flies, and I can believe it. They could literally eat your skin off were you exposed.

During the middle of the summer they are at their worst. I can't even describe how thickly they swarm...you can't breathe without swallowing some. They are tiny, mind you...three or four would fit on your pinky-finger nail, and because of that they can crawl in under your clothes with ease. They are much worst than the mosquitoes, which are freaking dragon-fly sized in the North.

That's what shocked me the most about the fauna of the North...somehow it all grows to gargantuan size! The crows are easily three times the size of those down south.

What an incredibly patronising and insulting picture of the Inuit.

Really? Sounds like a dream life to me!

All the burning forests added to the Co2 levels. (Co2 levels [that were present in the mid-cretaceous period] of which we could see in as little as 40 years from now)

Do you know what mid cretaceous CO2 was? I assure you its nothing that we could see in the next 40 years? Do you know how much warmer the earth was during the Cretaceous?

In any case, what we are discussing is not 'proof', but rather some form of evidence. Information from oral traditions can be quite useful when trying to track down hard data; for getting a general picture of trends that can be followed up with by collecting samples that corroborate this information. Ice samples, for example, can often give us good information about temperature fluctuations, and COs levels over the centuries...and quite often this hard data backs up the traditional lore, but much more specifically.

So dismissing oral lore out of hand is silly...but relying on it too much is also silly.

Really? Sounds like a dream life to me!

Ah, the old 'noble savage' idiocy.

The Inuit have managed to survive in and adapt to some of the harshest conditions on the planet. It's been no cake-walk.

You'll find black flies mostly in the northern parts of Canada (speaking only of North America obviously), but yes, there are black flies in some of the northern states as well. And they are absolutely fucking horrendous. They bite chunks of your skin off. There are a number of stories about men during the goldrush going mad because of the flies, and I can believe it. They could literally eat your skin off were you exposed.

During the middle of the summer they are at their worst. I can't even describe how thickly they swarm...you can't breathe without swallowing some. They are tiny, mind you...three or four would fit on your pinky-finger nail, and because of that they can crawl in under your clothes with ease. They are much worst than the mosquitoes, which are freaking dragon-fly sized in the North.

That's what shocked me the most about the fauna of the North...somehow it all grows to gargantuan size! The crows are easily three times the size of those down south.

Yeah, that sounds like them. One of the reasons why I didn't go to MSU. Though I do like the north.

Yes, and God creating the Earth in 7 days was also "remembered". Case in point,
Well we certainly can't assume that the Bible gives us 100% of the big picture. If that were so and Moses & Abraham were still alive today, they'd still be trying to figure out what the hell God was talking about. I'd be supprised if the Bible gives us more than 1% of the big picture.

the Bible remembers the exodus out of Egypt as a calamity that nearly brought Egypt to its knees while Egypt has no written or archaelogical records that such castrophes happened.
Not one single Egyptian wrote it down? Are you sure about that? In any event when a father is talking to his son about family history does the son just listen or take notes?

Out of curiosity, do you have links for Inuit lore? I would like to see how they described the landbridge.

Too many to post. I just went to google and typed Inuit. Tons of links there. A friend of mine recently went north of 60 (which is what got me interested in the Inuits) and said the Inuits are very concerned about climate change. Seems like if this had happened before they would know what to do. (they don't)

Yeah, that sounds like them. One of the reasons why I didn't go to MSU. Though I do like the north.

That's not the north. This is the (http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues02/Co08242002/Art/Women.jpg) north (http://www.borekair.com/maps/CA_map_inuvik.jpg).

If it doesn't get to -65 Celcius with the windchill in January, then it isn't the North :D

Too many to post. I just went to google and typed Inuit. Tons of links there. A friend of mine recently went north of 60 (which is what got me interested in the Inuits) and said the Inuits are very concerned about climate change. Seems like if this had happened before they would know what to do. (they don't)

It's Inuit singular and plural. Where did your friend go, exactly?

I'd be supprised if the Bible gives us more than 1% of the big picture.

--
In any event when a father is talking to his son about family history does the son just listen or take notes?



Then how would you expect the Inuits to remember glacial movements 30,000 years ago? Especially since we're lucky that they even remember the land bridge, provided that's true.

That's not the north. This is the (http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues02/Co08242002/Art/Women.jpg) north (http://www.borekair.com/maps/CA_map_inuvik.jpg).

If it doesn't get to -65 Celcius with the windchill in January, then it isn't the North :D

Damn, you lived there for five years? That's intense

The Inuit have managed to survive in and adapt to some of the harshest conditions on the planet. It's been no cake-walk.

And they are very proud of it! What you called an insult is a basic description of a pastoral exsistance. I don't believe an Inuit would take it as an insult.

Damn, you lived there for five years? That's intense

I had a parka with fur on the inside, and wolverine fur around the cuffs and hood (wolverine fur doesn't frost up). Also rabbit-skin gloves, and a skidoo-suit. But past -20 it's just COLD, doesn't matter how extreme the temperature gets at that point. If you're out for more than a few minutes, exposed, you're pretty much dead.

And they are very proud of it! What you called an insult is a basic description of a pastoral exsistance. I don't believe an Inuit would take it as an insult.

Being described as not-modern, and talking about them as though they still live in fucking igloos is insulting, and your beliefs to the contrary completely bely the actually real life experience I have with Inuit people. 'Pastoral existence'. I'm sure you'd have some asinine description for my own Cree people as well that 'wouldn't be insulting'.

When complete idiots talk about aboriginal peoples, making ridiculous generalisations and painting rosy pictures of our existence, it's insulting. Trust me.

What the Inuit are proud of is their ability to blend modern technology with traditional patterns of living. You know, like texting messages in Inuvialiuit or Inuktitut on their Blackberries....or using skidoos to go out hunting instead of sled dogs.

Ok, here is the issue with the theory...
Your frame of reference is to short. If you look at climate change over the past 3.2 million years you find patterns the develop. From ~3.2 Ma to .8 Ma you get climate cycles of 41 kyrs. From .8 Ma to present we are dominated by 100 kyr cycles.

The last glacial maximum was around 18 kyr but the preceding warm period where major deglaciation occurred was 125 kyr before present. During that time sea level was 5 m higher than today however there is little evidence to suggest that the polar ice cap was gone (5 m in sea level probably came from a mix of Greenland and west antarctic however we don't know).

So your history and oral tradition can't work to disprove that todays temperatures are unusual because you have an inadequate frame of reference. Couple that with overwhelming evidence to support what I just said in the first paragraph and your theory doesn't stand up.

Where did your friend go, exactly?

The boarded a ship at Resolute Bay (after landing on a short,dirt runway there) In there 11 day journey they made several stops including Baffin, in the Pond Inlet area.

The boarded a ship at Resolute Bay (after landing on a short,dirt runway there) In there 11 day journey they made several stops including Baffin, in the Pond Inlet area.

Good for him! Was he just sightseeing, or doing work up there? The Eastern Arctic is interesting...small communities and high fluency compared to the Western Arctic.

Being described as not-modern, and talking about them as though they still live in fucking igloos is insulting, and your beliefs to the contrary completely bely the actually real life experience I have with Inuit people. 'Pastoral existence'. I'm sure you'd have some asinine description for my own Cree people as well that 'wouldn't be insulting'.

When complete idiots talk about aboriginal peoples, making ridiculous generalisations and painting rosy pictures of our existence, it's insulting. Trust me.

What the Inuit are proud of is their ability to blend modern technology with traditional patterns of living. You know, like texting messages in Inuvialiuit or Inuktitut on their Blackberries....or using skidoos to go out hunting instead of sled dogs.

Did I say fucking igloo? Even today they still only get one shipment per year of goods.

Did I say fucking igloo? Even today they still only get one shipment per year of goods.

Depends on the community. Many get shipments all year long except around freeze up and break-up. And note, the 'white' communities in the north have the same issues.

I'd like to know what your point is, exactly...how exactly you think people in the North live? Are you even aware that Northerners include more than the Inuit? That there are many Dene, and 'white' people living in these communities as well?

The way you describe the lifestyle of Northerners shows a basic lack of understanding of the conditions there, and romanticises the Inuit way of life. Romanticisation, while titilating, is often inaccurate in the extreme.

Good for him! Was he just sightseeing, or doing work up there? The Eastern Arctic is interesting...small communities and high fluency compared to the Western Arctic.

He is a meteorologist but he went as more of a sightseeing tour. (something he said he had wanted to do since he was a little boy) He made a DVD that is for sale at this link: http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7443126 It blows my mind that he was so close to polar bears! LoL!

Then how would you expect the Inuits to remember glacial movements 30,000 years ago? Especially since we're lucky that they even remember the land bridge, provided that's true.

I don't! I would expect them to remember two major changes to their lifestyle though. (ice melts ice returns)

I'd like to know what your point is, exactly...how exactly you think people in the North live? Are you even aware that Northerners include more than the Inuit? That there are many Dene, and 'white' people living in these communities as well?


The people generally known as the First Nations People also crossed the ice bridge way back when but mostly settled in Canada. The Inuit live farther north.

The have houses, schools, very friendly people and incredible scenery up there.

The people generally known as the First Nations People also crossed the ice bridge way back when but mostly settled in Canada. The Inuit live farther north.

The have houses, schools, very friendly people and incredible scenery up there.

So, what you know about the Inuit can be summed up in three sentences. Good to know.

I am much more knowledgeable when it comes to our northern friends, the Igloos.:p

So, what you know about the Inuit can be summed up in three sentences. Good to know.

They live in the antarctic regions and stuff, where it's like cold you know?

They build Igloos and are really called Eskimos but the liberals made us call them Inuit for some dumb reason.

I hear they eat whale blubber and stuff and that's wrong, they are a threat to the natural ecology and should stop murdering so many whales. Liberals are such hypocrites for their favoritism. Someone think of the whales! Also the Igloos are holding billions of barrels of oil hostage.

I am much more knowledgeable when it comes to our northern friends, the Igloos.

they are a threat to the natural ecology and should stop murdering so many whales.
But they invented the ski-doo. That's worth something.

The have houses, schools, very friendly people and incredible scenery up there.
They're friendly? How uncanadian!

But they invented the ski-doo. That's worth something.

Armand Bombardier was Inuit!?

:p

Ok, here is the issue with the theory...
Your frame of reference is to short. If you look at climate change over the past 3.2 million years you find patterns the develop. From ~3.2 Ma to .8 Ma you get climate cycles of 41 kyrs. From .8 Ma to present we are dominated by 100 kyr cycles.

The last glacial maximum was around 18 kyr but the preceding warm period where major deglaciation occurred was 125 kyr before present. During that time sea level was 5 m higher than today however there is little evidence to suggest that the polar ice cap was gone (5 m in sea level probably came from a mix of Greenland and west antarctic however we don't know).

So your history and oral tradition can't work to disprove that todays temperatures are unusual because you have an inadequate frame of reference. Couple that with overwhelming evidence to support what I just said in the first paragraph and your theory doesn't stand up.

As I had said, my theory only has a 30,000 years timeline. From there is when the scientific research has to be applied. Ice core samples agree with the warm period of 125k years ago but not nearly as warm as the cretaceous period.

Armand Bombardier was Inuit!?
I 100% believe this.

Do you know what mid cretaceous CO2 was? I assure you its nothing that we could see in the next 40 years? Do you know how much warmer the earth was during the Cretaceous?

Co2 levels of the mid cretaceous have been estimated at 6 times more than today but more recent studies show that it was only 2-3 times more than today. You do realize that when the peet in Siberia and Alaska thaws that will double the earth's GG levels right? And there is not much sign of of trying to slow down our use of fossil fuel and coal. Not all Co2 but yea, more greenhouse gasses than the mid cretaceous period in as little as 40 years and definatly before the 22nd century. (unless we make some drastic changes PDQ!!!)

So, what you know about the Inuit can be summed up in three sentences. Good to know.

I'm not writing a novel unless I'm getting paid!

So, what you know about the Inuit can be summed up in three sentences. Good to know.

I've only talked to one presumed Inuit online, and all I can figure is that they drink a lot, and love to fuck. Which makes them rather like a lot of other people, except with their own cute artwork.

I hear they eat whale blubber and stuff and that's wrong

I heard that seal burgers are pretty tasty. Probably much more flavorable than Hardees or McDonalds! (but that ain't really saying much) :p

I think you will find they also have no lore about the land bridge across the Bering Strait disappearing under the waves.
I think you are mistaken on that count. As I recall, there was a cycle of stories about the land of "Pan" which was destroyed by a series of inundations.

As I had said, my theory only has a 30,000 years timeline. From there is when the scientific research has to be applied. Ice core samples agree with the warm period of 125k years ago but not nearly as warm as the cretaceous period.

Absolutely true. I was responding to this..

And a logical assumption is that the MWP is about as warm as the Earth can get without the excess of greenhouse gasses than man has produced in recent decades

So I provided two counter examples. If you don't like those then how about the Jurassic or Triassic? Or the Permian or Cambrian? Historically speaking the Earth has maintained a much higher baseline temperature than today.

Point two, you don't really know that what we are seeing is unprecedented. You don't know that the PETM occurred over 10-20 thousand years because the fidelity of the measurement cannot resolve things on shorter time periods than that. Its our best guess (and this is still highly debated) that it was quick but we just don't know how quick...

Point three, you don't know what will happen when the permafrost melts. You have an educated guess from models but not much more than that. It probably will be bad news but keep one thing in mind.
Temps are expected to rist 1.7 to 4 degrees per doubling of CO2. Its not linear... So if we had a massive failure of permafrost sediment and released all the methane tomorrow it would take us up 2-4 degrees. From what I know about past climates I would tend to think that we will see the lower estimate from the models.

This thread makes my brain hurt. Could the real scientists please stand up?

Yeah, I'm not going to trust a game of telephone that's been going on for thousands of years.

Absolutely true. I was responding to this..

And a logical assumption is that the MWP is about as warm as the Earth can get without the excess of greenhouse gasses than man has produced in recent decades

So I provided two counter examples. If you don't like those then how about the Jurassic or Triassic? Or the Permian or Cambrian? Historically speaking the Earth has maintained a much higher baseline temperature than today.

Point two, you don't really know that what we are seeing is unprecedented. You don't know that the PETM occurred over 10-20 thousand years because the fidelity of the measurement cannot resolve things on shorter time periods than that. Its our best guess (and this is still highly debated) that it was quick but we just don't know how quick...

Point three, you don't know what will happen when the permafrost melts. You have an educated guess from models but not much more than that. It probably will be bad news but keep one thing in mind.
Temps are expected to rist 1.7 to 4 degrees per doubling of CO2. Its not linear... So if we had a massive failure of permafrost sediment and released all the methane tomorrow it would take us up 2-4 degrees. From what I know about past climates I would tend to think that we will see the lower estimate from the models.


Well It's all based on models. As to the current warming, most of the polar ice will be gone sometimes between next summer and 25 years from now. I would say a fair guess would be down the middle, 12 or so years from now.

This thread makes my brain hurt. Could the real scientists please stand up?

The real scientists are a room full of computers that yell at each other all day! :p

Well that would have been hard to do. If they were on it at the time then their corpse would be down in the water somewhere. (the most likely scenerio for the loss of the land bridge was an earthquake or volcano)

No, the most likely scenario for the loss of the land bridge is rising sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age. An earthquake or a volcano simply could not destroy the Bering Land Bridge any more than it could destroy, say, the state of California.

Well It's all based on models. As to the current warming, most of the polar ice will be gone sometimes between next summer and 25 years from now. I would say a fair guess would be down the middle, 12 or so years from now.

Thats not entirely accurate either. The paleodata (of which we have been debating) is largely based on proxy evidence. Systems may be modeled to better understand the resultant proxy but the proxy is direct evidence of something in the past. Its very different than a model.

In context to the polar ice cap I am not sure that climatically its not a big deal (ecologically is a much bigger problem).

Do you know how much warmer the earth was during the Cretaceous?

Slightly higher average temperature, significantly lower maximum temperature. The Cretaceous was a period of low temperature variation.

Slightly higher average temperature, significantly lower maximum temperature. The Cretaceous was a period of low temperature variation.

Average global temps? I don't understand what you mean by significantly lower maximum temperature... In reference to what exactly?

It was a period of fairly low temperature variation which is why conventional wisdom has suggested the lack of ice sheets.

Thats not entirely accurate either. The paleodata (of which we have been debating) is largely based on proxy evidence. Systems may be modeled to better understand the resultant proxy but the proxy is direct evidence of something in the past. Its very different than a model.
Well obviously you have to give a computer something to work with.

In context to the polar ice cap I am not sure that climatically its not a big deal (ecologically is a much bigger problem).
If enough polar ice melts, the ocean conveyor belt effect could slow down enough or stop completly which could create localizied ice age conditions. (after we deal with the ecologically problems)

Well obviously you have to give a computer something to work with.

If enough polar ice melts, the ocean conveyor belt effect could slow down enough or stop completly which could create localizied ice age conditions. (after we deal with the ecologically problems)

EDIT: whoops just reread your first statement, ignore me please


As to the second part about the conveyor
Polar sea ice will not slow down the conveyor nor would it create localized ice age conditions. Polar ice can slow down the conveyor however there isn't much ice on land compared to 18000 years ago

For example the little ice age was not even close to glacial regardless of what the history channel might tell you, nor was the 8200 year (much larger Holocene rapid cooling). In fact, in the literature you can find references that even if Greenland rapidly melted there would be little alteration to the conveyor because the ice volume wouldn't be big enough (look for Broecker in Science in 2001 I think).

Since it says non-scientific data, I'll put my two cents in:
We've just had the hottest period of time we are aware of here. Bergen is the second wettest (rain!) place in the world, and we have not had any rain for over 6 weeks. According to 200 years of weather journals, this has never happened before. Of course, this isn't 30k years (or etc) of data, but knowing anything about what humans were doing 30k years ago, get off that point! I'm one of those people who have been hesitant about it being humans changing the environment, simply because it's hard to say when you know enough to know that something is unnatural. Looking at this planet at a long enough timeframe, pretty much nothing is unnatural when it comes to weather.

I love the sun, but it bothers me that I might be getting more sun than ever while someone else is dying because of it.

Polar sea ice will not slow down the conveyor nor would it create localized ice age conditions.
Not a safe bet:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

...melting Arctic sea ice will dump enough freshwater into the North Atlantic to interfere with sea currents. Some freshwater would come from the ice-melt itself, but the main contributor would be increased rain and snow in the region. Retreating ice cover exposes more of the ocean surface, allowing more moisture to evaporate into the atmosphere and leading to more precipitation.

Because saltwater is denser and heavier than freshwater, this "freshening" of the North Atlantic would make the surface layers more buoyant. That's a problem because the surface water needs to sink to drive a primary ocean circulation pattern known as the "Great Ocean Conveyor." Sunken water flows south along the ocean floor toward the equator, while warm surface waters from tropical lachestudes flow north to replace the water that sank, thus keeping the Conveyor slowly chugging along. An increase in freshwater could prevent this sinking of North Atlantic surface waters, slowing or stopping this circulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And Greenland alone has enough ice to raise sea levels by 20 feet.

Average global temps? I don't understand what you mean by significantly lower maximum temperature... In reference to what exactly?

It was a period of fairly low temperature variation which is why conventional wisdom has suggested the lack of ice sheets.

Calling the Cretaceous "hotter", while technically accurate, is misleading, because it only applies to the average global temperature. One could actually call the Cretaceous cooler than the modern day, because it never got near the 50 degree Celsius temperatures that parts of the world experience regularly today.

Not a safe bet:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

...melting Arctic sea ice will dump enough freshwater into the North Atlantic to interfere with sea currents. Some freshwater would come from the ice-melt itself, but the main contributor would be increased rain and snow in the region. Retreating ice cover exposes more of the ocean surface, allowing more moisture to evaporate into the atmosphere and leading to more precipitation.

Because saltwater is denser and heavier than freshwater, this "freshening" of the North Atlantic would make the surface layers more buoyant. That's a problem because the surface water needs to sink to drive a primary ocean circulation pattern known as the "Great Ocean Conveyor." Sunken water flows south along the ocean floor toward the equator, while warm surface waters from tropical lachestudes flow north to replace the water that sank, thus keeping the Conveyor slowly chugging along. An increase in freshwater could prevent this sinking of North Atlantic surface waters, slowing or stopping this circulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And Greenland alone has enough ice to raise sea levels by 20 feet.\

Increased evaporation in ice free regions will cause more rain so the net sum is 0. Just like you create brine when you create ice and dilute it back down when you melt it. Its a zero sum game.

I realize how much ice is on Greenland. Its not how much you have but the rate that matters.

From Science April 18 2008

Freshwater Forcing: Will History Repeat Itself?
In their Research Article "Reduced North Atlantic deep water coeval with the glacial Lake Agassiz freshwater outburst" (4 January, p. 60), H. F. Kleiven et al. present compelling evidence for an abrupt deep-ocean response to the release of freshwater from glacial Lake Agassiz into the northwest Atlantic about 8400 years ago. Such data are particularly important in evaluating the response in ocean models of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) to freshwater forcing. For this event, the freshwater forcing was likely large but short; Clarke et al. (1) estimate that the flood had a freshwater flux of 4 to 9 Sv released in 0.5 years.

In this context, we are aware of no possible mechanism that might reproduce such a forcing in response to global warming, and all available model simulations, including those with estimates of maximum Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) melting rates, indicate that it is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo an abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century (2). Multimodel ensemble averages under Special Report on Emissions Scenario (SRES) A1B suggest a best estimate of 25 to 30% reduction in the overall MOC strength (2). In one example, 14 coupled models simulated a 100-year 0.1-Sv freshwater perturbation to the northern North Atlantic Ocean--17 times the recently estimated melt rates from the GIS--and the MOC weakened by a multimodel mean of 30% after 100 years; none of the models simulated a shutdown (3). Another model simulated greenhouse gas levels that increased to four times preindustrial values and then remained fixed; the resulting GIS displayed a peak melting rate of about 0.1 Sv, with little effect on the MOC (4). One model simulation uses the SRES A1B scenario but adds an additional 0.09-Sv freshwater forcing as an upper-bound estimate of potential GIS melting. In this case, the MOC weakened but subsequently recovered its strength, indicating that GIS melting would not cause abrupt climate change in the 21st century (5). Accordingly, we urge caution in drawing comparisons of the abrupt change 8400 years ago to future scenarios involving, for example, the melting of the GIS and its relevance to human societies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;320/5874/316a

Calling the Cretaceous "hotter", while technically accurate, is misleading, because it only applies to the average global temperature. One could actually call the Cretaceous cooler than the modern day, because it never got near the 50 degree Celsius temperatures that parts of the world experience regularly today.

Eh I am speaking globally since this is a topic of global warming.
It was probably 6 degrees C warmer globally which is nothing to sneeze at.

However, I am interested in your sources regarding the localized temperature maximums

Hey Dragontide

also curious to what your background on the subject matter is. You seem pretty well informed about the topic at hand and we aren't name calling yet (rare for the internet). I am fairly new to this forum so for all I know you are the resident science person.

Just wanted to say Kudos to you for being able to maintain a debate on the internet! Its pretty rare to find other posters willing to argue "intelligently" on the net.

Thanks you kept my from a long boring day!

Thank you SammyH!

I'm not new to these forums but havn't posted here in a while. I just can't work those long crazy hours anymore and hope I can now enjoy a little more free time.

My backround: I'm pretty much just a Joe 6-Pack with a 3rd degree black belt in Google Fu! :p I live in Alabama and have seen weather patterns as of late like never before (been here nearly 50 years) and frankly it has been scaring the bujezits out of me!

There are claims of thousands of sceptic scientists but they don't seem to be able to come up with an agreement of cause. (warmer solar cycle, magma, earth orbit, it's not hot but been cooler lately, etc...)

One stat that I think really sticks out is is the fact the just in America, three billion gallons of gas are used each year, just from people sitting in traffic. (not moving) I think we should have at least a hybrid minimum law. (outlaw the all gas engine)

What really has me pissed is that we were recently on the right track and trying to bring back the all electric car but the greed creed folks put an end to it. (see the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?")

Cyuz around and have a good-un!

\

Increased evaporation in ice free regions will cause more rain so the net sum is 0. Just like you create brine when you create ice and dilute it back down when you melt it. Its a zero sum game.

I realize how much ice is on Greenland. Its not how much you have but the rate that matters.

From Science April 18 2008

Freshwater Forcing: Will History Repeat Itself?
In their Research Article "Reduced North Atlantic deep water coeval with the glacial Lake Agassiz freshwater outburst" (4 January, p. 60), H. F. Kleiven et al. present compelling evidence for an abrupt deep-ocean response to the release of freshwater from glacial Lake Agassiz into the northwest Atlantic about 8400 years ago. Such data are particularly important in evaluating the response in ocean models of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) to freshwater forcing. For this event, the freshwater forcing was likely large but short; Clarke et al. (1) estimate that the flood had a freshwater flux of 4 to 9 Sv released in 0.5 years.

In this context, we are aware of no possible mechanism that might reproduce such a forcing in response to global warming, and all available model simulations, including those with estimates of maximum Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) melting rates, indicate that it is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo an abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century (2). Multimodel ensemble averages under Special Report on Emissions Scenario (SRES) A1B suggest a best estimate of 25 to 30% reduction in the overall MOC strength (2). In one example, 14 coupled models simulated a 100-year 0.1-Sv freshwater perturbation to the northern North Atlantic Ocean--17 times the recently estimated melt rates from the GIS--and the MOC weakened by a multimodel mean of 30% after 100 years; none of the models simulated a shutdown (3). Another model simulated greenhouse gas levels that increased to four times preindustrial values and then remained fixed; the resulting GIS displayed a peak melting rate of about 0.1 Sv, with little effect on the MOC (4). One model simulation uses the SRES A1B scenario but adds an additional 0.09-Sv freshwater forcing as an upper-bound estimate of potential GIS melting. In this case, the MOC weakened but subsequently recovered its strength, indicating that GIS melting would not cause abrupt climate change in the 21st century (5). Accordingly, we urge caution in drawing comparisons of the abrupt change 8400 years ago to future scenarios involving, for example, the melting of the GIS and its relevance to human societies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;320/5874/316a

Ok so how fast did the ice melt 8400 years ago? The slower the melt the less likely a chance of a shutdown. If most of the ice is gone in the next few years, that's an awful lot of freshwater over a short period of time.

Gah. Amazing how people think they can actually do something that affects the earth any more than a tiny dent in an already present curve.

Go read "The Human Scale" by Prof. Dr. Salomon Kroonenberg. It'll open your eyes. There have been far worse rises in temperature before - much, much warmer in much, much less time. We just don't remember because we didn't exist as a species yet.

Take a step back and start looking at the climate history without those narrowsighted glasses on. Don't look at 1000, 10,000 years - look at 30,000 and 100,000. We don't matter. We never did, and we won't.

Gah. Amazing how people think they can actually do something that affects the earth any more than a tiny dent in an already present curve.

Go read "The Human Scale" by Prof. Dr. Salomon Kroonenberg. It'll open your eyes. There have been far worse rises in temperature before - much, much warmer in much, much less time. We just don't remember because we didn't exist as a species yet.

Take a step back and start looking at the climate history without those narrowsighted glasses on. Don't look at 1000, 10,000 years - look at 30,000 and 100,000. We don't matter. We never did, and we won't.

Just the Ice in Greenland is at least 125,000 years old. But I just don't put too much stock into what happened tens & hundreds of millions of years ago. I'm sure the formation and settling of the Earth was quite a toxic event, but those days have long past. The climate of Earth has been established for millions of years. Right now, during La Nina we should be having a cooler than normal year but month after month has been way above average. March is a peak La Nina month but was the 2nd warmest March in recorded history. and 4 of the past 5 months have been in the top 20. January was the coolest but still the 31th warmest January in recorded history.

Just the Ice in Greenland is at least 125,000 years old. But I just don't put too much stock into what happened tens & hundreds of millions of years ago. I'm sure the formation and settling of the Earth was quite a toxic event, but those days have long past. The climate of Earth has been established for millions of years.

Incorrect. Read the data, read the books. The climate of the earth has been fluctuating forever. You just need to see the aplitude of the fluctuations.

On a sidenote, the ice ages were only a few thousand years ago, so where does that leave your "millions of years"? Oh, and those are a recurring event, by the way. What we're experiencing now is just a minor bump in a curve that's bound to go down later.

Right now, during La Nina we should be having a cooler than normal year but month after month has been way above average. March is a peak La Nina month but was the 2nd warmest March in recorded history. and 4 of the past 5 months have been in the top 20. January was the coolest but still the 31th warmest January in recorded history.

Recorded history is a few hundred years. Tops. On a geological scale, that's like taking one second of a day to judge the full 24 hours.

Incorrect. Read the data, read the books. The climate of the earth has been fluctuating forever. You just need to see the aplitude of the fluctuations.

On a sidenote, the ice ages were only a few thousand years ago, so where does that leave your "millions of years"? Oh, and those are a recurring event, by the way. What we're experiencing now is just a minor bump in a curve that's bound to go down later.



Recorded history is a few hundred years. Tops. On a geological scale, that's like taking one second of a day to judge the full 24 hours.


Oh I'm quite correct. Ice core samples and DNA samples found in the ice core samples clearly show that the Greenland's ice is at least 125,000 years old.

Are you saying that all the ice ages were a few thousand years ago? The last mini ice age was about 800 years ago.

On what basis is your theory that temps are bound to go down later? A solar event? Earth's orbit? Ocean effect?

Recorded history is 128 years and to ignore it is foolish. It is more accurate that a climate model you have read about in a book.

Not lore! "Lack" of lore!

Genisis tells us the names of the people. And a basic idea of what they did.

You can argue about exactly what caused Noah's flood but it is still remembered today that there was a flood. I'm talking about something as incredible as a great ice melt and a great ice return, right out from under these people without one single story to survive today?... Impossible!!!


Yet there is not one shred of evidance that shows the Earth has ever undrgone a global flood. So in this case 'lore' is quite wrong. So lore or even a lack of lore means nothing.

Only the Bible tells us the Earth was completly flooded. Noah never said anything about sailing his ark around the globe to confirm anything.

Only the Bible tells us the Earth was completly flooded. Noah never said anything about sailing his ark around the globe to confirm anything.

So? You are only citing one piece of lack of lore yourself.

Simply sad Dragontide: your "Inuit theory" is pure and utter rubbish, that "lack of lore" doesn't mean jack shit.

So? You are only citing one piece of lack of lore yourself.

It is a good example isn't it? No lore because it never happened.

Simply sad Dragontide: your "Inuit theory" is pure and utter rubbish, that "lack of lore" doesn't mean jack shit.

Prove it!

It is a good example isn't it? No lore because it never happened.

No you are still not getting it are you. A lack of lore is no more persuaive than lore. Biblical lore says that at one time the whole earth was flooded yet there is no scintifice data that agrees with that.

So if lore cannot be counted on, how can a lack of lore be counted on? Lore nor the lack of it proves nowt.

There is also no lore about killer pengiuns from space seeding the planet with monkey men that evolved into humanity. So by your logic, this must have happend, and as we have no vesigal beak as well, that damn well near proves its.

Ok so how fast did the ice melt 8400 years ago? The slower the melt the less likely a chance of a shutdown. If most of the ice is gone in the next few years, that's an awful lot of freshwater over a short period of time.

The ice melt 8400 years ago (called the 8200 year event) was "pre melted". It was basically the remnants of the Laurentide Ice Sheet that got damned up on the continent. The lake (s) ranged from Lake Champlain today clear across the Great Lakes in the mid west. Its thought that once the ice damn across the Hudson failed, most of the water went out Hudson Bay and into the North Atlantic. There are some spectacular scours and such in the Labrador Sea that support the theory. So basically you get a lot of water quickly

In reference to the article 1 SV is 10^6 cubic meters per second or ~264 million gallons per second.

No you are still not getting it are you. A lack of lore is no more persuaive than lore. Biblical lore says that at one time the whole earth was flooded yet there is no scintifice data that agrees with that.

So if lore cannot be counted on, how can a lack of lore be counted on? Lore nor the lack of it proves nowt.

There is also no lore about killer pengiuns from space seeding the planet with monkey men that evolved into humanity. So by your logic, this must have happend, and as we have no vesigal beak as well, that damn well near proves its.

No! By my logic the killer penguins never happened. A great ice melt, right from under the Inuits feet, followed by a great ice return, right before their eyes never happened. Impossible for there to be no lore if it did happen.

Impossible for there to be no lore if it did happen.

Why?

Why?

The Inuit have passed down their family lore, from generation to generation, for tens of thousands of years. A great melt followed by aaaaaallllll that ice returning, would have no doubt killed many of them off. They would no doubt has some sort of name for this period. (the great melt - The years of no polar bears - SOMETHING!!!) These events are just to incredible for lore to not be passed down.

Oh I'm quite correct. Ice core samples and DNA samples found in the ice core samples clearly show that the Greenland's ice is at least 125,000 years old.

I didn't dispute that. It's an argument that's in my advantage, since it shows that BEFORE those 125,000 years, it might not have been there.

Are you saying that all the ice ages were a few thousand years ago? The last mini ice age was about 800 years ago.

I didn't. I said they happened multiple times before, up until a few thousands of years back (or hundreds, if you count the mini ice ages) and they will happen again. A few posts back you claimed this:

The climate of Earth has been established for millions of years.

Which is it now? Has it been established, or is it constantly changing? Hint: it's changing. There have been ups and downs since forever, and they will continue, regardless of what humanity does.

On what basis is your theory that temps are bound to go down later? A solar event? Earth's orbit? Ocean effect?

The earth's orbit is one of the factors that cause fluctuations, yes. Amongst others. I wouldn't call it a theory if the data say it's been going on for a few million years. Why do you think humans can change a trend that's been around for that long?

Recorded history is 128 years and to ignore it is foolish. It is more accurate that a climate model you have read about in a book.

I never said I'd ignore it. It's just useless as a foundation to rest a conclusion on. The climate "model" you're referring to is backed by all scientific data found up to today, being millions of years - not just the last couple of decades which accidentally show an uplift in temperatures.

Sure, we're seeing a rise in temperature now. Yes, it's got to do with our way of living - we are definitely kicking a dent in the climate curve. Yes, it's going to go on for a while longer (couple of hundred years perhaps? Who knows.)
But in the end, the large wave of the curve is going to catch up with us, and the dent will disappear in a digit far behind the comma, just like all other dents - like the mini ice age you mentioned. We're heading for another ice age, and it will come, albeit in a long while when thinking in human timespans.

The ice melt 8400 years ago (called the 8200 year event) was "pre melted". It was basically the remnants of the Laurentide Ice Sheet that got damned up on the continent. The lake (s) ranged from Lake Champlain today clear across the Great Lakes in the mid west. Its thought that once the ice damn across the Hudson failed, most of the water went out Hudson Bay and into the North Atlantic. There are some spectacular scours and such in the Labrador Sea that support the theory. So basically you get a lot of water quickly

In reference to the article 1 SV is 10^6 cubic meters per second or ~264 million gallons per second.

Interesting! Going to look into this later.

The Inuit have passed down their family lore, from generation to generation, for tens of thousands of years. A great melt followed by aaaaaallllll that ice returning, would have no doubt killed many of them off. They would no doubt has some sort of name for this period. (the great melt - The years of no polar bears - SOMETHING!!!) These events are just to incredible for lore to not be passed down.

So any proof for this at all? I mean for the length of time that this oral history has been passed down?

Also I wonder how long our languges have been that developed, any evidance for this at all?

By the way, just wanted to point out that the only people who seem stuck on clinging to the belief that climate change is purely natural...are the same who live in a country that indoctrinate you from birth to believe that a publicly funded health care system can't work, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

By the way, just wanted to point out that the only people who seem stuck on clinging to the belief that climate change is purely natural...are the same who live in a country that indoctrinate you from birth to believe that a publicly funded health care system can't work, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Well thats simply not true... There is a ton of anti global warming rhetoric from the US, Canada, UK and Australia (and probably in other places I haven't come across yet)

Well thats simply not true... There is a ton of anti global warming rhetoric from the US, Canada, UK and Australia (and probably in other places I haven't come across yet)

Well we'll send you our anti-climate-change morons, and then they can be your problem :P

Howdy SammyH!

Was surfing for the 8200 year event and found this:

"Several researchers say the cooling 8,200 years ago may have been triggered by the collapse of ice dams holding back the waters of Lake Agassiz - a vast glacial reservoir covering the Great Lakes region of the US and Canada at the end of the last ice age. It would have flushed enough fresh water into the right places in the North Atlantic to shut down the conveyor."

Thinkan earthquake or volcano could have brought this about?

Peepelonia:
Just google the word "Inuit" You can find what your looking for and a lot more. Maybe you can find the missing lore I'm looking for!

Well we'll send you our anti-climate-change morons, and then they can be your problem :P

I would prefer it more if everyone who thinks its their business to have an opinion on the subject read up on the actual literature. Then misinformation on both sides would be greatly reduced.

:eek: OMG! A serious post from LG! :p

*brain explodes*

I would prefer it more if everyone who thinks its their business to have an opinion on the subject read up on the actual literature. Then misinformation on both sides would be greatly reduced.

Americans don't read. If it's not spoon fed to me by Fixed News, I don't believe it.

Howdy SammyH!

Was surfing for the 8200 year event and found this:

"Several researchers say the cooling 8,200 years ago may have been triggered by the collapse of ice dams holding back the waters of Lake Agassiz - a vast glacial reservoir covering the Great Lakes region of the US and Canada at the end of the last ice age. It would have flushed enough fresh water into the right places in the North Atlantic to shut down the conveyor."

Thinkan earthquake or volcano could have brought this about?


Well I would be careful there. We know that there was a lot of freshwater released however finding the resultant change in ocean circulation has proven to be much harder. Two recent papers think they have found it 1) Elliston et al in 2006 show reduced flow south of Iceland via a lithologic proxy. 2) Kleiven et al 2007 think that they have found it via magnetic and geochemical proxies south of Greenland. Word of caution, not everyone thinks their interpretations are correct notably Hillaire-Marcel et al. 2006? You can make up your mind who is correct however, i personally don't like the Kleiven paper for a few reasons including the way they calculated their age model.

The models show it can happen but it all depends on where the water goes. The proxies may or may not support it happening....

If it were a volcano we would find ash, so I would rule that out. Earthquake is possible however melting ice is likely the largest cause

Well I would be careful there. We know that there was a lot of freshwater released however finding the resultant change in ocean circulation has proven to be much harder. Two recent papers think they have found it 1) Elliston et al in 2006 show reduced flow south of Iceland via a lithologic proxy. 2) Kleiven et al 2007 think that they have found it via magnetic and geochemical proxies south of Greenland. Word of caution, not everyone thinks their interpretations are correct notably Hillaire-Marcel et al. 2006? You can make up your mind who is correct however, i personally don't like the Kleiven paper for a few reasons including the way they calculated their age model.

The models show it can happen but it all depends on where the water goes. The proxies may or may not support it happening....

If it were a volcano we would find ash, so I would rule that out. Earthquake is possible however melting ice is likely the largest cause
Well a lot of times when I bring up a chunk of polar ice collapsing, the sceptics are always bringing up earthquakes & volcanoes as the reason for the colapse instead of heat. Now while I disagree with their non heat theories, they have pointed out how earthquakes & volcanoes do shatter a lot of ice.

Americans don't read. If it's not spoon fed to me by Fixed News, I don't believe it.

Eh, I live in the USA and I read. I know plenty of people here who read

A lack of lore is no more persuaive than lore. Biblical lore says that at one time the whole earth was flooded yet there is no scintifice data that agrees with that.
No-one is claiming that lore is infallible, only that it arises from dramatic events. The Biblical lore is there because the MIDDLE EAST did experience dramatic floodings. Many areas did, during the post-glacial period. Many cultures around the world, therefore, have flood stories. Those cultures which have no flood stories are descended from people who lived where there weren't any dramatic floods.

Eh, I live in the USA and I read. I know plenty of people here who read

Check my location, and my sarcasm.

Well a lot of times when I bring up a chunk of polar ice collapsing, the sceptics are always bringing up earthquakes & volcanoes as the reason for the colapse instead of heat. Now while I disagree with their non heat theories, they have pointed out how earthquakes & volcanoes do shatter a lot of ice.

Well we have a pretty good idea the glacial extent of the Laurentide Ice sheet because today we can find the moraines where the glacier stopped advancing. And like anything else when they started melting there was still some climate controlled variability in there so we find evidence of the glacial retreat in the form of smaller glacial moraines (they pulse back and forth as they melt making smaller piles of rocks and dirt). So by following the evidence left behind we have a pretty darn good idea how and where the glacial melt occurred from the LGM to the onset of the Holocene. If you search around on google you should be able to find some glacial maps at different time periods.

The data suggest there was still a large chunk of ice blocking Hudson Bay into the Holocene and there is evidence for large glacial lakes. then at some interval at time we see the outburst. I can't disprove that a volcanic eruption or an earthquake. (well maybe the volcano because of no ash however, lack of data doesn't really support anything) Earthquake is plausible, when you unload the weight of a major ice sheet the continents float upwards relative to the mantle which is bound to create some seismic activity. However, I don't need either explanation because we can track the ice cover on land through time. We know that from 18kyr to 10kyr climate is warming much like the last 4-5 glacial/interglacial transitions and at a time in geologic history when we would expect to see such a warming (its on the 100 k cycle).

So If we know its getting warm and that the ice is retreating then why further complicate the hypothesis mandating that the flood must be triggered by an earthquake or volcano? The ice was there, its not there today. Therefore it must have melted. If it was triggered by a volcano or earthquake and that was the sole cause of the event then why isn't there ice there today???

Check my location, and my sarcasm.

Ha! For some reason sarcasm never works well on the internet (or I am really dense, take your pick)

Hooray for reading. Someone cue "the more you know" music

Sammy:
What about underwater volcanoes? there are 5000 of them around the globe. They would leave no ash.

Sammy:
What about underwater volcanoes? there are 5000 of them around the globe. They would leave no ash.

I fail to see how an underwater volcano could cause an ice bridge in Canada disappear???

Are you saying the volcanoes could be responsible for the warming???

I fail to see how an underwater volcano could cause an ice bridge in Canada disappear???
By shattering it and/or melting it with magma if the volcano were strong enough.

Are you saying the volcanoes could be responsible for the warming???

No. Volcanoes cause more cooling than warming. There was actually a scientists in Russia that wanted to try to blow up a volcano as a possible sollution to climate change. The Russian government thought it was a bad idea and I tend to agree.

Prove it!

Traditionally, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

Also, the Dragontide-Neesika exchange rather reminds me of Corner Gas.

By shattering it and/or melting it with magma if the volcano were strong enough.



No. Volcanoes cause more cooling than warming. There was actually a scientists in Russia that wanted to try to blow up a volcano as a possible sollution to climate change. The Russian government thought it was a bad idea and I tend to agree.

ok, so you want an underwater volcano to shatter or melt ice above the ocean with magma and leave no evidence of magma, ash or anything else? Those volcanoes don't work that way.

Volcanoes can cause warming or cooling. For example, look up snowball earth theory. There is evidence that the earth has been covered in run away icesheets. Greenhouse gases released from volcanoes is one idea how we got out of the snowball earth. Look up Large Igneous Provinces (Deccan Traps Ontong Java plateau and CAMP come to mind), these things are wildly evident on the earth and likely released tons of CO2. These are also largely basaltic in nature (just like your underwater volcanoes and Hawaii).. Thin magma that flows well and releases CO2

Your net cooling volcanoes are generally pyroclastic ones that eject sulphides into the atmosphere. Not all pyroclasitc eruptions are coolers (Mt St. Helens was big eruption but only .1 C cooler) because it depends on the amount of sulfur in the ejecta and the angle of the ejecta. You have to make sure your ejecta gets high enough in the atmosphere... That and they only cool for a couple of years. Pinitubo 1991, El Chichon 1982 and Krakatau 1883 are some of the historical cooling events

Traditionally, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

My theory covers 30,000 years. Prove that the warming cause and conditions before that are present today.

ok, so you want an underwater volcano to shatter or melt ice above the ocean with magma and leave no evidence of magma, ash or anything else? Those volcanoes don't work that way.

Volcanoes can cause warming or cooling. For example, look up snowball earth theory. There is evidence that the earth has been covered in run away icesheets. Greenhouse gases released from volcanoes is one idea how we got out of the snowball earth. Look up Large Igneous Provinces (Deccan Traps Ontong Java plateau and CAMP come to mind), these things are wildly evident on the earth and likely released tons of CO2. These are also largely basaltic in nature (just like your underwater volcanoes and Hawaii).. Thin magma that flows well and releases CO2

Your net cooling volcanoes are generally pyroclastic ones that eject sulphides into the atmosphere. Not all pyroclasitc eruptions are coolers (Mt St. Helens was big eruption but only .1 C cooler) because it depends on the amount of sulfur in the ejecta and the angle of the ejecta. You have to make sure your ejecta gets high enough in the atmosphere... That and they only cool for a couple of years. Pinitubo 1991, El Chichon 1982 and Krakatau 1883 are some of the historical cooling events

Yea most volcano cooling effects are short lived.

Ok evidence of magma. That works. Heat or an earthquake then. Thanks! :)

My theory covers 30,000 years. Prove that the warming cause and conditions before that are present today.

Okay, I'm not quite sure I understand that last sentence, but um, here we go:
The evidence that man-made global warming is occuring exists. It wouldn't jar* me to state that one would need to be pleadingly ignorant to believe otherwise.
Yet your claim is that the cultural history of a people is the proof of global warming. Were I to claim that the glaring lack of mention of the London Underground mosquito in Viking mythology was proof that the species was new, my claim would rightly be dismissed as absurd or irrelevant.

*Typically, I am an easily jarred person.

Edit: Quoted sentence fixed, ignore first line of this post plz

My theory covers 30,000 years. Prove that the warming cause and conditions before that are present today.

Come on now, science is about supporting and denying a hypothesis or theory. Science never "proves" anything

Come on now, science is about supporting and denying a hypothesis or theory. Science never "proves" anything

*awards small Medallion of Science*

Yea most volcano cooling effects are short lived.

Ok evidence of magma. That works. Heat or an earthquake then. Thanks! :)

yes but you don't need the earthquake, and you know its already heating up. I am not a structural geologist, so I don't know where the faults are up there. I would look around to see if anyone has seen faulting in recent sediments or rock up there which would support an earthquake (although I guess it could be deep and not manifested at the surface). I suspect that you won't find anything because there wasn't an earthquake, the region isn't really seismically active today and shouldn't have been on the order of the past 10 thousand years. Thats not the say a freak occurrence didn't occur.

I would suggest you look up the stable isotope reconstructions (you probably already have) for the ice or sediments cores. They give you a much better idea of what is happening globally (if you compare lots of different records). I have a hard time believing an earthquake or volcano is responsible for something at one region of the globe when all the geochemical evidence suggest change on a global scale

Okay, I'm not quite sure I understand that last sentence, but um, here we go:
The evidence that man-made global warming is occuring exists. It wouldn't jar* me to state that one would need to be pleadingly ignorant to believe otherwise.
Yet your claim is that the cultural history of a people is the proof of global warming. Were I to claim that the glaring lack of mention of the London Underground mosquito in Viking mythology was proof that the species was new, my claim would rightly be dismissed as absurd or irrelevant.

*Typically, I am an easily jarred person.

Edit: Quoted sentence fixed, ignore first line of this post plz

Once you have gone back in time past Inuit history, the first warming is several million years before that. So what happened in any of those warming periods that is happening now? It's not the sun or planetary orbits. That max cycle is only 450,000 years. 30,000 years, roughly covers the beginnings of civilization so nothing that man has done to cause warming until now.

Once you have gone back in time past Inuit history, the first warming is several million years before that. So what happened in any of those warming periods that is happening now? It's not the sun or planetary orbits. That max cycle is only 450,000 years. 30,000 years, roughly covers the beginnings of civilization so nothing that man has done to cause warming until now.

And the evidence for this is present in ice samples and climatology (among other things). The culture of a people, however, is not typically considered to wield much power in a debate of physical science.
*looks at thread title*
Oh, right.

Once you have gone back in time past Inuit history, the first warming is several million years before that. So waht happened in any of those warming periods that is happening now? It's not the sun or planetary orbits. That max cycle is only 450,000 years. 30,000 years, roughly covers the beginnings of civilization so nothing that man has done to cause warming until now.

No not true... the last warming before the Holocene was the Eemian which was 125 thousand years ago. It was at least as warm as today (pre-industrial that is) and maybe slightly warmer. Sealevel was 5 m higher than today.

It is the planetary orbits. read up on Milankovitch

No not true... the last warming before the Holocene was the Eemian which was 125 thousand years ago. It was at least as warm as today (pre-industrial that is) and maybe slightly warmer. Sealevel was 5 m higher than today.

It is the planetary orbits. read up on Milankovitch

Yes but different Milankovitch cycle results each time. (for the 41,000 - 100,000 & 450,000) due to diferent solar cycles that are not in sync with the Milankovitch cycles. The longest one (450K) has ran it's course several times over with the most warmest, several million years ago.

If we are equal to or slightly warmer than 125K years ago, then we will be passing those records shortly.

Yes but different Milankovitch cycle results each time. (for the 41,000 - 100,000 & 450,000) due to diferent solar cycles that are not in sync with the Milankovitch cycles. The longest one (450K) has ran it's course several times over with the most warmest, several million years ago.

If we are equal to or slightly warmer than 125K years ago, then we will be passing those records shortly.

I don't understand your first sentence. The Milankovitch has oscillated at 100 k for the past 800 thousand years. before that it oscillated at 41k for a couple of million

In any aspect it makes more sense to compare today to the most recent occilations because the earth is most similar today in its recent past. The further you go back in time the more you don't know for sure. It has been suggested that MIS 11 is a much better analogue to today because insolation is similar. Stage 11 lasted 20k unlike the past 2 interglacials which were ~10k (5e, 7.5 and 9)...

So its possible that we are due for another 10k of natural warmth amplified by present global warming. Its also possible that we will be getting naturally cooler with human induced warmth (and if you didn't notice i am now talking millennial time scales)

I don't understand your first sentence. The Milankovitch has oscillated at 100 k for the past 800 thousand years. before that it oscillated at 41k for a couple of million

In any aspect it makes more sense to compare today to the most recent occilations because the earth is most similar today in its recent past. The further you go back in time the more you don't know for sure. It has been suggested that MIS 11 is a much better analogue to today because insolation is similar. Stage 11 lasted 20k unlike the past 2 interglacials which were ~10k (5e, 7.5 and 9)...

So its possible that we are due for another 10k of natural warmth amplified by present global warming. Its also possible that we will be getting naturally cooler with human induced warmth (and if you didn't notice i am now talking millennial time scales)

Each 11 year solar cycle is different from the one before and after and sometimes drasticly different. The warmer and cooler solar cycles are not in sync with any of the Milankovitch cycles. (Basicly trying to say that the current climate change cannot be blamed on a solar or orbital cycle)

Each 11 year solar cycle is different from the one before and after and sometimes drasticly different. The warmer and cooler solar cycles are not in sync with any of the Milankovitch cycles.

yes but you are comparing apples and oranges. The 11 year cycle changes are on the order of 1 watt/m^2. This really doesn't drive glacial interglacial transitions. Milankovitch transitions in the North are on the order of 40-50 watts/m^2

I understand what you are saying but you have to understand what I am saying. The earth has been warm for the past 10 thousand years. during the last glacial maximum it was 6-8 degrees cooler than over the past 10k. in the last 100 it has increased but nothing like a glacial interglacial transition

If memory serves the hottest year on record was 1998. Does that mean that global warming peaked? Does that mean that things are going to cool off now? should we be bracing for a coming ice age? If so, what can we do to reverse this trend before it destroys us all?

Global warming is a lie cooked up by communists as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to destroy the economy, the United States, and force people to worship Al Gore.

If memory serves the hottest year on record was 1998. Does that mean that global warming peaked? Does that mean that things are going to cool off now? should we be bracing for a coming ice age? If so, what can we do to reverse this trend before it destroys us all?

Global warming is a lie cooked up by communists as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to destroy the economy, the United States, and force people to worship Al Gore.

We should all be thanking Al Gore for reversing the current cooling trend, actually, as he is responsible for the production of a large amount of hot air.

If memory serves the hottest year on record was 1998.
1998 was the 2nd
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html

"seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 0.6°C (1°F) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend."
Year...C......F
2005 0.60 1.08
1998 0.58 1.04
2002 0.56 1.01
2003 0.56 1.01
2007 0.55 0.99
2006 0.54 0.97
2004 0.53 0.96
2001 0.49 0.89
1997 0.46 0.83
1995 0.40 0.72

yes but you are comparing apples and oranges. The 11 year cycle changes are on the order of 1 watt/m^2. This really doesn't drive glacial interglacial transitions. Milankovitch transitions in the North are on the order of 40-50 watts/m^2

I understand what you are saying but you have to understand what I am saying. The earth has been warm for the past 10 thousand years. during the last glacial maximum it was 6-8 degrees cooler than over the past 10k. in the last 100 it has increased but nothing like a glacial interglacial transition

Thanks Sammy. Not trying to pin you down on anything just trying to add to my base of knowledge on the subject. (and trying to break down what you say into more simple terms.)

Was wondering a little about your backround. Have you by chance ever met Bob Corell or Paul Meyewski? (2 scientists that I think could mop the floor with any group of sceptic scientists in a debate) Some folks are critical of Gore because he won't debate. But if anyone could beat these two in a debate then Gore & the IPCC would also be beat.

My personal opinion on the matter is this: for whatever reason, the climate is changing. America "cutting back on emissions" and reducing consumption is pointless because the other countries that are putting way worse things (even if it is "less" of it) into the environment aren't going to follow. America does further economic damage to itself, while other countries who don't care one bit about the environment are on the rise. Listening to the green crowd just doesn't make much sense to me for this reason.

I think we need to be focusing on how to adapt to the changes rather than burning ourselves out trying to prevent what very well may be inevitable at this point. the climate has changed (catastrophically at times) before, and it will likely do it again at some point, and continue to do so endlessly. Mankind has survived, and will continue to just as with the other climate changes of the past. It's just a question of how well you and yours are suited to adapt. natural selection can be a scary thing if you know you're not equipped. ;)

Thanks Sammy. Not trying to pin you down on anything just trying to add to my base of knowledge on the subject. (and trying to break down what you say into more simple terms.)

Was wondering a little about your backround. Have you by chance ever met Bob Corell or Paul Meyewski? (2 scientists that I think could mop the floor with any group of sceptic scientists in a debate) Some folks are critical of Gore because he won't debate. But if anyone could beat these two in a debate then Gore & the IPCC would also be beat.

No I have never met Bob Corell or Paul Meyewski they are atmospheric scientists correct? I am a geologist by training. BS in geology proper, MS in paleoceanography and about 4 months away from PhD in paleoceanography/paleoclimatology

I dislike Gore because in his message to the masses he stops using science and relies on inference (for example, the temp Co2 correlation he says gee did those two ever fit together. Problem is CO2 most likely lags temperature change on those time scales so it does nothing to prove his point that increased CO2 will cause the planet to warm).

The IPCC is also not perfect, I am skeptical of all the "run away" models of catastrophic change that are given the same weight as the paleodata. Thats my own personal bias and if you see my background above you can figure out why. Models are ideas and educated guesses (and to be fair often so is interpretations of paleodata), I don't hold much stock in the projected change in precip clouds and atmospheric circulation because those are systems we really don't understand. The temperature projections are probably OK but lets point out that the original models in the 80s suggested the same amount of temperature increase...

Its an interesting problem for sure. The problem with it is no one person can be an expert in every sub discipline so we all have to take others research on good faith.

No I have never met Bob Corell or Paul Meyewski they are atmospheric scientists correct? I am a geologist by training. BS in geology proper, MS in paleoceanography and about 4 months away from PhD in paleoceanography/paleoclimatology

I dislike Gore because in his message to the masses he stops using science and relies on inference (for example, the temp Co2 correlation he says gee did those two ever fit together. Problem is CO2 most likely lags temperature change on those time scales so it does nothing to prove his point that increased CO2 will cause the planet to warm).

The IPCC is also not perfect, I am skeptical of all the "run away" models of catastrophic change that are given the same weight as the paleodata. Thats my own personal bias and if you see my background above you can figure out why. Models are ideas and educated guesses (and to be fair often so is interpretations of paleodata), I don't hold much stock in the projected change in precip clouds and atmospheric circulation because those are systems we really don't understand. The temperature projections are probably OK but lets point out that the original models in the 80s suggested the same amount of temperature increase...

Its an interesting problem for sure. The problem with it is no one person can be an expert in every sub discipline so we all have to take others research on good faith.


Good points!
One thing I think most are becoming an expert on is realizing how complex our climate really is. I still have to cheer Gore for at least getting the basic message out. Seems like the problem is that you just can't explain to a newb all the many factors involved in global warming. Since the only way anything can be done is at national levels, you just can't have a congressman or senator break it down to everyboby else in the few precious moments they have on the floor.

Co2 lag is a good assumption I believe but man's Co2 boost, starting a chain reaction, is also most likely.

Pre grats on the PhD!!! I hope someday you will journey to one or both of the polar regions & surrounding areas. As Paul Meyewski says in one of his reports (links below) "If you want to learn about the climate you’ve got to get here (Antarctica) and you’ve got to experience the place,"

Bob & Paul have been the backbone of climate research. back in the 80s, Bob Corell was asked by Ronald Regan to look into the matter and he's been at it ever since.

60 minutes have been covering some of their recent work.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/30/60minutes/main2631210.shtml
Facinating stuff! Check em out and watch the videos too.

On thing that does seem to be a runaway is the global heat. We are under the cooling effect of La Nina yet 4 of the 5 past months have been in the top 20 (March-a peak La Nina month- was the 2nd warmest March in recorded history) and 7 of the warmest years have occurred since 2001.

Co2 lag is a good assumption I believe but man's Co2 boost, starting a chain reaction, is also most likely.

On thing that does seem to be a runaway is the global heat. We are under the cooling effect of La Nina yet 4 of the 5 past months have been in the top 20 (March-a peak La Nina month- was the 2nd warmest March in recorded history) and 7 of the warmest years have occurred since 2001.

Well certainly now we are causing CO2 to force climate change (exactly how much is the debate). I am just a little upset that Gore wanted everyone to believe that this was the case over glacial interglacial transitions which is a case he cannot make. He spent a long time on the subject and its very misleading at best.

I wouldn't call today "runaway" global heat. A lot of the global warming is in the form of milder winters.

I do think that the instrumental records are somewhat biased. I know that the people that collect all the data try to account for artifacts due to man as best they can but its really shocking to see some of the stations. Satellites are the future but we don't have very long records to use.

Well certainly now we are causing CO2 to force climate change (exactly how much is the debate). I am just a little upset that Gore wanted everyone to believe that this was the case over glacial interglacial transitions which is a case he cannot make. He spent a long time on the subject and its very misleading at best.

I wouldn't call today "runaway" global heat. A lot of the global warming is in the form of milder winters.

I do think that the instrumental records are somewhat biased. I know that the people that collect all the data try to account for artifacts due to man as best they can but its really shocking to see some of the stations. Satellites are the future but we don't have very long records to use.

Mild winters seem like a dangerous thing. Less snow or snow that melts too early in the year lowers fresh water supply. And the overall extra heat advances tropical disease migration, boosts droughts & violent weather, increaces cyclone strength and makes major fires harder to put out.

Note the data from noaa reflects the combined global land and sea temps and the sepearte land sea temps are close in number. (if the land data is faulty then it should be reflected somewhat in the sea temps and visa versa) They have been close in number for quite some time. Seems like the system is working perfect or close to it.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the global temperatures of today has not occured in the past several thousand years. (maybe much longer) But we really didn't need all that.

The Ice, North of 60, is melting at an alarming rate and looks to be all but gone in the near future. If this had happened before, how come there is no lore from the Inuits that live up there? The Inuits are well known for passing down their family histories from generation to generation. They remember the trek across the Bering Strait some 30,000 or so years ago. But not one single tale, from one single Inuit, of a great ice melt and ice return.

Then of course if all the polar ice had melted before then the world's mountian glaciers wouldn't have stood a chance! That would have dried up several rivers around the globe. No lore from anyone of that ever happening either.
Of all the overwhelming evidence for global warming out there, this has to be the weakest argument I have ever come across.

Of all the overwhelming evidence for global warming out there, this has to be the weakest argument I have ever come across.

It is however one of the signs and it didn't take satellite, radar and weather forcasters doing outdoor coverage in 120 mph hurricane winds! :D

Mild winters seem like a dangerous thing. Less snow or snow that melts too early in the year lowers fresh water supply. And the overall extra heat advances tropical disease migration, boosts droughts & violent weather, increaces cyclone strength and makes major fires harder to put out.

Note the data from noaa reflects the combined global land and sea temps and the sepearte land sea temps are close in number. (if the land data is faulty then it should be reflected somewhat in the sea temps and visa versa) They have been close in number for quite some time. Seems like the system is working perfect or close to it.

surface ocean maybe, deep ocean paints a different picture.

you might find this interesting.

http://surfacestations.org/

surface ocean maybe, deep ocean paints a different picture.

you might find this interesting.

http://surfacestations.org/

Yes surface temps. With two category 5 hurricanes last year and atlantic surface temps reflecting that can happen the ocean sensors seem to be working fine. Several major cyclones around the globe in recent years. Global warming has nothing to do with the number of spawned hurricanes but is has been turning the little one into big ones.

I am glad you posted that link. I have been debating with someone about noaa stats and he says the data does NOT show the urban island effect. Should all sensors be out in the sticks to get an average of an area that is not 100% sticks?

Yes surface temps. With two category 5 hurricanes last year and atlantic surface temps reflecting that can happen the ocean sensors seem to be working fine. Several major cyclones around the globe in recent years. Global warming has nothing to do with the number of spawned hurricanes but is has been turning the little one into big ones.

I am glad you posted that link. I have been debating with someone about noaa stats and he says the data does NOT show the urban island effect. Should all sensors be out in the sticks to get an average of an area that is not 100% sticks?

Well lets not jump to conclusions on hurricanes quite yet. There is literature suggesting a cycle of hurricane intensity through time. It was pretty hotly debated a couple of years ago, not sure how it turned out. Its also a little unnerving that the deep ocean isn't warming like we thought it would.

I would say that the sensors should be uniformly distributed across the globe but that can't happen because of land use change and political issues across the globe. So you are left with a biased dataset. Satellites are probably the best instrumental measurement of temperature since their scope is wide reaching.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the global temperatures of today has not occured in the past several thousand years. (maybe much longer) But we really didn't need all that.

The Ice, North of 60, is melting at an alarming rate and looks to be all but gone in the near future. If this had happened before, how come there is no lore from the Inuits that live up there? The Inuits are well known for passing down their family histories from generation to generation. They remember the trek across the Bering Strait some 30,000 or so years ago. But not one single tale, from one single Inuit, of a great ice melt and ice return.

Then of course if all the polar ice had melted before then the world's mountian glaciers wouldn't have stood a chance! That would have dried up several rivers around the globe. No lore from anyone of that ever happening either.

This is true, and I believe in global warming, but there is a flaw in your logic. How long have people been around. Cosmological time is vastly differing from our own... the time that humans have been on Earth is really quite minimal. Global warming is apparently occurring, and, whether humans have caused it or not, it is a very big issue right now. Likely more pressing than overpopulation.

Well lets not jump to conclusions on hurricanes quite yet. There is literature suggesting a cycle of hurricane intensity through time. It was pretty hotly debated a couple of years ago, not sure how it turned out. Its also a little unnerving that the deep ocean isn't warming like we thought it would.

I would say that the sensors should be uniformly distributed across the globe but that can't happen because of land use change and political issues across the globe. So you are left with a biased dataset. Satellites are probably the best instrumental measurement of temperature since their scope is wide reaching.

If it's the fossil fuels and coal doing it, all the satellites are going to tell us is that we screwed up a long time ago. (we may not have the time to wait that long ... the new NASA ship [2010] only carries half of what the shuttle can.

Warmer waters do cause stronger cyclones though. That's a fact. (and make them go from TS to Cat3 or higher faster) Wind sheers can reduce them. Watch the hurricanes this year on the NHC site. (the animated satellite images) This should be an active year. (which has been the case in most La Nina years) Let's see if ANY of the ones that spawn near Africa and move west will stay at cat 1 or so when there are no wind sheers.

Atlantic Satellite link
(http://www.goes.noaa.gov/HURRLOOPS/huirloop.html)
NHC Homepage (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/)

This is true, and I believe in global warming, but there is a flaw in your logic. How long have people been around. Cosmological time is vastly differing from our own... the time that humans have been on Earth is really quite minimal. Global warming is apparently occurring, and, whether humans have caused it or not, it is a very big issue right now. Likely more pressing than overpopulation.


In regard as to how long has man been around and how old the Earth is, I just do not put much stock into what happened multi millions of years ago. The Earth formed and had a wild & violent atmosphere. The earth history trend shows a settling down.

No-one is claiming that lore is infallible, only that it arises from dramatic events. The Biblical lore is there because the MIDDLE EAST did experience dramatic floodings. Many areas did, during the post-glacial period. Many cultures around the world, therefore, have flood stories. Those cultures which have no flood stories are descended from people who lived where there weren't any dramatic floods.

Proove it. As far as I know(and I could be wrong) there is not one bit of hard evidance that supports such a flood, no archology, no geology nada, nowt, nich, nothing.

And the OP is claiming that because there is no lore, it didn't happen.

In regard as to how long has man been around and how old the Earth is, I just do not put much stock into what happened multi millions of years ago. The Earth formed and had a wild & violent atmosphere. The earth history trend shows a settling down.

As a geologist this makes me cringe. Its pretty much essential to understand the past climate in order to project future ones. While what happened 65 or 500 million years ago is less relevent than the conditions yesterday the 65 million to present picture will give you the major dynamics changes that in essense show you what systems are important for the models. Things like the closing of the ithsmus of Panama and the opening of the Drake Passage or the formation of the Rockies all widely effect climate on the globe.

I understand where you are coming from and many of the models have already incorperated "the physics" into them so why worry about the past other than to calibrate a model. I guess thats why I became a geologist. :p

Proove it. As far as I know(and I could be wrong) there is not one bit of hard evidance that supports such a flood, no archology, no geology nada, nowt, nich, nothing.


It's not easy getting ancient evidence from the Middle East & surrounding regions. Lot of sand out that way. 12,000 or so years passed by with no one knowing anything about the Sphinx, then just out of the blue, it was discovered only 100 or so years ago by pure luck.

As a geologist this makes me cringe. Its pretty much essential to understand the past climate in order to project future ones. While what happened 65 or 500 million years ago is less relevent than the conditions yesterday the 65 million to present picture will give you the major dynamics changes that in essense show you what systems are important for the models. Things like the closing of the ithsmus of Panama and the opening of the Drake Passage or the formation of the Rockies all widely effect climate on the globe.

I understand where you are coming from and many of the models have already incorperated "the physics" into them so why worry about the past other than to calibrate a model. I guess thats why I became a geologist. :p

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. 65 million years ago and back is pretty much irrelevant for current global warming debates.

Here is an interesting link about the ithsmus of Panama.
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2508
Things like that & the opening of the Drake passage can have dramatic effects on the climate but there is nothing of this nature occurring today.

It's not easy getting ancient evidence from the Middle East & surrounding regions. Lot of sand out that way. 12,000 or so years passed by with no one knowing anything about the Sphinx, then just out of the blue, it was discovered only 100 or so years ago by pure luck.

so because its hard to get evidence therefore there could be evidence of a flood which means a flood happened! ha! irrefutable!

My personal opinion on the matter is this: for whatever reason, the climate is changing. America "cutting back on emissions" and reducing consumption is pointless because the other countries that are putting way worse things (even if it is "less" of it) into the environment aren't going to follow. America does further economic damage to itself, while other countries who don't care one bit about the environment are on the rise. Listening to the green crowd just doesn't make much sense to me for this reason.

I think we need to be focusing on how to adapt to the changes rather than burning ourselves out trying to prevent what very well may be inevitable at this point. the climate has changed (catastrophically at times) before, and it will likely do it again at some point, and continue to do so endlessly. Mankind has survived, and will continue to just as with the other climate changes of the past. It's just a question of how well you and yours are suited to adapt. natural selection can be a scary thing if you know you're not equipped. ;)
first off oil WILL eventually run out. No permanently but it will and at that point I'd rather be the nation that can still run my tanks planes and aircraft carriers using renewable, or at least not Gasoline, fuels rather than the country that has 2 million tanks it can no longer use except as stationary turrets.. Second America has crippled its economy by going after oil (read Iraq). Third ANY positive effect on American environmental impact is a good thing because it will give us more time to figure out a way to either fix the damage we've done or ride out the consequences.

so because its hard to get evidence therefore there could be evidence of a flood which means a flood happened! ha! irrefutable!

Yea maybe. Maybe not. Point is though, digging through millions of square miles of sand is much harder than just reading what the Inuit have to say.

If a flood did not happen and Noah lied, the lie still became lore. As to the Inuit, if there was a great ice melt & ice return within their polar region history then that would be a lie of omission. Now why would they do that? What would be the purpose of keeping such a great secret? And even if it is a great secret (boy were really reaching now! LoL!!!) Seems like now would be the time to break the silence and start preparing to do now, whatever they did back then in response to the current melting. (as they are really freeked out by the current melting)

Because saltwater is denser and heavier than freshwater, this "freshening" of the North Atlantic would make the surface layers more buoyant. That's a problem because the surface water needs to sink to drive a primary ocean circulation pattern known as the "Great Ocean Conveyor." Sunken water flows south along the ocean floor toward the equator, while warm surface waters from tropical lachestudes flow north to replace the water that sank, thus keeping the Conveyor slowly chugging along. An increase in freshwater could prevent this sinking of North Atlantic surface waters, slowing or stopping this circulation.
Temporarily. At some point the salinity would even out. Diffusion.

Temporarily. At some point the salinity would even out. Diffusion.

Depends on how much and how fast! "At some point" are not very comforting words!

"Lack" of lore was the issue!

So let's say most or all of the ice did melt. They obviously would have had to change their means of transportation and hunting. Then change it back after the ice returned. That's an awful lot of missing lore for such incredible events. (because it never happened)

It's also funny, the Native American's have no lore about the inland sea which used to cover most of the mid-west of North America... Of course, the sea existed much longer ago than humans, which might explain the lack of lore on the issue.

You do realize that for the last 100,000 years the earth has been "warming"; there is well documented scientific evidence that the earth warms and cools in cycles, a mere 100,000 years ago the northern ice cap completely covered "Canada" and a good chunk of the northern USA... And the Sahara desert didn't exist, and it's beginning process of "melting" and the global warming trend PRE-dates human industry...

Yes I realize that my Inuit theory only goes back some 30,000 years. It does however show that the mideval warming period was not as hot as today. And a logical assumption is that the MWP is about as warm as the Earth can get without the excess of greenhouse gasses than man has produced in recent decades.

The earth was actually warmer 65 million years ago than it was in the MWP, and even warmer than today.

The earth was actually warmer 65 million years ago than it was in the MWP, and even warmer than today.

The Medieval Warm Period was a local phenomenon.

You do realize that for the last 100,000 years the earth has been "warming";
If you look at a model with faulty data, you could come up with Earth as a fireball is the 80s! The Earth has not been warming for 100K years.

there is well documented scientific evidence that the earth warms and cools in cycles
So? We are still fast approching what temps were 125,000 years ago.

It's not easy getting ancient evidence from the Middle East & surrounding regions. Lot of sand out that way. 12,000 or so years passed by with no one knowing anything about the Sphinx, then just out of the blue, it was discovered only 100 or so years ago by pure luck.
Absolute and utter rubbish. The Middle East is the most thoroughly archaeologically studied region on the planet.
The Giza complex (three great pyramids and the Sphinx) has been well-known throughout the entirety of human history since it was built (by the way, it was built 5000 years ago, not 12,000 years ago), abundantly mentioned by the Greeks (listed as one of the Seven Ancient Wonders), Romans, early Arab authors (who told a story about how the Sphinx lost his nose), etc.
The flooding is well-attested, by clay layers in Iraq which show that the Tigris and Euphrates joined into a big lake covering all of Mesopotamia, not just once or even twice but three times in the period 8000-6000 BC.

it (Sphinx) was built 5000 years ago, not 12,000 years ago)

The most popular theory but it dosn't fit the facts!

The Physical Evidence:

The original site, where the Sphinx is located, was a gently sloping plane with an outcrop of harder rock. The head of the Sphinx was carved out of this outcrop. To form the body of the Sphinx, the stone has been quarried away from all around the soon-to-be body.

The main features of the Sphinx are comprised of different geological conditions.

The head of the Sphinx was made of a hard strata which is resistant to the effects of the natural elements. The present damage to the face was caused by soldiers who used the Sphinx as an artillery target in the 18th century.


The body of the Sphinx was made of a softer limestone strata which in turn consists of alternate harder and softer layers. These alternate layers are visible on site as weathered corrugation, which is about two feet deep into the bedrock.


The base of the Sphinx, as well as the bottom of the original quarry site are made of a harder limestone which is resistant to the effects of the natural elements.



The Eroded Body
The question is: what caused the erosion of the body?

There are two possible causes:

Possible weathering by wind and sand.
Since the body of the Sphinx is located in a hollow, it takes less than twenty years to fill the hollow and cover the body totally. The Sphinx has been covered, for most of its time, by sand since the time it was created thousands of years ago. Therefore the Sphinx was not subject to weathering exposure to wind and sand, instead it was actually protected from such natural elements. Additionally, the concave shape of the corrugation cannot be the result of wind and sand storms.


Possible water erosion.
Most scholars have resigned themselves to the fact that the water caused the erosion to the body of the Sphinx. Geologists agree that Egypt was subject to severe flooding, at the end of the last Ice Age, c. 15,000-10,000 BCE.

So, if the erosion was caused by water, the Sphinx must have been carved before Egypt was under water i.e. more than 12,000 years ago. This, in turn, is too radical for scholars to swallow, as they prefer not to change their theory that Khafra (Chephren) built the Sphinx. As a result, those unfamiliar with scientific principles, suggested that the ground water, and not direct flooding, caused such erosion.

Click link for more:
http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/sphinx.html

Sigh, I thought this was the crap you were going to give me.

The myth that the Sphinx's nose was blown off by Napoleon's soldiers was invented in the 19th century. Since the Arabs were already telling stories to explain how the Sphinx lost its nose in the 9th century, it has no basis in fact.

The Nile flooded in Egypt every single year, until the Aswan Dam was built to control this. Most years it did not get anywhere high enough to reach the Giza Plateau, but a couple times a century it would. There is no mystery about the occasional water damage the Sphinx has suffered over the centuries. The notion that the Sphinx was ever completely submerged in a catastrophic worldwide, or even Egypt-wide, deluge is absurd.

Sigh, I thought this was the crap you were going to give me.

The myth that the Sphinx's nose was blown off by Napoleon's soldiers was invented in the 19th century. Since the Arabs were already telling stories to explain how the Sphinx lost its nose in the 9th century, it has no basis in fact.

The Nile flooded in Egypt every single year, until the Aswan Dam was built to control this. Most years it did not get anywhere high enough to reach the Giza Plateau, but a couple times a century it would. There is no mystery about the occasional water damage the Sphinx has suffered over the centuries. The notion that the Sphinx was ever completely submerged in a catastrophic worldwide, or even Egypt-wide, deluge is absurd.

Over the course of thousands of years, the inundation of the Nile had gradually deposited additional silt, on the ground of the Nile valley. Whenever the ground rises, so does the ground water table. It is estimated that the ground water table was thirty feet lower in Khafra's (Chephren’s) time than its present level.
It is impossible for the ground water:
to rise from a much deeper level than its present level,
to erode two feet deep channels into the body of the Sphinx, and the walls of the quarry pit, in the span of five hundred years, and
to drop, after this 500 years, and not ever rise again.

Additionally, why didn’t this ground water theory have any effect at the following places:
The bedrock of the quarry pit where the Sphinx rests? This area was never eroded and therefore was naturally never repaired.
Any other structure which was built during the Old Kingdom, and there are scores of them throughout Egypt?

The Pyramid (so-called Mortuary) Temple of Khafra (Chephren) stands 150 feet (46m) above the Giza plateau, and had a similar erosion pattern to the body of the Sphinx. There was definitely no ground water in the case of this temple. So how do we explain the similar erosion pattern?

There is no other rational answer except that the water erosion occurred at the end of the last Ice Age c. 15,000-10,000 BCE.

If you look at a model with faulty data, you could come up with Earth as a fireball is the 80s! The Earth has not been warming for 100K years.

So? We are still fast approching what temps were 125,000 years ago.

No we are equal to what temps are 125000 years ago plus or minus a bit...

The Cretaceous (65-70 million years ago) When a large meteor struck causing massive deforestation from fire.

The heat from the PETM (55 or so million years ago) saw global temperatures rise by around 6 °C over a period of10,000 to 20,000 years (at our current pace we can beat that in a couple hundred years or less) At no other time after that is there any evidence for such a rapid change in temperature.

You lost me on that last part. What theory is is toast from the 100-200 meter sea level?
I'm really interested in ancient human history, and I've read several books stating that in the Holocene Maximum, 8,000 - 4,000 years ago, temperature would drop or raise by 5°C over the course of 70 or so years, and on average it was 4°C hotter than today.

No we are equal to what temps are 125000 years ago plus or minus a bit...

Yikes! So the warmest period before that is some 50-65 millions years?

I'm really interested in ancient human history, and I've read several books stating that in the Holocene Maximum, 8,000 - 4,000 years ago, temperature would drop or raise by 5°C over the course of 70 or so years, and on average it was 4°C hotter than today.

Your books are wrong or you didn't quite understand what they are saying. I may believe 1-2 degrees F globally.

What you just stated is 2/3 the change from LGM to present.

I'm really interested in ancient human history, and I've read several books stating that in the Holocene Maximum, 8,000 - 4,000 years ago, temperature would drop or raise by 5°C over the course of 70 or so years, and on average it was 4°C hotter than today.

That couldn't be possible. If the world surface temps were were 4C hotter 4000-8000 years ago, all the ice would have melted. Ice core samples (accuracy of +/- 1 year over 500,000 years) clearly show 125,000 year old ice in Greenland now. And the DNA samples found in the ice cores are also at least that old.

Yikes! So the warmest period before that is some 50-65 millions years?

no, it follows milankovitch. So


(these ages are approximate)
Stage 5e warm 125 thousand years ago 10 k duration
Stage 7.5 warm 210 kyr 10k duration
stage 9 warm 340 kyr 10 k duration
stage 11 warm 410 kyr 20 k duration (insolation during 11 most like today relative to the others)

it roughly follows this pattern until 800 kyr. Then there is some transition in the climate state...
from roughly 1 Ma to 3.2 Ma you have smaller warmings and coolings to the tune of 41 kyr cycles.

The Planet for most of its history has been warmer than it is today!

That couldn't be possible. If the world surface temps were were 4C hotter 4000-8000 years ago, all the ice would have melted. Ice core samples (accuracy of +/- 1 year over 500,000 years) clearly show 125,000 year old ice in Greenland now. And the DNA samples found in the ice cores are also at least that old.

That not exactly true either... Your assumption is that a global change would manifest its self over greenland. Global change does not have to warm every part of the globe equally or at all. Even with warmings today you find areas of the globe that have cooled.

The DNA evidence that you speak of suggests that the ice on greenland is more resistant to global warming than the models would suggest. Has nothing to do with the dating of the ice its self.

no, it follows milankovitch. So


(these ages are approximate)
Stage 5e warm 125 thousand years ago 10 k duration
Stage 7.5 warm 210 kyr 10k duration
stage 9 warm 340 kyr 10 k duration
stage 11 warm 410 kyr 20 k duration (insolation during 11 most like today relative to the others)

it roughly follows this pattern until 800 kyr. Then there is some transition in the climate state...
from roughly 1 Ma to 3.2 Ma you have smaller warmings and coolings to the tune of 41 kyr cycles.

The Planet for most of its history has been warmer than it is today!

And right now, only precession is in the glacial mode, with tilt and eccentricity not favorable to glaciation. 125,000 years ago, were all 3 not favorable to glaciation?

That not exactly true either... Your assumption is that a global change would manifest its self over greenland. Global change does not have to warm every part of the globe equally or at all. Even with warmings today you find areas of the globe that have cooled.

The DNA evidence that you speak of suggests that the ice on greenland is more resistant to global warming than the models would suggest. Has nothing to do with the dating of the ice its self.

Well he said 4C hotter than today. Greenland's ice wouldn't stand a chance at those temps would they? We have only undergone a 0.6C-0.7C change and the ice is melting fast.

And right now, only precession is in the glacial mode, with tilt and eccentricity not favorable to glaciation. 125,000 years ago, were all 3 not favorable to glaciation?

Hahaha

thats what you might think but its a little more complicated than that. Everything "we know" based on the data suggests that since we see ~100 k cycle in the paleo data that eccentricity is the dominant milankovitch forcer of the past 800 kyrs. However, energy budget wise thats simply not true the precession and and obliquity cycles are varying more than eccentricity. So then the question becomes why 100k? If you can figure that one out then I suspect you would become very famous. Lots of attempts to explain it including space dust (i rather like that one), stochastic ice resonance, or a stochastic resonance to the climate system overall.

As far as the individual forcing today from the big 3, I am not sure. I generally deal with net insolation as thats what is driving the changes I see. I probably could dig it up for you...

Well he said 4C hotter than today. Greenland's ice wouldn't stand a chance at those temps would they? We have only undergone a 0.6C-0.7C change and the ice is melting fast.

If 125 kyr was 4-5 degrees warmer at the poles (which the ice core records may lead you to believe) than how do you have DNA to the tune of 800 k in age preserved in the ice today?

Like I said earlier, there is a large difference between regional and global climate. Its hard for me to imagine ice on Greenland if the whole globe on average was 5 degrees warmer... But what if that climate state effects atmospheric circulation and the jet stream reorganizes to a perfered flow trough over Greenland. then its kept cool (i don't think that would happen I am just saying who knows)

Hahaha

thats what you might think but its a little more complicated than that. Everything "we know" based on the data suggests that since we see ~100 k cycle in the paleo data that eccentricity is the dominant milankovitch forcer of the past 800 kyrs. However, energy budget wise thats simply not true the precession and and obliquity cycles are varying more than eccentricity. So then the question becomes why 100k? If you can figure that one out then I suspect you would become very famous. Lots of attempts to explain it including space dust (i rather like that one), stochastic ice resonance, or a stochastic resonance to the climate system overall.

As far as the individual forcing today from the big 3, I am not sure. I generally deal with net insolation as thats what is driving the changes I see. I probably could dig it up for you...


If you get a chance sometime to crunch the numbers, that would be appreciated.

If you get a chance sometime to crunch the numbers, that would be appreciated.

wiki to the rescue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milankovitch_Variations.png

top three are what you asked the 4th is genearlly what I use when comparing data

you can really see why people look to MIS 11 to compare to todays climate..

(the spikes up are odd, there is no stage three warming) Start at 1 (today and move right) and note that 7 is a bit odd as well.

If 125 kyr was 4-5 degrees warmer at the poles (which the ice core records may lead you to believe) than how do you have DNA to the tune of 800 k in age preserved in the ice today?

Like I said earlier, there is a large difference between regional and global climate. Its hard for me to imagine ice on Greenland if the whole globe on average was 5 degrees warmer... But what if that climate state effects atmospheric circulation and the jet stream reorganizes to a perfered flow trough over Greenland. then its kept cool (i don't think that would happen I am just saying who knows)

He said 4C 4000-8000 years ago. So that had to be a localized phenom then. So a good guess would be the local 4C would only raise the global surface temps about 1C or less.

He said 4C 4000-8000 years ago. So that had to be a localized phenom then. So a good guess would be the local 4C would only raise the global surface temps about 1C or less.

Its absolutely an localized phenomenon all across the globe :D. You see it occurring from 9-10 k at the highest latitudes and as you travel south to the equator you see it occurring later and later in time. It happens because insolation peaks at 10k. You can think of it like the sun on a hot summers day. Its at its highest at noon but the hottest part of the day is generally between 2 and 3.

It gets warmer at the poles than the rest of the globe because there is more radiation change per square unit of area (poles are smaller than the equator). This is why as you go further south it becomes more and more muted

wiki to the rescue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milankovitch_Variations.png

top three are what you asked the 4th is genearlly what I use when comparing data

you can really see why people look to MIS 11 to compare to todays climate..

(the spikes up are odd, there is no stage three warming) Start at 1 (today and move right) and note that 7 is a bit odd as well.

Wow! The first red warm spike past the 100K mark has a warm spike on all of them going straight down. So they were all in sync then. One of them is absent now. (precession) But still other variables. Something to think about. Thanks Sammy!

Additionally, why didn’t this ground water theory...
I don't even know what you mean by a "ground water theory", apparently it is some strawman that your bogus website argues against. I am telling you that Nile floodwaters have been OBSERVED to reach the Giza Plateau, often; it is nonsense to argue that something cannot happen, when it has happened.
There is no other rational answer except that the water erosion occurred at the end of the last Ice Age c. 15,000-10,000 BCE.
It is not even slightly rational to posit construction projects of this size at anything remotely like that period. Animal herding was in its infancy and agriculture unheard-of. Populations were neither large enough, nor sedentary.

I don't even know what you mean by a "ground water theory",
A repeat of what I posted:
Over the course of thousands of years, the inundation of the Nile had gradually deposited additional silt, on the ground of the Nile valley. Whenever the ground rises, so does the ground water table. It is estimated that the ground water table was thirty feet lower in Khafra's (Chephren’s) time than its present level.
It is impossible for the ground water:
to rise from a much deeper level than its present level,
to erode two feet deep channels into the body of the Sphinx, and the walls of the quarry pit, in the span of five hundred years, and
to drop, after this 500 years, and not ever rise again.
The link:
http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/sphinx.html

It is not even slightly rational to posit construction projects of this size at anything remotely like that period. Animal herding was in its infancy and agriculture unheard-of. Populations were neither large enough, nor sedentary.

A temple dated to 9,500BC has been discovered in Turkey.
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=3487

A repeat of what I posted:
Over the course of thousands of years, the inundation of the Nile had gradually deposited additional silt, on the ground of the Nile valley. Whenever the ground rises, so does the ground water table. It is estimated that the ground water table was thirty feet lower in Khafra's (Chephren’s) time than its present level.
It is impossible for the ground water:
to rise from a much deeper level than its present level,
to erode two feet deep channels into the body of the Sphinx, and the walls of the quarry pit, in the span of five hundred years, and
to drop, after this 500 years, and not ever rise again.
The link:
http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/sphinx.html


A temple dated to 9,500BC has been discovered in Turkey.
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=3487

Rivers are net eroders not net depositors. Also just because you add more silt to a river bank during a flood does not mean that you chance the base level of the river so the ground water table doesn't change.

Now if you want to use sand influx from the surrounding areas thats plausible for adding sediment to the banks however in order to do that you have to increase desertification which would lower the ground water table.

:eek: OMG! A serious post from LG! :p

Proves Global Warming exists because him being serious is a sign of the apocalypse.

For me, my opinion on Global Warming changed Wednesday. I live in Omaha, and we had just gotten hit by a nasty storm Saturday.

Usually it takes a month to build up another one, but an even worse storm hit Wednesday. (Little Sioux Tornado) Flooding in Iowa has also changed my mind. I think Global Warming is now an actual problem and is partially caused by humans.