Pre-Viking tunic found on glacier

[SHaYap]

?

I would say it has something to do with global warming. If it were global cooling, they wouldn't be melting.

These finds are one of the positives of global warming. Another is the extra farmable land.

previously inaccessible oil wells ....... you forgot the 'resource rich' sea beds ...... they just need to kill a lot of polar bears

[Frank Merton]

As I understand it there aren't that many polar bears left.

[SHaYap]

As I understand it there aren't that many polar bears left.

they are sorry but they are doing the best they can ..... glaciers not melting fast enough

polar bear skins stained with blood don't get top dollars

[PersonFromPorlock]

"Holde min øl og se dette!"

[+OverSword]

As I understand it there aren't that many polar bears left.

As I understand that's a myth.

[SHaYap]

As I understand that's a myth.

as in : there weren't many polar bears to start with ?

http://channel.natio...eart-wolf-dogs/

Edited March 25, 2013 by third_eye

[Guest Nathan DiYorio]

The melting of glaciers is natural, yes. It's natural, because a change in global climate is also natural. They are most certainly melting from a global temperature increase. To say that melting glaciers have nothing to do with rising global temperatures is ridiculously inaccurate.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

pretty cool ! the tunic was carbon dated at year 300 .. so, the glacier was at that level (as danielost said)... then continued to thicken and expand.. until, melting outpaced growth.

(just thought someone should state the obvious ,lol)

hi Aus Der Box Sceptisch , you mentioned that global warming is a cycle.. Do you know of a chart or graph that shows these cycles?... and, the durations of these cycles?

not to put you on the spot... i'm just curious.

no chart specifically.we have only recently started recording temperature. But archeology has shown many different climates as well as varying co2 and oxygen levels.I will however look into getting some examples that better explain why I feel this way. I hope I can do some of it tonight. Ill show you what I find and then we can debate the findings to see if tpu or others agree or disagree with what I reference. Or whether any of it is obviously invalidated. I am all for being wrong and since I have never really discussed this with anyone other than myself it will be most beneficial to discuss. Ill be looking for things in different eras and see how they correlate. I hope I get to it tonight.

[Frank Merton]

Glaciers are self-sustaining. The snow in the winter makes up for the melt in summer. Therefore when things are out of balance the glacier either grows (more snow or less melt) or shrinks (less snow or more melt). This is manifestly obvious but I state it anyway because of some of the above comments.

Does anyone have any studies on polar bear populations? I had the impression their numbers are decreasing, but was told this is a myth.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

No serious scientist ever said that it's not a cycle. And researchers don't say that's man-made. We know very well that the average temperatures change during time, and in the last hundred of thousands of years there have been warm periods alternated with cooler (if not glacial) ones.

If the tunic's dating is correct, it falls perfectly in the Roman Warm Period, spanning more or less from 250 BC to 400 AD. It was a warmer time than today's, Romans were even able to cultivate grapevine in Germany (The famous Rheinwein is all that's left, thanks to the river Rehin's microclimate).

So, no wonder that it lied under the ice for all this time.

The problem isn't that the antropic activity triggered the climate change, but that it enhances this change.

We don't even know if, by nature, we're headed to an even warmer period or if we're already on the pike and soon there will be another cold period.

What we know, is that man is changing the rules of the game and maybe he's also changing the famous "cycle" Aus Der Box Skeptisch talks about.

It's a fact that temperatures are rising. If we help this process with our actions, increasing the speed of change and rising the temperatures even more, we could pass the point of no return, destroying nature's balance.

This person put it pretty well. Just wanted to note that we are not knowledgeable enough to know whether there is a point of no return. This planet has been able to bounce back from everything that's hit it figuratively and literally. So lets say man has influenced climate. Hasn't other non human events also effected this planet on a grand scale. And wouldn't that make humans just another variable in a long list of other variables? Take massive volcanic activity early on in history just as an example because that doses the planet with large amounts of co2. Our planet cools and heats it seems as a way to balance itself. I have two friends who are meteorologists. Each have independently said that global warming would not last because of reasons I am not completely versed in but in a nutshell with global warming global cooling would happen and would counter any warming. A new Ice age wouldn't be fun either though I suppose. Livable though I'd assume LOL. Too hot not so much.

Anyways I'm babbling so ill try to sum up my thoughts. IF man has considerably effected the speed of which we reach a new cycle. Would we not see the balance return when the next cycle emerged? Do you think that man has done more to cause the speed up of the next cycle than any other occurrence in history?

My worry is not climate change. My fear about man is its continued poisoning of our lakes streams and oceans. Over harvesting of animals for food and in Japan's case scientific bah research cough... these things we are effecting and while mass extinctions are a part of this planets survival of the fittest I take a selfish stance on saying I'd like to see the animals we have thrive just a little longer.

One other thing I may have mentioned already but last I read the Antarctic I e is growing at a rate close to equivalent to the loss of the Arctic ice. Does this not show a small scale balance already occurring?

I leave this completely open to discussion. I am not a rock and can adapt as information is exchanged. Hopefully we see some good debate. I also hope tomorrow I can do some research on this subject to support my supposition. Tonight I'm out of time. Have a great night everyone.

[Frank Merton]

My basic reaction to the debate -- more based on what I know from other sources than from what has been posted here -- is that the scientific community is seriously worried and has little doubt that we are warming for non-cyclical (human-caused) reasons. Some don't think the consequences are too bad; others are frightened.

The political component is the real problem here; some just don't accept the scientific consensus, for their own reasons, and others exaggerate them, again for their own reasons.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

My basic reaction to the debate -- more based on what I know from other sources than from what has been posted here -- is that the scientific community is seriously worried and has little doubt that we are warming for non-cyclical (human-caused) reasons. Some don't think the consequences are too bad; others are frightened.

The political component is the real problem here; some just don't accept the scientific consensus, for their own reasons, and others exaggerate them, again for their own reasons.

I would take the level headed opinion over the frantic any day...

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Co2 levels throughout the eras. Co2 levels it appears have been much more concentrated in the past up to 20 times greater ppm than current levels. Guess what happened when the levels peaked? Plant life thrived and diversified. Which makes sense logically. Anyways here's some research to peruse in order for discussion and formulating your own opinion. Please discuss. Thank you.

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

Edited March 29, 2013 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I do agree however that man is contributing more co2 to the atmosphere than volcanic contributions by a longshot. Haven't located decent info yet on other natural sources.

[Parsec]

[...]This planet has been able to bounce back from everything that's hit it figuratively and literally. So lets say man has influenced climate. Hasn't other non human events also effected this planet on a grand scale. And wouldn't that make humans just another variable in a long list of other variables?

[...]Our planet cools and heats it seems as a way to balance itself.

[...] IF man has considerably effected the speed of which we reach a new cycle. Would we not see the balance return when the next cycle emerged? Do you think that man has done more to cause the speed up of the next cycle than any other occurrence in history?

My worry is not climate change. My fear about man is its continued poisoning of our lakes streams and oceans. Over harvesting of animals for food and in Japan's case scientific bah research cough... these things we are effecting and while mass extinctions are a part of this planets survival of the fittest I take a selfish stance on saying I'd like to see the animals we have thrive just a little longer. [...]

Sure, we're just another variable to the list, and surely not the "most dangerous" in the history our planet. The problem is not that the Earth won't be able to recover from what we're doing, but it's how it will react.

According to your "balance theory" (btw, I like it), the more we put the Earth off balance, the stronger the reaction will be. So the question isn't "will the earth survive?", but rather "will we or the world as we know it survive?"

The Earth survived the meteorite that hit 65 milions years ago, but can we say the same thing for dinosaurs?

So far we have had 5 great mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth, and every time the population in terms of individuals and species were reduced greatly (in the Permian-Triassic about the 90-96% of all species died), but life kept recovering and flourishing.

Life can adapt and change, we don't.

I share your fears about man's effects on the enviroment.

I'm also positive that we can put the Earth off balance, we can poison the air and the water, we can spread radioactive waste and we can hunt restlessy other species.

Life will always find a way to survive. Probably not in the way we know it, but with new species.

Will we be able to live (I'm exaggerating now) in a radioactive enviroment covered only by waters, filled with toxic fish (and Godzilla)? I don't think so.

[Frank Merton]

I just saw an item that we seem to be heading into one of the weakest solar maxima in quite some time. This strikes me as good news, perhaps giving us a little more time to get our act in gear before serious warming events happen. Any more informed comment?

[buckskin scout]

See people its a cycle. Global warming is a cycle. Glaciers will recede and advance.

Yeah, remember it was not coincidental that during the viking age that Europe and the North Atlantic were experiencing the medievel warm period, and as result, Iceland then Greenland were both founded and colonized.

[SHaYap]

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

• The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
  
• Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
  

This resource has been selected for inclusion in the CLEAN collection

~edit : chart

Edited April 11, 2013 by third_eye