cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

10,000 year record

For those who do not 'believe' the climates warming do not read this and then you will not have your 'beliefs' rattled.

Also do not tell the residents of Arctic Canada because they know the truth.

 

And this article notes what the records in the land show.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-warmest-in-10000-years-1.5094392

 

New research suggests Canada's Arctic is the warmest it has been in 10,000 years — and the temperatures are still climbing.

The study was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Communications.

Researchers studied permafrost samples in the Yukon near the Dempster Highway and determined that temperatures in the Arctic today are almost 2 C warmer than at any time in the past 10,000 years.

The temperatures recorded today are even higher than the previous highs believed to have occurred during the early Holocene period, about 9,900 and 6,400 years ago, when Earth's axis was tilted more strongly toward the sun, the report states.

 

38 Replies
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: 10,000 year record

And just how does that compare to the last 4.5 billion years?

Senior Advisor

Re: 10,000 year record

"New research suggests "

 

 

What a joke.

Veteran Advisor

Re: 10,000 year record

Yes, the skeptic in me immediately rises up when I see reports that start off or summarize with "suggests" or "could be that", and similar phrases, as opposed to "shows", "demonstrates" or "proves".   Another one is "correlates", which can be causation or coincidental, actually related to the matter at hand or totally unrelated.

 

Not being able to show actual emotions at work, and heavy drinking -- recent study -- causation or coincidental correlation?  Or, does it depend on the "type" of people hired?  Would these same people have become heavy drinkers regardless of their job?

Honored Advisor

Re: 10,000 year record

New research suggests --------------------  research finds or it is not research,,,, only opinion

 

research finds or proves.......or it shows nothing ------- or worse yet research was not done ......or could not be done therefore not conclusive and should not be considered research

 

Most often there is only a typographical correlation between the opinion "we were paid to promote"  and any form of actual scientific research. 

Research  these days is a twitter opinion pole run on a laptop at starbucks while on sabbatical. 

Honored Advisor

Re: 10,000 year record

WCMO 

yesterday an earthquake hit 130 miles west of the northern california.

 

coffee shop research will show (and certainly should) that the constant injection of ocean liquids into the rock formations below is possibly promoting this seismic activity.  Surely we will have a bill before congress to have the core of engineers divert the waters of the pacific.  250+ congressmen will take up the cause based on the lack of understanding of the term "research".

Senior Contributor

Re: 10,000 year record

I see a lot of people just believe there is no change in the climate.

 

that is good for you if you happen to live somewhere that has little impact from the changes but not so good for people in some areas of the world.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/landslides-canadian-arctic-1.5080617

Landslides caused by thawing permafrost on a Canadian Arctic island have increased by over 60 times since 1984, according to a new study, and could triple again by the end of the century.

In the study, published in Nature Communications, researchers from the University of Ottawa found the number of thaw slumps on Banks Island rose from 63 to 4,077 in 30 years.

 

Link  

The Arctic, according to the report, is to become a very different place. While a warming Arctic will bring with it some new economic opportunities, Arctic communities must prepare to adapt to the expected changes rather than hope Arctic warming will reverse itself.

"What we can expect in the Arctic is that there will be a massive melting of ice and thawing of permafrost. It will be a threat for biodiversity, there will be a change in living conditions for the Arctic communities," Dusik said.

 

 

 

Honored Advisor

Re: 10,000 year record

It has never been disbelief....... the earth is in constant flux... I don't doubt events...... I doubt the conclusions reached or claimed

 

It is the conclusions that are assumed that are borderline ridiculous .... the claims that man is either responsible or capable of controling the ecosystem are foolish... and when it finally comes down to $$$$ and Power  as it always does, the farce becomes obvious.  How many times has the artic environment warmed and recooled over the centuries? I don't know but there are always theories ,  lets take our assumed research of the last 50 years and our new "time machine" computers......  

 

I would rather try to learn the 70% of environmental science for which we haven't got a clue (only theories) and marvel at the system we observe.  But when someone starts telling me that the environment is either fragile or endangered  it is a ploy for power or $$$$.

I would come closer to believing our little minds are either endangered or fragile.

 

We can't even control our own behavior let alone the ecosystem.

Senior Advisor

Re: 10,000 year record

The climate has changed since the beginning of time. Long before man came onto the scene. But you just believe man can change it at will. You give man way to much credit.

Veteran Advisor

Re: 10,000 year record

Banks Island is a good example -- pretty rough climate, wildlife that could benefit from warmer weather, wildlife that could suffer -- population less than 200 people -- we may or may not be able to alter things enough to protect the wildlife, yet in so doing, we're making choices of which to favor over which -- as far as the people are concerned, it may be their home, yet moving 200 or less people to another liveable location is likely far less costly than what would likely be proposed to change the environment, alter the lives and habits of everyone else in the world, etc.  Same for the muskoxen -- 68,000 or so on the island -- they most likely did not originate on the island, and enough could be moved to increase the likelihood that the species survives.  Regardless of one's beliefs, proposals need to make sense, logically and economically.

 

Back around 20 years ago perhaps, I saw a PBS special on climate change, or global warming.  The focus of the program was a "scientific" expedition and study somewhere in the Arctic.  What I still remember to this day was their study of previous ice core samples where they explained that the ice melting at that time was formed 1500 years ago and how we needed to stop the additional melting.  There was absolutely no discussion of what the world biologically and ecologically looked 1500 years ago (maybe the melting is a good thing, maybe it's a cycle, etc), nor was there any discussion of potential workable alternatives or costs in terms of disruptions and economics.  My general reaction to the program was, so what?  What have they proven?  If ice is melting that was formed 1500 years ago, and a lot of ice was already melted, then a lot of ice was formed subsequent to 1500 years ago.