Its a Bit more Complicated

Guest post by Rud Istvan

Willis Eschenbach’s most recent post on clouds and cloud feedbacks and my comments on it got me thinking again about other possible examples of ‘logical omission’ climate fallacies. Or to paraphrase Mamet, “To pretend to believe some things, you have to pretend not to know some other things.” 

As chance would have it, today’s (3/15/2021) Google News Science featured a CNET article example. The Google News headline: ‘Scientists stunned by fossils found deep beneath Greenland’s ice sheet.’ Google editor comment: ‘Discovery could have HUGE implications for climate change studies’. Google supporting sublead story from Gizmodo: ‘Million year old plants show Greenland was once ice free!’  Google News reporting paraphrased from Gizmodo: ‘We are all going to die from 8 meters of sea level rise as Greenland melts again’.

The backstory shows ‘science’ reporting at its worst. The CNET lead, and Gizmodo sub, both discuss a new PNAS paper concerning a new analysis of ‘dirt’ found at the bottom of an old ice core drilled down to the grounding of Greenland ice in the mid-1960’s (the Camp Century core). The ‘dirt’ was newly discovered only because its ice core repository was being ‘purged’ for new stuff, and so they reviewed the inventory of the old stuff before discarding it. What was found in the newly rediscovered nearly 70-year old core bottom Greenland ‘dirt’ was obvious plant matter, newly radiocarbon dated to about 1 million years ago, (mya).

Greenland melted before! So we are all going to die from Sea Level Rise of about 8 meters! Or so the above cited media reported based on the new PNAS.

The plant matter stuff reported in PNAS is obviously true. So Greenland did mostly melt about 1 mya; otherwise those plants could not have existed there then, however briefly. But this ‘climate fact’ ignores two big ‘other things.’

First, Greenland used to) sit over a very active tectonic zone, still forming Iceland. 1 mya Greenland was further south, not north oriented, and considered a separate tectonic plate. (It is now mostly snuggled up to the North American plate, with a lot of tectonic earthquakes along the border.) It has uplifted as it approached North America, drifted further north, and tilted more North/ South in the past million years. So its present climatology is not its climatology 1 mya. It remains (maybe until recently) a separate tectonic plate because Greenland also contains some of the oldest known exposed crustal rocks, dated to 3.7-3.8 mya. (Only also isolated Australia competes in the age of oldest rocks, zircon dated.)

Second, about 1 mya in the mid Pleistocene (which itself started maybe about 2.7 mya, arguably with the tectonic closure of the Panama Isthmus), the glaciation/deglaciation (two chaotic strange attractors?) system provably shifted from about a symmetric 40 kya ice age/40kya non-ice interval to an asymmetric about 100 kya ice age/about 20 kya non-ice interval. Nobody knows why, but it geologically provably did. So, a 40/40 cycle 1 mya would have meant much less icecap on Greenland, much more melting, and thus plants during at least part of the non-ice intervals. NOT NOW, with the new asymmetric 100/20 ice cap cycle.

So, the MSM grabbed a new ‘true’ PNAS result, ignored its context, and proclaimed climate doom. That is just more warmunist belief amplification, not the contextual science reporting done here now.

4.8 44 votes
Article Rating
141 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George Tetley
March 16, 2021 6:18 am

Chit Not News. CNN
( How can it be in an educated society)

Scissor
March 16, 2021 6:26 am

One might consider that plant growth was more prolific in Greenland even more recently, as evidenced by abandoned Viking settlements.

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
March 16, 2021 8:04 am

I don’t care how prolific it gets, growing underneath glaciers is still problematic.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 12:17 pm

“growing underneath glaciers is still problematic.

Tell that to the trees under Mendenhall, they obviously grew there 😉

comment image

Reply to  fred250
March 16, 2021 6:08 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/17/proof-of-warmer-earlier-climate-swiss-geologist-studies-10800-year-old-tree-trunk-under-alps-glacier/#comment-3164684

Actually, some mighty evil oil baron came out in the dark of night, lifted up the glacier, and put the tree under it.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
March 16, 2021 8:52 pm

Actually, I confess to doing that.

And all the tree stumps further up the mountains and into the tundra

It wasn’t that hard at all with the hockey team watching my back

And yes, sarc/

rbabcock
March 16, 2021 6:27 am

My house currently sits at 320′ +- above the current sea level. I also check the polarportal.dk website daily to make sure Greenland still has ice on it. I’m actually not too worried regardless. http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  rbabcock
March 16, 2021 2:09 pm

Mine is about 220′, so I’m a little more doomed than you. Pity me!!

Reply to  rbabcock
March 16, 2021 10:45 pm

Two hundred feet above tidewater is good for another reason. On January 26, 1700 there was an earthquake offshore Vancouver Island on the Cascadia Fault, estimated magnitude 8.7-9.2. That is huge.

Some reports say artificial beach sands carried by the resulting tsunami are found 200 vertical feet above tidewater.

In comparison, the deadly surge from the SE Asia tsunami of December 26, 2004 was reportedly 20-30 vertical feet.

Posted Boxing Day 2014.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/24/calculations-suggest-that-global-warming-caused-by-the-doubling-of-co2-will-be-less-than-0-6k/#comment-1416033

True Story, concerning a very strange event that happened ten years ago today (26Dec2004).

My girlfriend Vicky and I were walking on the pebble beach at Sechelt, BC when an unusual question popped into my head.

I asked Vicky: “What would you do if the sea suddenly retreated and left all the little fishes flapping around on the tidal flats?”

Being an animal lover, Vicky said she would run around putting the fish into the remaining shallow pools of water.

I explained that this sea retreat would be immediately followed by a tsunami, and the best move is to run for high ground – the little fishes would be fine, but the people on the beach, not so much.

That evening we joined her parents to watch TV, and heard the first news of the great SE Asia tsunami that killed ~250,000 people that day. Pure coincidence? A perturbation in The Force? I have no idea. Vicky just stared at me.

Anyway, I also wanted to tell you that in 2002 I (we) predicted global cooling by 2020-2030… … and our predictive track record is very good. So buy that Honda generator and bundle up. It’s going to get colder out there.

Happy Holidays to all, Allan

Ruleo
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
March 17, 2021 1:33 pm

That’s the Synchronicity phenomenon of the Collective SubConscious.

Reply to  Ruleo
March 18, 2021 11:46 am

“That’s the Synchronicity phenomenon of the Collective SubConscious.”

“So I’ve got that going for me… which is nice.

  • Bill Murray – Caddyshack

Reply to  Ruleo
March 18, 2021 12:31 pm

“That’s the Synchronicity phenomenon of the Collective SubConscious.”

The aforementioned 26Dec2004 Asian Tsunami Story can be dismissed as coincidence, I suppose. The Mazeppa Sour Gas Story contains a much more remarkable coincidence, as described in the bold paragraph below.

Can one person, or a great number of people, reach back in time and save themselves from catastrophe? I’ve long written that “The future cannot cause the past”, but can there be special exceptions?

Cue “Twilight Zone” music…

Regards, Allan 🙂

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/10/but-is-the-growth-of-the-pandemic-really-exponential/#comment-2962094

THE MAZEPPA SOUR GAS STORY

I received an award in March 2018 from the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) for averting a potential major sour gas disaster in SE Calgary.

The new foreign owners of the Mazeppa project were producing 40% H2S critical sour gas from ~12 wells within one mile of populous SE Calgary suburbs, and to save money they had ceased the required monthly injection of anti-corrosion chemicals into the pipelines seven months earlier. This was extremely dangerous, because sour gas is highly corrosive to the steel pipelines that carry the gas to the processing plant.

Fortunately, I was familiar with the project from decades ago – I was GM of Engineering for the company that formerly owned this project and about 20 others, and a friend called me with this vital information. The remarkable coincidence is my informant did not know of my history with this project – he just wanted to talk to someone about his corrupt foreign bosses.

The staff at the project were afraid to report the dangerous situation because they feared physical retaliation from the foreign owners, who they believed were violent thugs.

H2S is heavier than air and hugs the ground, and a 0.1% concentration is instantly fatal. I investigated, reported the matter to the Alberta Energy Regulator, followed-up to ensure compliance and the project was shut down and was made safe. I later learned that some of the sour gas pipelines had already experienced minor perforations and leaks.

A safety study done in 2005 estimated the kill radius at 15km, so potential loss of life in a major discharge of H2S in 2016 could have totaled up to 300,000 people, wiping out the SE quadrant of Calgary.

To put this near-miss in perspective, that 300,000 potential fatalities is equivalent to one hundred 9-11’s, six Hiroshima’s, or four Nagasaki’s. Calgary didn’t “dodge a bullet”; we dodged a nuke.

The press reported the problem with some inaccuracies, but were generally adequate. The Alberta Energy Regulator tried to act like they were on top of the situation and aware of the danger, but they were not.

The total reprimand against the foreign owners was the most severe in Alberta history.

–      Allan MacRae
____________________________________________

Reply to  Ruleo
March 18, 2021 4:54 pm

“That’s the Synchronicity phenomenon of the Collective SubConscious.”

Oh – Carl Jung. Thank you.

John Garrett
March 16, 2021 6:44 am

Thank you, Rud Istvan.

I wish I had some brilliant idea of how to stop the MSM from promulgating this kind of crap.

I used to listen to NPR religiously. I can’t listen to it now— I’d end up throwing the radio out of the window or attacking it with a ball peen hammer.

I don’t get Michael Bloomberg. The guy is not stupid (however, because he is a former Salomon Brothers employee, I know he’s not honest). I guess he’s just going along with the crowd in order to make a buck (is he really that cynically dishonest?)

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  John Garrett
March 16, 2021 7:11 am

Once upon a time, it was possible to listen to NPR, Rush, check various newspapers, watch a little Imus, and eventually with enough different input a reasonably accurate picture of what was happening could be teased out of the noise. I miss those simpler times….

Editor
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 16, 2021 8:01 am

Pamela ==> Once upon a time, a great friend of yours could simply go places and look and come back with simple scientific observations that were far “truer” than Magic Models of the Past.

Fran
Reply to  John Garrett
March 16, 2021 12:20 pm

Ditto CBC in Canada. Yesterday I turned it on for 10 min – got a BC public health doc saying you still could not see your grandchildren after being vaccinated because of ‘new variants’ – ie, permanent isolation of the aged.

Drake
Reply to  Fran
March 16, 2021 5:15 pm

Whatever it takes to keep the public health system solvent. The more they can k!ll off the elderly, the better.

Suicide, just giving up living, easy.

It is surprising they are not Coumoing the elderly to cut costs.

Reply to  Drake
March 16, 2021 10:59 pm

“It is surprising they are not Cuomoing the elderly to cut costs.”

They’re not? They did exactly that, in New York State, New Jersey, London, etc.

But the real action was in China, which had disproportional numbers of elderly because of their one-child policy. Create a designer virus in the Wuhan lab that just kills the very elderly and infirm – problem solved – Bada bing, bada boom!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Fran
March 16, 2021 5:24 pm

But … but they’re “following the science” (of the week). Next week there’ll be different science, new strains, mask layering and boosters to the vaccine boosters … not to mention as many new “WAVES” as they need to keep us Canadians quiet and docile while Trudeau and his crew have their way with us.

David Hartley
Reply to  John Garrett
March 16, 2021 9:25 pm

My large TV as was many years ago ended up with a rather large bolster chisel sticking out of it. Wife as was then was not best pleased. That was around 30 years ago and the beginnings of weaning myself of such a hypnotic drug.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  David Hartley
March 16, 2021 10:05 pm

What you needed was a “TV Brick”. It was a foam rubber item, the same size and color as a regular house brick. ‘Invented’ by a Californian of course. (His ex-wife was married to my boss in the late 70’s.)

David A
Reply to  John Garrett
March 17, 2021 3:10 am

Yet I do not onderstand how in one million years Greenland has moved adequetly far to make such large tectonic differences?

Assuming two million inches ( two inches a year) that is 31.5 miles. So even much faster average movement over the past million years would have little latitude implications, and perhaps not great the techtonic implications either. ( Rud’s thoughts appreciated.)

IMV the clear implication from this discovery is that CO2 is NOT the control knob for temperature. ( Yet we know they have ignored all other indications of this fact, so I doubt this one will give clue)

However the alarmists perspective appears to be that if 280 ppm could melt so much ice, then 410 ppm means we’re doomed.

Ruleo
Reply to  David A
March 17, 2021 1:49 pm

I’ve seen too much to believe erosion is as slow as conventional wisdom holds. Same holds true by extension tectonic activity.

I’m even a little wary of geologic dating; when your’s dealing with probability, you’re not dealing with certainty.

But that’s just me!

Joseph Zorzin
March 16, 2021 6:46 am

Sorry- off topic but…

“Race to Save the World Trailer”

I read about this in an email from Jimmy Hansen- I like being on his email list to find out what the alarmists are up to. He’s going to publish a new book soon.

Of course that video has comments turned off. I notice that’s the case with most alarmist videos- similar to when I was a kid going to Catechism- the priests didn’t want commentaries on what they were preaching.

Last edited 4 months ago by Joseph Zorzin
Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 16, 2021 7:07 am

Shameless! I couldn’t even make it to a full minute.

Pauleta
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 16, 2021 8:18 am

I did 1:12. Breakfast intact, thank God.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 16, 2021 7:22 am

Wasn’t this the title of a really awful book by George Mitchell? Yes, that George Mitchell the predecessor to Chuck Schumer? In the 90s, after Al Gore’s successful book, everyone in Congress was trying to cash in on Global Warming.

twobob
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 16, 2021 8:01 am

I salute their dedication, but ridicule their emotion.
They have listened. but have not ratified.

Joel O'Bryan
March 16, 2021 7:02 am

errata: 3.7-3.8 mya Gya

Rob Duncan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 16, 2021 9:09 am

Also, I don’t think they can age date back to 1 million years using radio carbon dating techniques.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Rob Duncan
March 16, 2021 10:50 am

Yes, you are correct. Carbon dating has recently been recalibrated back to 55,000 years ago — so 1 million years ago would be quite a stretch for Carbon-14 dating.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
March 16, 2021 1:18 pm

Enriched stable isotopes in pore ice indicate precipitation at lower elevations than present, implying ice-sheet absence. The similarity of cosmogenic isotope ratios in the upper-most sediment to those measured in bedrock near the center of Greenland suggests that the ice sheet melted and re-formed at least once during the past million years.

Stable oxygen isotope fractionation, not a C!4 dating technique (which is clearly out of range).

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
March 16, 2021 9:41 pm

Wikipedia give the the typical limit as being about 50 thousand years and the outer limit being about 75 thousand years. 50 thousand years is a bit less than 9 half lives (5730 years) of C14. One million years would be 174.52 half lives. 10 half lives gives you 0.1% of the original C14 concentration. At 174.52 it would be 10^-52.

Reply to  Rob Duncan
March 16, 2021 2:15 pm

You are correct. My bad. I did not read the PNAS paper before writing the post last night after dinner, as the post was about the MSM reporting on it. They used cosmogenic Al/Be isotope ratios found in the ‘dirt’, deposited when the soil was exposed.

ResourceGuy
March 16, 2021 7:15 am

Google News and CNET are like religious filters tilting the news to the ongoing meme of the climate religion. The news must be interpreted for the masses with a few scare reminders on sins to keep them in their place.

Joel O'Bryan
March 16, 2021 7:25 am

Consider the journalistic source of the two articles:

Steph Panecasio the writer of CNET story “Scientists stunned by fossils found deep beneath Greenland’s ice sheet – The discovery could have huge implications for climate change studies”, her “interests include “Cell Phones, How to Tech, Home theater and audio.” She a 26 year old Sydney resident with a Bachelor of Communication and Media Studies, who just a few years was in the running for “Kiama Girl in rural NSW.
https://www.kiamaindependent.com.au/story/4442475/meet-your-local-faces/

Molly Taft, the writer of the Gizmodo story, is a staff writer and sef-described “Earther” and a graduate of Columbia’s School of Journalism. Columbia U is also the academic center of the US’s Marxist socialist movement. ‘Nuff said there about what bias goes into her “reporting.”

Why would anyone think these two are qualified to figure out what was in a science paper other than put together an over-hyped, click-bait piece? Just two libtards who took a pass on science, engineering, and mathematics and went straight to Earthism garbage writing because it seemed cool and hip.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 16, 2021 8:07 am

I’m still trying to figure out how finding out that Greenland was warmer 1 mya, back when CO2 levels were lower than they are today, supports the “CO2 controls climate” meme?

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 8:47 am

Because “it’s different this time”?

MarkW
Reply to  TonyG
March 16, 2021 9:35 am

Sort of like “this time we will be able to make communism work”.

Julian Flood
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 11:52 pm

Does no-one teach simple logic any more?

JF

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Julian Flood
March 26, 2021 8:59 am

Students today are taught what to think, not how to think. Hence the descent of (so-called) “science” into the realm of being a “secular religion.”

David A
Reply to  MarkW
March 17, 2021 2:53 am

Because if 180 ppm CO2 was so evil as to melt most of Greenland’s ice, think of how fast 410 ppm CO2 will melt all of the ice!!!!

Were DOOMED!

Climate believer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 16, 2021 9:15 am

“Why would anyone think these two are qualified to figure out what was in a science paper other than put together an over-hyped, click-bait piece?”

Why would anybody look for scientific explanations from CNET or Gizmodo?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Climate believer
March 16, 2021 2:37 pm

I have to believe their editors told them to write up an alarmist story on the subject. so they did. and they keep collecting their paychecks.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 17, 2021 9:23 pm

But Steph is good with a hula hoop! Can Occasional Cortex say as much?

MarkW
March 16, 2021 8:01 am

Radiocarbon dated to 1 million years ago?
Does C14 dating go back that far?

Peter
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 8:32 am

Wikipedia says radiocarbon dating is good for things as far back as 50,000 years. Which makes sense: given that the half-life of C14 is about 6,000 years, after a million years (about 160 half-lives), there wouldn’t be a single C14 nucleus left. There is a serious credibility problem here.

Curious George
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 8:43 am

The dating looks problematic. As the half-life of C14 is about 5,000 years, after 20 half-lives only about 1% of 1% of 1% of the original C14 is left. I doubt that we can detect these minute quantities with a required precision.

If I estimate the (highly variable) speed of plate movement at 5 cm/year, Greenland would have moved about 50 km (30 miles) in a million years. Not enough to be of much consequence.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 8:49 am

Good point. Per wikipedia (yes, I know) “the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to approximately 50,000 years ago”

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 9:37 am

There are other dating techniques that use radioactive isotopes (uranium/argon, potassium, etc) that can date that far back. Perhaps the author got confused?

Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 9:47 am

Confused not only with dating 😀

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 1:04 pm

Yes, Rud Istvan is confused, because “radiocarbon” is neither mentioned in the PNAS article, nor in the Gizmodo article.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 16, 2021 2:41 pm

Christ and the team behind the study used isotope analyses of various elements that helped the researchers tease out the last time the samples were exposed to the sun and cosmic rays. The dating showed the plant matter is roughly 1 million years old.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 16, 2021 3:46 pm

Yes, that is correct, but they did not use radiocarbon dating. They didn’t because it doesn’t work at a million year time span.

Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 2:19 pm

Yes. They used cosmogenic Al/Be ratios. I had not read the PNAS paper, since the comments were only directed to the reporting on it.

guard4her
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2021 1:06 pm

Actually, no. Radiocarbon dating works on several assumptions. The most important one is that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is assumed to have stabilized aeons ago and is therefore a constant for purposes of calculations.
This has been proven to be incorrect. Variations in solar and cosmic radiation create carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere at varying rates. Carbon 14 levels have been increasing thus all C14 dates are way too old. Further, environment affects access to C14 so some currently living aquatic animals have tested thousands of year old.
Another interesting fact is that ambient radiation, especially cosmic rays, affect the decay rate.
C14 dating is OK for local, relative, and approximate measurements.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  guard4her
March 16, 2021 3:14 pm

Ambient radiation does not affect the decay rate. Cosmic rays will transmute the carbon nucleus, but the cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate.

MarkW
Reply to  guard4her
March 16, 2021 5:20 pm

It has been proven that C14 rates are increasing?
Where and how?
That solar and cosmic rays vary both up and down has been well known for a long time. That’s why they have published calibration curves.

Another fact that has been known since the beginning of C14 dating, is that C14 dating is useless for aquatic animals. The fact that you are ignorant of these well known facts indicates that your knowledge of C14 dating is based on badly biased sources. I’m guessing you are one of those young earth ideologues.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  MarkW
March 18, 2021 12:29 pm

I suspect the problem is more the 14C resulting from atmospheric nuclear bomb tests from the 1950/60s

MarkW
Reply to  guard4her
March 16, 2021 5:49 pm

Another issue that you seem to be ignorant of, is that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, mankind has been digging up and burning ancient carbon. As a result nothing that has lived since the start of the Industrial Revolution can be dated via C14 dating. Because it is impossible to know what the ratio of C12/C14 was when and where it lived.

Donald Langmuir
March 16, 2021 8:01 am

Please make minor corrections to your article. Radiocarbon dating doesn’t work if the sample is older than 50,000 yrs. Also, the age of the Greenland bedrock is billions not millions of years.

Wim Röst
March 16, 2021 8:03 am

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_curve_La_EN_20190800.png

(unfortunately, the graphic does not show up: shown is the loss of ice mass by Greenland and the total sea-level rise that resulted over the period 2002-2020 – in millimeters)

From the accompanying text:
All changes are given relative to April 2002.
Based on this data, it can be seen that during the period 2003-2011 the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 234 km3 of water per year, corresponding to an annual contribution to the mean increase in sea level of 0.65 mm (Barletta et al. (2013)
(bold added)

WR: The curve for mass loss shows a slowing down over recent years which were ‘the hottest ever’. Over the full period of 18 years, the sea level rose about one centimeter because of ice loss by Greenland. Not per year but over the full period.

Paraphrasing: “This discovery should have huge implications for climate change studies”

Last edited 4 months ago by Wim Röst
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Wim Röst
March 16, 2021 11:57 am

qqqq

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Steve Z
March 16, 2021 8:14 am

So, if scientists had drilled an ice core in Greenland completely down to the dirt in the mid-1960’s (about 55 years ago, not 70 as claimed in the article), it was probably in a relatively shallow part of the ice cap near the coast, if they could reach the dirt with 1960’s technology.

The actual depth of the ice core is not specified in the article, but it was probably not thousands of meters as in most of inland Greenland, but probably much less. This would mean that part of the land near the coast held plant life a million years ago, and is now under maybe 100 meters of ice.

Even if Greenland was in its current location in the far north a million years ago, and if the ice cap was 100 meters thinner a million years ago, the volume of missing ice would be about 171,000 km^3. If the water was spread out over the existing 362 million km^2 of oceans, sea level then would have been about 47 cm (19 inches) higher than now.

The main fallacy in this article is the assumption that if remnants of plant life was found in the dirt under a relatively shallow part of the Greenland ice cap, that means that all of Greenland was ice-free a million years ago. What it really means is that only that particular spot, and other areas with the same or lower current ice thickness, were ice-free a million years ago.

Most of the inland part of the Greenland ice sheet is above 2,000 meters in elevation, meaning that even if ice in some low-lying areas near the coast melts in spring and summer, temperatures over central Greenland remain below freezing year-round, with no summer melting.

Maureen
Reply to  Steve Z
March 16, 2021 9:06 am

True, it is spring here on the northern Prairies and on my crescent it is interesting to watch snow melt in everyone’s yard. My neighbors front yard the snow is almost gone. In mine I still have a solid 2 to 3 feet. The difference is simply the orientation of each of the yards, hers getting a little more sun each day.

Bob boder
Reply to  Maureen
March 16, 2021 4:39 pm

Down welling back IR should be melting that snow in your yard. That’s weird it’s not

Reply to  Steve Z
March 16, 2021 2:23 pm

I said in the post the ice core was produced in the mid 1960s from Camp Century. The core is actually ~1390 meters, so almost 1400, 1.4 km long. Not the thickest Greenland ice (that is about 2.2 km) but still very deep.

Sara
March 16, 2021 8:46 am

One million years ago, Greenland was further south and had plants growing on it. This is something left out of the news media’s “EEEEKKK! We’re all gonna die!!!” report. All they care about is what keeps them afloat so they mongrelize everything they publish. Not something new, but really quite despicable of them, just as bad as WWF’s current ad showing a banana plantation and saying it’s a forest.

None of it surprises me, but it is as tiresome as they are. I have seldom seen people as desperate for attention as the current crop of media birdbrains.

Alan
March 16, 2021 9:15 am

Just wait till they “discover” dinosaurs in Antarctica.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Alan
March 17, 2021 12:21 pm
David A
Reply to  Alan
March 17, 2021 3:48 pm

and rainforests 90 million years ago.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  David A
March 18, 2021 3:29 am

and CO2 levels were a lot higher than they are today.

fretslider
March 16, 2021 9:44 am

They really are stunned quite easily these days.

Did it occur to them to ask why it might be called Greenland?

Stuart Lynne
March 16, 2021 10:16 am

The only thing we can conclude is that the specific location was ice-free as recently as 400,000 years ago.

It does not follow that Greenland was entirely ice-free.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Stuart Lynne
March 16, 2021 12:51 pm

I conclude that the drilling crew had a fire pit near the borehole, and that is some 1950’s wood bark and twigs….who cares what the isotopes say the age of the dirt is.

Last edited 4 months ago by DMacKenzie
Smart Rock
March 16, 2021 10:16 am

As pointed out by several commenters, carbon dating can’t go back more than about 50,000 years. “Everyone” knows that. They did not date the plant material. The article is wrong on that point, showing just how little these “science writers” comprehend what they are looking at. They dated the sediment layers using cosmogenic isotopes:

Cosmogenic 26Al/10Be and luminescence data bracket the burial of the lower-most sediment between <3.2 ± 0.4 Ma and >0.7 to 1.4 Ma. In the upper-most sediment, cosmogenic 26Al/10Be data require exposure within the last 1.0 ± 0.1 My

If you’re going to criticise a piece of science, please don’t do it on the basis of a news story. If you go to the source story, it usually has a link to the original paper. In this case, the paper is paywalled but, as usual the abstract is free. It took me about 90 seconds to find the quote and copy-and-paste it here.

I’m sure I read something very similar within the last couple of years (probably on WUWT), so this news article isn’t really news at all.

ResourceGuy
March 16, 2021 10:38 am

They’re lucky they didn’t have a pipe break.

Since when do core libraries rediscover one of the most important parts of the drill project?

ResourceGuy
March 16, 2021 10:39 am

What else is in that core library? Is there a crate labeled Ark of the Cov…?

fred250
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 16, 2021 1:17 pm

Arc of the covid ? what’s that ? 😉

Lawrence E Todd
March 16, 2021 10:47 am

I do find it strange that instead of having scientists writting conclusions and speculations about the future that we have people who learned to write about science but have no understanding of it. I think of one very prominent example, Naomi Oreskes.


Robert of Texas
March 16, 2021 10:50 am

“So, the MSM grabbed a new ‘true’ PNAS result, ignored its context, and proclaimed climate doom.”

Not to mention the fact that some areas (at least) of Greenland were ice free without any input from mankind. So natural variability is the only culprit – whether through less sunlight, more cloud, more CO2, a warmer Earth, or the physical movement of the island.

They still ignore the Viking artifacts and ruins being uncovered by ice…and that is only 1200 years old (or there-about).

DMacKenzie
March 16, 2021 11:02 am

Those wood bits look to be in quite good condition. Have they radiocarbon dated it ? Maybe the rig hands had a fire pit near the bore hole back in the 60’s.

March 16, 2021 11:30 am
Dikran Marsupial
March 16, 2021 11:44 am

“1 mya Greenland was further south, not north oriented, and considered a separate tectonic plate.”

could I have a citation for that please? The closest I could find was that it had moved about 500Km over the last 60 million years, which is about 8km per million years on average, which is negligible in climate terms.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 16, 2021 12:03 pm

As for the second point, there is research that suggests that CO2 emissions may postpone the next ice age by “at least 100,000 years”, in which case the current interglacial may be even worse from an ice-melt perspective than those 1mya.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

fred250
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 16, 2021 1:20 pm

The only reason that CO2 could stall the next ice age is through plant growth.

Not sure how that could happen.

I suggest their “research” is bunkum

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  fred250
March 16, 2021 1:27 pm

“The only reason that CO2 could stall the next ice age is through plant growth.”

citation required.

fred250
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 16, 2021 9:55 pm

What I meant , was that extra plant growth is the ONLY thing caused by extra CO2

ie CO2 has NO effect on climate.

Sorry, to those that misunderstood. 🙂

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  fred250
March 17, 2021 3:25 am

“What I meant , was that extra plant growth is the ONLY thing caused by extra CO2”

citation required. More than a century of scientific research says otherwise.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 18, 2021 3:21 am

LOL at downvotes. Not quite as good as actually being able to provide some counter evidence is it? ;o)

Dale S
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 16, 2021 4:06 pm

If CO2 emissions postpone the next ice age for “at least 100,000 years”, that’s a much *better* outcome than being in an ice-age for the next 100,000 years. Sea level rise due to Greenland melting over loooonnnnggg periods is easily adapted to; mile high ice over what used to be habitable land much less so.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Dale S
March 17, 2021 3:27 am

yes, completely agree. An ice age would be very bad, and the melt of the greenland ice sheet would take many thousands of years.

The point was that both of the arguments made in the original article are wrong.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 16, 2021 5:40 pm

“Next ice age?” Hell, we’re still in an interglacial of the PRESENT ice age … and that interglacial has been cooling steadily since the Holocene Thermal Optimum. Even with the increase in CO2 the planet still hasn’t recovered fully from the Little Ice Age.

BTW … there is no evidence that CO2 is altering any aspect of our ice age.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 17, 2021 4:21 am

Citation required. The paper in Nature suggests otherwise.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 17, 2021 9:47 am

The paper in Nature was written by idiots if they suggest they know what will happen in the “next” ice age based on present CO2 concentrations. Who knows when that will be?
It is you who needs to provide evidence. You have the shoe on the wrong foot.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 17, 2021 10:01 am

LOL, so some random chap on a blog thinks that scientists that have actually studied the physics are “idiots”. Monumental hubris.

I have provided the evidence – just dismissed it calling the calling the authors “idiots”, but it *was* provided.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 17, 2021 1:25 pm

Nice try at an appeal to authority. You lose. Most of us have studied the physics.

I call anyone an idiot who suggests they know how the next ice age will react to CO2. Your “scientists” continually getting it wrong in the present ice age.

You’ve provided no evidence. A link is not evidence. You’re not very good at this, are you?

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 18, 2021 3:23 am

If that is an appeal to authority then calling the scientists “idiots” is a ad-hominem.

The evidence is in the paper, expecting me to copy and paste it all here is an obvious stalling tactic to avoid actually addressing the evidence.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 18, 2021 10:44 am

LOL, so some random chap on a blog thinks that scientists that have actually studied the physics are “idiots”. Monumental hubris.

.
That is a classic appeal to authority

then calling the scientists “idiots” is a ad-hominem.

I said they were idiots “IF” they believed that knowing present day CO2 concentrations could be extrapolated into any understanding of the next ice age. We don’t even know when the present ice age will end or what will cause it. That is not ad hominem.

If you want to rely on evidence, then you must offer the evidence for scrutiny. You can’t expect others to read through an entire paper because you believe it must contain the evidence to support your assertions. I say you have no evidence.

Last edited 4 months ago by Rory Forbes
Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 18, 2021 11:32 am

“You can’t expect others to read through an entire paper”

no, that is how science works. Scientists write papers so that they can document their evidence for others to read and consider. The evidence has been provided, you just can’t be bothered to go and look at it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 18, 2021 1:38 pm

No, that is NOT how science works. If you are relying on a specific set of facts, you don’t just tell the reader where they are located so he can search for them himself. You include them and then cite their source, if you didn’t collect them yourself. Otherwise it’s merely an appeal to authority.

If I must read the paper you cited, to find what you claim is evidence supporting your hypothesis, it’s clear you have no evidence of your own. You are obliged to make your own hypothesis clear as it is being read and not expect the reader to search elsewhere to find the supporting material … or like Michael Mann, restrict access to it for “members only”.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 3:30 am

No. I work in science. I read papers, they contain references to other papers that are there so that I can check up on the evidence. That is how it works. Scientists don’t need to be spoon fed, generally we are happy to read papers to find stuff out, and just need a reference.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 19, 2021 10:44 am

I simply don’t believe you. It’s clear you have no idea of how the protocol works.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 11:07 am

I know the protocol, I have been using it for nearly 30 years.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=pzLI7q8AAAAJ&hl=en

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 19, 2021 12:21 pm

If you were, your ignorance of the basics wouldn’t be so obvious. Furthermore, you wouldn’t be an AGW true believer. No known science supports the anthropogenic “climate change” conjecture.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 12:27 pm

If I were ignorant of the basics of scientific publication, I wouldn’t have written about 100 papers and those papers wouldn’t have been cited. But I did and they have.

The science behind the current understanding of anthropogenic climate change was first published in 1901 by Ekholm

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.49702711702

If you think no known science supports anthropogenic climate change, then you haven’t looked properly.

chemman
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 16, 2021 2:26 pm

If I draw a five km radius centered on my weather station the varying climate conditions really aren’t negligible.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  chemman
March 17, 2021 4:01 am

That would rather depend on local geography (hills/water etc.). Where I live (Norfolk) 8km makes no difference whatsoever. The greenland ice sheet is pretty flat (ice flows). 8km will make no difference there either.

MarkW
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 17, 2021 10:59 am

Everything within 8km of where you live is within 0.1C?
Within 3km of where I live temperatures can vary by 2 to 3C.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  MarkW
March 17, 2021 11:43 am

That is weather not climate.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 17, 2021 2:41 pm

You clearly have no idea what the difference is. That explains your confusion and why you believe AGW nonsense.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 18, 2021 3:25 am

I do. Climate is the long term average behaviour of the weather. Weather on a particular day can vary a fair bit over 8km, but climate does not vary greatly over a distance of 8km without there being some serious geogpraphical feature between the two (which obviously isn’t the case for the greenland icesheet).

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 18, 2021 10:33 am

I do. Climate is the long term average behaviour of the weather.

Well, you’re almost there. Climate is the average weather at a particular location over time.

(which obviously isn’t the case for the greenland icesheet).

That generalization is an unsupportable assumption.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 18, 2021 11:28 am

“Well, you’re almost there. Climate is the average weather at a particular location over time.”

Citation required. It is common to talk of regional climate, which obviously isn’t talking about a particular location, but of a geographical region.

My point stands, weather may vary by 2C over 8km, but climate doesn’t (unless there is some large scale geographical feature involved). If you disagree, provide a counter example.

“That generalization is an unsupportable assumption.”

as I said, ice sheets are flat (because ice flows under gravity), so there are not large scale geographical features on the ice sheet. I’ve pointed that out already.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 18, 2021 11:30 am

According to NASA “In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area. … Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and period…”

places 8km apart can be reasonable said to be in the same area/region.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 18, 2021 1:13 pm

places 8km apart can be reasonable said to be in the same area/region

More unsupported, unreasonable nonsense. The reason “location” is used is because it is unambiguous.. You people love appealing to ambiguity. “Climate change”, as you use it, is an equivocal description … an appeal to ambiguity … tautological.

There is no empirical evidence using a measurement of “8 km” as some sort of reference in defining climate vs. weather.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 18, 2021 1:07 pm

“Well, you’re almost there. Climate is the average weather at a particular location over time.”

Citation required. It is common to talk of regional climate, which obviously isn’t talking about a particular location, but of a geographical region.

No citation is required for a common definition. You’re offering a distinction without a difference (a fallacy). A “geographical region” is particular location. The planet is not. Therefore the planet cannot be said to have a climate. Greenland is composed of numerous locations or regions.

My point stands, weather may vary by 2C over 8km, but climate doesn’t (unless there is some large scale geographical feature involved)

Your “point” is just silly. It’s a riot of over generalization typical of most AGW rue believer science. It’s impossible to debate with anyone who relies on so many logical fallacies.

as I said, ice sheets are flat (because ice flows under gravity), so there are not large scale geographical features on the ice sheet. I’ve pointed that out already.

Utter rubbish. Ice sheets are far from flat. Ice only “flows” down a gradient, altering elevation and lapse rate, precluding any suggestion of flatness or uniform temperatures. They also move across and withing mountains and hills altering their surface into various crevasses and other surface features.

What you have “pointed out” is unsupportable nonsense resulting from inaccurate assumptions of a topic you don’t understand. You seem to know a whole lot that is wrong.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 18, 2021 1:11 pm

“The planet is not. Therefore the planet cannot be said to have a climate.”

did I say anything about the planet having a climate? No. You are just blustering.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 18, 2021 1:41 pm

“The planet is not. Therefore the planet cannot be said to have a climate.”

did I say anything about the planet having a climate? No. You are just blustering.

No, I’m merely continuing the up-hill battle of instructing you in a few of the basics, so you won’t be at such a disadvantage. Clearly this subject is very new to you and there’s much you need to learn.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 3:28 am

yawn more bluster. It isn’t even correct, it’s perfectly reasonable to talk of the climate of a planet

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/F_Mars_Climate.html

including the Earth

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/climate-change/what-causes-the-earths-climate-to-change/

If you think you are the one to do the instructing, perhaps you should get your facts right first.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 19, 2021 10:51 am

it’s perfectly reasonable to talk of the climate of a planet

Nonsense! doing so disqualifies the definition of climate. NASA is merely perpetuating the politicization of this field. Averaging discrete qualities makes pointless nonsense of the result. That’s why institutional “climate science” (modeling) has been consistently wrong about everything.

So far you haven’t managed to falsify one of my facts, whereas your post have been universally given a thumbs down. You have been nothing but comedy relief, spouting the AGW dogma.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 11:03 am

No, it doesn’t “disqualify” the definition of climate. The Earth and Mars are both regions of the solar system. The surface of the Earth is an “area”.

“NASA is merely perpetuating the politicization of this field.”

LOL, there is nothing political about the climate of Mars. There isn’t anything political about the climate of the Earth either, it is what it is. The definition of Global Mean Surface Temperature does not depend on politics in any way.

There are plenty of scientific papers and books that speak of the climate of the Earth

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=climate+of+the+earth&btnG=

This one is from 1969, which is clearly before any politicisation of climate change

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/tellusa.v21i5.10109

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 19, 2021 12:39 pm

The surface of the Earth is an “area”.

Only if it was uniform throughout. Besides, you’re talking utter nonsense, trying to broaden a definition using inappropriate word meanings. That is the logical fallacy of false definition, or false analogy.

The definition of Global Mean Surface Temperature does not depend on politics in any way.

It’s a meaningless measurement, used only for the political purposes of the IPCC and their equivalents.

There are plenty of scientific papers and books that speak of the climate of the Earth

Right, just like there are plenty of books and papers on a flat Earth. There you go with another logical fallacy … argumentum ad populum.

As I said earlier, without all your logical failures, you’d have no arguments at all.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 1:00 pm

“the surface of the Earth is an “area”.Only if it was uniform throughout.”

rubbish, you are just making it up as you go along. The UK has a climate, it is obviously not uniform throughout.

“Right, just like there are plenty of books and papers on a flat Earth”

O.K. give me some references to papers on flat earth that are in peer reviewed scientific journals.

argumentum ad populum.”

actually the meanings of words does depend on their popular usage. If a group uses a word to mean a certain thing, that becomes a meaning of the word. The fact that scientists speak of planetary climate causes that to become an accepted usage (by everybody but you, apparently).

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 19, 2021 6:35 pm

rubbish, you are just making it up as you go along. The UK has a climate, it is obviously not uniform throughout.

The UK has numerous climates. That’s why it is not uniform throughout. Averaging discrete information becomes decreasingly useful the broader it’s done.

Peer review is not the gold standard of publication. It has nothing whatever to do with validity. You poor schmucks are “peer review” obsessed.

One of the signs that AGW is Left leaning and politically motivated is the gradual alteration of the language to suit a specific agenda.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 2:45 am

“The UK has numerous climates. That’s why it is not uniform throughout”

It is still reasonable to talk of the climate of the UK as a whole. It is an area or region. The definition of climate does not require anything to be uniform, you just made that up.

“Peer review is not the gold standard of publication. It has nothing whatever to do with validity.”

So to translate, no you can’t find a reference to a paper on flat Earth in the scientific literature, which means it is not the same as papers on ice ages, but you can’t admit you were wrong and have to double down some more.

Don Healy
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
March 16, 2021 2:31 pm

Apparently there is wide range of tectonic moment, but from the miminal research I did, I came up with a displacement of 23 miles in a million years. Even a tenfold increase wouldn’t amount to much of a change in climate due to this reason alone.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
March 16, 2021 1:18 pm

A couple of things.

Competing “oldest rocks” are also found in Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) on the Lebombo mountain range that runs south into KZN.

Carbon dating cannot be meaningfully used for something that old. What did they actually use?

There is an inherent assumption in the analysis that the Earth does not a) flip upside down occasionally, b) does not change its rotational pole position (partial flip), c) that continental plates do not move suddenly, only creep at observed rates.

Given that there are at least two ancient maps showing portions of Antarctica ice-free, we can assume that there were people around to observe that, make maps, and they were frozen in the ice for a long time. Why should Greenland be any different? Frozen, melted, frozen again.

Suppose, for internal reasons, the lithosphere rotated over the mantle 20 degrees. Where would that place Greenland? In a temperature zone. From the fragments recovered, they should be able to determine the tree species and its growing conditions.

It is a mistake to assume that everything was always as we now find it. The Earth has three “poles”: one for the the lithosphere which is thin, one for the bulk of the mantle below it, and one for the core. At present they are not fully aligned. Why? Because the lithosphere occasionally moves (for whatever reason) over the mantle and it takes a long time for the two to get their act together again. In the meantime the liquid core containing a solid core continues to moving on its inertia-guided way and axis.

There is no counter-balancing mass similar to that of the Greenland ice sheet on the other side of the North Pole. If Greenland shifts, it if creates stresses enough to lurch the lithosphere, it will head south. Note that the East Antarctic ice sheet (reputed to be increasing in mass) pulls in the same direct on the opposite side of the south (almost exactly). Perhaps it is the combination of centripetal accelerations that does the trick.

PS What happens with navigation satellites when this happens? Can they be readily re-programmed?

MarkW
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
March 16, 2021 9:26 pm

Since there is nothing that is capable of causing the Earth to flip upside down, it’s a fair assumption that it doesn’t do so. Do you have any idea how much energy would be needed to flip a gyroscope as big as the earth, over?

I’ve never heard of these so called ancient maps. Just how ancient are they supposed to be.
Who were these “ancient” people who managed to map the non-coastal regions of Antarctica, long before men even had ships capable of getting there?

What would cause the lithosphere to slip with regard to the mantle. Do you have even the foggiest notion of how much energy that would take? Nothing on the surface at the time would survive. The paleontological record does a pretty good job of showing where the land masses were at various times during the past. There is no indication in the geological records that these “slips” have ever occurred.

Where did you get this notion that the Earth has three poles. I assume you are talking about magnetic ones, since there is only one axis of rotation. The lithosphere and the mantle aren’t magnetic, so they can’t produce a magnetic pole.

There’s a lot more inertia in the mantle than there is in the core.

Compared to the weight of Greenland itself, much less the lithosphere as a whole, the weight of the Greenland ice sheets is several orders of magnitude below rounding error.
If the whole thing did melt, the Earth wouldn’t notice.

Ruleo
Reply to  MarkW
March 17, 2021 2:37 pm

>I’ve never heard of these so called ancient maps.

I wouldn’t say ‘ancient’ but…

Here’s Piri Reis.
comment image

There’s even human settlement found in the Americas 50kya:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

And sunken cities all around the globe. We’ve been here all before.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Ruleo
March 18, 2021 5:57 am

I think that is more likely to be Tierra del Fuego on the map than Antarctica. There is an ocean separating the two (more than 1,000km) that would show up on even a map as primitive as this one. The map was apparently made in 1513 and Cape Horn wasn’t discovered until 1616, so the lower part of the South Americas is likely to be speculative at best.

Monster
March 16, 2021 1:19 pm

Greenland has been in basically its current location and orientation since the middle Miocene, ~14Mya.

1Mya is nothing in terms of continental movement, some few kilometers, perhaps.

March 16, 2021 1:41 pm

So the world didn’t end when Greenland melted? How odd. The climateers tell us that unless we all wear green hairshirts the planet will be destroyed. Al Gore told us this! Also hyperbole inflation is going hyperbolic.

Gerard O'Dowd
March 16, 2021 9:18 pm

The Oldest crustal rocks must be older than 3.7-3.8 mya; you probably meant 3.7- 3.8 billion years ago (bya) or giga years ago

Alex
March 16, 2021 9:46 pm

Greenland ice has a hysteresis
It can melt very fast as it is an instability
It will take another ice age though to rebuild the ice shield.

Grant
March 16, 2021 10:27 pm

So it was much warmer 1 mya. Does anyone know why? I doubt it

Julian Flood
March 17, 2021 12:20 am

The contribution of our industrial civilisation to global warming is well known. The science is settled, humans are causing the climate catastrophe. So what caused the non-anthropogenic warming one million years ago?

It’s obvious. The great dinosaur civilisations with their over-exploitation of their fragile ecosystems had long since collapsed so it can’t have been them. There’s only one possible explanation, a highly concentrated exploitative society that was overwhelmed by its own over-exploitation of our fragile home.

It must have been Atlantis.

Please arrange for my research grants to be sent to the Canary Islands where we will set up our forward research base. The UK is cold at the moment.

JF
(Well, it’s as logical as the MSM explanations.)

Rog
March 17, 2021 10:19 am

As usual, very interesting…many thanks.

A small adjustment possibly required in paragraph starting ‘First, Greenland used …..’

I’m no geologist, but I think the oldest crustal rocks are billions of years old (byo) rather than millions of years old (myo).

DaveW
March 17, 2021 6:28 pm

Rud “Greenland also contains some of the oldest known exposed crustal rocks, dated to 3.7-3.8 mya.” Shouldn’t this be bya? Less than four million years ago is not very old and I’m pretty sure I was reading about early Cambrain fossils from Greenland not so long ago.

DaveW
Reply to  DaveW
March 17, 2021 6:29 pm

Cambrain/Cambrian, whatever.

%d bloggers like this: