My theory about global warming

And if all carbon dioxide was to disappear, all life would disappear, too. But that's what some people seem to think we're supposed to strive for.

And if all carbon dioxide was to disappear, all life would disappear, too. But that's what some people seem to think we're supposed to strive for.

To eliminate All carbon dioxide? Really? I have never heard that. Where did you hear that?

northerngrl #2.2 -

Can't say that anymore. They found a life form that can switch from carbon based to arsenic based...

Nofl, actually, it was purportedly from the use of phosphorous to arsenic. The carbon was still needed.

northerngirl

And if all carbon dioxide was to disappear, all life would disappear, too. But that's what some people seem to think we're supposed to strive for.

... and you should tell them that oxygen is flammable and that we'd incinerate the world if we replaced carbon dioxide with oxygen. Oh and that if our atmosphere has 19-21% oxygen that 23% is hazardous to our health. ... Oh, and that higher oxygen in the atmosphere, in theory, would allow insects to grow to larger sizes. Hillarious stuff...

How about we talk about a real greenhouse gas... like methane.

I've always felt that everything in life from the smallest particle to the largest mass all function properly because of balance. When something goes out of balance regardless of the size it comes apart, or changes to a new course or shape to correct balance. Depending on outside influence can determine the rate of time the object remains stable.

The orbit of the Earth is set up in such a way that these two forces are perfectly balanced, so the Earth neither falls into the Sun, nor does it break orbit and disappear into space.

I believe that over time with continued neglect of balance, the Earth will make adjustments to correct itself to bring back a proper balance to maintain it's orbit. We treat our Planet like it will last forever. That whatever we do to it because of it's mass it won't make a difference. Global warming is real, it will effect the balance of the Planet. Science proves everyday that there is a order of natural balance in nature. We focus so much on today's needs that it blinds many to what it is actually doing to our home. Look around, balance is what keeps everthing in order and working proper.

Northerngrl & Chirmly - recent developments...

On Thursday, the researchers issued a more modest claim. Instead of saying the microbes had completely substituted arsenic for phosphorus, a new statement says the arsenic replaced "a small percentage" of the phosphorus.

A number of biologists say they'll be surprised if even this stands the test of time.ddddd

Coral, drain the antifreeze from your car, drive it for awhile and see what happens. Oh, and look at the temperature guage.

And, we use oil distillates to power our cars. So, OMG, the Earth is running out of its power source and we're all gonna freeze to death. Alternately, the theory is really the product of way, way too much acid.

Coral, drain the antifreeze from your car, drive it for awhile and see what happens

If you drain the oil from your car it will over heat faster than if you drain the coolant whether it would be water or antifreeze. Both are needed to keep your engine from over heating, but make no mistake no lubricant will cause your engine to overheat.

the theory is really the product of way, way too much acid

Ahh you've been there haven't you?

I once bought a new VW "bug" and I never did put any anti-freeze in it, winter time or summer time.

Ha. Me either. : )

The oil in an engine reduces friction. Increased friction = increased heat. The oil underground has sequestered CO2 for millions of years. The combustion of this oil releases that CO2 which in turn increases temperatures due to the GHG effect. Your premise that oil underground absorbs heat isn't scientifically viable.

And, we use oil distillates to power our cars. So, OMG, the Earth is running out of its power source and we're all gonna freeze to death. Alternately, the theory is really the product of way, way too much acid.

Too funny. Best comment on this thread.

Sam C - I don't think this one is worth wasting time trying to explain science to.

Coral Atlas : The oil in an engine doesn't cool an engine period. Oil doesn't have a high specific heat meaning that it would not retard temperature increases of the engine. Think about it... we use oils for cooking... if it took forever to heat oil up, then nobody would be getting their McDonald's french fries till tomorrow.

Oil in an engine is to reduce friction which friction... produces heat. Whammoo... rub your hands together hard and fast... put some oil on your hands now and repeat. (A car's radiator is responsible for reducing engine temperature).

Oh... and before somebody says that oil is reducing the friction caused by the movement of tectonic plates... (because it seems all sorts of silly theories are coming out), the plates sit on a molten crust of ... well lava and/or lava like substance.

Oh... and it should also be noted that the oil in your car and crude oil from the ground are vastly... vastly different.

Actually Bubba. There have been a lot of changes (although not enough) since An Inconvenient Truth was made. And I don't know where you live. But this past summer we had record highs. We had more 100 and over 100 degree days than we have ever had. Record temperatures in the north and the north east or maybe you can't remember all the way back to the summer? Gores predictions were extreme climate changes. Summer and winter. Look again.

gill is right. Why, there was one town, Egg Harbor, WI, where the high temp one day was 600 degrees F according to NOAA! Now THAT's HOT! and I understand that there have been a LOT of these isolated really really hot spots! No wonder we're seeing record temps!

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced

Record highs and record lows do not equal global warming and that is the term Mr Gore used. It may equal climate change and that has been occurring since the beginning of time. Plant a tree. I'm against cap and trade. I hope that is another Obama promise that gets broken.

Record highs and record lows contribute to the record averages that are used to keep the balloon of AGW alive and in the air.

citrus crop in Florida

Trees are now growing in the Alps where is was to cold for them to grow years ago, GLOBAL extends beyond North American. Yes, climate changes do occur naturally, we're just giving mother nature a helping hand at speeding it up.

Trees are now growing in the Alps where is was to cold for them to grow years ago, GLOBAL extends beyond North American.

Max 3PO, not too many years ago it wasn’t, ……. wasn’t too cold for trees to be growing in the Alps.

Like 200+ BC when Hannibal marched his 50,000 troops and 40 elephants over the Alps to attack the Romans. Wasn’t too many glaciers there either or he would have never accomplished that feat. The glaciers and snowpack pretty much had to have been absent.

But don’t you be telling those Global Warmingists bout that cause they believe and/or really think it is warmer now days than it has been in the past 10,000 or so years.

The closest thing to a description of a glacier in writings preserved from antiquity is Polybius’ account of the crossing of the Alps by the Carthaginian general Hannibal in September 218 BC (Histories, III, 55). He wrote in Greek, some 70 years after the event, but he emphasized that his account was based on interviews with participants. He says of Hannibal’s descent on the eastern side “The new snow which had fallen on the top of the old snow remaining since the previous winter was itself yielding, both owing to its softness, being a fresh fall, and because it was not yet very deep, but when they had trodden through it and set foot on the congealed snow beneath it, they no longer sunk in it, but slid along it with both feet, as happens to those who walk on ground with a coat of mud on it.” This is the Loeb translation. The verb translated by “congealed”,sunestekuian, might be better rendered as “compacted”.

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2009/11/hannibals-brush-with-the-cryos.html

Jarandhel, the question all proponents of AGW should be asking themselves is:

Would it be possible today, year 2010 of the 21st Century, to march 40 war elephants ....... and 50,000 military troops carrying all their provisions ...... over top of the Alps in a repeat performance of Hannibal's feat of 218 BC?

A simple "Yes" or "No" answer would suffice.

SamC:

Actually, no, that question really isn't all that relevant. See, the thing about Global Warming, Anthropogenic or otherwise, is that it is *GLOBAL* in nature. The Alps could be seeing the coldest period they have ever experienced in the history of the planet, and as long as the average global temperature was rising we would still be experiencing global warming. One spot doesn't really tell us anything.

As to whether or not it would be possible today? Yes, it would be quite possible if we, today, considered the loss of 36 war elephants and more than 10,000 men acceptable on the march alone. We know it to be possible for the same reason Hannibal knew it to be possible:

"Suppose they are higher than the Pyrenees, they do not reach to the skies; and, since they do not, they can not be insurmountable. They are surmounted, in fact, every day; they are even inhabited and cultivated, and travelers continually pass over them to and fro. And what a single man can do, an army can do, for an army is only a large number of single men. In fact to a soldier, who has nothing to carry with him but the implements of war, no way can be too difficult to be surmounted by courage and energy."

http://www.hannibalthewarrior.com/Hannibal_at_the_Alps.asp

In case you missed it, the simple answer is:

Yes.

Jar-Jar is right - it's GLOBAL warming wherein the AGW people search diligently for places on the globe where it's warmer today than it was yesterday, and make a record of them. And if there isn't enough of an increase, they make up temperatures so that there IS. So if 98% of the world were COOLER, they'd find that 2% where it was warmer and note that so they could say that we have GLOBAL warming.

Nofluer:

Nope, it has nothing to do with it being "warmer today than it was yesterday". Temperatures over the globe are recorded day-in and day-out, sometimes they're higher and sometimes they're lower on a daily basis. All of these temperatures, high and low, are averaged for each location, and all locations are then averaged. That's what tells us the global average temperature. We've also done satellite measurements of both air temperature and the surface temperature of the oceans to confirm these observations. I know you guys hate hearing it, but the earth's average temperature is going up.

SamC:

Actually, no, that question really isn't all that relevant. See, the thing about Global Warming, Anthropogenic or otherwise, is that it is *GLOBAL* in nature. The Alps could be seeing the ......

Jarandhel, Greenland was experiencing the same warming as the Alps was, which made it possible for the Vikings to settle there around 1000 AD, farming the land and raising livestock.

And to sail on to Newfoundland, which they originally named Vineland, because that is where they picked the grapes they found growing there and probably made wine from them.

To wit:

Eric the Red was the first to venture into the distant waters when - having been banished from the island for a series murders - he sailed west from Iceland in 985 or 986 to an island he dubbed "Greenland". His son, Leif Ericsson, continued his father's explorations and in the year 1000 or 1001 sailed southwest from Greenland to the islands off the coast of northern Canada and finally to the shores of Newfoundland.

“They slept for the night, but in the morning Leif said to his sailors: 'We will now set about two things, in that the one day we gather grapes, and the other day cut vines and fell trees, so from thence will be a loading for my ship.' And that was the counsel taken, and it is said their longboat was filled with grapes. Now was a cargo cut down for the ship, and when the spring came they got ready and sailed away; and Leif gave the land a name after its qualities, and called it Vineland.” http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/vikings.htm

Jarandhel, was that warming Global enough for you or will you AGW'ers still be calling it "local weather events" in order to CYA?

http://www.grist.org/article/greenland-used-to-be-green/

http://www.grist.org/article/vineland-was-full-of-grapes

And just for good measure:

http://www.grist.org/article/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/

Sorry but the available data just doesn't back you up.

Also, the source you chose for your own account of a warm Vineland/Newfoundland contradicts the idea of significant warming in Greenland:

They sailed now into the open sea, and had a fair wind until they saw Greenland, and the mountains below the glaciers..."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/vikings.htm

Also, the source you chose for your own account of a warm Vineland/Newfoundland contradicts the idea of significant warming in Greenland:

(quoted text) "They sailed now into the open sea, and had a fair wind until they saw Greenland, and the mountains below the glaciers..."

Jarandhel, you really don't have a clue what you actually posted, do you?

Maybe it would help if you knew and understood the topography of Greenland, for one thing. To wit:

The total area of Greenland is 2,166,086 km2 (836,330 sq mi), of which the Greenland ice sheet covers 1,755,637 km2 (677,855 sq mi) (81%) The highest point on Greenland is Gunnbjørn Fjeld at 3,700 metres (12,139 ft). The majority of Greenland, however, is less than 1,500 metres (4,921 ft) in elevation.

All towns and settlements of Greenland are situated along the ice-free coast, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

Jarandhel, what that is saying is that 81% of present day Greenland is covered by an ice sheet ....... and that includes all the mountains.

So Jarandhel, there is no one alive today that has ever seen "the mountains below the glaciers" because they are all covered by that ice sheet. But the Vikings saw the mountains below the glaciers ........ which means they weren't there when the Vikings were there, DUH.

If you spent a little effort to educate yourself so that you understood what you were reading then you wouldn't look so foolish by posting something as silly as the above. Which by the way, is an "eye witness" proof that the Medevial Warm Period was warmer than it now is and which is also proof that claims of CO2 caused AGW are FUBAR.

Now that you have proven yourself wrong about AGW I will be curious to see how you react to doing said. Will you be sending yourself a raft of url references to re-prove yourself to be right again?

SamC:

I hardly need to send a "raft" of url references. You don't seem to have read the first ones, even your own.

You're right, 81% of present day Greenland is covered by an ice sheet. But we know that ice sheet to be roughly 110,000 years old. It formed in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene... not in the last 1,000 years. It certainly was there before the vikings settled there.

Secondly, I don't think you really understand the topography of Greenland. Once again, from your own source (Wikipedia):

About 81% of Greenland's surface is covered by the Greenland ice sheet. The weight of the ice has depressed the central land area into a basin shape, whose base lies more than 300 metres (984 ft) below the surrounding ocean.^[36]Elevations rise suddenly and steeply near the coast.^[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

And also, since you make such a point of Gunnbjørn Fjeld, perhaps you'd care to see where in Greenland it's located?

Gunnbjørn Fjeld (also called only Gunnbjørn) is Greenland's highest mountain and also the highest mountain north of the Arctic circle. It is located in the Watkins Rangeon the east coast, which contains several other summits above 3500 metres. It is a nunatak, a rocky peak protruding through glacial ice. Its height is often given as 3,700 metres (12,100 ft), although figures vary slightly.

And in case you think that's a vague description of what side of the island it's on, rather than meaning literally on the coast, please refer to the map here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnbj%C3%B8rn_Fjeld

Also, please note the following:

In the Icelandic Sagas, and thus by the Norsemen, the mountain was called Hvitserk, literally meaning "whiteshirt".^[1]

Which indicates it was just as glaciated then as it is now, despite being a mountain on the coast.

Finally, your "eye witness" account comes from a saga written in roughly the 13th century (1200-1300) that tells the heroic deeds of Lief Ericson, who was born in 970 and died in 1020. Two to three hundred years is quite a bit of separation to consider something to be the words of an "eye witness", much less proof.

Again, sorry but the available data just doesn't back you up.

You're right, 81% of present day Greenland is covered by an ice sheet. But we know that ice sheet to be roughly 110,000 years old. It formed in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene... not in the last 1,000 years. It certainly was there before the vikings settled there.

Jarandhel, I can believe part of that ice sheet was there before the vikings settled there.

DUH, have you forgotten so soon what you quoted in post #5.14, to wit:

They sailed now into the open sea, and had a fair wind until they saw Greenland, and the mountains below the glaciers..."

Desperate, aren't you?

First you cited the truth of that quote to prove me wrong, ....... and now you are trying to discredit the truth of your quote to CYA. To wit:

Two to three hundred years is quite a bit of separation to consider something to be the words of an "eye witness", much less proof.

Mercy me, ...... "How can I soar like an eagle when I have to fly with the --------"?

SamC:

I didn't cite the quote as true, I said that your own source contradicts your claim. There is a difference. You're the one positing the Grœnlendinga saga is a true, eyewitness account. I don't believe it is. But even that account of a warm Nova Scotia (assuming Vinland is Nova Scotia, which is by no means settled) does not say what you want it to, with regard to the climate of Greenland at the time. It does not describe a warm Greenland, free of glaciers. It specifically mentions the presence of glaciers and describes mountains "below" them. As they are today:

http://www.paulsquires.co.uk/xatlantic/gnland2.jpg

Almost 25 percent can't pass military exam

Nearly one-fourth of the students who try to join the military fail its entrance exam, painting a grim picture of an education system that produces graduates who can't answer basic math, science and reading questions.

http://www.dailymail.com/News/NationandWorld/201012211283

Yes, it is indeed a grim picture of American education. I don't understand it, myself... when I took the ASVAB after graduating high school in 1999, it really didn't seem all that hard to me. I thought the hardest part of the whole thing was the automotive questions, not the academic portions, at least not compared to the SATs or even the HSPTs. But judging from my recruiter's reaction when we got the results back, even then they weren't seeing many scores on the high end of the scale.

To relate it back to our discussion, I suppose that may be why we get so many people apparently unable to understand basic science these days. Like the fact that an ice sheet 3km thick as the Greenland ice sheet is at its thickest part, takes 10,000 years to grow in the most favorable conditions possible. The Greenland ice sheet is roughly 1.5km thick at its thinnest points along the edges. The idea that a significant amount of glacial formation happened in Greenland within just the last 1,000 years? Well, let's just say that math wouldn't score very high on the ASVAB.

(#5.20) To relate it back to our discussion, I suppose that may be why we get so many people apparently unable to understand basic science these days. Like the fact that an ice sheet 3km thick as the Greenland ice sheet is at its thickest part, takes 10,000 years to grow in the most favorable conditions possible. The Greenland ice sheet is roughly 1.5km thick at its thinnest points along the edges. The idea that a significant amount of glacial formation happened in Greenland within just the last 1,000 years? Well, let's just say that math wouldn't score very high on the ASVAB.

Jarandhel, the under 35 crowd NOT scoring high on a math test really doesn’t concern me that much because they are taught to use electronic calculators. The fact that they are NOT taught to “think n’ reason” is what is troubling to me. And the ones that are taught to “think” are primarily all “One Track Thinkers”, ……. aka: a one (1) track mind.

They are unable to recall and/or consider 5 to 8+ different criteria, parameters, prerequisites, variables, facts, etc., at any given time during a discussion or “think session” and thus are limited to considering no more than one (1) or two (2) of said at any given time. Thus, anytime there are 3 or 4+ critical variables that directly affect the resolution of a problem, etc., ….. then tuff shidt, …. two (2) is the max their mind will entertain. And if one attempts to interject a 3^rd variable they will either ignore it or claim that it is immaterial to the discussion, and that’s because their mind cannot “make the connection”. For them to consider a 3^rd variable they have to replace one (1) of the current two being considered with the 3^rd one. But that seldom ever happens and the 3^rd one can only be discussed if and when a “new” conversation is initiated.

Anyway Jarandhel, for a proponent of AGW to rationalize that it would be nigh onto impossible for 1.5 km of ice to form in Greenland following the Medieval Warm Period (AD 950–1250) is just plain silly. Especially given the fact that said proponents of AGW have been claiming that the current “heavy snowfalls” are the result of the current “global warming”. To wit:

As of Dec. 21, 2010, Tahoe's major resorts were boasting hefty snow packs ranging from 4 feet to more than 12 feet deep, not bad for the first day of winter. At the upper elevations, storm accumulations were very impressive, with most ski areas reporting between 4 to 7 feet of new snow. Mammoth Mountain in the Central Sierra was the winner in storm totals, picking up 162 inches (13.5 feet) of fresh snow at the ski area near 11,000 feet. Kirkwood Mountain Resort south of Lake Tahoe has tallied more than 300 inches (25 feet) of snow already this season.

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20101222/COMMUNITY/101229965/1066&ParentProfile=1051

So, Jarandhel, iffen Mammoth Mountain can get 13.5 feet of snow in just one (1) snowfall, how many similar or greater snowfalls and how many total feet of snow could have been dropped on Newfoundland and Greenland in the 800+ years following the Medieval Warm Period of “global warming”?

And yes, much greater in number and much greater in depth snowfalls during the 300+ years of the, to wit:

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Jarandhel, if there were 75 to 160 snowfalls of 4 to 24 feet every year for 300+ years, how would one tell from the ice cores how many years they had been accumulating? Is your math good enough to figure that out for me?

Cheers

SamC:

These are exactly the sorts of problems with science I'm talking about. "Much greater in number and much greater in depth snowfalls" during the 300+ years of the little ice age is something you take as a given? The colder air is, the less water vapor it can hold. The less water vapor it can hold, the less precipitation. Including snow. This is very basic earth science, something one generally learns before they're in high school.

You're also acting like there are only two variables yourself... the amount of snow each year, and the number of years since the medieval warm period. The actual equation is much more complicated, and takes into account both accumulation and ablation. In order to increase its mass, the ice sheet needs to receive more mass in the form of new snow in the winter than it loses in the form of meltwater in the summer. You also need to take into account compression... a glacier isn't just a whole lot of snow in a pile, the snow is compacted into solid ice. Gross accumulation just doesn't cut it.

And I'm sorry, but there's simply no math that's going to let you do half the work of 10,000 years of net accumulation in just the last 1,000 years. Especially when we've already dated three separate ice cores from Greenland. 933 AD (well before the end of the medieval warm period) corresponds to a depth of 429.24 meters in the DYE-3 core, 256.15 meters in the GRIP core, and 219.68 meters in the NGRIP core. That leaves well over a kilometer of highly-compressed ice, the lowest level of which dates back to roughly 9704 BC. See Table 4 here: http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/papers/pdfs/219.pdf

So, again, the idea that significant glacial formation happened in the last 1,000 years? Neither the data, nor the math, supports it. It's that simple.

(#5.22) SamC:

These are exactly the sorts of problems with science I'm talking about. "Much greater in number and much greater in depth snowfalls" during the 300+ years of the little ice age is something you take as a given?

Jarandhel, when there is historical proof of an event then it should be “taken as a given”. See quoted text at bottom of post.

(#5.22) The colder air is, the less water vapor it can hold. The less water vapor it can hold, the less precipitation. Including snow. This is very basic earth science, something one generally learns before they're in high school.

Jarandhel, I earned my AB in Physical & Biological Science in 1963, and with it a State of WV Teacher’s Certificate in Secondary Education. Thus a Certified High School Teacher of both subjects, so save your clueless patronizing for someone else.

(#5.22) You're also acting like there are only two variables yourself... the amount of snow each year, and the number of years since the medieval warm period. The actual equation is much more complicated, and takes into account both accumulation and ablation. In order to increase its mass, the ice sheet needs to receive more mass in the form of new snow in the winter than it loses in the form of meltwater in the summer. You also need to take into account compression... a glacier isn't just a whole lot of snow in a pile, the snow is compacted into solid ice. Gross accumulation just doesn't cut it.

Jarandhel, I have a semi-photographic memory with teriffic recall of associated criteria related to subject matters being discussed. Given said, I can probably cite you two (2) dozen +- variables associated with glacier formations.

(#5.22) And I'm sorry, but there's simply no math that's going to let you do half the work of 10,000 years of net accumulation in just the last 1,000 years. Especially when we've already dated three separate ice cores from Greenland. 933 AD (well before the end of the medieval warm period) corresponds to a depth of 429.24 meters in the DYE-3 core, 256.15 meters in the GRIP core, and 219.68 meters in the NGRIP core. That leaves well over a kilometer of highly-compressed ice, the lowest level of which dates back to roughly 9704 BC. See Table 4 here: http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/papers/pdfs/219.pdf

Jarandhel, that’s assuming you didn’t screw up on your dating, …. RIGHT. To wit, from your cited reference:

4.1. Uncertainties and bias evaluation for the annual layer counting

In the previous section it has been established that the uncertainties associated with core and measurement related issues are almost negligible. Therefore, possible misinterpretation of the ice core records is very likely to be the most significant contributor to uncertainties in the dating of the past 7.9 kyrs.

Ells bells, you can claim establishment of anything you want to, ….. but providing proof of your claim is a differen matter. Introducing “fudge factors” and CYA’s just don’t get it. And to quote you, “It's that simple”. Your dates are based on your ice layer counts and your layer counts are rooted in the established “start” of the Holocene Interglacial Period, 11,704 BP.

Now, Jarandhel, just how would you know if there were SEVERAL instances of a “massive melting” interdispersed within said 7.9 kyrs that ERASED tens or hundreds of ice layers that are used for said annual layer counting? You wouldn’t have a clue, would you, because all the evidence done washed into the Alantic Ocean.

And to make matters worse, Jarandhel, it has been determined that the Late Wisconsin Glacier covered Connecticut, Long Island Sound, and much of Long Island with up to a 3,300 feet thick sheet of ice up until 18,000 years ago when it stopped advancing. But the question is, how thick was the ice layer on Greenland at that time?

And when the Late Wisconsin Glacier started to quickly melt 15,000 years ago, which melted that 3,300 feet thick sheet of ice on Long Island, ….. how much of the thick sheet of ice on Greenland melted also?

I mean like, Jarandhel, just how many meters of your above noted 429.24 meters + 1 kilometer (4,688 feet) of the Greenland ice sheet is a reminent of the Wisconsin Glacier of 18,000 years ago? All of it, none of it, or just part of it? If you don’t know how can you be claiming the “lowest level dates back to roughly 9704 BC”?

Doesn’t it pretty much have to be …. MOST OF IT? And if so, you have no idea how old any of it is.

Or are you going to tell me there was no ice sheet on Greenland during the Wisconsin Glaciation because it only started forming about 11,704 years ago, AT OR NEAR THE END of the melting of the Late Wisconsin Glacier. The Wisconsin shrinking and the Greenland growing, DUH.

And just why would an AGW’er be admitting that Greenland’s glaciers only date back to 9704 BC when most all of you claim that the Holocene warming did not occur? Just ask Roxanne and her fans, they will tell you so.

(#5.22) So, again, the idea that significant glacial formation happened in the last 1,000 years? Neither the data, nor the math, supports it. It's that simple.

Here’s ya some support, Jarandhel, I exerted the following which was authored by one of your very own proponents of CO2 caused AGW, but you really should read the entire article, to wit:

Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea.

(snip)

During the LIA, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions.

Impact of Glaciers

During the post-MWP cooling of the climate, glaciers in many parts of Europe began to advance. Glaciers negatively influenced almost every aspect of life for those unfortunate enough to be living in their path. Glacial advances throughout Europe destroyed farmland and caused massive flooding. On many occasions bishops and priests were called to bless the fields and to pray that the ice stopped grinding forward (Bryson, 1977.) Various tax records show glaciers over the years destroying whole towns caught in their path. A few major advances, as noted by Ladurie (1971), appear below:

1595: Gietroz (Switzerland) glacier advances, dammed Dranse River, and caused flooding of Bagne with 70 deaths.
1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200's.
1670-80's: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen.
1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms.
1710-1735: A glacier in Norway was advancing at a rate of 100 m per year for 25 years.
1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum LIA positions.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

Jarandhel, when there is historical proof of an event then it should be “taken as a given”. See quoted text at bottom of post.

There is historical proof that the little ice age took place. There is no proof that during the little ice age snowfalls in Greenland were either more frequent nor greater in depth. The text you have quoted refers to increased storms along the Dutch and German coasts as cool polar air mixed with warmer southern air, and to glaciers advancing. But glaciers advance whenever more mass is accumulated than is lost to ablation. If precipitation remains constant, and temperature drops, then ablation due to melting decreases and glaciers advance.

Jarandhel, I earned my AB in Physical & Biological Science in 1963, and with it a State of WV Teacher’s Certificate in Secondary Education. Thus a Certified High School Teacher of both subjects, so save your clueless patronizing for someone else.

I hope you're teaching your students better science than what you've written here, then. Seriously, as an educator, you should know better. You know the scientific process, yet you still believe in global conspiracies of scientists to falsify climate data?

Regardless, your credentials do nothing to lend support to your argument. There are plenty of scientists and science teachers lining up to defend creationism as "science" as well. That doesn't make it so. You are also asking us, at the same time, to ignore the testimony from the thousands of scientists and scientific educators worldwide many of whom have qualifications which vastly exceed your own, and who have come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real.

Jarandhel, I have a semi-photographic memory with teriffic recall of associated criteria related to subject matters being discussed. Given said, I can probably cite you two (2) dozen +- variables associated with glacier formations.

Wonderful... then why did the question you posed me include only two variables (time and amount of snowfall) as if those variables by themselves were in any way significant to answering the question of how much glacial ice could accumulate since the end of the medieval warm period?

Jarandhel, that’s assuming you didn’t screw up on your dating, …. RIGHT. To wit, from your cited reference:

You should really keep reading rather than stop once you think you've found something you can use to discredit a conclusion you don't like. There are specific markers from volcanic eruptions within the past ~1900 years that allow us to directly estimate the accuracy of the dating method used. Within that period, the deviation between the number of ice layers separating the evidence of the eruptions from known calendar years for the eruptions is within one year. To whit:

Direct estimation of the counting bias is possible for thepast ∼1900 years where historically dated volcanic referencehorizons are observed in the ice core records. The periodbetween the A.D. 79 Vesuvius eruption and the A.D. 1362¨Oraefaj¨okull eruption has been chosen to evaluate possiblebiases in the dating technique. Both the A.D. 79 Vesuviuseruption and the A.D. 1362 ¨Oraefaj¨okull eruption have recently been identified in tephra from the GRIP ice core (C.Barbante, personal communication, 2005; V. A. Hall and J.R. Pilcher, personal communication, 2006). Using the DYE-3 and GRIP δ18O and ECM data a total of 1283 years arecounted in between A.D. 79 and A.D. 1362. This is only oneyear (or ∼0.1%) more than the 1282 years known from historical records. It is therefore reasonable to conclude thatthe bias associated with counting annual cycles in DYE-3and GRIP δ18O data is very small, and certainly within themaximum counting error of 0.25% for the period back to3845 b2k covered by both DYE-3 and GRIP δ18O data.

Going back further than that, the accuracy may decrease, but the accuracy for the period we are discussing is VERY well established.

Ells bells, you can claim establishment of anything you want to, ….. but providing proof of your claim is a differen matter. Introducing “fudge factors” and CYA’s just don’t get it. And to quote you, “It's that simple”. Your dates are based on your ice layer counts and your layer counts are rooted in the established “start” of the Holocene Interglacial Period, 11,704 BP.

See, this is another instance where you really don't seem to understand the science. The layer counts are not "rooted in the established start of the interglacial period". They start counting from the top layer, the present, and work backwards. Not the other way around.

Now, Jarandhel, just how would you know if there were SEVERAL instances of a “massive melting” interdispersed within said 7.9 kyrs that ERASED tens or hundreds of ice layers that are used for said annual layer counting? You wouldn’t have a clue, would you, because all the evidence done washed into the Alantic Ocean.

While that may possibly be true for some of the lower layers, how does it pertain to the last ~1900 years where we know that such annual layers have not been subject to massive melting and do in fact correspond to known calendar dates to within one year?

And to make matters worse, Jarandhel, it has been determined that the Late Wisconsin Glacier coveredConnecticut, Long Island Sound, and much of Long Island with up to a 3,300 feet thick sheet of ice up until 18,000 years ago when it stopped advancing. But the question is, how thick was the ice layer on Greenland at that time?

I fail to see how a question about the ice layer in Greenland circa ~18,000 years ago is in any way pertinent to a discussion of whether or not there was significantly less ice cover in Greenland in the era of Viking settlement, ~1000 years ago. We know, at the very least, ~1km of ice was already present there because only the last ~500m of ice formed since then. If there was in fact more ice already there, from the late Pliestocene, that would stand as evidence against an ice-free Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period. Not evidence for one.

And when the Late Wisconsin Glacier started to quickly melt 15,000 years ago, which melted that 3,300 feet thick sheet of ice on Long Island, ….. how much of the thick sheet of ice on Greenland melted also?

Again, irrelevant. We're talking about ice currently there which is known to have formed in the last ~1000 years, and ice currently there known to have predated it. We know that ~500m did form in the last ~1000 years, and ~1km predates that time. So at the time of the Vikings, Greenland was already covered in an ice sheet ~1km thick at the *very least*. More ice having been there in the past and having melted would not change that in any way.

I mean like, Jarandhel, just how many meters of your above noted 429.24 meters + 1 kilometer (4,688 feet) of the Greenland ice sheet is a reminent of the Wisconsin Glacier of 18,000 years ago? All of it, none of it, or just part of it? If you don’t know how can you be claiming the “lowest level dates back to roughly 9704 BC”?

Because that's what they've been dated to:

The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) depth-age scale is presented based on a multiparameter continuous count approach, to a depth of 2800 m, using a systematic combination of parameters that have never been used to this extent before. The ice at 2800 m is dated at 110,000 years B.P. with an estimated error ranging from 1 to 10% in the top 2500 m of the core and averaging 20% between 2500 and 2800 m. Parameters used to date the core include visual stratigraphy, oxygen isotopic ratios of the ice, electrical conductivity measurements, laser-light scattering from dust, volcanic signals, and major ion chemistry. GISP2 ages for major climatic events agree with independent ages based on varve chronologies, calibrated radiocarbon dates, and other techniques within the combined uncertainties. Good agreement also is obtained with Greenland Ice Core Project ice core dates and with the SPECMAP marine timescale after correlation through the δ¹⁸O of O₂. Although the core is deformed below 2800 m and the continuity of the record is unclear, we attempted to date this section of the core on the basis of the laser-light scattering of dust in the ice.

Does that answer your question as to how it's been dated? But again, what does any of this matter in trying to answer the actual question of how much ice was already there during the time of the Vikings?

Doesn’t it pretty much have to be …. MOST OF IT? And if so, you have no idea how old any of it is.

Sorry, no. Even if there was a question as to how much of the ice was left over from the Wisconsin Glacier, the answer would not have to be "most of it", nor would that mean that we have no idea how old any of it is. There are physical traces in the ice of specific geologic events such as volcanic eruptions that allow us to provide VERY precise dating for the last ~1900 years.

Or are you going to tell me there was no ice sheet on Greenland during the Wisconsin Glaciation because it only started forming about 11,704 years ago, AT OR NEAR THE END of the melting of the Late Wisconsin Glacier. The Wisconsin shrinking and the Greenland growing, DUH.

No, I'm going to tell you that it doesn't matter how much of an ice sheet was on Greenland during the Wisconsin Glaciation. It is not relevant in any way to the question of how much of Greenland's ice sheet formed in the last ~1000 years.

And just why would an AGW’er be admitting that Greenland’s glaciers only date back to 9704 BC when most all of you claim that the Holocene warming did not occur? Just ask Roxanne and her fans, they will tell you so.

I did not say that Greenland's glaciers only date back to 9704 BC, I said that the top 1.5k only date back to 9704BC. Of an ice sheet that is 2-3k deep throughout most of its area. As for the Holocene warming... a) I don't know who Roxanne is, and b) how does the presence of ice dating back to the very beginning of the Holocene confirm that the Holocene thermal optimum was in any way warmer than the present? For a more in-depth look at the so-caleld Holocene warm period, I suggest you look here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

Here’s ya some support, Jarandhel, I exerted the following which was authored by one of your very own proponents of CO2 caused AGW, but you really should read the entire article, to wit:

You do realize that nothing in that article... not one word... in any way contradicts that fact that only ~500m of the ~1.5km thick ice cap covering the area where the Vikings settled could possibly have formed in the time since they settled that region? As such, it does not provide one word of support for your position.

(#5.24) I hope you're teaching your students better science than what you've written here, then. Seriously, as an educator, you should know better. You know the scientific process, yet you still believe in global conspiracies of scientists to falsify climate data?

Jarandhel, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Science that I have presented to you for consideration. If you refuse to consider what I present then your learning/education has stagnated, and thus you will never be any smarter than your mentors permit you to be or want you to be.

And Jarandhel, it would be foolish of me not to believe that some people will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to insure their success in whatever venture in life that they chose to engage in. Been there, have seen many do it, many times. PJE (Proof of Job Existence) is a strong incintive to do said.

(#5.24) Regardless, your credentials do nothing to lend support to your argument. There are plenty of scientists and science teachers lining up to defend creationism as "science" as well. That doesn't make it so. …………………You are also asking us, at the same time, to ignore the testimony from the thousands of scientists and scientific educators worldwide many of whom have qualifications which vastly exceed your own, and who have come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real.

Jarandhel, me thinks your above paragraph is pretty much what I sometimes call “an oxymoronic statement”. To explain, here, let me mimic it right back at you …. but swapping 2 phrases, to wit:

“Regardless, your credentials do nothing to lend support to your argument. There are plenty of scientists and science teachers lining up to defend anthropogenic global warming as well. That doesn't make it so. …………………You are also asking us, at the same time, to ignore the testimony from the thousands of scientists and scientific educators worldwide many of whom have qualifications which vastly exceed your own, and who have come to the conclusion that creationism as "science" is real.”

Jarandhel, I see very little difference in the Religious (capital ‘R’) beliefs of Creationism and the religious (small ‘r’) beliefs of CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming.

They are like “two peas in a pod”, ……both are Faith based, …… not Science based.

To wit: You are what you were nurtured to be by your environment.

(#5.24) See, this is another instance where you really don't seem to understand the science. The layer counts are not "rooted in the established start of the interglacial period". They start counting from the top layer, the present, and work backwards. Not the other way around.

GIMME A BREAK, ….. Jarandhel, ……. you were the one that told me the “layer counts” were rooted therein, to wit:

(#5.22) Especially when we've already dated three separate ice cores from Greenland. ……………… That leaves well over a kilometer of highly-compressed ice, the lowest level of which dates back to roughly 9704 BC. See Table 4 here: http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/papers/pdfs/219.pdf

The “lowest level” is the root level … (unless you are thinking roots grow on top of trees and/or genealogies start with the babies in the family)… and 9704 BC (Before Common era) is equal to 11,704 BP (Before Present era) …….. and approximately 11,700 BP is the designated starting point for the Holocene Interglacial Period.

So YES, per your statement your layer counts are rooted in the established “start” of the HIP. What is it about what you attested to that you don’t understand?

And Jarandhel, if that remaining layer of ice, which is “well over a kilometer thick” and which it’s lowest level dates back to roughly 9704 BC, …… is really not the lowest level of the Greenland ice sheet …… then why did you tell me it was? Is there a lower lowest layer of ice that you neglected to tell me about, or what?

And Jarandhel, no matter how you try to “weazelword” it, if the lowest layer of said kilometer+ thick ice dates back to 9704 BC then that is all newly formed ice that formed after the “Big Melt” that preceeded the designated starting point for the Holocene Interglacial Period.

(#5.24) I fail to see how a question about the ice layer in Greenland circa ~18,000 years ago is in any way pertinent to a discussion of whether or not there was significantly less ice cover in Greenland in the era of Viking settlement, ~1000 years ago. We know, at the very least, ~1km of ice was already present there because only the last ~500m of ice formed since then. If there was in fact more ice already there, from the late Pliestocene, that would stand as evidence against an ice-free Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period. Not evidence for one.

Now Jarandhel, I don’t believe that I or anyone else has stated or implied that there was “an ice-free Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period”. Me thinks you are “talking” Medieval Warm Period and “thinking” Holocene Interglacial Period of warming, or vice versa. The MWP was a small burp of warming during the HIP of warming.

And, "NO", I do no believe there is any definite proof that "at the very least, ~1km of ice was already present" in Greenland following the "Big Melt" of the pre-Holocene Interglacial Period but it could have been there in the era of the Viking settlement, ~1000 years ago .... because it had 10,000 years to reform. DUH, if "~500m of ice formed in the 1000 years since then",, ........ then 1 kilometer +- of ice could have formed in the 10,000 years prior to that, ..... don'tja think?

But Jarandhel, I did address the potential for an ice-free Greenland at the onset of the Holocene Interglacial Period of warming. And that “potential”, Jarandhel, is pertinent to the discussion of whether or not there was significantly less ice cover in Greenland in the era of Viking settlement, ~1000 years ago.

And to explain why the ice layer in Greenland circa ~18,000 years ago is pertinent I will first quote a statement of yours, to wit:

(#5.22) These are exactly the sorts of problems with science I'm talking about. "Much greater in number and much greater in depth snowfalls" during the 300+ years of the little ice age is something you take as a given? The colder air is, the less water vapor it can hold. The less water vapor it can hold, the less precipitation. Including snow. This is very basic earth science, something one generally learns before they're in high school.

Jarandhel, pre-18,000 years ago the temperature was EXTREMELY cold causing the Late Wisconsin Glacier to form a 3,300 feet thick sheet of ice atop Long Island, via the high amount of water vapor in the air because of the open ocean to the south. But Greenland is 2,448 miles north of Long Island and the air was cold and dry. To wit:

Greenland glaciation

In Northwest Greenland, ice coverage attained a very early maximum in the last glacial period around 114,000. After this early maximum, the ice coverage was similar to today until the end of the last glacial period. Towards the end glaciers readvanced once more before retreating to their present extent. According to ice core data, the Greenland climate was dry during the last glacial period, precipitation reaching perhaps only 20% of today's value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

So Jarandhel, “the end of the last glacial period” was the time of the “Big Melt” of the 3,300 feet thick sheet of ice atop Long Island, the pre-Holocene Interglacial Period. But the question is, how thick was the Greenland ice sheet and how much of it melted during that “Big Melt”?

And my contention is that bunches of the Greenland ice sheet melted because of the extremely warm temperatures for several hundred years. Long enough for grapes to take root and grow in Newfoundland and for the Viking Sagas to make mention of the fact that, to wit:

They sailed now into the open sea, and had a fair wind until they saw Greenland, and the mountains below the glaciers..."

Cheers

Jarandhel, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Science that I have presented to you for consideration.

Well, apart from it not being science...

If you refuse to consider what I present then your learning/education has stagnated, and thus you will never be any smarter than your mentors permit you to be or want you to be.

I have considered it, and rejected it. Sorry, but not agreeing with you does not mean my learning has stagnated.

And Jarandhel, it would be foolish of me not to believe that some people will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to insure their success in whatever venture in life that they chose to engage in. Been there, have seen many do it, many times. PJE (Proof of Job Existence) is a strong incintive to do said.

Some people? Certainly. But we're talking the majority of scientists worldwide here. I'm sorry, but I need something a little stronger than "PJE" to buy a global conspiracy.

Jarandhel, me thinks your above paragraph is pretty much what I sometimes call “an oxymoronic statement”. To explain, here, let me mimic it right back at you …. but swapping 2 phrases, to wit:

I'm glad you've mastered the art of mimicry, but you don't seem to have mastered the art of analogy. My point, in case you missed it, was that the scientific consensus for global warming is just as great as the scientific consensus for evolution. The proponents of creationism and the deniers of anthropogenic global warming are each an extreme minority who generally do not have even close to the same average education and experience as those who embrace evolution or AGW respectively.

Jarandhel, I see very little difference in the Religious (capital ‘R’) beliefs of Creationism and the religious (small ‘r’) beliefs of CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming.

They are like “two peas in a pod”, ……both are Faith based, …… not Science based.

I hate to break it to you, but I've been explaining the science behind global warming. It's neither my fault, nor the fault of anyone else who understands the reality of anthropogenic global warming, that you cannot understand it. Any more than it is your fault, or the fault of anyone else who understands the reality of evolution, that creationists cannot understand it.

To wit: You are what you were nurtured to be by your environment.

If that were the case, I'd be both straight and Catholic. I'm neither. Try again.

GIMME A BREAK, ….. Jarandhel, ……. you were the one that told me the “layer counts” were rooted therein, to wit:

The “lowest level” is the root level … (unless you are thinking roots grow on top of trees and/or genealogies start with the babies in the family)… and 9704 BC (Before Common era) is equal to 11,704 BP (Before Present era) …….. and approximately 11,700 BP is the designated starting point for the Holocene Interglacial Period.

So YES, per your statement your layer counts are rooted in the established “start” of the HIP. What is it about what you attested to that you don’t understand?

Sorry, no. The bottom layer is not considered the "root level" for the purpose of a layer count. The root of a count, the place where the COUNT begins, is the first layer that is counted. That is the top layer. Then they count down. None of the count is in any way dependent upon what the established start of the HIP was.

And Jarandhel, if that remaining layer of ice, which is “well over a kilometer thick” and which it’s lowest leveldates back to roughly 9704 BC, …… is really not the lowest level of the Greenland ice sheet …… then why did you tell me it was? Is there a lower lowest layer of ice that you neglected to tell me about, or what?

You do understand that the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet varies, don't you? Near the ocean, at its thinnest point, the ice sheet is ~1.5km thick. That's about how deep they drilled for these cores. Further in, it thickens to ~2km thick, then to roughly ~2.5km thick, and at the very center of the ice sheet it thickens still further to ~3km thick. I linked to a wikipedia page earlier that contains a map of these thicknesses, if you're confused.

And Jarandhel, no matter how you try to “weazelword” it, if the lowest layer of said kilometer+ thick ice dates back to 9704 BC then that is all newly formed ice that formed after the “Big Melt” that preceeded the designated starting point for the Holocene Interglacial Period.

And? Even supposing for a moment that is true (and my sources place the Holocene Thermal Maximum between ~7000 years ago and ~5000 years ago, not prior to the Holocene itself, which means the lowest layers of even the thinnest parts of the ice cap in Greenland date to at ~5,000 years before that) what significance do you believe that has to a discussion of whether or not the climate in Greenland was significantly warmer and ice-free when the Vikings settled it?

You seem to be trying a scattershot approach to debate... throwing out as many points as you can, that you think you can "win" on, without regard to whether or not those points actually support your position in any way or are even relevant to the debate we're having. I really don't care what debate you've been having on this subject with "Roxanne and her fans", whoever she is. If you want to continue that debate, I suggest you seek her out.

Now Jarandhel, I don’t believe that I or anyone else has stated or implied that there was “an ice-free Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period”. ]

Actually, you specifically did: "So Jarandhel, there is no one alive today that has ever seen "the mountains below the glaciers" because they are all covered by that ice sheet. But the Vikings saw the mountains below the glaciers ........ which means they weren't there when the Vikings were there, DUH."

So much for that semi-photographic memory...

Me thinks you are “talking” Medieval Warm Period and “thinking” Holocene Interglacial Period of warming, or vice versa. The MWP was a small burp of warming during the HIP of warming.

No, I'm not. I'm talking Medieval Warm Period and thinking Medieval Warm Period. You're the one bringing up the Holocene.

And, "NO", I do no believe there is any definite proof that "at the very least, ~1km of ice was already present" in Greenland following the "Big Melt" of the pre-Holocene Interglacial Period but it could have been there in the era of the Viking settlement, ~1000 years ago .... because it had 10,000 years to reform. DUH, if "~500m of ice formed in the 1000 years since then",, ........ then 1 kilometer +- of ice could have formed in the 10,000 years prior to that, ..... don'tja think?

Yes, I do think. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along: 1km of ice was already present in Greenland before the era of Viking settlement. Only 500m formed since then. That's been my entire point.

But Jarandhel, I did address the potential for an ice-free Greenland at the onset of the Holocene Interglacial Period of warming. And that “potential”, Jarandhel, is pertinent to the discussion of whether or not there was significantly less ice cover in Greenland in the era of Viking settlement, ~1000 years ago.

No, it's not. The amount of ice cover we know to have been in Greenland ~1000 years ago is relevant to that discussion, not whether or not Greenland was ice-free in 10,000BC. And we know that ~1000 years ago, ~1km of ice was already present in Greenland at the very thinnest parts of the ice sheet we currently observe.

So Jarandhel, “the end of the last glacial period” was the time of the “Big Melt” of the 3,300 feet thick sheet of ice atop Long Island, the pre-Holocene Interglacial Period. But the question is, how thick was the Greenland ice sheet and how much of it melted during that “Big Melt”?

And my contention is that bunches of the Greenland ice sheet melted because of the extremely warm temperatures for several hundred years. Long enough for grapes to take root and grow in Newfoundland and for the Viking Sagas to make mention of the fact that, to wit:

And you accuse me of mixing up the Holocene Interglacial Period with the Medieval Warm Period? The Holocene melting you're talking about predates the Viking era by ~11,000 years. The question of how much ice melted at that time is in no way relevant to the question of how much ice there was in Greenland at the time of the Medieval Warm Period, because we already know how much ice from the current ice sheet formed since the Medieval Warm Period and how much total ice there is in the current ice sheet. At the very thinnest parts, the Greenland ice sheet is ~1.5km thick. At the most, ~500m formed since the era of Viking Settlement. That means ~1km was there, at its thinnest parts, before the vikings ever settled it. More than enough to cover the mountains, just as it does today. It even says it right in the quote you're using:

They sailed now into the open sea, and had a fair wind until they saw Greenland, and the mountains below the glaciers..."

Seriously, think about that quote. Glaciers are essentially rivers of ice. Their flow is driven by gravity. They will always seek out the lowest points, like water... they flow downhill, into valleys. That's why glaciers are known for eroding normal v-shaped valleys into wide u-shaped ones. A glacier would never be above a mountain, nor a mountain below a glacier, unless they were describing mountains covered by glaciers the way the mountains in Greenland are even today: http://www.paulsquires.co.uk/xatlantic/gnland2.jpg

Your theory also suffers, of course, from the simple fact that no evidence supports it. The quote you're using, which doesn't even say what you want it to with regard to Greenland, and the quotes about Newfoundland having grapes both come from a source written between two and three hundred years after the events described in it. It is not an "eye witness account". And even if it were, it specifically does not name Newfoundland as Vinland. In fact, no evidence has been found that there were ever grapes growing as far north as Newfoundland. The evidence we do have places wild vines south of the St. Lawrence estuary, in the same region explored by Jacques Cartier in the 1500s.

[(SamC) "Now Jarandhel, I don’t believe that I or anyone else has stated or implied that there was “an ice-free Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period”. ]

Actually, you specifically did: "So Jarandhel, there is no one alive today that has ever seen "the mountains below the glaciers" because they are all covered by that ice sheet. But the Vikings saw the mountains below the glaciers ........ which means they weren't there when the Vikings were there, DUH."

So much for that semi-photographic memory...

Jarandhel, what ..... "weren't there when the Vikings were there, DUH."

Was it those glaciers atop the mountains of your ice free Greenland, maybe?

You have really "lost it", haven't you?

And by the way, should I be addressing you as Miss, Ms or Mrs. Jarandhel?

(#5.28) Some people? Certainly. But we're talking the majority of scientists worldwide here. I'm sorry, but I need something a little stronger than "PJE" to buy a global conspiracy.

Me thinks you have already bought into a “global conspiracy” if you truly believe that about “the majority of scientists worldwide”. And the following confirms my thinking, to wit:

(#5.28) My point, in case you missed it, was that the scientific consensus for global warming is just as great as the scientific consensus for evolution.

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste” ….. and one shouldn’t be wasting theirs by believing everything the lefty liberal media floods the printed copy and air waves with as being “the literal truth”.

(#5.28) The proponents of creationism and the deniers of anthropogenic global warming are each an extreme minority who generally do not have even close to the same average education and experience as those who embrace evolution or AGW respectively.

“Proponents of creationism are an extreme minority”!!!! … “DUH”, …. only in your wildest of dreams, maybe. Or maybe you just didn’t know that the Muslim or Islamic Religion is also the Religion of Abraham, as interpreted by Mohammed. And you are being critical of those with only an average education. MERCY ME!

Creationism and anthropogenic global warming are beliefs, ….. beliefs that are not based entirely in/on facts, evidence or accepted Scientific Laws, practices and procedures. Beliefs in mythical entities have nothing to do with the quality or quantity of one’s formal education. And neither does the number of Degrees, Diplomas or Certificates that one has accredited to their person guarantee the quality or quantity of their formal education.

(#5.28) (SamC)….. ice that formed after the “Big Melt” that preceded the designated starting point for the Holocene Interglacial Period.

And? Even supposing for a moment that is true (and my sources place the Holocene Thermal Maximum between ~7000 years ago and ~5000 years ago, not prior to the Holocene itself,

Maybe your source does, but if you had “clicked on” this hyper-link statement in the above or in this one, to wit:

(#4.23) And when the Late Wisconsin Glacier started to quickly melt 15,000 years ago, which melted that 3,300 feet thick sheet of ice on Long Island,

You would/will have seen a graph of Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise which began at 20K BP and really got in high gear between 15K and 9K BP. And a little birdie dun told me that when sea levels are rising that damn fast then it musta been pretty damn warm to cause that “Big Melt”. But you probably won’t believe that just because I pointed it out to you.

(#5.28) (SamC) To wit: You are what you were nurtured to be by your environment.

If that were the case, I'd be both straight and Catholic. I'm neither. Try again.

That was a hyper-link in Post #5.25 which you should have “clicked on” and read before you posted what I consider a silly response. Try again ..... after you read that link.

Cheers

Knowing the extent of our ignorance is knowledge.

Claiming our ignorance is knowledge is religion.

It's (oil) not found in between tectonic plates ........

Californiaians should be thankin gawd for that.

After one little quake they would be paying taxes in Alaska.

Jarenhel - Oil is used to reduce friction, but it is also used as a coolant. Also remember that oil has more that one application. Consider electrical transformers on the telephone polls. They are filled with oil. It is used in this application as an insulator, as well as a coolant.

gilanator:

In that application, it works by conducting the heat away from the wires. Where, exactly, would oil in pockets inside the earth conduct heat from? It would absorb it from the surrounding earth, then radiate it back out into the same surrounding earth. I'm sorry but there is just no mechanism that would allow oil inside the earth to act as a coolant. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could suggest what it might be?

Jarandhel - I know that the oil acts as an insulator, therefore it is non-conductive. The only way that transformer oil is conductive is if there are particles in the oil. The oil is cools by dissipation. If the oil becomes contaminated and conducts the result is the transformer will blowout.

I have no idea about how this theory would or would not work. I never have attempted to validate or disprove it. I have simply offered corrections where they were needed. eg. cars do not overheat without oil, they merely are used to lubricate the parts.

gilanator:

The oil acts as an *electrical* insulator. That's very different from acting as a *thermal* insulator. Oil conducts heat quite readily. Anyone who's ever used a deep fryer can attest to that fact.

I Love Red Wine!!!

The genetically modified human brain/AI direct link symbiosis will take a giant step to the next level.

Ummmm I'm assuming that you mean the next level DOWN? But then maybe you don't know that ONE human brain has more computing power than ALL of the computers on earth? Apparently not since you seem to think that hooking your brain up to a computer will IMPROVE it and make you MORE intelligent - somehow. Ummmm well.... given the above post, given YOUR brain, you may be correct! Far be it from me to argue with your assumption!

But this apparent dependence on GMOs... you've been eating too much Monsanto "food".