- #281
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,220
- 24
Looks like political meddling. The gen ed requirement is mostly nonsense anyway, the way it is currently set up.
Evo said:A better history during Viking occupation is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
And for a more detailed account of Greenland's warmer history, see here. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm
No one knows what lies beneath the kilometre-deep icecaps.
... Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free...cont'd
Raised beach ridges? On Greenland? what about sea levels?me said:raised beach ridges... some 6000-7000 years ago.
...
But something appears to be very awkward here. Anybody?
"The Norse in Greenland and late Holocene sea-level change"
Norse immigrants from Europe settled in southern Greenland in around AD 985 and managed to create a farming community during the Medieval Warm Period. The Norse vanished after approximately 500 years of existence in Greenland leaving no documentary evidence concerning why their culture foundered. The flooding of fertile grassland caused by late Holocene sea-level changes may be one of the factors that affected the Norse community. Holocene sea-level changes in Greenland are closely connected with the isostatic response of the Earth’s crust to the behaviour of the Greenlandic ice sheet.
An early Holocene regressive phase in south and west Greenland was reversed during the middle Holocene, and evidence is found for transgression and drowning of early-middle Holocene coast lines. This drowning started between 8 and 7ka BP in southern Greenland and continued during the Norse era to the present. An average late Holocene sea level rise in the order of 2–3 m/1000 years may be one of the factors that negatively affected the life of the Norse Greenlanders, and combined with other both socio-economic and environmental problems, such as increasing wind and sea ice expansion at the transition to the Little Ice Age, may eventually have led to the end of the Norse culture in Greenland.
kasse said:Since the thread about "What the bleep do we know?" was closed, I think it should be put an end to this discussion as well. No serious scientists doubt the fact that global warming is affected by humans.
kasse said:No serious scientists doubt the fact that global warming is affected by humans.
vanesch said:That's exactly the kind of groupthink that we want to avoid here. Of course your statement is correct: humans do have an effect on global climate. However, the question is: how much, and is it the principal factor, or a negligible correction to another phenomenon, or something in between ? I think we are still far from being able to be scientifically affirmative beyond doubt on these questions.
Bjørn Lomborg reports 400,000 more heat reported deaths, but 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths from global warming, IF it proceeds as predicted by the IPCC.Proton Soup said:also, we should question the premise that global warming would be bad. any sort of change is likely to have winners and losers, but overall, warmer might be better.
physics girl phd said:Based on our family grocery-visit today, I saw that the http://www.digital-almanac.com/digitalalmanac/2009/ may be predicting global cooling. A trustworthy source to be sure.
In a Geological Society of America abstract, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, presents data showing that the global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998 is now over and we have entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a controversial documentary film that argues against the existence and causes of global warming. It presents alternative theories and evidence that challenge the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.
The film was made by British television producer Martin Durkin and was first broadcasted on Channel 4 in the UK in 2007.
The film claims that the rise in global temperatures is not caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, but rather by natural factors such as solar activity. It also argues that the consequences of global warming have been exaggerated and that policies to reduce carbon emissions are unnecessary and harmful.
Many scientists and experts have criticized the film for being misleading and inaccurate. The film cherry-picks data and misrepresents the current state of scientific knowledge on climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports the existence of global warming and its link to human activities.
The film has been widely criticized for spreading misinformation and creating confusion about the reality of climate change. It has also been used by climate change deniers to discredit the scientific consensus and delay action on reducing carbon emissions. However, it has also sparked important debates and discussions about the role of media in shaping public perception of scientific issues.