The best kept secret in science!
Something is wrong with our recent history of Antarctica Science Frontiers
Deciding for ourselves if science is right or wrong is something we absolutely can do by using the common sense given to us at birth. That’s what it’s there for, to help us make good decisions, but our education attempts to remove it. There is a discernible but virtually insurmountable barrier put in our way that says ‘science is right whatever you may think’, an inferiority complex instilled by years of educational brainwashing. The problem as far as this page is concerned is that most of the million year dates given below are founded on the flimsiest evidence. Radiometric dating is a parody that relies on assumptions, of guessing the condition of rock millions or even billions of years ago. As if that were not enough, there have been reports by scientists themselves of late that speak of seasonal variations in the decay rate of isotopes. radecaysun The age of the Earth, the Moon and planets are in serious doubt, as is the constancy of time itself, if it even exists, let alone the age of rocks beneath our feet. If science is wrong it does not care that it’s wrong as long as it does not have to change the text books.
Fresh wood is found to have been growing in recent geological times in Arctic and Antarctic regions…
Although we are told that Antarctica has been Ice bound for 15 million years there has been found recent looking combustible and buoyant wood. Mr. Peter Web and co-workers have discovered that along 13000 KM of the Transantarctic Mountains there are shrubs and pollen and the remains of trees. They guess 🙂 that the wood is only 3 million years old and was found within 400 miles of the South Pole.
It has been argued that the mean temperature at the time of growth was -12 degrees C and that all earth temperatures were higher. A flurry of theory patching has erupted and explanations like meteor impact washing the wood inland and wind-blown pollen abound.
The mean temperature today is about –40C. A worldwide rise in today’s temperature sufficient to grow these plants/trees would mean a heat disaster in the tropics.
missouri.edu: “Fossil wood is abundant in Cretaceous and early Tertiary (60 million years ago) sediments of the northern Antarctic Peninsula region. Temperatures 7 to 8C”
antarcticsun.usap.gov: “The rocks Ashworth brought back from the same site in 1995 contained beetles, insects, molluscs and a fly that had never been found in Antarctica before. “
Arctic forests in the frost
The Earth’s northern-most landmass in Northern Greenland has a similar situation with the remains of forests, the stumps of trees still embedded and upright.
Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable
Date: July 5, 2007
Source: University of Copenhagen
Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and had a relatively mild climate. The research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland. The findings also show evidence of ice in Greenland during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago, which indicates that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will probably not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm
Professor Jane Francis of the University of Leeds is an intrepid explorer who has followed in Scott’s footsteps. She has spent 10 field seasons in Antarctica collecting fossil plants and received the Polar Medal from the Queen in 2002. “I still find the idea that Antarctica was once forested absolutely mind-boggling”, she told the BBC. “We take it for granted that Antarctica has always been a frozen wilderness, but the ice caps only appeared relatively recently in geological history.” One of her most amazing fossil discoveries to date was made in the Transantarctic Mountains, not far from where Scott made his own finds. She recalled: “We were high up on glaciated peaks when we found a sedimentary layer packed full of fragile leaves and twigs.”
These fossils proved to be remains of stunted bushes of beech. At only three to five million years old, they were some of the last plants to have lived on the continent before the deep freeze set in.
Tree rings in fossil wood , Jane Francis
Annual rings in fossil wood reveal Antarcticas subtropical past However, other fossils show that truly subtropical forests existed on Antarctica during even earlier times. This was during the “age of the dinosaurs” when much higher CO2 levels triggered a phase of extreme global warming.
“Go back 100 million years ago and Antarctica was covered in lush rainforests similar to those that exist in New Zealand today,” said Dr Vanessa Bowman who works with Francis at the University of Leeds. “We commonly find whole fossilised logs that must have come from really big trees.” Professor Francis has been polishing thin slices of these logs to reveal the “annual rings” in the wood. Studying these tree-rings sheds light on ancient climate.
The Darkest Secrets in Science
Possibly the weirdest and most baffling feature of the polar forests was their adaptation to the Antarctic “light regime”. Near the pole, night reigns all winter long while in the summer, the sun shines even at midnight.
Professor David Beerling of the University of Sheffield, and author of Emerald Planet, explained the challenge that Antarctic trees must have faced in this unusual environment: “During prolonged periods of warm winter darkness, trees consume their food store,” he said. And if this goes on for too long, they will eventually “starve”.
To understand how trees survived against the odds, Professor Beerling has been investigating the kinds of plants that once grew on Antarctica. These include trees like the Ginkgo, a living fossil. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12378934
It has been known for a long time that fossil flora from the late Paleozoic to the Tertiary is from warmer climes than expected from the current latitude and even the presumed paleolatitude of Antarctica according to the plate tectonics paradigm. Such discoveries include no widespread winter freezing in the early Cretaceous, 9 large tree rings that suggest a warm-temperate rain forest in the early Cretaceous to early Tertiary,10,11 supposed in situ, vertical trees with large rings and no frost rings in a warm polar Permian climate,12 dinosaur fossils in Antarctica3 and dwarf beech trees in the Transantarctic Mountains near 1,800m elevation at 85°S latitude from the late Pliocene, indicating a cool climate but still much warmer than today.13
The new report adds to the paradox in that it compares the trees from the late Permian with those from the following middle Triassic. What they found was that the rings show similar structure, implying similar growing conditions, over the supposed tens of millions of years. These trees were even similar to trees from the early Permian from Victoria Land, Antarctica. This result was surprising because the paleoclimate during the two periods is considered to have been very different. For instance, Antarctica as well as other Southern Hemisphere continents were supposed to be in the grip of a huge ice age in the early Permian, the last of four major pre-Pleistocene ice ages. http://creation.mobi/the-paradox-of-warm-climate-vegetation-in-antarctica
Satellite Helps Detect Massive Rivers Under Antarctica
British scientists have discovered rivers the size of the Thames in London flowing hundreds of miles under the Antarctica ice shelf by examining small changes in elevation, observed by ESA’s ERS2 satellite, in the surface of the oldest, thickest ice in the region, according to an article published in Nature this week. The finding, which came as a great surprise to the scientists, challenges the widely held assumption that sub glacial lakes evolved in isolated conditions for several millions of years and raises the possibility that large floods of water from deep within the ice’s interior may have generated huge floods that reached the ocean in the past and may do so again…….
You may/or may not remember that the Russians were threatening to drill a hole into sub glacial Lake Vostok in Antarctica hoping to find signs of ancient life. The Americans were against it on the grounds that they would contaminate it. Then someone noticed that there were rivers under the ice that connected the lakes. So, it would be fruitless drilling, as the water would be contaminated by other water sources on the surface.
Something is wrong with our recent history of climate
All roads lead to global warming:
I recall reading a file (now lost) by a nineteenth century scientist who worked out the amount of heat required to transport ice to the poles. He claimed that it would require an amount of heat equal to melting an equivalent weight of iron. As I know of no one who has refuted this claim, I can only assume that far from a drop in global temperature, it requires a large amount of heat to trigger an ice age. Where did the heat come from? It seems our mainstream science of climatology is in need of serious revision.
According to Wiki: The geological record appears to show that ice ages start when the continents are in positions which block or reduce the flow of warm water from the equator to the poles and thus allow ice sheets to form. The ice sheets increase Earth’s reflectivity and thus reduce the absorption of solar radiation. With less radiation absorbed the atmosphere cools; the cooling allows the ice sheets to grow, which further increases reflectivity in a positive feedback loop. The ice age continues until the reduction in weathering causes an increase in the greenhouse effect.
Discover Magazine Bad Astronomy
What caused the Little Ice Age?
By Phil Plait | February 1, 2012 7:00 am
I’ll note that the dreadful Daily Mail article I tore apart the other day spends a lot of its time linking the Sun to the Little Ice Age. I find it particularly noteworthy that this Colorado study — years in the making — was announced the same day that article came out. The contrast between careful scientific study and the befuddling assertions of a climate change denier shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the latter. And even then, the Colorado research was hardly needed to show the Daily Mail article was baloney; its own internal failings were apparent when it grossly twisted the results from the UK Met Office (the weather service for the UK).
Also, ironically, around the very same time I was posting my article, NASA released more news that the Sun cannot be responsible for global warming.
Here is what NASA had to say:
The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. “We don’t know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now,” said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. “It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth’s climate.”
Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun’s surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun’s output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.
Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in solar activity. (This is not what Phil Plait says) Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.
The phrase *Climate Change* is totally meaningless as the climate is always changing. It replaced Global Warming which was dropped in case it was found that the globe was not warming. See Climategate Global Warming replaced Global Cooling of the 1970’s.
1975 National Academy of Sciences report
There also was a Report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled, “Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action”.
The report stated (p. 36) that, “The average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880’s until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
It’s confusing and deliberately so, we are supposed to follow the scientific consensus that leads to perpetual jobs for climatologists. BTW: this has little or nothing to do with what is actually happening.