An article published in the generalist journal Science, outlines how the vast ice wasteland, of Greenland, was once literally green 400,000 years ago, and ice free. And one take was that the ice shelf melted without human industrial intervention and the production of the dreaded gas, carbon dioxide. However, the climate change alarmist team used the study to proclaim just how fragile the Greenland ice sheet is. But the melting took tens of thousands of years, due to natural climate change variations, all without high carbon dioxide levels, mainly, according to other studies, due primarily to solar variations and cycles.
It all shows that climate change is a very long-term phenomenon, while human civilisations are short term and have little if any impact upon the big scheme of things. Hence, once more we can conclude that mainstream climate change alarmism is a scam.
"According to a study recently published in the journal Science, and latched onto by USA Today, more than 400,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green. Yes, scientists say, the massive island was an ice-free landscape and was perhaps even covered with trees.
This is important to know, avers study co–lead author Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont, because it tells us that "Greenland's ice sheet is fragile." Bierman stated: "All by itself, during a warm period very similar to today, the ice sheet melted away 400,000 years ago. That was without fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere."
An ice sheet melted "all by itself"? Here is a "scientist" telling us that we must immediately change our lifestyles and bankrupt our economies to prevent something that occurred naturally and without human influence 400,000 years ago!
After Greenland's ice sheet turned to water, whined the climate alarmists, the sea level rose at least five feet.
This caused the fish-wrap factory USA Today to solemnly observe: "This means that the ice sheet on Greenland may be more sensitive to human-caused climate change than previously thought — and will be vulnerable to irreversible, rapid melting in the coming centuries."
Say what?! No, it means that the ice sheet on Greenland was provably sensitive to non-human-caused climate change (warming)...and that the melting is reversible...because that is exactly what occurred after the last melting, and why Greenland is more frozen than green today!
For some reason, the birdcage liner USA Today chose University of Pennsylvania meteorologist Michael Mann, who was not part of the study and whose "hockey stick" graph of global warming has been widely discredited, to review the "study." Mann obligingly expectorated: "We are coming perilously close to some potentially critical climate tipping points."
Bierman, however, told USA Today that the melting process is not instantaneous, noting that "it gives us a little time, not a lot." He added that it's going to take "hundreds to thousands" of years to greatly diminish the ice sheet, while simultaneously cautioning that this shouldn't be a source of comfort to us.
Thanks for pointing out that the melting process "is not instantaneous," Paul.
Most of us thought, "Poof, there go the ice sheets" in a matter of minutes. But hundreds to thousands of years is not a lot of time — and shouldn't be a source of comfort to us? Really? Why? I mean, noted climate expert Greta Thunberg gave us 12 years to save the planet...about four years ago. Al Gore and others have made similar remarks. Thousands of years sounds better to me.
And the study's authors aren't prioritizing information well. Is it truly wise to worry about Greenland's ice sheet being potentially greatly diminished in thousands of years in light of the fact that Russia and North Korea have threatened to use nuclear weapons? And that Iran may soon have one — or more — and may attempt to vaporize Israel? Or that global elites want to utilize the Great Reset to destroy the middle class around the world, rob them of ownership, freedom, and force them to eat bugs? Or that the percentage of people who identify as LGBT is exploding at the same time as birth rates in the Western world are plummeting? Or that many are concerned that artificial intelligence may make humans obsolete in the not so distant future? Shall I keep going?
On the other hand, given the rapid advances in certain technologies over the past 100 years (we have flying taxis above the streets of at least one American city right now), is it outlandish to believe we may be able to deal with a potential five-foot rise in sea level in a thousand years or more?
But back to Bierman, who asserted that the study "is a real warning sign to us that we're going to lose large parts of the ice sheet unless we decarbonize." Nope. It tells us that we may lose large parts of the ice sheet no matter what we do...or don't do.
Or not.
Bierman once more: "400,000 years ago there were no cities on the coast ... and now there are cities on the coast." Thanks for yet another piercing insight, Paul. You mean New York, San Diego, Vancouver, Miami, Honolulu, Oslo, and New Orleans weren't there almost half a million years ago? Who knew?
Thank heavens for "experts."
Of course, all the hand-wringing over melting ice could be for naught. Earth's repeated ice ages tend to follow a 100,000-year cycle, during which ice sheets grow for about 90,000 years and then retreat or collapse in about 10,000 years during warmer periods. The last ice age ended around 11,700 years ago, meaning it could get chilly again soon.
Because, you know, the Earth is capable of doing that "all by itself."