JoNova has a great post up at her site on the subject of Greenland’s ice. Please check it out as it demonstrates some points crucial to understanding consensus in science is never the final verdict. Moreover, the consensus about melting ice raising the oceans to ridiculous levels is plainly wrong.
Read the whole post, but here are the two points that matter, as I see it.
First, there is this:
The Experts thought Greenland’s ice has been there for the whole Pleistoscene era, or the last 2.6 million years. It was just another useless consensus, stultifying science — feeding the myth that the climate was perfect until Big Coal screwed it up…
In 2016 some scientists figured out the bedrock under the GISP core was only 1.1 million years old, which was considered “controversial” since the ice was supposed to have been solid for 2.6 million years. In 2019 Bierman et al were shocked to find that Camp Century (in the far north) had melted totally around 416,000 years ago. (That frozen soil was first dug up in the 1960s, so it sat in a Danish freezer for fifty years.) Another ice core at DYE 3 contained the DNA of spruce trees. Obviously Greenland melts, we just don’t know why, when or how often.
And, then, there is this:
The important message here should be that natural climate change could smack us over the head, but we don’t understand the big forces at all. If Greenland’s ice-cap melts again, we need a few decades to prepare. So we need climate models that can actually predict things, not ones that suit politicians and strangle real research for decades.
If Greenland melted 416,000 years ago, why didn’t it melt during the other three warm spikes below? (Graph from the EPICA ice core in Antarctica).
What a great question! Consensus is meaningless. What we need is real science that can be evaluated through falsification and, instead, we’re speculation on which the Biden Administration thinks we need to spend $3 trillion per year for decades. We are governed by the worst decision-makers ever.
If one looks closely at the ice core temp/CO2 graph the CO2 lags and follows changes in temperature. (This is shown even more clearly on thin line graphs of multiple ice cores). In other words temperature is a driver of CO2 concentration.
I wonder why the vikings named it GREENland? ...and settled there, and it wasn't 416,000 years ago.
If one looks closely at the ice core temp/CO2 graph the CO2 lags and follows changes in temperature. (This is shown even more clearly on thin line graphs of multiple ice cores). In other words temperature is a driver of CO2 concentration.