Then, you walked onto the sidewalk, and asked a young teenager, 'we can see each other, because in the long run, we are practically the same age' [just joking]
@@reuireuiop0 😅 Well, it's doubtful, as I am rather too close to sea level. 10K years presumes that icecaps have returned AND, if they do, archeologists aren't too busy with all the really interesting stuff y'all have left behind. 😉🍻
No, they weren't ignored. What is ignored, I would say, is the fact that there is a limit to the number of Acts--Scientific or otherwise--that you can put on the stage all at once and have them all partake of conscious acceptance.
I have an MA in Geography, and I have never had the notion that the Greenland Ice Cap didn't periodically disappear. The sea level and climate proxy data indicate that such a biome would be on Greenland during the warm periods.
I think that is the data shown at 2:18. The ice cores were collected between ‘71 and ‘78. Its not just this sort of data that is collected at one date and made sense of decades later. I was looking at an Irving Finkel (Curator, British Museum) video about how part of a clay tablet was reassembled decades after it had been put in the museum. They just didn’t have the resources to do the analysis when the material first came in.
Contrary to popular belief, not all of Greenland is ice. There's even a forrest in the Qinngua Valley. Most of it ice to be sure, but the south is a little less harsh. There are even farms.
This just in: Apart from the serious research he invests in these video presentations, and the clear-eyed, level-headed narration of the eminently trustworthy details, Anton has been positively identified as the most endearing and lovable CZcamsr of the entire Anthropocene.
" eminently trustworthy details" like his 27mm/y of seal level rise? I'm sure you will repeating that to everyone you know now along with your BS about the "Anthropocene". The vid is interesting but Anton knows nothing about climate and goofs up every time he tries mentioning the subject.
@@tuberroot1112 I thought he said, "contributes", as in 'it would result in that level of sea rise if other factors didn't negate it.' I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
We were recently in Nuuk Greenland and visited a museum of local culture, including the Inuit cultures. Even their museum, clearly showed major temperature changes over even some of the last 3000 years, with receding ice and warming leading to more habitable conditions along the coast.
Sadly some of his "information" is total BS. Ocean levels have NOT been rising by 27mm/y, so clearly Greenland cannot be contributing 27mm/y . He clearly knows nothing about this subjet and does not take care to correctly tell us what he read.
Greenland had a settled community and bishops From 1124 until 1378, when it was impossible to maintain because of increasing cold. It had been warmer then than today. Hoping that it might again become habitable, there were titular bishops until 1500.
During this time they had also wine in Scandinavia, which is only recently possible. The little ice age from 1450-1850 had not a lower temperature of max 0.6 K or C, but rather a lower temperature of max 2-3 K or C. Because the 0.6 K or C would not cause the end of the Greenland community and neither the end of vines cultivation in Scandinavia. The problem is that they fudge the data to present the Medieval Warm Periode as much lower than our current times and they do the same with the 1930s-40s warm years and call it data adjustment. Therefore always search for the raw data concerning the temperature.
I like Anton's subtle way of conveying an appropriate sense of wonder at the possible implications of the discoveries, without departing from his always precise, understated narrative style.
That's pretty cool, I had an oceanography teacher in college (~15 years ago) talk about shifting oceanic currents and how we had ice cores from greenland showing it used to be much warmer, as well as antarctica, I suppose these were the cores they were talking about. They were spitballing that oceanic currents are responsible for for the building and subsequent melting of ice sheets, as fresh water and salt water levels change in the ocean it also changes how heat is distributed around the planet. Basically the ice melts and causes a massive influx of fresh water, which causes colder salty water to sink which increases surface temperatures, then the fresh water is shut off which causes the colder salt water to mix with the upper layers of the ocean causing the planet to cool down and reform the ice sheets. Of course none of this was put on a test, or taught to us as fact, they were just very enthusiastic and trying to get us to look at the ocean as part of the bigger picture. They also talked about how our current continental layout is possibly why we have ice ages, as the collisions of North and South America, as well as Europe and Africa dramatically changed the flow of ocean currents. They were one of my favorite teachers lol.
I was around in the 1960s when plate techtonics waz still being questioned. Our geography teacher was a very enthusiastic proponent. I never knew till recently that it wasnt accepted as fact at that time. Africa is still moving north into Europe. India is also moving north into Asia. Hence the Hymalayas.
Anton, scientists have known since the mid-1980s that the high arctic used to be ice free and supported abundant life. A forest of tall trees flourished on Canada's Axel Heiberg Island over 40 million years ago during the Eocene epoch. The trees reached up to 35 m (115 ft) in height, and some may have grown for 500 to 1,000 years. At the time, the polar climate was warm, but the winters were still continuously dark for three months.
Yeah I heard in cretaceous paleocene eocene it was much warmer on earth in general with forests and crocodiles near the arctic and such, but I don't remember how much warmer it must have been to be like that
@@steventhompson399 the average was 8-12°C warmer than the 1961-1990 average. 40 Ma about the same as it was the last heatwave of the Eoscene. The Eoscene started out as hot as 12-15°C hotter
There are cities with airports on Greenland. It can become MORE habitable, but it's already habitable given that people live there. Antarctica remains the least populated place on earth.
Anyone who read Roman history has heard the stories that the cooling is what led to the fall of the empire with the cooling weather causing the migration of tribes from increasingly inhospitable areas.
A few decades ago tree trunks emerged from ice high above the present-day timberline in the Alps. Radiocarbon dating showed them to be around 2,000 years old. When Hannibal attacked Rome from the north with his elephants by crossing the Alps, his armies did not need to contend with snowfields.
And all this took place without cars, planes and factories. Does that mean that we live on a planet that has natural temperature fluctuations not caused by humans? I'm shocked! 😱 😂😂
@@mpetersen6tectonic/volcanic/geological activity, changes in currents, atmospheric events, etc. A lot of the processes that dictate our climate are sensitive to perturbation, which has occurred frequently (every few centuries) since the dawn of time. Do not trust anyone who pretends they’re a new phenomenon and peddles hysteria.
But it's not on its own continental plate. It's the same as the British Isles being part of the Eurasian continental plate - it's just an offshore island.
I was on Greenland over a decade ago, and on the way up to the ice cap, the visible evidence of massive ice loss was impossible to not see. The lateral moraines were relatively fresh, but towered over what was left of the glacier in the coming down off the slope. There was series of small end moraines all the way up to the glacier's face. The maps of the fjords showed how the glaciers have been in retreat for many decades. We met some Canadian geologists trying to identify minable mineral deposits, and although they didn't want to say the phrase climate change, they were adamant is saying that the whole arctic was rapidly changing, _for some reason._ Back nearer home, all along the Norwegian-Swedish border, the alpine biomes are changing just as radically. The tree line has ascended tens of meters, new animal and plant species are invading, unseasonable springtime warm spells are messing up plant blooming, and thus faunal food chains. Photos taking over 100 years ago to show the alpine nature, have had modern photographers return to the same spots and take new photos. What before was tundra is now often scrub meadow. And what was meadow now a young forest.
I would think that during certain periods of the Milankovitch cycle, it would be possible for Greenland to be ice free. If the tilt away from the solar plane of Earths rotation was high, and the precession and eccentricity brought the Northern hemisphere Winter during a period where Earth was closer to the Sun, then it could be possible for the climate of Greenland to be mild enough that ice would not accumulate. During this time, however, it would be likely that conditions in Antarctica would be significantly colder, leading to much more sea ice there, so the effects of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would be largely offset. If this were the case though, it would imply an ice free, or at least partially ice free Greenland much more frequently and more recently than currently accepted, given (current) the major period of the Milankovitch cycle of 100k years, though you d need to do some calculations to determine the period of conditions favorable to low/no ice on Greenland. Given that it requires the confluence of various factors with different frequencies, this occurrence may be seemingly irregular and could be absent for extended periods. Just as the Arctic used to be ice free and support much more plant life than it currently does, so too Antarctica used to be ice free, even to the extent of supporting rainforest type habitats. The current Ice Age we find ourselves in is not how things have always been, it's not necessarily how the Earth "should" be, and why some people seem to think that the climate of the mid 18th century (the end of the Little Ice Age) is some supposed ideal to aim for is bizarre to me.
Tectonic upthrust absorbs atmospheric CO2 so well that atm CO2 reduction over time is a tectonic readout, though one has to consider the carboniferous (Life) as well. AI will quantify all effects, er, soon.
THANK YOU!!! The new green deal crowd ignores the fact that we are recovering from an ice age and that the Earth has been much warmer than it is now. With out checking any data I’m going to make a supposition…. The average temperature of the Earth over time is much warmer than now. Of course this average temperature is dependent on how far back in time I go. Thus allowing me to skew the average temperature anyway I want. Hmmmmm.. that approach should sound familiar to the new green deal folks.
@@donaldcarey114 Also wind patterns and currents have certainly changed over time as well. When you consider that without the Gulf Stream Scotland and most of the UK would be ice covered….I submit an ice free Antarctica is possible without needing to drift too far..if at all. Although the 2,000 miles would help a lot.
That you for a well researched presentation on the possible History of Green Land and what existed on the soil surfaces where all of these deep holes were drilled through the very thick Ice cover on this Island.
Much is a bit of an overstatement. It was warm enough to grow grass or bushes, not enough to grow trees :-) And, of course, Jared Diamond is reporting other people’s results.
on July 15 1942, two American WW2 B-17 bomber planes and six P-38 fighters made an emergency landing on the Greenland glacier. They were found and partially recovered in 1992 under 300 to 350 feet of ice. That's an average ice build-up of over 6 feet per year. Those lines in the ice cores are from individual storms, not annual deposits.
If there's only one storm *per year,* that literally makes it *annual.* Annual = yearly. That's where "anniversary" got its name, and its counted in years.
@@WaterShowsProd I mean think about it: do you really get 6 feet of snow per storm and they all stay 6 feet over time, or do they melt and/or compress and end up into a 6 feet of layer on average a year?
@@Gelatinocyte2 The original post said it was 6 feet per year. It was you who suggested only one storm per year which would mean that annual storm would dump 6 feet of ice. The original post was saying that the stratification is formed by multiple individual storms within a year, totalling 6 feet by the end of one year.
So Greenland was warmer many times in the past…and climate significantly changed (in the northern hemisphere), over the last 100,000 years How catastrophic, or not.
According to the graphic shown, the oldest ice would not be at the center of the sheet, but at the extreme edges. As the center presses down, the oldest ice is pressed outward before eventually calving into the ocean. *In case no one noticed, these records which show extreme climate fluctuations date back to before humans had invented internal combustion engines, factories, plastic, or even bronze. This is the planet as it is: ever changing.
The climate is ever changing No s### shurlock. However I know for a fact Climatologists are UNDER estimating the effects of human CO2 to our current climate. During a period we should be COOLING DOWN. And thats just one element.
Anton kept referring to ice cores and showing images of ice cores, which is a bit misleading. The plant and insect material is actually in sediment (soil) at the bottom of the ice cores. To be fair, Anton did mention "till" at least twice - that is a term for sediment left behind by glaciers. I imagine it would be hard to find stock photos for the video to illustrate the portion of the ice cores the researchers were looking at.
no one bothered to check?? why??? the reason is rather petty.... no one was allowed to find new things to rule changing unless new funding required. or the funders did not want the direction changed... ie clovis first and the ice brdbe to populate america just the 2 most famous... i
almost like he mentioned a pretty big international diplomatic scandal of the US people drilling not asking for permission to be there and the Danish pretty much saying get out or get arrested. So the US people left at speed.
To answer your question how and why Greenland was deglaciated for the most part during several phases of Pleistocene, you can check this artlcle : Irvali, Nil et al. PNAS 2020, 117, 190 ou doi 10.1073/pnas.1911902116. The authors explain that, just for the last 450 ky, during MIS (Marine Isotopic Stage) 5e, MIS 7e, MIS 9e and MIS 11c, the temperatures of sea surface near south Greenland were beyond the sea surface temperature required to induce a total or a partial collapse of the southern Greenland Ice-Sheet.
Those are NOT annual layers. Those are just storm layers. Greenland can get 6 feet of snow in a single night. Each such storm creates a layer and there are typically close to 20 to 30 a year. Data from 1942 to 1992 shows that the ice was accumulating at 5.5 feet a year. That makes the entire sheet less than 2000 years old! Yes all 9,600 feet of it!
In any case, it means the global climate was VASTLY warmer LONG before human civilization was very advanced. How did it get so warm? How did it then cool off so much? NO ONE HAS ANY EXPLANATION!!! So, fear-mongering about 'climate change' when we see THE CLIMATE RADICALLY CHANGES ALL BY ITSELF WITH HIGH FREQUENCY, is deliberately fraudulent MISINFORMATION at this point. Hey, Walz? Gonna arrest the ones spreading that, ya fake soldier?
Yeah, it's called the "Medieval Warm Period", and it's been well-known for a long time. Yes, temps WERE warmer than currently, but not as warm as during the previous Roman and Minoan Warm Periods. We're actually on our 7th or 8th warm period like this since the beginning of the Holocene, but modern "climatologists" and eco-activists refuse to acknowledge the actual science of climate change. The entire Viking Age happened within the Medieval Warm Period, because the pack-ice in the entire northern Atlantic Ocean broke up and melted enough to allow for the Norse to sail south. It ended, along with their Newfoundland and Greenland colonies, when the pack-ice grew back at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Evidence of burnt barley has been found at Viking settlements in southern Greenland, proven to have been grown there in the area. Barley can only tolerate growing in Hardiness Zones 3-8, meaning the climate in southern Greenland (and their Newfoundland colonies) then was as around the same as the climate in southern Canada today. In North America it's called the Late Woodland Period, and is when the last of the 3 Mound-building culture (Mississippian Culture) thrived in the Eastern half of the US. The two prior Mound-building culture also happened during the two prior global warming periods, the Adena Culture (Minoan Warm Period, Early Woodland Period), and the Hopewell Culture (Roman Warm Period, Middle Woodland Period).
Kind of concerning that these tiny local fluctuations in temperature made such a big difference to what could be grown where, and meanwhile we're setting up for a global shift that is so much bigger than those.
@@tealkerberus748 and that is how I know you have not studying paleoclimatology at all.... Stop listening to politicians opinion-piece "journalists", and learn how to read a simple graph... Reality is that the ice core data has been clear for decades. We've only been out of the last Cold Period (The Little Ice Age) for less 200 years. Since the mid 1800's when ALL modern climatology began recording data. The Medieval Warm Period lasted around 600-700 years, the Roman Warm period around 300 years, and the Minoan around the same. But the last of the two Holocene Climatic Optimum Periods lasted a 1000 years, and the first one lasted 2000 years. and in both of those the global temp was WAY hotter than today. And human societies not only existed during all of those, it thrived and spread across the globe. Seriously, move out of the city and go see what nature is. The only places in this world that are over-populated are big metropolitan areas. There's whole world out there were you can get lost and not see another human for weeks.
@@tealkerberus748 Greenland has been green for 3000 of the past 4300 years. and only tundra for around 1300 of the past 4300 years. Stop listening to dumb people who don't know what they are talking about.
Best channel on CZcams! Keep up the good work. Professional, informative, well spoken, you couldn’t ask for a better example. Thank you Anton for putting all this information into a video and explaining it all to the best of our knowledge in a way we can all understand. Thank you
It’s interesting to think that the climate has been much more unbalanced and has fluctuated more times than classical teachings. It would explain us a lot more easily.
Back in the 90's, we WERE taught that climate regularly shifted radically from warm to cold. But then, a certain political agenda took control of education.... and taught LIES.
There are also many ancient maps that show Australia being contiguous with Antarctica. Speaking as a person who has driven from Melbourne to Perth, I can assure you those maps are very wrong.
Greenland certainly had a period where the Norse could settle at small strips of green land. Remains of them lived their much longer but integrated with Eskimo peoples and eventually mixed (just like Iceland has small traces of Eakimo DNA)
The Vikings actually farmed the land for a couple of hundred years on Greenland. The world was warmer briefly in the medieval period. So warm that the UK used to grow grapes for wine.
Anybody that thinks any ice anywhere on this planet is "permanent" is simply not paying attention. The only question about ice is how long it has been there. Pretty much none of it pre-dates the current ice age.
Most people don't realize, that we live in an interglacial period of a current ice age. Overlapping with many oscillating short time warm and cold phases.
@@kalrandom7387 more food for thought on that. The center of Greenland is a bowl, well below the sea level. Yet without the ice there sea levels didn't raise enough to make it an atoll. Conditions warm enough to melt off Greenland would be enough to melt off *most* of the world's ice. That being the case how'd the middle stay dry enough to become a tundra
The 12 minute videos are PERFECT! Thank you for growing and adjusting over the years, Anton. Blessings, success and prosperity to you! P.S. Toronto misses you!
It was greener when first settled, just like Iceland, just like all Europe was once warmer on average during the Medieval optimum -- - called optimum because life was better then, at least 3 degrees warmer on average -- the same temperatures Gore wanted us to fear.
Fascinating, thank you!! I live on St Simons Island Georgia which is just a few feet above sea level. So if it will be a few thousand years before the ice shelf melts on Greenland I'm pretty safe 🤣
I was always told that Eric had called Iceland that to keep people away despite it being green. And called Greenland that to have people go there instead, despite it being ice. Or something like that.
Thanks for a great presentation, Anton. It is good to know that researchers have collected ice samples they have not even studies. Similar to the British Museums archeology department where one can do a study of all the ancient relics that have been stored - but never studied. (And sometimes poorly labelled)
What you're looking at, Anton, is when Greenland was located at the equator. There is a 90° pole shift every 12,000 years. So a nice sheet that thick can pack up over less than a thousand years.
It's suprising to see how many things confirm the 12000 year disaster cycle , I stumbled upon tsunami data for Australia which confirms very large tsunami throughout history. The location of the evidence is what i would predict for an initial inertial wave and then a washback wave soon after . Looking for safe zones is complicated when trying to predict the direction of the washback on a moving planet.
@@ThePowerLover The OP literally says 90 degree POLE shift, nothing about the crust. The plates don't move that fast. They move on average about half an inch per year. Greenland is precisely where it was 12,000 years ago give or take 500 feet. That would be nowhere near the 5000 MILES, or 26,400,000 feet, it would have to have moved to get from the equator to where it is now. I bet you guys believe Aliens built the Pyramids, too.
So, this ice core drilling began in the 60s ... I recall several movies based on "The Thing" horror tale. Some muderous thing that was disturbed by the drilling for whatever ... it escapes its ice prison, imitates people, and then it's unaliving time. Superscary! A warning to humans not to tinker in so cavalier a manner with nature's mysteries! 😉
That was all based on the 1938 novella "Who Goes There?", and the alien there was also telepathic. Really, that would have F'd everyone, cuz an alien that could look just like anyone AND read everybody's mind would be UNSTOPPABLE. Basically a shape-shifting Professor X. So that's why the film version dropped that aspect, to at least give humanity a chance.
@@stewartread4235 [continuing from your ellipsis] northern England isn't changing much, overall, while Scotland is generally rising - with the highest rate of rise being in the Highlands. The land surface is _tilting_ as a result of the melting of several km thickness of ice sheet (in the Highlands) compared to several hundred metres thickness over the land in Englandshire. Comparing the southern shore of the Baltic sea and the northern end (between Sweden and Finland) shows a similar tilting. Yes, this does mean that warm, plastic mantle material is moving from below SE England to below central Scotland (and from below N.Poland to below the Baltic Sea ; where there are continental edges involved, matters get more complicated). But that material being warm enough to be plastic, doesn't produce earthquakes. Often. This tilting is a distinct *local* action compared to the *global* rise in sealevels consequent on the melting of the icesheets today.
@@stewartread4235 4 miles inland does not mean that sea-levels have dropped. "4m above sea-level" means that. Rivers build estuaries out to sea with tiny gradients on the surface, and 4 miles movement of the coastline out to sea is very doable in the time available. Don't forget to include compaction of freshly deposited sediment in that. (Hint : there are still PhD placements being offered to try to model that.) That said, the actual rates are quite variable from place to place. Relative sinking rates are very different between the middle-England (Lincolnshire, Humberside) coasts compared to the extended Rhine estuary of North Kent and East Anglia. Smoothed as seen by the mantle through some 50km of rock, the picture is simpler, but there are still 50km thickness of rocks to add their differences in terms of faults. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the old (Late Carboniferous to Cretaceous) "London- Brabant Island" had a significant change in subsidence rates across its margins. And that has been nominally buried for 40-plus million years (it probably influenced the path of the Pliocene proto-Thames though). The Romans would have been well aware of relative sea-level changes. They were getting hit by harbours silting up, or quays sinking below sea-level all the time in Italy and Greece. And they didn't have any way of predicting it.
Today, dust from wildfires are known to blow in and land on Greenland's surface. I wonder if other debris such as pollen, dna, tiny fragments of wood, can also blow in too.
"The ice sheet is not stable as we previously thought..." Who is "we"? Are scientists really that dump that they still not understand that the climate on earth is constantly changing? It has been changing since this planet was formed. Everybody else knows... Incredible!
I don’t think anyone ever thought Greenland was always a desert of ice; Considering we know both the Arctic and Antarctica were free of ice. It wouldn’t make any sense that just Greenland decided to maintain its Ice sheets. What’s more interesting is the Greenland ice sheet has been growing and not shrinking as these cult “scientists” would like us to believe.
there was a story a couples years ago about plant material found in cores taken in the 1950s. this was evidence that the ice sheet did not exist 100,000 years ago.
Thomas Alva Edison was wrong 2774 times before he was successful with the light bulb. That is what science is: repeated conjecture and experimentation with an incredible number of failures before reaching the correct outcome.
@@glasscup8239 “ Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.” I doubt I would have had that level of persistance, but I am very glad he did.
I will never get used to seeing people handling ancient artefacts and fossils with bare hands. Clearly they're not worried about the oils, bacteria, and corrosive acids on their hands, causing damage to the precious objects they're holding!
I showed this to my wife under the header "Why one should never throw anything out." She was not amused.
get her to watch "The Red green show"
Clutter is Strength 💪
Then, you walked onto the sidewalk, and asked a young teenager, 'we can see each other, because in the long run, we are practically the same age' [just joking]
@@spacelemur7955
Even if it stays within the walls, archeologists will still find it after 10k years, in the remains of your house ;)
@@reuireuiop0 😅 Well, it's doubtful, as I am rather too close to sea level. 10K years presumes that icecaps have returned AND, if they do, archeologists aren't too busy with all the really interesting stuff y'all have left behind. 😉🍻
Strangely I can remember scientists finding these types of fossils over 60 years ago and they were essentially ignored
Isn't it interesting, that with all the crisis, the readily available core samples were not examined for all this time?
No, they weren't ignored. What is ignored, I would say, is the fact that there is a limit to the number of Acts--Scientific or otherwise--that you can put on the stage all at once and have them all partake of conscious acceptance.
I have an MA in Geography, and I have never had the notion that the Greenland Ice Cap didn't periodically disappear. The sea level and climate proxy data indicate that such a biome would be on Greenland during the warm periods.
Ignored sounds too intentional. I usually use the phrase "slipped through the cracks". Lots of discoveries slipped through the tracks.
I think that is the data shown at 2:18. The ice cores were collected between ‘71 and ‘78. Its not just this sort of data that is collected at one date and made sense of decades later. I was looking at an Irving Finkel (Curator, British Museum) video about how part of a clay tablet was reassembled decades after it had been put in the museum. They just didn’t have the resources to do the analysis when the material first came in.
Contrary to popular belief, not all of Greenland is ice. There's even a forrest in the Qinngua Valley. Most of it ice to be sure, but the south is a little less harsh. There are even farms.
Source
@@Gelatinocyte2a basic internet search.
@@Gelatinocyte2bro, just go on Google maps or something
@@Gelatinocyte2 Qinngua Valley
There was 50 fires reported in Greenland in 2017
This just in: Apart from the serious research he invests in these video presentations, and the clear-eyed, level-headed narration of the eminently trustworthy details, Anton has been positively identified as the most endearing and lovable CZcamsr of the entire Anthropocene.
Brova for your, "...the clear-eyed, level-headed narration." I wish we had more folks like you who understood the difference, very much appreciated.
" eminently trustworthy details" like his 27mm/y of seal level rise? I'm sure you will repeating that to everyone you know now along with your BS about the "Anthropocene". The vid is interesting but Anton knows nothing about climate and goofs up every time he tries mentioning the subject.
Agreed ❤️💙
@@tuberroot1112 I thought he said, "contributes", as in 'it would result in that level of sea rise if other factors didn't negate it.' I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Isn't he a professional Mathematician ???
We were recently in Nuuk Greenland and visited a museum of local culture, including the Inuit cultures. Even their museum, clearly showed major temperature changes over even some of the last 3000 years, with receding ice and warming leading to more habitable conditions along the coast.
Anton, you are the most informative CZcamsr in history. I appreciate everything you do!!! Thanks for your hard work!!!
He may be the most informative CZcamsr that you know. And he is very informative. Do not confuse your knowledge with all the CZcams History
Thank you for your compliment!
My name is also Anton.
Sadly some of his "information" is total BS. Ocean levels have NOT been rising by 27mm/y, so clearly Greenland cannot be contributing 27mm/y . He clearly knows nothing about this subjet and does not take care to correctly tell us what he read.
Is this antons mom?
@@tuberroot1112I agree that the ocean levels he is talking about are a far stretch
Greenland had a settled community and bishops From 1124 until 1378, when it was impossible to maintain because of increasing cold. It had been warmer then than today. Hoping that it might again become habitable, there were titular bishops until 1500.
All their farts and wood burning made it colder, but it's supposed to do the opposite according to man made climate change experts, LOL.
@rogerclaiborne6815 Aoc would ❤ you for that comment 🤣
That period roughly aligns with the Medieval Warming Period, no?
@@johnmcglynn4102 yep.
During this time they had also wine in Scandinavia, which is only recently possible. The little ice age from 1450-1850 had not a lower temperature of max 0.6 K or C, but rather a lower temperature of max 2-3 K or C. Because the 0.6 K or C would not cause the end of the Greenland community and neither the end of vines cultivation in Scandinavia.
The problem is that they fudge the data to present the Medieval Warm Periode as much lower than our current times and they do the same with the 1930s-40s warm years and call it data adjustment. Therefore always search for the raw data concerning the temperature.
I like Anton's subtle way of conveying an appropriate sense of wonder at the possible implications of the discoveries, without departing from his always precise, understated narrative style.
That's pretty cool, I had an oceanography teacher in college (~15 years ago) talk about shifting oceanic currents and how we had ice cores from greenland showing it used to be much warmer, as well as antarctica, I suppose these were the cores they were talking about. They were spitballing that oceanic currents are responsible for for the building and subsequent melting of ice sheets, as fresh water and salt water levels change in the ocean it also changes how heat is distributed around the planet. Basically the ice melts and causes a massive influx of fresh water, which causes colder salty water to sink which increases surface temperatures, then the fresh water is shut off which causes the colder salt water to mix with the upper layers of the ocean causing the planet to cool down and reform the ice sheets. Of course none of this was put on a test, or taught to us as fact, they were just very enthusiastic and trying to get us to look at the ocean as part of the bigger picture. They also talked about how our current continental layout is possibly why we have ice ages, as the collisions of North and South America, as well as Europe and Africa dramatically changed the flow of ocean currents. They were one of my favorite teachers lol.
An excellent reply!!
You didn't know their gender?
@@Steel0079 Nah, this was 15 years ago. Different times. I'm thinking conjoined twins. . .
@@JELazarus 🤬
I was around in the 1960s when plate techtonics waz still being questioned. Our geography teacher was a very enthusiastic proponent. I never knew till recently that it wasnt accepted as fact at that time.
Africa is still moving north into Europe. India is also moving north into Asia. Hence the Hymalayas.
John Carpenter's The Thing should be required viewing for this type of science.
And Smilla’s Sense of Snow
And The Blob!
The Thing (starring Janes Arnes as the Thing) is a great flick
You think we need UFO researchers looking for buried alien ships up there?
@@ohsweetmystery No, we just need them NOT unearthing civilization-ending plagues.
Subscribed. Excellent presentation. You speak English as a second language better than most Americans.
Ahhhhh... My daily fix of Anton videos... 😂😂
Yeah this is making the itch go away
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🫡🙂
Anton, scientists have known since the mid-1980s that the high arctic used to be ice free and supported abundant life. A forest of tall trees flourished on Canada's Axel Heiberg Island over 40 million years ago during the Eocene epoch. The trees reached up to 35 m (115 ft) in height, and some may have grown for 500 to 1,000 years. At the time, the polar climate was warm, but the winters were still continuously dark for three months.
walking with dinosaurs even did an episode of dinos living there
Yeah I heard in cretaceous paleocene eocene it was much warmer on earth in general with forests and crocodiles near the arctic and such, but I don't remember how much warmer it must have been to be like that
same with antarctic, used to be a tropical rain forest. Its almost like we currently in an ice age... oh right we are... climate change is normal ;)
@@steventhompson399 the average was 8-12°C warmer than the 1961-1990 average. 40 Ma about the same as it was the last heatwave of the Eoscene. The Eoscene started out as hot as 12-15°C hotter
@@XGD5layer Damn those Flintstones and their global warming dinosaur-powered civilization!
Anton: Greenland might become habitable....
Me: (Begins checking real estate prices)
Anton:... in the next thousand years.
Me: aww
Me, "Excellent. I'll be waiting." Alondro, the IMMORTAL!!! :O
There are cities with airports on Greenland.
It can become MORE habitable, but it's already habitable given that people live there.
Antarctica remains the least populated place on earth.
Eric the Red: "I'm going to call it Greenland to attract more settlers."
Today we'd call that clickbait lol.
well maybe by 2040 or so, if we are going off our magnetic field/poles and what they are doing...
In the southern towns, winters are similar to Minnesota's, but the summers only average in the 50s.
Politics ruined science
Anyone who read Roman history has heard the stories that the cooling is what led to the fall of the empire with the cooling weather causing the migration of tribes from increasingly inhospitable areas.
A few decades ago tree trunks emerged from ice high above the present-day timberline in the Alps. Radiocarbon dating showed them to be around 2,000 years old. When Hannibal attacked Rome from the north with his elephants by crossing the Alps, his armies did not need to contend with snowfields.
And all this took place without cars, planes and factories. Does that mean that we live on a planet that has natural temperature fluctuations not caused by humans? I'm shocked! 😱 😂😂
@@selfloveisthekey
What is the cause of the fluctuations. The only reasonable explanation l can think of is cyclical change in Solar output.
@@mpetersen6 I don't know what the causes are, but it really doesn't sound like we're causing it.
@@mpetersen6tectonic/volcanic/geological activity, changes in currents, atmospheric events, etc.
A lot of the processes that dictate our climate are sensitive to perturbation, which has occurred frequently (every few centuries) since the dawn of time. Do not trust anyone who pretends they’re a new phenomenon and peddles hysteria.
We're sure it's melting now becuase of us... But we have no idea why it's melted many times before humans were here. Sounds about right.
Thanks Anton! 😊❤
Greenland deserves continentlet status! Sounds better than continentoid I think.
But it's not on its own continental plate. It's the same as the British Isles being part of the Eurasian continental plate - it's just an offshore island.
I was on Greenland over a decade ago, and on the way up to the ice cap, the visible evidence of massive ice loss was impossible to not see. The lateral moraines were relatively fresh, but towered over what was left of the glacier in the coming down off the slope. There was series of small end moraines all the way up to the glacier's face. The maps of the fjords showed how the glaciers have been in retreat for many decades. We met some Canadian geologists trying to identify minable mineral deposits, and although they didn't want to say the phrase climate change, they were adamant is saying that the whole arctic was rapidly changing, _for some reason._
Back nearer home, all along the Norwegian-Swedish border, the alpine biomes are changing just as radically. The tree line has ascended tens of meters, new animal and plant species are invading, unseasonable springtime warm spells are messing up plant blooming, and thus faunal food chains. Photos taking over 100 years ago to show the alpine nature, have had modern photographers return to the same spots and take new photos. What before was tundra is now often scrub meadow. And what was meadow now a young forest.
It would be pretty cool to see Greenland be the next UK. Climate-wise.
Is more arable land better, though?
You're describing climate change
@@christopherbrooks4426 Of course!😉
@@christopherbrooks4426 A warm world has been shown historically to be FULL of life. Cold worlds are dead.
I would think that during certain periods of the Milankovitch cycle, it would be possible for Greenland to be ice free. If the tilt away from the solar plane of Earths rotation was high, and the precession and eccentricity brought the Northern hemisphere Winter during a period where Earth was closer to the Sun, then it could be possible for the climate of Greenland to be mild enough that ice would not accumulate. During this time, however, it would be likely that conditions in Antarctica would be significantly colder, leading to much more sea ice there, so the effects of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would be largely offset. If this were the case though, it would imply an ice free, or at least partially ice free Greenland much more frequently and more recently than currently accepted, given (current) the major period of the Milankovitch cycle of 100k years, though you d need to do some calculations to determine the period of conditions favorable to low/no ice on Greenland. Given that it requires the confluence of various factors with different frequencies, this occurrence may be seemingly irregular and could be absent for extended periods.
Just as the Arctic used to be ice free and support much more plant life than it currently does, so too Antarctica used to be ice free, even to the extent of supporting rainforest type habitats. The current Ice Age we find ourselves in is not how things have always been, it's not necessarily how the Earth "should" be, and why some people seem to think that the climate of the mid 18th century (the end of the Little Ice Age) is some supposed ideal to aim for is bizarre to me.
Antarctica was not always at the South pole, it has drifted thousands of miles.
Tectonic upthrust absorbs atmospheric CO2 so well that atm CO2 reduction over time is a tectonic readout, though one has to consider the carboniferous (Life) as well. AI will quantify all effects, er, soon.
THANK YOU!!!
The new green deal crowd ignores the fact that we are recovering from an ice age and that the Earth has been much warmer than it is now.
With out checking any data I’m going to make a supposition…. The average temperature of the Earth over time is much warmer than now. Of course this average temperature is dependent on how far back in time I go. Thus allowing me to skew the average temperature anyway I want.
Hmmmmm.. that approach should sound familiar to the new green deal folks.
@@donaldcarey114
Also wind patterns and currents have certainly changed over time as well. When you consider that without the Gulf Stream Scotland and most of the UK would be ice covered….I submit an ice free Antarctica is possible without needing to drift too far..if at all.
Although the 2,000 miles would help a lot.
@@CheekyMonkey1776 70% of Pharenzoic (usable atmosphere) has had at least one pole free of ice cap
Thank you Anton for a bit of peace of mind in this crazy world 😇🙏may God bless you good sir 🫡
Isn't it god who created this mess in the first place?
@@JZsBFF hey hater may God bless you 😇🙏❤️
That you for a well researched presentation on the possible History of Green Land and what existed on the soil surfaces where all of these deep holes were drilled through the very thick Ice cover on this Island.
Anton is a super talented hero of epic proportions 😊❤
I love your channel Anton, keep up the amazing work 👏👏👏👏
Greenland was much warmer when the Vikings settled it according to Jared Diamond.
It may have overlapped with the medieval warm period. When it stopped it became really difficult 😢
Much is a bit of an overstatement. It was warm enough to grow grass or bushes, not enough to grow trees :-)
And, of course, Jared Diamond is reporting other people’s results.
@@davidweihe6052 It was under one degree warmer at most, and it was it wasn’t world wide. Don’t know Jared.
Yes, they were burning co2 fossil fuels in drakkars. Greta´s ancestors dared 😂
The Native Americans were there before and are still there,.........
on July 15 1942, two American WW2 B-17 bomber planes and six P-38 fighters made an emergency landing on the Greenland glacier.
They were found and partially recovered in 1992 under 300 to 350 feet of ice.
That's an average ice build-up of over 6 feet per year.
Those lines in the ice cores are from individual storms, not annual deposits.
If there's only one storm *per year,* that literally makes it *annual.* Annual = yearly. That's where "anniversary" got its name, and its counted in years.
@@Gelatinocyte2 What part of the world do you live in where you only get one storm a year?
@@WaterShowsProd I mean think about it: do you really get 6 feet of snow per storm and they all stay 6 feet over time, or do they melt and/or compress and end up into a 6 feet of layer on average a year?
@@Gelatinocyte2 The original post said it was 6 feet per year. It was you who suggested only one storm per year which would mean that annual storm would dump 6 feet of ice. The original post was saying that the stratification is formed by multiple individual storms within a year, totalling 6 feet by the end of one year.
@@WaterShowsProd Oh. I see, I misinterpreted their comment.
11:08 never gets old
Wow, absolutely amazing! Love you Anton!
So Greenland was warmer many times in the past…and climate significantly changed (in the northern hemisphere), over the last 100,000 years
How catastrophic, or not.
Thank you for this fascinating look at Greenland, and its impact on the views thought of before.
I've watched too many science fiction and horror movies/TV. Be careful about what you dig up from the ice.
You go digging into the ice... and find ALONDRO!!! "Yo! Wuzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup!!" YOU FOOL, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE??!!! ;D
Anton I just wanted to say Thank you because I have learned so much from you over the years 😊
According to the graphic shown, the oldest ice would not be at the center of the sheet, but at the extreme edges.
As the center presses down, the oldest ice is pressed outward before eventually calving into the ocean.
*In case no one noticed, these records which show extreme climate fluctuations date back to before humans had invented internal combustion engines, factories, plastic, or even bronze. This is the planet as it is: ever changing.
The climate is ever changing
No s### shurlock.
However I know for a fact Climatologists are UNDER estimating the effects of human CO2 to our current climate.
During a period we should be COOLING DOWN. And thats just one element.
Yes. But let us not hurry it along, I like my house and food supply...
@@everettputerbaugh3996
I agree . Random violence in Earths Life-support system for short term gains is greed at its worst.
@@slartybarfastb3648 You are speaking my language.
@@nilo70 Will you drive to work on Monday?
Anton, I really love these on-planet discoveries. Give us more!!! Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
Fascinating -- thanks Anton
Thank you, Anton. 😊😊😊😊
Anton kept referring to ice cores and showing images of ice cores, which is a bit misleading. The plant and insect material is actually in sediment (soil) at the bottom of the ice cores. To be fair, Anton did mention "till" at least twice - that is a term for sediment left behind by glaciers. I imagine it would be hard to find stock photos for the video to illustrate the portion of the ice cores the researchers were looking at.
This is very interesting. Thank you for sharing this.
9:29 Oh no my worst nightmare... the proposed Istanbul Canal!! Never expected you here...
Good stuff. Looking forward to seeing the rest of your channel
You rock, Anton!
The most fascinating thing to me about Greenland are the ice core temperature proxies
no one bothered to check?? why??? the reason is rather petty.... no one was allowed to find new things to rule changing unless new funding required. or the funders did not want the direction changed... ie clovis first and the ice brdbe to populate america just the 2 most famous... i
almost like he mentioned a pretty big international diplomatic scandal of the US people drilling not asking for permission to be there and the Danish pretty much saying get out or get arrested. So the US people left at speed.
To answer your question how and why Greenland was deglaciated for the most part during several phases of Pleistocene, you can check this artlcle : Irvali, Nil et al. PNAS 2020, 117, 190 ou doi 10.1073/pnas.1911902116. The authors explain that, just for the last 450 ky, during MIS (Marine Isotopic Stage) 5e, MIS 7e, MIS 9e and MIS 11c, the temperatures of sea surface near south Greenland were beyond the sea surface temperature required to induce a total or a partial collapse of the southern Greenland Ice-Sheet.
Those are NOT annual layers. Those are just storm layers. Greenland can get 6 feet of snow in a single night. Each such storm creates a layer and there are typically close to 20 to 30 a year. Data from 1942 to 1992 shows that the ice was accumulating at 5.5 feet a year. That makes the entire sheet less than 2000 years old! Yes all 9,600 feet of it!
Some part are; others, aren't.
What about compression of the layers? Pretty sure that 6 feet of snow when buried under 1000 feet is no longer 6 feet thick.
@@sirrathersplendid48256 feet in a night bunches of nights compressed
There would have been melt offs at certain points
In any case, it means the global climate was VASTLY warmer LONG before human civilization was very advanced. How did it get so warm? How did it then cool off so much? NO ONE HAS ANY EXPLANATION!!!
So, fear-mongering about 'climate change' when we see THE CLIMATE RADICALLY CHANGES ALL BY ITSELF WITH HIGH FREQUENCY, is deliberately fraudulent MISINFORMATION at this point. Hey, Walz? Gonna arrest the ones spreading that, ya fake soldier?
Extremely well done and Presented.
Wonderful Anton
Always enjoy joining other wonderful people to learn new data. Thank you, Anton.
Yeah, it's called the "Medieval Warm Period", and it's been well-known for a long time. Yes, temps WERE warmer than currently, but not as warm as during the previous Roman and Minoan Warm Periods. We're actually on our 7th or 8th warm period like this since the beginning of the Holocene, but modern "climatologists" and eco-activists refuse to acknowledge the actual science of climate change.
The entire Viking Age happened within the Medieval Warm Period, because the pack-ice in the entire northern Atlantic Ocean broke up and melted enough to allow for the Norse to sail south. It ended, along with their Newfoundland and Greenland colonies, when the pack-ice grew back at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Evidence of burnt barley has been found at Viking settlements in southern Greenland, proven to have been grown there in the area. Barley can only tolerate growing in Hardiness Zones 3-8, meaning the climate in southern Greenland (and their Newfoundland colonies) then was as around the same as the climate in southern Canada today.
In North America it's called the Late Woodland Period, and is when the last of the 3 Mound-building culture (Mississippian Culture) thrived in the Eastern half of the US. The two prior Mound-building culture also happened during the two prior global warming periods, the Adena Culture (Minoan Warm Period, Early Woodland Period), and the Hopewell Culture (Roman Warm Period, Middle Woodland Period).
Kind of concerning that these tiny local fluctuations in temperature made such a big difference to what could be grown where, and meanwhile we're setting up for a global shift that is so much bigger than those.
@@tealkerberus748 and that is how I know you have not studying paleoclimatology at all.... Stop listening to politicians opinion-piece "journalists", and learn how to read a simple graph...
Reality is that the ice core data has been clear for decades. We've only been out of the last Cold Period (The Little Ice Age) for less 200 years. Since the mid 1800's when ALL modern climatology began recording data.
The Medieval Warm Period lasted around 600-700 years, the Roman Warm period around 300 years, and the Minoan around the same.
But the last of the two Holocene Climatic Optimum Periods lasted a 1000 years, and the first one lasted 2000 years. and in both of those the global temp was WAY hotter than today. And human societies not only existed during all of those, it thrived and spread across the globe.
Seriously, move out of the city and go see what nature is. The only places in this world that are over-populated are big metropolitan areas. There's whole world out there were you can get lost and not see another human for weeks.
@@tealkerberus748 Greenland has been green for 3000 of the past 4300 years. and only tundra for around 1300 of the past 4300 years. Stop listening to dumb people who don't know what they are talking about.
Thank you Anton. Always very well considered videos
Thank You Sir
Best channel on CZcams! Keep up the good work. Professional, informative, well spoken, you couldn’t ask for a better example. Thank you Anton for putting all this information into a video and explaining it all to the best of our knowledge in a way we can all understand. Thank you
POOtin loves you.
It’s interesting to think that the climate has been much more unbalanced and has fluctuated more times than classical teachings. It would explain us a lot more easily.
Back in the 90's, we WERE taught that climate regularly shifted radically from warm to cold. But then, a certain political agenda took control of education.... and taught LIES.
Many ancient maps show this island as green and fully inhabited.
Good vid.
There are also many ancient maps that show Australia being contiguous with Antarctica. Speaking as a person who has driven from Melbourne to Perth, I can assure you those maps are very wrong.
This video rocked!!!
Amazing! Thank you, Anton, for revealing some of the most astounding discoveries recently!
Greenland certainly had a period where the Norse could settle at small strips of green land. Remains of them lived their much longer but integrated with Eskimo peoples and eventually mixed (just like Iceland has small traces of Eakimo DNA)
🤔
The Vikings actually farmed the land for a couple of hundred years on Greenland. The world was warmer briefly in the medieval period. So warm that the UK used to grow grapes for wine.
Anybody that thinks any ice anywhere on this planet is "permanent" is simply not paying attention. The only question about ice is how long it has been there. Pretty much none of it pre-dates the current ice age.
Most people don't realize, that we live in an interglacial period of a current ice age.
Overlapping with many oscillating short time warm and cold phases.
Thank God they were able to recover and make sure and blame it on us humans. That data almost messed up our models.
I mean sure, except for what is buried at the bottom layers
@@kalrandom7387 more food for thought on that. The center of Greenland is a bowl, well below the sea level. Yet without the ice there sea levels didn't raise enough to make it an atoll. Conditions warm enough to melt off Greenland would be enough to melt off *most* of the world's ice.
That being the case how'd the middle stay dry enough to become a tundra
Could be from younger Dryas meteor impacts
Another down to earth video 👍
The 12 minute videos are PERFECT! Thank you for growing and adjusting over the years, Anton. Blessings, success and prosperity to you!
P.S. Toronto misses you!
Another excellently presented and informative video.
This is weird, because I've read loads of times that Greenland used to be green... Mandela Effect?
It was greener when first settled, just like Iceland, just like all Europe was once warmer on average during the Medieval optimum -- - called optimum because life was better then, at least 3 degrees warmer on average -- the same temperatures Gore wanted us to fear.
@@friendlyone2706 Hush now, you make the climate hysterics look bad.
Central of Iceland may have not been ice free at the time, but there was much more ice free land towards the coast.
Fascinating, thank you!! I live on St Simons Island Georgia which is just a few feet above sea level. So if it will be a few thousand years before the ice shelf melts on Greenland I'm pretty safe 🤣
it be cool to compare the annual layers and the solar cycles
Interesting place to study! Thank you.
The Vikings invented false advertising
They also named the pleasant, volcanic island, "Iceland," to keep folks away.
😅😂🤣
😂
Time share salesman.
Pretty sure it was whoever invented religion
Thank you for keeping us informed as always.
I was always told that Eric had called Iceland that to keep people away despite it being green. And called Greenland that to have people go there instead, despite it being ice.
Or something like that.
The world's first real estate developer?
And in the meantime Antartic Icecap is growing at a massive rate
Greenland wasn't covered in ice for as long as scientists thought?
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Well, not that shocked.
Thanks for a great presentation, Anton. It is good to know that researchers have collected ice samples they have not even studies. Similar to the British Museums archeology department where one can do a study of all the ancient relics that have been stored - but never studied. (And sometimes poorly labelled)
What you're looking at, Anton, is when Greenland was located at the equator. There is a 90° pole shift every 12,000 years.
So a nice sheet that thick can pack up over less than a thousand years.
It's suprising to see how many things confirm the 12000 year disaster cycle , I stumbled upon tsunami data for Australia which confirms very large tsunami throughout history. The location of the evidence is what i would predict for an initial inertial wave and then a washback wave soon after . Looking for safe zones is complicated when trying to predict the direction of the washback on a moving planet.
That's BS. The Earth's axis tilts between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. It has never titled sideways at 90 degrees.
@@robo5013 Nobody talked about the axis, but about the crust above the low velocity zone!
@@ThePowerLover The OP literally says 90 degree POLE shift, nothing about the crust. The plates don't move that fast. They move on average about half an inch per year. Greenland is precisely where it was 12,000 years ago give or take 500 feet. That would be nowhere near the 5000 MILES, or 26,400,000 feet, it would have to have moved to get from the equator to where it is now. I bet you guys believe Aliens built the Pyramids, too.
Sheer ignorance
I like the `Gordon Brown smile` at the end.
So, this ice core drilling began in the 60s ...
I recall several movies based on "The Thing" horror tale. Some muderous thing that was disturbed by the drilling for whatever ... it escapes its ice prison, imitates people, and then it's unaliving time. Superscary!
A warning to humans not to tinker in so cavalier a manner with nature's mysteries! 😉
That was all based on the 1938 novella "Who Goes There?", and the alien there was also telepathic. Really, that would have F'd everyone, cuz an alien that could look just like anyone AND read everybody's mind would be UNSTOPPABLE. Basically a shape-shifting Professor X. So that's why the film version dropped that aspect, to at least give humanity a chance.
I am pretty sure that the GISP crew had flame throwers and shotguns, so we are all safe.
I always like your topics. Thank you for your time and work.
Carolina Bays
….are deflation hollows formed over a 100k year period, and have nothing to do with Greenland.
Amazing content. Thank you.
We've been lied to about everything.
We've been following "the Science Fiction"
Speak for yourself. Some of us are able to separate the wheat from the chaff, unlike the majority of the people that say all scientists are scammers.
This brings to mind the Mitchell & Webb historical sketch on naming places.
It's almost as if the "Science" isn't "settled" at all.😂
Pluto.
In the UK on a TV show called "time team", they found a Roman warm period fishing village 4 miles inland meaning sea levels have dropped.
Or tectonics have lifted the island?
@@JeffBetker no sir, southern england is sinking due to the glacial rebound of Scotland and northern England..!
@@stewartread4235 [continuing from your ellipsis] northern England isn't changing much, overall, while Scotland is generally rising - with the highest rate of rise being in the Highlands.
The land surface is _tilting_ as a result of the melting of several km thickness of ice sheet (in the Highlands) compared to several hundred metres thickness over the land in Englandshire. Comparing the southern shore of the Baltic sea and the northern end (between Sweden and Finland) shows a similar tilting.
Yes, this does mean that warm, plastic mantle material is moving from below SE England to below central Scotland (and from below N.Poland to below the Baltic Sea ; where there are continental edges involved, matters get more complicated). But that material being warm enough to be plastic, doesn't produce earthquakes. Often.
This tilting is a distinct *local* action compared to the *global* rise in sealevels consequent on the melting of the icesheets today.
@@a.karley4672 so you're fully aware southern england is sinking and the sea level still dropped from the roman warm period..!
@@stewartread4235 4 miles inland does not mean that sea-levels have dropped. "4m above sea-level" means that.
Rivers build estuaries out to sea with tiny gradients on the surface, and 4 miles movement of the coastline out to sea is very doable in the time available. Don't forget to include compaction of freshly deposited sediment in that. (Hint : there are still PhD placements being offered to try to model that.)
That said, the actual rates are quite variable from place to place. Relative sinking rates are very different between the middle-England (Lincolnshire, Humberside) coasts compared to the extended Rhine estuary of North Kent and East Anglia. Smoothed as seen by the mantle through some 50km of rock, the picture is simpler, but there are still 50km thickness of rocks to add their differences in terms of faults. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the old (Late Carboniferous to Cretaceous) "London- Brabant Island" had a significant change in subsidence rates across its margins. And that has been nominally buried for 40-plus million years (it probably influenced the path of the Pliocene proto-Thames though).
The Romans would have been well aware of relative sea-level changes. They were getting hit by harbours silting up, or quays sinking below sea-level all the time in Italy and Greece. And they didn't have any way of predicting it.
Today, dust from wildfires are known to blow in and land on Greenland's surface. I wonder if other debris such as pollen, dna, tiny fragments of wood, can also blow in too.
Pollen and dust do. Also some insects and microscopic organisms.
Beautiful work! 👏
"The ice sheet is not stable as we previously thought..."
Who is "we"?
Are scientists really that dump that they still not understand that the climate on earth is constantly changing? It has been changing since this planet was formed. Everybody else knows... Incredible!
"Oh, no! Factories are responsible for all climate change throughout all of history! Everyone knows THAT! Follow the science!"
I don’t think anyone ever thought Greenland was always a desert of ice; Considering we know both the Arctic and Antarctica were free of ice. It wouldn’t make any sense that just Greenland decided to maintain its Ice sheets.
What’s more interesting is the Greenland ice sheet has been growing and not shrinking as these cult “scientists” would like us to believe.
Hello Anton. I recently heard that scientists had found 2,000,000 year old DNA. Thanks for presenting this very interesting information.😊
Heard it where?
Thank you Anton!!!
Thank you , 1000's of years to melt , I'm going right now and buy me electric vehicle and help save the planet , NOT
Not necessarily annual layers, could be individual snowstorms, thus changing total time
I'm waiting for some frozen dinosaurs to be unearthed.
Un-iced?
@@JZsBFF Much better!
Did anyone stop to think maybe those ice "layers" could possibly have been made more than 1 layer a year??,😮
Heinrich event incoming, Anton.
Prepare.
there was a story a couples years ago about plant material found in cores taken in the 1950s. this was evidence that the ice sheet did not exist 100,000 years ago.
lol. everybody from my gen knows that greenland used to be green in recent times, wtf
Thanks! Wow! I wonder what it has in common with our neighbor here in New Zealand; Antarctica!
I love experts being wrong, it's just sooooooo good
For real I love people being humbled
Thomas Alva Edison was wrong 2774 times before he was successful with the light bulb. That is what science is: repeated conjecture and experimentation with an incredible number of failures before reaching the correct outcome.
@@johnbox271 it will still feel good after the 2774th time 😂
@@glasscup8239 “ Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.” I doubt I would have had that level of persistance, but I am very glad he did.
@@johnbox271 cornballll this is why I can’t stand this community bro just enjoy a lighthearted goofy banter
I will never get used to seeing people handling ancient artefacts and fossils with bare hands. Clearly they're not worried about the oils, bacteria, and corrosive acids on their hands, causing damage to the precious objects they're holding!