|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Oldest frozen DNA reveals a greener Greenland | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Source Link
Oldest frozen DNA reveals a greener Greenland Greenery is something you might expect to see on a land called Greenland, don't you think? I decided to look into this a little further, thinking it fishy that they would say half a million years ago it was green, when modern man chose to call it Greenland. Who would call an ice sheet "Greenland"? A practical joke? Here is what I found on wikipedia: Icelandic settlers led by Erik the Red (Norwegian exile who settled in Iceland)found the land uninhabited when they arrived c. 982. Around 984 they established the Eastern and Western settlements in deep fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries, and then disappeared after more than 450 years of habitation. The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. In the article, are they calling this greenery that they found as being half a million years old when it may only be a thousand? The approach fills a significant gap in knowledge, says lead researcher Eske The southern part of Greenland was inhabited 1,000 years ago and they were doing this study in the southern ice sheet. History and Science need to come together here. Comparing the recovered fragments with This is hilarious! "If this is true" then these other conclusions are incorrect, etc. They are going around in circles, not realizing that there dating techniques are the problem!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
The DNA is from site Dye 3. If you have Google Earth, punch in 65N, 43W. The viking settlers were at Eystribyg and Vestribyg
Now tell me, how are either of those two settlements at site Dye 3? Dye 3 lies far to the east and somewhat north of either settlement. Also, there's a difference between "very southwestern tip" (from the wiki you linked) to the "southern" of the study. If you got this wrong, how can I trust the rest of your post and/or reasoning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
I didn't say that they are in the same exact place, but all on the southern part. The Dye 3 site is on the east side and just slightly to the north of the western settlement. When Erik the Red sailed due west from Iceland, the Dye 3 site is the first part of Greenland that he came across, then sailed around the tip of the island where they settled. He called it "Greenland".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
When Erik the Red sailed due west from Iceland, the Dye 3 site is the first part of Greenland that he came across, You might want to check on that. I'm not convinced that Erik went 200 miles inland to 8600 feet elevation while he was sailing around. In fact, I doubt that he did. I doubt it a lot. 403 Forbidden
403 Forbidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Dye 2 is 100 miles inland from the west coast. Dye 3 is another 100 miles east of Dye 2, so 200 miles inland from the west coast, not the east coast which I measured to be about 60 miles inland.
Point well taken none the less, as he would be viewing from the coast 60 miles inland at an elevation of 7600 feet (1000 ft of ice currently). At that elevation, I can see how it may still have had ice covering Dye 3 while the lower coastal lands were green. Can't be sure though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
I calculated how far Erik could see from the coast. Whether or not it was ice covered, it appears that he could see it.
How far can you see? Close report
You said: Your height: 6 feet Your elevation: 0 feet Mountain height: 8600 feet Mountain elevation: 8600 feet Using these values, these are the distances you can see: Your optical horizon is 4.24 miles (22410.19 feet) away.You can see this mountain to a distance of 231.52 miles (1222403.21 feet).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Can't be sure though. Well, they counted yearly layers back to at least 1899 BC there.
Link. That's pre-Viking, and seems to be at only 372 meters depth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Find a topographic map of Greenland. I really don't think the DYE3 site was on a mountain peak - more like a very gradual rise.
Guadelupe Peak is roughly 280 miles from here, and I have to get about 230 miles closer than I am now to see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
graft2vine writes: I calculated how far Erik could see from the coast. Whether or not it was ice covered, it appears that he could see it. I don't see the relevance in what Erik could see from the coast. How does that relate to your claim in the OP?
quote: Where is there a problem with dating techniques? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
From the cited paper, which is unfortunately behind a pay-per-view wall (though a pdf could be had from Coragyps by email):
The samples studied come from the basal impurity-rich (silty) ice sections of the 2-km-long Dye 3 core from south-central Greenland (4), the 3-km-long Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) core from the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (5), and the Late Holocene John Evans Glacier on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, northern Canada (Fig. 1). The last-mentioned sample was included as a control to test for potential exotic DNA because the glacier has recently overridden a land surface with a known vegetation cover (6). As an additional test for long-distance atmospheric dispersal of DNA, we included five control samples of debris-free Holocene and Pleistocene ice taken just above the basal silty samples from the Dye 3 and GRIP ice cores (Fig. 1B). Finally, our analyses included sediment samples from the Kap Kbenhavn Formation from the northernmost part of Greenland, dated to 2.4 million years before the present (Ma yr B.P.) "The basal impurity-rich (silty) ice sections" tells me that's plowed-up crud from the basal rock. And:
All four dating methods suggest that the Dye 3 silty ice and its forest community predate the Last Interglacial (LIG) [130 to 116 thousand years ago (ka)] (Fig. 2), which contrasts with the results of recent models suggesting that Dye 3 was ice-free during this period (28, 29). Indeed, all four dating methods give overlapping dates for the silty ice between 450 and 800 ka.... The modeling studies being wrong about 120,000 years ago doesn't do much to inform us about 1000 years ago. AbE:
More-recent work (17) coupled new climate and ice-sheet modeling with Arctic paleoclimatic data to make a strong case that the central part of GIS was intact throughout the LIG and that the GIS and other Arctic ice fields likely contributed 2.2 to 3.4 m of sea-level rise during the LIG.
is from ref 28 in my last quoted bit - Science 24 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1747 - 1750 - which is free online at Science | AAAS (emphasis is mine) Edited by Coragyps, : fix tag Edited by Coragyps, : Add link "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5978 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
graft2vine writes: Greenery is something you might expect to see on a land called Greenland, don't you think? I decided to look into this a little further, thinking it fishy that they would say half a million years ago it was green, when modern man chose to call it Greenland. Who would call an ice sheet "Greenland"? A practical joke? I can't disect the entire post or its relevency all at once here, BUT, it has occurred to me that you may want to examine the source of the name before you take it too literally. In fact, there are Norse myths claiming that the naming of Greenland WAS, if not a joke, at least a ploy to get new inhabitants to Greenland. These are not modern speculations, but old myths, probably written around the same time as Erik did his exploring. I am not giving you facts here, just suggestions. Can you look for clues elsewhere about the green-ness of Greenland, or the origin of the name, without doubting science? For instance, the Inuit were said to live in harmony with the Greenlanders. Would Inuit life style be compatible with Greenland climate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5978 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
graft2vine writes: Greenery is something you might expect to see on a land called Greenland, don't you think? I decided to look into this a little further, thinking it fishy that they would say half a million years ago it was green, when modern man chose to call it Greenland. Who would call an ice sheet "Greenland"? A practical joke? I can't disect the entire post or its relevency all at once here, BUT, it has occurred to me that you may want to examine the source of the name before you take it too literally. In fact, there are Norse myths claiming that the naming of Greenland WAS, if not a joke, at least a ploy to get new inhabitants to Greenland. These are not modern speculations, but old myths, probably written around the same time as Erik did his exploring. I am not giving you facts here, just suggestions. Can you look for clues elsewhere about the green-ness of Greenland, or the origin of the name, without doubting science? For instance, the Inuit were said to live in harmony with the Greenlanders. Would Inuit life style be compatible with Greenland climate? Oh, and you have to realize that these foks were comparing Greenland with Iceland, not some deeply forested retreat. 'Green' is in the eyes of the beholder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hmmm. Similar to what Anastasia says, we have towns out here in West Texas named Garden City, Greenwood, and Gardendale. Exaggeration is too kind a word....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024