This guy claims the last ice age came very quickly. Do the sediments lie?
News - Environment: Last Ice Age took just six months to arrive
The sediment doesn't. His methods might. He only studied one lake...
This guy claims the last ice age came very quickly. Do the sediments lie?
News - Environment: Last Ice Age took just six months to arrive
I spent winter in the arctic at -80.Ridiculous! Make up your mind! You cannot have it both ways: knowing and not knowing what nature can do.
This guy claims the last ice age came very quickly. Do the sediments lie?
News - Environment: Last Ice Age took just six months to arrive
I spent winter in the arctic at -80.
I have a pretty good idea what i can do and what mother nature can do.
A socialist revolution can happen quicker than of the last ice age.
A socialist revolution can happen quicker than of the last ice age.
I spent winter in the arctic at -80.
I have a pretty good idea what i can do and what mother nature can do.
Ooooooooh Oooooh anecdotal evidence!!!!!! Would be better if we could see some charts and graphs contrived by some guy sitting in an office.............:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Like I said,a meteor impact or couple volcanic eruptions could happen,something a graph wont show,all our records are but a mere blip in the big scheme of things.
Ice ages arent predictable,if they were cyclical there would be the exact same thickness of rock inbetween coal seams and we were mining 11 different ones,each seam represents an ice age.There was no conformity on times.
But the records don't lie. You said it yourself. The sediment does not lie. And sediment does show evidence of meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions.
Yet another masochist so it seems.
Does that seem like a sensible statement??????? or just typical Quebec logic? (Sorry Cliff)
But the records don't lie. You said it yourself. The sediment does not lie. And sediment does show evidence of meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions.
Not that simple. Sediment thickness is related to erosion and deposition, amongst many other factors. Nobody is saying that ice ages are perfectly predictable. They are semi-regular. They follow rough patterns related to changes in Earth's orbital parameters.
That must have been before 2001 that you were over in Nunavut when the USGS happened to be wandering around counting bears:My last few years in Nunavut I read many papers and talked to many people and what I read and heard about the polars was totally opposite from what I see and hear at home in the "world" so that's what gets my goat.
I never saw many researchers up there in 3 years,none to be exact except the Government guy that was head of studying them at Churchill and the rest of the eastern arctic.I had supper with him in camp and his consensus was the bears were doing fine.
- Polar Bear Population Status in the Southern Beaufort SeaPolar bears depend entirely on sea ice for survival. In recent years, a warming climate has caused major changes in the Arctic sea ice environment, leading to concerns regarding the status of polar bear populations. Here we present findings from long-term studies of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) region of the U.S. and Canada, which are relevant to these concerns. We applied open population capture-recapture models to data collected from 2001 to 2006, and estimated there were 1,526 (95% CI = 1,211; 1,841) polar bears in the SBS region in 2006. The number of polar bears in this region was previously estimated to be approximately 1,800. Because precision of earlier estimates was low, our current estimate of population size and the earlier ones cannot be statistically differentiated. For the 2001–06 period, the best fitting capture-recapture model provided estimates of total apparent survival of 0.43 for cubs of the year (COYs), and 0.92 for all polar bears older than COYs. Because the survival rates for older polar bears included multiple sex and age strata, they could not be compared to previous estimates. Survival rates for COYs, however, were significantly lower than estimates derived in earlier studies (P = 0.03). The lower survival of COYs was corroborated by a comparison of the number of COYs per adult female for periods before (1967–89) and after (1990–2006) the winter of 1989–90, when warming temperatures and altered atmospheric circulation caused an abrupt change in sea ice conditions in the Arctic basin. In the latter period, there were significantly more COYs per adult female in the spring (P = 0.02), and significantly fewer COYs per adult female in the autumn (P < 0.001). Apparently, cub production was higher in the latter period, but fewer cubs survived beyond the first 6 months of life. Parallel with declining survival, skull measurements suggested that COYs captured from 1990 to 2006 were smaller than those captured before 1990. Similarly, both skull measurements and body weights suggested that adult males captured from 1990 to 2006 were smaller than those captured before 1990. The smaller stature of males was especially notable because it corresponded with a higher mean age of adult males. Male polar bears continue to grow into their teens, and if adequately nourished, the older males captured in the latter period should have been larger than those captured earlier. In western Hudson Bay, Canada, a significant decline in population size was preceded by observed declines in cub survival and physical stature. The evidence of declining recruitment and body size reported here, therefore, suggests vigilance regarding the future of polar bears in the SBS region.
That would be consistent with food being less available after 1990. You don't eat much, you don't grow much. Polar bears cannot swim as fast as marine mammals, so they sit at blowholes and wait. No ice, no blowholes so the bear have to move to where they can find prey.Parallel with declining survival, skull measurements suggested that COYs captured from 1990 to 2006 were smaller than those captured before 1990.
Does your hypothesis fit with this theory?I am a dirt guy bud so enjoy talking about it,especially living next to one of the most unique sedimentary deposits in Canada.
The mountains here are flipped upside down,old rock at the top and young rock at the bottom,they also slid for many miles pancake style and finally flipped over creating a pull apart valley in what's called the Flathead valley in B.C.
Those mountains in Waterton park came from afar!
Whats even more amazing here is the sedimentary layers in the first mountain building session of mother earth with pms was eroded back again and redeposited and there are folks who have mapped this out from Calgary University.That was 2 ice ages ago I think.
I dont have a phd in this stuff but I do have one of Alberta's largest collections of baculites,5 color ammonites,cephalopods,corbulites,and hundreds of other species that I have'nt identified yet sitting right next to me on display.
Most of my fossils became extinct with the dino's but my dig is on the livingstone range,where the rockys met the sea and I think they were deposited from a tsunami because of the deposition in the strata layers.
My theory is a tsunami scoured the inland sea and swept all the ammonites and other sea creatures high up into the crags and holes in the sea cliff which would have been the east face of Livingstone range in Alberta. Probably after the big meteor that killed all the dino's.
Thats why I find the same fossils in different layers that are millions of years apart.
I'll post some pics later maybe of my collection,outside of any museum I prolly have one of the best of Raw fossils.
Thats south of the rockys I know best but thats the gist of it.