I believe we are experiencing Climate Change, and things are getting warmer but also colder in some parts of the world. I don't go for the term "Global Warming" especially when enviro-nuts use it to rake in the big bucks and over regulate businesses til they can't afford to grow and many have to close shop! We have ahd a very small part in what is going on with the Earth! A volcano spews out more carbon monoxide than we could ever do!

Well, we knew where you stand as soon as we got to the word "enviro-nuts" to describe people who try to do more to save the environment than sit in their Barca-Loungers and mutter "I believe." Environmentalists need to "rake in the big bucks" (which are never anywhere near as big as the critics claim) to combat the lumber clear-cutters, the oil, coal, and other mining industries that rape the land and leave the residents nothing but poison in return, and Japanese whalers who pretend they're killing whales for "scientific purposes" (sure, they're trying to discover how much they can sell whale meat for back in Japanese markets...) - you know, the industries who DO have the REALLY BIG BUCKS they use to buy Congressmen and Senators.

Your "science" is nothing to write home about, either. Man may not produce as much carbon monoxide as a volcano while it's in eruption. Only problem is, after the volcano goes dormant again, man continues to pump that schitt into the atmosphere every...damn...day. I'm not sure which "side" coined the term "Global Warming" (though if you'd stand on the edge of a Greenland glacier that's pouring trillions of gallons of fresh water into a salt-water ocean, you'd understand), but "climate change" is far too tame and simplistic. "Climate degradation" fits, though.

This tells me that it was warmer 1,700 years ago, warm enough for some Viking to take off a item of clothing and leave it, well possibly but it got there so times change. of course we've always known that the weather fluxuates there was a mini Ice age just 500 years ago and there have been warmer temperatures in the past 100 years then we are experiencing today there has also been temperatures averaging 8 degrees warmer then today in the not so distant past, so whats your problem?

Now that's what I call under armour!

the problem is that way to many people built on the shoreline of the ocean. It is a problem because it affects maybe 80% of the worlds over population. that is really what this is all about.

Jeepgal, I don't think it's so much the volcanoes as it is Al Gore's endless bloviating and flying his private jets from one corner of this planet to the other and back again in order to line his own pockets with donations from his Chicken Little disciples. It's been known for decades that the earth was once warmer than it is now. Long before humans had any affect on this earth at all. Why else would I be able to find fossil shells in a sinkhole on my property and I live at least 70 miles from any body of salt water? I'm pretty sure the old saying of "What's old is new again." This is just another phase the earth is going thru. Humans will adapt. Regardless of what the alarmists say, we're not all going to drown tomorrow or any time in the future.

The climate on earth is always changing. The left said global warming. Now the headlines are climate change. They keep cancelling these meetings because of the weather. The best time to hold these meeting in the warm weather. Of course in the 70's it was global cooling.

If George Bush had come out and said publicly that we had to do something about global warming, all of you would have jumped on the bandwagon like starving fleas on a warm body. Because Gore is a Democrat, you just have to dismiss the whole thing as nonsense.

Dirty industries have been denying global warming for one simple reason. It will hurt their bottom line to admit that they are a big part of the problem. Are you really willing to believe the very industries who profit from polluting the earth are the most objective arbiters of the science of global warming? If you are willing to believe anything they tell you about global warming, I have a bridge I could sell you.

"As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,^[103] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

Okay, I just pulled that from wikipedia, but they're usually pretty darned good about basic facts.

Now, who are we going to believe. A bunch of ordinary folk spouting off their 'opinion' about climate change, or 98% of the scientific community of every single western country?

Does anyone believe that smog is a natural phenomenon? Isn't it a tad alarming that rainforests, which supplied the earth with oxygen and contained a huge percentage of the world's diverse species, is going to be gone in a couple of decades? Are heat bubbles around cities 'natural'?

Is it or is it not a proven scientific fact that greenhouse gases absorb sunlight and cosmic rays,thus heating the atmosphere at rates never before seen in the geological record, and that we are producing vast amounts of said materials with no end in sight?

But what am I saying? You've already made up your minds and no amount of "science" will get you to wake up and smell the B.O. of 7 billion humans turning the earth into a big gas station that will, one day, run out of gas.

It's a good thing scientists don't leave it up to the "experts" posting above when they try to figure out how to get us out of this mess.

Global warming is a boon for Al Gore.

This is so exciting, we get to see these really cool things while our planet dies. cheers.

Roger 52: only an america hating republican would continue to say things like that. Al was right, W was wrong. So go buy a big SUV like Bush told you to do and stay out of adult conversations. please.

jockmama?

Try Catastrophic Climatic Destabilization.

jockmama-1543705

yep you are on the right side I bet you even have a nice wood place to live and breathe how much land do you have to support non- climate change?? Or is this just more hype to let people know you are on the right side??

george pauljohn

and is your house as big as Al's house?? Oh I forget do as I say not as I do is the democratic way.

I believe that there are two things going on regarding climate change: one is that yes, we do need to do all we can to avoid polluting our environment and that yes we do 'contribute' to climate change, but I also believe that we need to accept that the earth and it's climate changes regardless of whether humans are here or not.

There are natural cycles and what we do skews or distorts what happens naturally.

I don't think it's reasonable to think that the earth's climate or geography will or 'should' remain unchanged just because we want it to.

We know that the earth's magnetic poles have reversed themselves more than once during the ages past and that currently the magnetic field is both weakening and drifting at the rate of about 40 miles a year (ask any pilot) and many believe this indicates a reversal in progress. In many parts of the world, what is currently limestone formations far inland at hundreds of feet of elevation and that have fossils of sea creatures used to once be the sea bed.

We also know that huge asteroids have impacted the earth and now we have recently seen that such a thing can happen again at any day.

It's not unreasonable to believe, postulate or expect that the earth changes come about without our 'human contributions' that so many people detest. BTW, I don't see any "human-haters" (people who self righteously seem to feel that humans are the cause of just about every seeming ill of the earth) committing suicide as a means of eliminating their contribution to global warming since their very existence in some way contributes to this supposedly man-mad problem.

The 'human-haters' are using a computer powered by electricity, made of plastic created by oil, use semiconductors that used poisonous chemicals to produce, placed on printed circuit boards containing heavy metals and that were cleaned with some form of solvent that is, in some way, harmful to the environment. The pain on the walls, the materials in EVERYTHING used by the human-haters was, in some way, created via a chemical process that alters the environment and the ONLY way to stop contributing to the Earth's pollution and defamation is to kill one's self.

I don't advocate suicide for anyone, including human-haters, but let's be realistic. We, as "individual" humans, control almost nothing of the world around us - RELATIVELY SPEAKING - and yet we are neurotic in our efforts to control and blame things beyond our control.

This point of view (incomplete due to space limitations) I'm expressing has practical flaws, but the main point is, we humans aren't the vile, Earth-destroying creatures, by our very existence, that so many 'appear' to believe and there are massive changes taking place that we, with our intelligence and technology are going to need to adapt to, possibly in some very dramatic ways, at times.

Let's not waste resources and let's do our 'individual' part to limit our personal foot print on the environment according to our own beliefs, situation and abilities and then let's accept that all animals and humans are going to have to adapt to the coming changes - and that may include becoming extinct, in some cases, as so many other species have done prior to our modern times.

Don't glaciers move? On Google maps you can see the flow lines when you look at glaciers. Why would they think this tunic was dropped at the location where it was found, or that this would necessarily imply the glacier being smaller at the time it was dropped?

Other than that, I find this story fascinating despite the GW implications.

I thought this article was supposed to be about a pre-Viking tunic, but both the article and the commentary are focused on AGW. Can hardly get away from it. Unfortunately there aren't more articles on Zoroastrianism.

Underemployed

Because Gore is a Democrat, you just have to dismiss the whole thing as nonsense.

No, because Gore claimed he invented the internet is why we have to dismiss the whole thing as nonsense. ;)

Perhaps, although it isn't always that straightforward. But more importantly, the fact that it was warm before is well known and abd does not address the question of whether we are affecting the climate NOW.

You beat me to it Derek as I was thinking exactly the same thing. So as few as 1300 (the stuff found on a thawing glacier that was dated to 800 AD) years ago the glaciers were much smaller than in recent times? Small enough that there were travel routes where none exist today? Hmmmm... How can that be? It can't be the natural cycle of the earth and its weather patterns. Man must've caused it even back then. {sarc}

I was wondering the same thing about the warming issue but I would want to know where south Norway was on this planet at that time, or if it has drifted north.

NO PICTURES???? remember nbcnews.com, this IS the internet!!!

continental drift is much slower than that, takes many many thousands of years to move enough to change the climate. i believe seafloor spreading happens about as fast as your fingernails grow.

so , derek, you are going to choose to believe one anecdotal anomaly cancels out the convictions of 98% of the planet's scientific community?

Glaciers are slow moving conveyor belts. We're expecting a couple of climbers from 1909 to pop out of Mount Rainer any time here.

http://www.sarinfo.bc.ca/RainierGlaciers.htm

http://www.mountrainierclimbing.us/sar/fatalities.php

http://mountrainierclimbing.us/sar/queryfatalities.php?activity=Climbing%20(Summit)

imbecile

That is sort of what I was thinking, it was only 2000 years ago this is showing us a cycle.

"so , derek, you are going to choose to believe one anecdotal anomaly cancels out the convictions of 98% of the planet's scientific community?"

98% of the planets scientific community also thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

maridanne..."NO PICTURES?"

What story are you reading?

I see two pictures.

arnis- those people your talking about were religious scholars, not scientists.

Like Rob-Seattle said "Glaciers are slow moving conveyor belts" Glaciers are like frozen rivers they flow down hill very slowly sometimes only a hundred feet a year but they do flow. The statement in the article is wrong in saying "the tunic showed that Norway's Lendbreen glacier, where it was found, had not been so small since 300" the archaeologists may know their archaeology but they don't have a clear understanding of Glaciers. If you drop something near the beginning of a Glacier it will eventually come out the other end it might take a 10,000 years or more but it will come out. With Global warming causing the Glaciers to melt it's just coming out sooner. The Tunic could have been dropped anywhere on the Glacier and the end of the Glacier could have been five miles down hill when the Tunic was dropped. The only thing we can be sure of is the tunic was dropped on the Glacier up hill from where it was found.

Gee, Derek, I guess it's not possible that the tunic was just discarded, huh? And why do you assume that said tunic was a person's outer garment? Maybe after five years under a parka without washing it was just too stinky to try to save...

And, Arnis, when organized religion told the illiterate peasants that the Sun revolved around the Earth, they were just teaching what Ptolomy told THEM (Earth was the center of the universe, because WE were there). There WAS no "scientific community. Just a handful of scientific empiricists like Galileo and Copernicus claiming that Ptolomy (the greatest scientific mind of HIS age) had it wrong. And no one ever taught that the Earth was flat, because mariners knew it was round all the way back to the Greeks. It was just the bizarre notion of people who lived far from the sea, thought up with absolutely NO proof at all.

I don't understand what the difference between today's scientists and the then religious scholars if everything they say is taken as fact.

I guess you didn't understand my point.

Arnis, We don't get you because you don't understand or are just too hard headed. Of course the scholars from 400 years ago had ideals and many times they were wrong. Today's scientists have time tested, proven facts ... Even though there was no such thing back in his day. If Sir Issac was brought back from the dead and asked to stand in front of a 2 ton car doing 100 mph's. Sir Issac Newton would decline and say: Let Arnis try it. He's idiot enough.

Always is amusing when someone compares todays science to when we had no scientific instruments, or true "scientific method" and ignorant people thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. I am not one to just jump on any bandwagon where a "majority" of people think something is correct so it must automatically be correct, but to dismiss the 98% of our scientific community by comparing them to the religions despots who burned people at the stake for even proposing a round earth or a revolving earth is an embarassingly revealing level of ignorance by choice.

Whether we as humans want to, can, or will do something about the clear evidence of global climate change and the significant effects showing up now and are going to accelearate in the future for our children, why is it so damn hard for people to at least open their eyes and admit it is happening? And why do people continue to automatically knee jerk defend the mega corporation carbon energy monopolies that not only poison our water and air with impunity, but at the same time rip us all off to become grossly rich by keeping us addicted to supporting the very countries that declare their intent to destroy all that we stand for as Americans?

"I don't understand what the difference between today's scientists and the then religious scholars if everything they say is taken as fact. I guess you didn't understand my point." -arnose

The difference is, -if YOU disagree with TODAY'S scientists' understanding of how things work, despite all of the evidence that they have on the subject, -YOU merely have stuck your own head up a hole (or down as the case may be).

Back then, if YOU said the Earth was ROUND and went around the Sun, the so-called religious scholars would have had YOU to an Audo de Fe'.

Get it, now, eh? -joe

" Today's scientists have time tested, proven facts .. " -steamie2010

Unfortunately, when deniers, thumpers, and the scientific illiterate hear the word THEORY (as in theory of evolution) -and think "Another Wild Assed Guess by those know-it-alls in lab coats."

Never mind that they carry the same weight of validity as the theory of Nuclear Physics, theory of Relativity, Germ theory, theory of Universal Gravitation. -joe

To all you climate change doubters out there: you can cling to your anti-science views, but even if you were right about the climate, there is still no denying that humans are destroying our planet. We continue pull up too much water, salt, and gas from the earth, so giant sinkholes and polluted ground water are the price we pay. We pump too much pollution into the atmosphere, so we can barely breath the air around us. This pollution is not just a problem in China, where the air is so thick you can barely see in front of you. Many American cities have such high levels of particles in the air that it is unsafe for people to breath outside air. And people wonder why rates of asthma and allergies are at all-time highs! We cut down the trees that protect us from wildfires and purify the air we breath. We dredge our marshes and then wonder why we have catastrophic floods. So EVEN IF YOU DENY climate change is real, or deny humanity's role in climate change, this is no excuse to continue to abuse the environment and destroy our natural resources. To say this is irresponsible would be the understatement of the millennium. People and industries use climate change denial as an excuse to continue to rape the environment, but even if you set aside the whole climate debate there can be no denying the damage we are doing to the Earth. Why this is a liberal issue and not a human being issue, I can't understand.

Here is one of the many problems I have with the man made global warming. When I was in school (about 20 years ago) I was taught that the earth had a cycle. Approximately 8 times in the past the earth was approximately 10 degrees warmer than right now and on the other end about 10 degrees colder. Now when you see people doing research on climate change they frequently refer to those hotter periods as "being similar to today". So they are now trying to make it look like this is the hot part of the cycle and anything hotter would be an anomaly. Plus according to the models I have looked at the CO2 started rising outside what scientist consider normal levels in the very early 1800s. That is before all the things they blame the raise on. I live in Alaska and I know the glacier next to my house started receding in 1860. If all the stuff they point to as examples started happening before we had all the things they blame it on. Why should we not assume that the continued increase is not part of a process that was started before we could have made much of an impact. On the reverse if man was making an impact in the early 1800s then as my name say all is lost. there is not way we are getting down to pre 1850 co2 output without killing off about 6 billion people(there was only 1 billion people on the planet in 1800 and approx 3 billion by1900.) Let me know if I am missing something because I truly do like to know.

Supper wrote:

Why this is a liberal issue and not a human being issue, I can't understand.

I can explain this. Many people, with cause, think that liberals have a wider, but unstated, agenda when they talk about AGW being "settled science" (no such thing BTW).... and they DO seem to get a bit more worked up about dissent from AGW than if someone were to dispute that water freezes at 0 degrees C. The easiest thing for them to do right now is to deny, deny, deny. Give the opposition nothing. Make them fight for everything. Delay the next steps, if there are to be any, as long as possible.

The left makes stuff up too. Me? I accept the truth whether it conflicts with my "agenda" or not.

Most glaciers are always melting from underneath, and they slowly creep down the valleys they are in. Historic (since scientists have been measuring) thicknesses have been fairly consistant.

No it wasn't that it was warm back then and suddenly got colder, it's that it was warm back then and gradually got colder.

"I've left hundreds of cloaks like this laying around the arctic shelf." Isn't that more than a bit hypocritical "LitterHater?"

no because their fibers get recycled by local avain-life for building nests and the buttons are ingested by large mammals that can digest the fiber within them so nothing goes to waste unless they get frozen like this one did but that's rare due to higher average global-temperatures over the past few decades when i've begun doing this so stop being a self-righteous douche and making auccsations before you know the facts, this is an issue that i take extremely seriously and i always look to be a net-positive to the environment rather than a net-negative like you and your emissions burning, gum-spitting, cigareete smoking squad of idiots so either change your own ways or leave me alone about mine.

Uncle Ben, have scientists found "hundreds of cloaks"...? And the garment they found was a tunic (a long shirt), not a cloak. And even if they had, all that means is that the people back then didn't have landfills. That's how we got the phrase, "throwing something out." They just tossed trash out the window or door.

@Litter-- I totally agree with you! Is'nt it amazing that minds like ours are NOT appreciated anymore? BTW, if they find colored jockeys there they are MINE! LMFAO

You do win "dumbest post of the year," and if you want to be left alone, don't post on a public venue. And, throwing anything out is littering, whether it's recyclable or not. LitterHater litterbug, you're a hypocrite.

Archeology: the lost and found service that came too late.

I'm assuming you were trying to be sarcastic. Scientists CAN deduce an amazing amount of data just from analysing the fibers used in cloth. Animal or vegetable? If vegetable, from a local plant or an import? If animal, from a local beast or an import? (Sheep weren't native to those latitudes, and reindeer hadn't been domesticated yet.) Even the weave itself: hand or loomed? Don't be such a Luddite.

jockmama - I was implying the very ideas you spelled out in your post - that there is probably a treasure trove of information to be obtained from this item. No need to be rude and resort to name calling. Wow.

I got what you meant Lazurite. It is really interesting because it's rare for any fabric to survive so long.

You too?

The story I'm reading has two, count them, two, pictures.

Al - there weren't any photos when the story was first posted. They were added later.

And then it got a lot colder under the 20th century, taking off on a warmer bender with higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere and increasing sea surface temperatures. Kinya diggit?

here is one http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/21/17403302-pre-viking-tunic-found-on-glacier-as-warming-trend-aids-archaeology#comments

The climate in Scandinavia was warmer 1000-1500 years ago than it is today. The National Museum in Reykjavik (Iceland being one of the greenest, most eco-conscious countries on earth) does an excellent job of explaining that, and being very skeptical of the modern global warming theory.

So who are the bright people?

Industrial age.

Rednecks are DUMB.

Gullible too.

That would be American rednecks. In case you hadn't heard of them, they're a unique regional subculture of ignorant know-nothings. You can recognize them by their racial (and other kinds of) hatred, lack of education, neo-fascist politics, and primitive religious beliefs. We need to expose them for what they are so they can be discredited and marginalized culturally and politically.

First intelligent post I've read!

right, lighting 1.7 TRILLION gallons of oil on fire every year? eh? - no effect. I didn't read any science, and I haven't really thought about it, but I'm SURE that it has zero effect. that's 12 TRILLION pounds of oil burned annually. global warming? = hoax, propagated by those get rich quick scientists.

You're not big on science, are you? I hope you're not dumb enough to subscribe to the Glenn Beck paranoia broadcasts.

Best comment thus far.

Well written Lumpy. Please continue, you have my attention.

MY THOUGH EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!

Why was in baren in 300????

Any takers????????

Come on,,,,,,,,,

Why was in so warm when their were only a few million people on the planet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Notice they have changed their causes name several times already!!!!!!!!

FOR ALL YOU STUPID FOOLS WHO CALL OTHERS NAMES FOR NOT BELIEVING YOUR LIBERAL IDEA'S.

ANSWER ONE QUESTION!!!!!!!

WHEN WAS THERE NO CLIMATE CHANGE??????

ANSWER: NEVER!!!!!

So we should all work so as to stop something that has NEVER existed???????

Weather changes, our history goes back only a few centuries. Yet, chimate has ALWAYS changed. It has been hotter, it has been cooler. SO WHAT!!!!!!

All it is, is an idea to redistribute INCOME from the more developed countries, to the less affluent.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Our Government ONLY funds data that follows a certain, AGENDA.

Anything that contradicts it is not funded. Hence, GO WHERE THE MONEY IS!!!!!!!!

IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

Check THIS out!!!!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

It doesn't say anything about computer technologies either, so you know it cant be true.

I don't gamble, but if I did, I would bet on the science being correct.