Re: Pole Shifts vs Ice Ages (Revisited)

John Shakespeare wrote:
>>
>>> On the contrary, Nancy. There are ice caps TODAY at
>>> the same latitudes as dense forests with large browsing
>>> animals. Get a map or a globe, find Greenland ...
>>
Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> John, how does the ice FORM there, is the point, in the FIRST PLACE! Of
>> course the climate will be different if the soil is covered by several
>> feet of ice, slowly melting, versus another spot on the same latitude
>> where the an ice cover does not exists so vegetation can grow.
>
> So, you don't dispute that a significant part of the permanent ice cap
> in Greenland is at the same latitude range as mixed forests and boreal
> forests in Finland. Neither do you dispute that large grazing animals
> (reindeer) and browsing animals (elk, deer) as well as carnivores
> (bear) dwell in those forests. Good; you have admitted you are wrong.
> You should do so more often.
>
> Did you know that in shaded places, we can have unmelted snow in June
> in the South of Finland.

Very rear. It's more common in neighbor countries like Norway, where you
have more of a rugged terrain creating such shaded places. Now, main point;
does it stay, or does it melt away during summer?

> and that in some years snow can fall in August in the North?
> In many years, the lakes in the South remain frozen until early June,
> and even later in the North. The temperature can fall by more than 30C in
> one day.

Welcome to the cold North! How long are you going to visit this strange
world, before you return to a climate more to your understanding?

> A spooked animal which falls into half frozen water, or which falls
> injured into a shaded hollow can be frozen faster than its meat can spoil.

And next summer it melts and gets eaten.

> Perhaps next, you will apologize to Mr. McDonald for the risibly ignorant
> derision you have directed at him over similar matters, in which his
> knowledge is evidently far superior to yours.

Why should she? If she would have to make any apology, it would not be on
any factual parts of the discussions. In fact, the way many people here have
treated Nancy, she would rather deserve a few apologies herself.

I cannot see she has claimed Tom wrong in his factual information, but
challenged the conclusions (or chosen not to respond to his postings). Now
Tom has got upset by Nancy rewording his conclusion, so now he calls her a
liar. Then you incorrectly claim Nancy has admitted she is wrong, which she
hasn't. The main cause for this confusion seem to be that neither Tom nor
you seem to understand the real issue at hand:

What made the Greenland icecap form in the first place??

Ian