posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 01:33 PM
There are some issues with this as pointed out by
1.) The plants they are dating are clumps of dead moss. They haven't been alive to take up carbon since 44,000 years ago. It is a logical flaw to
assume that the last time they were uncovered by the ice was when they were presumably covered and killed. No one knows for sure if that is the case.
Ice levels in the Arctic have fluctuated quite a lot in those 44,000 years, but dead plants wouldn't have been taking up radioactive carbon.
2.) Ice doesn't just disappear because it melts. Ice can also sublimate which means it passes directly from solid to gas. That can happen at quite
cold temperatures, and it's what's been going on at Mt. Kilimanjaro. So, if the moss has been uncovered at other times in the past 44,000 years and
is uncovered now, you can't really assume it's because the ice is melting due to heat. It might be sublimating. There are ways to look at the ice
and tell which process is occurring, but the one picture the scientists released with their story doesn't let you get a good look. And, when they
cited melting in Greenland ... well, Greenland and Baffin Island are two separate locations far enough apart that you can't assume what's happening
at one is happening at the other. In fact, weather data for Baffin Island shows no significant summer temperature increase.
3.) Just because you found four clumps of moss at Baffin Island that tell you something through carbon dating and you draw a conclusion doesn't mean
that your conclusion is valid for the entire Arctic. Your conclusion might
be valid for Baffin Island, but the entire Arctic? That's like
using a single pine tree
to create the impression that a
hockey stick graph was indeed an accurate depiction of global temperatures.