Guess What? They Found A (Fossilized) Tropical Forest In The Arctic

A team of scientists has unearthed the fossil remnants of a tropical forest on the arctic island of Svalbard, and, according to them, it could well  help explain what is known to be one of the most dramatic climate shifts in Earth’s history.

The fossil forest—stumps of lycopod trees that reached heights of about 13 feet—dates back to the late Devonian period, or some 380 million years ago.   Today, Svalbard, is  a frozen wasteland, but at that time was a huge area of equatorial jungle.  This is amongst some of  the oldest forests ever discovered and is eclipsed only by a mid-Devonian forest in Gilboa, New York.

The end of the Devonian was marked by a dramatic global cooling event caused by a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. One explanation for the atmospheric shift is the rise of CO2-hungry forests, but to date, very few Devonian trees have actually been found.

Firm evidence for tropical forests at the end Devonian supports the theory that trees had a big role to play in the climactic shift that would usher in an era of complex terrestrial ecosystems.

 Above: A reconstructed drawing of a Svalbard fossil forest. Image Credit: Chris Berry/ Cardiff University


“During the Devonian Period, it is widely believed that there was a huge drop in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from 15 times the present amount to something approaching current levels,” said Cardiff University’s Chris Berry, lead author on a study appearing this week in Geology.

“The evolution of tree-sized vegetation is the most likely cause of this dramatic drop in carbon dioxide because the plants were absorbing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis to build their tissues, and also through the process of forming soils,” he continued.

Ultimately, Devonian trees probably set the stage of land-based life as we know it.

[Read the full scientific paper at Geology h/t Atlas Obscura]

The question, though, how long before we stumble upon fossil remains of hitherto unknown species of fauna?  It's funny to think that when I read those magazine articles and books as a youngster that told how arctic and other "desolate" locations might once have been teeming with vegetation and life, those "in the know" used to mock the theories.

Only the ignorant claim we know everything about the past.

What Do You Mean "Peer Review"?

Right.  If in Geology, astronomy, physics or even wildlife research you make a discovery, report on a possible trend or present, as with the AE-CE IIIK data base, work that you would like to have your field if study accept you write up a paper and present it to a journal.

What happens then is that your peers will read that paper and either say "Excellent! Proves a point" or "I think you'll find that "this" and "that" have incorrect data" or some may ask to look at thereadings, reports or whatever to double check.

With a data base of thousands of reports you are NOT going to find a UFO publication that will publish it.  I'm guessing it would be a few hundred pages long.

So, you send free copies via the internet to researchers or, less cumbersome and far more useful, the sections pertaining to their countries.  They can read through the listings and responses might be:

(1)  "Case 007 is a proven hoax/psychological/misidentification" -in which case you would need to know how/who proved it to be a such because that is vital for the data base.

(2)  "Case 007 I have never heard of!"  In which case the report source/details are sent to that person to check or look into and see what they come up with.

Having to correct a data base is not something that should bruise an ego.  Even if it sounded like a great case the whole point is that if it is a hoax/psychological / misidentification then is is erroneous data and to continue to use it or promote it puts you in a category of Charlatan. Flim Flam man. And wholly untrustworthy.

I know that identifying hoaxes or misidentifications makes me unpopular.  So what?

per cognitionem veritatis -Through Knowledge: Truth

If you want to accept that hypnosis has produced nothing but 100% truth for Ufologists to study and that millions of alien hybrids are walking about and that the all powerful "Greys" are in charge (well, hypnosis has 'proven' they aren't now...who'll be in charge next?) go ahead.  There's a 'face' on Cydonia, Mars you will love.

Myself -I want to find the truth based on true evidence or testimony.

In Ufology, as in Cryptozoology, the paranormal, etc., that is not the done thing.  Tough.



and if you don't get the point of the bug photo.....

The AE -CE IIIK Project Now Private

I am learning all sorts of lessons.  Firstly, I should never have suggested the AE CE IIIK data base project.

I thought I made it very clear that the idea of the project was not to be the reference source that only I would use.  The idea was that researchers in different countries would cooperate with each other so that each had a duplicate data base catalogue and that would mean freely exchanging case reports.

It would not be "Terry Hooper's CE IIIK Catalogue" -I am not egotistical. I am a researcher.  There is no point in my having a huge data base but no one else benefitting from it.

Also, if a researcher in France, Belgium, Germany or Spain has a copy then if I curl up my toes my data is probably going to be burnt or thrown in a bin (several bins actually).  But "A" in France, "B" in Germany and so on would have copies so nothing is lost and as new cases arise so they can be added and it will be a self perpetuating data base.

Is that very confusing?  Does it say "I don't give a damn how long "A" took to put his data base together -I am taking over!" -does it?

"What about other over-lapping data bases?"  Well, so far, apart from one dealing just with Spain I have had no links sent to these other data bases nor had them named.  So it is a pointless question.

I "need to publish" what I have so people can see....right.  Totally missing the point.  I have stated that I intend to publish everything next year.  In the meantime I was going to make a preliminary data base available FREE to all researchers.  A UK data base. 

I have pointed out and explained repeatedly that I will make a listing of all cases I have available next year. We are talking thousands of dates/times/locations to be typed up and prepared. I have to try to earn a living in the meantime and have other projects to sort out.

I should also point out that I have sent a lot of material out to non-UK researchers with the promise of material in exchange.  Nothing.  They received the data but that was it.  The provisional Spanish catalogue was useful and I thank Luis Gonzalez for that.

But so far Germany, France, Italy -none have followed through. 

All I get is a bunch of negative comments or more and more questions and if the project has bruised a few egos then tough. It should not have because we are supposed to be working together toward finding answers not massaging our egos.

I am taking too much time away from work to explain what is straight forward and I cannot find any other way of making even simpler to understand.  That I have had to correct dates, details and locations given in one badly referenced data base is NOT an attack on anyone -you want to continue citing erroneous data go ahead.

And the UK?  The response from the couple of groups who have responded is to trawl their web pages for material but they'll be very happy to see the full data base, not having even bothered attempting to contribute to it.

On the other hand, John Hanson who, along with Dawn Holloway, is compiling the Haunted Skies encyclopaedia of British Ufology has been very helpful.

So, I am proceeding as always on a solo project and the results will be published as and when I am ready and I am not correcting the record until that time.

Negativity is what has always held back "Ufology" which is not a scientific study -those are usually peer reviewed which seems to be forbidden with this subject.  I have always, and I will always, cooperate with genuine researchers/investigators but I will no longer accept leeching of my material and one way exchange with all the data coming from me.