The oldest ice disappears and the Stone Age emerges from it
123 points by dxs 11 hours ago | 51 comments

pugworthy 8 hours ago
To be clear, so far some of the oldest ice found is over 6 million years old...

https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/six-million-year-old-ice-d...

reply
x______________ 5 hours ago
> To be clear, so far some of the oldest ice found is over 6 million years old...

And they're working on finding even older!

"Given the spectacularly old ice we have discovered at Allan Hills, we also have designed a comprehensive longer-term new study of this region to try to extend the records even further in time, which we hope to conduct between 2026 and 2031"

reply
pugworthy 4 hours ago
Just saw a presentation at the OSU PRAx Center last night bringing science and arts together (https://prax.oregonstate.edu/poetry-polar-science).

One of the presentations was on this research, and I was somewhat amazed the new stretch goal is to find 10 million year old ice. More power to them!

reply
assimpleaspossi 6 hours ago
So this means these areas were once not ice covered? Does this mean the area is returning to what it was a thousand years ago? And, back then, this was the normal or is ice covering the normal?
reply
kadoban 38 minutes ago
> And, back then, this was the normal or is ice covering the normal?

"Normal" is probably not a very useful framing. We're currently in an interglacial period in an ice age. So, on one scale we'd expect ice there, on one scale we'd not. On another scale we're just waiting for the sun to swallow the Earth and burn it all away. What's "normal" out of that?

If you happen to be asking if the current human-caused warming is an issue, yes it is. The Earth doesn't care, and "normal" doesn't care. We do though, we're fucking up our environment pretty good and it's causing misery and death.

reply
lexicality 8 hours ago
I'm slightly surprised they're just holding these artefacts with bare hands. I thought that was generally a no-no for dealing with objects untouched for thousands of years
reply
AlotOfReading 7 hours ago
Conservationists and archivists (sometimes) use gloves on cleaned samples, but not archaeologists. An archaeologist wearing gloves is almost certainly just cold.

There's no real reason to immediately protect the find from light handling when it's discovered. It's a dirty object that's still coated in whatever was floating around the environment for those thousands of years. The rock will be fine and probably handled multiple times before it gets back to an archive.

I think the only times I've worn gloves in the field were for a very rusty metal dagger and some especially sensitive human remains.

reply
mncharity 4 hours ago
> no real reason [...] still coated in whatever was floating around the environment

I wonder, might one instead make an argument that it's not currently economic-technologically feasible to avoid artifact surface information destruction and contamination, at any stage of the dig-to-archival-conservation pipeline, nor to extract whatever information might be there, outside of very rare cases? Rather than there's no information there to lose?

Perhaps it becomes possible-and-affordable at some point, to frequently check, say, "oh neat, here are some 10 um notches on the surface, with some nice yeast, and some pollen, and oh, maybe that's a bit of calcified biofilm for nanopore DNA?"? Does automated lab tech progress, someday make "brushed, handled, dusted, washed, and shelf in the basement" start sounding like 19thC "we accessed the site using dynamite"?

reply
apothegm 3 hours ago
Nowadays they don’t in fact brush off artifacts immediately upon extraction, just clear them of large clumps of dirt. Precisely because the fragile remains of paint and whatever else might have been stuck to them can often teach us more than the artifact itself.
reply
narnarpapadaddy 50 minutes ago
That one notch further on the spectrum that’s being described. Will “clear large chunks of dirt in the field” be found to have damaged information? Is there genuinely nothing to learn from the chunks of dirt? Or is it still too expensive to pay attention?
reply
AlotOfReading 22 minutes ago
We can only understand the coarsest information available in the soil. Any particular cubic centimeter has thousands of completely undocumented bacterial taxa, miles of fungal threads, organic residues left behind by higher lifeforms, etc. Each bit of soil is essentially unique.

Moreover, just being in the general vicinity is enough for us to leave behind contamination, since humans (and all other animals) constantly shed detectable eDNA into the environment. And even if they wanted to deal with this complexity, the budget for an entire project's archaeological testing is often less than my coworkers' monthly token budgets. You might get less than a dozen radioisotope, TL, or dendro tests for the entire thing, let alone anything more expensive.

reply
dieselgate 8 hours ago
Me too but presumably they’re not really that unique as there are hundreds? Or maybe the stone/hard artifacts are handled different than organic/soft.
reply
thenthenthen 5 hours ago
Thats one pretty arrowhead
reply
autoexec 7 hours ago
Sure, our actions and inaction regarding climate change threaten the very future of humanity, but on the bright side we're going to learn so much about human history in the process!
reply
ant6n 7 hours ago
Climate is out. Climate tech too.

AI is in.

reply
paulryanrogers 6 hours ago
With oil prices rising, climate tech is still quietly advancing.
reply
SoftTalker 4 hours ago
This was the only way change was ever going to happen: when economics forced it.
reply
paulryanrogers 3 hours ago
Really because Spain and Norway did it through government interventions to guide markets.

We don't have to be slaves to unregulated markets or the oligarchs they naturally breed.

reply
seb1204 3 hours ago
Untrue, or at least distorted with all the obvious and hidden fossile subsidies.
reply
jareklupinski 6 hours ago
what if we used AI on the climate
reply
trismus 5 hours ago
Just gotta build out those data centers first. For the climate, of course.
reply
yako21000 5 hours ago
Impact compared to other life necessary structures of big cities is small. (Water, power etc...) But yeah, it still consumes.
reply
autoexec 3 hours ago
A single data center can consume over well over 650 MW which is enough electricity for nearly 500,000 homes, which is more homes than the entire population of Miami Florida. Amazon has a 1,037 MW AI data center.
reply
parineum 5 hours ago
I'm sure you're abstaining from using AI, for the climate of course.
reply
Razengan 3 hours ago
Imagine if we move to Mars only to find out we used to live there...
reply
quotemstr 5 hours ago
Nah. For centuries up to the 1850s, climate was looking pretty dicy. The little ice age, had it gone on, might have represented a return a big ice age.

The heroic efforts of early industrialists adding carbon to the atmosphere avoided this calamity and set us up with a level of comfy and productive climate unknown in the quaternary.

Amazing how humanity keeps lucking out like this.

reply
didgetmaster 4 hours ago
I wonder if there were any climate change alarmists around 20,000 years ago; telling everyone that the planet was doomed if those mile-deep glaciers covering New York ever melted?
reply
PowerElectronix 10 hours ago
Does this mean that the ice wasn't there during the stone age?
reply
kzrdude 9 hours ago
Yes: most mainland Norway ice was gone during the holocene climatic optimum (9–6 thousand years ago), and glaciers recovered since then (until approx the 20th century, when deglaciation started accelerating again).

The climate is varying in long cycles, and the deglaciation 20 thousand years ago (last glacial maximum) was driven by a spike in summer temperatures, and this peak has already long passed. Ice ages and interglacial periods have a certain momentum to them, so it takes more than just that to go back to full ice age..

reply
chrisco255 9 hours ago
Yes, the early Neolithic was warmer than modern era.
reply
mistrial9 8 hours ago
wrong: IPCC AR6 puts the warmest Holocene stretch (~6.5 ka) at about 0.2-1°C above 1850-1900. 2011-2020 already beat that
reply
chrisco255 6 hours ago
No, it's not wrong or we wouldn't be finding 5K year old instruments underneath melted glaciers as this article's evidence shows. And ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica support this.
reply
fc417fc802 6 hours ago
Without taking a position I will point out that your stated reasoning doesn't hold due to how much momentum these systems have and how slowly they respond. It seems entirely plausible that this outcome would still have happened if temperatures had plateaued several years ago.
reply
Cerium 3 hours ago
Do you also wait until the inside of the meat is the temperature you want before taking it off the grill, then are later surprised when it is overcooked?
reply
throwaway173738 9 hours ago
Whatever you put in the glacier the glacier gives back to you. Anything you leave there ends up at the bottom of it in the moraine.
reply
chrisco255 9 hours ago
What's most impressive to me is how razor sharp the slate arrowhead they show in the top photo is. I've seen photos of many stone age arrowheads but they are usually much more dull and blunted.
reply
jacquesm 7 hours ago
That's because they weren't exposed to the weather as much. Essentially these were 'shrinkwrapped' in nature's own version of Cosmoline. No bacteria, no free oxygen. Once did this with a rose to see how long it would last and it basically was perfect until we moved house. Many years and not even the slightest change, it didn't even lose color.
reply
spockz 7 hours ago
That would actually be a brilliant treatment to give wedding bouquets! I’ve never heard of Cosmoline. Going to look it up. Thanks!
reply
userbinator 4 minutes ago
I’ve never heard of Cosmoline

Ironically it's made of petroleum, which is the decayed remains of prehistoric organisms.

reply
jacquesm 3 hours ago
It's not so easy to freeze something that large without getting defects in the crystal due to different rates of freezing, to do that properly will be a major engineering project. But I'd love to see you succeed with that.
reply
skeledrew 7 hours ago
Just wait for a few ancient-but-novel pathogens to start emerging too.
reply
SoftTalker 4 hours ago
unlikely there are any in the ice that were not also present outside the ice
reply
beansovertoast 6 hours ago
[dead]
reply
gAI 9 hours ago
Including Stone Age diseases?
reply
octaane 5 hours ago
Yes.
reply
mikert89 9 hours ago
Hyperborea
reply
taneq 2 hours ago
Crom!
reply
Creamsicle47 8 hours ago
I come from a land down under
reply
bpbp-mango 8 hours ago
I wonder what we will find beneath Greenland's ice?
reply
pestatije 6 hours ago
Imagine if the water disappeared
reply
peatweald 5 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
dyauspitr 10 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
sublinear 10 hours ago
That last sentence is how we know you've never been there. The ratio is the same as anywhere else.
reply
dyauspitr 10 hours ago
I’ve been to Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, the British Isles, all of it really.
reply