Climate History of Earth--Eocene to Present 2020
Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Climate History–We’re in an Ice Age!

arroba Email

This press release from Phys.Org has an image that is worth, as they say, “a thousand words.” ( See here. )

The color-coded temperature divides on the right-hand side of the chart should not deceive you. Instead, simply move your eyes to the left.

You’ll notice that we’re looking at a continuous plot of temperature, for the most part (except for the gap in the Pleistocene Era) and which continues on into the Holocene (present era). So, then, look at how the left side of the chart is characterized: Hothouse, Warmhouse, Coolhouse, and Icehouse. Now notice that our present temperatures fall in the ICEHOUSE portion of this 60 million year history of earth’s temperatures.

Shouldn’t this chart alone be enough to dismiss current climate hysteria? Yes, it should. We are still living in an Ice House phase.

But, wait, look at those projected future histories using climate models!

Well, can models that cannot predict our current non-rise in temperature be relied upon to predict way out into the future–given that iterative numerical techniques only give worse answers with time? I have absolutely no confidence in them.

But, even if we do place some confidence in them, notice that our world would have to rise 4 degrees Centigrade, or 7 degrees Fahrenheit. Is this likely any time soon? No. We’re closer and closer to nuclear fusion energy and already inching towards a renaissance of fission energy reactors on smaller, more local levels. Why must projections be based on a static view of where we now stand energy-wise? Is it because otherwise there wouldn’t be a “crisis” to be “fixed”?

That’s my hunch.

BTW, there are new studies on how volcanic ash lingers longer in the air than thought, being a source, then, of cooling. Likewise, there’s a study showing that the earth’s crust is “recycled” via a journey to the mantle and then back up through oceanic ridges and volcanoes. Now just think of what would happen if the earth’s core heated up just a little? This matters because the amount of “carbon-cycling” involved in this process is 10,000 times greater than the carbon content of our atmosphere!!

Those who have been here long enough know that I’ve made an argument that volcanoes and ridges play a part, and perhaps a big part, in the CO2 levels we see today.

I guess I would have to see some sort of convincing argument that all the data used in this particular study was false. Otherwise yours is an argument by assertion.
The "data" isn't false. The predictions are false. That's the whole point of this post. LOOK at the "data." What do you see? You see that our present temperatures fall within the "Icehouse" range. Just look at where we are TODAY, and then move to the left on the chart. (That is, look for the year 2,000) Today's temperatures are the same as those seen in the supposed "Icehouse." It's a relative scale being used, but it's the same relative temperature. The predictions of climate models are shown in the right-most section of the chart with the "white" background. These are their PREDICTIONS, no more. And, now, here's what they said and what you've quoted:
. . . the current pace of anthropogenic global warming far exceeds the natural climate fluctuations seen at any other point in the Cenozoic era, and has the potential to hyper-drive our planet out of a long icehouse phase into a searing hothouse state.
"Has the 'potential' . . . How do they know that? No, it's not up to us to prove the data false; it's up to them to prove their predictions have any chance of being right. PaV
"The issue is with using false data to force a prediction." I guess I would have to see some sort of convincing argument that all the data used in this particular study was false. Otherwise yours is an argument by assertion. Are you claiming that on Earth carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is concentrated mainly near the ground? I have never seen that anywhere before - need proof, measurements. And so what if China isn't mentioned - what does that have to do with the science of the study being reported? doubter
Doubter No one claims climate does not change. Over the course of millions of years water levels rise and fall due to ice ages coming and going. There are towns that used to be along the shore that are under water today. The issue is with using false data to force a prediction. A greenhouse gas is something that reaches the upper atmosphere and remains there to not allow heat to escape. Without some gasses in place, the Earth would be covered in ice. CO2 is heavy compared to what makes up the air, which is why only trace amounts can be found in the upper atmosphere. On Venus, where the air is denser, CO2 is lighter in comparison and is a greenhouse gas. China is the number one polluter in the world, yet not one word is mentioned. They produce most of the solar panels, which creates a lot of toxic waste that most other countries would have to store safely. China allows the toxins to run out into the streets and don't care how many Chinese die as a result. If you, and other like yourself, cared more about the environment and less about bringing about socialism, you would be calling for every democratic nation to stop trading with China today. BobRyan
The Livescience coverage and interpretation of this new study emphatically disagrees with most of the commentary here. From
The zig-zagging chart ends with a sobering peak. According to the researchers, the current pace of anthropogenic global warming far exceeds the natural climate fluctuations seen at any other point in the Cenozoic era, and has the potential to hyper-drive our planet out of a long icehouse phase into a searing hothouse state. .................................. About 3 million years ago, Earth entered an icehouse phase, driven by waxing and waning ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Now, human greenhouse gas emissions are causing temperatures to rise to an extent not seen in tens of millions of years. This rise is well beyond the natural variations triggered by Earth's changing orbit, the researchers concluded. And if current greenhouse emissions hold steady, the climate could skyrocket back to levels not seen since the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The transition from icehouse to hothouse won't take millions of years, Zachos said — it will take hundreds.
The Uncommon Descent consensus appears to be that this is all b.s. The anthropogenic climate change deniers had better be right, or we're all on an irreversible ride to the frying pan. doubter
The Eskimos survived a period of overall flooding, and remember it in their stories. See Franz Boas's book, p 261 of the PDF. polistra
ET: How long have there been native populations in North America? It's at least 17,000 years. The Last Ice Age was from 115,000 – c.?11,700 years ago. What if the huge ice sheets covering large portions of North America (think the Great Lakes and the Grand Canyon) broke loose suddenly--which is what you might expect more towards the end of the Last Ice Age, that is, c. 11,700 years ago, then what might the effects have been? It could have catastrophic, with Atlantic Ocean water levels rising and flooding and completely destroying coastal towns and with the Mississippi forming, as well as the Grand Canyon, but not without tremendous portions of land swept away and destroying many villages and towns, to say nothing of the huge masses of water left in low spots. Just a scenario. But, you must admit, it's a "plausible" one. PaV
Bob O'H: I read about how cities/towns were found in the Black Sea coastline that were about, IIRC, 350 feet below sea level some time back. And, for what it's worth, this got me to thinking backwards--that is, why would this happen only in this area and not elsewhere, again, IIRC, this same phenomenon is found along coastlines of the Mediterranean Sea. Where would this water come from? The Alps. How would it get there? Via the Atlantic. Why wasn't the Mediterranean Sea affected gradually? Hence, my thesis. PaV
As for CO2 and global warming, it is too insignificant to cause any issues besides poisoning the air if concentrations get to high. If the CO2 level reaches as low as 150ppm the plants start dying and we are soon to follow. This diagram shows how insignificant CO2 is as a GHG ET
The Aztecs and Mayans have flood stories, also. The Chickasaw also have flood stories. So were they exchanging ideas with the Middle East? ET
PaV @ 5 - Interesting. Not that it's right, but there is a hypothesis that the flooding of the Black Sea was the origin of the Noah's flood myth. At least that would be closer to where the flood myths originated. Bob O'H
Environmentalists have no interest in the environment. It's a tool to bring about their Marxist ideology. If they cared, they would be vocal about China. BobRyan
CO2 is too heavy on Earth to be a greenhouse gas. There are trace elements in the atmosphere from things like volcanic eruptions, but very little. CO2 is heavy compared to what makes up Earth's atmosphere. Venus has heavier air, which causes CO2 to be higher up and is a greenhouse gas there. Without CO2, plants don't do well. BobRyan
Look at the graph again (I recommend you go to the Phys.Org page and then click on the image and open it in a new tab). It took 45 million years for the earth to "cool off" from the beginning of the "Warmhouse" period to the present day temperature of the earth and their worst-case climate model has us getting back to this "Warmhouse" temperature in 300 years!!--which is 1/150,000 of the time needed to cool. Is this believable at all? PaV
Doubter: I'm not aware of any "faster and faster" rise in global temperatures. Some, in fact, are warning that because of the solar minimum we've entered that temperatures might begin to decrease. If the Arctic or Antarctic ice is melting, I would suggest you look at changing ocean currents: they're really the driver of much of the melting. Also, volcanic activity, which is very high on Western Antarctica and underneath Greenland's Ice Sheet. As to the fires, heavens, in California it is because of environmentalist fanaticism. People have been warning for over twenty year that if agencies and private industry wasn't allowed to clean out the forests that uncontrollable fires would ensue. As to Australia, the fires there had been burning for months before ANYTHING was reported about them here in the US. When did they report about these fires? In the middle of a heat wave the US was having. The fires, IIRC, began during the Southern Hemisphere's "winter." Meanwhile, study after study confirms that climatologists have much much to learn about how the climate operates. And the models don't fit for the most part and are wildly off in some. As John-the-Designer points out, satellite data doesn't show much warming. And my own dive into measurement devices used to convey temperature data revealed that a lot of hanky-panky might be taking place. They adjust the digital thermometers up. Why? Because they say their readings are too low. How do they know? There's a chart of 20th Century temperatures that's a nice line that is pretty much level from the start of the 20th Century to about 1974 or 1975, IIRC. Humans went out and took measurements every day and wrote them down: nice and orderly. Then they installed "digital" thermometers. From that point on the temperatures recorded in the US swung wildly, and wildly "up." The hottest recorded temperatures in the US, for the most part, are from the 1930's--a time when "man-made" carbon emissions were a hundredth of what they are today. So, what caused all that heat? And, BTW, they were alarmed by the absence of Arctic Ice in either the 1920's or 30's. Again, ocean currents. PaV
When you look at this chart, it seems highly likely that the "Flooding" in Noah's time was due to glacier melt. My hypothesis is that the Mediterranean Sea was hundreds of feet lower, with the Rock of Gibraltar sealing off the Atlantic for the most part. Glacier melt caused the Atlantic Ocean water level to rise significantly relative to the Mediterranean. At some point, the "seal," via built up water pressure (on one side and not the other) caused the "unsealing" of the Rock of Gibraltar suddenly, and raising sea levels to rise dramatically over a short period of time. The effect might have been just like a tsunami, sweeping seaside cities away in a second. Is this how the Lost City of Atlantis was "lost"? Was it right on the inside of the Rock of Gibraltar, within miles, and then simply swept away by the enormous power of raging water? No matter the imminent cause of the "Flooding," Noah was very wise to build an Ark. PaV
The link works, whether or not it contains a recognizable URL. I'm curious. I am not expert in this area, but there have been numerous reports that global maximum and average temperatures have been rising faster and faster. There are many reports of what appear to be the natural results of such an accelerated temperature rising: accelerated melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets and corresponding accelerated rising of sea levels, and accelerated and increasingly severe (even unprecedented) brush and forest fires especially in the western continental USA, Australia, and Siberia. Is all this just false news promulgated by the liberal media, or is it what it clearly seems to be, a pronounced indication of anthropogenically caused climate change, or if not either of these, what? doubter
I've simply included the link in the text since I'm having problems using the new block system that WordPress uses now. PaV
Well, let’s give Climate Science some benefit of the doubt here. Using “the methods and tools of science” what can we say about climate change? Here is my list of things we can say with “solar eclipse” kind of certainty.
First, climate change is a fact. The climate is changing because the climate has always been changing. Even the so-called climate deniers don’t deny that. Second, global warming is real. If the climate is changing then it must be changing in one of two directions: It’s either getting warmer or it is getting cooler. The overall trend since the last ice age has been warmer. Third, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, it is not most predominate greenhouse gas, water vapor is. Fourth, worldwide industrialization has contributed to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Fifth, since 1979 satellite data, which is the only true “real time” measure of the earth’s global temperature, has shown only a negligible increase in the earths over all temperature. This does not correspond with the UN’s IPCC computer models all of which show more of an increase than the real data, with a few outliers showing a runaway increase of global temperatures. Sixth CO2 is not only natural it’s necessary for life. Plants thrive in high CO2 environments. Seventh sea levels have been rising since the last ice age.
That’s what we presently know using “the methods and tools of science.” john_a_designer
The link does not appear to have a URL in it. EvilSnack

Leave a Reply