Over the years I've ran into several theories as to why the Arctic would be much warmer at certain times in the past than it is at this time. What is your favourite theory about this? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210324142842.htm Greenland caves: Time travel to a warm Arctic Date: March 24, 2021 Source: University of Innsbruck Summary: An international team of scientists presents an analysis of sediments from a cave in northeast Greenland, that cover a time period between about 588,000 to 549,000 years ago. This interval was warmer and wetter than today, the cave deposits provide an outlook in a possible future warmer world due to climate change.
True... they did not really give a theory on the why ..... simply just that the Arctic was once warm. I read a book by a friend of Dr. Albert Einstein named Immanuel Velikovsky who believed that the earth had many significant polar shifts as ice on one of the poles would build up to be so large that the mass of ice would cause the poles to shift by a significant distance once a certain critical mass on one of the poles was reached. The data related to that theory gives us a good idea as to why we have not yet experienced significant rise in ocean levels in spite of a great deal of melting on the world's glaciers.. as well as on the land based Greenland Ice Sheet. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...s-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/ NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Well, first It seems most likely that if you want to get money for climate research, mentioning warmer, and climate change has become the norm.......... Meanwhile my take away from your linked was "Arctic was surprisingly warm" why surprisingly? ok a little searching It seems that the quoted timeframe would place the dates at end mis 15 going into mis 14 (For marine isotope stages even numbers are cold and glaciated odd numbers are warm---usually warmer than today during our holocene) so how cold did it get during mis14 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ok------not as cold as expected during the glaciation phase note mis 16 was super cold, as was mis 12 mis 11 was much warmer than today and though mis 15 does not seem to be as warm, it did last much longer with 2 warming peaks ................................................ previous to mis 16, it does not seem to have gotten as cold as the recent glaciation cycles. .................................................. also, look into the mid brunhes event
Thank you for this... . very informative. Do you have any specifics on more information related to a statement that I remember Dr. James Hansen making over a decade ago that the last time that atmospheric temperatures rose by three degrees..... ocean levels rose by twenty five meters over roughly four centuries. I am of the belief that we are not taking that extreme of a rise in ocean levels seriously at all. Once we do.... I think that the Carl Cantrell alternative theory on stabilization of the climate will get more attention.
I have read it happens a few thousands years ago, when the North was South and what is today's South was North. When Mammoths got trapped by the cold environment. Scientists with their story of "millions of years" for recent events won't accept what the ancient man witnessed and wrote about it. So be it, keep asking, you will receive lots of answers from the several speculations, and you won't accept what witness of such event have been telling you since thousands years ago.
25 meters-------When? <----- not a fan of hyperbolic hansen (his old supervisor at nasa said that hansen was an embarrassment) meanwhile climate optimum and sea level highstand for the holocene happened 7-8000 years ago when sea level was 2-3 meters higher than it is today. Given that the ultimate highstands for mis 5 and mis 11 happened near their ends I would speculate that the final holocene highstand has yet to happen ............................. you know the story of king canute and the tide? ................you might find this informative https://www.qra.org.uk/uploads/documents/High_res_PDF_Quaternary_UK.pdf
Velikovsky wrote a lot of pseudoscientific nonsense. This is the first time I've seen somebody claim he was a friend of Einstein's. His polar shift theory is bunk.
i know enough to know the theorys are somewhat light with absolute belief from scientists so i err on their side of scientific process agreed(personal opinion) the pole shift has occurred and human civilization was not wiped out though not excluding magnetic field distortion resulting in massive radiation flooding in through the hole and cooking all life forms in the immediate surroundings of the hole (i think this needs more research) if you replaced pole shift with magnetic field distortion from various influences(including axis shift oscillation/procession & maybe something else) resulting in massive irradiation of an entire continent then i would agree you could argue thats what wiped out the Aztecs for an example(debate modeling see if you can prove it or disprove it)
Nope. The poles have always been where they are now. You may be referring to the Earth's magnetic field - but that doesn't move the locations themselves, just the field's polarity. Actually it's billions of years. The Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago; life has been around for the last 3.7 billion years.
I am not merely claiming that he was a friend of Dr. Einstein..... he was a friend of Dr. Einstein... and Dr. Einstein himself for a number of years.... discussed some variation of the HAB Theory... but it seems that in Dr. Einstein's later years he did abandon this idea???? https://www.vice.com/en/article/nzzkxm/earth-burned-after-one-night-stand-with-venus Immanuel Velikovsky, Einstein's Russian Friend, Argued Jupiter Barfed Out Venus
I just found one good quotation by Dr. James Hansen related to ocean level rise: https://www.ted.com/talks/james_han...t_about_climate_change/transcript?language=en For the record... I disagree with Dr. Hansen on his idea that we must stop using oil.... because I really like the option of putting carbon into the soil..... where it will benefit all plants and soon all humans and animals, (not to mention worms and micro-organisms). The following two minutes and twenty nine seconds can greatly increase your level of HOPE regarding the threat of rising ocean levels... plus, plus, plus....... Kiss the Ground - Official Movie Trailer (2020) 220,758 views •Aug 20, 2020 This is the first that I ever saw this trailer.... this option is truly encouraging information and it seems that the website offers more background information. https://kissthegroundmovie.com/
Didn't you read the next paragraph, after the one you quoted? "Of course, most credible scientists have dismissed Velikovsky's theories as pure fantasy. Nonetheless, the old psychiatrist with a penchant for conflating science and mythology achieved instant fame with his 1950 bestseller Worlds in Collision. He then went on to have a meteoric career as a lecturer, mystifying impressionable young minds with his own brand of anti-science." Velikovsky's ideas were comprehensively debunked by scientists decades ago.
quick point 1 and a clarification of my previous post for other readers which is the world simply can not stop using oil the entire world runs on oil products so proposing any concept that aligns with swapping for oil is simply false quick point ... it is simply not possible to put enough CO2 fast enough into the soil to balance the CO2 output of current society and elaborating the flaming of the subject we need to reduce CO2 output not start adding CO2 to the soil the need is to remove CO2 output into the atmosphere by drastic reductions in output there is no alternate option to swap to as some type of false option up for grabs as an ideological paradigm for discussion there is no discussion CO2 output must be reduced its that simple wasting time on fancy tax rebate concepts of carbon sinks is not going to solve india or china or the usa or Europe (who are currently leading the world in carbon off setting assuming the middle east megga builds dont come on line sooner and off set the statistics[im not anti those megga builds and their technology im just making a point about those/'others' who may try and mess with the global data for personal agendas]) e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City keeping in mind adding a new city and then adding more people to it when it is carbon neutral is not an alternate plan to reducing CO2 and population expansion and more importantly continuing industrial outputs as they are currently
The autotrophs were here first They are happier and healthier with higher concentrations of CO2 Do you get a kick out of trying to make the primary producers unhappy and/or unhealthy??
Yep. They would love a nuclear war that would burn large portions of the planet and release huge quantities of CO2. Is that what you pray for every night? Or do you prefer to make the primary producers unhappy and/or unhealthy??
chernobyl proves that plant life will survive https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/chernobyl-wolves-radiation-mutation-animals radioactive glow in the dark wolfs living in arctic regions might be a considerable benefit