Bering Sea was ice-free and full of life during last warm period, study finds

Well, there's a couple more scientists that can kiss their careers and their future grant money goodbye.

Imagine that, a prior period where it was warmer than today, had comparable C02 levels, the polar ice cap was de minimus and Gaia was just brimming with life.

"Evidence from the Pliocene Warm Period is relevant to studies of current climate change because it was the last time in our Earth's history when global temperatures were higher than today," Ravelo said.

And this is false as well. The earth was arguably warmer, and the ice packs smaller, during the Medieval Warm Period just a thousands years ago, another period when life was better for homo sapiens sapiens than it is today.

And in neither time period was there a surfeit of SUVs.

I, and many others, have been saying this for many years. From past periods, it looks like higher temperatures would be a good thing.

Except for the probable extinction of species such as algore opportunicus and Collectivis maniacus.

"Bering Sea was ice-free and full of life during last warm period, study finds"
And what is wrong with that?

I was just there last summer, and marveled at the abundance of life on the seafloor. I couldnt believe such a cold place could be so diverse a 1800 feet below. Its like an undersea garden of eden the size of europe.

Untill these scientists factor in that the North Pole was much further away from the Bering Straight before 12500 years ago, at Hudson Bay, this is just another piece of disinformation with regards to climate change.

If the ocean was actually overturning more during a period when it was warmer than today, then we may need to change our thinking about ocean circulation

That's a really big statement, if the initial indications can be confirmed. As I have said before about ocean floor sediment core sampling: One set of samples from one location does not indicate much by itself. They need multiple samples from multiple locations, which all agree, or it's not conducive of generalized conclusions. Don't be too quick to jump on the "oh, see I told you so, AGW is wrong" bandwagon. Just like the many core sample studies that AGW people hold up as evidence, they need cores from other locations that represent the same time span and then compare what the evidence says. This could be earth-shattering for climate models if it's true though. The assumption of highly stratified ocean layers is a key part of most models showing extreme warming, ocean extinctions and runaway greenhouse effects.

Just did some back-of-the-envelope calculations for R_R's theory that an asteroid strike reversed the Earth's direction of rotation 12,500 years ago. Since the core currently rotates with the upper layers (and thus presumably reversed direction as well) and because the core is under-represented in the Earth's moment of inertia anyway, I assumed the total energy that would need to be transferred the Earth would be twice its current rotational energy of .5 I w^2 where I is the moment of inertia and w is the angular rotation rate. This works out to 4.24 E29 J. In collisions at least half the energy is converted into heat instead of kinetic energy, so the total energy must be at least 8.48 E29 J. Assuming an extremely fast collision speed of 70 km/s (typical Earth-crossers are more like 30 km/s) and a high density of 3000 kg per cubic meter to produce a lower bound on the size of the asteroid, I find that the minimum size necessary would be an asteroid 600 km. in diameter.

Except for polar bears....

In order to transfer as much energy as possible to the rotation and not just to change the Earth's orbital momentum, this strike would have to be extremely shallow, almost parallel to the surface (which tends to leave an elongated, ellipsoidal crater). However, this would have the undesired consequence of ejecting a large amount of material into Earth orbit. Perhaps this would have led to a short lived disk which transferred momentum back to the planet (and leading to a fiery rain of large meteors), but certainly some would reach escape velocity. I have thus certainly over-estimated the efficiency of the exchange of kinetic energy to rotational energy. Also the most efficient transfer of energy would occur for a collision along the old equator, leading to the new and old equator's being the same. R_R posits a 30 degree shift, but the putative Hudson bay "crater" is 57 degrees from the current equator and therefore at least 27 degrees from the old equator.

A 600km asteroid? 12,000 years ago? I think that highly unlikely...

Except for polar bears....

There was just an article about the poor, delicate, threatened little polar bears on this very site not long ago. It said that they split off from the brown bears about 800,000 years ago, IIRC. During that intervening period there have been a number of interglacial periods, and yet the polar bears have managed to thrive somehow.

Untill these scientists factor in that the North Pole was much further away from the Bering Straight before 12500 years ago, at Hudson Bay, this is just another piece of disinformation with regards to climate change.

Cite, please?

There are several other possible things that could cause that to happen: periodic wobbles in the earth's rotation, reversal of the earth's magnetic field, and plate tectonics, none of which could have happened as short a time as 12,500 years ago, or it would have been apparent in a dozen different scientific disciplines.

Some things to consider given your calculations Barakn, there were likely multiple large impacts incuding at Norway and a very large low angle impact at Great Lakes (Michigan Basin) with Lake Michigan and Lake Huron forming a horseshoe crater. But the one that is of most interest is at lower right Hudson Bay. I believe this circular formation may be where a giant meteor completely pierced the Earths crust and drove the continent down. (You got me thinking, does a bullet hole reflect the size of a bullet?). qeokstr, my research has revealed a meteor was responsible for this Pole Shift and it happened in just a few days, 10500 BC.

RR, sorry but "my research indicates" is not a "cite". Can you please link us to anything from a reputable scientific source that might agree with you, or is this just your own theory?

qeokstr, this is my theory, a decade of work. Of coarse I relied heavily on many others before me such as Charles Hapgood, who showed the way. My theory is explained in full in my book "Message from the Ancients". What I found time and again is that the core evidence does support this senario, in all disciplins, just that interpretation of the evidence is where it all goes wrong.

Just gotta giggle. If anything hit the earth with enough energy to even alter it's spin, much less reverse it, EVERYTHING on the planet surface would have been vaporized.

Oh wait! God DID create the earth in 7 days about 12K years ago! lol

R_R, it doesn't matter whether the energy is carried by one object or a multitude of objects, it's still a lot of energy. In fact it happens to be a million times more energy than the impact that killed the dinosaurs. It's enough to completely obliterate the surface of the planet. As I mentioned before, the impact geometry has to be very special in order to effectively reverse the planet's spin. The ridiculous notion you're trying to have us swallow is that every impact, by chance, had that special geometry, whereas statistics dictates that the impacts would tend to cancel each other out, leaving the spin more or less unaffected. I'm sorry you've wasted a decade's worth of time on this. Your continued persistence suggests that you have a lot riding on this, whether it is ego or money. Considering the book, probably money. And the fact that you've mentioned your book by name here makes you little better than a spammer.

barakn: I went through similar estimates of impact energies and the melting of the surface of the earth arguing with R_R about a month ago:

http://www.physor...ion.html

He just completely ignores the physics. It is sad to think that he might really have spent a decade working on this when he should have taken a few semesters of physics instead. All but the most brain dead realize you are correct and R_R needs his meds adjusted.

Just gotta giggle. If anything hit the earth with enough energy to even alter it's spin, much less reverse it, EVERYTHING on the planet surface would have been vaporized.

Yeah, that made me wonder a bit, too. If the earth were stopped and had its rotation altered that drastically, that quickly, winds of around 1000 mph would have ripped around the planet for a time and wiped out much of the complex life that existed on earth at that time.

There is no record of such a change in rotation anywhere around that time. In fact, I do not seem to be able to find anything from any time period where life existed on earth where that happened.

Wow, is this how science opporates today, ridicule any one that suggests something outside the established view without even exploring the evidence, to bad you can't cut my funding, I have none. rwinners, North America and Europe were vaporized, see Dr. Firestones work. Thermo, what ever you spent learning physics, you should ask your money back(but you'll never get that). Rex, ancient myth is full of reference to a wind that carried away all but largest mounds and the Ice Age extintion event was very extensive. Barakan't, arn't you a clever clod.

Just gotta giggle. If anything hit the earth with enough energy to even alter it's spin, much less reverse it, EVERYTHING on the planet surface would have been vaporized.

Yeah, that made me wonder a bit, too. If the earth were stopped and had its rotation altered that drastically, that quickly, winds of around 1000 mph would have ripped around the planet for a time and wiped out much of the complex life that existed on earth at that time.

There is no record of such a change in rotation anywhere around that time. In fact, I do not seem to be able to find anything from any time period where life existed on earth where that happened.

Forget the wind, what about the oceans? This whole thing is absurd!

sstritt, what is absurd to me is that educated people such as yourself just except what they have been taught is if zoombies, they accept that it is normal for mile thick ice fields to regularily creep down as far as the northern states on one side of the pole while on the other side in Siberia and Alaska there is no evidence of ice cover, in fact millions of mammal bones litter the now froozen landspace. They blindly except an absurd loopsided ice age lie even though ice is concentrict at the antartic pole today.

Too bad this thread got jacked by someone on a personal PR mission. It takes away from the fact that here is a study that shows that warmer is better, like others have done before it.

sstritt, what is absurd to me is that educated people such as yourself just except what they have been taught is if zoombies, they accept that it is normal for mile thick ice fields to regularily creep down as far as the northern states on one side of the pole while on the other side in Siberia and Alaska there is no evidence of ice cover, in fact millions of mammal bones litter the now froozen landspace. They blindly except an absurd loopsided ice age lie even though ice is concentrict at the antartic pole today.

Shoop da whoop?? Blue lazars from da sun?

Qeokstr, this study proves only that the Bering Straight was warmer in the past. To state as fact this is because the planet was warmer is typical of how all evidence is contorted to fit your establishment lies. Another explanation is that the Bering Straight was warmer because it was situated farther south as the previous Pole was at Hudson Bay. I could care less about selling a book, your the one that pushed me to disclose my sources. My only PR mission is to explose your nonsense.

Nice try, RR.

As others above have demonstrated, any impact of the size that would have changed the rotation of the planet would have vaporized and/or melted half the earth's surface. But nothing of that sort seems to be found in the geologic, paleontological, biological, astronomical, archeological, or historical record, especially if it happened only yesterday, geologically speaking.

Did you consult with Erich van Daniken, Richard Hoagland and William Dembski in writing this book?

R_R, I gave you ample opportunity after my first post to analyze the assumptions used in my calculations. I was kind enough to attempt to find the minimum energy and minimum asteroid size to get the job done. A real scientist with a serious theory would have at the very least pointed what assumptions I got wrong and at the very best would have posted his/her own work detailing how the physics would actually work. You instead called people names. It's obvious that you have a hollow theory whose major shortcoming is that it is physically impossible. Come back when you've worked out the physics, then we'll talk.

Qeokstr, As I explained earlier Dr. Firestone of Berkely labs has shown a black mat (incineration) layer exists at the ground level associated with this time period. This mat has been found throughout North America and Europe. Please do explain why your brainwashed kind continue to ignore this kind of evidence like it doesn't exist.

Barakn, I did take u serious and was impressed untill your disrestectful spammer post. This Pole Shift did happen and I gave you multiple examples of impact sites that were involved, including a senerio that included your 600 km wide impacter. You choose to ignore, guess you already know it all.

Rex, ancient myth is full of reference to a wind that carried away all but largest mounds and the Ice Age extintion event was very extensive.

Please do be specific as to which myths and which cultures. Yes, many species went extinct during the Ice Age. But, they were frozen and otherwise died off.

I have seen zero evidence for animals having their flesh stripped from their bones by 1,000 mph winds laden with sands and soils. That sort of death leaves marks. Where are the signs of such catastrophic erosion that would be produced by such a cataclysm in the geological record?

Have you some real evidence of such deaths during the Ice Age? I am sorry but that is not science. It is a badly formulated hypothesis that is easily falsified by all the evidence of which I am aware. And so it goes...

Rex, you say my theory is badly formulated before you even know what it is and then expect me to give examples. Get off your selfish ass and find it yourself.

Rex, you say my theory is badly formulated before you even know what it is and then expect me to give examples. Get off your selfish ass and find it yourself.

Yours is not even a theory. Please provide unfalsifiable evidence for your hypothesis so that it may be tested. Hypotheses do not Theories make until some degree of supporting evidence is provided that cannot easily be falsified. Then, you may begin to consider it a Theory.

Selfish? Hmmm... Where did that come from? That sounds rather unscientific. You do this because I ask you to provide your evidence regarding the specific myths of which you speak? Surely, that would have been the easiest. Or, the evidence regarding the bones of complex life showing the marks of 1,000 mph winds that have stripped the flesh from them?

Didn't think you had anything....

I'll provide you with nothing. You and your fellow zombies are only interested in proving I'm wrong. In every instance I supplied evidence such as that the northern hemisphere was incinerated, you simply walked around it with your arms outstretched mumbling "there was an ice age, there was an ice age". I tried to give you a heads up, but no good deed goes unpunished.

Of course you will provide us with nothing. You have nothing. Come on, now. You said that ancient myth preserved the story of such an event. I asked for examples. Surely, such should exist...

By the way, "incineration" 'layers' would not exist in the northern hemisphere in the geological record were your hypothesis even remotely close to truth. There would be no geological 'layers' at the impact site if a large enough object hit the earth hard enough to stop and reverse its rotation!

Now, on the other hand, if an object large enough (but still smaller than the object required to change the earth's rotational direction) had hit the atmosphere and evaporated on impact with the upper atmosphere, such a layer would exist, but the earth still would not have had its rotation changed.

Please try to give evidence for your hypothesis that cannot be easily falsified by the existing evidence.

R R:
Your scenario actually did occur on a much larger scale when the earth was young. A Mars sized object collided with the earth, tearing off the material that became the moon. Ever since, the moon orbits in the same direction as the earth rotates. If your theory was correct, we would now be rotating opposite the moon's orbit.

Rex and sstritt, understand I am not a scientist and do not know your ways. Please deal with me different. I promise you the Pole was at Hudson Bay 12500 years ago and I am prepared to debate it further although no time till after the hollidays. What I'm looking for is cooperation to find what exactly happened. This planet was struck right on its previous axis at lower right Hudson Bay. This impact pierced the Earths crust, cracked the continent and the two sides slipped along each other. The other half of the crater will be found to the north. Look for the evidence and you will find.

PS the other half of the crater will lilely appear as an amomily having been crushed by moving land mass and will be a blob of lava. Also just noticed ancient forrest on Ellsmere Island found, would be highly suspicious of dating, I suspect this forest may be only 12000 years old.

qeokstr, this is my theory, a decade of work.

What a waste of a decade.

If your theory was correct, we would now be rotating opposite the moon's orbit.

Flawless victory.

For Rex, Aztec myth, there fell a rain of fire, all which existed burned, and there fell a rain of gravel. Now this was the year Ce Tecpalt. Now on this day, in which many men were lost and destroyed in a rain of fire and everything was consumed. A termendous hurrican carried away trees, mounds, houses, men and women escaped priciply in caves and places the great hurrican could not reach them.

I have seen this quote before--in various forms and always in some book about Atlantis. Have you got a more legitimate, verifiable source than such material as that genre?

Many of the american indians have such myths, read 'cycle of cosmic catastrophies' by dr Firestone for examples. These type myths are worldwide including ones that state sun once rose in the west and others about prolonged day or night(earth stopped spinning)

Never mind. I found the original source. It is the Legend of the Five Suns. Let me summarize it.

During the Third Sun, Tlaloc, the rain god, became angry that the inhabitants of earth were begging incessantly for rain while he was trying to grieve over the taking of his wife. He had not been doing his job and there was a really bad draught. The people kept bugging him for rain.

He got pissed off and rained fire for so long that the entire earth was burned up and turned completely to ash. All the inhabitants of the earth were destroyed and the earth had to be recreated by the gods from scratch. There were no humans on earth of the variety we see today at that time, according to this creation myth.

Some other stuff happened and the Fourth Sun cried blood for so long that a horrific flood drowned all human life on earth, who were resurrected from their bones in the caverns by being dipped in the blood of Quetzalcoatl, during which time Huitzilopochtli became the Fifth Sun.

Many of the american indians have such myths, read 'cycle of cosmic catastrophies' by dr Firestone for examples. These type myths are worldwide including ones that state sun once rose in the west and others about prolonged day or night(earth stopped spinning)

Oh here we go, this is his 2012 hypothesis.

What the title of the book you're trying to hock. Just post it and be gone so we can get on with reasonable conversations (sarcasm).

Your the only one talking 2012 sheepdog, I'm talking about why science is in the business of covering up the truth about our past.

Your the only one talking 2012 sheepdog, I'm talking about why science is in the business of covering up the truth about our past.

Yet you've provided nothing but conspiracy theories and nonsense all of which have been rather easily debunked through simple observations.

ie: the Earth rotates with the moon.

Hindu, Chinese, and Native American mythology all have stories of the Earth being born on the back of a turtle. Using the R_R school of methodology, the mere mention of this turtle means it must be true: there is, or was, a world turtle. I hereby posit that it was spun out into the vacuum of space when a large asteroid struck the Earth 12,500 years ago, though I haven't bothered to estimate the mass of the turtle or the amount of energy it would take to escape Earth orbit.

Another serious problem with Firestone's variations of his hypotheses has been the finding of megafauna fossils postdating the postulated cataclysm. They were supposed to have been made extinct by this kind of cosmic cataclysm.

I know for a fact that a number of mammoth and other megafauna fossils dating to as late as 10000 BP have been found.

A major hit on the ice sheet that was buffered thereby? I don't think so. There still would have been some sign of a major impactor.

Pole shifting proven by magnetic grains picked up by magnets out of the soil? Magnetic poles, perhaps. We know that magnetic pole shifting did happen and does happen. That is not the same thing as shifting the true north pole in the manner postulated by the book and by you.

Of course, due to wobble of the earth we do have small degrees of pole shifting. Polaris won't be the pole star in several thousand years, for example.

In any case, there are many other anamolies that just do not fit the scenario.

Here is a link to an image showing geomagnetic pole shifting from 1831 to 2001.

http://www.univer..._med.gif

As I said, the magnetic pole located in the north is moving around all the time. It is not constant. This is what grains of magnetite will show, not the shifting of the entire polar axis due to an impactor.

Skeptic, I have provided evidence, you keep saying it can be debunked but thats all you do, you never actually debunk it. For instance the crater at lower right hudson bay, I know of a recent proper scientific report that states the only real explanation is that it is an impact crater. The question then is timing, I propose this perfect circular formation with central uplift could not have survived in such pristine condition under miles of moving ice for a million years, no way, it is post ice. debunk that.(and find the report yourself)

Barakn, Noah said he saw the Earth had tilted and that destruction was near - or close to that. Its clear Earths axis had changed. No turtles

Rex, it is proven that C14 type dating can be significantly effected by Nuclear Events that change the atmosphere (this qualifies). Or some perhaps survived. The fact is there were over 20 species of elephant then and now theres only two. Something big happened. I am well aware of precession due to Earths wobble, this is how the ancients marked Hudson Bay as the previous Pole. (Great Pyramid)

For instance the crater at lower right hudson bay

Rift valley.

I know of a recent proper scientific report that states the only real explanation is that it is an impact crater.

No you don't.

The question then is timing

About 290 million years ago.

I propose this perfect circular

Very odd notion of perfectly circular.

debunk that.

Done.

(and find the report yourself)

Of course you won't let anyone else have access to your materials...

Here's mine, Eaton D. W. and F. Darbyshire, 2010, Lithospheric architecture and tectonic evolution of the Hudson Bay region. Tectonophysics. v. 480, pp. 1-22

"a complete lack of credible evidence for such an impact crater has been found by regional magnetic, Bouguer gravity, and geologic studies."

Skeptic, your debunking is such a prime example of how your side keeps its lies going. (is that your job). 290 million year old Rift Valley, ya right. A perfectly circular arc with raised rim and central uplift (beltcher islands) completely filled from rim to rim with lava with no other such lava outside the rim. Just call it a rift valley and declare debate over, as if you have a clue what your talking about. There certainly is a scientific report this formation is a crater, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything, know thats pointless.

I'm not on any side (and what could be anyone's motivation for lying?). I'm not a professional scientist though I do have a degree in physics. Of course its important to keep an open mind when considering unorthodox proposals, but only insofar as they do not blatantly violate the known laws of physics. If a body with enough kinetic energy to reverse the rotation of the earth had struck 12000 years ago, there would be no one to argue either side.

sstritt, this brings up one of the big problems. No offence but how do you know. That is an assumption on your part unless of coarse you've witnessed such an event. Given we do not know the exact circumstaces, is it not possible your assumption is incorrect?

Skeptic, your debunking is such a prime example of how your side keeps its lies going.

Yes, the conspiracy theory.

290 million year old Rift Valley, ya right.

Ignoring contrary evidence.

A perfectly circular arc with raised rim and central uplift (beltcher islands) completely filled from rim to rim with lava with no other such lava outside the rim.

Hopeful exaggeration of basic fact into outright falsehood. Real data "forced to fit".

Just call it a rift valley and declare debate over

Creating false controversy

as if you have a clue what your talking about.

Argument "from authority".

There certainly is a scientific report this formation is a crater

Then cite it so we can read it.

but I'm not trying to convince you of anything, know thats pointless.

Hopelessness and "me against the world" mentality.

No offence but how do you know.

Physics.

100% on the crackpot test, impressive in a single post

You don't seem to grasp the magnitude of the problem. From: http://en.wikiped...(energy)
I calculated that the energy required to reverse earth's rotation would be greater that a 1 megaton H-bomb detonated over each and every square mile of earth's surface every second for more than a week! Do you think anything would survive that?

sstritt: Great reference in Wikipedia. I hadn't seen that one. I had gone through these numbers about a month ago with R_R.

http://www.physor...ion.html

He just does not have any idea of the concept of rotational energy and momentum. I can only assume he has had no training in physics.

The idea that he thinks that the earth's rotation can be stopped and reversed without a cataclysm that would leave footprints all over the geological record. It would, as well, wipe off virtually all life on earth (and I don't just mean most mammals and fishes, I mean everything down to the most tenacious thermophilic bacteria).

Even giving him the Hudson bay crater (which was already debunked by SH above), it would not even come close to changing the rotation time by seconds (even if it hit just right).

This reflects the pitiful level of scientific knowledge in our general population.

Just to continue to beat a dead horse, from my earlier post that I referred to above, the site:

http://impact.ese...Effects/

Lets you look at impact effects. You can plug in all of Hudson bay for the expected diameter and see it does not even come close to the rotation energy of the earth. I used the following inputs:

Distance from Impact: 1000.00 km ( = 621.00 miles )
Projectile diameter: 20.00 km ( = 12.40 miles )
Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 70.00 km per second ( = 43.50 miles per second )
Impact Angle: 45 degrees
Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

The result was a crater 254 miles in diameter and a change in the rotation of the earth by about 49 milliseconds.

Come on R_R, please tell me how this is a conspiracy to hide your real conclusions. Please show your work.

skeptic, sstritt and thermo, Something stopped this planets rotation and changed its axis. What then?

R_R: You have showed no evidence that the rotation stopped and reversed. Only mythology. The observation above that the moon and the earth rotate in the same direction debunks the idea that the earth changed rotational direction some time after the moon was formed in orbit. That is billions of years with the earth and moon orbiting in the same direction, not 10,000 years. Please show even a shred of evidence that the earth changed rotation direction. Let's give you the evidence you have already put forward that Hudson bay is a crater and that there was a burned layer over the continent. Let's even give you (the already debunked idea that this was because of a massive impact). Please show any evidence that this resulted in the change of the rotation direction. You have given us nothing that can be measured that indicates a change in rotation direction. Please provide it. We have gone to the trouble of showing why an impact will not do it. Just show us it was done.

skeptic, sstritt and thermo, Something stopped this planets rotation and changed its axis. What then?

When did you stop using heroine?

Like that question? It's a logical fallacy, like yours above.

This is getting to be quite amusing! How many different ways can we think of to shoot this down?
Reminds me of the Ga. Congressman who was concerned that increasing the number of troops on the island of Guam could capsize the island!

skeptic, sstritt and thermo, Something stopped this planets rotation and changed its axis. What then?

The inhabitants of Atlantis, in an effort to be included in the next edition of the "Guinness Book of World Records", which, while technically not having yet been invented, was sent back in time, along with the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", all flushed their toilets simultaneously, creating enough coriolis effect to instantaneously reverse the rotation of the earth, and give every Atlantean a scalding shower!
Mystery solved.

skeptic, sstritt and thermo, Something stopped this planets rotation and changed its axis. What then?

I think it was the turtle that had the earth on its back. The turtle had been spinning for billions of years and got sick. It stopped to throw up and then started spinning the other way to unwind. At that rate we can expect the turtle to spin for another 4.5 billion years before he gets sick again.

It's turtles, all the way down.

SH, I think you missed a letter...

skeptic, sstritt and thermo, Something stopped this planets rotation and changed its axis. What then?

When did you stop using a heroine?

Like that question? It's a logical fallacy, like yours above.

SH, I think you missed a letter...

skeptic, sstritt and thermo, Something stopped this planets rotation and changed its axis. What then?

When did you stop using a heroine?

Like that question? It's a logical fallacy, like yours above.

No, I added an extra.

Clever TD, took me a moment to figure out what you were getting at.

R_R would you like a hypothesis that may be more accurate than yours and still slaps the mainstream?

Hudson Valley may be an extinct Caldera Volcano. There's few who support the notion but you could do a very in depth analysis that will show creedence to this hypothesis based on the gravity anomaly and multiple other lithographic evidence in the region.

Plus you have the added bonus of a known thin spot in the mantle and similar characteristics to the Toba Lake region.

But that'd only be if you actually gave a shit about science. In the meantime, the rest of us will call a spade a spade and state it's a Rift Valley.

OK, I see what your saying now, a big part of the problem is institutional arrogance. I've read many times that few scientists are willing to challenge the established view due to the inevitable onslot of attack and ridicule and the threat of funding loss. Seems thats your science, no different then wall street. Ba Ba

All the fuss! 3.5-4.5 million years ago there was another warm period. Big deal. We're here today aren't we? Of course, there may not have been 6 billion people alive then, either, but on the other hand not all life on earth perished. Evidently, there was no harm done during this other "warm period" and so obviously we have nothing to worry about. These whiners who want to take no chances with the future for their progeny! A few 145 degree days are no problem, as long as there are -35 degree days to average them out. Those overpaid, conspiratorial government scientists are just trying to protect their jobs. Fire them all, and drill, baby, drill!

OK, I see what your saying now, a big part of the problem is institutional arrogance.

No, that wouldn't be what anyone is saying. What we're saying is that you're ignorant.

I've read many times that few scientists are willing to challenge the established view due to the inevitable onslot of attack and ridicule and the threat of funding loss.

Those people are not scientists, they're politicians.

Seems thats your science, no different then wall street.

Not sure what you're looking for in terms of comparison here.

Ba Ba

Ha, and of course the obligatory sheep reference.

Cite your "research paper" and perhaps you'll gain better purchase on these comment pages.

Interesting article (comments and theories aside). So in the Pilocene period, CO2 Levels where slightly higher than todays levels, and average global temperatures where about 4.5 degree C (~15F) higher than today. That is all well and good; but it's not alarmist enough! Current projected CO2 levels are going to go through the roof from the coal plants primarily and fossil fuels in general. What is it now; about 350ppm CO2? and projects to 700ppm are not out of the time period of a generation or two. We could be baked by the time we can reverse all of the toxic pollution to a point where earth can sustain human life again. Maybe the diatoms can save us.

Oh boy, here we go again. Howhot, did you read the article, and where did you learn math? Do you even know how to use Google?

1) No, they said CO2 levels are comparable to doday, not higher. The proxies aren't precise enough to say much more than that.

2) Global average temp is estimated to have been 3 C higher than today, not 4.5 C.

3) Even if they had said 4.5, that adds up to 8.1 F, not 15 F.

4) 700 PPM in 90 years is inside the range of projections, but some are as high as 1000 PPM.

5) Global average temp change prediction in that same time period (according to models with highly speculative trends and feedbacks, which may be wrong if this researcher's assumption about stratification is correct) is only 3 C.

6) As shown by this research and many other similar studies, the Earth was an abundant and biodiverse place the last time it was that warm. It is stupid to think it will be unlivable or toxic if it warms again.

Oh, I forgot, here's the reference to the IPCC's estimates, with links embedded to original sources:

http://www.ipcc.c...-20.html

And here's a more detailed look at IPCC CO2 projections:

http://www.ipcc-d...co2.html

As you can see, 700 is just barely inside the low-end estimates. As China and India are less than likely to change their CO2 output rates, I see it as a given that those levels will be reached regardless of what the US does (unless there's some unkown natural factor that limits CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but that's wishfull thinking for sure).

How were the polar bears getting along?

How were the polar bears getting along?

Jamaican polar bears appear to be extinct already. Over 90% of the earth's surface seems to be completely devoid of polar bears. So far, astronomers around the world have found no sign of polar bears anywhere but on Earth, and the number of planets we've found so far that might harbor polar bears is zero. I'd say the overall outlook for polar bears appears grim. They don't even get equal pay in the workplace. It's just unfair I tell you. That whole scandal about them killing baby seals was a fabricated lie. They got framed! ...and they hardly ever eat people. Really.

How were the polar bears getting along?

They survived to the present day.

How were the polar bears getting along?

They survived to the present day.

I was thinking the same thing, but apparently polar bears just recently ( 100,000 yrs) evolved from brown bears. They didn't exist during this period.

Rex, it is proven that C14 type dating can be significantly effected by Nuclear Events that change the atmosphere (this qualifies)....

No, sorry. Such an event does not qualify. While it is true that nuclear testing can alter C14 results, that is not what would have happened from the impact of a meteor. There is no indication that nuclear blasts took place on earth at that early period.

And, try as I might, I can see no basis for the rotation of the earth being stopped and reversed by an impactor. I have plugged all sorts of numbers into the formulae and nothing I have tried thus far results in stopping the rotation of the earth, much less reversing its rotation without destroying everything.

Anything that was big enough to do that would have wiped out all life on earth and shattered the planet.

How were the polar bears getting along?

They survived to the present day.

I was thinking the same thing, but apparently polar bears just recently ( 100,000 yrs) evolved from brown bears. They didn't exist during this period.

Actually, estimates have ranged from between 100,000 to 1,000,000 years. The most recent calculation based on a fossil was 150,000 years. Even that calculation is by no means certain. More research needs to be done.

In either case, you are correct that there were no polar bears during the Pliocene warm period. Apparently, my sarcasm should have been marked somehow. Oh well. My fault for not saying so. :)

@ Skepticus Rex
However, the polar bears were around 12000 yrs ago, and no doubt in the vicinity of Hudson Bay. I therefore theorize and confirm my own hypothesis that the polar bears are responsible for reversing the rotation of the earth!

...and furthermore, they then reversed the orbit of the moon to "cover their tracks".

@ Skepticus Rex
However, the polar bears were around 12000 yrs ago, and no doubt in the vicinity of Hudson Bay. I therefore theorize and confirm my own hypothesis that the polar bears are responsible for reversing the rotation of the earth!

Must've been all that gas from all that carbonated soda water they were drinking! You can see them drink such things in the Coca Cola commercials so it must be true! :)

You don't seem to grasp the magnitude of the problem. From: http://en.wikiped...(energy)
I calculated that the energy required to reverse earth's rotation would be greater that a 1 megaton H-bomb detonated over each and every square mile of earth's surface every second for more than a week! Do you think anything would survive that?

This could be fun...

It's not that a great impact causes the whole earth to spin backwards, it's that a great impact knocks the crust loose from the mantle, causing it to spin backwards over the mantle.
(like jumping on a wet rubber mat on a hard, soapy floor!)

Or, the earth precessed so violently from the impact that it momentarily flipped upside down (like Venus), before righting itself and stabilizing under the moon's gentle persuasion.
(Now that's positively romantic!)

Or, a huge volcano erupts at a severe angle to the earth's surface, spinning the earth around like a cosmic pinwheel!
(Whee-ee-ee!)

...or it just knocks the earth off the turtle's back. onto what I have no idea!

Well, typical response.

Any story that indicates the earth was warmer and healthier in the past ends up with crazy comments about the earth changing direction, nazi's and giant turtles.

They shouldn't even bother publishing stories like this; nobody reads them. It's like "Oh, they just said the climate models could be wrong. Oh well, what about giant turtles?"

Oh, never mind. I'll just put my blinders back on and continue to stare at your left ear.

@GSwift7
I'm a climate skeptic too! We're just having a laugh about some crackpot theory by someone with no concept of angular momentum and a refusal to learn.

Have you considdered the possibility that you are the one being laughed at? Is it possible that the crackpot theory is a red herring? This happens so often that I wonder if it isn't a coincidence. Do you really think this guy believes the earth changed direction? Judging from his writing ability he's obviously not uneducated. There are plenty of well educated crackpots, but suggesting that the earth changed direction is way out there. Every major mass in our solar system follows the right hand rule of rotation and orbit. I think you are arguing with someone who is merely toying with you for a laugh.

Every major mass in our solar system follows the right hand rule of rotation and orbit.

Except Venus. Its orbital revolution around Sol is the same as the other planets but its axial rotation is retrograde. No one really knows why. There are theories annd hypotheses but no one really knows the answer as of yet.

And Uranus. Forgot about that one. It, too, rotates retrograde--anomalous axial inclination aside.

I did not mention Pluto because that isn't a regular planet anymore but it also is believed to have a retrograde axial rotation. I suppose that in spite of its being considered a dwarf planet it should have been mentioned anyway. :)

Rex, thankyou for your calculations, I still believe at least 3 large impacts did occur but you have shown me that perhaps something else was involved. There have been theories that a large planetoid had a close encounter with Earth at this time, could this reverse rotation?

Taking a new approach, there is an article on the same Pysorg page that a mumified forest has been found just 8 degress from the Pole. This of coarse contridicts anything seen today and you must believe that at some majical time this forest existed here even though no sunlight shines for six months of the year. Bullshit, this forest existed because at the time it was more then 20 degress from the Pole (Hudson Bay).

Every major mass in our solar system follows the right hand rule of rotation and orbit.

Except Venus. Its orbital revolution around Sol is the same as the other planets but its axial rotation is retrograde. No one really knows why. There are theories annd hypotheses but no one really knows the answer as of yet.

What are you talking about? It's obvious! Everyone knows Venus is head-over-heels in love with Mars!

And not just some actic scrub weed forest. Science wants you to believe a forest of Birch, Larch, Spruce and Pine once thrived near the north pole. And elephants and rhino as well (millions once called the arctic coast of Alaska and Siberia home) Don't believe it for a second. Merry Xmas

Science wants you to believe a forest of Birch, Larch, Spruce and Pine once thrived near the north pole.

they can show you that one did.
http://news.natio...ronment/

And elephants and rhino as well (millions once called the arctic coast of Alaska and Siberia home)

From http://mammothtal...nce.com/

The answer is an odd failure of imagination on their part. The mammoth, they say, is an elephant and elephants don't belong in the Arctic. It makes more sense, to them, for continents to go tumbling across the face of the earth than for an elephant to adapt to a cold climate. Two hundred years ago, the elephant in Arctic was a valid problem, but, since then, we have acquired evidence after evidence of the mammoth's cold weather adaptations. Now, we have one more.

Don't believe it for a second.

Believe it for a lifetime, because it's all true.

R_R,

How many more refutations will we have to provide before you're bingo on bullshit? I have a Christmas to attend to.

SH:

While on this and many other purely (i.e., non-politicized) scientific issues, I agree 100% with you and even leave you "5" ratings (a courtesy I doubt you return), you do realize that in refudiating RR in this manner you are also playing whack-a-mole with Global Warming?

If indeed there were forests near the poles (which I believe is true), then that would necessarily make that period a LOT warmer than it is today, non, since the ice there is now, what, a mile thick? Probably a LOT warmer than the beloved IPCC's political "scientists" project it will be if the world does nothing to cut back greenhouse gases.

Even though RR is out to lunch with this rotation reversal stuff, you should probably find a way to disprove his theories which leaves the warmist religion intact, or you might soon collide with your own AGW dogma and your head might explode.

Just sayin'.

While on this and many other purely (i.e., non-politicized) scientific issues, I agree 100% with you and even leave you "5" ratings (a courtesy I doubt you return), you do realize that in refudiating RR in this manner you are also playing whack-a-mole with Global Warming?

If indeed there were forests near the poles (which I believe is true), then that would necessarily make that period a LOT warmer than it is today, non, since the ice there is now, what, a mile thick? Probably a LOT warmer than the beloved IPCC's political "scientists" project it will be if the world does nothing to cut back greenhouse gases.

You do realize that we're talking about a period several million years ago. A time when the majority of the planet was arid grassland and desert. One would expect temperate forests near the poles during a global desertification event.

These trees' descendants have traveled thousands of miles south to live in the climate we have today.

You do realize that we're talking about a period several million years ago. A time when the majority of the planet was arid grassland and desert. One would expect temperate forests near the poles during a global desertification event.

I am well aware of the time period when the forests were everywhere (and this is not the only time they were too.)

But if there was little ice anywhere on the planet, sorry, that necessarily means the world was a lot warmer than it is today, with forests near the poles, than when a goodly portion of the world is now ice-bound.

If all that water now bound up in ice was liquid, how did we get so much "desertification"? All that ice melted because of the deserts? Or perhaps it was the other way around, that higher temperatures melted the ice and caused the deserts? That is, if either is true since our knowledge of the millions of variables and their infinite interactions in the chaotic climate process is still woefully inadequate.

I am well aware of the time period when the forests were everywhere (and this is not the only time they were too.)

This is why you get so many 1 ranks. Your statement that forests were everywhere is false.

But if there was little ice anywhere on the planet, sorry, that necessarily means the world was a lot warmer than it is today, with forests near the poles, than when a goodly portion of the world is now ice-bound.

Now think of sea levels and the fact the majority of our grain belts were deserts.

If all that water now bound up in ice was liquid, how did we get so much "desertification"?

The arctic and antarctic are deserts now.

All that ice melted because of the deserts? Or perhaps it was the other way around, that higher temperatures caused the deserts?

/facepalm

That is, ff either is true since our knowledge of the millions of variables in the climate process is still woefully inadequate.

Our archaeology is pretty good. Deserts were the norm.

Our archaeology is pretty good. Deserts were the norm.

Right, and desertification was not particularly significant. In fact, desertification was a result of cooling, not a result of the previous warmer climate.

Miocene epoch (23.03 to 5.332 million years ago), the earth was warm and lush:

http://jan.ucc.na...moll.jpg

Pleistocene epoch (2,588,000 to 12,000 years ago), the earth was cool and dry:

http://jan.ucc.na...moll.jpg

Conclusion: Global warming isn't necessarily bad. Or, a warm earth is a happy earth.

Pleistocene epoch (2,588,000 to 12,000 years ago), the earth was cool and dry:

That's a very simple overview of the age. It was an age of wide variance in climate which is punctuated by extremes of heat and cold. Effectively the pleistocene is what many think will return if global warming goes unchecked. Periods of great climatic warmth and periods of great cooling. These were some of the most turbulent times in the climatic record when it comes to abrupt swings in climate.

Do you want to return to that? I don't, so let's take a look at the current facts and see where today matches up to back then and try to avert an overly difficult situation for ourselves.

That's a very simple overview of the age. It was an age of wide variance in climate which is punctuated by extremes of heat and cold. Effectively the pleistocene is what many think will return if global warming goes unchecked. Periods of great climatic warmth and periods of great cooling. These were some of the most turbulent times in the climatic record when it comes to abrupt swings in climate.

Do you not see the logical fallacy? You're essentially saying that global warming will precipitate a return to the iceage!

Do you want to return to that? I don't, so let's take a look at the current facts and see where today matches up to back then and try to avert an overly difficult situation for ourselves.

Change doesn't necessarily precipitate "an overly difficult situation." Sometimes, change is good. A warmer earth is a greener earth.

Do you not see the logical fallacy? You're essentially saying that global warming will precipitate a return to the iceage!

No, I'm saying that retaining greater amounts of energy in the system creates a cyclical swing between extremes as we've upset the balance that has resulted in climatic equilibrium.

Change doesn't necessarily precipitate "an overly difficult situation." Sometimes, change is good. A warmer earth is a greener earth.

Rapid change is difficult to adapt to, and once you've adapted, having another significant change in the opposite direction is catastrophic.

Let's say there's an ice age, so we set up a heating infrastructure in our homes. Now the ice age pounds on us and costs heavily in terms of resources. Now we've adapted for it and the weather gets drastically warmer. Our heating infrastructure is now counter productive. So we have to tear it down and build infrastructure to release heat. Back and forth, back and forth.

Skeptic insists forests can grow at the north pole and his only evidence is the fact ancient forests have been found there. You see PHDs like him believe thet they don't have to ask questions anymore.

One obvious one, is there another posibility?

The Laurentide ice sheet (north eastern north america)of the ice ages had a land based outer perimeter that forms roughly half a completed circle. With a protracter at Hudson Bay we can trace this circle and also we find Greenlands ice is held within the completed circle. All of Skeptics majical forests found so far are found outside this circle.

No, I'm saying that retaining greater amounts of energy in the system creates a cyclical swing between extremes...

How are cyclical swings between extremes not normal? Are you suggesting before GW we never had seasons?

Rapid change is difficult to adapt to, and once you've adapted, having another significant change in the opposite direction is catastrophic.

Baloney. Humanity does it all the time. Snow, flood, and bitter cold in the winter, hot and arid in the summer. They're called "seasons."

Let's say there's an ice age, so we set up a heating infrastructure in our homes. Now the ice age pounds on us and costs heavily in terms of resources. Now we've adapted for it and the weather gets drastically warmer. Our heating infrastructure is now counter productive. So we have to tear it down and build infrastructure to release heat. Back and forth, back and forth.

Insulation and interior climate systems work both ways. They have to (for seasonal changes).

Skeptic insists forests can grow at the north pole and his only evidence is the fact ancient forests have been found there.

Usually physical evidence makes a statement accurate. You know, as opposed to making shit up and having no evidence.

Baloney. Humanity does it all the time. Snow, flood, and bitter cold in the winter, hot and arid in the summer. They're called "seasons."

Are you saying the Laurentide ice sheet was seasonal?

Insulation and interior climate systems work both ways. They have to (for seasonal changes).

You keep saying seasons. Swapping decadally or centurially between massive ice sheets and arid grassland is not what many of us would consider a seasonal occurance.

Are you saying the Laurentide ice sheet was seasonal?

So now you're saying (again!) the result of global warming will be another ice age? Really?

You keep saying seasons. Swapping decadally or centurially between massive ice sheets and arid grassland is not what many of us would consider a seasonal occurance.

What evidence do you have to support global warming will cause this? As I've clearly shown, Earth's past climate cycles demonstrate that warmer is greener, not cold and arid.

And, in another article, I demonstrated that the warming earth is becoming greener (like in the sub-Sahara).

What have you to show otherwise?

...There have been theories that a large planetoid had a close encounter with Earth at this time, could this reverse rotation? ...

I have no doubt that there have been many impactors over the years. But, impactors just would not have done it. Aside from this, large impactors have not hit earth for millions of years and billions of years for ones large enough to markedly change anything significant.

Even with a 1000km impactor the rotation of the earth would be slowed by a number of minutes to slightly more than an hour but rotation not actually reversed. Here are the stats for what likely would happen with 1000km impactor:

"The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
2.20 percent of the Earth is melted
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundreths of a degree).
Depending on the direction and location of impact, the collision may cause a change in the length of the day of up to 1.69 hours."

cont.,

I can tell you that the direction of impact postulated for the postulated formation of the Hudson Bay would not result in slowing the rotation of the earth to the upper limit allowable by the calculations.

As to planetoids passing the earth, that also is not too likely a scenario. Depending upon the composition of the core and the core of the planetoid, it is possible for a planet to be flipped over but highly unlikely. For example, the planets in our solar system that have been flipped over have stayed that way and most believe that this has been due to very large impactors in the form of planetoids.

In fact, this 'flipping' possibly resulted in the apparent retrograde rotations of Venus, Uranus and Pluto. The cause is the subject of various hypotheses and theories but no hard evidence as to the precise causes are known of yet. But, still, impactors of the size necessary to flip a planet would wipe out all life and we would not be here to have this conversation.

What evidence do you have to support global warming will cause this? As I've clearly shown, Earth's past climate cycles demonstrate that warmer is greener, not cold and arid.

And, in another article, I demonstrated that the warming earth is becoming greener (like in the sub-Sahara).

What have you to show otherwise?

I'm not debating that it will get warmer, I'm not debating that it will get colder. I'm saying global climate change is both. Inputting more CO2 retains energy in the system for longer periods of time. As the energy increases the effects on climate will follow the laws of thermodynamics against equilibrium and result in drastic and abrupt climate changes both colder and warmer. This is evidenced by the Pliestocene. Would you prefer I draw it in crayon so you can understand it more clearly?

Inputting more CO2 retains energy in the system for longer periods of time.

Unfortunately, that is by no means certain. All we have are proxies.

In addition, there are all sorts of interesting things that can happen with varying CO2 concentrations. Under certain conditions, increasing CO2 can also lend to cooling as a form of compensation.

This can occur when the molecules become heated by neighboring molecules. They then push apart at further distances from each other, allowing heat energy to escape from between them with the heat 'percolating' upward in addition to reflected IR, some of which is reflected back to the ground and scattered on its way downward.

Over time and depending upon molecular density of the atmosphere, a cooling effect can obtain in spite of irradiative forcing. Remember that the end of the Pleistocene Epoch also saw an ice age. At this point we still do not know the 'whys' and 'wherefores' of the situation. We have hypotheses and theories.

I'm not debating that it will get warmer, I'm not debating that it will get colder. I'm saying global climate change is both.

Oh, so now it's "global climate change" and not global warming?

Inputting more CO2 retains energy in the system for longer periods of time. As the energy increases the effects on climate will follow the laws of thermodynamics against equilibrium and result in drastic and abrupt climate changes both colder and warmer. This is evidenced by the Pliestocene.

It was a period of global cooling!

Would you prefer I draw it in crayon so you can understand it more clearly?

So how come when I add heat to my cooking pot, my food doesn't freeze? Might that have something to do with the laws of thermodynamics?

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Historically, a warmer earth has a more stable climate, whereas a cool earth has a less stable climate.

SR: What heat transfer class did you get this garbage from:

"This can occur when the molecules become heated by neighboring molecules. They then push apart at further distances from each other, allowing heat energy to escape from between them with the heat 'percolating' upward in addition to reflected IR, some of which is reflected back to the ground and scattered on its way downward."

A reference to how energy escapes between molecules that are pushing each other apart would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise I will have to assume you either misunderstood what you read, I am misunderstanding your parsing of the English language, or this is just something you made up on the spur of the moment. Thank you in advance for a reference.

Oh, so now it's "global climate change" and not global warming?

This is evidenced by the Pliestocene.

It was a period of global cooling!

Now you're showing rather extreme ignorance.

So how come when I add heat to my cooking pot, my food doesn't freeze?

More ignorance.

Might that have something to do with the laws of thermodynamics?

You don't seem to understand what we're talking about here.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

No, I'm stating exactly what I think and have thought would happen.

Historically, a warmer earth has a more stable climate

False.

whereas a cool earth has a less stable climate.

Also false.

Stability comes from the complex system of feedbacks and various methods of heat distribution, including weather events like monsoons, hurricanes, even normal thunder storms. If you disrupt or increase these heat distribution mechanics by adding more energy you will receive a cyclical variance. That's thermodynamics.

No, I'm saying that retaining greater amounts of energy in the system creates a cyclical swing between extremes as we've upset the balance that has resulted in climatic equilibrium

That's not technically right. I think you really mean to say "climatic stability". The system always maintains thermodynamic equilibrium. Otherwise we would either 1) heat up and outgas our atmosphere, or 2) cool down and the atmosphere would condense to solids. We've had a state of equilibrium so steady that solid, liquid and gas forms of water have been present for billions of years as far as I know. Only small variations within that VERY narrow range have occurred. We're not going to be like Venus or Mars in the forseeable future.

As far as stability, I guess we didn't have ice covering the northern hemisphere in the last 100k years? And, the American grain belt wasn't desert a few mil y ago. It was a sea. Land level changed as much as sea level though.

Back to the original article (enough off-topic discussion for me):

Is this the first study to indicate that the bearing sea was biodiverse and well-mixed in the last warm period? I can't find any sources to say if this is something new, or if it backs up previous studies. If this is the first evidence supporting this, then I would say "HOLD YOUR COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS" until at least another study confirms this. One set of core samples from one area is not enough evidence to draw any big conclusions. This is a piece of a puzzle or a single dot in a connect-the-dots. You can't draw the whole picture from only this. Most of you know I'm a skeptic, so when I say that this isn't any big deal for AGW denialists, you should listen. If this was a big deal, I'd be screaming "I told you so!!!", right?

Use your brain. Be critical and skeptical of everything; no matter what conclusions they are claiming. If you easily believe either side then you are biased.

oh BTW, if you easily believe both sides then you are a dolt. Scientific theories are by definition questionable. If you cannot question some part of a theory, then it is faith or metaphysics rather than science.

Now you're showing rather extreme ignorance.

No, that's you.

More ignorance.

Again, you

You don't seem to understand what we're talking about here.

And yet again, you.

No, I'm stating exactly what I think and have thought would happen.

You're squirming.

False.

I've proved it with plenty of references (including some really nifty maps). Where are your references?

Also false.

Are childish refutations all you have?

Stability comes from the complex system of feedbacks and various methods of heat distribution, including weather events like monsoons, hurricanes, even normal thunder storms. If you disrupt or increase these heat distribution mechanics by adding more energy you will receive a cyclical variance. That's thermodynamics.

No. That's weather. What's at stake is arable land. Which cycle (warm or cool) provides more arable land? Obviously (and historically), warm cycles.

thermodynamics,

Read carefully the following:

H.C. Hottel, Radiant Heat Transmission, 3rd Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954).

The above source is dated and so you will need to read the corrective to portions of the above by reading this:

B. Leckner, "Spectral and Total Emissivity of water vapor and Carbon Dioxide," Combustion and Flame, Vol. 19 (August 1972): Issue 1, 33-48.

Finally, see the following and thoroughly acquaint yourself with its contents.

Michael F. Modest, Radiative Heat Transfer, 2nd Edition (Maryland Heights: Elsevier Science, 2003).

Come back and discuss this further when you have internalized the contents of the above. The above comprise your starting point for informed discussion.

FYI, the understanding that CO2 has a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere is often discussed and fairly well understood. See the summary also at:

http://www.physor...845.html