Why was the Arctic once warm?

[Dennis Tate]

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.

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.

A 12-centimetre-thick sample of a deposit from a cave in the northeast of Greenland offers unique insights into the High Arctic's climate more than 500,000 years ago. The geologist and cave scientist Prof. Gina Moseley collected it during an exploratory expedition in 2015 for her palaeoclimatic research in one of the most sensitive areas of the world to climate change. The cave is located at 80° North 35 km from the coast and 60 km from the Greenland Ice Sheet margin. It was part of the Greenland Caves Project, funded by 59 different sponsors including the National Geographic Society. Moseley and her team are interested in the climate and environmental history captured by the unique cave deposit.


"Mineral deposits formed in caves, collectively called speleothems, include stalagmites and stalactites. In this case we analysed a flowstone, which forms sheet-like deposits from a thin water film," explains Moseley. It is very special to find a deposit of this kind in the High Arctic at all, the geologist continues: "Today this region is a polar desert and the ground is frozen due to permafrost. In order for this flowstone to form, the climate during this period must have been warmer and wetter than today. The period between about 588,000 to 549,000 years before present is generally considered to be globally cool in comparison to the present. The growth of the speleothem at this time, however, shows that the Arctic was surprisingly warm."

 

[RainbowSingularity]

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.

did i miss their theory ?
where is that ?

 

[Dennis Tate]

did i miss their theory ?
where is that ?

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.

"Let us consider Antarctica for a moment.
We have already seen that it is big. It has a land area of 5.5
million square miles, and is presently covered by something in excess
of seven million cubic miles of ice weighing an estimated 19
quadrillion tons (19 followed by 15 zeros). What worries the
theorists of earth-crust displacement is that this vast ice-cap is
remorselessly increasing in size and weight:'at the rate of 293 cubic
miles of ice each year--almost as much as if Lake Ontario were frozen
solidly annually and added to it.(Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of
the Gods, page 480).

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.

"At a symposium of the Union of Geodesy and geophysics, Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually. To put that number in perspective, Lake Erie contains only 109 cubic miles of water. Thus, a volume of ice forms on top of the existing ice at Antarctica each year which is almost three times the volume of water in Lake Erie!" (Expanded Discussion of The HAB Theory, Gershom Gale, Expanded Discussion on the HAB Theory.)

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

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

 

[sculptor]

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.

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

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

 

[Dennis Tate]

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

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.

Global Warming II by Carl Cantrell

“So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breath, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere, carried away by running surface water such as rain fall, is carried away to other areas by our winds, and diffuses down into the soil towards the earth's crust. All of this warms our planet increasing its average temperature.”

“Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes. This is very critical because warmer and dryer winds dry out other land areas faster decreasing the vegetation on those land areas. Less humidity in the air also reflects less sun light back out into space so that more sun light strikes the earth and more heat is generated….”

“The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave….”

“So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive….”

“Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…”

“This will do a number of things. First, it will increase the moisture in the desert soil so that it will develop water tables and water will begin to run in the streams. This water will increase the amount of vegetation in the area and decrease the amount of heat being generated by sun light cooling the watered area and all areas down wind of the watered area. As more available water evaporates, it will cool the air and reflect more sun light back out into space cooling the area even more. Cooler and more humid air will have less of a heating effect on areas down wind and will reflect more sun light back into space in those areas cooling areas we won't be watering yet. Cooler and more humid air will also have less of a warming effect on our seas and oceans.”

“Rain water running off of cooler soil will decrease the heating effect on our oceans and our planet crusts which will decrease catastrophic storm activities for other areas and seismic activity for the entire planet. Also, returning more ocean water to the surface and aquifers of our continents will lower the sea levels providing more usable land for us to farm and build on.”

“With cooler desert areas and increasing vegetation, less water will evaporate from our deserts increasing the amount of surface water even more and increasing the amount of vegetation and animal life by huge amounts because deserts currently take up more than 20% of our land surface. Populations will be able to spread out and there will be less competition for existing land areas.”

“This strategy has to be done in steps with the first step being to begin slowing the rate at which our global warming is increasing. We need to focus on that until we have brought it to a point to where the temperature is not increasing any more and is reasonably stable. While we are doing this, we need to come to a global consensus of just how cool we want to cool our planet down to. If we cool it down too much, we will begin to have devastatingly harsh winters in large populated areas and even cause an ice age to set in.”

“Then we begin cooling the planet down to a point which will be most beneficial for all countries or the planet as a whole. We need to gradually bring the temperature down because there may be a lag effect in which the planet will continue cooling after we stop increasing our efforts to cool it off more. We may even want to stop cooling the planet once or twice before we reach our targeted temperatures to see if there is a lag effect…”


“We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time. (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell).”

 

[Luchito]

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.

 

[sculptor]

...
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.

... .

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

 

[James R]

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.

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.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

What is your favourite theory about this?

i know enough to know the theorys are somewhat light with absolute belief from scientists so i err on their side of scientific process

His polar shift theory is bunk.

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)

 

[billvon]

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.

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.

Scientists with their story of "millions of years" for recent events won't accept what the ancient man witnessed and wrote about it.

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.

 

[Dennis Tate]

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 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

For the most part, it's a good call to live out one's days in denial. It's a safe bet that the world will not end in the next 100 years, so why should anyone worry about it, since we'll all be dead anyway? Things have been going along smoothly for millions of years as the human race has flourished and progress has kept on apace. Or has it? Immanuel Velikovsky, a friend of Albert Einstein, spent his career unearthing mysteries of the past and finding evidence to support his theory that the planet Jupiter spat out a mass of rubble around 1500 BC which went on to become the planet Venus after rocketing past Earth, nearly annihilating our planet and leaving a wake of hellfire. This near-miss extinction level event shook the foundations of great kingdoms and altered the course of history. The 1972 BBC documentary above features Velikovsky and his ideas in all of their apocalyptic, planet-smashing glory.

 

[Dennis Tate]

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)

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

11:15 in video:

What sea level rise can we look forward to?The last time CO2 was 390 ppm,today's value,sea level was higher by at least 15 meters, 50 feet.Where you are sitting now would be under water.Most estimates are that, this century,we will get at least one meter.I think it will be more if we keep burning fossil fuels,perhaps even five meters, which is 18 feet,this century or shortly thereafter.

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/

 

[RainbowSingularity]

For the record... I disagree with Dr. Hansen on his idea that we must stop using oil....

I think it will be more if we keep burning fossil fuels,perhaps even five meters, which is 18 feet,this century or shortly thereafter.

fossil fuels
using oil
CO2
stop using oil....

what model is showing humans can stop using oil ?

 

[James R]

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

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.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

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 ...

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.....

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

 

[sculptor]

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??

 

[billvon]

The autotrophs were here first
They are happier and healthier with higher concentrations of CO2

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??

 

[sculptor]

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??

you want an answer?
First let me ask one of you.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[billvon]

you want an answer?

Nope. My question was as leading as yours; I know you can't answer it.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I know you can't answer it.

chernobyl proves that plant life will survive

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/chernobyl-wolves-radiation-mutation-animals

It's unclear how much gray wolves in Chernobyl are impacted by radiation. But their populations are growing, and there are questions about how they might influence the surrounding environment.

radioactive glow in the dark wolfs living in arctic regions might be a considerable benefit