Lake Erie Today

[BS Filter]

More like well over a dozen, but most of them have left no real record. The following ice ages on the surface eliminated almost all the evidence of previous ones. And the proxy sources like ocean and ice cores have lost almost all data due to compression other than many more had happened. We can extract good data of the last 5 or so, after that it becomes increasingly vague and speculative.

But the current cycles have been going on for around 2.5 my. With recorded temperature changes (both warmer and colder) that were much faster and lasted much longer than our current one.

We know the Bølling–Allerød Interstadial came on extremely quickly, and was significantly warmer than it is today. Which is why the farthest back that the alarmists will go is the Younger Dryas (most do not like going past the Little Ice Age). They literally cherry pick a couple of centuries most times, or at the most only go back a couple of thousand years and use that as their "benchmark" for what they think the climate should be.

Yes. They're goofy.

 

[Anomalism]

More like well over a dozen, but most of them have left no real record. The following ice ages on the surface eliminated almost all the evidence of previous ones. And the proxy sources like ocean and ice cores have lost almost all data due to compression other than many more had happened. We can extract good data of the last 5 or so, after that it becomes increasingly vague and speculative.

But the current cycles have been going on for around 2.5 my. With recorded temperature changes (both warmer and colder) that were much faster and lasted much longer than our current one.

We know the Bølling–Allerød Interstadial came on extremely quickly, and was significantly warmer than it is today. Which is why the farthest back that the alarmists will go is the Younger Dryas (most do not like going past the Little Ice Age). They literally cherry pick a couple of centuries most times, or at the most only go back a couple of thousand years and use that as their "benchmark" for what they think the climate should be.

The claim that “we can only get good data from the last 5 ice ages” isn’t quite right. Ice cores and marine sediment proxies allow reasonably detailed reconstructions for the last 800,000 years, which covers about 8-10 major glacial-interglacial cycles, not just five.

Also, while the Bølling-Allerød interstadial was rapid and warm, it doesn’t necessarily surpass today’s global temperatures in terms of the combination of CO2 levels and global energy imbalance.

The idea that climate scientists cherry pick to the Younger Dryas or Little Ice Age is misleading. Long-term paleoclimate studies routinely use records extending hundreds of thousands to millions of years to understand natural variability. Selecting certain periods for discussion is for clarity, not deception.

 

[Anomalism]

No one was around in those days so we don't know how fast temperatures rose.

We have ways of estimating rates of change from the past. Ice cores, tree rings, sediment cores, and other proxies allow scientists to measure how quickly temperatures shifted during previous cycles.

 

[Mushroom]

No one was around in those days so we don't know how fast temperatures rose.

For the newer ones we do, normally from sediments in ocean cores.

They measure the amount of foraminifera (a single celled plankton) in a layer of the core, determine what species it is, then repeat for each layer they can identify. Foraminifera of different species only live in very specific temperature ranges. So by determining what species was living there (as well as the magnesium to calcium ratios) and for how long, then comparing it to the species found above and below the layers they can determine what the temperature was and if it was rising or falling.

And also in newer layers through things like Carbon 14 dating and examination of things found. If wood (fossilized or unfossilized) is located at a layer, classifying what tree it came from once again tells them the temperature range at the time.

The problem going back past about 5 ice ages is the compression. As the layers are compressed over time, the data is compressed also so they can tell little more than the absolute peaks and lows the lower in the sediment cores they go. Past another 10 layers or so they lose pretty much all data other than a cycle happened mostly through other techniques.

That is why they know for example that 65 mya the temperatures in the oceans were significantly warmer, but are unable to tell much about any short term warming or cooling trends. We were able to determine the climate at the time of the Columbia River Basalt Group 15 mya because of the large amount of trees located in the basalt.

They know at the time temperatures were about 6c higher than today because of the huge numbers of Ginko logs. That only grows in the numbers and density found in semi-tropical rainforest conditions. As well as other plants.

And they know that Alaska and the Arctic was ice free because of the large number of palm fossils.

One of the fossils I was most proud of that I found when I was much younger was a small palm trunk about as big around as my thumb. The bed was deposited around 4 mya, which once again gives a damned good idea of the temperatures of the time as palms do not grow there now.

 

[odanny]

One must never fail to agree with the consensus.

The consensus is based on repeatable, provable theory that is supported by scientific measurement.

What I always find most amusing amongst the scientifically illiterate skeptics is they elevate the outliers, as though these naysayers have supportable, measurable, and repeatable evidence that the consensus is wrong.

They don't. They collect their paycheck from BP, Exxon, and Shell, so they can propagate junk science that works on people on like you, and many others, as evidenced by this thread.

You see, it's a scientific argument, not a political one. Most skeptics conflate the two, thinking they understand the politics, which they are as clueless about as the science itself.

 

[Mushroom]

The consensus is based on repeatable, provable theory that is supported by scientific measurement.

Right, sure it is.

Care to comment on the fact that this is the coldest interglacial in the geological record? And that not only should temperatures be significantly higher, but so should sea levels?

Or that the amount of fires in places like Australia and California are also below normal?

 

[odanny]

Right, sure it is.

Care to comment on the fact that this is the coldest interglacial in the geological record? And that not only should temperatures be significantly higher, but so should sea levels?

Or that the amount of fires in places like Australia and California are also below normal?

I can't even fathom where, or why, you are arriving at these conclusions.

The fires in California and Australia should be worse, based on your beliefs? What about rainfall in these locations, should there also be long periods of drought, interspersed with atmospheric rivers of rainfall that cause landslides and flooding?

And your belief that temepratures should actually be higher than they are today? So all of our carbon producing emissions from power generation, transportation, fires, etc, are having little net effect on the climate, considering the earth's average termperature, both on land and water, is lower than what it should be, based on your scientific analysis?

That's, ummm.....interesting.

 

[Anomalism]

Right, sure it is.

Care to comment on the fact that this is the coldest interglacial in the geological record? And that not only should temperatures be significantly higher, but so should sea levels?

Or that the amount of fires in places like Australia and California are also below normal?

Both claims are just factually off. This is not the coldest interglacial. The Holocene is actually warmer than several past interglacials when you look at global reconstructions, and sea level today is already ~120 m higher than the last glacial maximum and still rising, with current levels higher than most of the last 100,000 years.

The reason it isn’t even higher is because we’re still coming out of an ice age, not because the system should be warmer by some rule.

As for fires, that’s a classic cherry pick. Globally, burned area fluctuates, but heat extremes, vapor pressure deficit, and fire weather conditions have increased in many regions, even if land management changes sometimes reduce total burned acreage. You’re confusing local or short-term metrics with global physical trends, which is the same category error running through this whole argument.

 

[BS Filter]

We have ways of estimating rates of change from the past. Ice cores, tree rings, sediment cores, and other proxies allow scientists to measure how quickly temperatures shifted during previous cycles.

I understand the science behind it. However, I don't believe what's happening today is an anomaly.

 

[BS Filter]

For the newer ones we do, normally from sediments in ocean cores.

They measure the amount of foraminifera (a single celled plankton) in a layer of the core, determine what species it is, then repeat for each layer they can identify. Foraminifera of different species only live in very specific temperature ranges. So by determining what species was living there (as well as the magnesium to calcium ratios) and for how long, then comparing it to the species found above and below the layers they can determine what the temperature was and if it was rising or falling.

And also in newer layers through things like Carbon 14 dating and examination of things found. If wood (fossilized or unfossilized) is located at a layer, classifying what tree it came from once again tells them the temperature range at the time.

The problem going back past about 5 ice ages is the compression. As the layers are compressed over time, the data is compressed also so they can tell little more than the absolute peaks and lows the lower in the sediment cores they go. Past another 10 layers or so they lose pretty much all data other than a cycle happened mostly through other techniques.

That is why they know for example that 65 mya the temperatures in the oceans were significantly warmer, but are unable to tell much about any short term warming or cooling trends. We were able to determine the climate at the time of the Columbia River Basalt Group 15 mya because of the large amount of trees located in the basalt.

They know at the time temperatures were about 6c higher than today because of the huge numbers of Ginko logs. That only grows in the numbers and density found in semi-tropical rainforest conditions. As well as other plants.

And they know that Alaska and the Arctic was ice free because of the large number of palm fossils.

One of the fossils I was most proud of that I found when I was much younger was a small palm trunk about as big around as my thumb. The bed was deposited around 4 mya, which once again gives a damned good idea of the temperatures of the time as palms do not grow there now.

The temperatures were warmer because Alaska was at a different spot. The tectonic plates are always moving.

 

[Mushroom]

I can't even fathom where, or why, you are arriving at these conclusions.

Oh, that's rather simple. Geology and Evolution to start with.

The fires in California and Australia should be worse, based on your beliefs?

In both of those regions along with only one other on the planet, the plants have developed a rather strange and bizarre evolutionary trait. They are pyrophytic. In other words, they have to have fires in order to reproduce.

Now why in the hell would any plant evolve such a trait, unless fires were extremely common in the area. And not just for a short amount of time but over millions of years for it to evolve? It is almost a perverted evolutionary trait when you think about it, yet there it is. And globally, it is an evolutionary trait only found along the Northern Mediterranean, Australia, and the US West Coast. And yes, it is convergent evolution, not simply a species that spread to all three regions.

And also as all three share almost identical climates, plants can grow exceedingly well from one to the other.

That is why eucalyptus grew extremely well in California, and by the 1960s it was almost everywhere. But in the early 1990s they realized that they also caught fire extremely easily, and would "explode" when burning. Something they learned the hard way in the Oakland Hills.

Look at the iconic trees of California. Sequoia, Redwoods, Lodgepole Pines, all of them and more require fire in order to reproduce. No fire, no new trees. That's why my oldest son's main job is actually going around setting fires. Doing controlled burns up and down California to both remove undergrowth and allow new generations of those plants to grow.

The very fact that so damned many plants actually evolved to only create new generations of trees after a fire screams that is the conditions they evolved in. And it is not a trait found in England, New England, China, Panama, or anywhere else.

This is not "my beliefs", this is freaking science. Or do you reject Evolution?

What about rainfall in these locations, should there also be long periods of drought, interspersed with atmospheric rivers of rainfall that cause landslides and flooding?

Yes, because of the El Niño - La Niña cycle. Once again, nothing new. This has been going on for at least 10,000 years.

The planet's largest and most powerful driver of climate changes from one year to the next, the El Niño Southern Oscillation in the tropical Pacific Ocean, was widely thought to have been weaker in ancient times because of a different configuration of the Earth’s orbit. But scientists analyzing 25-foot piles of ancient shells have found that the El Niños 10,000 years ago were as strong and frequent as the ones we experience today.

Ancient Shellfish remains rewrite 10,000 year history of El Nino cycles

Ancient Shellfish remains rewrite 10,000 year history of El Nino cycles

www.ocean.washington.edu

Proof that this is nothing new, it has been going on for a hell of a long time.

And we also know what the rainfall in California has been like for over 250 years. And it has not gone down, it has actually increased fractionally.

You see, the first European settlers out there were Missionaries. And among other things, they were meticulous record keepers. And we have their records going back to at least 1769, which included things like storms, temperature, and rainfall. And the rainfall during that period was only fractionally less than it is today. Average rainfall over a 10 year period is actually up from what it was over 250 years ago.

It's also fractionally up from what it was 60 years ago. There is no "drought", there never has been a drought. That area for over 10,000 years has a roughly 7 year cycle of reduced rainfall followed by torrential rainfall. The geological record proves it, the Spanish Mission records prove it.

1931 - Rainfall and Stream Run-Off in Southern California since 1769

This report consists of a compilation and study of the varied information available for the purpose of determining and reconstructing the record of rainfall and runoff fluctuations in Southern California since the arrival of the Spanish Mission Fathers in 1769. By 1931, data regarding rainfall...

digitalcommons.csumb.edu

The "drought" is simply the effect of overpopulation. Rainfall has not reduced, there are simply too many people living there and not enough water to go around. I lived in LA in the 1970s, there was no worry at all about drought. None at all, and the rainfall amounts then are pretty much the same as there is now. But at that time, only 2.4 million lived in the city and 19 million in the entire state.

Today, the same amount of rain falls. But in LA that has to supply 3.8 million people. And statewide it has to supply 40 million people. It has not a damned thing to do with weather, or climate, or the amount of rain. It is entirely a problem with overpopulation. That is why even when there are record rainfalls with all of the reservoirs at maximum capacity the state is still in a permanent "drought" status. It's not the rain, it's the population.

So how am I arriving at those conclusions?

So, care to explain how records going back over 250 years show the same weather patterns if they were caused by modern industrial humans? And that fossil beds over 10,000 years old show the same pattern?

Oh, and why and how in the hell plants would evolve specific traits that requires them to have fire in order to reproduce if they did not evolve in an area that had been plagued by constant fires likely at a time when hominids were first learning how to walk upright?

 

[Mushroom]

The temperatures were warmer because Alaska was at a different spot.

Yes, it was farther north.



We are talking the Oligocene and early Miocene. Alaska (and all of North America) was much farther north than it is today. The entire continent has actually moved south since then (actually south-east). And it is still moving south-east, other than parts on the Pacific Plate which are moving north-west.

Oh, and also slowly rotating in a counter-clockwise rotation. Other than around Oregon to British Columbia, which is rotating clockwise. Many geologists are still scratching their heads over that, and what it will mean in a few million years. I even saw one speculate that fracturing from those stresses is what led to the Columbia River Basalt formation.

No, it was warmer because it was before the current Ice Age cycle. At that time North and South America had not yet joined, so there was a direct passage between the two. This cross-ocean passage just north of the Equator caused the entire planet to be significantly warmer than it is today. It was only when that started to close some 15 mya that Antarctica went from a cool moist climate like what would be found in modern Scotland or Washington and into the region we know today. And when the Isthmus of Panama finally rose up and completely cut that off that current some 3 mya that things started cooling and we have been in an almost endless ice age cycle for the last 2.5 my.

There is a simple fact that most who study geology know. That the climate is far more driven by geology than anything else. Primarily through the placement of the continents themselves. Every climate has been driven primarily by the geology, either via placement of the continents, orogenies causing mountain ranges to rise, or erosion causing mountain ranges to vanish.

 

[Mushroom]

I don't believe what's happening today is an anomaly.

The only anomaly is how cold we are.

Our current interglacial by all accounts was proceeding like all those before it. All the way up through the Bølling-Allerød interstadial. But for reasons they are still questioning, we suddenly jumped into the Younger Dryas around 14.5 kya. Where suddenly the planet returned right back to Glacial temperatures for over 2,000 years. And ever since then the planet has remained barely above ice age temperatures.

I equate it to a person going through a fever-chill cycle. As for over 10,000 years now, every time the planet tried to climb back up away from ice age temperatures, something has "slammed the door" and glacial conditions returned. The planet should be significantly warmer, and sea levels should be significantly higher. But for some reason, we are still stuck in conditions barely above those of an ice age.

There is a very real reason why almost all temperature charts the Alarmists present only go back a few thousand years. That allows them to claim things like "unprecedented", as they completely ignore the Bølling-Allerød interstadial or the Holocene Climate Optimum. That is when everything broke and they do not know why.

 

[Anomalism]

I understand the science behind it. However, I don't believe what's happening today is an anomaly.

I don't know if anomaly is the right word, but why?

 

[ding]

We have ways of estimating rates of change from the past. Ice cores, tree rings, sediment cores, and other proxies allow scientists to measure how quickly temperatures shifted during previous cycles.

So to be clear, you believe what is happening today is more abrupt than say the abrupt change from a glacial period to an interglacial period? Or D-O events too?

 

[Mushroom]

So to be clear, you believe what is happening today is more abrupt than say the abrupt change from a glacial period to an interglacial period? Or D-O events too?

Of course not. Because nothing more than 4,000 years ago matters.

 

[BS Filter]

I don't know if anomaly is the right word, but why?

Tectonic plates move over the planet. Hawaii is a great example. As the tectonic plate moves, new islands are being built. One day those Islands may end up in the North Pole. The fossils found will be palm trees like those found in Alaska. The climate didn't change in Alaska. Alaska moved.

 

[Mushroom]

Tectonic plates move over the planet. Hawaii is a great example. As the tectonic plate moves, new islands are being built. One day those Islands may end up in the North Pole. The fossils found will be palm trees like those found in Alaska. The climate didn't change in Alaska. Alaska moved.

Yes, the climate did change in Alaska. Once again, since then it moved south, not north. Today, only the tip of Alaska is above the Arctic Circle. At that time, the Arctic Circle was located around Nome.

The planet on average was around 20c warmer than today. The climate of Alaska was about like that if San Francisco today. And the climate in Antarctica was like that of Scotland because it had yet to freeze over like it is now.

Alaska is on the North American Plate, which is moving south. Hawaii is on the Pacific Plate, which is indeed moving north. That is why the two are grinding against each other along the San Andreas fault in opposite directions.



Watch the above animatic, and realize this is the period from roughly 1:20 to around 1:40. And in the same time period, Antarctica is not covered with ice. Hawaii only pops into being in the last seconds, and the massive glaciation of the last 2.5 million years is simply represented as a brief flash as the time scales are simply too fast to see any of the details.

The same way the details of the accretion of exotic terranes on the US West Coast are not really shown.

And no, Hawaii will not end up at the North Pole. Even the newest and largest of them within a few million years will erode into underwater mounds once they move off of the hot spot that is making them. In a couple million years, what is left of the "Big Island" will be nothing other than a tiny speck like Midway is today.

All created by the same hotspot, eventually destined it appears to be scraped off onto Siberia because that is where that plate is going. It is not going north, it is going north-west.

Here is another animation, if you want to know how it will all end up in around 250 my.

 

[Anomalism]

So to be clear, you believe what is happening today is more abrupt than say the abrupt change from a glacial period to an interglacial period? Or D-O events too?

Yes, in terms of the instrumental and high resolution proxy records we have, the current warming rate is faster than most past interglacial transitions, including many D-O events. D-O events were abrupt and regional, particularly in Greenland, but the global temperature shifts were smaller and less uniform than today’s anthropogenic warming.

What makes the present unusual is the combination of speed, magnitude, and global extent driven by human CO2 emissions, not just natural variability.

 

[Anomalism]

Tectonic plates move over the planet. Hawaii is a great example. As the tectonic plate moves, new islands are being built. One day those Islands may end up in the North Pole. The fossils found will be palm trees like those found in Alaska. The climate didn't change in Alaska. Alaska moved.

Plate tectonics explains long term geographic shifts, but it doesn’t account for the rapid global temperature rise we’re seeing today. Alaska’s palms from millions of years ago reflect its past latitude and paleoclimate.

Today’s warming is happening on a fixed continental configuration, with temperature and sea level changes measured across the entire globe, not just where land masses happen to drift. The rate, global extent, and correlation with human greenhouse gas emissions make the current changes exceptional compared with past natural variations caused by tectonic motion.