The whole "ice age" theory you and the "Warmers" subscribe to is completely wrong, and the last million years of Earth climate history proves it.
The Ice Age Theory is not a product of anthropogenic global warming researchers.
Origin of ice age theory
In 1742 Pierre Martel (1706–1767), an engineer and geographer living in
Geneva, visited the valley of
Chamonix in the
Alpsof
Savoy.
[3][4] Two years later he published an account of his journey. He reported that the inhabitants of that valley attributed the dispersal of
erratic boulders to the glaciers, saying that they had once extended much farther.
[5][6] Later similar explanations were reported from other regions of the Alps. In 1815 the carpenter and
chamois hunter Jean-Pierre Perraudin (1767–1858) explained erratic boulders in the Val de Bagnes in the Swiss canton of Valais as being due to glaciers previously extending further.
[7] An unknown woodcutter from Meiringen in the Bernese Oberland advocated a similar idea in a discussion with the Swiss-German geologist
Jean de Charpentier (1786–1855) in 1834.
[8] Comparable explanations are also known from the Val de Ferret in the Valais and the Seeland in western Switzerland
[9] and in
Goethe's
scientific work.
[10] Such explanations could also be found in other parts of the world. When the Bavarian naturalist
Ernst von Bibra (1806–1878) visited the Chilean Andes in 1849–1850, the natives attributed fossil
moraines to the former action of glaciers.
[11]
Meanwhile, European scholars had begun to wonder what had caused the dispersal of erratic material. From the middle of the 18th century, some discussed ice as a means of transport. The Swedish mining expert Daniel Tilas (1712–1772) was, in 1742, the first person to suggest drifting sea ice in order to explain the presence of erratic boulders in the Scandinavian and Baltic regions.
[12] In 1795, the Scottish philosopher and gentleman naturalist,
James Hutton (1726–1797), explained erratic boulders in the Alps by the action of glaciers.
[13] Two decades later, in 1818, the Swedish botanist
Göran Wahlenberg (1780–1851) published his theory of a glaciation of the Scandinavian peninsula. He regarded glaciation as a regional phenomenon.
[14]
Only a few years later, the Danish-Norwegian geologist
Jens Esmark (1762–1839) argued a sequence of worldwide ice ages. In a paper published in 1824, Esmark proposed changes in climate as the cause of those glaciations. He attempted to show that they originated from changes in Earth's orbit.
[15] During the following years, Esmark's ideas were discussed and taken over in parts by Swedish, Scottish and German scientists. At the University of Edinburgh
Robert Jameson (1774–1854) seemed to be relatively open to Esmark's ideas, as reviewed by Norwegian professor of glaciology
Bjørn G. Andersen (1992).
[16] Jameson's remarks about ancient glaciers in Scotland were most probably prompted by Esmark.
[17] In Germany, Albrecht Reinhard Bernhardi (1797–1849), a geologist and professor of forestry at an academy in Dreissigacker, since incorporated in the southern
Thuringian city of
Meiningen, adopted Esmark's theory. In a paper published in 1832, Bernhardi speculated about former polar ice caps reaching as far as the temperate zones of the globe.
[18]
In 1829, independently of these debates, the Swiss civil engineer
Ignaz Venetz (1788–1859) explained the dispersal of erratic boulders in the Alps, the nearby Jura Mountains, and the North German Plain as being due to huge glaciers. When he read his paper before the
Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, most scientists remained sceptical.
[19] Finally, Venetz convinced his friend Jean de Charpentier. De Charpentier transformed Venetz's idea into a theory with a glaciation limited to the Alps. His thoughts resembled Wahlenberg's theory. In fact, both men shared the same volcanistic, or in de Charpentier's case rather
plutonistic assumptions, about the earth's history. In 1834, de Charpentier presented his paper before the Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
[20] In the meantime, the German botanist
Karl Friedrich Schimper (1803–1867) was studying mosses which were growing on erratic boulders in the alpine upland of Bavaria. He began to wonder where such masses of stone had come from. During the summer of 1835 he made some excursions to the Bavarian Alps. Schimper came to the conclusion that ice must have been the means of transport for the boulders in the alpine upland. In the winter of 1835 to 1836 he held some lectures in Munich. Schimper then assumed that there must have been global times of obliteration ("Verödungszeiten") with a cold climate and frozen water.
[21] Schimper spent the summer months of 1836 at Devens, near Bex, in the Swiss Alps with his former university friend
Louis Agassiz (1801–1873) and Jean de Charpentier. Schimper, de Charpentier and possibly Venetz convinced Agassiz that there had been a time of glaciation. During Winter 1836/7 Agassiz and Schimper developed the theory of a sequence of glaciations. They mainly drew upon the preceding works of Venetz, de Charpentier and on their own fieldwork. Agassiz appears to have been already familiar with Bernhardi's paper at that time.
[22] At the beginning of 1837, Schimper coined the term "ice age" (
"Eiszeit") for the period of the glaciers.
[23] In July 1837 Agassiz presented their synthesis before the annual meeting of the Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft at Neuchâtel. The audience was very critical and some opposed to the new theory because it contradicted the established opinions on climatic history. Most contemporary scientists thought that the earth had been gradually cooling down since its birth as a molten globe.
[24]
In order to overcome this rejection, Agassiz embarked on geological fieldwork. He published his book
Study on Glaciers ("Études sur les glaciers") in 1840.
[25] De Charpentier was put out by this, as he had also been preparing a book about the glaciation of the Alps. De Charpentier felt that Agassiz should have given him precedence as it was he who had introduced Agassiz to in-depth glacial research.
[26] Besides that, Agassiz had, as a result of personal quarrels, omitted any mention of Schimper in his book.
[27]
All together, it took several decades until the ice age theory was fully accepted by scientists. This happened on an international scale in the second half of the 1870s following the work of
James Croll, including the publication of
Climate and Time, in Their Geological Relations in 1875, which provided a credible explanation for the causes of ice ages.
[28]
Greenland froze while North America thawed.
Prove it.
The above proves that CO2 has NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTH CLIMATE CHANGE.
What the fuck is wrong with you? You act as if the ice ages are the only instance of climate change this planet has undergone. AND NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT THE ICE AGES WERE CAUSED BY CHANGES IN CO2 LEVELS. It certainly produces feedback effects in response to temperature changes, but the primary cause has been widely accepted for quite some time to be the Milankovich cycles. Are you familiar with those? For someone arguing what you argue, you ought to be.
Your "science" is to only allow those who PARROT your fraudulent fudgebaking heroes who say Co2 is the cause.
Tell us, birdbrain, how did CO2 melt NA and freeze Greenland AT THE SAME TIME???
First tell us where you got the idea that the term "climate change" refers exclusively to ice age glaciations, then you can tell us where you got the idea that anyone believes CO2 is responsible for all climate change or for glaciation at all. And if you think you can take down all of mainstream science by accusing me of "parroting", you're more stupid than you already appear - and that's not easy.
You sound as if you'd like to get into a serious insult contest, but I have to advise you, I always try not to do that with children.
