11 - The Big Melt

[Sunsettommy]

Think and Hammer

11 - The Big Melt

KOEN VOGEL
JAN 26, 2024

Excerpt:

There is no consensus narrative or self-consistent theory that evidently explains why or how the Last Glacial Period (LGP) ended. The next 20-odd posts will attempt to rectify this by presenting the soup-to-nuts play-by-play summary of the end of LGP, the Big Melt. The next few posts will document the processes governing the energy interplay between solar irradiation, the greenhouse effect, ice cover, and geomagnetic and geothermal energy. These posts will take a uniformitarian approach: recent observations are the key to understanding past processes.

The Pleistocene Glaciations and the Last Glacial Period

LINK

========================

An interesting discussion about steady states between interglacial and glaciation phases.

[toobfreak]

There is no consensus narrative or self-consistent theory that evidently explains why or how the Last Glacial Period (LGP) ended.

Perhaps so, Tommy, however, logic dictates that we can at least draw some tentative conclusions from the empirical data upon which to base a cogent theory:

1).  Since there have been seven distinct glaciations of the planet since the start of the Quaternary Period, it seems safe to conclude that this was likely a regular occurrence of the Earth that goes far back in time interspersed between major events and that the only reason why we see these seven events during the present period in the geologic record is mainly because the data is simply newest and freshest.

2).  That given the assumption that glaciation has been a regular occurrence throughout most of the history of the Earth for a variety of reasons just as there have been hot periods like the PETM, that this must then be a natural event in Earth's climate, like an oscillation steering around external forces modulating the Earth's temperature above and below a mean average.

3).  Therefore, whatever the present influence man has on his environment, that this too must be a natural occurrence since we are part of nature and our technological influences the natural result when a stable enough climate exists long enough to allow the development of technological lifeforms! 

4).  And since the present Earth today is the result of 4.6 billion years of constant climatic influences, many or most of which (if not all) have been greater pressures on the Earth than a mere 150 years of man's technological influence, that it follows then that the Earth has built in mechanisms to deal with this and since it has corrected for and recovered from all these other events to bring us to the present day, that it is reasonable then to assume it will adjust and cope as well from whatever pressures are coming from Man's presence.

THEREFORE, the most commonsense path for us to follow as a species is to continue to seek improvements in our efficiency and technology to reduce our climate impact and to continue to develop our technology toward newer and better energy sources as our science allows, rather than rush pell mell into causing mass economic, societal or agricultural disasters of our own making for political reasons risking the starvation and suffering of billions of people in a mad panic to "save the planet," and to simply do what we can as our technology grows towards making human culture in balance with our surroundings as opportunity allows us, trusting that in time, perhaps over the next 150 years, that we can grow and exist in harmony with the planet and that whatever the current impact, that as our science improves, the Earth will once again adapt, adjust and recover returning to its natural state of equilibrium as it always has since we and our technology are PART of nature and there must be, by design, a period of a few centuries of fossil fuel dependence to allow a species the time needed to grow into newer and cleaner technologies, and that mankind is NOT like a plague or virus inflicting permanent harm on the planet, but really, we are just part of the big picture.

[Sunsettommy]

Sure, as the posted article mentions cyclic behavior with several possible causes pointed out, but this is a field that needs more time and field research to build a more coherent view of the causes.

The great similarity between the individual glacial/interglacial cycles (graph) suggests that for at least 450,000 years Earth has been switching between two steady-states: one glacial, one interglacial. The graph above demonstrates that a rapid increase in temperature concurred with the ice melt at the start of the Eemian interglacial around 126,000 years ago. Note the cautious use of the word “concur”, as cause and effect are often unclear. Both are obviously due to a more efficient capturing of the Sun’s energy, but did the ice melt because of a temperature increase, or did the ice melting cause a more efficient energy capture and temperature increase?

bolding mine