How many ice ages has the Earth had, and could humans live through one?

[Admin]

We know that the Earth has had at least five major ice ages. Could humans survive one?

How many ice ages has the Earth had, and could humans live through one? : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

So humans and recent hominid ancestors have already survived several "glacial periods" in our current ice age of the last few million years.

Unfortunately, whatever archeology/paleontology sites that were coastal habitations from the peaks of those previous glacial periods are currently under hundreds of feet of ocean water, because sea level has risen by over 300 feet since the peak of the last glaciation period 20-something thousand years ago.

It would have been interesting to find out roughly when humans began to use boats. But, much of that evidence is apparently erased by the oceans, now. It isn't just that the water got deeper, but also that the wave action of the waters edge advancing slowly across the coasts does so much damage to human-made features.

 

[Catastrophe]

Just for the record:

The glacial periods lasted longer than the interglacial periods. The last glacial period began about 100,000 years ago and lasted until 25,000 years ago. Google

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

Given the artificially induced fossil fuel shortages and concurrently increasing consumer goods inflation, I suspect that many people especially those in Northern climates could get an inkling of what surviving during an ice age might have been like. A mild winter due to global warming might be appreciated. Note: Just for preparation, I recommend Marino Wool long underwear, tops and bottoms; not a fashion statement, but the sizes fit male and female and may be on-sale now.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

My experiences camping in below freezing weather showed me the value of non-absorbent fabrics, water-wicking fabrics, and fabrics that allow moisture wetness to exit without allowing liquid wetness to come in. I think we would have a lot better time than our ancestors using animal skins and flax garments.

On the other hand, our typical homes are far less freeze-friendly than caves. Look at what happened in Texas when their not-designed-for-freezing-weather houses met an electrical power outage during a hard freeze. Pipes burst and flooded spaces below - and the pipes were in their attics.

So, suddenly having to deal with freezing weather without time to prepare infrastructure is extremely damaging. Russia will probably make that lesson as harsh as possible for Western Europe this coming winter.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible to design for cold weather. We even have a continuous presence at the South Pole. (My dad even visited there some decades ago.) It is actually easier to deal with too cold than with too hot.

 

[Catastrophe]

Errrm! I thought global warming was the problem?


Cat

 

[sam85geo]

It's logical and reasonable to prepare for extreme changes in an environment which includes relocating to an amenable environment. However, there are financial, economic, physical and political limits/restrictions to that preparation on an individual/societal basis. Add into that matrix the inane ideological political chicanery of the world's current major powers and sundry societies will and do experience hardship, chaos and suffering. IMO, the only alternative to the direction leading to the eventual "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" is a determined effort(s) to "Vote the Rascals Out" in favor of mutually agreeable compromise. P.S.: Having to tolerate being either too hot or too cold "stinks". in the short term and seems to be detrimental to our species in the long run, (per my 1% Neanderthal genes).

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I don't think humans can just "vote the rascals out" and live happily ever after. We vote those rascals in (or otherwise raise them to power) because we are not happy with our situations, and those rascals promise us they will improve our lots (perhaps at the expense of our "enemies'" lots).

The real problem with any sort of climate change is that it disrupts our existing material infrastructures and political structures by changing sea levels and temperatures and rainfall patterns, all of which have been established to support ever-growing populations of groups who do not agree on many issues. Groups of humans have been fighting in all of recorded history, and as far as we can tell, for all of prehistory, probably even before homo sapiens evolved. Over populations of other social animals do the same thing, such as wolves.

What we have lost by overpopulating our planet is the ability to move to different places as climate changes make our situations untenable in some locations. There are people already in the locations that become more favorable, and they don't want any more people there, "sharing" the limited resources. (But, they will reproduce their own group until they feel to crowded and start to fight among themselves - thus creating more separate groups).

Our problem as a species is really us. Unless we learn to voluntarily control our entire population size and limit our impacts on our planet's ecosystem, I am sure we are headed for a horrific population crash. And, even if we limit our population to the point that we have no impacts on our planet's climate, we already know that the climate goes through cyclic changes that make vast changes to the nature of various pieces of the land masses.

To become a long-term intelligent technological species we will need to learn how to live in a naturally varying planetary climate, rather than just try to turn our entire planet into a human-controlled biosphere with a thermostat with the humongous energy expenditures needed to support that.

 

[sam85geo]

I admit that the salient issues posted by Unclear Engineer are for me extremely worrisome. However, I can see only 4 options: mutual agreements for pressing problems; wars, revolutions and tyranny; a numbing inertia stumbling into chaos; all of the previous. When I contemplate humanities' future to approx. 2050, I can only think that we are fast approaching some biological/environmental tipping point. Hopefully, the 1st option might preclude such. Hopefully! Failing that, the world may/probably will experience the 2nd option. ....... Agere Sequitur Esse.

 

[billslugg]

When the post mortem is done, it won't be the invention of nuclear energy did us in but the transistor. It was the internet that greatly facilitated an unholy combination of rapid rate of economic growth and complete lack of accountability. We are facing an almost certain crash of monumental proportions. Mother Earth will do just fine. She will look back at us a million years from now as a bad virus she was able to shake.

 

[sam85geo]

Being a cynical, misanthropic curmudgeon, I would further comment on billslugg's post above, that the nifty but lowly transistor is completely innocent of having generated our current plague of a lack of accountability. The resultant economic growth and innovations from the transistor have been/are a positive benefit to humanity. It's the perfidy and meanness of social media which merely enhances the inherent baseness of human personality disorders and inane biases. E.G.: In the good old days, one could give an offensive/crude/profane/irrational "mouth" either a "good talking to" or if need be, a "whooping". Today, via the sociopathic use of the internet, the miscreants are beyond the reach of logic, reason, exchange of ideas and/or in politics. Similarly, consider that Evolution may have "misplaced" a few of our genes which may preclude our successful venture into space. .... "We have seen the problem and it is us".

 

[billslugg]

You echo my thoughts perfectly. Social Media is due to the internet which is due to the transistor. Economic growth is but fertilizer to all the above, but not at the root.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Blaming our species' woes on any one invention is just silly. At worst, these inventions have amplified our intrinsic "bad" behaviors. But, they have also amplified some of our best behaviors.

For example, misinformation has been "shared" and weaponized as far back as we have records, and certainly before we could even record by writing. It allowed for groups to go to war with other groups without ever really communicating with the other groups. Now, with the Internet, it is much harder (but not impossible) to prevent much wider communication among diverse peoples in far separated locations.

The fact that conspiracy theory advocates choose to make isolated "silos" of information sharing on the Internet is not due to the introduction of the Internet, but rather a basic human tenancy that some unscrupulous people have learned to weaponize for the purpose of radicalization and control. But, historical events like the Salem witch trials illustrate how those types of things were done well before there was an Internet, broadcast radio, or even daily newspapers.

 

[billslugg]

If you can't show the slightest respect for other's opinions you are not worth entering into discussion. Go bother someone else, I'm finished with you.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, sorry you took offense at my use of the word "silly". Please provide you choice of words that convey the unreasonableness of assigning the cause of your expected demise of our species to one single invention - i will edit my post for you - assuming you don't change the words to state the opposite meaning.

 

[billslugg]

You are sorry you called me "silly" and now you want my permission to call me "unreasonable"? The answer is no. Just stop labelling my opinion. You can ignore me or counter me with facts and logic but keep your opinion of me to yourself.

 

[Pogo]

The transistor has certainly taken off, one can hardly purchase simple devices without some in it where simple contacts and other mechanics worked just as well before, and all these computerized technology is adding heat to the environment. Looks like we need that Maunder Minimum of the 18th century.

I believe the other problem with the climate is all the farms growing mono crops and all the grass yards, parks, and so forth. Not enough bio-diversity, not to mention the fertilizer runoff to the waterways and the oceans, weed and bug killers, too.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, I did not call you "silly", I called your one specific opinion silly. We all have silly ideas once in a while, but that doesn't define us.

And, I did offer "counter facts and logic," which you seem to have ignored and avoided by changing the subject to be about being offended.

I guess I just need to be offended that you have claimed to be offended, call it "even" and we both get back to the subject of humans coping with climate change.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Pogo, I think just your screen name and tag line indicate we are in agreement about the main causes of human misery (i.e., humans).

In the context of climate change, there are several sort-off "natural" proposals for humans to take more control of the environment/ecosystem to deal with global warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Those range from (1) spreading sulfuric acid mist in the upper atmosphere to block some solar energy from the surface - sort of an induced Maunder Minimum, (2) spreading quarried rock dust on the farm land to mimic the effects of geological upheavals and subsequent rock weathering that is thought to have led to the current ice age cycle that started a few million years ago, (3) planting billions of trees in currently deforested lands - sort of reversing the deforestation that humans have caused.

There are more, but I chose these 3 and put them in that order to make a point: there is a range of plausible strategies that have different potentials for unintended consequences.

One of my concerns is that we just are not good at predicting the full range of effects of our activities. What has seemed like a great idea for the environment has often turned out to be worse than what was being "corrected". An example was the change requiring "hard" detergents to be replaced with "biodegradable detergents", which then became fertilizers in the aquatic ecosystems that drastically increased the amount of algae in the water column, causing submerged aquatic vegetation to be shaded out, grossly altering ecosystems.

When we do such things on a global scale, we are messing with the totality of our only available life support system. Our track record for such activities is scary.

 

[sam85geo]

We seem to have let this discussion drift into mutual misanthropy rather than the initial possibility of having to "freeze our pampered butts off" during the next ice age, (or this coming winter). Oh Well! It's been fun and I enjoyed grousing about my "pet peeves".

 

[Catastrophe]

How many ice ages has the Earth had, and could humans live through one?

sam85geo, you are correct. Is there anything left unsaid on topic?

Cat

 

[Pogo]

I read somewhere years ago that it was likely we would go into another glaciation in the future, but since then the thought is that we have managed to put off said ice age for at least thousands of years even if we stop producing methane and CO2 now.

More recently, the thought is that much of Earth’s history it had no ice caps, climate was very warm, such as during the dinosaur era. Even the poles, the weather was more like temperate climate. Then there were no significant oceanic currents like the Gulf Stream to keep the waters mixed. The oceans became anaerobic below 200 meters, the atmosphere contained high amounts of methane and hydrogen sulfide, and nothing lived down below. That’s what I fear going forward.

Could we survive an ice age? Yes. We did survive the last one by living in lower latitudes where it was warmer. Might be more difficult to fit all of us closer to the equator, might see a population crash. A snowball Earth such as was long ago? Might be iffy.

Unclear, Pogo was my favorite cartoon character when I was young, and he made that quote a number of times for various scenarios. Walt was very perceptive of the human condition at that time.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This article has some interesting information about the climate hundreds of millions of years ago, including a mass extinction that may have been due to cold weather during a period of high atmospheric CO2 levels: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220701143118.htm

 

[Pogo]

Makes sense that high latitudes would produce warm weather during the exceedingly long daylight hours in the summer and would get cold in the winter with little or no sunlight for months.
Birds maintain a high internal temperature like mammals, so it makes sense that avian dinosaurs likely were also warm-blooded.

 

[Catastrophe]

Pogo,

Makes sense that high latitudes would produce warm weather during the exceedingly long daylight hours in the summer

Don't forget that high latitudes receive very slanted radiation, so that any 'warmth' is spread out over a much larger area on the ground, as well as travelling through much more atmosphere, so are you sure "warm" is the right word?
Summer is warmer than winter, yes, but would you say summer is warm at high latitudes?

Cat