past "million", or past . . . well, a WHOLE lot less than a million

Dateline NBC broadcasted another (laughable) story yesterday on the issue of global warming. Please know that I am, in no way, belittling this particular issue nor am I suggesting that we as a global-community should not be concerned about it. I am, however, suggesting that we keep our perspectives on the ground and in check, which will in turn generate proper and beneficial responses to the problem. (If the issue is presented in an outlandish and overly exaggerated manner, then the solutions offered will be based on that information rather than actual evidence).

The brief story given by Dateline did not help the effort in remaining grounded, simply because it posited a completely unsustainable argument: "Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday." A more provable -- albeit with great difficulty -- argument was given later in the report by Alan Robock: "It's certainly the warmest it's been in the last couple of thousand years."

My first question is admittedly a bit rash: how in the crap do they know this? The first recorded concept of a distinction between hot and cold is thought to have come from Aristotle when he defines the four essences of the cosmos. His concepts were then furthered by a later philosopher in the mid-2nd century AD, Galen, who is thought to be the one who coined the term "termperature" and applied a numerical value to the distinction between hot and cold. It wasn't until the 16th century AD that the first concept of a thermometer was created by Giambattista della Porta. Advancements were made to della Porta's ideas over the next few centuries -- names such as Galileo, Santorio Santorii, Robert Fludd, Gabriel Fahrenheit, Anders Celsius are found dotting the pages of this area of study.

The obvious conclusion is that it is historically impossible to know the conditions of the earth (accurately) before the 16th century AD. Therefore, Sara Goudarzi (writer for Dateline NBC) and the scientists in question have a rather limited scope of data to work with in constructing their argument. The primary argument of these scientists is that the current wave of temperature is on its way up and will continue to do so unless something is done about it. Yet, one must ask: isn't it virtuely impossible to know with any certainty what the temperature curve looked like on the other side of the 16th century? Thus, the conditions prior to this point could have been parallel to what they are now. This possibility is implicitly noted by one scientist, in the story, who said: "The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about 3 million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters [80 feet] higher than today."

If the waters were 25 meters higher than they are today, that logically suggests that the waters receeded (or fell) at some given point in time. (The chief concern today is that as temperatures rise, the icecaps will melt, which will naturally cause the overall waterline of earth to rise). Two possibilities come to mind: 1) the water level evaporated due to the increase of temperatures over the past 3 million years -- a possibility I don't see as all that persuasive; or 2) the earth goes through cycles of hot and cold, which naturally leads to the rising and falling of sea levels based on the (temporary) "melting" and "(re)freezing" of the icecaps.

Finally, a seemingly unrelated question: do scientists actually talk with one another in order to corroborate findings (or, theories)? The reason I ask is because another group of scientists in Britain have found a cosmologically given glimmer of hope to the problem of global warming. According to this study, the sun will be going through a phase where its solar energy will be less than it has been in the past few decades/centuries. The research conducted in this study sought to examine the possibilities of cycles in the earth's temperature in relation to the solar activity of the sun. There are two things that I like about this study: 1) it seriously considers the more plausible alternatives; and 2) it reinforces the fact that, even if this plausible alternative is true, it does not preclude the human race from in its pursuit for finding ways of being more eco-friendly.