Compiled by Lewis Loflin
Rapid climatic shifts have occurred throughout Earth’s history, driven by natural forces that remain poorly understood, as Professor Steven M. Stanley notes in *Earth System History*. These shifts, occurring within decades, highlight the planet’s dynamic climate cycles, a theme I’ve explored in my studies on homeostasis and hysteresis. As a Deist, I approach climate with a focus on empirical data, recognizing Earth’s resilience when reasonably cared for, while acknowledging that modern CO2 concerns must be addressed affordably—starving communities cannot prioritize environmental ideals over survival. This article examines Stanley’s findings on rapid warming events during the Ice Age, contextualizing them within the broader cycles of climate variability and the need for a balanced, science-driven approach.
In *Earth System History*, Professor Steven M. Stanley details the last glacial maximum (80,000 to 20,000 years ago), a period marked by “astoundingly sudden climatic changes” interspersed with longer cooling trends (p. 468). Evidence comes from planktonic foraminifera—marine protozoans with calcium carbonate skeletons—that thrive in cold water, and oxygen isotope ratios in Greenland ice cores, which reflect annual temperature changes. These records show climatic oscillations grouped into cooling cycles lasting 10,000 to 15,000 years. Each cycle saw a gradual temperature decline, followed by abrupt warming events where temperatures jumped several degrees Celsius in just a decade.
Stanley notes that these warming events often followed Heinrich events—massive discharges of icebergs that released sedimentary debris into the North Atlantic as they melted, leaving distinct layers in deep-sea cores. Heinrich events occurred during very cold periods when glaciers surged to the sea, but the link between these events and subsequent warming remains unclear, as does the reason for the lengthening of cooling cycles. What is clear is that global climate can change dramatically due to natural causes within a single decade, a phenomenon that aligns with the cyclical variability I’ve discussed in my climate studies, such as the Arctic’s ice-free periods over the last 10,000 years.
Stanley’s findings underscore the cyclical nature of climate, a recurring theme in my work. The 10,000 to 15,000-year cycles he identifies suggest we may be nearing another shift, given the rapid warming 10,000 to 12,000 years ago that ended the last Ice Age. This warming, which melted glaciers and raised sea levels, was a natural event, not driven by human activity. As I’ve explored in my homeostasis article, Earth’s self-regulating mechanisms—like increased plant growth absorbing CO2 or ocean sequestration forming limestone—ensure stability during such shifts. The planet has endured far greater climatic changes than today’s conditions, thriving through periods with CO2 levels 10 times higher than the current 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Historical climate shifts, such as the Little Ice Age (1300–1850) and the Medieval Warm Period (900–1300), further illustrate this variability, as I’ve detailed in my studies on the Vikings in Greenland and the Lost Colony of Roanoke. Borehole data from Russia show a temperature increase of 1°C from 1800 to 2000, driven by increased solar radiation, not CO2 (*JGR Solid Earth*, 2003). NASA confirms that solar output has risen by 0.05% per decade since the late 1970s, contributing significantly to 20th-century warming (*NASA*). These natural cycles, combined with hysteresis—delayed responses in climate systems—make long-term predictions unreliable, as I’ve argued, highlighting the failure of alarmist computer models over the past 50 years.
Stanley wonders how fossil fuel burning might affect these natural climate shifts, a valid question given modern CO2 levels. As I’ve consistently noted, CO2’s role in climate is real but often overstated. Water vapor, at 40,000 PPM compared to CO2’s 400 PPM, is a far more significant climate driver, as I’ve discussed in my Southwest Virginia article (*NASA*, 11/17/2008). CO2 contributes to warming, but its effect is background noise compared to natural factors like solar activity, cosmic rays, and ocean currents. Ancient periods with much higher CO2 levels saw no runaway warming, thanks to homeostasis mechanisms like plant growth and ocean sequestration, as I’ve explored in my homeostasis article.
Modern CO2 concerns must be approached pragmatically, based on what we can afford. In Southwest Virginia, where communities rely on coal mining, the Green Religion’s blanket opposition to fossil fuels—framed as a moral crusade—ignores economic realities, as I’ve critiqued (*Science Under Siege*, p. 358). Starving people cannot protect forests, a point I’ve emphasized in my Appalachia article. Solutions like nuclear power, which can reduce emissions affordably, face technophobic opposition from environmentalists, as I’ve noted (*Science Under Siege*, p. 356). We should transition from coal where feasible, but not at the expense of rural economies already strained by globalism.
Stanley’s observation that rapid climate shifts serve as a “warning” risks fueling environmentalism’s alarmist narratives, which I’ve critiqued as quasi-religious (*Science Under Siege*, p. 358). The Green Religion often exaggerates natural variability to push ideological agendas, as seen in Southwest Virginia, where failed green initiatives—like the $140 million Bristol research center—prioritized ideology over practical outcomes. These shifts are not new; the Earth has experienced them for millennia, adapting through natural mechanisms. The Arctic, for example, has been ice-free three times in the last 10,000 years, and polar bears survived, as I’ve documented.
Environmentalism’s disconnect from local needs is evident in Appalachia, where the focus on “saving” nature ignores the economic survival of communities, as I’ve argued. Heinrich events and rapid warming events, while dramatic, are part of Earth’s natural rhythm, not a call for apocalyptic policies. The 1975 National Academy of Sciences study I’ve referenced notes a 0.6°C cooling from 1940 to 1975, followed by a 0.75°C rise since 1975, a net increase of just 0.15°C since 1940 when adjusted (*NASA Earth Observatory*). Alarmist narratives cherry-pick data to exaggerate warming, a trend I’ve criticized for eroding trust in science.
As a Deist, I approach climate with a focus on reason and empirical data, recognizing Earth’s resilience through mechanisms like homeostasis and hysteresis. Rapid climatic shifts, as Stanley describes, are a natural part of Earth’s history, driven by factors like Heinrich events, solar activity, and orbital variations. Modern CO2 levels, while a concern, must be addressed with affordable solutions that prioritize human well-being, as I’ve emphasized in my Appalachia and Southwest Virginia articles. Environmentalism’s quasi-religious alarmism and technophobia, which reject solutions like nuclear power, hinder progress, as I’ve critiqued (*Science Under Siege*, p. 356).
The Earth has adapted to far greater challenges than today’s CO2 levels, maintaining stability through natural cycles. We should reduce pollution where feasible, but policies must balance environmental care with economic realities, ensuring communities like those in Southwest Virginia are not left behind. Transparency in data and methods, as I’ve advocated, is essential to prevent the misuse of science for ideological ends.
Rapid climatic shifts are real, but they are not a cause for panic—they are a reminder of Earth’s dynamic nature and resilience. By understanding these cycles through science, not ideology, we can address modern challenges like CO2 emissions with practical, affordable solutions. Environmentalism must shed its quasi-religious trappings and focus on reason, ensuring that policies support both the planet and its people. As Stanley’s work shows, the Earth has endured dramatic changes before, and with responsible stewardship, it will continue to do so.
Compiled by Lewis Loflin, 2025. Extracts from *Earth System History* by Steven M. Stanley.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
Click to Visit!
