Climate Catastrophism
- Lafyva
- Jul 17, 2025
- 12 min read
Updated: Jan 19
Actual Effects Of Man Made Climate Change
≈ ±0.5 °C
Complete losses of glaciers and small ice caps have the potential to raise future sea level by ≈0.2–0.7 m
The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years.
Extreme Climate Fraud At NOAA And NASA
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
Yes, NOAA adjusts its historical weather data: Here's why
Climate Catastrophism Scheme
This is from the APA in 2006, 2007, Showing 40,000
Samuel Eliot Morison was a singularly devoted worshipper of Columbus, and while he was alive it was virtually impossible to discuss pre-Columbian expeditions to the Western Hemisphere in any academic setting. It is still anathema to give the topic serious consideration. Ales Hrdlicka, longtime anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution, was a zealous foe of early dates for the populating of North America, and even today most anthropologists and archaeologists immediately run to their computers to discredit any digs that would suggest a date earlier than 12,000 B.C.- 50,000 B.c. The recent findings at Monte Verde in Chile were actually the reluctant admission by the dinosaurs of archaeology/ anthropology who grudgingly agreed to add 1,300 years to the acceptable date of human occupation of the Western Hemisphere—not a notable “advance” in scientific thinking considering the inaccuracies of c-14 dating techniques.
Firestone et al., 2007, PNAS 104(41): 16,016–16,021, proposed that a major cosmic impact, circa 10,835 cal. BCE, triggered the Younger Dryas (YD) climate shift along with changes in human cultures and megafaunal extinctions. Fourteen years after this initial work the overwhelming consensus of research undertaken by many independent groups, reviewed here, suggests their claims of a major cosmic impact at this time should be accepted. Evidence is mainly in the form of geochemical signals at what is known as the YD boundary found across at least four continents, especially North America and Greenland, such as excess platinum, quench-melted materials, and nanodiamonds. Their other claims are not yet confirmed, but the scale of the event, including extensive wildfires, and its very close timing with the onset of dramatic YD cooling suggest they are plausible and should be researched further. Notably, arguments by a small cohort of researchers against their claims of a major impact are, in general, poorly constructed, and under close scrutiny most of their evidence can actually be interpreted as supporting the impact hypothesis.
The debate surrounding catastrophism versus gradualism goes back at least as far as the great classical philosophers (Palmer, 2003). It was thought for many years to be resolved by Darwinian evolution and Hutton’s uniformitarian geological principles, at least within the general scientific community.
Therefore, the YD impact event need not involve any fragments large enough to create a crater, yet it could still produce the geochemical evidence observed as well as a mechanism for the YD cooling.
After a warm Mesozoic era and Pangaeadisintegration, and especially after Paleocene the climate cooled down again, large reptiles (dinosaurs) got extinct, and mammals rapidly evolved and bloomed during entire Cenozoic.
The paleontological record does not support the postulate of a catastrophic event that led to simultaneous extinctions of a significant portion of Paleozoic life forms. Rather, evolutionary changes were brought about by processes acting over several millions of years.
Prior to 1980, the explanation was that there were slow and natural changes in the climate that ultimately led to the demise of the dinosaurs. Part of the reason for the acceptance of the gradual decline theory was that uniformitarianism or gradualism was firmly established by Sir Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin, Spencer and Huxley. Herbert Spencer (1891) cites the following passage from a lecture by Professor Huxley in which Huxley discusses his disdain for those who support catastrophism along with his favorable view of uniformitarianism: The progress of scientific geology has elevated the fundament [sic] principle of uniformitarianism, that the explanation of the past is to be sought in the study of the present, into the position of an axiom; and the wild speculations of the catastrophists, to which we all listened with respect a quarter of a century ago, would hardly find a single patient hearer at the present day.
Lyons, Jeffrey K.. EVOLUTION MYTHS: A Critical View of neo-Darwinism (p. 47). Liberty Hill Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Uniformitarianism and Gradualism Challenged
Lyons, Jeffrey K.. EVOLUTION MYTHS: A Critical View of neo-Darwinism (p. 48). Liberty Hill Publishing. Kindle Edition.
In the first half of the twentieth century, German paleontology professor Otto H. Schindewolf (1896-1971) dared to go against the dominant view of uniformitarianism by asserting a neo-catastrophism, leading to mass extinction. Professor Schindewolf was boldly suggesting that mass extinctions that were evidenced in the fossil record (such as the dinosaurs 65 million years ago) were the result of catastrophe and not a gradual Darwinian process. In the 1950s, Schindewolf’s ideas were not well received in the United States among geologists, paleontologists and biologists (Benton, 2003). Unfortunately, Schindewolf never lived to see his ideas vindicated among the worldwide scientific community. Everything changed on June 6, 1980, when a remarkable paper was published in the scientific journal Science, by a team of researchers led by a physicist named Luis Alvarez (Luis W Alvarez, Alvarez, Asaro, & Michel, 1980). In that paper, Alvarez et al. claimed that they found evidence for the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The cause of the extinction was a catastrophic one; the researchers went out on a limb and claimed that they had discovered empirical evidence that suggested a spectacular meteor hit the earth approximately 65 million years ago and that this event impacted the entire planet, leading to the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs. Luis Alvarez was a physicist and he assembled a team of researchers that included: geologist Walter Alvarez, and two staff scientists in the Energy and Environmental Division of Lawrence Berkely Laboratory; Frank Asaro and Helen Michel. Initially, the team was looking for a more accurate way to measure and validate the age of sedimentary evidence that marked the barriers between geological epochs. The team knew that the element of iridium is rare today on the earth’s surface; they reasoned that an increased concentration of iridium would be evidence of older samples of the earth’s sedimentary layers. Alvarez (1980) and his team gathered evidence in clay samples retrieved from the Bottaccione George, near Gubbio, Italy; a second set of samples from the sea cliff of Stevns Klint, located 50 km south of Copenhagen, Denmark was also collected. What the researchers found was not what they expected. The researchers expected to see slow accumulations of iridium over time. Instead, the researchers were shocked to discover a sudden unaccounted for burst of iridium at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (C/T); this was the period of time 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs became extinct. The team needed to confirm their findings, so they gathered samples from Denmark also. The Denmark samples confirmed the findings from Italy; both sets of samples showed an increase of iridium levels 65 million years ago at the C/T boundary. The researchers could not explain the high increase of iridium as a naturally occurring terrestrial event. Therefore, the Alvarez (1980) team made their shocking prediction to the scientific community: Impact of a large earth-crossing asteroid would inject about 60 times the object’s mass into the atmosphere as pulverized rock; a fraction of this dust would stay in the stratosphere for several years and be distributed worldwide. The resulting darkness would suppress photosynthesis, and the expected biological consequences match quite closely the extinctions observed in the paleontological record. . . Four different independent estimates of the diameter of the asteroid give values that lie in the range 10 + (-) 4 kilometers. (p. 1095) The effect of the Alvarez article in the 1980s is what Professor Kuhn (1962/1996) referred to as a scientific revolution. Uniformitarianism had been the reigning geological paradigm thanks to Lyell and Darwin. Now that paradigm was challenged with new scientific evidence. Over the next 20 years more research was done; it continued to support the hypothesis of the Alvarez team – earth had been hit by a giant asteroid 65 million years ago! The Alvarez et al. (1980) paper shook the current geological assumptions of the history of our planet to the core! Paleontologist, Michael Benton (2003) comments on the scientific revolution which resulted since 1980 in the fields of geology and the earth sciences: What a changed scientific world in 20 years! In 1980, despite the work of craterologists and the suggestion of a supernova explosion 65 million years ago, most earth scientists were still firmly in Charles Lyell’s camp. When I learnt my geology in the 1970s, my professors did not even mention impacts, craters or mass extinctions. Now my students hear about catastrophes, asteroids, giant eruptions, death and destruction every week in their lectures. (p. 122) Hundreds of scientific papers have been published since the Alvarez et al. article in 1980. As more research was conducted more craters were discovered on earth and an entirely new area of geology, studying “impact cratering” has now developed (Pälike, 2013; Reimold, 2003, 2007). An article by Urrutia-Fucugauchi and Perez-Cruz (2011) notes that between 170 and 180 impact craters have been identified on earth. There are certainly more since locating craters under the sea at the earth’s poles is exceedingly difficult.
Lyons, Jeffrey K.. EVOLUTION MYTHS: A Critical View of neo-Darwinism (pp. 48-50). Liberty Hill Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Darwin was well aware of what catastrophism is. His disdain for catastrophism and support of Lyell’s uniformitarianism are well documented in Darwin’s publications and journal. Darwin’s theory of descent with modification hinges on a gradual change of species over time. Catastrophism is antithetical to Darwin’s theories because descent with modification postulated slow changes over time while catastrophism did not. Therefore, Darwin opposed catastrophism vehemently. With the publication of the paper by Alvarez et al. (1980) everything changed. Alvarez and his research team demonstrated conclusively that a meteor had collided with the earth in the past and that this coincided with the extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. Lyell and uniformitarianism are now out. Catastrophism is back in. Darwin and Lyell would be turning over in their final resting places if they were aware of the radical shift in earth science.
Lyons, Jeffrey K.. EVOLUTION MYTHS: A Critical View of neo-Darwinism (pp. 53-54). Liberty Hill Publishing. Kindle Edition.
AI Overview
The Alvarez hypothesis, proposing a large asteroid impact caused the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction 66 million years ago, aligns with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, a concept in neo-Darwinism. Punctuated equilibrium suggests that evolutionary change occurs in bursts, not gradually, followed by periods of stasis, which contrasts with the traditional view of continuous evolution. The Alvarez hypothesis, with its sudden catastrophic event, provides a mechanism for these bursts of evolutionary change.
Elaboration:
Punctuated Equilibrium:
This theory, proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, suggests that evolutionary change is not gradual and continuous, as originally proposed by Darwin, but rather occurs in rapid bursts of change followed by long periods of stasis where species remain relatively unchanged.
Alvarez Hypothesis:
This theory, proposed by Luis and Walter Alvarez, posits that a large asteroid impact caused the mass extinction that marked the boundary between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods, approximately 66 million years ago. This event would have drastically altered the environment, leading to rapid evolutionary changes in the surviving species.
Alignment:
The catastrophic event described by the Alvarez hypothesis perfectly fits the punctuated equilibrium model. The sudden impact would have created conditions for rapid evolutionary change, followed by a period of relative stasis as the planet and its species adapted to the new environment.
Contrasting Traditional Darwinism:
Traditional Darwinian thought emphasized gradual, continuous evolution driven by natural selection over long periods of time. Punctuated equilibrium and the Alvarez hypothesis challenge this view by highlighting the role of sudden, catastrophic events in shaping evolutionary trajectories.
Evidence and Debate:
The Alvarez hypothesis is supported by the presence of a worldwide iridium layer, shocked minerals, and a large impact crater at Chicxulub in the Yucatan Peninsula, all dated to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. However, the theory has also faced criticism and alternative explanations for the mass extinction have been proposed.
Implications:
The integration of punctuated equilibrium and the Alvarez hypothesis has broader implications for understanding evolutionary processes. It suggests that evolutionary change can be shaped by both gradual selection and sudden, catastrophic events.
AI Overview
The Alvarez hypothesis, explaining the K-Pg extinction event (dinosaur die-off) as a result of an asteroid impact, and the Younger Dryas event, a period of abrupt cooling around 12,800 years ago, are both examples of how catastrophic events can significantly impact Earth's climate and ecosystems, contributing to the concept of climate catastrophism.
Elaboration:
This theory, developed by Luis and Walter Alvarez, proposes that a large asteroid impact at the K-Pg boundary (the boundary between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods) triggered a chain of events that led to widespread extinction, including the dinosaurs. The impact caused massive dust and debris to be ejected into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and leading to a global cooling period. This, along with other consequences of the impact, is believed to have drastically altered the Earth's climate and ecosystems, ultimately contributing to the extinction event. The Alvarez theory is a cornerstone of the concept of catastrophism in geosciences, emphasizing the role of sudden, large-scale events in geological and biological history.
This event, a period of sudden cooling that occurred after the last glacial period, is another example of a catastrophic climate shift. While not caused by an asteroid impact, it represents a dramatic and rapid change in Earth's climate, with significant consequences for both natural ecosystems and human societies. The Younger Dryas cooling period is believed to have been caused by disruptions in the ocean circulation, potentially due to freshwater influxes from melting glaciers. The abruptness and intensity of this cooling event, along with its regional variations, highlight the potential for sudden and dramatic changes in Earth's climate system.
Connection to Modern Climate Catastrophism:
Both the Alvarez hypothesis and the Younger Dryas event contribute to the understanding of climate catastrophism, which acknowledges the role of large, sudden events in shaping Earth's history.
This theory demonstrates how a single, catastrophic impact can have far-reaching consequences on the planet's climate and ecosystems, leading to mass extinction events and long-term changes in the environment.
This event highlights the potential for abrupt and significant climate shifts to occur, even in the absence of a large asteroid impact, showcasing the dynamic and responsive nature of the climate system.
Modern climate catastrophism, particularly in the context of anthropogenic climate change, also draws parallels to these past events. The current rapid changes in Earth's climate, driven by human activities, are seen by some as a new example of a potentially catastrophic event, with similar potential for long-term environmental and societal consequences as the past examples of sudden climate shifts. The study of the Alvarez hypothesis and Younger Dryas helps us understand the potential consequences of such events and the need to address climate change effectively.
AI Overview
Climate catastrophism, sometimes referred to as "climate doomerism," is the view that climate change is so severe and imminent that it will lead to a global collapse of civilization or, in some cases, human extinction. It's a term used to describe the belief that climate change poses a catastrophic threat, leading to widespread devastation and instability.
Here's a more detailed look:
Key Beliefs:
Severe Impacts:
Climate catastrophists believe that the effects of climate change will be far more devastating and widespread than many other climate change-related discussions acknowledge.
Global Collapse:
Some catastrophists envision a scenario where societal systems, such as food production, infrastructure, and governance, collapse due to the combined effects of climate change.
Potential for Extinction:
In extreme cases, climate catastrophism can include the belief that climate change could lead to the extinction of human species, a scenario sometimes referred to as "climate apocalypse".
Urgent Action Needed:
Catastrophists emphasize the need for immediate and drastic action to mitigate climate change, as they believe that delay will only exacerbate the crisis.
Examples of Scenarios:
.Opens in new tab
Climate change could destabilize existing societies through resource scarcity, mass migration, and conflict, leading to a breakdown of social structures and governance.
.Opens in new tab
The term "global catastrophe" can refer to a situation where a large portion of the global population is lost and global systems are severely disrupted.
This concept refers to the levels of global warming and societal fragility that could lead to climate change becoming an extinction threat.
.Opens in new tab
Certain scenarios, like the abrupt cessation of geoengineering, could lead to rapid warming that forces rapid adaptation to elevated temperatures, potentially causing catastrophic consequences.
Contrasting Views:
.Opens in new tab
Some argue that the severity of climate change is overstated and that the Earth has a natural capacity to adapt to such changes.
Climate Adaptation and Mitigation:
.Opens in new tab
Many focus on finding ways to mitigate the causes of climate change and adapt to the changes already underway, rather than viewing the situation as an imminent catastrophe.
.Opens in new tab
Others believe that technological advancements and societal changes can help us avoid the most severe consequences of climate change and maintain a livable planet.
In Summary: Climate catastrophism is a specific view of climate change that emphasizes the severity of its potential impacts, including societal collapse and potential extinction, and the urgent need for action. It contrasts with other views, including those that are more skeptical, optimistic, or focused on adaptation and mitigation.
Comments