July 20, 2015 at 2:14 am

Cycles of Global Change – Part 3 – Era of the Great Goddesss

by
PDF pageEmail pagePrint page

Cycles_Global_Change_3_Great_Goddess_cover In several previous articles I have been describing some of the great planetary upheavals that have occurred in the recent geological past that had a profound effect on humankind. I related how in the aftermath of thousands of years of the Great Winter, its catastrophic termination and the traumatic birth of the present world age, Earth’s environment shifted into a phase of benign and nurturing warmth. From the period beginning about 9,000 years ago to about 6,000 years ago the climate entered a period called the Holocene Thermal Maximum (abbreviated HTM) by the scientists who have studied this unique time. It has also been referred to as the Climatic Optimum and the Hypsithermal. The renowned archaeologist Marija Gimbutas has delved deeply into this period of prehistory and has revealed an amazing culture in Old Europe that she describes as the Civilization of the Goddess. During these several millennia average global temperatures were higher than now. Studies from all over the world confirm this. I could site dozens of reports supporting the existence of a warm climate interval shortly after the cessation of the great ice age.

What follows are a few examples from mainstream, peer reviewed scientific journals. There are some extremely interesting implications to this research especially in regards to the culture that flourished in that epoch just prior to the rise of modern civilization. I present this information to provide a context in which to understand the rise of the Goddess civilization.

Let’s begin with an early study conducted in 1970s. A team of biologists and ecologists from the University of Minnesota studied forest distribution in New England during this period of post-glacial warmth. Their investigations revealed that white pine and hemlock trees were growing up to 1300 feet higher on the mountain slopes than at present! This requires a climate about 2 degrees warmer than today. (see Davis, Margaret B. et al. 1980, Holocene Climate of New England: Quaternary Research, vol. 14, pp. 240-250)

Studies performed in the 1980s in western Canada showed that the timberline between about 9 and 6 thousand years ago was as much as 425 feet higher than it is today. The authors of one study that appeared in 1989, John Clague and R.W. Matthewes, a geologist and biologist respectively, report that “we present new evidence that the growing-season climate of southwestern British Columbia about 8-9 ka (ka means 1000 years) was probably warmer than at present. Additional data from other sites in southern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta indicate that a generally warm climate may have persisted until 5-6 ka . . . Maximum warmth probably occurred between 9.1 and 7.6 ka . . . glaciers in the mountains of western North America probably were less extensive than today from before 9 ka until at least 5 ka.” (Clague, John J. & Matthews, R.W, 1989, Early Holocene thermal maximum in western North America: New evidence from Castle Peak, British Columbia)  Other studies support the idea that glaciers of North America’s western mountains were actually smaller than now during this time.

Another study performed in the Canadian High Arctic indicated a temperature 2 to 2 ½ degrees Centigrade higher than the present temperature during the Thermal Maximum. The scientists who conducted this research studied lakes in the Canadian tundra near the Arctic Ocean and found evidence for “a transition from tundra to woodland in response to a major warming of the climate” at the onset of the HTM. The pollen evidence they studied showed “that between 10,000 and 6,000 yr much of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, which is today covered by tundra, was then occupied by spruce forest . . . summers during the earliest Holocene must have been significantly warmer than the modern Arctic and late Holocene climates.” (See J. C. Ritchie et al., 1983 Evidence from north-west Canada for an early Holocene Milankovitch thermal maximum: Nature, vol. 305, 8 Sept. pp. 126-129) Interestingly the shift from warm to cold occurred between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago.

In 2004 another study of Arctic climate was published by a 30 member scientific team. They summarize their findings in the abstract to their report: “The spatio-temporal pattern of peak Holocene warmth (Holocene thermal maximum, HTM) is traced over 140 sites across the Western Hemisphere of the Arctic. Paleoclimate inferences based on a wide variety of proxy indicators provide clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 of these sites.” The authors estimate that average temperatures may have been up to 2.4 degrees warmer than the 20th century. (D.S. Kaufmann et al., 2004; Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic Quaternary Science Reviews vol. 23 pp. 529–560)

In a more recent study from 2012 a team of European scientists developed a sophisticated computer model to study Arctic temperatures during the Thermal Maximum. After feeding data into the program from a variety of proxy studies the authors conclude that Arctic temperatures were significantly higher than now. They state: “In the model, the warmest HTM conditions are found at high latitudes in both hemispheres, reaching 5°C above the preindustrial level,” 5 degrees Centigrade is about 9 degrees F. That implies a very warm Arctic indeed! (For the full study see H. Renssen, et al. 2012, Global Characterization of the Holocene Thermal Maximum: Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 48, pp 7 – 12)

Shifting over to Europe we find other examples. One study conducted in the European Alps focused on the landscape effects left in the wake of modern retreating glaciers. One particular glacier, Rutor Glacier in the Italian/French Alps was chosen for study because of its close similarity to many other alpine glaciers during the mid-1980s. Since the time when it had reached its maximum expansion during the Little Ice Age in the early 19th century it had contracted nearly a mile and a quarter at the time of the study. As it retreated two scientists conducting the study, Stephen Porter and Giuseppe Orombelli, found that it had uncovered a former peat bog that had at one time been overrun by the glacier as it expanded during the early part of the Little Ice Age. In fact, it appeared that more bog was still buried farther up under the glacier. After a series of radiocarbon dates they were able to conclude that the bog “formed and remained beyond the terminus from at least 8,400 to 6,000 B.P.” (Before Present). 

Again it clearly implied that when the forests were growing where the ground was now covered by glaciers, the glaciers had been notably smaller and the climate significantly warmer.

This implied that during this time span Rutoy glacier had been significantly smaller than it was in the 1980s. Porter and Orombelli were aware of the fact that a few years earlier it had been discovered that the fossil remains of forests of larch and pine were being revealed underneath numerous receding glaciers throughout the Alps. These forests had obviously been overrun by the advancing ice. Again it clearly implied that when the forests were growing where the ground was now covered by glaciers, the glaciers had been notably smaller and the climate significantly warmer. (see Porter and Orombelli, 1985, Glacier contraction during the middle Holocene in the western Alps: evidence and implications. Geology, vol.

The studies cited here are a small sample of the enormous amount of research proving that Earth’s climate has been, and continues to be, very dynamic and that present day warmth is not unusual. I have provided the specific references primarily to underscore the fact that these studies are published in the peer reviewed scientific literature and are not the propagandistic prevarications of global warming “denialists.” They can be accessed by anyone who takes the time to visit a university library.

In 2004 a team of scientists from China analyzed the changing pattern of pollen species in a core sample of peat taken from a swamp in southern China that had once been a lake. The species of pollen prevalent in a sample serves as a proxy, providing indirect evidence of temperature at the time the pollen was deposited. In this case the main pollens extracted and analyzed were from various species of trees and flowering plants. A shift from predominantly alder trees, which are a cold loving tree, to species of oak and pine and flowering plants that thrive in warmth is a clear signal of a climate and environmental change. Through analysis of shifts in the dominant type of vegetation supplying pollen to the former lake, a reconstruction of past temperature changes becomes possible. With respect to the period from 9000 to 6000 years ago the authors comment “During this period . . . average temperature was about 1 – 2°C above the present.” Their analysis also shows that around 6,000 years ago the environment in China became colder and dryer. (Zhou, Weijian, et al. 2004, High-resolution evidence from Southern China of an early Holocene optimum and a mid-Holocene dry event during the past 18,000 years. Quaternary Research, vol. 62, pp. 39 – 48)

I could site literally dozens of additional studies confirming this period of global post-glacial warmth but I think you get the point.

One significant implication of these studies is that temperatures warmer than present have occurred in the past and that they were due entirely to natural causes.

One significant implication of these studies is that temperatures warmer than present have occurred in the past and that they were due entirely to natural causes.

It is important to realize this when we are constantly being told that today’s temperatures are unprecedentedly warm. The studies cited here are a small sample of the enormous amount of research proving that Earth’s climate has been, and continues to be, very dynamic and that present day warmth is not unusual. I have provided the specific references primarily to underscore the fact that these studies are published in the peer reviewed scientific literature and are not the propagandistic prevarications of global warming “denialists.” They can be accessed by anyone who takes the time to visit a university library.

SGI_DVD_Featured_Image_update_676Get the inside scoop on the biggest story on the planet. Save 22.2% on Cosmic Patterns and Cycles of Catastrophe until July 22nd 2015 with Coupon Code: Sirius Rising

In the initial concepts of an early Holocene warm period it was envisioned by those studying it as a period of time optimum or favorable for the reestablishment of biological and cultural equilibrium after the environmental disruption that terminated the Pleistocene Epoch and brought the planet out of the great Ice Age. We can now appreciate how appropriate that term is in the context of the Younger Dryas catastrophe that marked the transition from one geological epoch to the next, or, if you prefer, from one World Age to the next.

It should be noted that the first scientists who studied this era of benevolent early Holocene warmth called it the Climatic Optimum. Changing the name to Holocene Thermal Maximum obscures the positive implication of the term optimum, which Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines as “the best or most favorable point, degree, amount etc. for the purpose, as of temperature, light, moisture, etc. for the growth or reproduction of an organism. Best or most favorable.” In the initial concepts of an early Holocene warm period it was envisioned by those studying it as a period of time optimum or favorable for the reestablishment of biological and cultural equilibrium after the environmental disruption that terminated the Pleistocene Epoch and brought the planet out of the great Ice Age. We can now appreciate how appropriate that term is in the context of the Younger Dryas catastrophe that marked the transition from one geological epoch to the next, or, if you prefer, from one World Age to the next.

During this roughly 3000 year warm spell early in the present World Age, or the Neolithic as the archaeologists call it, humankind worshipped a benevolent and nurturing Earth in the form of a corpulent goddess of plenty, often depicted in figurines and effigies as a pregnant goddess.

It was also during this time of natural beneficence and organic proliferation that humankind recovered from the brink of extinction.

Next month I will continue this exploration into the changing World Ages and the extraordinary shift of the Earth out of the Great Winter and into the Age of the Goddess.

Randall Carlson

Read part 4 here

22_2_Sale_Cognitive_Liberty_July

  • energ8t

    And as you point out, discovering the dynamics of earth’s history doesn’t negate our responsibilities to living in a balanced and pollution-free existence here. Disproving AGW doesn’t mean that we discard our responsibilities toward the earth or that we don’t have an impact on it at all (pollution/toxins…). It’s interesting that this debate seems to be locked into a polarization of “rational person” or “denier”. The fact is that there are many positions which take aspects from “both”, or more apt, all sides into account. We don’t need to fall in line with a prescribed position which tends to merely feed the control system of greed over actually living in harmony.

    Of course, if people would actually abstain from planting a flag in the first idea that they are propagandized into, they would realize:

    – History is much different and much more dynamic than we realize (schooled) or allow (weltanschauung)
    – Cyclical evolution of civilization: stone artifacts exhibiting advanced technology prove prehistoric globalization as well as advanced thinking abilities(they weren’t “dumber” merely because they existed before us; linear evolution vs. non-linear, cyclical evolution)
    – ELE Catastrophes do happen
    – TPTB will and have created systems of control under various monikers; The Green intiative being the most recent vehicle (Club of Rome, etc.)

    Of course these kinds of discussions will bring about the “deer-in-headlights” effect from the average person. But hopefully, people take interest in works like yours so that they may see that there is a sense, order and reality out there beyond what we think. In this zeitgeist (Technocracy) it will take logical evidence as you present in order to open some eyes. Intuition alone isn’t enough.

    • Cosmic Being 2

      AGW hasn’t been disproved.

      • energ8t

        Brilliant. Absolutely well thought out response to both my comment and the entirety of Randall’s post.

        AGW is by its very name only designed to conclude that humans are the sole cause (much as Ancient Aliens presupposes everything it presents as alien in origin only). Anyone continually looking to modify climate science through an evolution and progression of research and actual facts (ancient earth history, solar system wide weather…) will be faced with the dilemma of trying to fit into that very specific concept.

        Furthermore, my comment was responding to Randall’s discussion here of climate not being specifically AGW. Discussing contrarian or different climate models beyond AGW doesn’t negate our necessary stewardship toward the environment, as we do have an impact on nature through, population, pollution and toxins to list a few. Challenging the status quo of the heavily politicized Green Agenda doesn’t automatically polarize the challenger into a gas-guzzling Republican camp. It puts the intellectual into the position to think without being programmed into a belief system which promulgates such comments as “AGW hasn’t been disproven.”

        “We shall have a procession of data that Science has excluded. Battalions of the accursed, captained by pallid data that I have exhumed, will march. You’ll read them — or they’ll march.” – Charles Fort

        • Cosmic Being 2

          “AGW is by its very name only designed to conclude that humans are the sole cause”

          ‘t ‘aint.

          • energ8t

            Anthropos+ Genic= Human Produced

          • Cosmic Being 2

            Keep going, you nearly have it.

          • energ8t

            You’re making even less sense with that last response.
            My point is clear and obvious if you read and comprehend.
            Typing “Keep going, you nearly have it.” isn’t trying to be insightful, it’s only trying to be inciteful. It’s not friendly, it’s not appreciated and no one is learning anything from your 11 words thus far.

            By definition, you are trolling because you’re not contributing.

          • Cosmic Being 2

            More of a leprechaun than a troll, really. Anyway you nearly had it. Don’t give up now, have another look at what you wrote and a little think and see if you can tweak it a bit more.

          • Cosmic Being 2

            I was perfectly factual in my reply (you can’t get any more simple and unprovocative than “AGW hasn’t been disproved”), but I’m afraid he was rather supercilious. Aliens blah blah ? That’s his personality flaw, not mine.

          • Cosmic Being 2

            …but I do like insulting people, go to admit 🙂

          • Don’t make it a habit here.

          • Cosmic Being 2

            I won’t don’t worry.

          • Caused or influenced by humans. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is that portion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is produced directly by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, rather than by such processes as respiration and decay.

            If you want to split hairs you can, but obviously all of the hysteria and propagandizing of “runaway climate change” scenarios is based upon the implication that we (humankind) are the driving cause of the supposed climate catastrophes prognosticated by politically motivated actors and their agents.

            If you want to discuss this matter in depth, please visit: http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/climate-change-a-catastrophists-perspective
            and watch the entire series, and read the peer reviewed material cited therein and then present one question at a time, so that we can patiently present and work through the differing perspectives, and logically filter out the rational from the irrational theories and evidence, point by point in the comments section of the above link.

            If you are not interested in pursuing an honest and rational scientific process of discovery than their is really no reason to continue the conversation. For what can the willfully ignorant hope to impart but their own folly? We debate honestly or not at all. Sophistry, logical fallacies, distraction, provocation, intimidation, passive aggression, trolling, or any other form of verbal manipulation will not be allowed.

          • Climate Change: A Catastrophists Perspective

            http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/climate-change-a-catastrophists-perspective

            An in depth examination of the science and politics behind a modern day controversy.

            Given the push to impose a global carbon tax with potentially profound consequences for society, the issue of climate change needs to become a much larger part of the public discourse.

            This program presents a wealth of information designed to put this issue into a realistic context.

            Is the issue settled, as mainstream media would have us believe?

            Is there truly a consensus to which all climate scientists agree? What exactly does consensus mean in science?

            What does the peer reviewed literature actually tell us?

            Are dissenters from orthodoxy merely industry paid stooges?

            What does the study of Catastrophism teach us about global climate and environmental change?

          • Cosmic Being 2

            I watched it, made some interesting points. Certainly agree that consensus doesn’t = truth. Scientific majority viewpoints are often thrown out.
            Questioning the ratio of natural vs human made warming seems an entirely reasonable pursuit to me.
            On the politics, given the degree of international skullduggery in politics pushed by oil, the IPCC isn’t my first thought when thinking about political corruption and lying to the masses. The IPCC hasn’t undertaken any armed regime changes based on ‘sexed up’ dossiers yet. Maybe that time will come, but so far the the pursuit of oil seems to drive more propaganda and lies than just about anything else (except maybe religions). And I don’t expect every dissenter to be a paid stooge, I think that would be unreasonable. Nevertheless they still exist, and how do I know when I’m listening to one ?
            Will look into the ice core thing I think.

          • Cosmic Being 2

            That’s not splitting hairs, it’s just trying to base the conversation on agreed English definitions. The guy said “AGW is by its very name only designed to conclude that humans are the sole cause” – and it isn’t.

            That’s why I said ‘t ‘aint. Because ‘t ‘aint. It’s a false foundation to build any argument from.
            I haven’t seen any scientist say any such thing, or even any news outlet or environmental group.
            Claiming that somebody out there is saying that AGW is the sole cause of climate change smacks of a smear, an effort to discredit the idea as being more extreme than it is.
            So, again, sorry to say but your man there started with the fallacies and manipulation.

          • Cosmic Being 2

            “obviously all of the hysteria and propagandizing of “runaway climate
            change” scenarios is based upon the implication that we (humankind) are
            the driving cause of the supposed climate catastrophes prognosticated by
            politically motivated actors and their agents.”

            Obvious to who ? It’s not obvious. If it was obvious everyone would be agreeing with you. This passage itself sounds like politically motivated pre-judgement.

          • energ8t

            To clarify, I never stated AGW was proved or disproved. I stated that in disproving AGW (specifically human caused GW) or considering data which may infer non-human causation as the major contributor (but which may still show human contribution to significant degree) we shouldn’t negate our environmental management efforts. Many of the systems in place to tackle inefficiency and waste for example are perfectly legitimate to continue on regardless of what the main contributor to Climate Change/Global Warming is (i.e.- Energy Star, LEED ratings).

            To note, AGW (human caused warming or climate change) is a predominant theme propagandized in mainstream media; schools, museums, Hollywood/TV, etc. under the moniker of Climate Change or Global Warming. The GW icon Al Gore as he states in “An Inconvenient Truth”: “Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each one of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive; we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero…” Human carbon emissions are the main cause. This has become the official position (based on IPCC) taken by the EPA, NASA, NOAA, The UN and more. I’m not personally claiming it’s all wrong, just that the human causation focus plays the predominant motivator and is being used to push an agenda as if it’s the only cause (major cause). Google the EPA’s “A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change”. Main header on the Learn The Basics page “The Earth’s climate is changing, and people’s activities are the main cause.”

            While AGW is a specific form of Climate Change, AGW is now synonymous with saying Climate Change or Global Warming. You can look at every position taken by the agencies I listed.

            My comparison of AGW to Ancient Aliens was very clear and it wasn’t about aliens.

            And finally…

            Apologies for my tone which originally set you off. I responded that way because I was put off by the fact that you were picking at things I said which were never the main point of what I wrote in the first place and were misunderstood to boot.

          • Cosmic Being 2

            If the mod is going to cut the truth about this and only leave your illiterate blather then there’s no point me being here. Bye.

          • Gentlemen please behave. @Cosmic Being 2 you seem to have engaged in trolling here, please respond to energ8t without any provocation.

          • Sorry the conversation has taken a turn. @cosmic being 2, please maintain decorum.

      • R. A.

        AGW hasn’t been disproved in the same way Flat Earth was never disproved.

    • Well said and have to agree with your summation of the nuanced perspective required to make sense of our predicament.

  • Jeff Martin

    Great article, I’ve been following quietly for some time and have watched all your videos on YouTube. Fascinating stuff!

    I’ve been doing research for a book based in ancient Anatolia around 13,000 yrs BP and I have been unable to find information on climate and vegetation for the area during that period (specifically between the Tigris and Euphrates). The best I can tell it was at least partially forested. I believe the Eden story comes from a time when life was particularly easy and gathering food did not entail the diligence that was required before or after. Although that may have come at a later time period, possibly during the Climatic Optimum.

    If you could point me in the direction of any research done for that time and location I would be very appreciative.

    • R. A.

      Look up a guy named Edmund Marriage.

  • zackandmack

    So the question we have is this: If the original bolide “strike” occurred 12,900+ years ago and that killed off the NA mega fauna and created a genetic “bottleneck” of human development, how did society/man spring back so quickly to create the Atlantean culture that went to war with the proto-Greeks before their (the Atlantean) demise at 11,600 years ago?

    The other question I have is if the oceans were down by 400 feet (approx), how long would it take for areas such as Sundaland to become submerged? Was it submerged in the first go around at 13Kya or at 11.6kya? If the ice age continued after the initial “strike/s” at 13kya, then ocean levels would have been stable, (i.e. lower) or at least a gradual rise until the final end of the ice age at 11.6kay, correct?