USGS: Arctic sea too warm for sea ice 3 million years ago

Algore says that is cuz the earth now 5 million degrees 2 kilometers down was that warm close to the surface.

With regard to cooling, it looks like the warmists of the IPCC are moving along to use another gas to raise money for them from Governments, according to the Wall St Journal of Dec 28th.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704039704574616130812043404.html?mod=WSJASIA_newsreel_opinion#articleTabs%3Darticle
We need to get moving to cool the planet’s temperature. Methane is the most effective place for us to start.
Mr. Watson is former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mr. Mohamed El-Ashry is a senior fellow at the United Nations Foundation, and former CEO of Global Environment Facility, an independent partnership that funds environmental projects in the developing world.
This is why on Dec. 11, along with a distinguished group of colleagues from the scientific and financial communities, we proposed the creation of a Global Methane Fund to address the specific measures needed to get methane projects off the ground now. This includes a guaranteed price floor for methane projects to allay uncertainty over future carbon prices.
Funded by governments and private foundations, a Global Methane Fund with only $100 million to $200 million could leverage tens of billions of dollars for other projects, which will have a quick and measurable cooling effect in the Arctic and elsewhere. Scientific studies, such as the EPA’s June 2006 report, “Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases,” conservatively indicate that we could eliminate 1.3 gigatons of annual CO2 equivalent emissions—that’s half the U.S. power industry’s emissions—just by targeting landfills, coal mines, and oil and gas leaks.
Such a fund would benefit melting glaciers in the Arctic, and in the Andean and Himalayan mountains. And it would demonstrate to the world that we can do something to quickly slow climate change.

tornadomark – now that is funny! LOL

Great news: In 3 million years hence, it will be too warm for Arctic Sea Ice.
It’s Pure Concocted Chaff to think that GCM’s can accurately predict such a sudden turn away from the last million years of Ice Ages with a temperature network that has been beat into scrap metal and fuzzy proxies.
I mean, look at thier track record !!
They are as about connected with the outside world as the bubble boy in HDPE.
I’ll take Piers Corbyn for $2000, Alex.

in mid summer how warm is the suns rays shining on the ice in the Arctic?. i.e here air temp in the shade may be 25c but out in the sun its 45c. what im getting at is that if air temp is taken in the shade in the Arctic it may be -1c but for most of the Arctic it is in the sun light and the temp may be well above 10c up to 24hours aday in summer. Just a thought.

Next stop methane tax.

“The lack of summer sea ice during the mid-Pliocene suggests that the record-setting melting of Arctic sea ice over the past few years could be an early warning of more significant changes to come.”
This must just be to get more funding. They can’t possibly think this is relevant.
The earth warmed up in the Pliocene without man-made CO2. Ergo warming can be caused by something else. Ergo we cannot be sure CO2 is the problem (if indeed there is a problem) this time.
However you slice it, this is no evidence for AGW. I’m with Charles above, in that it is evidence of nothing at all.

GLOBAL METHANE FUND….
What are we now going to compress it and save it for heating purposes? I want to see them putting the cork in to cows and capture lines…
they will stop at nothing to gain control over the population through taxation..

Methane, Polar Bears who would of thought. Dietary restrictions on those animals should fix the problem and right at the source no less.

If global warming is not the cause of the Artic climate changes then what motivation due the pro-global warming scientist have to lay false claims or have they just mis-calculated or misinterpretted the climate data?

And at one time the entire earth was a snowball. That would be really bad and we should do everything we can to stop that from occurring.
Climate changes, living things adapt.
Polar bears are just brown bears that moved north about 250,000 years ago and turned white to better hide from seals.
What do people think tundra is?

Forgot to mention this as well – This paper also kills Hansens “tipping point” hypothesis – evidently it was warmer, but we didn’t have runaway warming & become Venus. So, 2 hypothesis killed with one paper. Nicely done USGS!

There are a number of assumptions and dependence on relatively skimpy data and sampling that make this research speculative. There needs to be a lot more confirmation before accepting the conclusions.

We have a primary sewer plant here that has always been run on the methane that it extracts from settling all the poop. Our old landfill is also contributing to our natural gas supply. Actually, collecting of methane makes sense, the technology is there, and at least here, no government subsidies as there is a profit motive.
Not all ideas from the pro side are wrong.

At least the remediation of the methane problem, by converting it to a far less potent green house gas, is an easy enough thing to do.
Equip the cows with pilot lights.

So, if “[g]lobal average surface temperatures during the mid-Pliocene were […] within the range projected for the 21st century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, did the oceans become highly acidic and kill off a lot of species of sea creatures, as is apparently being predicted by some of the global warming alarmists?

lebrochure… in a word, funding.

“Amazing -polar bears survived/thrived despite no ice.”
Actually, there were no polar bears at that time. Polar bears are a rather recent adaptation of a brown bear.

OT — Weather is not climate
Portland Oregon U.S.A. – Snow storm. Three inches so far.
Storm came right off the North Pacific ocean. Snow storms right off the Pacific are unusual.
Predicted as straight rain (normal).
Nobody predicted snow storm.
But there it is…

Clearly Big Oil paid off the USGS…right now is the warmest it’s ever been in the history of the planet. All due to Capitalism and industry. In fact, if we don’t reverse our prosperity now, the Earth will catch fire or flood; but extreme cold and blizzards are also evidence that Capitalism is causing the warmest (and coldest) temperatures EVER in the history of the planet. Therefore, we must all go back to living like people did a century ago (the elitists are exempt of course) and people should only be allowed to have one child and eat absolutely no meat!!! It feels warmer suddenly. I think climate is changing faster! Quick, we need carbon taxes to fix the climate!!!!

Re: tornadomark (16:02:35
Not far off the real mark, as Gary (17:01:59 pointed out, there are too many assumptions to count in such “studies.” I could just as well assume from fossils that I need to give my children spf2000 sun-tan lotion as to make the conclusions that they make from such little data!

“Record setting melting”…? Pfft, they only have a 30 year satellite record…. Anecdotally there was significant melt back in the 1920’s….
Secondly. If the Arctic ice cap could melt naturally 3 million years ago, why is it beyond the stretch of imagination that it couldn’t melt naturally at anytime?
I think the media become overwrought when scientists say things.

“…accelerated coastal erosion due to increased wave activity, impacts to large predators (polar bears and seals) that depend on sea ice cover, intensified mid-latitude storm tracks and increased winter precipitation in western and southern Europe, and less rainfall in the American west.”
What I find particularly irritating about hysterical inferences drawn from models is that almost uniformly only “bad” things happen. If the models are true, how about more arable land in the Canadian provinces, longer growing periods in higher latitudes, higher crop yields in mid-level latitudes, less frost damage, and fewer people dying due to arctic blasts?
Change is change. There will be good things. There will be bad things. It is ludicrous to think that change will only result in bad results. It is ridiculous to contemplate for even one second that the government or the U.N. can protect us from all risk.

For about 90% of the past 500,000 years, the earth was locked in glacial epochs. We’re just very fortunate to be living in that 10% of the time when earth is relatively warm–called an interglacial. Why are we worried about some condition on earth that existed 6 times farther back than the past half million years?
Overlooking the past half million, one million, even two million years of extreme cold when ice sheets up to 2 miles thick covered most of Canada and came as far south as Long Island, Chicago, and northern Idaho is definitely grasping at straws.

Surprising that NOVA covers the unprecedented warmth that prevailed in the Arctic when it was inhabited by …… dinosaurs?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/program.html

CodeTech (17:19:43) :
“Quick question: where were the poles 3 million years ago?
Given that the rotational pole moves, what is currently arctic was NOT arctic in the past… but how long ago was that?”
Along that same line, due to continental drift, the land masses and sea currents were a lot different then. Who’s to say that the reason the “arctic” was ice free was because of warmer water and different air currents?
And, just a quick scan didn’t turn up any references to increased CO2 as a cause for the ice-free condition.

Thank you, Jeff L… that is an extremely informative site.
I knew the poles wandered, but wasn’t sure what the time scale was. So 3 million years ago the current arctic was pretty much already the arctic.

Polar Bears apparently split off from an isolated population of brown bears (Alexander Archipelago brown bears) about 200,000 to 250,000 years ago, based on DNA and fossil evidence. That’s sounds like a long time ago, but is very young as species go, especially species as radically different from their relatives as polar bears are from brown bears.
Genetically, Alexander Archipelago brown bears are closer to polar bears than they are to other brown bears, but physically and behaviorally they are brown bears. I believe, though I would have to recheck this, that polar bears and brown bears can interbreed when they are in contact. Short answer: No. Polar Bears weren’t around 3 million years ago.
Was the earth’s geography substantially the same 3 million years ago as it is now? That’s kind of iffy. That was right about the time the land bridge formed between North and South America, though the gap had been narrowing for several million years before that, and the exact chronology seems to be a bit wanky, with the land mammal chronology indicating a more recent connection than some other indicators.
My understanding is that the closing of the gap between North and South America was one of the triggers of the set of ice ages that we’ve had in the last couple of million years. It forced ocean circulation toward the poles, which gradually dropped the overall ocean temperature and at some point put the planet into a position where slight variations in the orbital mechanics could put it into an ice age, followed by an interglacial, followed by another ice age.
The ice age/interglacial cycle has repeated a number of times for at least the last million years. The planet spends most of its time in ice ages. The last interglacial was roughly 130,000 years ago if I recall correctly. It was short–10,000 or 15,000 years, but it was considerably warmer than the current interglacial, with sea levels quite a few meters higher than they are now. Polar bears had to have survived warmer temperatures of the last interglacial, but they might not have been as dependent on ice floes back then.
Sorry about the meandering, but the bottom line is that the planet has been a lot colder and a lot warmer than it is now. The current set of animals are the ones lucky enough to have survived all of those fluctuation.

In a land far, far away and long, long ago, mankind evolved to a state similar to that which we enjoy today 3.5 million years later.
At that time, though, they took notice of the climate cycles and rather than embracing change, they decided to limit consumption, reduce power usage, simplify their lives. Within a few generations, they lost their civilization, their knowledge and their science. When the climate entered a colder phase, mankind was defenseless and …
So you see, mankind WAS responsible for the Artic warming, long, long ago, and far, far away.

E.M.Smith (19:29:56)
So if you put pilot lights on cows, remember to put the ‘flame arrestor’ wire screen in place too … to prevent ‘flash back’ causing hair ignition. Otherwise you will get very fast moving very noisy cows that walk funny.
…or self-basting steaks. Oh yeah…

“Scientists documented evidence that the Arctic Ocean and Nordic Seas were too warm to support summer sea ice during the mid-Pliocene warm period (3.3 to 3 million years ago).”
With tongue firmly in cheek:
First Pangaea broke up, then the Beatles broke up, and now CRU and Penn state are trying to avoid being broke up! Then along comes this article. The AGW / GW parascientologists need to fix this, and quick!
Possible solutions:
1. Re-redefine “peer review” to exclude this study, too
2. “The U.S. Geological Survey is not chartered by the UN to perform climate research”
3. “micropress.org is not recognized by the IPCC as a legitimate journal”
4. Declare the Pliocene to be too old to have any impact on current trends
5. Have AP science reporter Seth Borenstein report that PRISM is in Big-Oil’s pocket
6. Have Briffa filter the USGS data, then feed it to “Phil’s not going to like this” Harry_ReadMe model, and viola! a hockey stick emerges!
7. Work behind the scenes with Diane Feinstein and Gordon Brown to withhold government funding from PRISM’s members (Columbia University, Brown University, University of Leeds, University of Bristol, the British Geological Survey and the British Antarctic Survey) until they retract the study
8. “Deny, Deny, Deny!” [A Guide for the Married Man (1967), Walter Mathau, Robert Morse, …]
9. Repeat loudly: “The science is settled. You can’t take DENIERS seriously.”
I’m sure they will think up more rebuttals than I have.
Newt Love (my real name)
Aerospace Tech Fellow of Modeling,Simulation & Analysis
newtlove.com

E.M.Smith (19:29:56) :
I do know some people who like steak that rare… 😉
As to the comment from Jeff L (18:03:57), is there a place on the web with maps of that nature from the other side of the Earth?

It seems that the whole point of this “study” is to obfuscate established fact in order to put a Marxist spin on it. It contains no added knowledge what so ever. The only real facts it supposedly presents are concerning Arctic SST and summer ice cover that have been know for at least 10 years. The rest is just non-scientific supposition and political posturing. What a farce!
Every time I read some new study that purports to be presenting some recently discovered knowledge regarding palaeoclimatology, I cringe. Invariably all that is presented is a misrepresentation of that which is already know to science, twisted to support the IPPC. Its like Satan using truth to lie!
I can’t believe such pseudo-scientific babbling was published in what was once a respected Scientific Journal. Its frightening. What ever happened to Science?
BTW, to those talking about Polar Bears, they separated from Brown Bears 250,00 years ago, not 3mya, though the genus Arctis was alive and well.

How a legitimate result -the existence of warmer areas in the Piacenzian arctic ocean- can be savagely highjacked into an alarmist piece of propaganda.
So there was a warm period yet “Beryllium isotopes suggest essentially continuous sea ice cover over the past 12.3 Ma with short periods of diminished sea ice at 7.8 and 5.5 Ma (Frank et al. 2008).”
Further: “No micropaleontological evidence exists that has bearing on the presence of perennial sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean during the mid-Piacenzian.”
But,
“Despite the state of sea ice in the central Artic during the mid to late Neogene, the micropaleontologic data and SST estimates presented here suggest that perennial sea ice did not exist continuously in the subpolar North Atlantic or nearby Arctic
Oceans during this time interval and that the total extent of summer sea ice was reduced relative to modern. These conclusions echo those of Cronin et al. (1993) based on ostracode analyses from the North American continental margin.”
Fine and now let’s really look at the map of figure 5. Considering we are playing with models and uncertainties, the only significant trend in the arctic is surprisingly not uniform but very limited to the Eastern Greenland/Western Scandinavia area. Thus the only claim she can make has to do with this likely hot spot area. Anything else is entirely speculative.
Obviously Marci Robinson’s knowledge in atmospheric circulation is limited at best. And that shows in her made up conclusions. Since even the NSIDC is blaming the 2007 record and the 2009 non record on atmospheric patterns, one can see that the hot spot zone is the preferential zone of warm air advection along the eastern edge of MPHs. We also know through Leroux and Pommier works that a renewed strength in MPHs confirmed by pressure data -like since the 1970s- can easily create a stronger advection of warm air and a regional warming -eastern Greenland melting, warmer SST in this area, birds migration patterns and Globe and Mail articles by Martin Mittelsteadt…-. Thus this 3 sites study is at best, should all its results be confirmed and deemed real (the 911 site is quite anomalous), a regional study documenting a strong advection of warmer air driving surface currents. Period.
To dare extend this to the entire Arctic Ocean, sea ice patterns are a precursor of global warming is simply preposterous.

I once read an unsupported speculation that the inclination of the Earth’s axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic changes as the solar system moves around the Galaxy and the Earth may have gone through periods in the past when the arctic circle was at the equator.

Pictures of the Arctic 3 million years ago I just did not realize how long we have had submarines!
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857814.jpg
Having much less sea ice is not unusual and you do not have to go back very far. If we lose all the Artic ice it would be an advantage!

Be sure to study Scotese’s Paleomap Project at:
http://www.scotese.com
We presently live in a relatively very brief interglacial warming period during the latest of only about 5 major ice ages to occur during Earths 4 plus billion year history and 3 major ice ages to occur during the last 550 million years of the Phanerozoic eon in which multicellular life has so greatly proliferated. During the occurrence of these major ice ages, it has been extraordinarily rare for the polar seas within the Arctic Circle to freeze solid at all. Even within the present Quaternary major ice age, the Arctic seas have frozen for only relatively limited periods of time. The typical state of the Arctic Circle has been ice free and warm enough to be inhabited by temperate or tropical fauna and flora.
Carbon dioxide levels have typically been 3 to 18 times their present levels, with the notable exception of limied periods during the Karoo Ice Age and the present Quaternary Ice Age. When looking at the longer trends of the geological periods, there is no consistent trend in the correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Millions of year pass with the actual values going in the same direction and then opposite directions. The most notable feature of the present trends in temperature and carbon dioxide is their extremely low relative values in comparison to Earth’s past history, the Plant Kingdom’s mnimum requirements for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and a warm atmosphere to maintain and enhance the hydrologic cycle and maintain high sea levels moderating seasonality.
Eventually, the Sun will progress far enough along the main sequence and expand to destroy the Earth’s hydrosphere and atmosphere. There is, however, an immense period of time to come and further occasional major ice ages and longer warm ages to come long before the Earth’s ultimate warming to destruction by the Sun and other cosmic events can occur.

I watch an segment of “How the Earth was Made, Sahara Desert” . Every interesting. Here is a lead in for the HDVD.
“Africa’s Sahara Desert is the size of the United States, making it the largest desert in the world. It’s also the hottest place on the planet. But now an astonishing series of geological discoveries has revealed this searing wasteland hides a dramatically different past. Scientists have unearthed the fossils of whales, freshwater shells and even ancient human settlements. All clues to a story that would alter the course of human evolution and culminate in biggest climate change event of the last 10,000 years.”
They contribute the climate change to a little wobble in the rotation of the earth that happens every 20,000 years. They last time it happen was 7,000 years ago.
Very interesting, very interesting indeed.

The Mid-Pliocene Warm Period is a very interesting subject. While it is true that the Earth was a bit different back then, tectonically speaking… One of the oddities is that it was just too darn warm with too little CO2 to suit modern GCM’s…
Fig. 3: Pliocene OHT v CO2
GCM Simulations Of The Pliocene Climate: Feedbacks, Ocean Transports, And CO2
For Mid-Pliocene SST’s to have been as high as they were, either CO2 levels had to be about 4.5X modern levels (1400 ppmv) or Ocean Heat Transport (OHT) must have been about 22% greater than modern times.
Most estimates put Mid-Pliocene CO2 in the 400 to 500 ppmv range. So… Either the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is totally misunderstood or Mid-Pliocene OHT was significantly more effective than it is now.
It’s certainly possible that the formation of the Isthmus of Panama and significant growth of the Himalayas since the MPWP could have reduced the OHT to its modern level.
The crazy thing is that some warmists are trying to spin the MPWP as evidence that the Earth’s climate is 30% to 50% more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought….
Climate Projections Underestimate CO2 Impact

“The U.S. Geological Survey found that summer sea-surface temperatures in the Arctic were between 10 to 18°C (50 to 64°F) during the mid-Pliocene, while current temperatures are around or below 0°C (32°F).”

So what caused the warming?
If it was CO2 then why no runaway warming?
The study is an illustration of lack of Arctic ice without man’s input. I mean at 18°C you could swim there, that was some serious warming without runaway. :o)

rbateman (23:24:49) : And just how do you propose to fight the ice?
rb, I am very glad you asked. Up until now nobody bothered to. They thought the suggestion outlandish. Everybody is more concerned about how we can freeze the planet solid and wipe out the human race. It’s too warm for the Power Elite and their guilt-ridden sheeple, who wish to sacrifice all humanity to Gaia, that evil, humanity-hating bride of Pluto.
But you and I are not among them. We realize that a warmer planet is more consistent with Life, since Life has mostly known warmer times. We realize that warmer means longer growing seasons, more rain, more bio-productivity, more bio-diversity, ease, comfort, joy to man and beast, and other good stuff.
So how do we get there? Burn more fossil fuel for one. Generate more CO2. Of course, that may not work, since the temp forcing effects of CO2 are weak. Just burning scads of coal may not stave off the coming Ice Age Glaciation.
The real problem is Antarctica, that polar impediment to healthy ocean circulation. Too much ice builds up there, throwing the entire global climate into the ice box. So the best idea would be to tow Antarctica away from the South Pole — but of course that cannot be done. Mankind may be clever, but we haven’t figured out how to tow continents around.
The next best thing would be to tow Antarctic ice to equatorial waters, thereby artificially helping the oceans to circulate heat as they are supposed to do. I mean a lot of ice, whole ice shelves, which we could break off with nuclear missiles. It would be a handy and practical application of an otherwise useless and dangerous arsenal, and as a side benefit the bergs could be towed to parched regions that could use some fresh water.
Outlandish? No more than the schemes of super-fascist Alarmists. My plan involves no personal sacrifice, no phony markets, no huddling in the cold and dark, no pruning of the human population, no death and misery, no new taxes, no corruption of science. Just some missiles and tugboats, and an occasional iceberg in Acapulco Bay.
Warmer Is Better. Fight the Ice.

I have other ideas as well. Sooting Antartica to change the albedo might help. Dump coal ash from strato-bombers over the likeliest regions to induce melting. Again, a win-win-win-win scenario.

While I work at the USGS in a neutral position with no political motives in particular (collecting water quantity and water quality data), I have a job because funding comes from outside sources as well as from the federal government. The government does not pay for all the data collected by paid employees. The need for my particular job is that water distribution authorities need neutrally obtained cubic feet/second daily mean discharge of their local rivers for planning water management so they pay the USGS to operate stream gaging stations.
There is therefore no guilt by association when outside funding is for a practical purpose. But arguably, funding of other science employees’ salaries who are not in a position as practical to the public as a water-measurer may be a temptation to toe the line (the old “follow the money” problem). In my opinion, while not speaking for the USGS, is is certain that the study of the physical world is being funded by parties interested in the future global management of CO2 levels along with the management of other natural resources. For that reason, in my opinion, the USGS should remain disinterested, so that its reports are based on unbiased findings, and not presented in such a way to show favor to the source of funding.
When climate researchers from other agencies or in employ outside of the US Government present valid data and interpretive reports that open a debate in the role of CO2 in climate change, I do not favor USGS data over other data as a rule. Strict accuracy requirements for streamflow data makes USGS an agency that is known for good reliability in water data collection but in this forum, certain USGS climate change data reports might elicit a whistleblower’s observation and response.
There is not a lot of dialog and interaction coming from my scientist co-workers with this humble water-measurer about climate change topics (although what does this technician know, huh? -not a doctor of science with a specific discipline of expertise).
Finally, consider that there is danger in a blind loyalty to logic. The reason is this – the practice of logic, like the practice of Law, can be reduced to a theory of winning a case. This results in behavior that ignores the data that is opposite to its own “smooth fit”. Who declared, with sufficient Authority, that the Universe is “logical”? We have not see the whole picture yet, so the limited logic of man pertaining to climate change research is a futile argument to stand on.
It would be wise for all of you who are responsible for the integrity of the data you collect as an individual, to have skeptical loyalism to your groups and agencies, and that all of us stop coming to premature (or immature!)conclusions about things, based only on selective sensory instrumentation and hearsay. The wonder of the universe we live in is that, in time, the wise will be confounded by some foolish discovery made that changes the picture, and science textbooks will have to be rewritten yet again.

@ Roger Knights (03:09:40) :
(Honest – a true story. A good friend, but not the sharpest tool in the shed some times. I’d said fire didn’t belong in some places but he “just had to know if it was true.” It is. Some experiments never ever ought to be repeated. Scientific method or no…)
According to John Cheever’s book, The Wapshot Chronicle, the safe way to test that rumor is in a bathtub. (Maybe the BBC can run a demo.)”
Or maybe the guys from MythBusters can tackle it. That’s right up their alley.

There’s a couple of things that’s very interesting when projecting a time frame in the millions of years back. 1. Every one seem to disregard the tectonic dance, which pretty much impact and decide the circulation in the oceans, and 2. every one seem to disregard the impact of not knowing the earths path around the sun hence a linear history so to speak.
In linear sense on the low end of the average of 0.6 cm movement per year for 3 million years, it computes to 180 km. On the high end of the average it comes out to 18 000 km. That’s a heck of a lot of shifting and drifting of what holds the water. Looking at it another way, the Sahara desert wasn’t located where it is now, and worst case on the high average it was located half away around the world.
When it comes to our location in relation to the sun, we know it changes over the years, and we know more locally that even a in comparison to the rest of the solar system, a small change in its tilt have a vast impact on our climate and weather. For instance way back when, the years were longer by todays calendar even, the days shorter, and the why is also a part of the climate why back then. We know a lot of this today, in linear terms. We even know the moon is receding as well, and we know its impact today everyday every year, just like we do that at tiny -ss axial tilt gives us northerner or southerner summer and winter, a shifting of several tens of degrees in just a few month’ time. So imagine the whole earth being nearer or farther away from the sun by just as little as an “earth tilt” in length of distance for thousands of years in length of time.

I am just curious, and this is the best place to put this, is there an analysis of the ‘vast body of climate science’ that is out there? How many of them are fluff like this study? How many of them are actually dealing with CO2 and man made climate change? Does anyone know of such an analysis? If there is one, where is it? If not, what journals would I look to in order to do such an analysis myself?

I’ll be satisfied just to keep the ice in my drink from melting.