Author Topic: The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?  (Read 5507 times)

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10593
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« on: December 20, 2005, 10:51:00 pm »
Something isn't making clear sense to me as I round out the last few Events entries. Chrono Trigger suggests that the Ice Age Lavos caused was permanent; that the loss of foliage would disrupt the world enough to cause a drop in temperature.

   The burned out plains will slowly
   freeze, ushering in a long, cruel ice
   age.

I must admit, when I first played the game and arrived in 12000 B.C. soon after, I immediately concluded that the Ice Age had been raging for millions of years. While we can leave open the possibility that the Ice Ages were still cyclical and not permanent, we must ask what the game intended. After you read the next paragraph, the cyclical proposition of natural ice ages will seem attractive.

Anyway, judging from a permanent Ice Age point of view, early humans lived in caves and other shelters for 62000000 years unchanged. As Lord J Esq stated in his Essay Concerning Zeal, this is far too long for a species to go without adapting in some form or coming to prefer the colder temperatures. It seems scientifically inconsistent that the early humans, evolved from exposure to the sun and life on dry land, would remain static even while living as troglodytes and deprived from sunlight. I just can't reconcile this, or fathom how the rest of the animals of the world could survive on the outside. Did birds take shelter in caves as well, along with other mammals and reptilian species? A 65000000 year long Ice Age would have annihilated some populations. I can't fathom how anything could make it out of such a period unchanged.

Thus it seems attractive to think that Ice Ages were indeed cyclical, and that the one Lavos caused was merely the first in a long chain of freezes ushered in by his initial disruption. Still, is the game's explanation lax enough to allow this possibility?

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2005, 11:43:51 pm »
Humans can adapt back to warmer conditions, albeit 1000 years. Animals probably hid somewhere warm. I dunno.

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2005, 12:08:55 am »
Well, maybe I have a solution to this.  Just how long was Zeal around?  If it was around for alot of that time, then Man as a place where it is warm, so they wouldn't nessisarly adapt to the cold.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10593
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2005, 12:10:52 am »
62 million years had to pass before they found the Frozen Flame.

GrayLensman

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2005, 12:20:12 am »
Quote from: ZeaLitY
62 million years had to pass before they found the Frozen Flame.


The Flames' evolution of man could have occured from 65e6 to 62e6 BC.  However, I agree with you about the cyclical ice ages.  There would have been an initial catatosphe which doomed the Reptites and then a long period of climactic instability finally broken by Lavos.  This would more accurately reflect the true natural history of the world.

Mystik3eb

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1022
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/dfscanl/index.html
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2005, 12:22:09 am »
Or the Ice Age didn't truly begin for many years. Yeah, the tribes people talked about a drop in wheather and seeing snow fall...but maybe they were just approaching winter?

Probably not likely, though. I'd have to agree with the cyclical theory.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10593
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2005, 12:43:01 am »
Quote from: GrayLensman
Quote from: ZeaLitY
62 million years had to pass before they found the Frozen Flame.


The Flames' evolution of man could have occured from 65e6 to 62e6 BC.  However, I agree with you about the cyclical ice ages.  There would have been an initial catatosphe which doomed the Reptites and then a long period of climactic instability finally broken by Lavos.  This would more accurately reflect the true natural history of the world.


I suppose that quote in Chronopolis could be read to meant that the entire evolution of the human brain took three million years, and was not instant. Argh, I hate another of our chronological dates being turned to conjecture, just like 7600 B.C. was.

Well...let's see if we can steer it back with reasoning. How long would it take to create a few cities and exploit an innate magic ability to raise them into the air? Would it take more than a million years? If not, then we can still estimate the contact with the Flame as taking place around 3000000 B.C. The only problem would be if the new-brained humans simply sat on their laurels for a few million years before dreaming of Zeal. Still, it doesn't seem likely, as the distinction between magic-using and no-magic formed the basis of Zeal society -- the Enlightened Ones.

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2005, 12:45:01 am »
Well, I guess due to facts, we can write Azala off as making an incorrect prediction.

GrayLensman

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2005, 12:55:09 am »
Quote from: Sentenal
Well, I guess due to facts, we can write Azala off as making an incorrect prediction.


If the first ice age lasted 50 thousand years, Azala would still have been accurate.

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2773
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2005, 01:18:42 am »
Quote from: GrayLensman
Quote from: Sentenal
Well, I guess due to facts, we can write Azala off as making an incorrect prediction.


If the first ice age lasted 50 thousand years, Azala would still have been accurate.


If it would have been 100 years, she'd have been correct. Reptiles are woefully inadequate in their ability to survive in the cold, so the Reptite extinction would have been assured. Also, given the no doubt shorter life spans of prehistoric humans, there would have been at least one generation that never knew a world that wasn't covered in ice.

Regarding the rise of Zeal, my hypothesis is that Zeal itself began, at the earliest, at the beginning of the warm period immediately proceeding the ice age observed in 12,000 B.C. I say this because with the more abundant resources of the warm period, people would do a lot more exploring and such. Then, as the ice age came, the kingdom itself would have taken to the sky as the Enlightened Ones sought to escape the harsh winter.

Zaperking

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2210
    • View Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2005, 04:01:38 am »
I personally thought the beginning culture of Zeal may have begun during the generation in which the Guru's were born (Guru's of Zeal). Since it seems that Zeal herself harnessed innate magic and caused Zeal to advance, that would mean that Zeal itself was built at a later time. Even the construction of the Black Bird seems as if it was built a few months before Crono and co arrived. As for the Mammon Machine, atleast a few years, probably 1-5 around when Schala was 10 or something. And the Ocean Palace seems as if it has had on and off construction. Basically - everything seems pretty new.

As for the iceage, I think it is very inconsistant. The scale impact of Lavos' fall was to minor to cause such a drastic change. The only ground that was obliterated was the Ground undernearth the Tryno lair, which itself was pushed down into the ground - as if it were a cushion to Lavos' fall.
Azala may have been talking about comets that would land after Lavos, as he said that fire would descend onto the earth after the Red Star (Lavos) would stain the Earth red.
Another problem is that it all happened to quickly. Lavos' crash should have caused fires and magma to come up to the surface, which would actually make things hotter, right? But the snow fell instead, so who knows. Maybe Lavos absorbing the energy of the planet, and shift in the teutonic plates could have affected it aswell?

Mystik3eb

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1022
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/dfscanl/index.html
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2005, 05:11:56 am »
Quote from: Zaperking
As for the iceage, I think it is very inconsistant. The scale impact of Lavos' fall was to minor to cause such a drastic change. The only ground that was obliterated was the Ground undernearth the Tryno lair, which itself was pushed down into the ground - as if it were a cushion to Lavos' fall.


...except that they noticed the beginnings of an ice age immediately after Lavos fell.

Zaperking

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2210
    • View Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2005, 05:29:39 am »
Quote from: Mystik3eb
Quote from: Zaperking
As for the iceage, I think it is very inconsistant. The scale impact of Lavos' fall was to minor to cause such a drastic change. The only ground that was obliterated was the Ground undernearth the Tryno lair, which itself was pushed down into the ground - as if it were a cushion to Lavos' fall.


...except that they noticed the beginnings of an ice age immediately after Lavos fell.


Yeah, that's why I pretty much said it's in onsistant because it happened so fast. Isn't the fires, the pressure cooker effect and then the ice age supposed to begin in that order?

Anyway, why does Azala think that more stuff will fall from the sky?

Oh Well, CT is a game. And the whole event is supposed to mimic what happened in our world, so I guess it can be passed off that way.

Chrono'99

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3605
    • View Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2005, 07:23:45 am »
The Iokans don't really mention snow, just something white. Maybe that's dust or something.

GrayLensman

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
The Ice Age: A scientific inconsistency?
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2005, 11:22:14 am »
Quote from: Chrono'99
The Iokans don't really mention snow, just something white. Maybe that's dust or something.


This is what the villagers say about the climate change.

Quote
Many cloud in sky.
 No can see sun.
 
 White, cold stuff fall from sky.
 What that?
 
 Bright fire, Lavos, fall.
 Get cold now.
 
 No more Sweet Water.
 Never happen before.
 
 Less monster, now cold.
 Less animal too.
 
 Brr!
 Cold!