Randall Carlson

The energy paradox said that you've got to have X amount of energy.

Like how much heat energy would it take to melt that one cubic mile of ice?

Requires energy, requires heat, and that's in the form of energy.

Well, then what they did was they looked at the available energy around the earth in present day.

And what dawned on them is that

If you look at where the greatest amount of heat energy would be available today to melt that ice, it would either be like sort of the subtropical deserts like the Sahara or probably where you're at.

You're in Austin, right?

Yeah, so if you go out to the western desert, say the Mojave Desert, how much energy do you have there?

The other place would be tropical oceans and how much energy you have there available.

And in both cases, you had roughly the same amount of heat energy, thermal energy available.

What they realized was that even in the most extreme circumstances, it would take three times longer than what we now know today.

the time span in which the ice disappeared.

In other words, if we could move that entire ice mass to the tropical ocean, how long would it take to disappear?

Three times as long as the ice actually did disappear.

And this is over a northern climate, hence the energy paradox.

And the first conference was in 73.

The second one, the follow-up, was in 75.

They hoped to resolve the problem.

They didn't.

They said, there's an error in the data somewhere.