Climate change: Learning to think like a geologist

wv wrote:

wv wrote:

<

Personally since i aint a scientist and i can do my own experiments, i gotta go with the 97 percent of the climatologists who study this stuff. Frankly I’m concerned that things are WORSE than they are saying, not that climate change is a hoax.

w
v
====================

I meant to say CANT do my own x-periments…

w
v

OK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.

wv wrote:

link:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/extraordinarily-hot-arctic-temperatures-alarm-scientists

Like the 1920s.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

OK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.

What kind of scientific argument has to go back 65 million years to find a cooling pattern when humans have been emitting CO2 only for the past couple of hundred years, and that’s the cause scientists are concerned about?

The cooling has been consistent for 65 million years. In case you don’t know that does predate mankind by about 64 million years.

PA Ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

Mackeyser wrote:

That’s like saying, “for 65 million years, the planet was intact. For the last 10 minutes, it’s been in pieces due to cometary impact. But really, what’s the better data set? The last 10 minutes? Or 65 million years?”

“I’m pretty sure the planet is fine.”

Meanwhile…among the chunks of planetary debris…

Drama much?

What I don’t get–and will never understand, is even IF there is conflicting data(and there isn’t really in any credible way that I’ve seen)why would you not err on the side of caution? We have exactly ONE planet.

Reasonable question though you don’t even believe the real data that shows the earth is COOLING and that cooling trend has been stable for the past 65 million years. To err on the side of caution is to realize that if you truly believe elevated CO2 levels cause temperature to rise then with the undeniable COOLING of the earth you should not be wanting to lower CO2 levels.

Time for your thinking cap. What is worse to mankind and life in general? Prolonged global warming or prolonged global cooling? Earth’s history comes down squarely on one side and you’re not on that side. My question to you is why? Why when “We have exactly ONE planet.”?

PA Ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

Time for your thinking cap. What is worse to mankind and life in general? Prolonged global warming or prolonged global cooling? Earth’s history comes down squarely on one side and you’re not on that side. My question to you is why? Why when “We have exactly ONE planet.”?

Prolonged global warming is Venus. That planet can’t support life.

I said thinking cap. Global cooling throughout earths history is famine, disease, loss of habitat and extinction. Periods of global warming have always been times of plenty with increase of habitat and proliferation of life. Even today with our modern technology we would be hard pressed to not suffer major famine and resulting pandemics when the earth enters its next mini ice age or worse exits its post glacial warming phase. Just a few degrees cooler over a lifetime can have devastating consequences.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by bnw.

TSRF wrote:

So, bnw, are you saying that yes, man made global warming is going on, but it’s a good thing because it will help stave off the next ice age?

No I am not saying there is manmade global warming but I do appreciate the question. I do not believe CO2 has anything but perhaps a negligible effect on temperature since the geologic data doesn’t support CO2 effecting an increase in temperature. Again this data goes back 65 million years. Over those 65 million years the data supports the undeniable trend of global cooling. However if one does believe that increasing CO2 levels leads to an increase in global warming (which again I do not) then yes the increase should be viewed as good since the earth is cooling. Again, just a few degrees cooler from the present over merely a human lifetime ~70 years devastates grain production in the northern hemisphere which feeds most of this planet. Then theres the need for heating that outstrips the capacity of energy infrastructure worldwide.

You might find this interesting from http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

What causes ice-ages?

Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth’s climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles. This solar variable was neatly described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major components of the Earth’s orbit about the sun that contribute to changes in our climate. First, the Earth’s spin on its axis is wobbly, much like a spinning top that starts to wobble after it slows down. This wobble amounts to a variation of up to 23.5 degrees to either side of the axis. The amount of tilt in the Earth’s rotation affects the amount of sunlight striking the different parts of the globe. The greater the tilt, the stronger the difference in seasons (i.e., more tilt equals sharper differences between summer and winter temperatures). The range of motion in the tilt (from left-of-center to right-of-center and back again) takes place over a period of 41,000 years. As a result of a wobble in the Earth’s spin, the position of the Earth on its elliptical path changes, relative to the time of year. This phenomenon is called the precession of equinoxes. The cycle of equinox precession takes 23,000 years to complete. In the growth of continental ice sheets, summer temperatures are probably more important than winter.

How does the ice build up?

Throughout the Quaternary period, high latitude winters have been cold enough to allow snow to accumulate. It is when the summers are cold, (i.e., summers that occur when the sun is at its farthest point in Earth’s orbit), that the snows of previous winters do not melt completely. When this process continues for centuries, ice sheets begin to form. Finally, the shape of Earth’s orbit also changes. At one extreme, the orbit is more circular, so that each season receives about the same amount of insolation. At the other extreme, the orbital ellipse is stretched longer, exaggerating the differences between seasons. The eccentricity of Earth’s orbit also proceeds through a long cycle, which takes 100,000 years. Major glacial events in the Quaternary have coincided when the phases of axial tilt, precession of equinoxes and eccentricity of orbit are all lined up to give the northern hemisphere the least amount of summer insolation.

What makes the ice melt when the glaciation is over?

Major interglacial periods have occurred when the three factors line up to give the northern hemisphere the greatest amount of summer insolation. The last major convergence of factors giving us maximum summer warmth occurred 11,000 years ago, at the transition between the last glaciation and the current interglacial, the Holocene. During the late Pleistocene, the Rocky Mountain regions of Canada and the regions farther west were almost engulfed in the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, while most of Canada east of the Rockies and the north-central and northeastern United States were covered by the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The divide between the two ice sheets lay east of the Rockies, with the two ice bodies meeting near the U.S.-Canadian border in eastern Montana. The Laurentide ice sheet is thought to have been as much as two miles thick at the center.