Slashdot Mirror
Changes in Earth's Orbit Linked to Extinctions
Josh Fink writes "A group of Dutch Scientists have recently released a study stating that they have found that changes in Earth's orbit around the sun are linked to mammal extinctions. From the article: '"Extinctions in rodent species occur in pulses which are spaced by intervals controlled by astronomical variations and their effects on climate change..." The cycles are associated with lower temperatures, changes in precipitation, habitats, vegetation and food availability which are the main factors influencing the extinction peaks, the study published in the journal Nature said.' So on top of worrying about global warming, it seems we should also worry about the physics that govern the orbit of Earth around the sun. Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation."
We did until George Bush ordered it to be defunded.
Do you have ESP?
before anyone starts getting all 'see, all you global-warming believers, this is a perfectly rational natural explanation for the current warming trend,' the periods of these natural cycles are on the order of 1.2 and 2.4 million years. not exactly fast-acting.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
The dinosaurs died because you touch yourself at night. Family Guy told me so.
They figured a way to stop a Supernova, a change on Earth's orbit should be a piece of cake!
My other OS is the MCP!
Is causing a wobble in the earth's orbit and causing global warming. Now where is my Nobel prize?
This is clearly due to world jump day... http://www.worldjumpday.org/
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation.
You sir are shortsighted. Find someone to blame, add it to the party platform (either one, it doesn't matter) and then fund raise on it. Global Wobbling must be stopped!! We can stop it!!! It won't be stopped if party X get's/keeps control of Congress!!! The time to act is now!!
Please click here to donate 25, 50, 100, 1000 dollars to STOP GLOBAL WOBBLING. You will receive two complimentary pamphlets entitled "The Wobble, the Planet, and You" and "Why is Galileo weeping?". Both are packed with earth-shattering information to help you spread the news of this new threat to our precious freedoms and way of life.
More info in nature. It seems to do with something called Milankovich cycles. But i guess 'wobble' is specific enough for stuff that matters.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Take the shuttle to Lawanda Kompleks and replace the bedistor to reactivate Course Control.
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
Actually, this study isn't all that new. The globes tilt has been known to be linked to CO2 levels (and temperature) for a while now. The question is how do the effects of greenhouse gases put out by industry compare to this effect, and the answer is not so clear. Yes, obviously many scientists and virtually all non-scientists attribute all of our climate changes to to industry, but we need to remember to be rigorous on both sides of the debate. In short, this is not junk science. And to claim so only shows that you yourself are not a scientist.
...and you just linked it!
Observe:
"140Mandak262Jamuna mentioned NFL quarterbacks having motorcycle accidents in a comment about Global Warning."
Even if we could affect a change in the earth's orbit around the sun, who's to say if that is a good thing? Might that not be akin to preventing all forest fires? Controlled burns are our way of preventing some large/catastrophic forest fires and lightning strikes are nature's way of doing it. What makes us think the "wobble" in our orbit isn't causing cyclical "refresh" events? No, I'm not suggesting some diety is controlling things or that ZOMG WE R AL GOING 2 DIE or anything like that. Just saying we might not yet comprehend the consequences of making this "fix" change. Hell, we are still unable to predict the weather with any certainty more than a day or two out. /shrug
...and asteroid impacts, close passes by rogue planets, ice ages, orbital wobbiling, development of nuclear weapons, and the occasional odd supernova in your immediate vicinity, you go on to develop advanced civilization and the Double Whopper with Cheese (tm).
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Here's a quick link to some other studies: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimat ology_Evidence/
Incorrect. Millions of football fans and fantasy football players sighed upon news of Roethlisberger's motorcycle accident, either in relief or exasperation. All that additional hot CO2 released into the atmosphere is dangerous, dammit!
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Clearly, this is caused by the precession generated by all those people who are spinning in their graves. I say we dig 'em up and reverse their polarity.
That's not the Earth's orbit causing rodent extinction.
That was the mice rebooting the Earth while debugging it.
Since the users of our iPlanet are bailing out now without the system shutting down, I expect we're obsolete. Get ready to do your part for the firewall they turn us into.
--
make install -not war
We don't have animals in our climate model, but if you'd like to see how orbit effects climate, you can do so yourself.
The EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA GCM in a graphical interface. You can double-click to install, and if you'd like to turn the sun down a few percent or change the orbit, there are checkboxes and sliders. Press play, wait a while (hours to a day or so depending on your computer), and you can look at the results...
Disclaimer: I'm the developer.
Space and Computers.
Or....people, w/o a clue, are reading this and blowing it out of proportions by not keeping it in context. Changes to our atmosphere, because of orbital deviance, happens in the millions of years category.....changes in our environment, due to global warming is happening on a monthly/yearly basis.
So yea, if I edited portions of the article I could make it sound like the orbit change is the reason for global warming.... then again, if i took bits and pieces of the quoran (sp) I could tell people that Allah demands we kill anyone who is not muslim, even if it means we have to kill ourselves to do it.
Moral of the story: Use the whole story, and keep it in context.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
What if we solved global warming a few hundred years from now, reversed a lot of the temperature increases we found we are directly responsible for, and over that time the Earth's orbit/rotation changed such that an Ice Age was triggered? Oh noes! Suddenly global warming doesn't seem all that bad, does it?
Suppose again someone in charge actually accepted my supposition and decided global warming research was pointless.
Ok, I'm done making improbable suppositions.
Blame it on microsoft, it makes everyone so much more happier.
It's not the rotation, it's the tilt
The earth did it]
Of course, the better known theory that an asteroid caused the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago might also be related to changes in earth's orbit, no?
While I am sure those opposed to global warming will hold this study up as evidence that we should continue along our path to wanton self destruction, it represents little more than a blip on the screen when compared with the overwhelming evidence supporting the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases on our environment.
Does this even make sense? I think there is a "not" missing in there somewhere. Folks who are OPPOSED to global warming would want to support research into greenhouse gases and find ways to reduce our environmental impact. They certainly wouldn't support evidence to continue "our path to wanton self-destruction". It probably should say something like "While I am sure those opposed to ADVOCATES of the theory of global warming... etc. etc.".
For the record, one article does not make Nature a grandstanding rag bought by special interests. You're going to have to show us either the money trail or other such articles to justify that claim.
How do animal extinctions change the Earth's orbit?
Right on. The headline should read 'Extinctions linked to changes in Earth's orbit'. Silly editors.
I'm now physics expert, but I would certainly think a meteor slamming into the Earth with enough momentum could shift the orbit or tilt the axis. So the change in orbit might be a secondary effect to the impact, with the primary effects being the decrease in temperature due to ash in the air.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
You meant to say "extinctions linked to changes in Earth's orbit", which is not the same thing. As for the global warming conclusions -- the article makes excellent points about how fairly minor changes in basic climatic conditions can have far-reaching consequences, including fatal impact on life. The fact that the current climate changes are 1) hard to diagnose, 2) hard to predict does not undercut the need to adjust emissions & pollution policy to prevent realistic bad consequences.
*lights up a cigarette*...umm k.
I was arguing about global warming the other night with my half-senile extreme right-wing nutjob father-in-law. He maintained with great vehemence that the causes of global warming are debatable, therefore any emphasis on moderating pollution is a misdirected effort.
My view is that, regardless of the causes of global warming, wouldn't moderating pollution help to mitigate the effects? The cause be damned -- if there's something we can do to control the process by a few degrees isn't that worth doing?
Why all the obsession with cause to the detriment of consequence?
If the planet may be subject to orbital shifts that change the climate, shouldn't our civilization be empowered to do whatever it can to minimize such changes insofar as they represent a threat to our current au courant version of the ecosystem?
These stories are free but worth money.
Isn't it the biological factors that really effect a creature's ability to deal with the environment. I mean TFA actually states that rodents are susceptible because of their short lifespans... um, that's biology.
It is a combination of factors that causse extinctions, not just one single thing.
[quote]Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation.[/quote]
;)
Archimedes once said:
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
So at least we have a outline of what needs to be solved
In essence, I agree, but I was under the impression that it was virtuall all scientists, and many non-scientists, who believe that our contributions to the greenhouse gasses are significant.
im in ur
that as the orbit of the earth was changing because of mammal extinctions?
I'm not an physics expert either, but I fear that a meteor that is big enough to change the orbit of Earth or tilt its axis would probably be linked to exinctions as well.
Why? "linked to" != "cause of", it simply indicates that there is a link between the two. "Linked" is a commutative relationship.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
I was assuming that if that happened (and it takes a huge meteor to alter the Earth's orbit!), they wouldn't be able to tell (no one was around to notice it that can still tell us). My assumption was that they back tracked the Earth's orbit, and noticed that every time an alignment with Jupiter changed our orbit, lots of stuff died. (Jupiter is to blame for almost every orbital change in the solar system. In many ways, Jupiter is a lot like Bush...)
How else would you know?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
The whole tone of this /. post freaked me out. There's no way for there to be 'irregularities' in the Earth's orbit without something with both really high mass and really high velocity interacting with the earth or the sun.
So I read up on Milankovich cycles, and it turns out it's just precession. It's perfectly regular, it's just that in the case of something the size & slow angular velocity of the earth, it takes a really long time to change.
When you spin a top, you can see the axis of spin describe a circle. This is precession.
Likewise as the Earth rotates, there is precession. Also, as the earth orbits the sun, there is precession. These have cycles on the order of tens of thousands of years. Both can affect the climate by changing the angle of sunlight. There are cycles on the order of millions of years long in which the two effects both affect the climate the same way, and so produce a bigger net effect.
I guess wobble is an accurate term, except that to me it implies something irregular. In a system as big and isolated as the Earth's orbit around the Sun, or the Earth's rotation, momentum is king, and very little could cause an irregular change. These changes are just precession, and they're perfectly regular.
I am not a physicist, but I do have a Bachelor of Science in Physics.
TFA totally neglects telling us what the orbital/rotational changes were, or what caused them. Bad science reporting!
Hellloooo? Any astrophysicists out there who can tell us what really happened?
Changes in astronomical variables can effect the climate? No effing way! This is a hoax meant to distract you from thinking that your car is the sole cause of global warming.
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
Is there anyone else who fail's to see the logic in such things as global warming and mass extinctions affecting the orbit of the Earth? I mean come on guys come up with something that actually has the ability to be proven and/or not able to be biased souley to the opinion of the Ph.D.'s in that feild. Come up with something that can be physically proven, repeated several times with same results, and don't setup the test so that it's so tipped in your favor that nobody else but you can be proven right. Now I know I'll get modded for being off-topic but this example is from personal experience and shows exactly whats going on here. One of my co-workers at Wal-Mart is studying enviromental science and we got into a heated debate over global warming. She told me that after 1 hour of operation a car produces more CO2 than there is in 1 cubic KM of air at 35,000 feet. As soon as I began to attack the method of testing that proved her data true, she immediatley began the "I'm right, you're wrong!" course of thinking and wouldn't hear of anything that might actually prove global warming wrong. She said that if that test method isn't used (geusstimation and very closely rounded numbers made to fit there uses), then we are all doomed to live through another Ice Age in the very near future.
Yes I agree that things like these need to be taken seriously, to a certain degree though. If its out of our control why worry about it and make others lifes suck, just to justify our own point of view?
Just my $.02!
That its perfectly fine for one side to have exceptions to issues the other side but the reverse is not true.
My problem with the whole GW crowd is how they will quickly object or attempt to marginalize anything which doesn't support their view. At the same time any little piece of information which supports their view is held forth as indisputable fact.
Look, we don't know half of what we think we do. The one great thing about science in this day and age is that we are continously changing what we know as fact as our ability to observe becomes better and better. Old theories that were hard to prove can be supported and previous "unalterable" facts are dismissed.
We can barely predict the weather from day to day let alone week to week. We can't accurately predict the number of hurricanes, typhoons, or the like. Yet at the same time you want me to believe that enough is known to tell me that we are all going to die in 10 years?
Just admit you know about as much about the climate as the other side. Fact is, we are still discovering the variables. In no shape or form can you have the definitive anwser without all the variables.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
ha ha ha ha ha ha nice one
Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuK
Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation.
Why are people so adverse to change? Everywhere you go people want a static environment and will go to great lengths to achieve it. They want to be told how things are and know that this will never change.
I would think that change is an opportunity to strengthen our position. The lessons learned in dealing with small changes will help us when the big one comes. But if we keep trying to force a static environment, all we will learn is that nature is much more powerful than we are.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
In the years since 1998, not only has the Earth's temp not risen, but it has fallen slightly...and I mean so slightly that it is practically immeasurable. But, it definitely hasn't risen at all.
In the years since 1998, not only has the Earth's temp not risen, but it has fallen slightly...and I mean so slightly that it is practically immeasurable. But, it definitely hasn't risen at all.
Are you being serious or sarcastic? Because I have seen (don't have them on me) reports that say otherwise...plus, most recently, it has been in the news that the polar caps are melting at record speeds AND it is not possible to take a cruise from Northern Europe straight to the North Pole. Given that information, how do you say the temperature has dropped? If the temperature dropped wouldn't the polar caps grow?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The (ring)WORLD is not stable!
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Too bad we don't have a way to stop the Earth from warming up either.
Considering how many people actually live close to the water that is really an ass of a comment, especially when you keep repeating it.
I'm tired of hearing about the "New Ice Age". Please read: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Basically, there was a period of cooling from the 40's to the 70's, but the majority of scientists studying it said that there wasn't enough information to make any predictions about the future of the climate. Of course, there were a few nutjob scientists who thought that the end of the world was coming, but none of them blamed it on the effects of man. Once the newspapers and fear-merchants got hold of it, they blew it all out of proportion.
As for people "inventing" climate change, have you actually looked at the data? They are pretty conclusive. Climate change is happening, and it's happening now, whether or not you actually believe in it.
It's lovely that you have it all figured out and seem to know every consequence of a warming event.... not.
Desertification comes to mind...
http://water-is-life.blogspot.com/
Also while it may be fun to have laughs at the expense of the "spotted owl lovers" the plunge in biodiversity which has already started won't seem so funny when you are inhaling the neurotoxic fumes of the algeas that take over when the current biosphere can no longer sustain itself.
Someone had to do it.
Damn the Republicans! They are responsible for this.
---
"They are always satisfied. Who ever the fuck it is."
-Andrew Dice Clay on his sexual prowess
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I am being serious. Someone told me this. That is how I know it is unquestionably true. Isn't that all we need as proof these days? I mean, if we are basing the Global Warming myth on the extremely errored models with which we used to collect the "data" that suggests this, then why do we even need evidence at all to make a point or declaration of any kind? Ouch...a monkey just flew out of my butt. You don't believe me...well, you're stupid (sarcasm).
/. give Microsoft the same benefit of the doubt? Should you?
But, come on, if you are going to point toward the chicken-little argument about the melting of the ice caps, then you must also be aware of the recent studies that show that even though some ice is melting, new ice is being produced in other areas at an even higher rate. Or do you also conveniently believe that Global Warming is also causing Global Cooling like some of the other geniuses believe. All you have to do is re-read the previous sentence, particularly the, "Global Warming is also causing Global Cooling" part to realize how ridiculous it sounds on its face. It is almost as ridiculous as looking at a canvas with obvious splatters of paint and actually letting, "Jackson Pollock is a genius!" roll off your lips. The leap is just too far...
You can show me a study...I'll show you a study...you show me one...I'll show you one...me...you...me you...and so on until we puke. At the end of the day, does it really matter? Is it really worth all the crying and nashing of teeth? Until the models with which we collect data have fewer holes than Win98, do you really want to stake anything on the "data" that is output from the studies? Do you or anyone else here at
What the hell does that mean? The whole point of a cycle is that every point in the cycle is a 'beginning'. Roll forward a few million and we get the same thing again. Much better to read the original Nature article.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061009/full/06100
Firstly, we are talking local effects here - the study involved specifically focused on a variety of spanish rodents. Previous studies collating data globally did not observe this effect. So this is a different thing from global warming - more of a shifting around of environments than a large scale global change. Moreover, this oscillation is fairly measurable, and predictable, and indeed well understood (that's why we can spot that the extinctions were caused by the oscillations), so it is simply wrong to blame GW on this.
The fact is, the small scale nature of this study gives us little clue as to how significant this effect is.
There is very little reason for alarmism on the back of a single paper about mice.
"...So on top of worrying about global warming, it seems we should also worry about the physics that govern the orbit of Earth around the sun. Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation."
/ earth_move_010207.html
Yes, we have! And it's very interesting indeed!
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth
A link to the paper: Korycansky, D. G.; Laughlin, Gregory; Adams, Fred C. Astronomical engineering: a strategy for modifying planetary orbits. Astrophys.Space Sci. 275 (2001) 349-366
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102126
Abstract:
"The Sun's gradual brightening will seriously compromise the Earth's biosphere within ~ 1E9 years. If Earth's orbit migrates outward, however, the biosphere could remain intact over the entire main-sequence lifetime of the Sun. In this paper, we explore the feasibility of engineering such a migration over a long time period. The basic mechanism uses gravitational assists to (in effect) transfer orbital energy from Jupiter to the Earth, and thereby enlarges the orbital radius of Earth. This transfer is accomplished by a suitable intermediate body, either a Kuiper Belt object or a main belt asteroid. The object first encounters Earth during an inward pass on its initial highly elliptical orbit of large (~ 300 AU) semimajor axis. The encounter transfers energy from the object to the Earth in standard gravity-assist fashion by passing close to the leading limb of the planet. The resulting outbound trajectory of the object must cross the orbit of Jupiter; with proper timing, the outbound object encounters Jupiter and picks up the energy it lost to Earth. With small corrections to the trajectory, or additional planetary encounters (e.g., with Saturn), the object can repeat this process over many encounters. To maintain its present flux of solar energy, the Earth must experience roughly one encounter every 6000 years (for an object mass of 1E22 g). We develop the details of this scheme and discuss its ramifications."
Perhaps instead of worrying about global warming, and the orbit of the earth, near earth objects, anthrax laced mail, terrorists, pirates, evil scientists, GM foods, sudden climate change, fundamentalist nutjobs. You should just worry about everything. Yes worry worry worry until you feel properly self righteous and afraid. Then build some sort of cold war bomb shelter and live in that. Besides sheeple are much easier to keep in line when they are scared of their own shadow.
If you don't mind, rather than repeat myself, I will simply copy-and-paste my answer to a similar question that I answered in this thread: "I am being serious. Someone told me this. That is how I know it is unquestionably true. Isn't that all we need as proof these days? I mean, if we are basing the Global Warming myth on the extremely errored models with which we used to collect the "data" that suggests this, then why do we even need evidence at all to make a point or declaration of any kind? Ouch...a monkey just flew out of my butt. You don't believe me...well, you're stupid (sarcasm). But, come on, if you are going to point toward the chicken-little argument about the melting of the ice caps, then you must also be aware of the recent studies that show that even though some ice is melting, new ice is being produced in other areas at an even higher rate. Or do you also conveniently believe that Global Warming is also causing Global Cooling like some of the other geniuses believe. All you have to do is re-read the previous sentence, particularly the, "Global Warming is also causing Global Cooling" part to realize how ridiculous it sounds on its face. It is almost as ridiculous as looking at a canvas with obvious splatters of paint and actually letting, "Jackson Pollock is a genius!" roll off your lips. The leap is just too far... You can show me a study...I'll show you a study...you show me one...I'll show you one...me...you...me you...and so on until we puke. At the end of the day, does it really matter? Is it really worth all the crying and nashing of teeth? Until the models with which we collect data have fewer holes than Win98, do you really want to stake anything on the "data" that is output from the studies? Do you or anyone else here at /. give Microsoft the same benefit of the doubt? Should you?"
At the end of the day, does it really matter?
We are talking about health issues to us (humans) and other life on this planet. I think that qualifies as "really matter". People who doubt global warming effects are along the lines of the CEOs of big tobacco - who apparantly are still in denial about smoking causing lung cancer...their scientists also say this is not accurate.
Until the models get better, assuming they can get better, I will use their scientific evidence because to sit here and do nothing is a pretty bad idea...or do you still think aerosol cans with CFCs pose no harm to the ozone?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The fascinating average temperature data from Vostok Antarctic ice data:
/ tempplot5.gif
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics
shows that for last 450,000 years Earth was mostly in the Ice Age, interrupted
by 10,000 year long warm periods spaced 100,000 years apart. We are about 15,000
years into the last warm period on record.
Because of strong periodicity, the current best explanation of this cycle is
by astronomical phenomena (Earth orbit/axis wobble).
This does not contradict global warming---it just shows that the climate
is a very delicate balance between strong opposing phenomena; the point being
that we should be real careful how we influence it.
Will you live to be 100000 years old? It might actually matter at that point. But only if the myth were true.
What? Smoking causes lung cancer? Yeah, right! (sarcasm, humor)
Lemme guess, you believed the Bush intelligence that Saddam had WMD, right? Well, sure you did...after all, at the time
that was the best evidence we had, right?
Oh sure, I believe that at aerosol can could definitely cause harm to the Ozone layer...if it were about half the size of the Asian continent then, sure, it might do something negative. It would definitely get in the way of travel and would surely cover up a lot of land, though. It would also be unsightly.
Will you live to be 100000 years old? It might actually matter at that point. But only if the myth were true.
My name is Dunceon McLeod of the Clan McLeod
Lemme guess, you believed the Bush intelligence that Saddam had WMD, right? Well, sure you did...after all, at the time that was the best evidence we had, right?
Just because evidence may not be correct in the future does not mean we should discount it today. That would be silly. But, I didn't care if Bush was correct about the WMDs, I think we should have gone in there just cause (as my HS teacher used to say) "Saddam Hussein is so damn insane"
Oh sure, I believe that at aerosol can could definitely cause harm to the Ozone layer...if it were about half the size of the Asian continent then, sure, it might do something negative. It would definitely get in the way of travel and would surely cover up a lot of land, though. It would also be unsightly.
HELLO!!!! 80's hair bands, they bought enough hairspray, that the sales tax was able to support the US National Military budget. Thank god the Cold War ended when the hair bands went out of style (you think this may be coincidence, but I think not).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Troll, really? Please explain. Actually, you don't have to - those tolerant libs at work again, right? :-)
So if the GW supporters are wrong, the worst that would happen from following their advice is that we would be out a little more money but living in an environment that is much more diverse and clean.
If the GW supporters are right, and the worst that could happen from ignoring their advice is extinction of the Human Race.
So list Mr-I'm-A-Greedy-Glutton, tighten your belt and consume less to ensure a nice planet for the future.
Blar.
Touche! (Applauding!)
Very funny reply!
(Damn, I hate being one-upped...but is was fun and funny so I freely admit the fact that you got me.)
Seriously, great reply...I have nothing to add...so I shall backdown with head held low and move on...
Take care.
... change for the last 200 years?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This reminds me of this film.
If you manage to swallow the basic premise then the rest of the science isn't too incoherent: also, it's beautifully written, shot and acted (especially by the late great Leo Mckern.)
Well worth a view.
People who doubt global warming effects are along the lines of the CEOs of big tobacco
No they are not; some of them are trained scientists who are specialists in their fields. Believe it or not, not all scientists are on the anthopogenic climate change bandwagon. In making the statement you just made, you have insulted both the intelligence and professional integrity of a good number of respectable people.
Some of these include those signers here and here.
You may choose to disagree with their positions, but you cannot discount ALL of these tens of thousands of scientists as willfully misrepresenting the truth as they see it.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
Climate change is happening, and it's happening now, whether or not you actually believe in it.
Of course it is. It happens all the time, as evidenced by how many times and ways the climate has changed over the history of the planet.
scientists studying it said that there wasn't enough information to make any predictions about the future of the climate. Of course, there were a few nutjob scientists who thought that the end of the world was coming,
And this is different now how, exactly?
Once the newspapers and fear-merchants got hold of it, they blew it all out of proportion.
Hmm, not different at all, I guess.
-- Alastair
Oh...wait...
This has been known though out history about the earths orbit. the Egyptions,Incas,Mayas all new this. there has been noted of a great catalcym in myths of an iceage and floods which i think that there could be a connection of sorts that could be linked with the earths orbit not just ANIMAL EXSTINCTIONS.
If the temperature dropped wouldn't the polar caps grow?
Not necessarily. Lower global temperatures means less evaporation from the oceans, etc. Less evaporation means less water in the air to precipitate out. Less precipitation means less snowfall. Less snowfall means the polar caps shrink.
Nothing about climatology is as obvious as it appears at first glance. Too many interacting feedback cycles, some negative, some positive, some that start out one way and then change at a certain threshhold.
(And remember that water vapor has a far bigger greenhouse effect than CO2, which is why e.g. dry deserts get cold at night.)
-- Alastair
Actually the headline is ambiguous. The word "linked" only indicates a connection between the two, it doesn't specify which is cause and which is effect, or even whether the two are interdependant.
For example, "Faulty tyres linked to road fatalities" versus "Road fatalities linked to faulty tyres". Obviously, road fatalities don't cause tyres to burst (as long as you don't back over them too many times), so either sentence is easily interpreted correctly. But neither explicitly states that faulty tyres cause road fatalities, merely that there is a statistical correlation between the two; any other interpretation is purely subjective.
How about "Cell phone use linked to lack of situational awareness"; do cell phones make people oblivious to their surroundings, or are people who don't want to be aware of their surroundings more likely to use cell phones? I've observed both to be true.
Or "Addictive personalities linked to heroin abuse"; people with addictive personalities are more likely to become addicted, but using heroin also causes addictive personality traits. The statement doesn't specify which is the concern, just that there is a relationship.
"Linked" could even be as vague as "happen in the same universe"; I could go on, but basically the headline is lazy, imprecise writing.
Blank until
I wonder how much of the confusion arises because in a Web world, "linking to" something has become a transitive, rather than a commutative, relationship. But in standard English, when two things are linked, the order is immaterial; no cause-and-effect relationship is implied by either order.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
The intelligent tend to equiocate when confronted with the unknown.
./-ers perhaps we put too much weight to the intellectual, however, in my experience many intellectuals aren't very wise nor are they very good leaders (although there are exceptional people of course who break the stereotype).
The partisan tend to accept uncritically the propaganda discount the dissent.
Sadly neither response is very good way to approach a complicated problem like global warming. It takes wise people to weight all the evidence to get insight to what the problem is and suggest a course of action and true leadership to try something in the face of the knowledge that it may not be the right thing to do (and/or there is possibility of failure), yet the followers are confident is in pursuit of the best out of all the current available alternatives.
For what it's worth, weighing the evidence isn't the same as weighing arguments made by intellectuals or their partisan spokespeople. That's a mistake that many people make.
Sadly, in the current political environment, we don't usually get leaders to lead us nor wise people to consult, but just the intelligent and the partisan. This is the biggest suffering the the global warming debate (and other big questions of our time). We are sadly reduced to weighing arguments of intellectuals through the glasses of partisans instead of seeking the consult of the wise and backing up the true leaders. As
There's very little skill set involved to become a partisan, however.
Extinctions Linked to Changes in Earth's Orbit.
Or was I the only one who read it as a paucity of mammoths might cause a tilt...?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Ooops. Still, I can try to salvage something.
a t_dying.html
8 /5720/398?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &fulltext=permian+warming&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0& resourcetype=HWCIT
The graph may be for the wrong event, but we still do have a general scientific consensus that the Permian extinction involved warming.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050120_gre
Referring to
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/30
Now, as for the other spike... It doesn't show in the extinctions graph because that is a marine fossil diversity graph. The disruption appears to have mostly occurred for land creatures, but is still mentioned in numerous other article referring to it.
Yeah, it's an embarrassing error, but my general point still stands. There's no justification for saying that warming events are always good, and extinction events are always cooling.
OK; Listen everybody , those north of the equator, at the count of 10 move to your right 1 meter.
Converted to kilograms, your figure works out to 3.5 * 10^10 kgs. Let's triple the weight to 180 lbs, and your figure becomes 1 * 10^11 kgs.
Now, the mass of the earth is approximately 6 * 10^24 kgs. That's 6 * 10^13 bigger. Let's see what a similar ratio would look like applied to a 100 kg (220 lbs) human. Something that is 10^13 smaller would be approximately 1 microgram. The average piece of dust weights about 100 micrograms.
So the effect would be like an exceptionally tiny piece of dust striking you, i.e. no effect at all.
What was once true, is no longer so
Connect the dots. Global warming is NOT man made. It is made by changes in Earth's orbit and changes in output from the sun.
Can anyone tell me who was burning fossel fuels between the year 850 and 1300 when the earth last experienced "global warming" or why from 1300 to sometime around 1800 we experienced global cooling in what scientists called a "mini ice-age"?
what is world doing even when something can be done to control global warming??
My Photo Album - www.adityaraj.com
...is that it's might be possible that with the number of people on the planet (6.5 billion approx), and with an average body temperature of about 90 degrees fahrenheit, could humans be contributing to global warming simply by existing?
Currently there are more people on earth than at any time in history, and with the addition of domesticated animals in increased numbers compared to their previously wild counterparts (horses, pigs, cows...in other words large-ish mammals), could that not have contributed a tenth of a degree here or there?
Sure, we've all heard about the evils of the combustion engine and the greenhouse gasses, but something I've never seen addressed is the fact that 6+ billion things at 90 degrees could be making things worse simply by being there. The same principle in miniature can be seen at a frat party on any university campus - take a room that is at 68 degrees ambient, add 200 people moving around and breathing in and out...after a couple of hours everyone's sweating and the room is over 80 degrees.
Although it's a gross simplification, I think it possibly has some merit for some grant-winning scientist to research.
Wow. I thought with the ozone layer, with such terrible CO2 levels, with global warming, all life was going to end soon.
:)
What an arrogant people we are to believe that what has occured over the several thousand years that humans have recorded as history is how things have always been, and how things must always be. The climate has changed dramatically in the past, and life adapted and survived. It will change dramatically in the future, and life will adapt and survive. In spite of mankind's ability to screw stuff up, in the great scale of things our contribution to the planet's climate change will seem negligible when the next supervolcano erupts, the next orbit shift occurs, or the next great event we haven't yet observed (nearby stellar nova, interstellar dust cloud, asteroid/comet impact, outgassing of suboceanic greenhouse gases, the sun warming over the next billion years, etc.) happens.
Life adapts to change, quite well, whether we're worrying about it or not.
I'm not saying we don't need to pay attention to what we're doing (if we want to minimize changes, we need to lessen our impact on the environment), but the gloom and doom predictions are silliness. From past climate patterns, if we didn't have global warming right now we'd be heading back into a cycle of increased glaciation, eventually leading to an ice age. There is no static climate. Life would, and will adapt either way.
If anything, I would suggest once fair global emission controls are in place, rather than spending excess time wringing our hands worrying about something we cannot prevent, we take that energy and begin planning, today, for the changes that we know will happen.
Still, if we weren't worry about whether we were going to have rising ocean levels and palm trees in Ohio we'd be wringing our hands over ice sheets advancing down through the grain belt. Choose your doom.
-Joe
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
600 million people were supposed to simultaneously jump on July 20th to alter the earths orbit to prevent global warming. Only after the fact did anybody bother to tell us this could lead to our extinction. Oh no!
Stupid people are funny.
"Changes in Earths' Orbit Linked to Extinctions" -- Congratulations on writing a wonderfully confusing headline!
You'd risk the destruction of the only habitat that can sustain human life over the out-side chance that a measly Trillion Dollars could cure all the ills you listed?
We've already spent more than a Trillion Dollars (worldwide) fighting cancer, and so far, we've got nothin'
Clean water for everyone sounds nice...where do all the removed toxins go? Somewhere else on earth so they eventually get into the water again?
Shit, even if we had that much money it'd be spent on a war or something instead. By the time the US is 'done' with Iraq, the bill will be about One Trillion Dollars. Which we don't have. Which (according to you) could have cured cancer and given everyone on earth clean water and linux. Even though the people might value clean water over a war of lies...their leaders won't.
"Opportunity costs"...pffft...who's being simplistic?
Blar.
But more seriously, I've generally noticed intelligent people that are partisan tend to talk on both sides of their mouths. The intelligent of course have to feed their own egos and don't want to be wrong. The truely wise folks know that most of the time they are at least partially wrong, and realize the right answer is often unknowable, and aren't so high on their own horses... ;^)
Maybe you can survive, but that's all you're doing. You're not going to have a fun time in 120+ (and I mean without AC, in Vagas everyone has AC)
You are correct that it is not possible to take a cruise from Northern Europe straight to the North Pole. But I'll sell you a ticket to Santa's Workshop, complete with shrimp cocktail and wine tasting.
When you look for a periodicity in a bunch of data, you might do a fourier transform and look for peaks. (The other work did that.) Essentially you're doing a large number of correlations. If you try 100 corelations, you should not be surprised to see one that's significant at the 99% level, just by chance!
On the other hand, if the periodicity they found matched known astronomical phenomena (as opposed to the other work I looked at), the probability of a chance result is much reduced.
"But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
I went there once for a laugh. Food was okay, but I never gamble.
Wonder if it is still there.
Maybe we could rename it the "Chuck Norris Family Values Gaming Room"
Nice to know that your campaign contributions come from respectable businessmen.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Quick! Get me Casper Van Dien at once!
On second thought, forget it. We're fucked.
We get Yuri Geller to train 1 million people in how to think the earth to keep spinning in the right direction. An if just one person loses concentration then we're doomed to spin off into a black hole somewhere.
I could help the cause by sitting at home 24x7 just thinking about keeping the world on track. It'd be worth while, all I need are snacks, game console, tv and beer. I could get government sponsorship, maybe even a subsidy from somewhere for better beer. But I'm saving the planet, so it's ok.
Task Mangler
You may choose to disagree with their positions, but you cannot discount ALL of these tens of thousands of scientists as willfully misrepresenting the truth as they see it.
Are they climatologists?
Would you trust a climatologists opinion on string theory?
I sure as hell wouldn't.
A blog about stuff.
"If the change is rapid ( "
There was a paragaph after that but I screwed up the html. Basically the explosion of new life after a major extinction event (such as the one we are experiencing now) is due to the lack of competition from the species that have been wiped out. I have no doubt that if/when humans are wiped out the planet will expolode back into new life once again.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Ah, good point. Let's play with this one a little bit. What exactly IS a climatologist? One who studies climate, obviously, but what are the mechanisms of that study? From wikipedia:
Climatology is approached in a variety of ways. Paleoclimatology seeks to reconstruct past climates by examining records such as ice cores and tree rings (dendroclimatology). The study of contemporary climates incorporates meteorological data accumulated over many years, such as records of rainfall, temperature and atmospheric composition. Knowledge of the atmosphere and its dynamics is also embodied in models, either statistical or mathematical, which help by integrating different observations and testing how they fit together. Modeling is used for understanding past, present and potential future climates. Historical climatology is the study of climate as related to human history and thus focuses only on the last few thousand years.
Climate research is made difficult by the large scale, long time periods, and complex processes which govern climate. It is generally accepted that climate is governed by differential equations based on physical laws, but what, exactly, are these equations, and what can be concluded from them, is still subject to debate. Climate is sometimes modeled as a stochastic process but this is generally accepted as an approximation to processes that are otherwise too complicated to analyze.
So, it seems that climatologists are PHYSICAL scientists that use modeling of dynamical, stochastic processes as a principle tool. The models include chemical kinetics, thermodynamics and the differential equations represent from flow fields.
In other words, ANYONE with experience any of those fields is capable of reading papers, studying data and drawing conclusions. So, yes, you bet your butt I'd trust a String Theorist to have something to offer the discussion (he may be WRONG that's not the point, but his comments should be heard), especially if what he is saying is "THIS conclusion is not supported by THIS data as presented."
The problem as I see it is that we have reached a point that functional specialization is out of hand. There ARE scientists out there that can effectively and meaningfully THINK about problems outside their specific formal area. I'd take a generalist with a broad view of the problem over a specialist with a "all problems are a nail" approach any day of the week.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
from the avoid-the-large-yellow-barbeque dept.
I'll have you know that yellow barbeque is actually quite delicious.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
Amen, brother.
In other words, ANYONE with experience any of those fields is capable of reading papers, studying data and drawing conclusions.
While this technically true, the work is more than just a couple of papers. I might take their view on it more seriously than, say, a biologist, but criticizing one or two papers misses the point: There is a vast amount of literature showing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, that this increase is becuase of humans, and that this increase is causing a global rise in temperature. I am often amazed at how people can think that this is all so complicated.
A blog about stuff.
This recently came to my mind - wouldn't the thinning of the ozone layer actually make more ultraviolet radiation reaching deep into the earth's atmosphere, thus contributing to heat it up further more?
If I understand this correctly, a normal ozone layer, will make the earth look 'bluer', partly reflecting the UV radiation though it would only be visible with accurately calibrated cameras lacking a UV filter (The 'Skylight filter' on regular photo cameras) It would have been very interesting to know, if this effect is great enough to be observed or measured and therefore could be contributing to the global warming.
It would have been useful, if someone could come up with some charts or bar graphs, which show us how much of the energy in the solar radiation, which is in the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. If that amount of energy is considerable, it could very well explain why the polar regions are warmed much more than the rest, since the ozone layer is much thinner there.
A few Cherry picked speculations and you guys are already to chalk up desertification as inversely correlated with global warming?? Get real. Look at what's actually hapenning. Do some real research for a change.
I mean if we just want to cherry-pick we can swat back and forth URLs all day: here ya go:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/17/de
The fact is that a forest needs a relatively stable supply of water. Under global warming, it gets nothing, then a flood, then nothing again. Deserts are fine with this. Forests aren't.
But don't bother listening to me. Or the people in Portugal, or Australia, or Africa, or...
Someone had to do it.