Slashdot Mirror
Changes In Earth's Orbit Were Key To Antarctic Warming That Ended Last Ice Age
vinces99 writes "For more than a century scientists have known that Earth's ice ages are caused by the wobbling of the planet's orbit, which changes its orientation to the sun and affects the amount of sunlight reaching higher latitudes, particularly the polar regions. The Northern Hemisphere's last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago, and most evidence has indicated that the ice age in the Southern Hemisphere ended about 2,000 years later, suggesting that the south was responding to warming in the north. But new research published online Aug. 14 in Nature (abstract) shows that Antarctic warming began at least 2,000, and perhaps 4,000, years earlier than previously thought."
It's Cavemanthropogenic Global Warming, if you want to get technical.
Allow me to break the ice with the first post
Cue unrelated arguments about modern global warming... time to flee Slashdot for a few hours....
But warming is caused by man.
Got it.
All that ice on the poles made the Earth all wobbley, which led to Bad Things. We should de-ice the planet, as a precaution so it doesn't happen again!
I mean, you don't let ice build up on your roof, in your freezer, or on airplanes... ice is always bad unless it is in my drink!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Short answer: No, with an "if".
Long answer: Yes, with a "but".
Short answer: No, with an "if".
Long answer: Yes, with a "but".
Which equals - No answer at all................
Clearly we need to spend a few trillion more to find out the answer.
FTFA: "Changes in Earth's orbit today are not an important factor in the rapid warming that has been observed recently...Earth's orbit changes on the scale of thousands of years, but carbon dioxide today is changing on the scale of decades so climate change is happening much faster today."
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Short answer: No, with an "if".
Long answer: Yes, with a "but".
Which equals - No answer at all................
Clearly we need to spend a few trillion more to find out the answer.
No, not at all. It would only cost a few tens of millions to keep "studying" the problem until everyone agrees it's too late to do anything about it. Either of the Koch brothers could just write a check. And in 100 years their descendants will still be rich enough to live on the new coastlines... wherever they wind up.
I'm not surprised that they happen over time. Has anyone detected a solidly provable shift in modern times?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Maybe the earth's orbit changes right now are because there are too many people living in one area and they are weighing down the earth like a seesaw? Like if too man people live on one side of an island the island tips over?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q
No, it's pretty much just "no". The phrase "global warming" conventionally describes the unprecedentedly rapid rise in temperatures since the industrial revolution. That is entirely "our fault" because of aforementioned unprecedented rate, and that data is quite incontestable without dramatic misrepresentation of what is being compared.
We can actually tell when this happens, you know. We can examine the soil layers around the earth, and a consistent layer across the whole planet in the same strata identifies a time when substantial dust was settling. I'm pretty sure that's not the case here, but haven't actually looked at what experts say.
Do they mean orbit (around the Sun) or revolution (around the Earth's axis)? I know the Earth's revolution has changed quite a bit in the past, but I thought the orbit was pretty stable. The use of the term "wobble" also leads me to believe they are talking about the revolution of the Earth, and not it's orbit.
It's too damned hot. Let's all start jumping up and down, start the Earth a rockin' and induce an ice age.
Parent post commits a fallacy of equivocation, if I read its interpretation right. If not, then there is no fallacy at all. Either way there is a distinct lack of either logic or reading skill present. The post also lacks punctuation and a failure to discern the difference between 'affirming' and 'asserting'.
2/10
Would not read again.
Relax, Jor-El.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Tell me something interesting, useful, relevant, meaningful.
ok, here goes-
The parent started his comment with the title of his post, so it would read as follows: "Ice Ages are caused by planetary wobbles, but warming is caused by man. Got it."
Yes, it's sarcastic and not really much of a post, but it does illustrate the problem with the entire "debate" about how climates change on Earth. Perhaps if you took the time to explain this apparent conflict of information you'd be helpful yourself. As it is, you've offered even less to the discussion than the initial sarcastic/humorous post in the thread.
The Gaming Museum website in your sig is riddled with PHP errors. You might want to have a look at that.
planet texture maps and more
I thought the last ice age was in the northern hemisphere,(Europe, North America) not Antarctica.
"For more than a century scientists have known that Earth’s ice ages are caused by the wobbling of the planet’s orbit.
There are so many blatant errors in just this one sentence that it's publication is astounding. First, the Earth is currently in the middle of its 5th "ice age," the "Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation," (which began 2.5 million years ago) and what the article calls 'ice ages' are termed by real scientists to be "glacial periods" within the current ice age. The Earth is presently in what is called an "interglacial period" and the next "glacial period" is likely to begin within the next 1,000 to 2,000 years. Next, there is certainly no consensus that either the Earth's "Ice Ages" or "Glacial Periods" are caused by wobbling of the planet's orbit. General consensus by scientists is that both ice ages and glacial periods within those are caused by a variety of factors including atmospheric changes, solar changes, changes in the position of tectonic plates which affect ocean circulation, variations in the Earth's orbit (which are currently considered more likely to affect glacial and interglacial cycles rather than to initiate or end ice ages), and volcanism. In short, TFA is utter bullshit.
And in 100 years their descendants will still be rich enough to live on the new coastlines... wherever they wind up.
That assumes there is enough civilization left that they're not just scrabbling to survive like everybody else.
Dream on.
It's telling that proponents of that failed AGW religion are all posting AC these days...
Talk about needing to get some intellectual order! On the other hand, if all you have is emotion and no intellect, it's hard to order anything except another glass of whine.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The purpose of peer review in general is not to determine if a paper is right or wrong but to make sure there are no obvious mistakes
The obvious mistakes were pointed out repeatedly, but still the papers were published...
The point of the peer reviewers in regards to AGW was always "No paper from anyone committing blasphemy against our religion must ever be allowed to publish", regardless of the science therein.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Global warming is not our fault.
Why do several people repeat this here? Is it an attempt at sarcasm? Trolling? Does anything remotely related to AGV turn stupid up to 11 in some people? Are some people just inherently lik that?
Hint: Similar phenomenon, such as different changes in global climate, can happen for different, unrelated reasons.
He probably blames them on the left.
The Earth is still in an Ice Age. During this Ice Age, the ice has advanced and receded twenty times. A betting person would wager on the pattern, expecting the ice to advance again. [Please do not tell Al Gore. Despite the millions he's made off of his dime-store science, the truth might prove fatal.]
I believe Hapgood's crust-displacement theory explains the climate change at the turn of the ice age better than orbital wobble.
Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
No, I blame them on Yahoo, which broke its RSS feed weeks ago and hasn't fixed it. I have a job, so I haven't had time to redo the page yet.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Tell me something interesting, useful, relevant, meaningful.
ok, here goes-
The parent started his comment with the title of his post, so it would read as follows: "Ice Ages are caused by planetary wobbles, but warming is caused by man. Got it." Yes, it's sarcastic and not really much of a post, but it does illustrate the problem with the entire "debate" about how climates change on Earth.
Yes, indeed it does. It tells us that the "skeptics" can't tell the difference between starting an ice age and ending an ice age. And the replies defending the post confirm that.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
What makes it funny, however, is that the skeptics are the ones who up to now would be insisting that climate change is caused by the sun.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
But Hiroshima was caused by men.
Got it.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
You haven't been keeping up - they are way beyond that.
Often in the same sentences where they'll criticize AGW-proponents for being overly alarmists, they'll then warn that we really need to worry about global cooling which may have already begun and will wipe out food crops and poor people will die.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body