Earth is Missing a Huge Part of Its Crust. Now We May Know Why. (nationalgeographic.com)

A fifth of Earth's geologic history might have vanished because planet-wide glaciers buried the evidence. From a report: The Grand Canyon is a gigantic geological library, with rocky layers that tell much of the story of Earth's history. Curiously though, a sizeable layer representing anywhere from 250 million years to 1.2 billion years is missing. Known as the Great Unconformity, this massive temporal gap can be found not just in this famous crevasse, but in places all over the world. In one layer, you have the Cambrian period, which started roughly 540 million years ago and left behind sedimentary rocks packed with the fossils of complex, multicellular life. Directly below, you have fossil-free crystalline basement rock, which formed about a billion or more years ago.

So where did all the rock that belongs in between these time periods go? Using multiple lines of evidence, an international team of geoscientists reckons that the thief was Snowball Earth, a hypothesized time when much, if not all, of the planet was covered in ice. According to the team, at intervals within those billion or so years, up to a third of Earth's crust was sawn off by Snowball Earth's roaming glaciers and their erosive capabilities. The resulting sediment was dumped into the slush-covered oceans, where it was then sucked into the mantle by subducting tectonic plates.

Effectively, in many locations, Earth buried the evidence of about a fifth of its geological history, the team argued this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The notion is elegant but provocative, and the authors themselves predict that some geoscientists will express skepticism. "I think, though, we have extraordinary evidence to support that extraordinary claim," says study leader C. Brenhin Keller, a postdoctoral fellow at the Berkeley Geochronology Center.

Comments

It orbits us

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the moon.

Re:It orbits us

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it also where the missing parts of our resident IT janitor's brain went?

Re:It orbits us

[Anonymous Coward]

Happened much, much earlier and includes some mantle.

Haha first!

[Anonymous Coward]

First comment!

poor sods

[NikeHerc]

The poor sods who wrote this paper will be crushed by the Global Warming maniacs.

Re:poor sods

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they? Snowball Earth has been in the public consciousness for a while.

Re:poor sods

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense.

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

The poor sods who wrote this paper will be crushed by the Global Warming maniacs.

Not at all. This aligns perfectly with our existing understanding of Earth. Climate changes slowly over periods hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

The problem with global warming is that the climate is changing in a periods of decades. This is a problem because this does not provide the time required for fauna/flora to evolve. As a result of this decreased period, many species are facing extinction.

Re:poor sods

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor sods who wrote this paper will be crushed by the Global Warming maniacs.

Not at all. This aligns perfectly with our existing understanding of Earth. Climate changes slowly over periods hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

The problem with global warming is that the climate is changing in a periods of decades. This is a problem because this does not provide the time required for fauna/flora to evolve. As a result of this decreased period, many species are facing extinction.

How do you know climate change is limited in rate like that?

Because that's the resolution of the rocks that recorded the changes?

In other words, there was no instrument in place to record any faster changes if they happened.

Re:poor sods

[Anonymous Coward]

And even if we don't have proof, we all know it is happening.

Re:poor sods

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell me ... Trotsky-slut lib'rals die-bad from AGW ... po po poooz gag and choke, bend and weeeez, bleed from noz each time they peez.

Re:poor sods

[es330td]

99.9% of all the species ever to exist are extinct. I am pretty sure that every species is "facing extinction."

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

Current change is within the range of natural variation.

Assuming your assertion is true, it's not going to stay in that range much longer. On our current path parts of the planet will become so hot that they will uninhabitable to humans. That's totally out of wack.

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

99.9% of all the species ever to exist are extinct. I am pretty sure that every species is "facing extinction."

Sure... but this is the difference between dying of natural causes and being brutally murdered. But hey, keep up the semantics, asshole. ;)

Re:poor sods

[AC-x]

You must have head of the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period - and the many other examples of this. Even the Little Ice Age.

1. The Medieval Warm Period was localized to the north Atlantic region, with the pacific region getting colder. Current warming is increasing average temperatures across the globe.

2. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period (as per the link) is believed to have been solved.

3. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from ~300 to ~400 PPM since the 60s, in line with increased fossil fuel emissions.

4. The cause of the current warming is believed (by 90+% of the scientists investigating it) to have been solved. Spoiler alert it's the increasing atmospheric CO2.

Re:poor sods

[AC-x]

Generally not all at the same time though, we tend to call those mass extinctions.

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

it's not going to stay in that range much longer

Well, no. It never has over geological history, has it.

Yeah, I'm not talking about geological timescales, I'm talking about human timescales. By 2100 it's going to be 7*F hotter globally and that's a conservative estimate. That's a HUGE shift which is unprecedented. After that it's only going to get hotter until we do something about. You would have to be stupid or insane to think this is normal.

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

By 2100 it's going to be 7*F hotter globally and that's a conservative estimate.

Good grief. Do you really believe that? It's complete and utter nonsense.

Perhaps you should tell that to the Trump administration because that's what they reported.

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

They've all been captured by this nonsense.

What's more likely, that climate scientists who have studies the Earth for decades are correct or some fool on Slashdot knows better despite never actually studying the climate? Occam's razor does not favor you.

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

Wow, you look at scientists and scientific evidence and decide it's all politics. You have brilliantly deluded yourself, sir.

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

Right. You know, all a researcher has to do is be a "climate skeptic" and they get funded by any number of oil companies, they don't even have to be a climatologist. Have you considered that fact?

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

Let's put it this way: the evidence for warming from CO2 is good. The sensitivity is nothing like the scenarios you suggest. The evidence for all the feedbacks needed to generate "runaway warming" is flimsy to non-existent.

Nobody claimed it was a runaway effect. The estimate is based on past, present and projected pollution. The report has 500 pages explaining this or you could have simply read the article.

There's been a 14% greening of the planet over the last 33 years as a result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (from satellite studies). This remarkable fact has been almost invisible to the mainstream media, NGOs and other activist scientists involved in perpetuating the paradigm.

I'm aware that the planet is getting greener as a result of CO2 and climate change. It's understood that flora will flourish in some regions while dying in others. The issue with climate change has always been about the death of fauna and the migration of arable regions of land. It's when the weather becomes erratic that crops are threatened but some flora will thrive. This doesn't mitigate the damage of climate change.

I would suggest you turn down your hysterics knob a few clicks.

You dismiss science as being hysterical instead of pointing to research that counters the evidence put forth? You response is as sound as that of an anti-vaxxer who is certain autism is a just a shot away.

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

Haha, don't be daft. The 7C mentioned earlier is absurd based on the physics. Almost all of that increase is "runaway effect" (positive feedback).

7C? Who's the daft one now? Both I and the article clearly state it's 7F. The only runaway is effect being calculated is our use of polluting fuels in addition to the damage already done (which yet to come to full fruition).

The models using this clearly diverge from actual reality, which is why they have to be "tuned" to past data periodically. It's an exercise in curve fitting. People like you seem to think they're making some kind of super-robust prediction. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You're right that it's perfectly accurate but the "tuning" is not arbitrary, it's identifying previously unknown factors and correcting data from previously unidentified ill-calibrated sensors. For every time it's been "tuned" it's always turned out our previous estimate was too optimistic.

How is an argument to doubt the science because the reality is worse than predicted supposed to convey that in the future reality will be better than predicted?

Re:poor sods

[Gravis Zero]

Wrong. It includes things like water vapour increase with temperature increase.

Those are feedback effects but they are far from being runaway effects. Perhaps you define it differently but to me if it's a runaway effect that means it's self-sustaining.

There's no evidence this is net increase or decrease as increased water vapour implies increased cloud cover, which itself reflects sunlight.

Wow, you are arrogant to think you are the only person that has even consider this. Understanding hydrology is the cornerstone of weather prediction.

The tuning is against past data so the model looks like it's accurate. You show the graph without any divergence today because you fitted it to past data, so it looks "accurate". The prediction of future warming is way too hot because the feedback assumptions in the model are wrong

The problem with this idea is that the models have been overly optimistic and it's hotter now than it we previously predicted. Assuming they are just data fitting then it's going to be even worse than predicted.

My argument is that it's not politically correct to research positive changes from warming and CO2 fertilisation. If you want tenure, you won't do it. If you want research grants, you won't do it. If you want other academics to say hello to you on campus you won't do it. And if you don't want to be piled on by mobs of NGO supported tards on social media, you won't do it.

You have presumed people are researching positive or negative impacts but research doesn't assume what the value of the impact beforehand but rather explains what has happened and concludes possible futures. If there are tangible benefits of any kind then Oil companies will fund that research and spend millions advertising it.

I thought this was already known

[the_skywise]

Except the glaciers didn't "saw" off the crust (because glaciers don't "move") but pulverized it under their weight as the ice and snow built up and with annual run-off draining the sediment away.

Certainly that's what I was taught in my midwest high school surrounded by lots of plains and "flatland", made so by the glaciers that came before us.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Smidge204]

> because glaciers don't "move"

They certainly do. Or at least they can...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And they're pretty effective at scrubbing the underlying terrain.
=Smidge=

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

(because glaciers don't "move"

I'm pretty sure they do: https://www.nps.gov/articles/howglaciersmove.htm

Re:I thought this was already known

[the_skywise]

They can SHIFT just like anything else sitting on this planet - they don't act like bulldozers.

Re:I thought this was already known

[NettiWelho]

I live in Finland and the movement of the glaciers is clearly visible on rocks here.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

No you're right they just sit there.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedantic much?

If something "shifts" enough to gouge the rock face from mountain valleys and turn hundreds of miles of "V" shaped valleys into "U" shaped valleys, that would be "moving".

If you want to call it "shifting" instead, I'm not going to stop you, but claiming glaciers don't move is just...

Stupid.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Smidge204]

> they don't act like bulldozers.

Yes they do. Glaciers can slide for miles, picking up chunks of rock and dragging them along the underlying surface literally scouring the underlying earth like a river of sandpaper. They can dig out valleys, transport the material miles away and dump it. A few million tons of ice sliding around will easily act like a bulldozer. Glacially formed striation and moraines are all over the place.

They are literal rivers of ice; they flow, not just shift.
=Smidge=

Re:I thought this was already known

[dissy]

I thought this was already known ... Except the glaciers didn't "saw" off the crust (because glaciers don't "move") but pulverized it under their weight as the ice and snow built up and with annual run-off draining the sediment away.

It was previously suspected, not known, that the basement rock was crystallized under the weight of the 2 kilometer thick ice sheets, but there was little evidence this part of the hypothesis was correct, it was just the best fitting piece of the puzzle so far.

The authors of this new puzzle piece both claim it's a better fitting piece and that they have evidence.

If that evidence turns out to be true that would give this explanation a pretty huge leg up over the old guess.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure the very definition of glacier is MOVING ice.

Re:I thought this was already known

[religionofpeas]

You should start a glacier pressure channel on youtube.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

DERP, you are one the smart ones!

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pedantic much?"

You must be new here. All this site is, is a race to the bottom for who can "well, actually" more microscopically than anyone else.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Hognoxious]

a river of sandpaper

I like that.

Also, GP is an imbecile.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

glacier

NOUN

a slowly moving mass or river of ice formed by the accumulation and compaction of snow on mountains or near the poles.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Hognoxious]

It was previously suspected, not known, that the basement rock was crystallized under the weight of the 2 kilometer thick ice sheets

When was that? 1750?

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

terminal moraine is the term you are lacking.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

And those boulders the size of houses were moved by giant birds?

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how gold was moved down to the Pacific Northwest from Canada, glacial plows.

Based on this analysis (and gravity), there should be a ton of gold in the bottom of the trenches

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Though the same patterns are found on stones in Africa where there was no ice-age (the last time).

Re:I thought this was already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Not often you see a completely ignorant post like this insisting they know it all. I mean I know its slashdot but this is the geolical nerd equivalent of someone saying 'Everyone knows that a kernel is from pop corn and my computer doesn't have any popcorn in it!!"

Look, my dear idiot, glacier science is WELL established. If you want to play Master of Knowledge, at least pick something where its NOT well established.

Glaciers move. Some at meters a year, some at more, some at less. They are abrasive and pick up lots of shit along the way.

Let me guess...you are one of those that think a wall will stop someone from getting from point A to point B if they are motivated, amirite?

Re:I thought this was already known

[samwichse]

Jakobshavn Glacier is the world's fastest glacier and moves 66-150 feet per DAY! Glaciers typically only move about 3 feet per day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Crazy.

Re:I thought this was already known

[Toad-san]

But but but ... if you want a flow, you need a downhill. Surely not EVERYPLACE a glacier existed was downhill! Where's the bottom?

Oh ... yeah ... those subducting tectonic plates :-(

Re:I thought this was already known

[Smidge204]

You don't need a downhill necessarily. A glass of water poured onto a flat and level surface will still flow and spread out.

=Smidge=

Shows we worry about the wrong things

[SuperKendall]

up to a third of Earth's crust was sawn off by Snowball Earth's roaming glaciers and their erosive capabilities.

Let's see, we could worry about the Earth maybe getting a few degrees warmer and having to back away from the ocean a bit.

Or we could worry about ENTIRE CONTINENTS being "sawed off the earth" by glaciers as the rest of us starved because there was nowhere on earth you could grown more than a handful of crops in the icy cold.

Way better in my mind to engineer how to deal with warming - and keep it permanent - rather than let the Earth slide back into yet another long ice age, as it is otherwise bound to do.

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[110010001000]

Christ. How dumb. The problem is that the few degrees warmer is going to kill you first because it is happening in decadal time. You have a couple of thousand years to worry about how to handle an ice age.

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Anonymous Coward]

What they're talking about is far more than just an ice age (especially since we are still in an ice age, since there are still polar caps).

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Terwin]

Glacial period, not Ice Age.
The current age is an ice age(The entire Quaternary period is an ice age, as can be seen by year-round polar ice-caps, those ice-caps did not exist for a majority of the history of life on earth).

It would be great for biodiversity if we moved away from being too cold for plants for much of the year for large parts of the planet. A warmer climate leads to more prolific and productive plants which in turn lead to more energy available for other forms of life.

Sure change sucks for established species, but if you want increased biodiversity, then you want a warmer climate which can support it.

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[hey!]

An Earth 2C or even 4C warmer or cooler isn't inherently more or less hospitable to humans. What is inhospitable to our economy and the vulnerable people in it is any kind of change that is too fast for them to cope with. If over the course of a thousand years the southern Great Plains becomes a desert, nobody would even notice. If it happens in a hundred years, you will be looking at a series of refugee crises.

Insofar as any disruptive change is the result of our actions, we should worry about it. Rapid cooling is not in the cards in the lifetime of anyone now alive, but it could be on the table if we adopt drastic geoengineering measures to deal with warming.

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[balbeir]

I for one welcome our new Penguin overlords

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[LynnwoodRooster]

Christ. How dumb. The problem is that the few degrees warmer is going to kill you first because it is happening in decadal time.

Wait - what? I moved from Seattle to Ventura, that was quite a bit of a change in just a few weeks! From ~52 deg F to ~61 deg F. Still alive, even though I had a massive 5 deg C change in a matter of 2 days!

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst analogy I've ever seen.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[LynnwoodRooster]

So a permanent 2 deg C change over decades will kill you, but a permanent 5 deg C change over 2 days is fine? Or was the GP just hyperventilating and greatly exaggerating a fictional apocalypse to make an imaginary point?

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Tablizer]

But there's no evidence an ice-age is coming. The big problem with man-made global warming is that it's happening relatively fast, not giving Earth life nor human populations enough time to adapt. IF a natural ice-age were coming up, most likely it would occur rather gradual.

A warmer climate leads to more prolific and productive plants

As far as what is the "ideal" temperature for the Earth is per farming etc., that's certainly an interesting question. I suspect too much heat will lead to too many deserts, reducing plant life there, countering more plants /algae near the poles. There's more surface area near the equator, per sphere geometry. However, I have no good research to present on that in either direction.

But, changing it from what human populations are used is probably going to create more problems than any benefits of setting Earth to the ideal temperature.

Until we know more, it's probably wise to not throw primate wrenches into our climate.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the planet Venus and run away greenhouse processes.

How about we just take care of the only planet we got?

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Anonymous Coward]

You're permanently mentally disabled.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Anonymous Coward]

Golly gee! You really showed him. He'll think twice before responding back to one of your air tight rebuttals now. You got magnificunt smarts you doooooo!

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Zontar The Mindless]

Look, everybody, it's LynnwoodRooster, offering yet more evidence that eating paint chips does not increase your IQ.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s the changes to the environment that are the problem. Not the direct effect of the temperature change on you personally. Of course, in hot areas that get hotter and cold areas that get colder, some certainly will die from the new temperature extremes who might have survived the old ones.

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[LynnwoodRooster]

Ahh, so great to have my own troll brigade. And one of them is a 4 digit UID! That's gotta count double, at least... I hope you never move to central America, the temperature change would simply vaporize you instantly!

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[reanjr]

Look up AMOC slowdowns. "Decades" is the timeline in which we expect an ice age to arrive.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[hey!]

The IPCC models do not predict a catastrophic change there, although of course they could be wrong.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[LynnwoodRooster]

So, what are these negative effects on the environment? Tornadoes and cyclones are down. Temperatures are moderating (average daily highs aren't increasing, but average daily lows are - meaning the temperature swing through the day is less). What's the impact? Additionally, you do realize that cold is 20 times as deadly as heat, we should encourage a bit of moderating of low temperatures to save more lives.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[reanjr]

You mean they could be wrong again? The IPCC models in the 90s predicted exactly that. So, put whatever stock you feel is appropriate in science that does not present any experimental evidence and is based solely the ability of software to model complex systems.

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's like you looked up a list of common logical fallacies and mistook them for virtues.

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[rtb61]

We are a technological society, what ever the climate our cities were estblished in, is the climate we want to maintain. Only a idiot could accept the majority of the worlds coastal cities wiped out by widespread flooding. You do have some understanding that sea levels were a couple of hundred metres lower in the last ice age, only a psychopath would accept that chaos as reasonable or claim some idiots benefit.

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[AC-x]

and having to back away from the ocean a bit.

Yeah it's so easy we can just just just move 10%+ of the world's population and flood 2/3rds of the worlds largest (+5 million people) cities it'll be fine!

Re:Shows we worry about the wrong things

[SuperKendall]

You act like that is hard but over a hundred years, that is not hard. Nor is it even a lot of people affected compared to the bitter reality of a colder climate truly getting a grip on the world.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[hey!]

I don't know where you get your information. The IPCC predicted some slowdown but of a magnitude that would be offset by general warming.

Re: Shows we worry about the wrong things

[AC-x]

You act like it's easier than just *burning less of our finite supply of fossil fuel*.

Plus if the earth starts to cool like that we will have centuries to come up with a solution, perhaps burning that fossil fuel we kept in reserve..?

I think I know why

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone, I don't know who, saw "crust" but heard "pie crust" and started eating the Grand Canyon!

Re:I think I know why

[Anonymous Coward]

I do know who and it is very likely. Once, he even ate part of his brain which explains his mental disabilities.

Re:I think I know why

[Anonymous Coward]

Possible, here is an MRI of his brain while in use:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES NAZI KEN DOLL

[Anonymous Coward]

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES AND PROPAGANDA NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES NAZI KEN DOLL

[Anonymous Coward]

See??? This is why Cdreimer left /. after 20 years and posted 100+ videos in 2018. His trolls are still butthurt that he left them alone with APK.

The thing to do for him: post more videos :)

I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[mark_reh]

you exactly where the crust went, and when, and why.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an old meme and its a very very small minority of kooky off shoot heretic protestants that believe that. The mainstream christian rites like Catholicism don't believe that at all.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The Bible is literally interpreted by a lot of mainstream evangelical and other idiots. It's not some tiny minority group still teaching that.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Smidge204]

Oh that's easy. I've seen enough Young Earth Creationist mumbojumbo that even I can explain that.

The gap is where the water was hidden before the great flood. There's no rock layer because that layer was water, not rock! During the great flood, the water rose up and the crust sank, becoming temporarily submerged. As the waters receded and flowed into what is today's oceans, finding its new level, it carved the Grand Canyon and other geological features that "scientists" insist are the result of millions of years of erosion.

See? Once you abandon the very concept of "facts" it's easy to explain just about anything!
=Smidge=

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "fact" for me, please. What is the abstract idea of "fact"?

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[religionofpeas]

If you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, you'd argue there is no missing crust.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[PolygamousRanchKid]

you exactly where the crust went, and when, and why.

Well, it's perfectly obvious to me . . . someone ate the crust . . . just like that last piece of pizza in the box that mysteriously disappears.

Keep your eyes out for folks with Earth Crust Crumbs on their chins!

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of revisions and different versions of the Bible. Most mainstream bibles such as the King James and Douay-Rheims do not state the age of the earth in them. Which are used my mainstream protestants and Catholics.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[theendlessnow]

This is very true.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

you exactly where the crust went, and when, and why.

Have them explain it all to the "progressive" anti-vaxxers.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Tablizer]

the 6000 year old earthers can tell you exactly where the crust went, and when, and why.

Before 2016: "Noah's flood wiped it out."

After 2016: "CNN and Comey took it!"

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

It was because of the global cooling due to dinosaurs that stopped using SUVs

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[cascadingstylesheet]

you exactly where the crust went, and when, and why.

Because "Snowball Earth" is a better explanation? It sounds like an L. Ron Hubbard novel.

You (collectively) are literally just making stuff up because your version of how things came to be must (in your mind) be true. You are doing that every bit as much as your targets of derision (in your estimation) are doing so.

Since your version of things must be true, therefore, er, something or other must have happened to that whole missing geological layer ...

In other words, you're hardly in any position to snark.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of revisions and different versions of the Bible. Most mainstream bibles such as the King James and Douay-Rheims do not state the age of the earth in them. Which are used my mainstream protestants and Catholics.

Can you point to a single translation of the Bible that is different from the King James and Douay-Rheims in regards to the age of the earth?

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

It was made that way. Next.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Help us understand you by writing with complete sentences.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[mark_reh]

An explanation based on stitching together related, objectively verifiable facts, and a willingness to change the explanation when new objectively verifiable facts come to light is completely different from the other type of explanation.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[jittles]

you exactly where the crust went, and when, and why.

Damn cat! I told it not to stand on top of the earth and push that crust onto the turtles. The little bastard likes to watch the look on my face as it slowly pushes the crust off the edge of the earth.

Re: I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them state the age of the Earth. They do state lineages descended from Adam and Eve along with the ages that their descendants supposedly lived to. Various creationists have used these numbers to come up with various ages of the earth in the thousands of years range. Itâ(TM)s always seemed a bit silly to me because there area number of places in the narrative where there could be multi-billion year time gaps. Also, the various versions of the story donâ(TM)t actually agree.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[Darinbob]

There is also a divide amongst literalists; those that accept some old monk's 6000 year suggestion and those that accept that a "day" of creation need not be 24 hours.

Re:I'll bet the 6000 year old earthers can tell

[dryeo]

You do know that without any greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the Earth would be about -20C currently and in the past the Sun was cooler?

More Crap Daydreams

[Anonymous Coward]

In the last 30 years earth has aged close to 6 billion years. First it was 10000 years old (ok this was from the religious folks), then it was 1 million, then 100 million, then 1 billion and now I think its 6 billion. You don't have to have a fancy degree to know somewhere in there someone was bull shitting. I smell the same bull shit here. Idiots talking about shit they don't know that happened so long ago no one can really call them on it because no one really knows.

Re: More Crap Daydreams

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? The age of the Earth has been what rely known to be in the billions years for a lot longer than thirty years. They have narrowed in more on the exact age, and more precisely agreed on the dates for the various eras, of course.
Basically, in 1904, Earnest Rutherford demonstrates radioactive dating and the Earth was quickly determined to be not less than 1.6 billion years old (and recognized to be probably older). Before that, it was widely recognized as at least 100 million years old.

Re:More Crap Daydreams

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you home schooled?
Has the made it difficult to find other people who think like you?
I would suggest that you become besties with superkendall, he is from the same background

Climate change will change that!

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew it. Something good will come out of climate change. The ice melt will now expose Earth's hidden past.

long lived the lizard people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Their entire society, technology, space ships, etc. were all wiped clean by the glaciers! Their satellites eventually decayed and burned up or got tossed into the sun.

What sort of monolith can we erect to withstand time to commemorate our existence to the future species who probably won't care?

Re:long lived the lizard people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably best to build it on the Moon since no pesky wind/rain/erosion/glaciers, etc... just the occasional meteorite (lunarite?), so we should put it in the lava tubes where any self-respecting advanced civilization would notice it

Re:long lived the lizard people...

[Duhavid]

9 by 4 by 1.

More Crap Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, the age or the earth was estimated around the 6 billion year mark at least as far back as 40 years ago when I was in primary school so your timeframe is definitely off.

Secondly, are you saying science has to get things exactly correct the first time or it's bullshit? You live in a world where our ability to measure and estimate things does not improve over time and on the basis of other discoveries? Does that mean you live on a flat earth as well?

Awfully uniform

[cyberchondriac]

The problem they might encounter with the skeptics is explaining why the missing rock seems to be so uniform all over the globe. Surely the glaciers would be thinner at the equator? The missing rock should not go as far back at the equator as the topical zones, I would think.

Re:Awfully uniform

[apoc.famine]

You seem to be a little unclear on the scale of this whole thing.

* Are you aware what "snowball earth" means? Do you have an understanding of how much glaciation there was?
* Do you understand that a half billion years is a very, very long time, even in geologic terms?
* Do you have a concept for what plate tectonics might look like on the scale of a half billion years?
* Do you know where the continents were during this period? Or even what they were? Or if they were?

Seriously, your comment reads like a 12 year old trying to sound smart, and failing really, really badly.

Re:Awfully uniform

[Anonymous Coward]

What's missing isn't just a time period within the stack of sediments. The glaciers eroded *everything* down to the basement rock. Sediments from before might have vanished sooner further from the equator, but over that long time, the glaciers got the job done everywhere. All the sediments we see now came later.

Re:Awfully uniform

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the glaciers would be thinner at the equator?

We're talking about a difference of about 2.1 kilometers thick ice at the poles, and about 1.9 kilometers thick at the equator.

While thinner yes, the difference is pretty minuscule when it comes to the weight of all that ice and its effects.

You'll also note there is a fairly large error margin from 1 to 1.2 billion years back depending where you look. A small part of that does include the difference in missing rock at different areas on Earth.
There is also only so far down we have the ability to look at the poles.

When they say it is "uniform", think an accuracy along the lines of "close" is in outer space.

Re:Awfully uniform

[Enigma2175]

Seriously, your comment reads like a 12 year old trying to sound smart, and failing really, really badly.

It's funny that you say that, since it appears the OP may be correct about thinner glaciers at the equator. From the Snowball Earth Wikipedia page:

A number of unanswered questions remain, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.

at the temperatures predicted by models equatorial sublimation would prevent equatorial ice thickness from exceeding 10 m

Given those statements, it would be reasonable to posit that the glacial erosion would be less pronounced at the equator. That may not be the case, but it's certainly reasonable and you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary. To belittle the OP's statement as juvenile seems to overestimate your own understanding of the period and the processes at work.

Re:Awfully uniform

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, your comment reads like a 12 year old trying to sound smart, and failing really, really badly.

Seriously, your comment reads like an asshole having a bad day. You could have pointed out the same issues/errors with a less condescending tone.

Re:Awfully uniform

[Anonymous Coward]

And you come across as an extremely pompous asshole.

Re:Awfully uniform

[geggam]

Thing is... the earth might have not always rotated the same way ?

Re:Awfully uniform

[apoc.famine]

No, you've got the same problem OP has. Thanks for trying to shame me, however. Feel free to read through what I wrote and answer those questions for yourself. You've got the aptitude for learning if you took the baby step of looking up the Snowball Earth, so I have hope for you.

Re:Awfully uniform

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, well, the configuration of continents was totally different then, for firsts, so a continent now in an equator zone may have been down by the poles. Also, the igneous basement is not as age differentiated by depth as sedimentary rock is. because igneous basement was initially formed at about the same time at spreading centers then vertically intruded with felsic rock in subduction volcanic arc complexes, then tilted and overthrust in orogenies. so when you are looking at sedimentary it tends to get deeper as you go deeper, but when you get to igneous baement, not so much. Sedimentary layers is a small % of thickness of crust further, ive heard of a much as 6 miles, but more commonly 1 or 2 miles, or less, still a small part of the 40 mile thick continental crust. If glaciation was less intense at poles *maybe* you could say you may think the meta/igneous basement would vary in thickness, but the sedimentary cover may have been removed everywhere simply because there was enough glaciation most everywhere to do so, so then the variation would be in the scouring of the basement. . Also meta-igneous basement can also be harder so may have been more resistant to the glacier weathering

Re:Awfully uniform

[cyberchondriac]

WOW... Seriously, fuck you. You have just invalidated everything you ever say.
I didn't come across as more knowledgeable than anyone else, I merely posited a thought that was reasonable.
It's still reasonable, because you haven't said anything to actually counter it, you just came across as a pompous dickwad with rude assumptions that didn't negate a thing I said.
Regardless of how continents and plates move or how long the period was, the equator is always subjected to more sunlight. Glaciation will never be able to be as strong there for that simple reason. The chances of a solar system body being almost perfectly uniform are extremely slim, especially in the inner belt.
There are images of a proposed snowball earth with a thin band of water at the equator, so obviously others have had the same thought.
It that triggers you, you have serious ego and anger issues. You should seriously get some counseling.

Re:Awfully uniform

[cyberchondriac]

Thanks, that helps. So let's assume the continents moved around enough that basically everywhere got roughly equal exposure near the equator as the poles, and so glaciation was more or less uniform (I'm still not entirely sold on that but maybe it's not necessary); glaciers scrubbed off all the softer sedimentary at the time leaving only the igneous basement behind, resetting the fossil record so to speak, until the Cambrian started building it back up to the modern day.

However, they believe that "up to a third of the earth's crust was sawn off", so with the current ratio of sedimentary to basement that would have had to have gone well beyond the sedimentary layer into the igneous.. unless the ratio was much different back then, where maybe that top third of the crust was all sedimentary. That works.

Re:Awfully uniform

[DerekLyons]

Surely the glaciers would be thinner at the equator?

The distribution of land was very different then - what's at the equator now wasn't at the equator then. So, first, locate the landmass that was under the equator then and check it's layers - assuming they survived.

Re:Awfully uniform

[apoc.famine]

Still wrong, and entirely missing the big picture.

I've been coming to /. for a long time for intelligent discussion, and I get a little irritated when stupid, ignorant shit gets modded up. Not knowing the first thing you're talking about doesn't entitle you to a polite education from me or anyone else.

You've thrown a little temper-tantrum because I didn't treat your ignorance with respect. Sorry kid, but it doesn't deserve respect. I gave you some really good starting points for you to correct your deep chasm of knowledge, and your response was to piss and moan. If you don't want to become more knowledgeable, that's up to you.

Re:Awfully uniform

[cyberchondriac]

"..kid" Oh, That's funny. You pull assumptions out of your behind like there's no tomorrow.
If you check my id, you'll see I've been coming to slashdot for a long time too, and I started when I was older, and I get irritated when some pompous, supercilious blowhard feels they have the right to belittle another user for unmaliciously positing an assumption or question on a subject they find interesting. I never passed myself off as a geologist. It's also not my fault that my post got modded up, so sorry that triggered you into your little superiority complex tantrum but apparently many others here had wondered that same thing as well. But according to you, only people who are experts in a given field are allowed to comment. Who made you the slashdot police? Astounding arrogance.

You assert yourself as a geological expert, when in fact the original article is not by any means a disclosure of proof of the glacial hypothesis, and the skeptics mentioned in the article are likely geologists themselves.
Do *you* happen to know the exact movement of the tectonic plates during this precambrian era? Are you an expert in the geography of Rodinia? You act as though this hypothesis is proven fact when it is certainly not. Additionally, "snowball" earth is still itself a hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... as there is no actual proof that the glaciers reached the equator, and further, where is the proof that each and every landmass during the precambrian/cyrogenian period moved and distributed themselves equally between temperate and tropical zones, ensuring the same degree of solar exposure?
As it stands, this science is all still controversial, so your position of intellectual dominance is ironic.

Re:Awfully uniform

[apoc.famine]

where is the proof that each and every landmass during the precambrian/cyrogenian period moved and distributed themselves equally between temperate and tropical zones, ensuring the same degree of solar exposure?

The good news is that you're at least getting closer to understanding why your question about about glaciation all the way to the equator is a stupid question. The bad news is that this is a dumber question, and shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the topic at hand. One step forward and two back, it seems.

But you're welcome to continue on with your little rant about how arrogant and dumb I am rather than reading and learning enough to understand.

Strip mined by aliens?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strip mined by aliens?

Re:Strip mined by aliens?

[Tablizer]

Why couldn't they get soil from Mars instead? Then again, maybe they did both, and that's why Mars is so puny.

Re:Strip mined by aliens?

[Anonymous Coward]

ancient astronaut theorists say yes

probably climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

it's responsible for the disappearance of Pangea as well.

Earth was jealous

[LynnwoodRooster]

All the cool, popular kids have their PB&J sandwiches made with the crust cut off. So Mother Gaia just tried to copy!

Re:Earth was jealous

[Anonymous Coward]

God you're the world's second most boring faggot.

Re:Earth was jealous

[LynnwoodRooster]

Damnit, I have to work harder to reach first place... Thanks, AC!

Expected to see comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Expected to see comments about how it was an alien civilization that resided here and then wiped their evidence by snowballing the planet (purposefully or through total warpocolypse); but it looks like I'm the first to postulate that theory...here...at least.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Asteroid? Freak volcano?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if, instead, the layers where the rock is were caused by some massive impact?
Or are the densities of the rock layers that are present too much for that to be feasible?
I guess it would depend on the ratios of present rock : not present rock layers.

Or potentially volcanic in nature. But that would be a harder sell since it would also require finding a volcano big enough to spew out potentially so much dust and new land. Also needs to be the proper material since volcanoes spit out very identifiable materials. Less likely as it was probably already checked, although again, depends on the ratios.

Glaciers do seem the most likely though. We've known Earth has went through many ice-age periods that has eroded the absolute shit out of landscapes.
God only knows what secrets have been wiped clean off the surface by erosion.
We'll never know the full evolutionary history of life because most of it gets wiped away by erosion.
The fossils we find were in ideal conditions for fossilization. Most of Earths biochemistry is not ideal for fossilization.
There are some lifeforms that are ideally suited to self-fossilize, like shell-based lifeforms. But even that's iffy at times.
The only way we will know is literal time machines
.

Earth must be stopped!

[Anonymous Coward]

We all get embarrassed about our teenage years. But most of us don't go to the trouble of destroying a sizable portion of ourselves in order to hide the evidence of what we've done during that time.

Long-term history...

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'know, I'm no geologist (clearly), but every time I hear things like the earth was previously entirely covered in ice, it makes me wonder: What's "normal"?

It seems like we're worried about climate change, and willing to spend trillions of dollars (or some politicians are trying to get us to spend that much, that is) in order to prevent it from happening, but this sounds pretty ignorant of us considering the earth's history. It seems like we're defining "normal" as whatever we've been used to during our lifetimes (which, in geological terms, amounts to a fart in the wind). It seems incredibly arrogant of us to try to "reverse" what (it's been claimed) we've done.

Re:Long-term history...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like we're defining "normal" as whatever we've been used to during our lifetimes (which, in geological terms, amounts to a fart in the wind). It seems incredibly arrogant of us to try to "reverse" what (it's been claimed) we've done.

Arrogant is an essential part of "not suicidal" behavior when it comes to this stuff. We can dirty ice up pretty quick if we want to warm the globe more. Cleaning black off snow, or painting the whole ocean white, is a bit more problematic.

Re:Long-term history...

[AC-x]

It seems like we're worried about climate change, and willing to spend trillions of dollars (or some politicians are trying to get us to spend that much, that is)

Actually politicians are giving trillions of dollars to the fossil fuel industry in subsidies to help make climate change happen.

Re:Long-term history...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like we're defining "normal" as whatever we've been used to during our lifetimes (which, in geological terms, amounts to a fart in the wind).

In this context, the difference is that there were no complex life as we know it today during that time. The first known predecessor of a spine is that of a worm in the order of 500 million year old. So the "normal" here is like living on a present day Europa or Mars and stating that as within the normal for the planet capable of supporting lifeforms such as we are. A reasonable person would say that's not normal for such a planet, or understand the fragility and preciousness of life we have and boldly start devising strategies for creating new livable environments or technologies for restoring the current ones, or to support such endeavours.

It seems incredibly arrogant of us to try to "reverse" what (it's been claimed) we've done.

Like mummy told us to clean our toys after play to prevent somebody from slipping on them, so should we clean our toys before the ecosystem changes in a way that reduces our economic output to the level that is incapable of feeding many people. Hungry people take up arms and start wars. Malthusian collapse is not something we probably want to see.

Re:Long-term history...

[free779]

Not really, the numbers you're using are pretty much bogus.

From the same Wikipedia article - "The externalities accounted for are broad enough that oil companies not paying for automobile accidents is considered a subsidy."

Re: Long-term history...

[AC-x]

Even the vox article that picks the highest figure apart agrees the figure is in the trillions.

Stealing The Crust

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the crust is the best part. Though not pizza crust; no sauce, no cheese, no meat, no shrooms.

But apple crumble crust? Oh baby...

Missing links and missing crust

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there is nothing missing and the Biblical story is correct after all. If so, then we are all just searching for phantoms.

Previous civilizations

[pgmrdlm]

https://www.livescience.com/62...
Artifacts of human or other industrial civilizations are unlikely to be found on a planet's surface after about 4 million years, said Frank and study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. For instance, they noted that urban areas currently take up less than 1 percent of Earth's surface, and that complex items, even from early human technology, are very rarely found. A machine as complex as the Antikythera mechanism â" which is considered to be the world's first computer from ancient Greece â" remained unknown until the development of elaborate clocks in RenaissanceEurope.

One may also find it difficult to unearth fossils of any beings who might have lived in industrial civilizations, the scientists added. The fraction of life that gets fossilized is always extremely small: Of all the many dinosaurs that ever lived, for example, only a few thousand nearly complete fossil specimens of the "terrible lizards" have been discovered. Given that the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens are only about 300,000 years old, there is no certainty that our species might even appear in the fossil record in the long run, they added. [In Images: The Oldest Fossils on Earth]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/s...

âoeOur cities cover less than one percent of the surface,â he says. Any comparable cities from an earlier civilization would be easy for modern-day paleontologists to miss. And no one should count on finding a Jurassic iPhone; it wouldn't last millions of years, Gorilla Glass or no.
There is tons of theories that there has been previous intelligent civilizations prior to our own current one. Hell, NASA is even researching it. You are a moron to just activity dismiss this possibility. Both articles I reference note that artifacts would not survive millions of years.

Do I believe this? Not at the moment. But I am not a moron like some posters here that would refuse to acknowledge the possibility, even if a fucking previous intelligent artifact hit them in the head and was dated to 1,000,000 years of age. Fucking idiots

Re:Previous civilizations

[iggymanz]

there is zero reason to believe any advanced ancient civilizations exist, especially since there are nonliving artifacts not needing any fossilization that *would* endure.

Would you care to hazard a guess how long these things would last:

  a silicon based integrated circuit in a ceramic package

  a fiber optic cable

  a gold tooth or a porcelain crown

The windshield of a car

titanium alloy aircraft and rocket bodies

aluminum engine blocks

corpses preserved with formaldehyde

this stuff is all over the world... where is the "stuff" from 400,000 years ago?

/. and out of tech topics

[AlwinBarni]

We should have a reward here for the most misleading topic.

The very linked article itself, and further research about "Great Unconformity" clearly state that this particular unconformity is limited to the Great Canyon GRAND CANYON - THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY and from wikipedia Great Unconformity one can further learn about this "annomaly" together with it's explanation:

Unconformities in general tend to reflect long-term changes in the pattern of the accumulation of sedimentary or igneous strata in low-lying areas (often ocean basins, such as the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea, but also Bangladesh and much of Brazil), then being uplifted and eroded (such as the ongoing Himalayan orogeny, the older Laramide orogeny of the Rocky Mountains, or much older Appalachian (Alleghanian) and Ouachita orogenies), then subsequently subsiding, eventually to be buried under younger sediments.

We could've avoid all the wide speculations if only the topic was reflecting the content, as "Hi, look what interesting about geology I found - it's old but a great read".

We live on half an earth, more probable...

[losfromla]

I watched this video on YouTube just a little while ago. I've not really looked into the science of it nor modeled the impacts he's talking about but it might be possible that our earth is a remnant from a not-that-long-ago clash with an itinerant planet's moon. We live on the half of a then larger planet that was smashed by that moon, the rest became an asteroid belt and probably our moon. I think this is a more likely explanation for why a huge part of the crust might be missing than it having been scraped by icebergs. I'm just guessing the icebergs wouldn't have scratched that deeply and it seems like the fossil record would still be there at the bottom of the ocean if it had happened that way. Although I like the tectonic plate subduction argument, clashing rocks in space is much more violent and attractive.
https://youtu.be/ogw6BJRL_rQ?t...
This has to do with Sumerian civilization and the possibility of extra-planetary beings having given us technology way back then. If you're completely closed to that idea, this may not be for you. OTOH, you may be able to compartmentalize and accept the interplanetary collision separate from the extra-terrestrial civilization interference argument.

It's an old meme sir

[rsilvergun]

but it checks out.

Jokes aside, approx 38 % of Americans believe in "Young Earth" creationism and 24% believe everything in the bible is the literal word of God ("literal" here means that nothing is a parable).

Re:It's an old meme sir

[Anonymous Coward]

"Literal" in this context doesn't mean "nothing is a parable". Instead, it's taken to refer to the Historical-Grammatical method, whereby one claims that every passage is true in the way that it would have been intended to be understood by its original audience.

Obvious Answer

[DarthVain]

Aliens had a quarry here for a billion years or so before moving operations elsewhere...

Anyway what would really blow some people's minds and start some speculation would be if in exploring other planets such as mars, we find the same discrepancy during the same time period... Some destructive stellar event perhaps?

Also one of the big detractors of a past advanced civilization is the lack of any evidence surviving at all. However if about a billion years of geological data is missing, that's a pretty big gap to fall into!

Anyway before just now I didn't even know about the "Great Unconformity" which is pretty cool and interesting in of itself!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Bad approach

[SuperKendall]

Plus if the earth starts to cool like that we will have centuries to come up with a solution, perhaps burning that fossil fuel we kept in reserve..?

You are not thinking about all this in terms of momentum - way easier to keep the Earth from sinking into a decline, than it is to stop a decline in progress (especially given how long it would take us all to agree the danger is real).

We have lucked out into warming the climate by about the right amount before we switch to mostly alternative energy sources.

Re:Bad approach

[Namarrgon]

Even if we switch to 100% carbon-neutral energy overnight (and fix all the other sources like construction and agriculture) - what makes you think the warming we've started will stop at "the right amount"? The carbon we've already released will continue warming us for decades and centuries to come, the seas will keep rising, and the ocean will keep acidifying. We'll be lucky if glaciers exist anywhere by the time it eventually stabilises.

It's ridiculous to worry about potential future glaciation when we've already triggered such a huge and rapid warming event. Should our distant decendants succeed in solving the problems we created and manage to better control the planet's thermostat, I guarantee you they'll far less trouble keeping the temperature up rather than down. After all, warming it is so easy we were doing that a hundred years ago without even realising it.

Re:Bad approach

[SuperKendall]

Even if we switch to 100% carbon-neutral energy overnight (and fix all the other sources like construction and agriculture) - what makes you think the warming we've started will stop at "the right amount"?

Because even the IPCC thinks we are hitting the 2C or so mark, and between 2C-4C is fine. Basically anything that is not runaway warming (remember, the thing that was supposed to scare us originally, now not in the cards in any forecast) can be dealt with.

The carbon we've already released will continue warming us for decades

If you want to believe that fine, but then you have to believe it can only have the same measured effect it has already had.

CO2 is far less a factor in warming than you have been led to believe, solar input is a huge factor, and the Earth has literally evolved over billions of years to regulate CO2 so whatever we put in will all be dealt with a lot more easily than the output from various volcanoes has in the past.

It's ridiculous to worry about potential future glaciation

Since it's the only thing that can literally destroy our species I'd say you cannot worry enough about it.

Whatever level of warming may be coming will not even put much of a dent in population growth. The warmer it is the more places can grow crops, the more water is in the atmosphere from ocean evaporation so jungles would be the norm, not deserts. That's just common sense and nonsense about areas becoming desert ignores basic science of water and atmosphere.

Re:Bad approach

[Namarrgon]

between 2C-4C is fine

Lol, if you say so. Yes we can "deal with it" - at the cost of hundreds of billions annually in adaption costs, not to mention displacing billions from coastal areas, threatened sea ecologies from CO2 acidification, famines from shifting agriculture in undeveloped nations, etc etc. Better to avoid those costs wherever possible, don't you think?

If you want to believe that fine

I believe the research. Linear kinetics models suggest an atmospheric lifetime of 30-95 years. Equilibrium models tell us that even after equilibrium is reached once more, it will be at a higher atmospheric concentration than today, meaning some of that CO2 will be keeping our temperatures high for thousands of years.

We can precisely measure solar irradiance (with the SORCE satellite among many other methods). We know that average solar irradiance has not increased, yet our temperatures have. Your assertions that CO2 is not much of a factor are entirely unconvincing. The planet will of course deal with all that CO2 in the much longer term (past CO2 pulses have taken hundreds of thousands of years to fully stabilise), but the issue is all the costs to us, in dollars and human suffering, that we'll experience along the way.

it's the only thing that can literally destroy our species

Heh, it's not even in the top 12. We've already proved we can keep the planet warm without even trying.

That's just common sense

Your "common sense" is contradicted by reality. The negative effects are already outweighing the positives, and we're now observing significant net decreases in yields for staples like wheat, rice and maize (and corresponding price hikes, reversing the historical trend). Cited there are numerous studies showing "large negative sensitivity of crop yields to extreme daytime temperatures around 30C", for example, and that's not likely to improve anytime soon. And far from being "nonsense", the research is showing substantial aridification for a massive 32% of the planet's land surface, for the mid-range RCP4.5 scenario.

It's past time you re-evaluated those firmly-held beliefs of yours, and took a hard look at the actual science.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion