Print 73 comment(s) - last by spepper.. on Apr 12 at 8:10 AM

Can we expect an ice age to start every 36,500,000 days or so?

While the battle for what's right and wrong roars on concerning climate change as a whole, it seems that many small observations are left to collect dust while politicians and activists concentrate on their own immediate problems. It can seem overwhelming at times when science-fact is pushed into a corner because it doesn't help support a growingly concerned (or unconcerned) community. Nevertheless, these data and observations are important in the long term to help climate scientists and geologists understand how the Earth changes over millennia and how those changes are affecting the current climate.

Some great finds have made their way into 
DailyTech's news reel already this year. In January, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research published findings that suggested tiny geological formations could be responsible for regulating the entire North American region. In February, researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute released data that suggested Greenland's rapid glacial retreat is being at least marginally affected by warm subtropical waters making their way along currents all the way into the country's fjords. These findings suggest that at least one part of the northern hemisphere's climate is controlled more than partially by ocean systems.

This week, University of California, Santa Barbara geologist Lorraine Lisiecki has presented information linking long-term climate cycles more closely with Earth's ~100,000 year orbital cycle. And not only does the information suggest quite clearly that ice ages are an effect of these cycles, it shows that how adversely the orbit changes inversely affects the climate change. The idea that the planet's orbit is a large or ultimate factor in the rise and fall of ice ages is not new, however, the study shows a very strong connection between hard data and theory.

"The clear correlation between the timing of the change in orbit and the change in the Earth's climate is strong evidence of a link between the two. It is unlikely that these events would not be related to one another," explains Lisiecki.

The data correlates the climate change to two different aspects of the Earth's orbit around the sun as well as its own rotational oscillations. The first is the Earth's orbital eccentricity, or how elliptical/circular the orbit is. The second is its inclination, or the angle of its path compared to the solar orbital mean. The planet's rotational precession, or how the planet wobbles around its own rotational axis, is the third contributing factor in Lisiecki's study.

While this evidence strongly suggest patterns of climate due to local astronomy, Lisiecky does not solely attribute the cyclical changes to her findings. She stresses that these kinds of total climate changes are most likely a complicated interplay between the astronomical system and the Earth's own weather and more immediate systems. Further, the inverse relationship between the strength of climate change and the change in orbital pattern suggest that the overall system simply isn't that easy to decipher.

Lisiecki used climate data for the last 1.2 million years collected from 57 separate ocean sediment cores in her study. With this data she discovered the correlation between orbit and climate. Her full findings have been published in this week's edition of 
Nature Geoscience.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By cochy on 4/7/2010 9:26:51 AM , Rating: 5
You mean to tell me Earth's climate system is a complex mix of many variables??!

No it's not. Our climate is clearly regulated only by the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Orbit shmorbit. Have you not seen Al Gore's hockey stick graph?

RE: Huh??
By MrBlastman on 4/7/2010 9:31:30 AM , Rating: 4
No but I saw an AnaLogism comparing the frequency that Al Gore farts with the contribution to methane (a global warming agent) to the atmosphere. Apparently, the more gas he produces, the worse off we are.

Per Al Gore's reasoning and crusade, for that matter, the only solution is the removal of Al Gore.

Oh well, I guess we should get started with that.

RE: Huh??
By R3T4rd on 4/7/2010 9:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
I knew it! My Ex-Girlfriend said she didn't want to be with me because I pollute the environment too much and she needed someone who cared for the environment. Damnit I didn't understand then but now I do. Well I guess I'll have to go to my Family's campground/personal waste site, sit infront of the greenish plastic fire I make every year and reflect on why I consume soo much beans and eggs - ofcourse after I hunt all those criters and bears within 500yrds of the campsite. By the way, I dug a 100ft hole next to the campsite near the towns drinking water and I pour all my used oil, anti-freeze, and various weird liquid into. Its my way of giving it back to mother nature. I wish my Ex-Girlfriend can see me now. Reflect boys....reflect!!

RE: Huh??
By jonmcc33 on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh??
By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2010 12:41:49 PM , Rating: 5
Whaaaa? I find myself feeling dirty defending Bush, but what the hell are you on about?

RE: Huh??
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 5
The only president to use nuclear weapons was a Democrat, and the president who brought us closest to global nuclear war was a Democrat as well ... yet among the uneducated, the myth of the "nuke happy Republican" still persists.

RE: Huh??
By abel2 on 4/8/2010 3:27:29 PM , Rating: 4
It was horrible to have to use the nuclear weapon, but ~250k dead vs. the potential millions that would've followed seems like good math to me. Pretty sure any president would've done that, regardless of which party they hail from.

And the mere presence of nuclear weapons has potentially saved many more millions that would've resulted in all the following wars.

RE: Huh??
By MrBlastman on 4/7/2010 1:43:24 PM , Rating: 4
You're right, we do need Obama-care. It is like daycare for the ignorant.

Ugh, what a mess we are all in.

RE: Huh??
By Ammohunt on 4/7/2010 2:46:48 PM , Rating: 3
This is a bunch of crap! Capitalism has no affect on the earths orbit so in no way can this cause climate change! Only the evil corporations corporating warms the earth.

RE: Huh??
By AnnihilatorX on 4/7/2010 4:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
Guys you need to look at the time scale of the cycles, it's 100000 years. This is climate change but it is not the same climate change you guys had been arguing all along whether it is anthropomorphic or not. The author did mention in her own words:

(So will this be ammunition for climate change sceptics?)

"I hope it's not used in that way," she says. "We're talking about processes over more than a million years, and the results can't be used on that timescale."
source - TG daily

This is a different cycle altogether and is impossible to relate that to the recent climate change in the past 50 years

RE: Huh??
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 4:47:20 PM , Rating: 3
That's the obligatory "I have to say I respect AGW or I can't get published" statement. The fact remains this does have significance for the current global warming debate, in a number of ways.

The most important connection is that many climate scientists have refused to link Milankovitch cycles to climate despite the correlation, because the solar insolation changes associated with such a minor orbital change are negligible. For a connection to exist, it means that very minor insolation changes can trigger large responses in climate. Follow that so far?

Here's the rub. The entire basis for calculating the climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on the assumption that most post-industrial warming is due to that, and not the (very small) measured changes in insolation. So the Milankovitch correlation challenges the primary tenet of AGW.

There are other connections, but they're more technical, so I won't go into them here. Suffice to say, this is yet another blow to AGW orthodoxy.

RE: Huh??
By Grabo on 4/8/2010 9:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
Match: "Al Gore", post#1.

Suggestion: Cease reading bits about the environment posted at Dailytech. Spend some time listening to a recording that goes "" instead.

Alternative Theories
By MatthiasF on 4/7/2010 11:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no scientist but I took Earthquake and Solar Cycle data to compare and found a pattern.

When solar flares decreased, earthquakes larger than 6.5 increased.

Here's a link to the Excel workbook if anyone is interested:

RE: Alternative Theories
By MatthiasF on 4/7/2010 12:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a link to an image of one of the charts in the Excel file if anyone's not willing to download the Excel workbook.

RE: Alternative Theories
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 12:25:00 PM , Rating: 3
I see no correlation there. Run a Pearson computation and you'll see for yourself.

RE: Alternative Theories
By MatthiasF on 4/7/2010 12:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
I did, it's positive on the yearly data.

Should be a CORREL function somewhere in the workbook.

Not a perfect 1, but I never expected it to be a direct correlation. I'm sure there are plenty of other variables involved.

RE: Alternative Theories
By MatthiasF on 4/7/2010 12:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
I should probably mention I'm only working on the post 1964 data. The amount of data for earthquakes changes drastically that year.

RE: Alternative Theories
By clovell on 4/7/2010 4:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
Are your counts in your tallies page actually counts of Earthquakes >6.5 in magnitude?

RE: Alternative Theories
By MatthiasF on 4/7/2010 5:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. Earthquake data comes from the evc_2002cat file copied into the sheet of the same name. Only Earthquakes greater than magnitude 6.5 are included.

Information originally came from here:

RE: Alternative Theories
By clovell on 4/7/2010 4:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
Pearson on the monthly shows -0.05 plus a bit of change for me - not sure if I'm running on the right stuff, though.

RE: Alternative Theories
By MatthiasF on 4/7/2010 5:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed, so I tried breaking it down into seasons, thinking months weren't reliable since distance from the sun changed.

Try a CORREL on the 6-month columns. That comes out barely positive (0.0265557).

My next step after finding the 6-month still positive is to attempt to find the Earth's average distance from the sun during each of those months, as accurate as possible, and try a CORREL on it.

But still, -0.05 is still not so bad for the monthly. As I said, I'm not expecting a direct relationship. I think something is causing both!

RE: Alternative Theories
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 5:41:34 PM , Rating: 3
-0.05 is a very weak correlation. Run two sets of random noise against each other, and you're likely to get a value as high.

RE: Alternative Theories
By MatthiasF on 4/7/2010 9:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it depend on the sample size?

We're talking a sample of 11550 Earthquakes and 12950 Sunspots over a 46 year period.

RE: Alternative Theories
By clovell on 4/9/2010 5:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
> Wouldn't it depend on the sample size?

Absolutely. The correlation is statistically significant, to be sure. Whether it's meaningful beyond that is outside my field.

RE: Alternative Theories
By MatthiasF on 4/8/2010 11:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
I broke down the CORREL functions into solar cycles 20-22 and each has a CORREL of -0.20 or greater.

With a sample size of 380, -0.20 seems high enough for a reasonable confidence.

By roostitup on 4/7/2010 10:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone already knew that the Earths changing orbit causes climates to change, so does this data just prove it rather than just using common sense?

RE: Duh...
By 67STANG on 4/7/2010 11:24:02 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed-- the changing orbit is a large part of the equation. The other part of the equation is the natural cycle of our magnetosphere.

Any scientist will tell you that the earth's magnetic poles swap from north to south over a vast period of time, and have done so since the beginning. During these swaps, the weakening/strengthening magnetosphere (depending on the cycle) allows in a variable amount of solar radiation which also has an impact on temperature (ie- the current South Atlantic Anomaly).

That said, all of these environmentalists that claim we are ruining our planet are both right, and wrong. They are wrong on the account that our polluting has any real effect on our temperature trending. They are right that we are making our air quality quite horrible.

RE: Duh...
By gamerk2 on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 3:45:19 PM , Rating: 3
"the only question is whether or not it can change temps"

No. The only question is whether or not it can change temperatures significantly.

"Venus is a perfect example of a greenhouse effect"

Venus is an imperfect example. It's far closer to the sun, it has over 100,000 times the CO2 as does the earth, and most importantly of all-- it has no water vapor which not only absorbs the same wavelengths of IR that CO2 does, but also acts as a negative feedback, by altering planetary albedo.

"many GW detractors tend to look only at local weather [The cold US winter, for instance], while ignoring the rest of the planet [which had a very warm winter"

The rest of the planet did not have "a very warm winter". England, Russia, China, Korea, Scandinavia, and many other nations had their coldest winters in decades or, in some cases, in all recorded history:

RE: Duh...
By TSS on 4/8/2010 8:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'll give direct emperical evidence of this from across the ocean ^^

Here in holland, Last winter i've seen the same snow on the ground for close to 4 weeks. as in, it didn't melt.

I'm 23 years old and the previous record was the same snow for 5 days, and i thought that was long. That was when i was like 6 years old and since then i haven't seen a winter where we had more then 2 days of the same snow.

Hell i was walking between friends houses on christmas around midnight, and we could iceskate on the streets. The only time i've heard something similar is my dad talking about a day like that somewhere in the 60's.

RE: Duh...
By Grabo on 4/8/2010 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
From a climate perspective, individual years are irrelevant.
Usually, scientists like to talk in 30-year bits at a minimum.

This winter in Europe was pretty good. 'Pretty good' is relative though, because as mentioned individual years don't indicate much. Seen from a 100year+ perspective, the winter of 2009 wasn't all that great(data from the Swedish meteorological institute)

Seen from the same time frame, the yearly average is creeping up as well.

The combined globe average wasn't frozen solid either: "The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for February 2010 was the sixth warmest February since records began in 1880." --> - pretty picture, want to count the red and blue dots porky?

RE: Duh...
By porkpie on 4/8/2010 10:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
"From a climate perspective, individual years are irrelevant"

Temperatures have failed to increase for 15 years now, as even Dr Phil Jones -- the scientist at the heart of the ClimateGate Scandal -- now admits:

RE: Duh...
By Grabo on 4/8/2010 10:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
Temperatures have failed to increase for 15 years now, as even Dr Phil Jones -- the scientist at the heart of the ClimateGate Scandal -- now admits:

'As even'? Who else? You imply things with every third syllable, just like mr Slant.

The World Meteorological Organisation doesn't agree:

Sweden's temperatures do not agree:

The NOAA doesn't agree:

NASA/GISS do not agree:

RE: Duh...
By jbartabas on 4/8/2010 2:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
'As even'? Who else? You imply things with every third syllable, just like mr Slant.

Don't gratify his spin with an implicit confirmation: Jones "admitted" that "temperatures have failed to increase for 15 years now". This is a gross misrepresentation of what "statistical significance" means. Anybody with some college science education should be able to see the scam here ...

RE: Duh...
By jbartabas on 4/8/2010 2:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
Temperatures have failed to increase for 15 years now, as even Dr Phil Jones -- the scientist at the heart of the ClimateGate Scandal -- now admits:

The only thing that fails here is your attempt to understand basic

RE: Duh...
By jbartabas on 4/8/2010 3:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
The rest of the planet did not have "a very warm winter". England, Russia, China, Korea, Scandinavia, and many other nations had their coldest winters in decades or, in some cases, in all recorded history:

It's really fun to go a few percent of the Earth surface at a time, but why don't you just report the global average anomaly directly (or just the northern hemisphere hemisphere if you really really want to focus on half of the Earth).

RE: Duh...
By JediJeb on 4/7/2010 5:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
One other variable that Venus has that Earth does not have is a tremendous amount of Sulfuric Acid in the atmosphere. This causes the atmospheric density to be very high compared to Earth which causes completely different dynamics of airflow and temperature gradients. It's not even like comparing Apples to Oranges but Apples to Softballs.

RE: Duh...
By 67STANG on 4/7/2010 5:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not disputing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'm simply calling shenanigans that it has any real effect on what we are seeing (this year, a cool down, for example) in weather patterns. Warming and cooling trends existed before the industrial revolution and before people. They'll continue after we're all gone too-- even with no humans here to pollute.

anthropogenic caused warming is good!
By omgwtf8888 on 4/7/2010 12:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
If we are heading for a new ice age, turning up the thermostat may be just what the Doctor ordered. Maybe, all the debate is healthy and maybe the outcome will be determing how humans can adjust the planet's thermostat. If we can raise the temperature, I would sure like to know how... But I would also like to know how to lower it.

By porkpie on 4/7/2010 12:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Despite what environmentalist loons would have you believe, raising or lowering the earth's temperature a few degrees is quite easy. To lower it, for instance, launching a few kilotons of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere would do the trick handily.

Where's that pic...
By bradmshannon on 4/7/2010 8:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
Where's that Master of the Obvious pic that I love so much?

ahhhh, there it is. That's better.

Heidi said
By Wikipedia User on 4/7/2010 11:10:06 AM , Rating: 2
Heidi, THE Heidi with, said that these geo physicists, geologists, oceanologists, metereologists, etc. are just too dull to understand Climate Change and Global Warming dogma/facts. Only climatologists really understand all this complex data.

By spepper on 4/12/2010 8:10:06 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly, this conclusion has been reached by nefarious means-- a recount must be conducted-- including the chad.....

Yet another reason for global warming
By Dr of crap on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Yet another reason for global warming
By 3minence on 4/7/2010 8:56:26 AM , Rating: 4
I'm beginning to think their are no moderates left in the world. So many people say it must be one way or another with no mixing in the middle.

Global warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years. The earth has not suddenly stopped its natural cycle of change and allowed anthropogenic greenhouse gasses to take over it's job. However, that does not mean humans are not effecting the climate. We may be accelerating the process or increasing the peak temperatures experienced.

When ever a natural cause of global warming is identified or talked about, so many point to it and dismiss the possibility of man made global warming. Can't man made factors also be influencing the climate as well as natural ones? Does it really have to be one or the other?

By porkpie on 4/7/2010 9:13:21 AM , Rating: 5
"Can't man made factors also be influencing the climate?"

You don't understand the debate. The values for climate sensitivity (the amount the earth warms from a given amount cf CO2) were calculated by assuming the majority of all warming we've seen since 1850 was due to CO2. In other words, the assumption was that natural forces were minor...and thus CO2 had to be being "amplified" by positive feedback in our climate system.

When you use that artificially high figure to calculate what temperature the earth will be in 100 years, you get scary results. However, as research is showing more and more, those early researchers were wrong to discount the natural factors affecting climate. While CO2 does exert some influence, it is a very small one, and moderated by increasing warmth and water vapor, not amplified by it.

Without that positive feedback assumption, the estimated temperature increase between now and the year 2100 from increased CO2 is nearly too small to measure. Thus, not a problem.

By JediJeb on 4/7/2010 10:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
Does it really have to be one or the other?

It really is both, but how much of each is what is blown out of proportion. There are just too many variables to plug into models to get it all right. Noone really knows if mans effect is warming the earth too much or maybe just maybe helping to stave off the next mini Ice Age. What would people do if they found out that by reducing our influence on the climate we accelerate the coming of the next Ice Age instead of slowing some drastic over heating?

Right now being a alarmist about man's contribution to warming is like looking up into the sky at night and seeing a meteor and proclaiming a star just fell to earth because the only data you have about stars is you see points of light in the sky. There may be tons of data out there for climate scientist to sift through, but really it is still just a drop in the bucket compared to all of the data needed to account for every single influencing factor on our climate. This report shows a link to orbital cycles, another shows a link to solar cycles, others do show links to CO2, or water vapor, or dust, or ocean currents. Then you have to factor in reflectivity of the earth's surface which changes by season due to amount of snow cover and foliage. Heck whether or not the trees have leaves on them at a certain time of year can effect overall temperatures. Nobody knows ever little or large factor that needs to be put into the equations to build the correct model, that is why most of the models are not very accurate beyond a few years.

By rdhood on 4/7/2010 10:50:45 AM , Rating: 5
Does it really have to be one or the other?

It does if there are political factions in the world that insist on taking my wealth from me in the name of "global warming". When the U.N. wants to establish payment from first world countries (i.e. United States) to developing countries (i.e. China and India and Brazil + 100 others) in the name of "global warming", then it HAS to be one or the other. When the Democrats want to enact Cap-and-trade to generate revenues that will increase my cost of energy by 1/3, AND increase my taxes to subsidize "the poor" in order to allow them to pay THEIR increased energy costs, then it has to be one way or the other.

RE: Yet another reason for global warming
By MrBlastman on 4/7/2010 9:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
Finally, some factual evidence that is logical.

Oh, and I'll chip in for some plastic, here's a few more bottles to burn. ;)

RE: Yet another reason for global warming
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 9:18:44 AM , Rating: 4
Of course, the article is exaggerated, and downright wrong in places. This researcher didn't "discover" a link between climate and orbit, she merely made one more study among many linking the two.

In fact, the surprising thing about the study isn't even mentioned in the article. It's that she linked the most minor degree of eccentricity with the largest changes in climate. Meaning that the changes we would expect to be smallest actually had the largest effect. Still more proof that the earth's climate has feedback mechanisms we still don't have even the glimmerings of a clue about.

By MrBlastman on 4/7/2010 9:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well sure, it was all correlated. We have no factual proof, as really, could we? The mechanisms that our world operate by are so complex and numerous that within the soup stir a few things in the swirl that occasionally jump out and catch our eyes as making sense. I've for the longest time considered the Earth's orbit alone solely a large contributor to the warming/cooling cycles of our planet.

After all, where do we get our heat from? Well, okay, the majority of it--our Sun. Since without our sun, our Earth, at least, on its own, would have no other way of generating excess energy to pull itself _out_ of an ice age; yet, over the millions of years it has been around, it has always managed to.

I'll mark this discovery down on the list of--very probable contributor.

RE: Yet another reason for global warming
By NesuD on 4/7/2010 9:37:21 AM , Rating: 4
Still more proof that the earth's climate has feedback mechanisms we still don't have even the glimmerings of a clue about.

Exactly why models are useless. We don't know anywhere near enough about all the factors that control the Earths climactic cycles to even begin to devise reliable models for predicting future climactic changes. Basing conclusions on unreliable and likely inaccurate models is ridiculous and foolhardy.

By clovell on 4/7/2010 5:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but that doesn't mean models are useless. We just have to be honest about their shortcomings and continue to work on improving them.

If it was easy, everybody would do it.

Common sense
By todda7 on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Common sense
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 10:52:38 AM , Rating: 5
"I cannot understand why we are still having this debate."

Probably because the lack of understanding displayed in your post impels others to try valiantly, yet vainly to correct your specious reasoning.

Long before mankind began driving SUVs, the climate was not "quite stable". At times we've had temperatures warm enough to drive the tropics nearly as high as the Arctic circle. At other times, we've had what was known as "snowball earth", when glaciers covered most of the planet.

Now we have a temperature change of a single degree, a change that actually stopped 15 years ago, according to the latest satellite data -- and yet, to the illogical and pseudo-scientific mind, the sky is suddenly falling! We're all going die! It's enough to make one question whether or not we're truly an intelligent species.

RE: Common sense
By todda7 on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Common sense
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 11:14:15 AM , Rating: 3
"In perspective, it has been stable"

No it hasn't. It's been ice cold and boiling hot. It's had regular cycles of ice ages. The ocean has been both hundreds of feet higher and lower. Countless deserts and swamps have formed, reformed, migrated, and vanished.

It's had CO2 levels 20 times higher than we have today, and levels even lower. It was once without any free oxygen of any fact the generation of oxygen by living creatures killed off most of the then-life on the planet, forcing what survived to adapt.

Our climate has never been "stable", in any way, shape, or form.

" The organisms of the earth shaped the climate to what it is today,"

You're forgetting mankind is one of those organisms. And we're not "using up all the resources". Resources such as metals, water, timber, etc can never be exhausted. Even petroleum can be synthesized directly from nothing but water and CO2. And for anyone naive enough to think "half the planet" is covered in concrete, I suggest you take a cross-country plane trip and actually look out the window once in a while. Even if you add in asphalt, less than 0.01% of the earth's surface is so covered.

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

RE: Common sense
By todda7 on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Common sense
By JediJeb on 4/7/2010 12:05:42 PM , Rating: 4
Of course half of the face of the face of the planet is not covered in concrete or asphalt, by all means. But I have yet to see a place not affected by the rise of the modern civilization.

Why is it then when you look at a satellite map of the earth you see mostly green where the land masses are instead of black asphalt or white concrete? I think you are confusing 50% with something more like 0.001% as being covered with concrete and asphalt. Come live where I do and you will see the ratio of concrete and asphalt to grass is about 10,000 grass to 1 concrete/asphalt, and I live in a small town, not out in a complete nowhere.

It is people who look out their window and see a parking lot and assume that the world is covered in man made materials who are the same ones freaking out about a fraction of a degree warming that is probably more caused by natural forces than human forces and yet want humans to disappear from the planet so it will "survive". Unless another planet smashes into earth or the sun explodes, the planet will survive, humans may not but the planet will. Mankind should be focused more on how to adapt and flow with the changes in the planet than trying to make it stop changing because we don't want to lose our happy place in climate history we have become acclimated to.

RE: Common sense
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 12:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
"As you say, there was no/little oxygen. The dawn of life eventually changed that"

The point you miss is that, for those early organisms, oxygen was a deadly poison. They killed themselves with their own pollution.

" You say the CO2 levels were 20 times higher, which is true. This is however a) before the propagation of organisms with efficient photo-synthesis "

Lol, what? Please read about the Carboniferous Period please. It was the richest, most biologically diverse period in earth's history...and plant photosynthesis was no different than it is today.

CO2 drives plant growth, period. In fact, modern commercial greenhouses artificially boost CO2 levels to about 1,200 ppm (over 3X current levels) to help plants grow better.

Had mankind not come along and reversed the process, eventually all life on the planet would have killed itself off, by consuming all the free CO2.

"I have yet to see a place not affected by the rise of the modern civilization."

If you think that's a bad thing, I suggest you try living in the wilderness alone for a few years. Without any clothes, tools, or fancy high-tech camping gear.

Our ability to change the environment for our benefit is what we should be most proud of. Ignorant scientific illiterates think its something to be ashamed of.

RE: Common sense
By sigilscience on 4/7/2010 12:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
omg, how fast can you churn out these posts?

RE: Common sense
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 12:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
Typing 100+ wpm helps ... I'm actually posting to 2 other sites at the moment as well :)

RE: Common sense
By Anoxanmore on 4/7/2010 3:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Porkpie is one of the slowest typists I know ; - ) <3

RE: Common sense
By todda7 on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Common sense
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 1:12:59 PM , Rating: 4
"Let the plants breed 100% oxygen and in 100 billion years, lets see who have the plants which grows best."

Err, we're talking about plant life today, Sparky. The plants we depend on for all life on earth require CO2...and they would thrive if CO2 levels were much higher than are today.

"it seems like oxygen is way more valuable resource than CO2 for the organisms of the planet earth, maybe all life in general."

"Way more"? If you understood biology, you would realize the opposite. CO2 is far more essential than oxygen, even ignoring life such as anaerobes. And even among organisms that require oxygen, free O2 is a dangerous poison, that causes severe organ damage.

"How long do you think we humans can live the way we do today?"

Forever. In fact, there's every reason to believe that, in 100 years, our standard of living (and our per-capita energy and rsource consumption) will be far higher than it is today.

RE: Common sense
By todda7 on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Common sense
By clovell on 4/7/2010 5:44:39 PM , Rating: 3
OP, Calvin Cycle fail.

RE: Common sense
By todda7 on 4/8/2010 9:36:04 AM , Rating: 1
Why would we need photo-synthesis if the atmosphere was 100% oxygen? Given that we got our food from somewhere else.

RE: Common sense
By porkpie on 4/8/2010 10:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
Now you're failing basic thermodynamics. If life doesn't get its energy from the sun, where would it come from? Other than nuclear power, there is no other ultimate source.

RE: Common sense
By clovell on 4/9/2010 5:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
Because I like Tomatoes on my pizza. Seriously, a 100% O2 atmosphere? You just killed all plant life on the planet. Let's see how long we all last.

RE: Common sense
By rtrski on 4/7/2010 11:52:21 AM , Rating: 3
We are using up all the resources and replacing half the face of the earth with concrete .

(emphasis added)

So, using the (admittedly simplistic) estimate that 30% of the Earth's surface is land and 70% is water, you're saying we've concreted all the land and about 28% of the oceanic surface?

You'd think I would notice that playing around with Google Earth.

And people wonder why they're not taken seriously when making baldfaced exaggerative statements like that. (sigh)

RE: Common sense
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 12:18:30 PM , Rating: 4
You know, I'm ashamed to say I do regret one thing about the looking death of the AGW movement. A few years ago, you could actually find someone semi-intelligent to debate global warming with.

Now, the only people who believe in it (or at least aren't ashamed to admit it publicly) are loons like this.

RE: Common sense
By Grabo on 4/8/2010 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
'Death of AGW movement' - movement? Dying?
'Aren't ashamed to admit it publicly' .

There is only one thing I really want to know - is porky another synonym for masher?

Where's the point in arguing with you? Though if you wish, continue our discussion above.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki