Badmovies.org Forum

Humans Force Earth into New Geologic Epoch
Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor LiveScience.com 

Humans have altered Earth so much that scientists say a new epoch in the planet's geologic history has begun.  Say goodbye to the 10,000-year-old Holocene Epoch and hello to the Anthropocene.

Among the major changes heralding this two-century-old man-made epoch:

Vastly altered sediment erosion and deposition patterns.
Major disturbances to the carbon cycle and global temperature.
Wholesale changes in biology, from altered flowering times to new migration patterns.
Acidification of the ocean, which threatens tiny marine life that forms the bottom of the food chain.

The idea, first suggested in 2000 by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen, has gained steam with two new scientific papers that call for official recognition of the shift...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080127/sc_livescience/humansforceearthintonewgeologicepoch (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080127/sc_livescience/humansforceearthintonewgeologicepoch)

This weekend I was working on a roof, it was 8F degrees and the wind was blowing at about 30 MPH and gust of 50 MPH with a little freezing mist that felt like glass shards. So right now I'm a big fan of global warming.

"EXPERTS" have been saying the sky is falling for nearly all of recorded history, it's acid rain, it's the little ice age, it's the hole in the ozone, it global warming, polar shift, asteroids, you name it, it's always something. While this article wasn't specifically about Gore,Al Warming it still falls into that doomsday, we're going to hell in a hand-basket fear mongering these expert spew in order to secure research funding. You can't get grants if everything is ok and there is nothing to study.

Here is my question that no one ever answers, if Global Warming is a new man made ill of the planet ... then what the hell happened to the Bering land bridge that connected modern day USA and Russia? It's now 100's of feet under water, what made the ice melt to raise sea levels that much ... regular global cycles or primitive SUV's?

BTW Mount Pinatubo's eruption (1991) released more green house gases into the atmosphere in one day than has man in all of his walking up right history, and Pinatubo wasn't the biggest eruption in the 20th century, that would be Katmai-Novarupta in 1912 both many, many times smaller than Krakatau in 1883 ... just food for thought.

The article does not discuss "global warming. "

I don't really understand politicizing a scientific discussion, but then again conservatives have been turning "scientific" discussions into "religious" discussions for centuries. 

The "Bering land bridge" wasn't "land" it was ice.  I've never heard any "scientific" discussion that disavows the natural cycles of Earth's climate.  Of course, who knows if any such ice bridge ever existed or if the Native Americans' ancestors really did come from Asia?  It's science, right? 

You make an interesting point. 

It mentions major disturbances global temperatures and has a link to "Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming" ergo it brings global warming into the discussion.
 
Because it's rare that scientific discussion is actually based in science.

The question remains, what caused the earth to warm 10,000 year ago? Who was to blame? And if not blame is to be had, then why is todays warming (if there really is any) to blame on humans?

Was there ever any doubt?

 

Of course, I just can't help point it out.
 
Well said, but it takes us back to "the science."  Some adhere and some dispute.  Some remain undecided, others unconvinced.  I'm sharing newsstories here, not proselytizing. 

That wasn't the question.  The question was: "...what the hell happened to the Bering land bridge that connected modern day USA and Russia?"  To which I responded: "...ice."  Obviously we are not in an ice age, and if one were to adhere to commonly believed science, there were several "ice ages" and the last was an ice age that ended 10 thousand years ago. 

With all egos, absolutely. 

It also has a link to '10 best ways to destroy the planet' one of which is achieved by using a lightbulb.  I really don't think that that should count at all as a counter argument!  :wink:

Well maybe just a little...

Anyways, Epoch seems to be my buzz word for the day...

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bug.png)

Sure it has nothing to do with the discussion, but hey I'm here to help...   :teddyr:



ON TOPIC, I don't see how there can be any doubt that mankind is affecting global environments on a small scale: That mountain in the way of my new road, no problem, boom, there goes mountain [or more likely, bore a hole through it]  Heavy excavation of soil and massive removal of forest lands is going to affect how that local area's environment works.  The debate for me is more about how this affects the bigger picture, and that's where I get a bit less convinced. 

There is a scientific basis for this particular discussion, in that by studying soil samples and sediment levels, you can thereby guess environmental trends, but like most science things do seem to stay up in the air in terms of certainty. 

So yeah, we may be getting to the stage where we are entering a new 'age' but I don't think we be there yet.

I've heard the latest hot suggestion is a route similar to the one Eric the Red might have taken a considerable time span later: somehow from the European continent along the southern coast of Greenland to North America, probably via an ice shelf at the coasts.

A couple of words about global warming: For the whole system earth it is rather unimportant, if the next warm period comes a couple of (tens) of thousands years earlier or later. We, as humankind, might think different about this, as we, like every being on this planet, have to “run fast in order to hold the position”. Meaning we are very likely to cope with all changes in the predictable future, (like raising sea levels, desertification in some parts of the world, ill-adapted crops for changing environments, etc.), but we have to be aware that this costs a lot of effort and we need to recognize the changes early.

The main problem might be the awkward idea established a long time ago, that nature “is in balance”. Hardly everything really is. On a small scale, one might better consider natural systems to be in some kind of erratic oscillation mode. And they better be, because that is exactly what makes them resistant to external changes (new hip word: resilience). So if we imagine a system as a sort of swinging rubber surface and we throw a big ball of CO2 caused by natural volcanic activity onto it (to stay with the former example), the surface will stretch in one direction and will possibly not snap, but the oscillation, and thus stability, will be considerably less. I think that a poor conclusion is: Hey, it took the big one, so why not throw our own stuff in there too!

True, the system is likely to be fed up by natural means sometime, but it should be in our own interest to keep that point as far in the future as possible, as we have more important things to deal with… for example completing my Ed Wood collection sometime.

I hope that was not too confusing….

I have no problem with the thesis that human activity is dramatically affecting the environment, but announcing we are entering a new geologic epoch after 200 years of data seems a bit like pronouncing a movie a masterpiece after the opening credits are done rolling.  It sounds more like rhetoric than science.  And the use of rhetoric by scientists is an invitation to the public to discount their findings for bias.

Preach it Rev.! My point exactly.

The earth was here loong before we were...and irt will STILL be here long after we are dead and gone. I think we,as humans, place too much importance on our place in the universe.

Tonight NBC Nightly News had a story about droughts out west, blamed on shrinking snowpack, use of water, etc.  Global warming was once again cited.  Damned topic just won't go away. 

Sounds good, but I don't think it makes sense.  Bias?  That sounds diversionary.  Y'know, kill the messenger. 

If you believe in anything Science has had to offer, hell, they didn't even have appendectomies two hundred years ago... now, having myself undergone the procedure, let me assure you that it worked.  Through the scientific method, we (human beings, y'know, scientists and the rest of us) learn new things all the time.  Currently, scientists are leaning towards categorizing our current age as a new epoch... who do you think labeled the last 4 billion years into epochs? 

The concern with significant weather change is not about preserving the rock we're clinging to; it's about preserving our biosphere.  So, if a misanthrope, should we also neglect all of the other living things on the planet that will be "dead" along with us?  Misanthropy is not an excuse for disinterest. 

Don't misunderstand me (not sure that you did, but for the sake of clarity...)

I'm not commenting on the underlying facts relied upon by the researchers, which I have no reason to doubt, but only on a strategy I presume they are using to present those facts---one that I think is counterproductive to their cause.

I think the scenario goes like this: scientist does research.  Scientist discovers facts which have far-reaching policy implications.  Scientist fears that decision makers won't properly interpret facts.  Therefore, instead of simply releasing the facts, Scientist also supplies a "helpful interpretation" he thinks will better affect public perception.

In my mind the strategy backfires, because the public is quick to impute improper bias to Scientist when they catch any sniff of rhetoric buried inside the facts.  The public expects Scientist to be dispassionate; if he's perceived as having a political agenda, many will disregard his conclusions, whether they're sound or not.

In the article, the authors themselves describe the epochal characterization as "a vivid yet informal metaphor of global environmental change."   To me, the metaphor seems clearly designed to raise alarm---our dirty coal plants and SUV's have affected the planet so much we've forced it into a new damn EPOCH, fer Chrissakes. 

Geologists only pronounce epochs after they've examined huge amounts of data.  The Holocene epoch lasted for 10,000 years.  Mankind could change it's behavior within a few generations, making the new Anthropocene epoch last only for 300 years---more of a geologic blip than an epoch.  The scientist quoted at the end of the article says it better: "A geologist from the far distant future almost surely would draw a new line, and begin using a new name, where and when our impacts show up."

For the record, as a scientific layman, I believe: 1. global environmental change is happening, 2. human activity is almost certainly the cause, 3. the worst case scenarios almost certainly won't come to pass, 4. we can, and should, devote our energies to developing cleaner energy sources to combat the problem. 

Global climate change has been going on since there was a globe and climate, I think that human activity has certainly influenced this change, sped it up and it may have unpleasant consequences for us. The optimist in me likes to think that in the next 50 to 200 years we will work together to find solutions to all these global problems and a new age of peace and prosperity will come to pass. The pessimist in me believes that humans as the dominant species of life on Earth will be extinct in 1000 years or so. What I think will actually happen in the next 1000 years is somewhere between these 2 extremes. The problem that I see with Global warming and other controversial scientific theories is not the science itself, it's the way it's presented to the rest of us. A scientist, or group of scientists spends years doing research, collecting data, formulates a theory, and publishes. (I realize that a lot of these guys and gals may spin the facts to get a grant or two) All this work is then reduced to a series of 30 second news spots. A scientist puts forward the theory that the average global temperature is rising, that his data suggests that human activity may be main reason for this, that if it continues there may be adverse changes in the global climate. The news media steps in, due to the need to sell papers or get ratings years of work is reduced to this, "Scientists today said that the temperature of the world is rising and that if this trend continues the ice caps will melt causing coastal flooding, drought, wide spread famine, and the possible end of civilization, film at 11:00.
At 11:00 they tell of a scientist who said that melting ice caps will change ocean currents and cause a new ice age.  In the next 6 months we get a major Hollywood movie and at least 6 on Sci-Fi channel dealing with this topic in a superficial and silly fashion. (and the Sci-Fi channel movies will just be awful) This is why I believe that a thoughtful, reasonable approach and solution to these problems is difficult, unless you have the time and the inclination all you will see is sensationalism and hysteria.
 

Totally agree, Dennis.  The tone of the global warming debate is deplorable.  It's a scientific question that's been turned into a political question, and both sides release misleading, out-of-context information to make their political points.  I think both sides generally look bad in the media.  Doing your own research to figure out what's actually going on is too much for most people, so Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh get to set the terms of the debate.  The truth is somewhere in between, where it usually is.

The concern with significant weather change is not about preserving the rock we're clinging to; it's about preserving our biosphere.  So, if a misanthrope, should we also neglect all of the other living things on the planet that will be "dead" along with us?  Misanthropy is not an excuse for disinterest. 
[/quote]

No,it's not a good excuse...but it's the only one I have. It's just my way of accepting a seemingly hopeless situation,from a personal standpoint, on a problem that I can't solve. I have a tendency (not an admirable one,I'll admit) of saying either 'The hell with it.","I don't care." or some lame quasi -philisophical mumbo jumbo to deal with things I can't correct or don't understand.

For Global Climate Change count me in as one of the people who is skeptical that the sky is falling because of human activty. Nobody denies the need for sensible environmental policy, but the tone is often too alarmist and is just meant to frighten people and to squelch opposition. The Earth has changed, is changing and will change regardless of human activity. The simple fact that there were ice ages points to this fact. North Africa used to be a paradise, but the deserts expanded. All this long before humans were remotely near large scale industrialization.

Pollution is one thing, I am concerned oceans and estuaries and all that. People fearmongering over the climate just tick me off. It is doing more damage to sensible ecological / economic policy because it is creating a political backlash. It muddies the water. Attention that should be placed on specific points gets lost in the huff that the planet is going to explode because I don't want to buy compact florescant light bulbs.

Mt. Pinatubo is a good point, but more than that The Sun itself is the final arbiter of weather conditions on Earth and it has cycles unto itself. There is a strong possibility that the Sun is about to enter a certain period of very low activity (I forget the name, but it happens every few centuries). If it is actually happening then the Earth will see lowering of temperatures for a period of time.

Here's the article I found detailing the Dalton Minimum:

Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change

spaceandscience.net | Jan 13, 2008

Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”

When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”

Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”