Cretaceous sea levels

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Apr 5, 2020.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    None of that is intended.
    Sooner or later, this ice-age will end
    when it does, the climate of the Cretaceous may serve as a benchmark.
    ......................
    personally
    I find the phrase "man-made climate change" indicative of a radical(though seemingly not exceptional) amount of hubris.
    (which, of course, does not mean that I do not think it possible in some small way)
    Canute, anyone?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,630
    Aha, so that's how you intend to do it. Recategorise the present as an "ice age", compared to, say, the Cretaceous, and thereby make it sound abnormal, the unspoken implication being that any warming will simply be a natural reversion, with the further implication that it is firstly nothing to worry about and secondly unavoidable in any case.

    I'll have to look out for this one. Thanks for tipping me off.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There's a huge, gaping flaw in this line of argument, as anyone with an interest in subject can see, but that won't stop idiots in the USA from trying to use it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,430
    Nope, that's still not above a primary school grade question based on your reasoning. Would you be willing to read something that might change your mind or are you stuck in that mode?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,900
    You may want to look at this...if you can't trust this guy who can you trust

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Alex
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,336
    So you find the research and theory and centuries of evidence behind the basic observations and findings
    (that radically boosting the CO2 concentration of the global atmosphere will change the global climate, that humans have been radically boosting the CO2 concentration of the global atmosphere)
    indicative of hubris.

    Science itself, or at least this field (climate and weather research) manifests hubris.

    You have lots of company. Many people throughout history have regarded scientific research and its findings to be indicative of man's pride - especially when the research turns up things like the Cretaceous, a discovery that featured prideful and arrogant scientists declaring their ideas superior to God's word as found in the Bible, a discovery that featured prideful and arrogant scientists claiming to be able to describe the climate and landscapes and living beings millions of years ago.

    That was also one of the objections to the researchers's finding that people's behavior had often changed the weather over large regions - deforestation leading to drought, plowing up huge tracts of prairie leading to Dust Bowls, overgrazing leading to desertification, that kind of thing.

    Avoiding hubris is clearly difficult for people who make certain kinds of discoveries. How would you suggest that the scientists who discovered the human origin and likely effects of the recent CO2 concentration boost report their findings, so as not to appear afflicted with hubris?
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    I trust my dog.

    Perhaps, the 400kyr cycle will make of this interglacial a superinterglacial much like mis 11.
    Perhaps more research will refine the likelihoods?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,630
    Are we now in an interglacial, then? Five posts ago we were in an ice age.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago(much longer- up to 40 million yrs- if you consider the start of antarctic glaciation to have been the beginning of this one) and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11-14,000 years ago.

    disambiguation:
    Glacials and interglacials exist within an ice age.
    The cretaceous, which this thread was intended to be about, was not within an ice age.
    ......................................
    ice seems to have come close to
    Tectonics is thought to be the main driving force of long-term (>50 million years) sea level change. Plate tectonics changes the shape and/or the areal extent of the ocean basins. The volume of water on this planet is assumed to have been relatively unchanged for 4 billion years, while the shape pf the ocean basins isn't. There is also some speculation that the ocean basins will continue to get deeper, somewhat negating the likelihood of significant sea level rise to approximate what it was during the cretaceous.
    (and just how much that was remains in doubt)
    all is a guess.
     
    Michael 345 and exchemist like this.
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,630
    Aha, thanks, something I did not know.
     
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,057
    Good point! Tens of millions of years in the future when the ice age ends, guys will be sitting around around the pub and raise a mug of ale to this thread say, "I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn't have that Cretaceous benchmark"!!
     
    exchemist likes this.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,336
    No such geological deepening will have any effect on the sea level rise from AGW. No such "negation" is possible - AGW is far too rapid.
    The AGW researchers have always been very familiar with that large scale history.
    That is one source of their hubris and alarmism, in discovering that anthro CO2 was changing the climate rapidly and dramatically - or as dramatic as anything in the way of climate change short of a meteor strike can be.

    If you look back through this forum, you will find that in addition to bollixing the spacial scales (comparing the local weather around Greenland with the global climate, as equivalent) sculptor has been confusing the temporal scales of geological epochs with the threat of AGW as a matter of routine - 300 year events, 3 thousand year events, 30k year events, 300k, 3 million, are all jumbled together and compared side by side for their outcomes in his posts. (The million year scale searise and shorelines of the Cretaceous have fuck-all to to with the hundred year scale sea rise and shoreline effects of AGW).

    For a less camouflaged example: Schmelzer does this as well, a bit less decorated with claims of scientific concern or curiosity. The earth would be better off warmer (Sculptor: wouldn't it be nice ot have forests in Antarctica again?) ; Climate is always changing, this is more of the same; We adjusted before, we will again, no problem.

    These guys are all drawing from the same propaganda well - a collection of think tanks, bribed University professors, media feed composers, lobbying setups, etc - an organized attempt to prevent any government response to the CO2 boost, based in the US and currently centered around the Republican Party, funded by people with very large amounts of money on the line.

    The net effect, as was the obvious intention of the early fossil fuel funded websites where this schtick originated, is to 1) minimize and downplay the threat of AGW 2) slander and personally denigrate the researchers involved, labeling them "alarmists" and assigning them "hubris" and so forth 3) create a barrier between scientific research in general and public discussions or common information. This barrier is to be political, and controlled by the political representatives of that faction. (W, for example, appointed overtly political officers to mediate and control the release of information from government scientific agencies. He did not hide that - he stated in public that the information coming from government agencies should align politically with his administration's policies. That was an early example of the post-Cold War US borrowing Russian tactics it had formerly despised).

    Or, consider how sculptor would answer the question posed above, if he ever bothered to engage in such matters: How should the AGW researchers announce their findings - which are all about the effects of the anthro CO2 boost - without incurring the charge of "hubris" or "alarmist"?
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2020
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    or
    how many evolutionary jumps would you expect in 10 million years?
    from heidelbergensis
    to neanderthalensis
    to sapiens sapiens in under a million years
    3 evolutionary jumps?
    so 30 such jumps in 10 million years?
    imagine the changes?
    will wise man be any wiser?

    All we have is now and the past that we can read from the earth
    from that, all is extrapolation
    ........................
    as for when this ice age will end?
    counting antarctic glaciation, we are about 34 million years into this one
    The andean-saharan ice age lasted about 30 million years
    the sturt ice age lasted about 35 million years
    the marino ice age lasted a mere 15 million years
    while the karoo lasted almost 100 million years.
    ...
    we do not know why we go into an ice age, nor why we come out of one
    we do not know how long this one will last
    we do not know the signs that could tell us when to expect a change from icehouse to greenhouse climates.
    all is speculation

    shall we speculate?
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,336
    We also have physics, chemistry, ecology, climatology, paleontology, and so forth.
    These are deductive and analytical sciences, as well as "extrapolative".
    We know one of them: a significant increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.
    We know a second: significant reduction of long term high latitude and high altitude ice cover.
    We know a third: large scale (globally widespread) increases in the ocean water temperature at depths below direct atmosphere coupling.

    We learned such things in part by comparing the Cretaceous era and other warm intervals - its climate and circumstances - with our own and other ice age eras; a comparison that has been common and standard and engaged in for several decades now, yet another routine practice of AGW research that sculptor presents as some kind of neglected or new idea (joining the analysis of the wild climate swings around Greenland and the north Atlantic ocean at the end of the last glaciation, the effects of clouds and such, and a couple of others)

    And of course we know lots more that bears on whether we are not "expecting" such a change but experiencing it - such as some of the physics behind the trends we are currently measuring and recording as physical facts.
    The difference between informed prediction based on reason and evidence, constantly checked against new evidence and new reasoning, estimated for probability of accuracy, and corrected for the errors which are continually searched for and recorded openly,

    and the kind of speculation that starts by confusing geological epochs with century scaled phenomena, or local weather events with global climatic trends,

    is profound. It's the difference between doing science and reading tea leaves.

    Or, in this case: reporting discoveries and findings for consideration of their implications, and spamming discussion forums with media feeds from marketing pros paid by wealthy men to be lying scum.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2020
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,630
    Thanks for this informative tour d'horizon of the US AGW scene.

    I had picked up on the deliberate confusing of timescales - that was what I was alluding to in post 22. Sculptor has done this before. From what you say, it's a standard element of the AGW playbook.

    It may be worth my starting to compile a mental list of the rhetorical tricks they use, much as I have done over the years with creationists. I've never really got much into exposing AGW people, probably because my grasp of climate science is not as detailed as it might be. Sculptor has been talking about the Cretaceous for a while now, on several threads.

    But at least one thing is clear: he was lying through his teeth in post 21.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    hahahahahaha
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,630
    Don't you mean "bwahahahaha"?
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    is that an english thing?
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,057
    Nope, it's an American thing too.
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    Aha, thanks, something I did not know.
     
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,057
    Seriously? Bwahahahaha

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page