Geological statement on warming

[Old Rocks]

Continueing the trend of stronger statements on the dangers of the warming that we are seeing from scientific societies.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/si...nge - evidence from the geological record.pdf

What are the grounds for concern?
The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall2; increased acidity of the oceans 3,4,5,6; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater7,8,9.
There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.

 

[Mr. H.]

Cement production. There's talk of that in another thread as I recall.

 

[waltky]

Can you say Anthropocene?...

Study: Human Imprint Has Thrust Earth Into New Geological Epoch
January 07, 2016 — The indelible imprint left by human beings on Earth has become so clear that it justifies naming a new geological epoch after mankind, experts said Thursday.

The dawn of the "Anthropocene" would signal the end of the Holocene epoch, considered to have begun 11,700 years ago at the end of the Ice Age. The new term, suggested in 2000, is based on the Greek word "Anthropos," meaning "man." "Human activity is leaving a pervasive and persistent signature on Earth," said a report in the journal Science by an international team led by Colin Waters of the British Geological Survey. "We are becoming a geological agent in ourselves," Waters told Reuters.

An area deforested by illegal gold mining is seen at the southern Amazon region of Madre de Dios, Jan. 25, 2014. "Human activity is leaving a pervasive and persistent signature on Earth," said a new report in the journal "Science."​

The start date could be around the mid-20th century, the authors wrote. They said the atomic age, starting with a bomb test in New Mexico in the United States on July 16, 1945; the postwar leap in mining, industry and farming; and use of man-made materials such as concrete or plastics all left geological traces. Concrete, invented by the Romans, was now so ubiquitous that it would amount to one kilogram (2.2 pounds) for every square meter (11 square feet) of the planet's surface if spread out evenly, the authors said.

Start date elusive

Any formal recommendation to adopt the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch would require years of extra research, partly to pin down a start date, Waters said. Some experts reckon the Anthropocene began with Europe's Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. Others would give it a more widespread origin, dating it from the spread of agriculture several thousand years ago. "Any definition will inform the stories that we tell about human development," said professor Simon Lewis of University College London, who was not involved in the study.

He favors 1610 as a start date, marking the spread of colonialism, disease and trade to the Americas from Europe. Erle Ellis of the University of Maryland, a co-author of the study released Thursday, said pinning down the Anthropocene would transform understanding of humanity's role on the planet.

Study: Human Imprint Has Thrust Earth Into New Geological Epoch

 

[Billy_Bob]

As one meme dies a new one is born... (name change)

Same Shit Different Day...

 

[9aces]

Can you say Anthropocene?...

Study: Human Imprint Has Thrust Earth Into New Geological Epoch
January 07, 2016 — The indelible imprint left by human beings on Earth has become so clear that it justifies naming a new geological epoch after mankind, experts said Thursday.

The dawn of the "Anthropocene" would signal the end of the Holocene epoch, considered to have begun 11,700 years ago at the end of the Ice Age. The new term, suggested in 2000, is based on the Greek word "Anthropos," meaning "man." "Human activity is leaving a pervasive and persistent signature on Earth," said a report in the journal Science by an international team led by Colin Waters of the British Geological Survey. "We are becoming a geological agent in ourselves," Waters told Reuters.

An area deforested by illegal gold mining is seen at the southern Amazon region of Madre de Dios, Jan. 25, 2014. "Human activity is leaving a pervasive and persistent signature on Earth," said a new report in the journal "Science."​

The start date could be around the mid-20th century, the authors wrote. They said the atomic age, starting with a bomb test in New Mexico in the United States on July 16, 1945; the postwar leap in mining, industry and farming; and use of man-made materials such as concrete or plastics all left geological traces. Concrete, invented by the Romans, was now so ubiquitous that it would amount to one kilogram (2.2 pounds) for every square meter (11 square feet) of the planet's surface if spread out evenly, the authors said.

Start date elusive

Any formal recommendation to adopt the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch would require years of extra research, partly to pin down a start date, Waters said. Some experts reckon the Anthropocene began with Europe's Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. Others would give it a more widespread origin, dating it from the spread of agriculture several thousand years ago. "Any definition will inform the stories that we tell about human development," said professor Simon Lewis of University College London, who was not involved in the study.

He favors 1610 as a start date, marking the spread of colonialism, disease and trade to the Americas from Europe. Erle Ellis of the University of Maryland, a co-author of the study released Thursday, said pinning down the Anthropocene would transform understanding of humanity's role on the planet.

Study: Human Imprint Has Thrust Earth Into New Geological Epoch

Yeah...that whole atomic age thing probably should have it's own defining point. Of course the "would take years of research" part for the rest of it is a transparent "we need more funding" request.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, time for an update;

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

From the American Geophysical Union.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

Pretty unequivocal statements from the largest scientific societies in the US dealing with Geology.

 

[Billy_Bob]

OK, time for an update;

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

From the American Geophysical Union.

LOL,,,,,

MORE POLITICAL BULL SHIT FROM OLD FRAUD!

And they have zero scientific evidence to back up their assertions..

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor little retarded Silly Billy. The AGU has videos of their fall meeting every year, in which they have presentations from the actual scientists doing the work.



All we have from you is the flap yap and lies from someone that has yet to present anything that indicates he even finished middle school.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Someone inform the Leftard OP that geology has nothing to do with meteorology.

 

[Old Rocks]

Someone inform the Leftard OP that geology has nothing to do with meteorology.

LOL. Typical of a knownothing 'Conservative'. Geologists were among the first people to see the affects of the climate change in the glaciers, ice caps, and permafrost.

 

[9aces]

Someone inform the Leftard OP that geology has nothing to do with meteorology.

Well...actually it does. But it's because volcano eruptions put more into the atmosphere than man ever could.

 

[9aces]

Someone inform the Leftard OP that geology has nothing to do with meteorology.

Well...actually it does. But it's because volcano eruptions put more into the atmosphere than man ever could.

Oh btw, We'll see if Rocks wants to take this on, because none of the others will.

Simple question, yes or no answer.

Should the planet be warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

On the long term, no. We are about 6000 years into the Milankovic Cycle, on the downhill side toward glaciaton.

On the short term, no. The Total Solar Insolation has been declining slightly for about 10 years now. That should be detected in cooler temperatures. Another factor is the amount of aerosols that India and China are putting into the atmosphere. It should be having a cooling effect.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Someone inform the Leftard OP that geology has nothing to do with meteorology.

LOL. Typical of a knownothing 'Conservative'. Geologists were among the first people to see the affects of the climate change in the glaciers, ice caps, and permafrost.

More Leftard bullshit. Geologists have ZERO expertise in determine if warming is good or bad on humanity.

The Great Lakes did not exist just 15,000 years ago. You'd be screaming the creation of these lakes was an environmental disaster if it occurred today.

 

[Weatherman2020]

On the long term, no. We are about 6000 years into the Milankovic Cycle, on the downhill side toward glaciaton.

On the short term, no. The Total Solar Insolation has been declining slightly for about 10 years now. That should be detected in cooler temperatures. Another factor is the amount of aerosols that India and China are putting into the atmosphere. It should be having a cooling effect.

Yet more Leftard bullshit. You can't grow food in ice.

 

[Old Rocks]

Geologist do not state in their papers as to the good or bad of the developments. They simply observe and measure those developments, and try to see what they portend for the future. You might ask some of the road engineers in Alaska how they feel about the permafrost melt.

 

[Old Rocks]

On the long term, no. We are about 6000 years into the Milankovic Cycle, on the downhill side toward glaciaton.

On the short term, no. The Total Solar Insolation has been declining slightly for about 10 years now. That should be detected in cooler temperatures. Another factor is the amount of aerosols that India and China are putting into the atmosphere. It should be having a cooling effect.

Yet more Leftard bullshit. You can't grow food in ice.

Fellow, go converse with Silly Billy, your peer level.

 

[9aces]

On the long term, no. We are about 6000 years into the Milankovic Cycle, on the downhill side toward glaciaton.

On the short term, no. The Total Solar Insolation has been declining slightly for about 10 years now. That should be detected in cooler temperatures. Another factor is the amount of aerosols that India and China are putting into the atmosphere. It should be having a cooling effect.

So it's your assertion we've gone from one ice age, without warming significantly as per previous global climate data to another?

Based off previous temperature swings throughout the planet's history, it looks like we're overdue a significant warming trend.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Geologist do not state in their papers as to the good or bad of the developments. They simply observe and measure those developments, and try to see what they portend for the future. You might ask some of the road engineers in Alaska how they feel about the permafrost melt.

Yet even more Leftard lies. Every post you make is filled with lies.

"There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further,"

A concern is an opinion. It has ZERO to do with geology.

Just more Leftard lies.

Filed with ICE CAPS MELTED WILL MELT BY 2012.