How The Discovery Of Geologic Time Changed Our View Of The World

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Jan 8, 2007
30,528
2,263
1,045
Science Daily — In 1911 the discovery that the world was billions of years old changed our view of the world for ever.

Imagine trying to understand history without any dates. You know, for example, that the First World War came before the Second World War, but how long before? Was it tens, hundreds or even thousands of years before? In certain situations, before radiometric dating, there was no way of knowing.

By the end of the 19th century, many geologists still believed the age of the Earth to be a few thousand years old, as indicated by the Bible, while others considered it to be around 100 million years old, in line with calculations made by Lord Kelvin, the most prestigious physicist of his day.

Dr Cherry Lewis, University of Bristol, UK, said: "The age of the Earth was hugely important for people like Darwin who needed enormous amounts of time in which evolution could occur. As Thomas Huxley, Darwin's chief advocate said: 'Biology takes its time from Geology'."

In 1898 Marie Curie discovered the phenomenon of radioactivity and by 1904 Ernest Rutherford, a physicist working in Britain, realised that the process of radioactive decay could be harnessed to date rocks.

It was against this background of dramatic and exciting scientific discoveries that a young Arthur Holmes (1890-1964) completed his schooling and won a scholarship to study physics at the Royal College of Science in London. There he developed the technique of dating rocks using the uranium-lead method and from the age of his oldest rock discovered that the Earth was at least 1.6 billion years old (1,600 million).

But geologists were not as happy with the new results as, perhaps, they should have been. As Holmes, writing in Nature in 1913, put it: "the geologist who ten years ago was embarrassed by the shortness of time allowed to him for the evolution of the Earth's crust, is still more embarrassed with the superabundance with which he is now confronted". It continued to be hotly debated for decades.

Cherry Lewis commented, "In the 1920s, as the age of the Earth crept up towards 3 billion years, this took it beyond the age of the Universe, then calculated to be only 1.8 billion years old. It was not until the 1950s that the age of the Universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years. Physicists suddenly gained a new respect for geologists!"

In the 1920s the new theory of continental drift became the great scientific conundrum, and most geologists were unable to accept the concept due to the lack of a mechanism for driving the continents around the globe.

In 1928 Arthur Holmes showed how convection currents in the substratum (now called the mantle) underlying the continents could be this mechanism. This proved to be correct but it was another 40 years before his theories were accepted and the theory of plate tectonics became a reality.

The theory of plate tectonics has proved to be as important as the theory of evolution and the discovery of the structure of the atom, but without the discovery of how to quantify geologic time, confirmation of plate tectonics would not have been possible.

Today, few discussions in geology can occur without reference to geologic time and plate tectonics. They are both integral to our way of thinking about the world. Holmes died in 1964 having lived just long enough to see sea floor spreading confirm his ideas of continental drift.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070913081021.htm
 
Indeed
image


map_plate_tectonics_world.gif
 
Whoa, look at the Cascades...and there I was wandering around there completely oblivious of the danger, just checking out the scenery and the little towns there...I coulda been blown to smithereens :D
 
And still there are people trying to teach that the world is less than 6,000 years old. :eusa_silenced:

Just like there are people teaching that in 100 years we will al be dieing of heat stroke. Unfortunately for us more people believe that fable. Few people actually belief the earth is 6000 years old ( only). Those that do are easily dismissed.

Those that think man is causing a massive heat raise, they are the ones we should be worried about. The Science doesn't support their "religion" so they are busy making up a heat rise that they can not prove or even guess to be right. In fact some would tell you the heat raise of a quick sort ( 1/3 of a degree) ended in 1998. Further they would point to the fact that now a days any claim to rising heat is actually all guess work factored in over no existant real temperature rises with estimates we are not allowed to even know how they were derived.
 
Some fable. Where I am we're coming to grips with the fact that the drought we have had for a few years is now permanent and that the water restrictions we have to put up with are permanent also. And our farmers in some of the cereal-producing areas here have lost much of their crop due to unseasonal early warm weather. Again they've been told to get used to it.

Climate change is no fable. It's real, it's here now and we'd better do something about dealing with it.
 
Some fable. Where I am we're coming to grips with the fact that the drought we have had for a few years is now permanent and that the water restrictions we have to put up with are permanent also. And our farmers in some of the cereal-producing areas here have lost much of their crop due to unseasonal early warm weather. Again they've been told to get used to it.

Climate change is no fable. It's real, it's here now and we'd better do something about dealing with it.

Sure thing, cause man is so good at changing Mother Nature. We are in a warming trend, but there is little evidence it is caused by man nor that man can do anything about it. Once again, the rising in temperature has been no greater than expected. only 1 degree in 100 years. The only concern was that 1/3 of that occurred in a burst of about 15 to 20 years.

Once again no evidence exists that man caused it, nor that in 100 years there will be a drastic rise in temperatures. In fact it appears the rapid rise has stopped, with no significant rise since 1998.

Get used to it, it is nature at work.
 
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html



While I agree that there are cycles that man has nothing to do with I will also remind you man'sbehaviour does have in impact on their surroundings...


my rides through chernobyl area
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/



plus, All I was going for anyway was to see someone admit:

Few people actually belief the earth is 6000 years old ( only). Those that do are easily dismissed.
 
It may be by chance, but everyone knows that the tiny geological blink of an eye known as the "industrial revolution" has aligned itself with the rise in long term compartitive temperature. Its one thing to say that our technology can not prove that anthropogenic global warming does exist, but it is another to say that there is no evidence or even a reason to believe that man could have an effect on the climate. That would be incorrect in two ways.

number one, to say there is no evidence is false. Look at simple temperature trends over the past 200 years and mark down where the industrial revolution begins. It is not hard evidence but it is at least observable data.

Number two, if technology is not advanced enough to measure the ionosphere accurately, then nobody can claim an argument for or against man made climate change beyond the observation of statistically inconclusive temperature data.
 
The dismissive attitude of the naysayers, which arises from a simple ideology rather than any rational thought, is annoying. I mean it's not as if we're discussing something trivial here. This is nothing less than the future we're on about. The evidence is right there but still the deniers are mouthing the slogans they've learned from their oracles.

Yet many of these same deniers are quick to round on us atheists with the, "just you wait until you face God" argument, the one that says we'll be mightly disappointed to end up in Hell because we didn't/wouldn't/couldn't believe. That got me thinking, why don't the climate change maysayers subscribe to a sort of Pascal's Wager?

If we ignore the scientific evidence of global climate change we could destroy the planet for our descendants.

If we do something about it we can ensure the planet is healthy for our descendants.

If doing something about it require some small sacrifices now then we should be prepared to make those sacrifices.

On balance we should do something about it because I we do nothing we're probably going to screw it up.
 
The dismissive attitude of the naysayers, which arises from a simple ideology rather than any rational thought, is annoying. I mean it's not as if we're discussing something trivial here. This is nothing less than the future we're on about. The evidence is right there but still the deniers are mouthing the slogans they've learned from their oracles.

Yet many of these same deniers are quick to round on us atheists with the, "just you wait until you face God" argument, the one that says we'll be mightly disappointed to end up in Hell because we didn't/wouldn't/couldn't believe. That got me thinking, why don't the climate change maysayers subscribe to a sort of Pascal's Wager?

If we ignore the scientific evidence of global climate change we could destroy the planet for our descendants.

If we do something about it we can ensure the planet is healthy for our descendants.

If doing something about it require some small sacrifices now then we should be prepared to make those sacrifices.

On balance we should do something about it because I we do nothing we're probably going to screw it up.

What a crock of shit. WE ARE doing something about it and have been since the 1960's. Claiming other wise is a lie. Claiming a one degree change in temperature over 100 years will result in a 5 degree change over the next hundred is patently moronic,. It is without scientific fact or evidence.

Further the short term rapid rise of 1/3 of a degree is neither abnormal nor proof of any "man made" event. Also the fact that the rapid rise is reported to have stopped in 1998 is rather telling, both in its fact and the reality that science is not reporting it as Pavlovicly as the claim we are all doomed and must take drastic ( not simple, not small and not sane)action to save ourselves from something we do not even know is happening.

Once again current claimed temperature rises are in fact not factual, they all include massive jury rigging by unannounced unreviewable "adjustments". The supposed claim that man is causing a rapid rise in heat is not provable and even the best guess at what might be causing the latest 1/3 of a degree raise in world wide temperature is not supported by the facts.

The only thing we KNOW is that over 100 years a one degree shift occurred and that 1/3 of a degree of that happened in about a 20 year period. Those are the only provable facts. Further the effort to obscure and under report the fact that the rapid rise may have stopped is telling in and of itself.
 
My vote is going to the party that will do something about climate change. I've thought about it and I'm convinced that the best thing to do is confront it rather than shoot the messenger. I'm also convinced that doing nothing is not the best way to handle it. I'll be looking for constructive, innovative ways of dealing with climate change. I don't think it's too late but it bloody well will be if the naysayers have their way.
 
My vote is going to the party that will do something about climate change. I've thought about it and I'm convinced that the best thing to do is confront it rather than shoot the messenger. I'm also convinced that doing nothing is not the best way to handle it. I'll be looking for constructive, innovative ways of dealing with climate change. I don't think it's too late but it bloody well will be if the naysayers have their way.


I agree, though it is often believed that there is not enough oil on earth to sustain this heat trend. You, have the right idea and the right state of mind. If we keep waiting until something happens before action is taken like always, one of these days it will be too late. As a species we do not take action first, we are based on re-action to whatever event causes that notion.

The reason I like your thinking is because people like retired seargent love to think about the present and how things will effect them now. Many people are like this and its highly destructive for future generations. He said "to say a 1 degree change in 100 years will be a 5 degree change in 100 years is crazy". Sure, but that is not what we are concerned about. It is completely accurate to suspect that rather than 5 degrees in 100 years, the current 1 degree every 100 years will sustain. What does that mean? Nothing for us right now, but for future generations (something he does not think about) it will be a big problem.

People need to wake up and stop thinking about right now, the real problem with climate change will surface in 1000-50,000 years from now. To say you dont care what happens that far ahead is foolish and ignorant.
 
Let us agree, for the sake of argument, that human burning of fossil fuels is contributing significantly to climate change, and that this climate change is a bad thing.

Is there anything we can do about it?

One idea might be: stop burning oil.

This will not happen. Oil and its derivatives are just too cheap and usable a form of energy, and there is no substitute which is even near their price and convenience on the horizon.

The only way that it could happen would be through an enforceable world-wide agreement to stop pumping oil, which would destroy the economies of several major states, and would plunge the Third World back into the depths of poverty from which they are now emerging. So don't hold your breath.

But perhaps even without such a world-wide universal agreement, if the United States and Europe stopped burning oil, that would help?

No, it would not: think of it this way: there is a certain amount of oil in the ground. It will get pumped out and refined and sold to someone. If not to you, then to your Chinese or Indian or Russian counterpart. Your not buying oil will just lower the price to others. That oil will get burned.
 
This is a bit like problem-solving. We need to get to the root causes and think about them.

Why burn oil? So that stuff works.

Is there a way to make the stuff work without burning oil?

Probably, so we should look for other ways of making stuff work.
 
There is no factual scientific evidence that burning oil IS causing major changes to the climate world wide. There are some localized events but nothing global is proven.

So no I won't concede that point.

Further we DO have a viable alternative energy source, proven safe and efficient and effective. It is called Nuclear energy. Granted it can not help with cars, busses , trains and such but it can end a lot of coal and oil burning power plants existance.

Nuclear would be cheap also if we hadn't allowed the kooks and crazies to create a system that requires so much time and money to be wasted that nuclear energy isn't created anymore in the US. Well except by the military.
 
I was thinking of looking at the issue rather than immediately jumping to defend a position. If we're going to deal with the problems we face we're going to have to do some clear-minded thinking - and that goes for ALL sides. Sometimes ideology is irrelevant.
 

Forum List

Back
Top