Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
#18,001
#18,001
VOLINVONORE said:
Go to one of the old caves with prehistoric paintings and read 59 degrees F. Today it read 69 degrees F. It would be interesting to see how far back tempertures have been recorded and how it was determined when they first started keeping records.
Click to expand...
It's been something like 170 years since temperatures were first recorded and kept but that's just a small amount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarMachine
#18,002
#18,002
Rishvol said:
Scientist drill through ice and glaciers that have been around for that long and look at the elements that are found in then. Depending on how deep they drill depends on how long ago the ice was formed. Of course I don't know how they can say that temperature was the temperature of the entire globe. Someone else will have to answer that.
Click to expand...
Yes, my point. Even if you could take a reliable temperature of one point on the earth every year for 10,000 years, you can't call it the global temperature. It's like making a copy of a copy of a copy ... of a copy, and calling the result identical to the original. It's unreliable. Don't tell me there's no faith in science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and Rishvol
#18,003
#18,003
WarMachine said:



Someone tell me how it is possible for anyone in the world to know what the global temperatures were for the last 2000 years. This is science???
Click to expand...


I have no idea either, maybe soil samples? I do know this, glaciers are about gone, that's all I need to know.
 
#18,005
#18,005
WarMachine said:
Yes, my point. Even if you could take a reliable temperature of one point on the earth every year for 10,000 years, you can't call it the global temperature. It's like making a copy of a copy of a copy ... of a copy, and calling the result identical to the original. It's unreliable. Don't tell me there's no faith in science.
Click to expand...
I have they same questions. If it has anything to do with non-observation in science then yes there is a lot of faith. They call it educational guesses
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and WarMachine
#18,007
#18,007
Rishvol said:
I have they same questions. If it has anything to do with non-observation in science then yes there is a lot of faith. They call it educational guesses
Click to expand...

There's more but here's a start.


The most important of these animals, foraminifera (or forams for short), make their tiny shells from a form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). This carbonate is found in many common geological features, such as the White Cliffs of Dover, which were once at the bottom of the sea.

What makes calcium carbonate important? The carbonate, originally dissolved in the oceans, contains oxygen, whose atoms exist in two naturally-occurring stable isotopes, 18O and 16O. The ratio of these two isotopes tells us about past temperatures. When the carbonate solidifies to form a shell, the isotopic ratio in the oxygen (written as δ18O) varies slightly depending on the temperature of the surrounding water. The change is only a tiny 0.2 parts per million decrease for each degree of temperature increase. Nevertheless, this is sufficient for us to be able to estimate the temperature of the water in which the forams lived millions of years ago. From this, we can see that temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were about 10-15°C warmer at the time of the dinosaurs than they are today!

There is a complication, however. The δ18O value in the shells depends critically on what the δ18O value was in the surrounding sea water (H2O), and that can be as variable as the temperature! This variability arises because when water evaporates, the lighter molecules of water (those with 16O atoms as compared to those with 18O) tend to evaporate first. Therefore, water vapor is more depleted (fewer H218O molecules) than the ocean from which it evaporates. Thus, the ocean has more 18O in places where lots of water evaporates (like the sub-tropics) and less where it rains a lot (like the mid-latitudes).

Similarly, when water vapor condenses (to make rain for instance), the heavier molecules (H218O) tend to condense and precipitate first. So, as water vapor makes its way poleward from the tropics, it gradually becomes more and more depleted in the heavier isotope. Consequently snow falling in Canada has much less H218O than rain falling in Florida. Changes in climate that alter the global patterns of evaporation or precipitation can therefore cause changes to the background δ18O ratio.

In addition, the great ice-sheets that once covered North America, consisting of snow falling in what is now Canada, were very depleted in 18O. Now, enough water was held in these ice sheets to reduce the global average sea level by about 120m. Furthermore, there was also enough depleted water trapped in the ice to increase the average isotopic content of the oceans. And so the first thing we see when we analyze the shells from the bottom of the ocean, is the waxing and waning of the great ice sheets over the last 3 million years (figure 2). The same pattern over the last 400,000 years can also be seen in the isotopes measured in ice cores drilled from the remaining ice sheets.
Click to expand...

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?
 
  • Like
Reactions: T Dog, OptimusPrimerib, Sleegro and 1 other person
#18,009
#18,009
WarMachine said:
No offense intended, but forgive my skepticism on the extrapolation of data resulting in "simple facts." There's no way anyone can prove theories that require hundreds or thousands (or millions) of years.
Click to expand...

Simply providing the method. Not my intent to make you accept the science behind it.
Personally, I have no issues with different chemical reactions happening at different temperatures, that part is relatively simple compared to other methods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COOKEVOL and Sleegro
#18,010
#18,010
WarMachine said:
No offense intended, but forgive my skepticism on the extrapolation of data resulting in "simple facts." There's no way anyone can prove theories that require hundreds or thousands (or millions) of years.
Click to expand...
You should be skeptical. So you should go and do some research and understand the science rather than waving your hands and saying you don’t buy it. You don’t buy it because you have absolutely no understanding of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sleegro
#18,011
#18,011
chargervol said:
Simply providing the method. Not my intent to make you accept the science behind it.
Personally, I have no issues with different chemical reactions happening at different temperatures, that part is relatively simple compared to other methods.
Click to expand...
Such as averages being the same for millions of years?
 
#18,012
#18,012
VOLINVONORE said:
Go to one of the old caves with prehistoric paintings and read 59 degrees F. Today it read 69 degrees F. It would be interesting to see how far back tempertures have been recorded and how it was determined when they first started keeping records.
Click to expand...
That's easy. Someone went outside when it was cold and he came back in the cave and said "it's cold outside". As the days got colder, he went outside, came back in and said " it's cold as sh*t out there". Same conversation in the summer months. Then someone carved it on the cave wall. At least, that's how I see it as happening. I could be wrong though :cool::cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda, Rishvol and WarMachine
#18,013
#18,013
chargervol said:
Simply providing the method. Not my intent to make you accept the science behind it.
Personally, I have no issues with different chemical reactions happening at different temperatures, that part is relatively simple compared to other methods.
Click to expand...
Understood. I guess I just personally have problems with the way science is often present disingenuously as "facts." Too often science makes a statement that assumes ideas that cannot be proven, and people embrace it, while questioning other ideas that are equally as un-provable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and Kristy*
#18,015
#18,015
2xVol said:
You should be skeptical. So you should go and do some research and understand the science rather than waving your hands and saying you don’t buy it. You don’t buy it because you have absolutely no understanding of it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you are making statements you cannot prove. You have no idea what I know or don't know. "Understanding the science" doesn't mean I have to embrace it as fact.
 
#18,016
#18,016
WarMachine said:
Unfortunately, you are making statements you cannot prove. You have no idea what I know or don't know. "Understanding the science" doesn't mean I have to embrace it as fact.
Click to expand...
Which is how everyone should feel about science tbh. If we don't feel this way then how can discoveries be made?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chargervol
#18,020
#18,020
In consequence, the many records of δ18O in ocean sediments and in ice cores, contain information about the temperature, evaporation, rainfall, and indeed the amount of glacial ice — all of which are important to know if we are to understand the changes of climate in the Earth's history. Unfortunately, trying to disentangle these multiple effects is complicated since we have one measurement with many unknowns.
Click to expand...

Here's the sticky part for me. Assumptions must be made and cannot be eliminated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rishvol
#18,022
#18,022
WarMachine said:
Here's the sticky part for me. Assumptions must be made and cannot be eliminated.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. We completely agree on this point.
That's why it's important to use multiple checks and balances. From core samples to geological records, the type of flora and fauna found from each time period and the climate they flourish in. If we find fossilized plant life that only grows in cool/cold climates, for instance, a reasonable deduction that area wasn't tropical during that time period. But that's not enough. It should also match the core samples, blah-blah, etc; etc and be consistent with entire regions, (multiple)


It's comparable to detective work, imo. If you weren't there, you must accumulate every possible detail you can. And you can never rely on only 1 circumstantial. But if all leads to the exact same answer, then you have a case I will treat fairly.

As Rish suggested, everything should be questioned to assure accuracy and new discovery.

* as long as it's about accuracy*
Not gonna lie tho. I do believe some people find fault ONLY because they don't like what the results tell them.
I don't agree with that but still no interest in making them share my view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimusPrimerib, WarMachine, Sleegro and 1 other person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top