How long before it's us?

[BillT]

The point of the show Bill is they stated that we have warmed. Seas have risen. We have cooled. Seas have dropped. It is in fact a natural occurrence. And there is the probability that in the past the warming has happened in as short a span of 50 years Bill. And it happened when there were no men around Bill. That's the point Bill.

1) A time point in the video would be considerate.
2) How long did this warm period last?
3) How warm did it get?
4) Having happened once naturally (if in fact it did) does not diminish the humongous amount of evidence for human causation now.
5) All of these changes would have happened many years ago, on time scales beyond those that you previously had said you believed (only biblical were acceptable to you that time). How can you use such evidence that you therefore have a basic disbelief in as evidence for your argument? Unless you will just stoop to using any kind of BS in your weak attempts to win an argument.

[ghonk]

Let me take a wild guess G,you   also don't support decriminalizing marijuana,a woman's right to choose or same sex marriage.
All evil plots to destroy this once  great nation. 

[Mugwump]

Donald Trump and Marco Rubio are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Trump and Rubio sitting over there?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honour, what are you guys doing in here?"
Trump says, "We're planning WW III."
The guy says, "Really, what's going to happen?"
Trump says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde with big tits."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits, why kill a blonde with big boobs?"
Trump turns to Rubio and says, "See, I told you, no one gives a damn about 140 million Muslims."

[GraphicGr8s]

The point of the show Bill is they stated that we have warmed. Seas have risen. We have cooled. Seas have dropped. It is in fact a natural occurrence. And there is the probability that in the past the warming has happened in as short a span of 50 years Bill. And it happened when there were no men around Bill. That's the point Bill.

1) A time point in the video would be considerate.
2) How long did this warm period last?
3) How warm did it get?
4) Having happened once naturally (if in fact it did) does not diminish the humongous amount of evidence for human causation now.
5) All of these changes would have happened many years ago, on time scales beyond those that you previously had said you believed (only biblical were acceptable to you that time). How can you use such evidence that you therefore have a basic disbelief in as evidence for your argument? Unless you will just stoop to using any kind of BS in your weak attempts to win an argument.

No Bill I don't recall saying the Earth is only 5-6000 years old only that this occupation of it has only been here that long.

Here's the relevant transcript Bill.

PETER SWART: Stalagmites record changes, right in the sub-tropical Atlantic gyre. So, here, we're really at the heart of the action. We haven't had that kind of opportunity to see the changes which occur in this region before now.

NARRATOR: So the stalagmite that Brian and Kenny have cut could provide a gold mine of global climate history. Using that history, Swart may be able to answer a critical question. While most scientists believe that Earth's climate is changing, they are struggling to figure out how fast. This stalagmite could help answer the question.

To decode it, Swart first has to cut it lengthwise with a diamond saw.

Inside, it displays regular bands of growth, like the rings in a tree. Embedded in each band is the climate biography of a specific period.

With analysis, Swart can describe how much it rained, what chemicals were in the rain, soil and air, even the temperature. Examination of the stalagmite shows evidence of more than five major climate changes over the last 80,000 years. This corroborates findings in samples taken from ice cores.

But then he notices two curious details: first, the way the bands formed suggests that at least one of these climate episodes came on very abruptly.

At the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,000 years ago, conditions changed radically, from dry to wet, within 50 years. This change was probably accompanied by a rise in temperature and sea level.

And Swart notices something else: some of these climate events are preceded by a mysterious dark band. When he samples the dark bands, he finds iron.

So is there some link between iron and climate change? How could that be? The Bahamas are made of coral; there's no iron anywhere.

In the blue hole where they cut the stalagmite, Brian and Kenny noticed something that might help solve the mystery. In the cave wall, they found a layer of red sediment. The color is the key here: the red in the dust means it's loaded with iron. And that means that thousands of years ago, a thick layer of iron-rich red dust covered the island's surface.

Repeated rains washed it through the rock, leaving a bright red band.

So how did the red dust get here? One theory suggests it came from the Sahara Desert, some 4,000 miles away.

During times of extreme drought, towering dust storms gather in the Sahara, pushing dust high into the atmosphere, where it's carried across the Atlantic.

When Swart analyzes the iron in the stalagmite, he confirms that it's made of Sahara dust, though its red color has been washed out after thousands of years.

And in the dark band, he isn't finding traces of iron, but significant concentrations.

PETER SWART: Now, the iron was very low concentrations, with the exception of this boundary here.

NARRATOR: The areas with the highest concentration of iron correspond almost exactly to the places on the stalagmite where the chemical composition indicates a period of major climate change.

That probably means a major Sahara dust event came right before each change, when temperatures and sea levels rose.

The fact that Saharan dust storms happen with greater frequency today is raising concerns that history could be repeating itself.

PETER SWART: Now, we know, for the last 40, 50 years, there's been a major drought in Africa. And that has seen an input in the amount of dust which is coming from the Sahara region to the Bahamas.

NARRATOR: It's estimated that over the past five decades, the Sahara has seen a ten-fold increase in large-scale dust storms. If we are witnessing the beginning of a major climate change, it could happen fast, just as it happened in the past, maybe in as little as a lifetime.

PETER SWART: We don't worry too much about climate change, because it's something that's going to happen "after I'm dead." But, in actual fact, some of the records that we've been looking at, we see tremendous changes in a matter of decades. And so, when climate changes that fast, obviously it would have tremendous implications for the present-day society.

NARRATOR: Swart's findings are preliminary, but they do suggest that climate change in the past happened faster than anyone imagined. If such change occurred today, immediate concern would be for the millions of people in areas most affected by sea level rise?island nations and coastal regions throughout the world.

[GraphicGr8s]

Let me take a wild guess G,you   also don't support decriminalizing marijuana,a woman's right to choose or same sex marriage.
All evil plots to destroy this once  great nation.

I'm going to pretend I'm Bill and gloss over that.

[Mugwump]

The point of the show Bill is they stated that we have warmed. Seas have risen. We have cooled. Seas have dropped. It is in fact a natural occurrence. And there is the probability that in the past the warming has happened in as short a span of 50 years Bill. And it happened when there were no men around Bill. That's the point Bill.

1) A time point in the video would be considerate.
2) How long did this warm period last?
3) How warm did it get?
4) Having happened once naturally (if in fact it did) does not diminish the humongous amount of evidence for human causation now.
5) All of these changes would have happened many years ago, on time scales beyond those that you previously had said you believed (only biblical were acceptable to you that time). How can you use such evidence that you therefore have a basic disbelief in as evidence for your argument? Unless you will just stoop to using any kind of BS in your weak attempts to win an argument.

No Bill I don't recall saying the Earth is only 5-6000 years old only that this occupation of it has only been here that long.

Here's the relevant transcript Bill.

PETER SWART: Stalagmites record changes, right in the sub-tropical Atlantic gyre. So, here, we're really at the heart of the action. We haven't had that kind of opportunity to see the changes which occur in this region before now.

NARRATOR: So the stalagmite that Brian and Kenny have cut could provide a gold mine of global climate history. Using that history, Swart may be able to answer a critical question. While most scientists believe that Earth's climate is changing, they are struggling to figure out how fast. This stalagmite could help answer the question.

To decode it, Swart first has to cut it lengthwise with a diamond saw.

Inside, it displays regular bands of growth, like the rings in a tree. Embedded in each band is the climate biography of a specific period.

With analysis, Swart can describe how much it rained, what chemicals were in the rain, soil and air, even the temperature. Examination of the stalagmite shows evidence of more than five major climate changes over the last 80,000 years. This corroborates findings in samples taken from ice cores.

But then he notices two curious details: first, the way the bands formed suggests that at least one of these climate episodes came on very abruptly.

At the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,000 years ago, conditions changed radically, from dry to wet, within 50 years. This change was probably accompanied by a rise in temperature and sea level.

And Swart notices something else: some of these climate events are preceded by a mysterious dark band. When he samples the dark bands, he finds iron.

So is there some link between iron and climate change? How could that be? The Bahamas are made of coral; there's no iron anywhere.

In the blue hole where they cut the stalagmite, Brian and Kenny noticed something that might help solve the mystery. In the cave wall, they found a layer of red sediment. The color is the key here: the red in the dust means it's loaded with iron. And that means that thousands of years ago, a thick layer of iron-rich red dust covered the island's surface.

Repeated rains washed it through the rock, leaving a bright red band.

So how did the red dust get here? One theory suggests it came from the Sahara Desert, some 4,000 miles away.

During times of extreme drought, towering dust storms gather in the Sahara, pushing dust high into the atmosphere, where it's carried across the Atlantic.

When Swart analyzes the iron in the stalagmite, he confirms that it's made of Sahara dust, though its red color has been washed out after thousands of years.

And in the dark band, he isn't finding traces of iron, but significant concentrations.

PETER SWART: Now, the iron was very low concentrations, with the exception of this boundary here.

NARRATOR: The areas with the highest concentration of iron correspond almost exactly to the places on the stalagmite where the chemical composition indicates a period of major climate change.

That probably means a major Sahara dust event came right before each change, when temperatures and sea levels rose.

The fact that Saharan dust storms happen with greater frequency today is raising concerns that history could be repeating itself.

PETER SWART: Now, we know, for the last 40, 50 years, there's been a major drought in Africa. And that has seen an input in the amount of dust which is coming from the Sahara region to the Bahamas.

NARRATOR: It's estimated that over the past five decades, the Sahara has seen a ten-fold increase in large-scale dust storms. If we are witnessing the beginning of a major climate change, it could happen fast, just as it happened in the past, maybe in as little as a lifetime.

PETER SWART: We don't worry too much about climate change, because it's something that's going to happen "after I'm dead." But, in actual fact, some of the records that we've been looking at, we see tremendous changes in a matter of decades. And so, when climate changes that fast, obviously it would have tremendous implications for the present-day society.

NARRATOR: Swart's findings are preliminary, but they do suggest that climate change in the past happened faster than anyone imagined. If such change occurred today, immediate concern would be for the millions of people in areas most affected by sea level rise?island nations and coastal regions throughout the world.

Balderdash....LOL.....more smoke and mirrors....

[BillT]

I don't recall saying the Earth is only 5-6000 years old only that this occupation of it has only been here that long.

What does this even mean??

Here's the relevant transcript Bill.

Quote

    PETER SWART: Stalagmites record changes, right in the sub-tropical Atlantic gyre. So, here, we're really at the heart of the action. We haven't had that kind of opportunity to see the changes which occur in this region before now.

    NARRATOR: So the stalagmite that Brian and Kenny have cut could provide a gold mine of global climate history. Using that history, Swart may be able to answer a critical question. While most scientists believe that Earth's climate is changing, they are struggling to figure out how fast. This stalagmite could help answer the question.

    To decode it, Swart first has to cut it lengthwise with a diamond saw.

    Inside, it displays regular bands of growth, like the rings in a tree. Embedded in each band is the climate biography of a specific period.

    With analysis, Swart can describe how much it rained, what chemicals were in the rain, soil and air, even the temperature. Examination of the stalagmite shows evidence of more than five major climate changes over the last 80,000 years. This corroborates findings in samples taken from ice cores.

    But then he notices two curious details: first, the way the bands formed suggests that at least one of these climate episodes came on very abruptly.

    At the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,000 years ago, conditions changed radically, from dry to wet, within 50 years. This change was probably accompanied by a rise in temperature and sea level.

    And Swart notices something else: some of these climate events are preceded by a mysterious dark band. When he samples the dark bands, he finds iron.

    So is there some link between iron and climate change? How could that be? The Bahamas are made of coral; there's no iron anywhere.

    In the blue hole where they cut the stalagmite, Brian and Kenny noticed something that might help solve the mystery. In the cave wall, they found a layer of red sediment. The color is the key here: the red in the dust means it's loaded with iron. And that means that thousands of years ago, a thick layer of iron-rich red dust covered the island's surface.

    Repeated rains washed it through the rock, leaving a bright red band.

    So how did the red dust get here? One theory suggests it came from the Sahara Desert, some 4,000 miles away.

    During times of extreme drought, towering dust storms gather in the Sahara, pushing dust high into the atmosphere, where it's carried across the Atlantic.

    When Swart analyzes the iron in the stalagmite, he confirms that it's made of Sahara dust, though its red color has been washed out after thousands of years.

    And in the dark band, he isn't finding traces of iron, but significant concentrations.

    PETER SWART: Now, the iron was very low concentrations, with the exception of this boundary here.

    NARRATOR: The areas with the highest concentration of iron correspond almost exactly to the places on the stalagmite where the chemical composition indicates a period of major climate change.

    That probably means a major Sahara dust event came right before each change, when temperatures and sea levels rose.

    The fact that Saharan dust storms happen with greater frequency today is raising concerns that history could be repeating itself.

    PETER SWART: Now, we know, for the last 40, 50 years, there's been a major drought in Africa. And that has seen an input in the amount of dust which is coming from the Sahara region to the Bahamas.

    NARRATOR: It's estimated that over the past five decades, the Sahara has seen a ten-fold increase in large-scale dust storms. If we are witnessing the beginning of a major climate change, it could happen fast, just as it happened in the past, maybe in as little as a lifetime.

    PETER SWART: We don't worry too much about climate change, because it's something that's going to happen "after I'm dead." But, in actual fact, some of the records that we've been looking at, we see tremendous changes in a matter of decades. And so, when climate changes that fast, obviously it would have tremendous implications for the present-day society.

    NARRATOR: Swart's findings are preliminary, but they do suggest that climate change in the past happened faster than anyone imagined. If such change occurred today, immediate concern would be for the millions of people in areas most affected by sea level rise?island nations and coastal regions throughout the world.

This is more of a commentary on their activities than a scientific analysis.
Its a kind of shaky conclusion. Lots of probablies piled on top of each other and not supported by any other source of information like a normal scientific argument would have.
A backup publication (peer reviewed) would be much more convincing.

Also no mention of any specific temperatures, so not really clear about what they are talking about.
A fast temperature change at the end of an ice age, not too surprising.

Examination of the stalagmite shows evidence of more than five major climate changes over the last 80,000 years. This corroborates findings in samples taken from ice cores.

This just sounds like they saw ice ages happening. Big deal. Not relevant.

I think you would do better if you had an understanding of the arguments you are trying to make. Of course that would require a more critical eye for the data.

[GraphicGr8s]

Of course it's balderdash and irrelevant. It doesn't fit the liberal brainwashing.

More Kool Aid anyone?


Bill, it means that I do in fact believe the Earth itself is older than the 5000 - 6000 years old some Bible believers think it is. There is in fact evidence of it in the Bible. In Genesis and in Daniel.

Man has only been here for that length of time however.

[Mugwump]

Of course it's balderdash and irrelevant. It doesn't fit the liberal brainwashing.

More Kool Aid anyone?


Bill, it means that I do in fact believe the Earth itself is older than the 5000 - 6000 years old some Bible believers think it is. There is in fact evidence of it in the Bible. In Genesis and in Daniel.

Man has only been here for that length of time however.

I don't believe that anyone asked you how old the world was...?.....more red herring 'G'....you seem to pick out only a part of the discussion and take off on a diversion slant to la la land......please focus....you can do it....come on...

[BillT]

Bill, it means that I do in fact believe the Earth itself is older than the 5000 - 6000 years old some Bible believers think it is. There is in fact evidence of it in the Bible. In Genesis and in Daniel.

Man has only been here for that length of time however.

Although some Bible events have been supported by archeological and historical analyses, the Bible has a very poor record of providing information on geological events.

Archaeology and modern genetics has blown those dates away. Dogs have been domesticated for longer than that.

But you just keep retreating to your close minded beliefs in the face of a world of inconvenient facts.
I am thinking this helps you because the world scares you.

[GraphicGr8s]

Of course it's balderdash and irrelevant. It doesn't fit the liberal brainwashing.

More Kool Aid anyone?


Bill, it means that I do in fact believe the Earth itself is older than the 5000 - 6000 years old some Bible believers think it is. There is in fact evidence of it in the Bible. In Genesis and in Daniel.

Man has only been here for that length of time however.

I don't believe that anyone asked you how old the world was...?.....more red herring 'G'....you seem to pick out only a part of the discussion and take off on a diversion slant to la la land......please focus....you can do it....come on...

It stems from Bill's comment Jon.

5) All of these changes would have happened many years ago, on time scales beyond those that you previously had said you believed (only biblical were acceptable to you that time). How can you use such evidence that you therefore have a basic disbelief in as evidence for your argument? Unless you will just stoop to using any kind of BS in your weak attempts to win an argument.

[Mugwump]

..ok, we've gone from guns to suns yada yada...now to beliefs, and Bibles...where next...

[ghonk]

Hookers and Cocaine.

[LizStreithorst]

Hookers and Cocaine.

Beer and  would suit my taste more

[Mugwump]

Hookers and Cocaine.

Beer and  would suit my taste more

LOL.....maybe in Jamaica tho