Ken Collins: Global climate change

Advertisement

The USA Pro Challenge was great for the area. Great turnout and great music. A lot of energy. There will be gripes for the closures, but most will agree it was worth it.

And The Steamboat Institute had its annual primer on freedom. I did not attend, but I’m sure lots of information was shared about freedom, capitalism, rights and guns. I’m sure, knowing the slant of the Cheneys, there was a bit of Obama bashing, which is their right, by the Constitution, if maybe not by their record. But that’s fine. The president is a big boy.

What I’d like all the folks in all of Routt County to now look into is something more far reaching, more important, much more thought provoking than anything said at the Freedom Conference. It is not political. It is economical, though, and environmental and literally about our survival.

I have a friend who worked on a project for four years that has been made into a film. That film is “Chasing Ice” and can be found on Netflix. A little longer than an hour, it has the effect of a slug to the stomach. I know some folks still are “skeptical,” a euphemism, about humans’ contribution to global climate change.

There are those who seem to think if we belch billions of tons of toxic gases into the atmosphere every year, which never goes away, it won’t be a bad thing. I can’t help wonder if they also think smoking has no ill effect on our lungs. After all, isn’t the atmosphere the Earth’s lung?

“Chasing Ice” documents a five-year work by glaciologists, scientists, photographers and a few concerned individuals who wanted to document what is happening to the world’s glaciers. Filmed in Iceland, Greenland, Alaska and Montana, using 25 cameras clicking once per hour every day for four years, they present a conclusion that only the truly foolhardy could dispute.

I especially would invite the deniers to see this. And if they can please refrain from any Photoshop nonsense, I think that most would at least be less sure of their disbelief. And for any comment of “just another cycle,” keep in mind geological cycles involve many thousands of years, and this “cycle” is happening in less than 50 years.

For the believers of science, it is worth the watch, but I warn about the last several minutes when it all comes together. It’s not pretty. It’s disturbing. It’s a must-see. Well done by passionate professionals who care enough to go through very tough situations to show what they feared. Only problem is, it’s even worse. 

Ken Collins

Stagecoach

Comments

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 4 weeks ago

a second opinion Most Geoscientists Reject Global Warming Theory

The argument from authority is the only argument climate alarmists are willing to make these days–when is the last time you saw one of them sharing a podium with a climate realist?–so this survey, reported by James Taylor of Forbes represents a significant nail in the alarmist coffin:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.” … The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

What I refer to as the “global warming theory” is properly denominated “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.” Alarmists constantly pull a bait and switch by claiming that nearly all climate scientists “believe in global warming.” But what does that mean? The only proposition on which there is anything like unanimity is that it is warmer now than during the depths of the Little Ice Age–an utterly trivial proposition. Those who demand draconian action on the climate must go far beyond this: they must argue that 1) the Earth is warming at an alarming if not unprecedented rate, and will continue to warm significantly in the future; 2) that warming will have catastrophic consequences; 3) the warming is caused primarily if not exclusively by human activity; and 4) there are some practical measures that humans can take to prevent future warming from occurring. It is clear that only a minority of scientists in the relevant fields believe that all of those propositions are true.

3

PJ Howe 7 months, 4 weeks ago

I really, REALLY need Ken to invest in my new company! I don't know what it will be yet, or what it will do, but I promise it will benefit the demise and utter destruction of "Global Warming" as we know it! I only need about $10mil Ken.

Until the "believers" can figure out how all volcanic activity (Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and put more carbon dioxide, sulfates and particulates into the atmosphere then what all of human existence has done to date, and that includes your foreign built SUV, Ken [NOTE: The main eruption lasted only one week]). Until the "believers" can control the wobble in the earth's axis and the wobble in the earth's orbit around the sun, and, of course, control how much energy the sun puts out, I'm at a loss why Ken wants to completely ruin the economy of the United States of America in a fantasy attempt to control the earth’s thermostat. The USA seems to be the only willing country to destroy themselves in the name of something that a few “believe in” with no proof whatsoever other than a really cool computer model (we only take up .06598% of the earth’s surface). The earth has been covered in ice and it will be again. The earth has been devoid of ice and it will be again. Colorado has been covered in ice and Colorado has been a subtropical, oceanic haven. Just be patient Ken, and you’ll get the temperature you’ll looking for.

2

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

PJ -- You raise a valid point, in the Earth's wobble on its axis. The Moon is what keeps our rotation stable, its gravitational pull, and as it gets farther and farther from the Earth -- 3.82 cm/yr, +/- .07 cm -- it exerts less influence, and the wobble gets bigger.

So one day the Earth will be tumbling helplessly in space, summer one day, winter the next... How do you plan tomorrow's wardrobe NOW? And the oceans -- where will they go? Not in my back yard, I certainly hope.

While the scientists and politicians, pundits and profiteers, pontificate on man's contribution to undeniable global warming (we ARE emerging from an Ice Age) nobody can deny this very real Moon threat. We've got to stop the wobble!! Rope that wandering body back somehow. Many technical challenges loom. My new non-profit, Save Our Moon, aims to avert this very real peril.

Please contribute.

0

John Fielding 7 months, 3 weeks ago

.

An ocean in one's backyard has its appeal Rys.

And its my back yard too!

.

0

Ken Collins 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Google "Scientists and climate change causes" and read the different sites. There are several.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Hey Ken, I did some google research and found this link. Worth checking out. Nice to have different opinions. Climate is indeed changing. Has been for the life of our planet and will continue to change until the sun dies or the moons wobble gets worse. Please support Rhys's cause to rope in the moon.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/rss-flat-for-200-months-now-includes-july-data/

Also "John mentions below that the satellite global temperature data continue to run flat (but the climate campaign rolls on run-flat tires, so never mind), but here’s another fun factoid just out: with the summer drawing toward a close, so far this summer in the US has experienced the fewest 100+ degree readings at temperature stations in 100 years.

What should be concluded from this? Precisely nothing. However, if the data were otherwise, what do you suppose the climateers would say? I doubt anyone would even be willing to make book on this. Live by the extreme weather anecdote, die by the extreme weather anecdote."

1

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I find it ammusing that, for the most part, those who are the most dogmatic about needing to take action to save our environmental future repeatedly vote to utterly annihilate our economic future. What good is one without the other?

If these folks cared about their children's future even half as much as they feign then they woud stop enslaving posterity with insurmountable debt.

And, lets presume global warming IS happening... What is Ken and the rest of us Americans going to do about it when the Chineese and India, et al are building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one/week?

1

Ken Collins 7 months, 3 weeks ago

To Mark: what do we do? Our part. I'm not advocating anything that will bring down the economy. Being greener has nothing to do with economic apocalypse. There are radicals on both sides of this, and all, issues. The ideal is to work towards a reasonable and sane middle ground. We can't control what others do but we can control our part of the fix. To not even try is not being responsible. Recycle, reuse, rejoice.

0

jerry carlton 7 months, 3 weeks ago

We could build a dog poop fired generator for Steamboat and then maybe dog owners would pick the stuff up!

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

If you are saying "we" as in America then "we" ALREADY "do our part". We produce some of the cleanest energy used on earth.

What's this "to not even try is not being responsible" nonsense? "We" HAVE been trying. We have very tight emmissions standards for our energy production.

Furthermore, "we" could produce way cleaner energy if environmentalists would let us build new nuclear power plants, frack for Nat. gas, and build cleaner oil and gas refineries, but they won't quit bitchin' long enough to see they are hurting the environment by making the perfect into the enemy of the pretty darn good.

"We" could have millions of nat. gas-burning vehicles on the road paying about $1.75/gal instead of $4.00/ gal and polluting less.

Just think what "we" could do with the money "we" would be saving... invest in even cleaner energy, cure more diseases, feed more poor people, educate the ignorant, ski more, etc.

Environmentalists (and many others for that matter) rarely consider these realities when they march along protesting refineries, pipelines, new power plants, etc. Instead they foolishly believe that stopping a new power plant or pipeline is akin to stopping oil or coal from being used by the rest of the more reasonable population of planet earth.

The rest of the world is building an energy supply and consumption infrastructure right around the United States> While America naively "saves the world" they make us the punch-line of their jokes..

1

Bob Smith 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.

Gerlach surveys the literature and reports the scientific findings:

Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates — published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates — are consistent with the global estimates.

Considering that human activity released some 30 Gt CO2 into the atmosphere last year, human emissions are likely 100 (or more) times as large as volcanic emissions. Those who make claims about the Mt. Pinatubo explosion emitting more CO2 than all of human activity for all time, should be made aware that the estimated CO2 emissions from Mt. Pinatubo are 0.05 Gt CO2, about the amount released by human activity in half a day, not our entire history. In fact, in less than 3 days we outstrip the volcanic emissions for an entire year:

On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions.

Annual CO2 emissions from human activity are greater even than what results from supereruptions, volcanic events which spew forth more than 450 cubic kilometers of magma......

0

Bob Smith 7 months, 3 weeks ago

........Supereruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year.

Supereruptions are a significant contributor to adding CO2 to the atmosphere on geologic time scales. Yet they pale by comparison to human emissions. Yes, you read that right — while supereruptions only happen every 100,000 to 200,000 years or so, we’re presently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate of one or more supereruptions every year.

Those who continue to claim that volcanic activity puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity (including Ian Plimer) have been corrected — many times — by those who actually do the research. Yet the claim, like a zombie, refuses to die. Those who cling to it do so, not just out of ignorance, but out of willful ignorance.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

The important question, Bob, is not whether human activity emits more or less C02 than volcanoes or not.

The more important question is how much of that human activity can be altered and how much is NOT going to be altered.

Then, compare the portion of human activity that may or might be altered to the inevitablel major volcanic eruption.

Once you factor out the majority of human C02 emmissions that are NEVER going to go away even if we all put windmills in the back yard then the volcanic activity dwarfs the residual human activity that might be improved.

Get it?

1

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

And there HAS been a noticeable reduction in a certain type of "emmissions".

Specifically those "emmiting" the phrase "global warming".

Since that's starting to look like a possible load of crap they have changed their "emmissions" to "climate change". Hillarious since the climate has been in a state of constant change for millions of years.

Once you say that something... anything... causes a phenomenon which has ALWAYS happened then you can never be wrong.

I could say that crowing roosters cause the sunrise because roosters have always crowed and the sun has always risen.

Firefighters cause fires because you always see firefighters at the scene of any fire... ad infinitum...

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I would encourage all to watch the BBC series Planet Earth made in 2006. After you watch that you will realize that mankind is a fly on the proverbial elephant's behind. Anybody that thinks mankind has an impact on the universe or earths climate needs to check their ego at the door. I am worried about the moon's wobble so please join Rhys's cause.

1

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Heck, China's unfiltered industrial wastes provide fodder for our recent heavy snows ("Global Warming" notwithstanding; snowflakes require impurities around which to crystallize, Chinese hydrocarbons will work) so don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Ol' Luna, though, now she's a problem...

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Few people actually realize it takes pollution/ impurities to make those beautiful white,pure, clean, environmentally friendly snow flakes.

At the rate Ol' Luna is wandering away I'd say you and I probably drive way too fast to worry about the Earth shimmying us off into the outer galaxy in our lifetime, Rhys.

1

Fred Duckels 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I am curious but know not about the warming matters but it seems that the cure is along the lines of an age old left wing shopping list, that concerns me!

0

Jim Kelley 7 months, 3 weeks ago

For the deniers, and to Dan Kuechenmeister's assertion specifically, The claim that Geoscientists do not believe humans have anything to do with climate change: You should note that the survey that you refer to was from a survey of an association of engineers and geoscientist from Alberta (tar sand land). This is not a bad group to survey per se, but you should also note that it was petroleum companies that commissioned the survey and processed the data. When the "results" were published the association of engineers and geoscientists were so alarmed that they issued clarification:

" First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions." Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer, "Science or Science Fiction? Professional discursive construction of climate change. Organization Studies, November 2012

Ken Collins refers to the "Chasing Ice" film. Whether you are of the mind that humans have an effect on climate or if you believe that we don't (or somewhere in between), everyone should see this film just to see and be awed, if not horrified, by the results of the documentation of the glaciers in the film. You will be blown away at the final scene. Deny or believe, whichever, you will be affected by watching this film.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Jim et all. I of all people am not a "denier. Climate changes. It has and will continue to change for all eternity. Are you aware that so far in 2013 the US has the fewest 100+ degree readings in the past 100 years. Are you aware that the Antarctic ice levels are increasing? Remember when Greenland was "green". Those darn Norwegian SUV's in the 1400's really wreaked havoc on Greenland. Remember when The British Isles grew grapes and produced wine? I don't think they do that these days. How many degrees has the average temp increased over the past 100 years. 1 degree - 1.5 degrees. It seems to me that the acres able to be farmed in the world has increased because of that fact. Maybe a good thing as the world needs food. The global warming/climate change advocates have an agenda and the media promotes it. No shock to me. In my opinion we have much greater issues to deal with then climate change.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

In case you are wondering what I think is more important then climate change. How about foreign policy and Syria. Our president chose to draw a "red line". Now what. If a Republican president was considering some action against Syria the liberals would be all over that. Because it's a Democrat at the helm the sounds of silence are deafening and the media is hiding under their proverbial desk. Greece is collapsing, Iran is threatening and Rome is collapsing. Welcome to 430 BC.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

sorry my bad the exact quote is "Scott_Gilmore Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC."

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

So, perhaps the majority of scientists believe that humans have a hand in "climate change".

To what does this majority attribute the climate change that occurred centuries before man used measurable amounts of fossil fuel?

For the majority of human history almost all men, including scientists, knew that the Earth was flat. They KNEW it... and they were WRONG.

For centuries most men including scientists and astronomers knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. They KNEW that the Sun and stars revolved around Planet Earth...

So what??? They were WRONG.

And even if this time they are right... and that's a big "if"... So what??? There's not one damn thing that we in America can do that will significantly contribute to the alteration of that future.

1

John Weibel 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Mark, we can encourage the government to stop subsidizing the production of grain. This as industrial agriculture uses about the largest share of energy there is. Then we can encourage the government to tax technology at a rate that is similar to the tax on human labor that displaces human workers (switching to the fair tax).

Giving employers a tax credit for hiring employees as opposed to taxing them for hiring people would put people back to work and in the case of agriculture people can then work in layered ag operations, growing more food per acre than industrial agriculture. Putting more people to work all the while using less energy, emitting less energy emissions and while growing more forage for livestock sequester more carbon back in our top soil which industrial agriculture is depleting.

0

John Fielding 7 months, 3 weeks ago

If the government is to subsidize anything in agriculture (by reducing taxes on a farming operation) it should be to transition to more efficient use of water. Then again, it might just result in cheaper water for golf courses in the desert.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I agree that we should stop the subsidies, John. But it's never gonna happen.

Uncle Scam isn't interested in "solutions" for the sake of improvement.

He wants to impose his will and presents dilemas and his foregone conclusions disguised as "solutions" to those "problems".

Look at the water wasted by Ethanol. A bigger rip-off of the American sheeple I can not recall. Draining aquifers to make fuel when there is fuel in the ground... Only an entity as retarded as the environmental lobby, as corrupt as Uncle Scam, and as addicted to subsidies as the farm lobby could put their heads together and come up with a "solution" that brilliant.

1

Ken Collins 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Thank you, Jim Kelly, for a voice of reason. First of all, for Mark and others who were saying I advocate an economic destruction of America, I ask you how the heck do you even know what I advocate? I just asked people to watch "Chasing Ice". I followed up by asking people to google "Scientists and Climate Change Causes". If you did, you found many, many sites from all kinds of places showing mankind does have a hand in our climate. And for Mark's comments about mans' affect on climate centuries ago, shows a lack of understanding, I guess, of the industrial revolution's effect when we started belching smoke and carcinogens into to the air as opposed to the agrarian life man had been in for centuries. And lastly, comparing the ignorance of mankind back when it thought the earth flat and the center of the universe with the technology today that can measure our harm of the atmosphere is somewhat mind boggling. And what can America do to help? What the generations of 20 and 30 somethings are doing. They are much better at thinking and acting green than we did at their ages. If you don't believe man has any effect on the climate, so be it. If you look at the congressmen who are deniers, you'll see an amazing coincidence of huge oil money backing. So all I ask is just please stay out of the way for the people who believe and are willing to do their part. It can't hurt.

0

John Weibel 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Jim

How about before taxing carbon or cows, lets first stop subsidizing things that are a big part of the problem.

Maybe less intervention would go a long way. May e we could start rebuilding the carbon in the soil and taking it out of the atmosphere. However that flies in the face of all the tractor dealers and the whole system as it stands now. Yet phasin them out will more than likely get the results you are looking for.

If you do some research on how quickly topsoil can be made, by subsoil tilling mob grazing and other things.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken,

I didn't say you intentionally advocate econimic destruction. However, the more expensive energy becomes the more strain is placed on economic productivity.

Furthermore, I think it shows a lack of understanding on YOUR part to suggest that there were not significant global climate changes BEFORE industrialization. There were; and YOU are the "denier" if you suggest otherwise.

Additionally, I was not comparing mankinds present knowledge with his more limited knowledge from centuries ago. I was comparing mankinds HUBRIS of today with that of yesteryear; and I find historical evidence that today's generation suffers mightily from it, just like historical generations have. Your comparing and extolling the supposed wisdom of todays 20 and 30 year-olds is an excellent example of the hubris (pride) that goes before the fall. Any good con man will tell you that the best way into someones pocket is by appealing to their sense of their own intellect; and the environmental lobby is good at telling all the suckers how smart and "advanced" they are and how us bumpkins are "deniers" and "flat earther's".

As for the congress-critters... If you are waiting for me to deny that congress is inept, corrupt and full of idiots you will be waiting a long time. However, if you think those who take money from oil companies are corrupt while those that take money from the environmental lobby are as pure as the driven snow then it is YOU, sir that is naive.

Finally, I would gladly just "stay out of the way" of all you advanced, smart, environmentally sensitive "believers". There is nothing I'd rather do. Just one small favor in return, please... Would you all stay out of my way. Stop forcing me to comply with your religion. Stop proposing more taxes on my life to finance your religion. Stop indoctrinating school-kids into your religion. Stop advocating for more expensive energy for ME as part of YOUR religion. You do that and I'll gladly "stay out of the way" of all you "believers".

1

John Fielding 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes, climate change is real. And yes, it should be regarded with apprehension if not fear. If we determine we can direct it, that would be good information, perhaps we could do so wisely.

But there have been and will be climate change forces at work far beyond those we may command. The evidence is all around us. As a student of geology at the U of Utah in the 70's, I gained a keen appreciation for the magnitude of change this planet has experienced. Even now, as I examine strata and see a sudden change in the composition I am awed at the concept of the cataclysmic upheaval in the environment documented there. Seams of coal interlaced with shale, layers of lava and ash, desert sand dunes capped by marine limestone, the examples abound. The stumps of once lofty mountains half buried in glacial debris also give testimony to rhythmic advance and retreat of vast ice sheets over eons and eras.

My deepest concern is that this flowering of human liberty we are now experiencing will be extinguished by our reactions to climate change or our attempt to avert it.

0

John Weibel 7 months, 3 weeks ago

John,

the reason it is now called climate change and not global warming is that maybe the world is not warming like they expected. It seems that this peak of the solar cycle is the weakest in 100 years and the forecast for the next cycle based upon history and what the previous cycle looked like would indicate a cooling trend.

http://rt.com/news/solar-activity-cycle-maximum-114/

Sun dial-down: Looming weak solar max may herald frosty times

There were similar articles from NOAA earlier in the year. However, my quick search of google failed to turn them up.

1

cindy constantine 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I am not a geologist, but am fascinated by the super volcano known as Yellowstone National Park. I understand from my readings that in terms of geological history it is 500,000 years late for the next big "blow". If that is the case, I am glad I live at "ground zero" because that will certainly put us in the "nuclear winter" for many millennia. Is what I have been reading your understanding as well, John? Bottom line, we are mere nothings in terms of what the earth has been and will be doing forever.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Climate change - absolutely. Global warming - maybe not so much.

POSTED ON AUGUST 31, 2013 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN CLIMATE. GLOBAL WARMING EXPEDITION FOILED BY ICE.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/global-warming-expedition-foiled-by-ice.php

1

John Fielding 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Hey Cindy, don't worry too much. At our age there are more threats to our well being everywhere. But it is real, and could conceivably happen within our lifetimes, but probably not. If it did there would surely be enough warning to evacuate the blast zone, Jackson, Cody, etc, places that might get some seriously heavy fallout.

We could very well be in a pretty heavy ash-fall zone, depending on the time of year, we often have a northerly wind condition. Bigger problems would be social upheaval as people panic, hoard food, loot and so on. And there would be significant short term losses in crops, industry, many adverse impacts, plus a climate effect for at least several years on most of the world.

Still, it is not the type of event that would likely change the climate of the entire earth for a long term geologically speaking. Remember that anything less than ten thousand years does not even make a blip on the radar screen. Other episodes of volcanism have, periods of global super-activity hundreds of millions of years ago are not well understood but are well documented.

So, the record of Yellowstone's super eruptions recently is 640,000 years ago, 1.3 million years ago, and 2.1 million years ago. If the next one was as quick in recurring as the last one it would be due in ten thousand years. But if the interval was the same as the one before that it would be in 160,000 years, the period is not regular. The size of the event also depends on whether many minor events are occurring that can reduce the pressure. Yellowstone has had many minor eruptions in the past few hundred thousand years, including two with fairly big lava releases, at 150,000 and 70,000 years ago. The most recent notable event was just 13,800 years ago and created a crater the size of the one at the recent Mt St Hellenes explosion. For the Yellowstone hot spot that was a minor event.

I wonder more about geomagnetic reversal effects. I recently watched a documentary on the atmosphere "The Thin Blue Line" that had a graphic of the deflection of the solar wind by the earths magnetic field that took my breath away. The concept of the loss of that protection was numbing. But in the most recent event about 41,000 years ago lasted about 400 years with 250 of that a complete reversal and included a period when the force of the field dropped to 5% of normal. I wonder if the atmosphere took a streamlined shape, thin on the windward, fat on the lee side. What sorts of mega-events must have happened in that interval? Whatever they were, the earth came through OK I guess, but it would have been tough to maintain our modern culture through the storms.

We are due for something there too, so keep your food storage adequate and your powder dry.

0

cindy constantine 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks, John for taking the time to educate me!! I have never laid awake nights worrying about Yellowstone or any other natural disaster but it sure amazes me how we are sooo focused on "global warming" when humans have no control over geological events that effect the weather , earth and all the flora and fauna.

0

John Fielding 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Happy to oblige Cindy, it was good to have a reason to refresh my awareness of current theory. There is a lot of good stuff recently contributed to the body of research in the field. The growing awareness (if not comprehension) of the dynamics of the earths core seems to lead the way for explanation of many phenomena.

"Avalanches at the core mantle boundary" postulates large pieces break off the bottom of the crust and plunge into the core, setting up turbulence that could cause effects from hyper-volcanism to changes in directions of continental drift.

Extreme geomagnetic reversals are theorized to cause hyper-volcanic episodes, including the deadly flood basalts sometimes associated with extinction episodes.

As Mr. Spock would say:"fascinating"!

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Ol' Yellowstone will give us thousands of years of warnings, in minor eruptions and lava flows... and pending longevity and genetic advances, even cryogenics, have me hoping I'll be around for The Big Event. They'd better hurry. Ralph Spoilsport is back, selling used body parts (from brainless clones) on Firesign Theatre's "Give Me Immortality, Or Give Me Death" which I highly recommend.

We all know this rock is doomed, it's only a question of time -- the main question is whether Mankind survives until then. Optimistically assuming so, I would advocate heavy allocation of NASA funds. We've got to get out of here!!

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Said album was released in '98, two years ahead of the "millenium" and is a live radio broadcast on that evening... Lady Di had recently departed, so this album is a tribute to the Recently Dead... yet she makes a startling reappearance. The Arteries of the City are clogged with those whose motherboards aren't coming up zeroes -- "Is that lady in the convertable in the Show-Off lane holding the Holy Chalice?" (helicopter) "Uh, no, Larry, that's a Big Gulp." They're all on the way to the Doll Drop.

We lost Peter Bergman of this unique foursome last year; he didn't Beat The Reaper.

Sorry 'bout the digression, but this stuff boils to come out... so if the Pilot won't pay us to contribute, maybe they'll pay us to shut up!! I can be bought.

0

John Fielding 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Don't count on that much warning Rhys, in fact its likely to have been fairly quiet for the few millenia prior to a super eruption. (Like maybe 13,800 years?) We would see swelling of the caldera dome (like has happened recently, but more prolonged). Then the earthquakes, but probably not a longer duration than Mt St Hellenes (2 months).,

This stuff is pretty tough to make a call on, we were pretty sure MSH was going to do something but the blast came as quite a surprise. The expectation was something less violent, some ash and lava maybe.

But our own local hotspot has a pretty intense history. Some of the largest floods of lava known to science were produced by it about 17 million years ago when Oregon and Idaho were over it. Think lava running 300 miles in a week, like about from Yellowstone to here. Better keep your gas tank full buddy!

There is also a record of a geomagnetic pole shift recorded in one of the lava.floods. It measured a change of compass of 50 degrees in 15 days! Not everything happens gradually.

Wikipedia has a nice summary at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia...

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.