Sciencescience

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 05:14 PM

Climate science baby...

Maybe the red planet is altering our climate.

So we should wreck all our economies to try to alter the orbit of Mars.


http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/


Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.

“The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very detailed evaluation of past climate events that may provide an analog for future climate.”

To find the signature of a resonance transition, Meyers, Sageman and UW–Madison graduate student Chao Ma, whose dissertation work this comprises, looked to the geologic record in what is known as the Niobrara Formation in Colorado. The formation was laid down layer by layer over tens of millions of years as sediment was deposited on the bottom of a vast seaway known as the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway. The shallow ocean stretched from what is now the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, separating the eastern and western portions of North America.


Don't deny science kids.

14 replies, 472 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply Climate science baby... (Original post)
EagleKeeper Feb 2017 OP
Slayer Feb 2017 #1
EagleKeeper Feb 2017 #2
Slayer Feb 2017 #3
EagleKeeper Feb 2017 #4
Slayer Feb 2017 #5
EagleKeeper Feb 2017 #6
Slayer Feb 2017 #7
EagleKeeper Feb 2017 #8
Slayer Feb 2017 #9
EagleKeeper Feb 2017 #10
Slayer Feb 2017 #12
EagleKeeper Feb 2017 #13
Slayer Feb 2017 #14
EagleKeeper Feb 2017 #11

Response to EagleKeeper (Original post)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 05:25 PM

1. One persons blog for thier dissertation is not science kid.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 05:30 PM

2. See, you're already denying science...

Because it doesn't toe your line.

I expect nothing else.

I figure any scientific theory that doesn't serve to wreck capitalism will be denied by the smartest people on earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EagleKeeper (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 05:44 PM

3. A college student thesis "project" doesn't make it anything other than opinion.

 

I know wingers will hang their hat on anything. Another record setting day here in sunny Ohio btw. 76 degrees to be exact. The maple trees are starting to bud. This is a bad thing. One day of warmth in February doesn't cause this to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 05:54 PM

4. Just out of curiosity...

Do you consider the journal Nature to be a blog?

I only ask because it was published as is indicated in the article.

How about the university of Wisconsin- Madison, is that a blog?

Deny science kiddo, it does a body good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EagleKeeper (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 06:01 PM

5. I'm sure there are many theseis projects that are there.

 

It is a college after all.

And the thesis may or may not be a part of the authors dissertation.

You are believing (which in no way surprises me) a thesis. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/thesis a thesis is not science yo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 06:05 PM

6. So, you're saying that...

The publications listed above are uncredible?

Fakenews?

Won't you enlighten us about what is an exceptable source for science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EagleKeeper (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 06:08 PM

7. No, that's what you said.

 

I'm saying....

Only foolish man call thesis science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 06:13 PM

8. So you're going to repeat the lie...

That climate is 100% settled science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EagleKeeper (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 06:28 PM

9. Once again you are having a conversation with yourself.

 

I never said any such thing.

However, co2 and it's effect on our weather IS settled science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 06:37 PM

10. Ok, could you do me 1 thing?...

Let us know what are the acceptable publications for learning about climate science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EagleKeeper (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 07:26 PM

12. It's not publications, it's content.

 

It's not that difficult if you understand how things work.

You don't seem to understand how to separate the wheat from chaff. So to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 07:43 PM

13. So, correct me if I get you wrong...

There are no acceptable or unacceptable sources of information on the internet regarding this subject.

Do we need you to explain things to us?

If I say, assuming that I think you have a point, that you are full of shit. And you simply explain that my source is false, "chaff" as you say, I should simply just take you at your word?

I think, as I always have, that you and those like you are going to lose this battle.


Edit: Hitting the rack, gotta get up early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EagleKeeper (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 07:53 PM

14. You certainly have an active imagination.

 

I'll give you that.

Yes, apperarently I need to spoon feed it to you.

Exactly. You failed the very first test.

I never said the source was false. I am saying. Your op is peddling a thesis as fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 24, 2017, 07:25 PM

11. Well, barring any further input (help us doomers)...

I'm forced to assume that good publications are sources that they do not disagree with.

The bad publications are rendered judgement against as they appear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience