Creationism creeps into mainstream geology

[the_leander]

It was easy to miss the part where the field trip leader said the outcrop formed during Noah’s Flood. After all, “During these catastrophic flood flows, turbulent, hyperconcentrated suspensions were observed to transform laminar mudflows” sounds like a reasonable description of alluvial fan processes. And “massive marine transgression” sounds scientific enough. But when creationist geologists use those phrases, they take on a very different meaning.

In almost every way, the “Garden of the Gods at Colorado Springs” excursion at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) last year was a normal — even enjoyable — field trip. Standard geologic terminology was used in the accompanying field trip guide, and throughout the trip itself. The trip leaders discussed past events in terms of millions and billions of years. At each stop along the trip, the guides relied on orthodox geologic thinking, including a standard examination of sedimentary features and the nature of contacts between units.

But in reality, the trip was anything but a normal geology field trip. Instead, it was an example of a new strategy from creationists to interject their ideas into mainstream geology: They lead field trips and present posters and talks at scientific meetings. They also avoid overtly stating anything truly contrary to mainstream science.

But when the meeting is over, the creationist participants go home and proudly proclaim that mainstream science has accepted their ideas.
It’s a crafty way of giving credence to creationism. But is there anything mainstream scientists, or the conveners of meetings and field trips, can or should do about it?

Full story available here.

 

[cecilia]

those wackos are SO desperate to grab the mojo science has - and they Never can have.

 

[metalman]

Garden of the Gods

Geologist don't believe in either Creationism or "man made" global warming, both are dis-proven by geological evidence.

 

[Robert]

Garden of the Gods

Geologist don't believe in either Creationism or "man made" global warming, both are dis-proven by geological evidence.

I clicked the link but couldn't see anything claiming either of those are 'dis=proven' by geology.

Which is just as well I suppose, as that would be silly.

 

[metalman]

I clicked the link but couldn't see anything claiming either of those are 'dis=proven' by geology.

 

[Robert]

That's not a dis-proof of either creationism or man-made global warming.

 

[faethor]

That's not a dis-proof of either creationism or man-made global warming.

Here's some info on Geologists on GW and their position on GW.

 

[metalman]

The earth is on the cool side of its current temperature cycle. There is abundant fossil evidence to support that the earth has been much warmer — palm trees in the rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossils in sedimentary rocks of the far north. This is not the first warming period in the earth’s history.

The temperature 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, when the dinosaurs were obliterated by a comet, was about 22 degrees Celsius; today, the earth’s average temperature is about 13 degrees Celsius. For most of this time there were no polar ice caps. Antarctica first formed an permanent ice sheet 35 million years ago. For most of earth’s history, temperature and carbon dioxide have shown only slight correlation. Currently the earth is an ice age, and the biggest problem is not warming but if more cooling occurs.

 

[faethor]

@Metalman,

I'd agree that past behavior is the best predictor to future actions. All interesting that the earth as heated and cooled before. We indeed want to understand these in the past. It'll help us solidify our understanding of the factors at work along with solidify what to expect as the environment changes. While the past is interesting it clearly doesn't mandate the exact same factors or % of factors must be at play now. At present the best evidence that science has says it's related to man's release of CO2 into our atmosphere. Lots of factors are still influencing the planet. GW says CO2 is the largest of these factors in the present system and for the near term.

And speaking of evidence of a warmer earth there is also evidence the earth has been much colder. The evidence shows at least 3 times earth has gone into a Snowball phase where it was mostly and perhaps even completely covered by polar ice caps.

 

[metalman]

@Metalman,
And speaking of evidence of a warmer earth there is also evidence the earth has been much colder. The evidence shows at least 3 times earth has gone into a Snowball phase where it was mostly and perhaps even completely covered by polar ice caps.

The last time the sun went innactive was the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

“this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

 

[faethor]

The last time the sun went innactive was the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

“this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

I wanted to talk briefly about this one. The 2nd diagram is very interesting as it shows the flares and magnetism and how they're trending down. I wish their data set was larger as it's my understanding the trend has been this way since the 1970s, so at least 30 years. During this same time we see temps going in the opposite direction. The sun should work fairly quickly on the planet it takes about 8 minutes for the energy to get here. The question becomes since the sun is down for the last ~30 years and temps are up what other factors are at play that are causing this? Not so strangely it's the one climatologists are working on resolving.

A solar minimum such as the one thought to have influenced the Little Ice Age would be interesting to see, from a research perspective. If the sun 'shutoff' for 70 years it would seem to me we'd be at a different state than last time due to a different composition of gases in the atmosphere? Does that really happen? At what rate do the shrinking alpine glaciers take to turn around and grow? And what is that ratio compared to the sun? And of course as we come out of it, that too will provide additional interesting data.

 

[faethor]

The last time the sun went innactive was the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Some counter points for this idea. Phil Plaitt aka Bad Astronomer and Climate Crock of the Week

Also per my 1970 statement - NASA says 2008 Solar irradiance shows that --- The solar output remains low , at the lowest level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s. And 2008 was cooler than 2000 yet the 9th warmest year since 1880. My memory did work... Sun down and Temps are up.

 

[metalman]

Also per my 1970 statement - NASA says 2008 Solar irradiance shows that --- The solar output remains low , at the lowest level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s. And 2008 was cooler than 2000 yet the 9th warmest year since 1880. My memory did work... Sun down and Temps are up.

The sun had been very active for a while, each cycle more active than the last until Solar Cycle 24 (which began in 2008) Solar Cycles are 11 years each, roughly, the last time the Sun was this inactive was the during the the Dalton Minimum, which lasted 3 cycles from about 1790 to 1830, and included 1816, the year with no summer

NASA's prediction for SC24 in 2006 Hathaway was predicting it to be larger than SC23 but not as active as SC19, however ... the sun has not cooperated

 

[faethor]

The sun had been very active for a while, each cycle more active than the last

Certainly a testable claim. Here's a graph of sunspot activities. It appears to me to not support your claim.

It looks to me that the sunspot cycles have not be a continual increase in activity as you said. For one example of more recent times the 1960s appears to be much more active than the 1970s.

until Solar Cycle 24 (which began in 2008) Solar Cycles are 11 years each, roughly, the last time the Sun was this inactive was the during the the Dalton Minimum, which lasted 3 cycles from about 1790 to 1830, and included 1816, the year with no summer

Okay and we do know the sun is a large influence of the temps on the planets. If you read the 2nd link you'll see scientists have considered what would happen if we hit a Maunder Minimum this time. It appears in our present state of the planet we'd see about .3 degree drop. This would return us to average temps last seen about 15-20 years ago. Cleary the ice age isn't cometh.

NASA's prediction for SC24 in 2006 Hathaway was predicting it to be larger than SC23 but not as active as SC19, however ... the sun has not cooperated

Errors are good things as we learn from them. Certainly this will provide more data points to improve our predictions. One interesting thing is we for the first time have satellites on both suns allowing us the first 360 degree view in human history. If a sunspot lasted for the period the sun is out of our view we would have missed counting it. I wonder how this may change our data set.

Do you think it's sunspot count rather than irradiation (aka energy) that's warming the planet?

 

[faethor]

I came across this today and remembered this thread. The forthcoming Ice Age appears to be media misunderstood / misrepresentation of science. LINK

 

[Robert]

I came across this today and remembered this thread. The forthcoming Ice Age appears to be media misunderstood / misrepresentation of science. LINK

I thought about posting that here too
Potholer54's channel is one of the most informative on youtube. His educational videos are top class too.

 

[whabang]

The only thing that might come close to an ice age in our time, is if the North-Atlantic current slows down even more. It's just that that means Scandinavia and the Brittish isles will get colder while the rest gets warmer.

 

[Robert]

The only thing that might come close to an ice age in our time, is if the North-Atlantic current slows down even more. It's just that that means Scandinavia and the Brittish isles will get colder while the rest gets warmer.

Wouldn't North East America get colder too?
(Or have I been watching too much of "The Day After Tomorrow"? ;-))

 

[whabang]

Possibly; I'm no expert in the matter.

I'd guess most of the cooldown will countered by the global warming/climate adjustment/act of God anyway, so worst case scenario is that Sweden sends the army across the ice to invade Denmark again.

 

[Robert]

Haha.... I genuinely laughed out loud at that.



Watch oot Denmark! The Turnips is-a-comin!