Thanks for the moon

[TheLurch]

If it's like Mars, dramatic climate changes are expected.

You have yet to make the case that Mars' climate share enough similarities with Earth's to be a relevant example. And the article doesn't help, given that it mentions nothing about the time involved in Mars' climate shifts.

[lee_merrill]

You have yet to make the case that Mars' climate share enough similarities with Earth's to be a relevant example.

How about here?

Source: MSN

Clays collected from Gale Crater on Mars by NASA’s Curiosity rover in 2016 may contain remnants of a mineral that suggests the planet had habitable conditions for up to a million years.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And the article doesn't help, given that it mentions nothing about the time involved in Mars' climate shifts.

It mentions a "100,000-year cycle", which would give a timeframe for the interval the changes would fit in.

Source: space.com

At Becquerel crater, the researchers found an alternating pattern of layers within layers that suggests that each one formed over a period of about 100,000 years as a result of cyclical climate changes.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

How about here?

So, it has in the past, when we can't observe the consequences. Not helpful.

It mentions a "100,000-year cycle", which would give a timeframe for the interval the changes would fit in.

Source: space.com

At Becquerel crater, the researchers found an alternating pattern of layers within layers that suggests that each one formed over a period of about 100,000 years as a result of cyclical climate changes.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

So, about the same time frame as the glacial cycles here, which do not cause mass extinctions.

[rogue06]

It stabilizes the earth's rotational tilt:

Source: Reasons to Believe

The stability of Earth’s rotation axis tilt is the most life-critical feature of the Moon. If it were not for the Moon, Earth’s rotation axis tilt would change so dramatically as to induce climate changes severe enough to wipe out nearly all forms of life.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

I ran across this GIF the other day.

spin.gif

There just doesn't appear to be much difference in the rotational axial tilt between Mars and Earth, and the former never had a large moon.

[lee_merrill]

So, it has in the past, when we can't observe the consequences.

But they project that the consequences would be dramatic, no observation required.

So, about the same time frame as the glacial cycles here, which do not cause mass extinctions.

But the consequences would again be more dramatic than an ice age.

Source: space.com

Mars' tilt has more variation than Earth's, wobbling by tens of degrees over a 100,000-year cycle, which can produce even more dramatic changes in climate.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

There just doesn't appear to be much difference in the rotational axial tilt between Mars and Earth, and the former never had a large moon.

I would just say the rotational tilts happen to be similar right now, not that they had never varied.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

I would just say the rotational tilts happen to be similar right now, not that they had never varied.

Blessings,
Lee

As an expert, how long would you say it takes for there to be a substantial change?

[shunyadragon]

Source: space.com

The moon has long been recognized as a significant stabilizer of Earth's orbital axis. Without it, astronomers have predicted that Earth's tilt could vary as much as 85 degrees. In such a scenario, the sun would swing from being directly over the equator to directly over the poles over the course of a few million years, a change which could result in dramatic climatic shifts.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Dramatic climatic shifts such as happened to Mars, which would indeed make earth difficult for many, or even most forms of life.

Blessings,
Lee

Given the billions of possibly stony planets in the universe through out time the odds are obvious that they would be ,amy potential earth like planets,

[TheLurch]

But they project that the consequences would be dramatic, no observation required.

Yes, because "dramatic" is such a precise scientific term, that it makes it a simple matter to project what its effects are.

We can talk more when you're interested in actual science, rather than interpreting everything as supporting what you'd like to believe.

But the consequences would again be more dramatic than an ice age.

Do you somehow think a more dramatic wobble means larger temperature changes? Because if you do, you're wrong.

[Ronson]

Yes, because "dramatic" is such a precise scientific term, that it makes it a simple matter to project what its effects are.

We can talk more when you're interested in actual science, rather than interpreting everything as supporting what you'd like to believe.

Do you somehow think a more dramatic wobble means larger temperature changes? Because if you do, you're wrong.

I have a question for you regarding a discussion in another forum:

Do you believe the American Medical Association is qualified to corroborate data related to the earth's climate?

Please do not consider what their statement might be, because it could be anything. But only in regard to their specific specialization can/should they corroborate anything outside of their field?

[TheLurch]

I have a question for you regarding a discussion in another forum:

Do you believe the American Medical Association is qualified to corroborate data related to the earth's climate?

Please do not consider what their statement might be, because it could be anything. But only in regard to their specific specialization can/should they corroborate anything outside of their field?

The statement's not specific enough. The AMA includes some people who are superb with statistics, and can determine whether some statistical work done in processing climate data is done properly. They can also, obviously, weigh in on the epidemiology of climate change's effect on human health, which certainly falls into "data related to the earth's climate". Other areas of climate science, like paleoreconstructions and climate models, would be well beyond almost everyone in the AMA.

Typically, things like "would you confirm or deny blanket statement X" are gotcha questions, not a serious attempt at an enlightening discussion. They avoid all the subtlety that's essential for understanding a complicated topic.

[Ronson]

The statement's not specific enough. The AMA includes some people who are superb with statistics, and can determine whether some statistical work done in processing climate data is done properly. They can also, obviously, weigh in on the epidemiology of climate change's effect on human health, which certainly falls into "data related to the earth's climate". Other areas of climate science, like paleoreconstructions and climate models, would be well beyond almost everyone in the AMA.

Typically, things like "would you confirm or deny blanket statement X" are gotcha questions, not a serious attempt at an enlightening discussion. They avoid all the subtlety that's essential for understanding a complicated topic.

Thanks. I ask the question because of this NASA consensus page

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

My understanding is that the AMA is not qualified to assess climate change and merely relies on the research done by others. So, in that sense, they cannot join a consensus since they don't do any original research. They may agree with the findings, in that they are convinced by the findings, and such can endorse the findings. But without original research on climate change, they cannot be part of a consensus. Again, it doesn't matter what their conclusion is, only that they aren't qualified.

NASA should not include them on a "consensus" list. NASA actually links to a list of 198 global agencies, groups and government bodies as part of the over all consensus (further down on the same page).

I also offer this definition of "scientific consensus" put forth by Ethan Siegel: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=671eff726bae

[TheLurch]

My understanding is that the AMA is not qualified to assess climate change and merely relies on the research done by others. So, in that sense, they cannot join a consensus since they don't do any original research. They may agree with the findings, in that they are convinced by the findings, and such can endorse the findings. But without original research on climate change, they cannot be part of a consensus. Again, it doesn't matter what their conclusion is, only that they aren't qualified.

Now that is an interesting and subtle issue. Not every doctor understands science well, but the AMA should include enough who do that they'd be able to evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by others, and determine where the weight of it resides, which is a less technical issue than things like the ones i mentioned earlier. They should also be able to look at other fields and figure out the difference between a consensus and bring opinions in it, since they have to be able to recognize that in their own field.

In those senses, the AMA's conclusions about where the consensus lies may be helpful for identifying the consensus. Not as valuable as generating or analyzing the data that produced the consensus in the first place, but valuable in the sense of helping no scientists determine what the consensus is.

[rogue06]

Now that is an interesting and subtle issue. Not every doctor understands science well, but the AMA should include enough who do that they'd be able to evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by others, and determine where the weight of it resides, which is a less technical issue than things like the ones i mentioned earlier. They should also be able to look at other fields and figure out the difference between a consensus and bring opinions in it, since they have to be able to recognize that in their own field.

In those senses, the AMA's conclusions about where the consensus lies may be helpful for identifying the consensus. Not as valuable as generating or analyzing the data that produced the consensus in the first place, but valuable in the sense of helping no scientists determine what the consensus is.

Couldn't a couple of statisticians do that?

[TheLurch]

Couldn't a couple of statisticians do that?

Do which? Register the consensus?

Depends. In climate science, that was done successfully. But that's not always guaranteed to work. For issues like "are the small hominins of Flores a separate species or deformed modern humans?", the scientific literature was filled with arguments because a small group of people remained convinced they were right, even though most of the field gradually accepted "new species" as the answer. So it wasn't something that you could just tally up the papers for and against and come to the right conclusion.

It's one of those cases where science being a messy, very human activity makes things difficult.