• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $23,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $23 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Billions of years ago...

Rose Pink

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
6,291
Reaction score
1
DH and I just watched a program that stated, some time in the past, earth was completely covered in ice for about 25 million years. Then volcanos erupted and spewed out carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and the atmosphere warmed up again melting the ice.

What I want to know is why weren't there any volcanic eruptions during those 25 million years of ice age?
 

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
6,347
Reaction score
3,897
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
DH and I just watched a program that stated, some time in the past, earth was completely covered in ice for about 25 million years. Then volcanos erupted and spewed out carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and the atmosphere warmed up again melting the ice.

What I want to know is why weren't there any volcanic eruptions during those 25 million years of ice age?


There were. Plenty of them.

Volcanoes do a lot of things. But two of the biggies are atmospheric dust and gas. The dust causes temperatures to fall. The CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Once the dust settles, temperatures will rise. But it takes time. It took a VERY long time because most of the sun's energy was being reflected off all that ice.

The reason things are happening so quickly now is that we're burning 200 million years worth of carbon deposits in a little more than a century. We release the equivalent of four major volcanic eruptions worth of greenhouse gas every year. And without the dust that normally keeps the system in check.

There's a lot more to it than that. But that's the quick and dirty explanation.


Here's a longer, more eloquent one: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.17/EarthWasComplet.html
 

Rose Pink

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
6,291
Reaction score
1
Thanks, Scoop, I'll check that out. The program discussed what brought on the ice age: acid rain causing the CO2 to bind with minerals and get deposited as limestone, thus removing it from the air. It didn't talk about nuclear winter caused by volcanos (unless that's when I left to do something else).
 

MichaelColey

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
4,930
Reaction score
122
Location
Mansfield, TX
Resorts Owned
Palace View Branson (4 Lockouts), Grandview (Points), CMV (UDI), DVC (SSR 25)
Theories change regularly. When I was in school, they said another ice age was coming. Then, they said it would be global warming. Then (after several global warming conferences got snowed out) they change their minds and are now just saying "climate change".

I'm not sure how anyone can take them seriously.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
50,480
Reaction score
21,929
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
DH and I just watched a program that stated, some time in the past, earth was completely covered in ice for about 25 million years. Then volcanos erupted and spewed out carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and the atmosphere warmed up again melting the ice.

What I want to know is why weren't there any volcanic eruptions during those 25 million years of ice age?

Not really sure how they know any of this. They certainly weren't there and time travel is not possible yet. I think most of the time they are just guessing. It is all theory, no real way to prove it.

Sure they can take soil samples and stuff, but they are just estimating and guessing based on that anyway. They carbon date stuff but have no real way to prove that it is really that old. How do they know how stuff would have changed over 100,000 years since we don't have 100,000 years of recorded history to prove it against?
 

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
6,347
Reaction score
3,897
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
Not really sure how they know any of this. They certainly weren't there and time travel is not possible yet. I think most of the time they are just guessing. It is all theory, no real way to prove it.

Short of aliens droppings loads of calcium, or salt, or other minerals into the rock strata, geologists have a very, very, very, very good idea what the climate was like based on the mineral composition of the rocks they're looking at.

This isn't magic, after all.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
50,480
Reaction score
21,929
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
Short of aliens droppings loads of calcium, or salt, or other minerals into the rock strata, geologists have a very, very, very, very good idea what the climate was like based on the mineral composition of the rocks they're looking at.

This isn't magic, after all.

I understand what they are looking at to try to make these determinations. But they could be off by hundreds of millions of years. Shoot at one time scientists thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. That was proven wrong, there is nothing to say this can't be proven wrong either.

They are basing everything off of how they think the mineral composition would have changed over time but they really don't have any way to validate that since we don't have hundreds of millions of years of recorded history to go on. How do they also know that the entire earth was covered in ice? Did they do soil samples from everywhere on the planet? These are theories, not all scientists agree, so that makes it more of a consensus? If so, that really isn't science.

They also look to other planets for signs of water or that water once existed, just because life on earth requires water for survival it doesn't mean that life elsewhere in the universe does.
 
Last edited:

Sandy VDH

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,103
Reaction score
4,486
Location
Houston, TX
Resorts Owned
Wynd VIP Plat GF, HGVC Elite, WM, HICV, +
Not really sure how they know any of this. They certainly weren't there and time travel is not possible yet. I think most of the time they are just guessing. It is all theory, no real way to prove it.

Sure they can take soil samples and stuff, but they are just estimating and guessing based on that anyway. They carbon date stuff but have no real way to prove that it is really that old. How do they know how stuff would have changed over 100,000 years since we don't have 100,000 years of recorded history to prove it against?

They do know, ice cores, it traps gas levels in the ice, which they analyze. Ok, will likely likely don't know all years, but that is a hypothesis based on what they do know from the last 740,000 years. They know it is going to change. They just don't know when and how fast.

Just because they don't have a recorded written history, from meterologists with bad toupees, does not mean that they don't have other means.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm for ice core
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core for explaination of how they interpret it.
 
Last edited:

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
6,347
Reaction score
3,897
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
Shoot at one time scientists thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. That was proven wrong, there is nothing to say this can't be proven wrong either.

Welcome to science.

Scientists NEVER say "This is 100% correct." That's what the media does.

Scientists work toward a more complete understanding of our universe. And let's face it, if it wasn't for the Pope enforcing his belief that the earth is the center of the universe, that particular theory would have been embraced much more quickly.

Facts are facts whether someone believes in them or not.
 

Conan

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,142
Reaction score
598
Location
Connecticut
Welcome to science.

Scientists NEVER say "This is 100% correct." That's what the media does.

Scientists work toward a more complete understanding of our universe. And let's face it, if it wasn't for the Pope enforcing his belief that the earth is the center of the universe, that particular theory would have been embraced much more quickly.

Facts are facts whether someone believes in them or not.

Well said.

Obviously the Church had its reasons to fight Tycho Brahe and Galileo.

I wonder who it is these days who's behind the big push to discredit science.
 

Ridewithme38

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
4
Location
Long Island, NY
These are theories, not all scientists agree, so that makes it more of a consensus? If so, that really isn't science.

Scientific Theory is a lot different then 'general' theory...there is tons and tons of data and scientific study to come to a scientific theory...Scientific Theory is the closest we can come as a people to Fact
 

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
6,347
Reaction score
3,897
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
Scientific Theory is a lot different then 'general' theory...there is tons and tons of data and scientific study to come to a scientific theory...Scientific Theory is the closest we can come as a people to Fact

And when the data changes, or we invent a more accurate way of measuring things, scientists adjust their conclusions accordingly. They're not rooted in dogma. They aren't superstitious. They EXPECT others to find mistakes in their work and correct the mistakes.

When theory changes, even radically, the scientific community rolls with it and continues their work trying to more accurately measure and predict. They don't roll their eyes and say, "Phooey, I'll go back to divination, astrology, and prophesy."
 

Ridewithme38

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
4
Location
Long Island, NY
And when the data changes, or we invent a more accurate way of measuring things, scientists adjust their conclusions accordingly. They're not rooted in dogma. They aren't superstitious. They EXPECT others to find mistakes in their work and correct the mistakes.

When theory changes, even radically, the scientific community rolls with it and continues their work trying to more accurately measure and predict. They don't roll their eyes and say, "Phooey, I'll go back to divination, astrology, and prophesy."

IMO Fact and Scientific Theory are interchangeable, I can't think of a single Fact that couldn't one day be disproved through 'more accurate ways of measuring things'...

It bothers me to the extreme how some backwoods states fall on the 'Scientific Theory' thing when talking about Evolution...Scientific Theory IS fact, its not like some of those 'Other' theories out there and should Never be compared to them
 

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
6,347
Reaction score
3,897
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
IMO Fact and Scientific Theory are interchangeable, I can't think of a single Fact that couldn't one day be disproved through 'more accurate ways of measuring things'...

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php


Fact and theory are largely contradictory terms. A fact is a fact, and is so whether or not we understand it. A theory may be fact, or might partially be true, or might be false. A theory is the result of our current understanding of whatever it is we're theorizing.

What many cannot seem to wrap their heads around is that theories cannot be "proved." They can only be disproved. It's not like Newton's Theory of Gravity is going to grow up one day to be Newton's Law of Gravity.

This is why I cringe every time the superstitious say, "You can't prove [whatever doesn't fit with my belief system]. It's just a theory."
 

ampaholic

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
2,305
Reaction score
1
Location
Spokane
... Shoot at one time scientists thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. ...

Actually it was lay people and the Church spreading the "flat earth" theory - the science of the day was pretty much mute or suspected a Tycho Brahe type of universe.

Fact and theory are largely contradictory terms. A fact is a fact, and is so whether or not we understand it. A theory may be fact, or might partially be true, or might be false. A theory is the result of our current understanding of whatever it is we're theorizing.

What many cannot seem to wrap their heads around is that theories cannot be "proved." They can only be disproved. It's not like Newton's Theory of Gravity is going to grow up one day to be Newton's Law of Gravity.

This is why I cringe every time the superstitious say, "You can't prove [whatever doesn't fit with my belief system]. It's just a theory."

There is in fact only one incontrovertible "fact" - first stated by René Descartes in Discourse on Method in 1637 - it is "Cogito, Ergo Sum"

All - repeat ALL other "FACTS" are someones idea, a theory, on opinion or some such which can not be "totally proven".

It is your right to disagree all - just be careful when you disagree with the theory of gravity. :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:

egg-splat-crack-smash-broken.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rose Pink

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
6,291
Reaction score
1
There is in fact only one incontrovertible "fact" - first stated by René Descartes in Discourse on Method in 1637 - it is "Cogito, Ergo Sum"
Maybe you only think you are.;)
 

ampaholic

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
2,305
Reaction score
1
Location
Spokane

Rose Pink

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
6,291
Reaction score
1

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
6,347
Reaction score
3,897
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
It is your right to disagree all - just be careful when you disagree with the theory of gravity. :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:

Newton's Theory of Gravity breaks down when we get to the particle level. The rules aren't the same then.

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity tries to adjust the model to fit what we know. And that still isn't enough. That's why we build these massive supercolliders -- so we can more accurately measure the particles that we do not understand.

Much of particle physics deals with gravity. Our understanding of the process is still incomplete. There's no reason to ditch Newton -- yet. But Newtonian physics only takes us so far.

So yes, science disagrees with the theory of gravity. Those whose understanding ends at "What goes up must come down" won't care about the details. But my position is those people should not be influencing policy. Nor should they have any decision about how science is taught in schools.
 

Rose Pink

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
6,291
Reaction score
1
Buckminster Fuller
 

ampaholic

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
2,305
Reaction score
1
Location
Spokane
Newton's Theory of Gravity breaks down when we get to the particle level. The rules aren't the same then.

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity tries to adjust the model to fit what we know. And that still isn't enough. That's why we build these massive supercolliders -- so we can more accurately measure the particles that we do not understand.

Much of particle physics deals with gravity. Our understanding of the process is still incomplete. There's no reason to ditch Newton -- yet. But Newtonian physics only takes us so far.

So yes, science disagrees with the theory of gravity. Those whose understanding ends at "What goes up must come down" won't care about the details. But my position is those people should not be influencing policy. Nor should they have any decision about how science is taught in schools.

+1

Scientists when disagreeing with the theory of gravity - usually don't disagree with the observable effects (such as the dropped egg) - but they instead disagree with the universality of the theory and the nuances of it's application.

The best I have heard it put is:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould
 

pianodinosaur

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
239
Location
Texas
Resorts Owned
HGVC SeaWorld x 2, HGVC Las Vegas Strip x 2, MVC Mountain Valley Lodge, MVC Legend’s Edge
The snowball earth is a very interesting theory and there is a certain amount of evidence for it. It would seem that the snowball earth is what made the Cambrian life explosion possible. My pet fossil trilobite told me so. One thing is certain: the earth has undergone severe changes in its climate long before the industrial age and will continue to do so in the future.
 
Top