Curator's Statement
While not a geologist/paleontologist by profession, I was enrolled for four years as an honors geology student in the 1980s, plus I spent three years at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History's Naturalist Center, where I worked in the geology / paleontology areas.
I'm currently the Associate Curator of Paleontology for the Natural History Society of Maryland, and I keep up with the research on historical geology, paleontology, extinction events, and climate change - both ancient and modern.
There always have been a number of natural factors that have affected our planet's climate the last billion years or so: Plate tectonics, ocean current circulation, orbital variation, variations in the Sun's energy output, volcanism, and meteor impacts.
In our modern era, we also have the contribution of human activity. This is readily apparent with regard to pollution, rainforest and resource depletion.
The problem with climate is that there is no scientific process that allows us to determine which percentage of change is natural, and which is caused by human activity.
Earth’s climate changes constantly and as NOAA points out, sometimes rather quickly. During the Younger-Dryas climate episode some 12,500 years ago, climate was swinging from temperate to glacial, sometimes in intervals of less then 10 years.
Researchers weren’t sure why, but a recently discovered impact crater under Greenland’s ice sheet may provide the answer. It corresponds to the same time. Though smaller then the asteroid that effected the dinosaurs, it still would have filled the atmosphere with particles, that would have blocked the sun’s energy, and cooled Earth’s surface temperature.
The biggest problem I encounter with regard to climate, is from non-scientists who have a tendency to see what conforms to their opinions, something called Confirmation Bias.
Both sides of the political spectrum do this, but it seems that liberals and the such are practically fanatical with regard to their denouncement of those whose opinions differ from their’s, insisting that their opinion is the only opinion.
The irony is that this attitude runs completely counter to the spirit of ongoing discovery, which is what real science is all about.
2018 November 21
I'm currently the Associate Curator of Paleontology for the Natural History Society of Maryland, and I keep up with the research on historical geology, paleontology, extinction events, and climate change - both ancient and modern.
There always have been a number of natural factors that have affected our planet's climate the last billion years or so: Plate tectonics, ocean current circulation, orbital variation, variations in the Sun's energy output, volcanism, and meteor impacts.
In our modern era, we also have the contribution of human activity. This is readily apparent with regard to pollution, rainforest and resource depletion.
The problem with climate is that there is no scientific process that allows us to determine which percentage of change is natural, and which is caused by human activity.
Earth’s climate changes constantly and as NOAA points out, sometimes rather quickly. During the Younger-Dryas climate episode some 12,500 years ago, climate was swinging from temperate to glacial, sometimes in intervals of less then 10 years.
Researchers weren’t sure why, but a recently discovered impact crater under Greenland’s ice sheet may provide the answer. It corresponds to the same time. Though smaller then the asteroid that effected the dinosaurs, it still would have filled the atmosphere with particles, that would have blocked the sun’s energy, and cooled Earth’s surface temperature.
The biggest problem I encounter with regard to climate, is from non-scientists who have a tendency to see what conforms to their opinions, something called Confirmation Bias.
Both sides of the political spectrum do this, but it seems that liberals and the such are practically fanatical with regard to their denouncement of those whose opinions differ from their’s, insisting that their opinion is the only opinion.
The irony is that this attitude runs completely counter to the spirit of ongoing discovery, which is what real science is all about.
2018 November 21
With regard to climate change, researchers are continually publishing findings with regard to both natural and human influences.
There is no right vs. wrong, it just is.
Yet some people are determined to vilify and discredit certain data, based solely on opinion rather then evidence.
2018 November 22
There is no right vs. wrong, it just is.
Yet some people are determined to vilify and discredit certain data, based solely on opinion rather then evidence.
2018 November 22
"Both sides pull out data from the past to support or attack a position."
Data isn’t the problem. It just exists and is constantly being added to.
The problem is the “attack.” It exemplifies the saying about how a little knowledge is dangerous, and is contrary to open-minded inquiry that is a hallmark of real science.
2018 November 23
Data isn’t the problem. It just exists and is constantly being added to.
The problem is the “attack.” It exemplifies the saying about how a little knowledge is dangerous, and is contrary to open-minded inquiry that is a hallmark of real science.
2018 November 23
"I would like to mention to, that with new methods of observation ... the scientific ideas can be tested further, and of course we can test their validity."
That happens automatically when observations are published in a legitimate scientific journal.
Knowing the scrutiny that lies ahead, I suspect researchers meticulously check and recheck their work.
I only know of two cases personally, where the research had to be withdrawn, and that was due to human error.
2018 November 23
That happens automatically when observations are published in a legitimate scientific journal.
Knowing the scrutiny that lies ahead, I suspect researchers meticulously check and recheck their work.
I only know of two cases personally, where the research had to be withdrawn, and that was due to human error.
2018 November 23