“GSA Position Statement”

The Geological Society of America bases their position about global warming on a set of fake statistics like “decreasing northern hemisphere snow.”

Geological Society of America

Snow cover is at a record high.

Global Cryosphere Watch

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to “GSA Position Statement”

  1. GeologyJim says:

    A bit over ten years ago, I was a Member in good standing of the Geological Society of America and I thought they were a fine professional organization with excellent publications and conferences.

    Then came the first statement on “Global Warming”, not much different from the current version. They got a fair amount of pushback from members who noted that the first statement “from the GSA” had never been vetted by the membership of GSA. So they allowed/solicited comment and I responded.

    I pointed out that geologists had a unique perspective to bring to the discussion of climate change because we have developed evidence through field and laboratory investigations of the wide range of prior environmental conditions in earth history.

    There is no evidence of “tipping points”, CO2 concentration has been much higher in the atmosphere in the past and no runaway warming occurred. We are currently in ice age conditions that have vacillated between full glacial and mild interglacial conditions for over 2.5 million years – and we don’t really know what causes the beginnings or the ends glacial cycles. But anyone can see from the ice core records that cooling begins when temperature and CO2 are at peak levels – and rapid warming at the end of glacial events begins when temperature and CO2 are at their lowest levels.

    So I thought the GSA statement ought to reflect that body of research and recommend further study of natural causes of climate variation – and caution against declarations of “unprecedented” modern conditions.

    I never got a response (no surprise), and the second GSA statement on Global Warming was just as ignorant as the first.

    So I terminated my membership and wrote the President of GSA my reasons and my disappointment with the organization. I suspect I was not alone.

    Another professional organization corrupted by “wokesters”. It was inevitable, given GSA headquarters location in Boulder, Colorado alongside NCAR, NSIDC and “screamin’ Mark Serreze”, and the like.

  2. conrad ziefle says:

    Well we have these famous charts that show what wave lengths are absorbed by CO2, HO2, and other gases. They show that CO2 has a couple of narrow bands of wave lengths that are absorbed. One of these, the longer wave lengths, overlaps H2O. I have read that these absorption bands are already being exhausted by CO2 and, I suppose, H2O, meaning that no additional amount of CO2 will increase the absorption. 2x more, 5x more, 1000x more…. no amount more will change the amount of heat absorbed by CO2, if it has exhausted the λs that it can absorb. CO2 is not a virus, it cannot mutate to affect other λs. If it is not so that CO2 has exhausted those wave lengths, then how close is it? How close was it before man rubbed two sticks together? The point is, it either already is exhausting those wave lengths, or it will some day. Then the next question is what happens to the heat that is absorbed? It either must heat up the CO2 which then will warm surrounding molecules, or it is quickly reradiated, The coolest body that it can radiate to is space, which is at 0 degree K. So eventually all heat sinks into the black hole of space. I think we can rightly assume that there are all kinds of thermal systems on Earth that are not well understood, not modeled correctly. Certainly, the clouds play a huge part in the temperature range of this planet.

    • The very idea of the ‘greenhouse effect’ appears to be based on the strange notion that molecules of greenhouse gases have a sense of direction by which they radiate more downwards than they do upwards. The temperature distribution in the troposphere arises from the interchange of thermal energy (enthalpy) and gravitational potential energy as the gas circulates. This circulation must take place because packages of gas are unstable under bouyancy forces, It does not arise from a difference in the incoming and outgoing irradiances as is claimed ad nauseum. Those are only different because a proportion of the heat is conveyed by convection, it is an effect, not the cause. The First Law of Thermodynamics applies, and it does not permit a greenhouse effect, except perhaps transiently.

  3. Greg in NZ says:

    I’m guessing most followers will believe that nonsense (from the GSA), similar to any cult/religion follower believing their (self-appointed) leader/anointed one.

    For those of us who can read, temperatures are now, allegedly, the “highest in 1700 years”. So, in plain English, it was even HOTTER 1800 years ago? Foot, meet mouth.

  4. Peter Carroll says:

    Check out the weasel words. “The climate has warmed”. Are they talking about climate change or global warming?
    My interpretation of a change of climate is, a change of a climate zone, as identified under the Koppen-Geiger System of Climate Classification.
    A change of climate would most likely be, an expansion or contraction of one of the 30 sub types of the five main classes. For example, the expansion of Hot Desert into a Hot Semi Arid zone.
    The way it is being presented in all the propaganda we’re being fed is a change from Tropical Rain Forest to Hot Desert.

  5. Thomas B Fowler says:

    Another fine example of the corruption of science. The global warming crowd is much like those who “explain” movements in the stock market AFTER they have occurred–something you can read every day in the financial press. They cannot predict anything, only come up with reasons why a certain movement occurred that day, with no way to verify by taking that thing away and then observing the market movement. Today the decline was claimed due to the protests in China. Likewise, now we read that Lake Mead’s decline is due to man-made global warming. Whatever happens for either one, the believers will find something on which to blame it. No better than a crystal ball.

  6. David G says:

    Very interesting comments from GeologyJim. Geologists such as yourself (and Ian Plimer) have a lot to offer the “Climate Change” debate. I am currently reading a wonderful book by an archeologist about the 65 thousand year history of the Australian Aborigines. Their history is passed down verbally (and by dance) generation to generation and deep history is called the “Dreamtime”. They are clear in their stories that warming periods are the best of times for human/animal and nature’s flourishing. Warming periods bring increased rain to Australia, with streams and rivers flowing, food growing more abundantly and widely, and are the best of times. Cooling periods, on the other hand, brought less rain and increased drought, food scarcity and starvation, coastal seas receding with less abundant sea and shell foods, and reduced numbers of humans.

  7. RegretLeft says:

    Very interesting as usual. Thanks too for the links. The last one: Rutgers Global Snow lab does in fact show a steeply inclined curve for “Fall” and “Winter” snow extent (1967-2021). But the curves for “Spring” snow extent are in the other direction – declining over the period. I wonder why that is. Ah … “wonder” ! – that is just what we are not supposed to do. We are simply instructed to believe and to be frightened. What a very narrow view of life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *