120 Two scales that define our actions in Climate Changing World!

There are two scales of operation on Earth: geologic (millions of years) and human (years, dozens, hundreds years); science operating on these scales has different precisions but similar accuracies.

Source of the accuracy – precision diagram: https://wp.stolaf.edu/it/gis-precision-accuracy/

Science at geologic scale demonstrates existence of cycles of various events on the Earth, including climate change; Earth cycles of climatic variations, birth and death of oceans (Wilson Cycle), mass extinctions, glacial growth and retreat, river evolutions (e.g. meanders), etc., have time periods that can be quite lengthy. As much as it is true it does not help decision making process that is taking place right now because events at geologic scale take place over long periods of time.

Earth cycles history is scientifically supported and give use an insight into Earth evolution and our potential future; however, nobody worries about the future because of the size of geologic time scale. For example, nobody worries now about the future ocean that might be born due to the rifting (spreading apart) of East Africa or Lake Baikal. It is going to occur (or maybe not!) but it is not going to occur in our lifetime! Therefore, why bother???

Science at the human scale (for example, last 100 years) demonstrates rapid changes taking place on the Earth. These changes are visible and prompt governments to interfere. However, it is hard for science to test hypothesis or ideas over short period of time because many geological processes are lengthy and their results might not be seen immediately. However, human perception, especially in our times when technology becomes more and more powerful, is geared toward finding immediate solution. In this case political motivation and human ambitions get mixed with science and completely ignore geologic history with its cyclical evolution since it does not help immediate action. This is how we can loose the long-term vision and move toward unnecessary expenditures (how many studies did we fund to prove what we already knew in 1948? Investments in carbon credits, paying developing countries for the damages associated with global warming, etc.) and unhealthy political decisions (e.g. looking for the global warming scapegoats).