I always get a chuckle when this ice recedes and uncovers a village where people once lived.
The facts cited in this article are enlightening, but I don’t agree with all of their opinions or conclusions, on this. Just because some fraction of humanity managed to survive some past geological or meteorological events far more dramatic than what faces us in the near future, doesn’t mean we won’t be dramatically affected.From that article:
"Regardless of the causes of this earlier warmth, it makes a nonsense of claims about “tipping points”, “methane release” and “melting permafrost” scares."
I'm just a dorky swiss engineer that tries to only worry about things in my circle of control.
Yes, even the conclusions in the article are guarded. Skepticism in science is essential and healthy. Denial is not.
Scientists with an agenda have often left science behind. That goes true both ways.Except when the denial comes from other scientists, right?
We all pollute our environment. Some more than others but the exhaust from my car or woodstove should not be "pumped into my home" to prove a false point. There are some pretty bad polluters that ought to be reigned in but where do you draw that line?
Can do if you will provide a link or two. In the meantime, the very measurable and serious concern is the absorption of CO2 into the oceans. The consequences of ocean acidification are global and with potentially dire results.
"The current change appears to be the fastest in at least 300 million years, with the fastest known natural acidification event – occurring 55 million years ago – being probably ten times slower."
(broken link removed to https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/monitoring-ocean-carbon-and-ocean-acidification-0)
What the chart doesn't show is the methane released by the school bus sized herbivores covering the planet. Dinosaur emissions caused high global temperatures, but the carbon was offset by the also super sized flora.Check of your stats with a widely accepted chart. 300m/yrs temp is a co2 temp follower. 55m/yrs a wide split temp/co2, opposite of what should happen. today in general terms crossing each other. One has to accept the chart; looking around I have not seen a better one.History would tell us the we may have a + temp, flat , or -temp. Just a questioning thought on temp, not delving into acidification (i see for my writing, we both spelled acidifiacation wrong). chart dates to 2001 but over millions of years small errors a PS "the endless repetition of history.” - Winston Churchil"
View attachment 244186
What info did you ask for and didn't get? Can you give examples of people preaching that those without cat stoves are evil? There are plenty of noncats that burn cleaner than many cat stoves.I don't think so. Like me he probably came here for info( never did get any by the way ) and doesn't like being preached to about how evil he is because he has a stove w/o a cat and sometimes it smokes. Just saying.
take history and read it as you wish, we are a little(sarc) smaller than our ancestors, tomatoes smaller than than what the Sinclair Dino ate.Believe or reject . co2 and high temp didn't cause or affect their extinction, comparing our brain size and intell i think man(so sexist), strike that, people will survive. one last point , amongst ordinary folks, the accusation of use of manipulation data as false is akin to the political talk of the day. As Bg said bring in some links to prove what your sayin. I'm waiting for mother nature to get her due. The two, man and nature, will get it right something the Sinclair Dino couldn't do.What the chart doesn't show is the methane released by the school bus sized herbivores covering the planet. Dinosaur emissions caused high global temperatures, but the carbon was offset by the also super sized flora.
Even if data is in a chart, in quotes, cited, or from a "reputable" source doesn't mean it's not being manipulated. The global climate is changing, it's foolish to bicker about why.
take history and read it as you wish, we are a little(sarc) smaller than our ancestors, tomatoes smaller than than what the Sinclair Dino ate.Believe or reject . co2 and high temp didn't cause or affect their extinction, comparing our brain size and intell i think man(so sexist), strike that, people will survive. one last point , amongst ordinary folks, the accusation of use of manipulation data as false is akin to the political talk of the day. As Bg said bring in some links to prove what your sayin. I'm waiting for mother nature to get her due. The two, man and nature, will get it right something the Sinclair Dino couldn't do.
It's a bit of a tangent. But as long as it has been brought up, there are 15 times more domestic animals on land now than wild animals. Add a massive amount more humans.take history and read it as you wish, we are a little(sarc) smaller than our ancestors, tomatoes smaller than than what the Sinclair Dino ate.Believe or reject . co2 and high temp didn't cause or affect their extinction, comparing our brain size and intell i think man(so sexist), strike that, people will survive. one last point , amongst ordinary folks, the accusation of use of manipulation data as false is akin to the political talk of the day. As Bg said bring in some links to prove what your sayin. I'm waiting for mother nature to get her due. The two, man and nature, will get it right something the Sinclair Dino couldn't do.
It's a bit of a tangent. But as long as it has been brought up, there are 15 times more domestic animals on land now than wild animals. An a massive amount more humans.
As for the colorful chart by amateur Monte Heib, he is hardly "widely accepted" as an authority, nor is his hand-drawn, erroneous chart. (with no link to source) Quite the opposite it seems.
https://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/09/planetologist-o.html
(broken link removed to http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/12/what-science-says-about-role-of-co2-in-climate-change/#.XNzJvdNKjOQ)
As for the colorful chart by amateur Monte Heib, he is hardly "widely accepted" as an authority, nor is his hand-drawn, erroneous chart. (with no link to source) Quite the opposite it seems.[/QUOTE
Erroneous? Chart clearly references these two guys? (lower left corner)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Scotese
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Berner
Here is some more color, just for fun this one reads today going back. Uses different temp scale.Quite the opposite it seems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Veizer
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.