Quote:
Originally Posted by Solanum
Wow, that is a serious pile of untruths, misconceptions and misdirection. I hope that isn't what school kids are being taught or they'll be in for a shock when they go to university to study any of the subjects those comments touch upon. Anyone who compares the climate today with that of several hundred million years ago in the context of climate change is trying to pull a fast one. It is basically irrelevent as both the geology and biology of our planet is very different now (not to mention our data on the climate then has very high error bars on it compared with more recent times). I think you are a lot better off looking at the climate over the last few hundred thousand years (5 ice ages or so) and then asking those questions of how we compare now. You would get some very different answers. Lets not forget that Homo sapiens sapiens has been here for less than 200,000 years.
|
I'm afraid it's you who is misinformed. If they go to uni to study those subjects, that's
exactly what they will be taught. The geology of this planet has been the same as it is now, in so far as the processes we have presently are involved, for the past 1800-2500Ma. The biology, in so far as the overall biological process that occur are involved, have been pretty much the same for the past 350Ma (on land) and for 550Ma (in the oceans). The past climates have a very relevant bearing on what is happening now because we can study how the processes that occurred then mirror (or are different to) what they do today. It might come as a surprise to you that there were ice ages way back then. There were tropical zones, temperate zones, deserts, rainforests etc etc, just the same as now. The players on the stage may have been different but the stage was the same.
Now...I'm going to throw this whole debate open and put it on the line...
How many of you actually have studied as part of, or have a degree in Climatology, Geology, Atmospheric Physics/Meteorology/Chemistry etc??
It's all well and good being able to posts graphs and such supporting a position, but do you actually understand the science behind what you've posted, the context in which the graphs were produced, or are you just paraphrasing what's being said in those studies and what's being promulgated by the media??
Do you know why the results are the way they are??