5 ms·

Since you are the most scientific person here, could you talk about the oxygenation levels during interglacial periods? Also, what did humans do then to reduce

Since you are the most scientific person here, could you talk about the oxygenation levels during interglacial periods? Also, what did humans do then to reduce CO2 emissions? Edit: Science doesn't win when you downvote inconvenient questions.

mirimir 10y ago
Humans don't need to do anything about CO2 emissions. We'll do whatever we do, they'll do what that leads to, and other stuff will go down accordingly. Humanity may go digital, so ecosystem disruption won't matter so much, except perhaps esthetically. But whatever happens, I suspect that the ride will get bumpy for a while. Edit: I'm not arguing against reducing CO2 emissions. I'm just saying that it probably won't happen. That shit will happen. And that, over the long term, natural selection will deal with it all.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  I completely agree with you. Unfortunately some truths are too offensive for science tourists.
nickbauman 10y ago
Yeah, yeah. It turns out that it's unlikely that sea level was glacioeustatically higher than present by more than a few meters during any interglacial of the past 2.5 million years as a result of accounting for oxygenation levels during interglacial periods. A few meters affects billions. Are you liking those odds? There are a number of theories on what starts and stops ice ages, none of them having to do with human intervention, sure. Does that mean that the rise of CO2, especially if it comes from human activity, shouldn't be reduced now? I think not.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  2.5 million years far exceeds my expectation for human survival. You aren't comparing apples to apples when we are talking about date ranges that large. What are humans going to do that will prevent the dike from bursting when we are dealing with geologicial change? We might as well pretend we can stop earthquakes.

5 ms·

Since you are the most scientific person here, could you talk about the oxygenation levels during interglacial periods? Also, what did humans do then to reduce

by droopybuns 10y ago

mirimir 10y ago
Humans don't need to do anything about CO2 emissions. We'll do whatever we do, they'll do what that leads to, and other stuff will go down accordingly. Humanity may go digital, so ecosystem disruption won't matter so much, except perhaps esthetically. But whatever happens, I suspect that the ride will get bumpy for a while. Edit: I'm not arguing against reducing CO2 emissions. I'm just saying that it probably won't happen. That shit will happen. And that, over the long term, natural selection will deal with it all.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  I completely agree with you. Unfortunately some truths are too offensive for science tourists.
nickbauman 10y ago
Yeah, yeah. It turns out that it's unlikely that sea level was glacioeustatically higher than present by more than a few meters during any interglacial of the past 2.5 million years as a result of accounting for oxygenation levels during interglacial periods. A few meters affects billions. Are you liking those odds? There are a number of theories on what starts and stops ice ages, none of them having to do with human intervention, sure. Does that mean that the rise of CO2, especially if it comes from human activity, shouldn't be reduced now? I think not.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  2.5 million years far exceeds my expectation for human survival. You aren't comparing apples to apples when we are talking about date ranges that large. What are humans going to do that will prevent the dike from bursting when we are dealing with geologicial change? We might as well pretend we can stop earthquakes.