3 ms·
Okay? I don't see how this is relevant? All I was saying was that there was a point in time without rice cultivation, and another one with rice cultivation. The
by Timon3 4y ago
Okay? I don't see how this is relevant? All I was saying was that there was a point in time without rice cultivation, and another one with rice cultivation. The point with cultivation has higher levels of methane. Even if you were to return to the point without cultivation, the period with cultivation will have lead to an increased temperature.
- Retric 4y agoIt’s relevant because you said relatively recently then chose a completely arbitrary yet undefined point. Once you start talking about periods before written or oral records we have little basis for comparison to say if it was good or not. Why not chose the last ice age, or even periods with higher than current global temperature as the baseline?
- Timon3 4y agoI stay by that. On a climate scale, scaled-up rice production has started a short time ago - which is why I wrote my initial comment: looking at the climate right now and extrapolating that current rice farming has no impact on climate change is illogical.
- Retric 4y agoThere is no “long term climate scale.” Climate responds relatively quickly to changes.
- Timon3 4y agoSorry, but what exactly are you arguing for? Of course you can view the climate at different time scales, and of course you can refer to those time scales by colloquial terms. Climate shows cyclic behavior at the time scales I was referring to: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/education/climate-primer/natural-climate-cycles https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/education/climate-primer/natura... You could have asked for what I was referring to, but instead you chose to jump in with your definitions. Have you had conversational success with this approach?