3 ms·

We seldom address climate discussions from a perspective of geological timescales [1]. From this, it is clear that life has existed on earth throughout an extr

• vixen99 14y ago
  Not my impression. Any denizen of climate sites is rather familiar with a wide range of historical climate graphs created from an amazing number of proxies. My favourite is the analysis based on algae which synthesize a range of saturated and unsaturated fats denpending on the water temperature.
• sageikosa 14y ago
  Nature doesn't respond to conditions. Evolution isn't a process of intentions; such that we can state: "nature intends" for such-and-such a species to exist/thrive/die, except for the intervention of unnatural events. Nature is conditions, and man is a part of the equation.
  • hackinthebochs 14y ago
    This comment is quickly going the way of "correlation doesn't equal causation" style of karma-whoring. It's so overused, and more often than not misplaced, that it's a net negative to the discussion. Yes, evolution doesn't have intentions or goals, but scientists, actual zoologists and evolutionary biologists, speak of "intentions", "goals", etc when speaking of evolutionary processes (just open a Dawkins book). Anthropomorphizing a natural process is a short-hand that allows one to communicate ideas more effectively and more naturally. Everyone knows that there isn't an actual Gaia-like being pulling the strings of nature. Pointing this out is just noise in an otherwise productive conversation.
• ChuckMcM 14y ago
  "We seldom address climate discussions from a perspective of geological timescales" I used to make fun of people who talked about "The { biggest | smallest | hottest | coldest | whatever } <thing> in recorded history!" By drawing a bar for "History" (4.5 billion year planetary existence) and "Recorded History" nominally a 5,000 year stretch at the end there. Basically about .0001% of the length. So you draw "history" as a meter long bar on the chart and "recorded history" is a strip .1mm wide. Basically thinner than the line an ultrafine Sharpie(tm) pen draws. Needless to say, it wasn't a really compelling way to make a point. :-)
  • jpadkins 14y ago
    isn't recorded history only 150 years? How long have we had accurate thermometers with reliable, consistent recordings?
    • ChuckMcM 14y ago
      Well there is 'recorded history' (generic) and 'recorded weather' (specific). The latter came a bit later, the former arguably started in ancient Egypt (my 5,000 years ago or 3000 BCE) but some will put it earlier in Sumeria. There is an argument to be made that records of crop yields or floods in the Nile river basin are legitimate indications of weather conditions at the time (certainly droughts and floods). The other reason to pick 5,000 rather than 150 as a starting point is that folks will argue with you about written history starting at 150 years ago but are willing to concede that beyond 5,000 years there isn't a lot of information to extract. The point to be made is that geologically speaking, 5,000 years is a trifling. Even when you consider the 65M years since the dinosaurs left us, we're looking at .008% or a mark a mere 8mm wide for 1meter at 65M years.
• jessriedel 14y ago
  If you're going to quote Elon Musk, you might also quote him pointing out that there is a good chance we have new future hydrocarbon fuels sources (fracking, I think, and its cousins) that will ensure cheap fuel for a very long time. Limited sources of fuel is not a good argument.
• snowwrestler 14y ago
  All energy sources have negative externalities. Hydroelectric dams are by far the most effective sustainable energy source yet, but they are terrible for riparian ecosystems. The national movement in the U.S. right now is to remove dams wherever possible, not add new ones.