And Burt: I don't care about Patrick M's alleged non-credibility. It's those palaeontological trends Archived Message
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on March 8, 2020, 2:06 pm, in reply to "Re: The *concept* of dyson spheres was not invented by wikipedia"
which he points up that interest me: Has there really been a two hundred-million-year steady decline of ambient CO2, which was getting near starvation level for green plants when the industrial revolutions began? (To which I can now add: is the world really re-greening because of increased ambient CO2? NASA and NOAA seem to think so.) And - Is it true that during that long period the mean temperature was up and down (often a lot warmer than it is now), following the Milankovitch cycles, apparently ignoring what the CO2 was doing? Regardless of who speaks them, these are either true statements or they aren't. Right? So - which is it? And where do we turn for reliable confirmation? Or - isn't there any at all, about any of all these 'facts' that are getting bandied about right now? The only thing that I can say with reasonable certainty, from the direct evidence of my lying eyes, is that Britain is now warmer - a bit - then it was seventy-five years ago. Spring comes sooner, and Winter is barely present in anything like the serious cold time it used to be, with long-lying snow. When confronted with records that seem to tell us something that we haven't actually witnessed, what do we believe? Isn't a bit of caution about making any extravagant claims essential? Most particularly about the pretty unpredictable future... (Yep, that's a note to self as well, of course. )
|
|