Re: "Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last 485 Million Years"

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 11:45:31 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/1/2024 4:54 AM, D wrote:

 
 
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
 

On 9/30/2024 9:18 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 9/30/2024 7:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 9/27/2024 6:59 PM, William Hyde wrote:

Lynn McGuire wrote:

"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
>
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

>
The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
>
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C
drop ?
>
If not, do you have a better graph ?

>
I'm sure you have the ability to find one.  Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
>
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

>
That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website.  At least not for conservatives.
>
Lynn
>

>
The problem is, it doesn't show useful info, is being used
in a misleading way.
>
People haven't survived through climate
changes for 485 million years.
>
They've survived through them for about 2 million, at the
outside. Agricultural society has managed the survive the
climate changes of just the last 10,000.
>
Here's a chart on a more useful scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
(check the mouseover :-)
>
10,000  years ago, the Sahara was a grassland, like our Great
Plains. Now, its a wasteland. That took a change of about 2C.
Many of the great grain growing areas of the world could face
the same fate if temperature goes up another 2C.
>
We need to fix the climate to what's good for humans. What it was
5 million years ago is irrelevant.
>
pt
>

 
Actually no, if it was ok 5 million years ago, that tells us something
about today. We have all learned now that the climate has always varied,
and that there's no need for any fear. With the help of technology, we
also have an advantage over other small animals, in that we can survive
a much broader ranger of temperatures.

>
Climate has always varied. And: Most species have gone extinct.
>
We need to change that.

That resembles an attitude (which I do not say that you have) that has
puzzled me for some time: many people who claim to accept Natural
Selection are adamant that this, that, or the other species /must/ be
saved.

Natural Selection, of course, /requires/ that species go extinct so
that better-adapted species can thrive.

This is like efforts a while back (and possibly continuing) to return
a certain patch of urban uncleared ground (it is in a park and
contains a creek that, no doubt, marks the low point of the valley we
are in) to its original condition by removing invasive species.

Which is fine as far as it goes. But by "original condition" they mean
"before the White Man came". Why not "before /any/ humans came"? Why
stop at 150 years or so ago? Why not 10,000 years ago?

Still, it is worth doing, whatever the actual goal is. And most of the
invasive species are a lot more recent that even 150 years.

I don't want humans to go extinct, which means we have to keep
climate within the range we know we can handle.
>
Its not just a matter of whether we, personally, are comfortable.
Our food species also need to be sustained, and they're a lot
more sensitive than we are.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"