Very warm, no modern day trees, no ice, high seas

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When there is an abrupt change following a long period of stasis, it is likely that mutations rates were high and the new species took or survived.

High? This word has no meaning without context. Higher than, say, 1000 generations ago within that species? Okay. I mean, on its face, that makes sense.

Whether or not it is true is yet to be seen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you don't agree that temperatures will increase if greenhouse gas concentrations increase?

So glad you have finally come around.

Oh look,ding is having having conversations with his little dollies again.

They are easier to knock over than climate scientists.

 

[ding]

High? This word has no meaning without context. Higher than, say, 1000 generations ago within that species? Okay. I mean, on its face, that makes sense.

Whether or not it is true is yet to be seen.

I think it's important to give the full picture.

Not all mutations take or survive. Mutation rates can change. When there is an abrupt change following a long period of stasis, it is likely that mutations rates were high and the new species took or survived. And like I explained in my technology cycle analogy, the new species rapidly spreads in the inflation phase and then settles into an equilibrium phase were slight differences work to drive the next leap or major change.

The context is important. There a population over a long period of time where there were little to no evolutionary changes. This is called stasis. So during this period either the genetic mutations were low or they were not beneficial enough to take or survive. So relative to that point in time when there was an obvious change in demarcation, the mutation rates increased and were beneficial and survived.

Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

Oh look,ding is having having conversations with his little dollies again.

They are easier to knock over than climate scientists.

It's fun for me to be able to say you won't agree that increases in greenhouse gases lead to increases in temperature.

You can't deny it. Because I have shown you hard evidence where higher concentrations of greenhouses gases did not lead to warmer temperatures.

 

[ding]

You mean where you talk about technology? Not really analogous to biology is it. One is creation, one is evolution. They are different.

Try looking up the definition of analogy or analogous. Or better yet, why don't you show me how my analogy is false.

To me, evolution very much resembles the technology cycle. When a need exists, a practically complete idea emerges to address that need and rapidly grows to fill that need in the inflation phase. Then in the equilibrium phase, slight differences compete against each other until the next practically complete idea/thing emerges and the process repeats itself.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think it's important to give the full picture.

Not all mutations take or survive. Mutation rates can change. When there is an abrupt change following a long period of stasis, it is likely that mutations rates were high and the new species took or survived. And like I explained in my technology cycle analogy, the new species rapidly spreads in the inflation phase and then settles into an equilibrium phase were slight differences work to drive the next leap or major change.

The context is important. There a population over a long period of time where there were little to no evolutionary changes. This is called stasis. So during this period either the genetic mutations were low or they were not beneficial enough to take or survive. So relative to that point in time when there was an obvious change in demarcation, the mutation rates increased and were beneficial and survived.

Now do you understand?

Yes, , like 4 posts ago, I came to understand what you are saying.

You made it up. You have no evidence mutation rates sike, causing punctuated equilibrium. None whatsoever. Ounstuated equilibrium still only arises from a very few mutations.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's fun for me to be able to say you won't agree that increases in greenhouse gases lead to increases in temperature.

Well sure, masturbation is fun. A lot more fun than getting publicly laughed off theplanet, if you tried your act on a climate scientist. Which is why your denier ass is relegated to shouting into the void on an anonymous message board.

 

[ding]

Yes, , like 4 posts ago, I came to understand what you are saying.

If that were the case then you should have understood that mutation rates can change. And since we are looking for causes of rapid changes - relative to the long period of stasis - the change in mutation rate would be relative. So using the phrase high was in relation to the period in stasis.

 

[ding]

Well sure, masturbation is fun. A lot more fun than getting publicly laughed off theplanet, if you tried your act on a climate scientist. Which is why your denier ass is relegated to shouting into the void on an anonymous message board.

Do you believe that increasing green houses gases lead to warmer temperatures?

 

[ding]

Old Rocks Do you believe that increasing green houses gases lead to warmer temperatures?

 

[Old Rocks]

The science I get are from scientists, geologists. So climate alarmists call geologists idiots!! You're a brave nincompoop.

Climate changing? That's a funny one. Climate is rain, cold, hot, wind, snow, hail etc.. Many processes are at play for these to move around the planet. Meteorologists try to predict what the weather is going to be tomorrow. These have always happened, always will. You're probably misguided by the film Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, it was just made up.

So man has been recording the weather for 150 years, and if anything deviates from this, we caused it? I like the irony in you calling scientists idiots. I don't care if you view the last 150 years, the last 10,000 years or the last 1 million years.

I suggest you look over the earth's history, what was at what ppm and how life managed to cope. Once you achieve this and once you try to understand the alarmists rhetoric, then you might stop opening your mouth and coming out with the laughable pile of shite. And when it comes to idiots, calling you an idiot would be offensive to idiots. I assume you're one of those that glued their face to the pavement in protest.

LOL What a laughable liar you are. Here are what the geologists say;

The Challenge

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, causing increasingly disruptive societal and ecological impacts. Such impacts are creating hardships and suffering now, and they will continue to do so into the future - in ways expected as well as potentially unforeseen. To limit these impacts, the world’s nations have agreed to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.

To achieve this goal, global society must promptly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must reach net-zero by around 2070 to have a good chance of limiting warming to a 2° C increase and by about 2050 to achieve a more protective limit of a 1.5°C (2.7°F) increase. Either target will require a substantial near-term transition to carbon-neutral energy sources, adoption of more carbon-efficient food systems and land use practices, and enhanced removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through a combination of ecological and technological approaches.

Society must also prepare to cope with and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. Done strategically, efficiently, and equitably, the needed transformations provide a pathway toward greater prosperity and well-being, while inaction will prove very costly for humans and other life on the planet.

AGU Position Statement on Climate Change

Position Summary​

Human-induced increases in greenhouse gases, especially CO2, are the main drivers of recent global warming. Sound public policy and successful climate change mitigation and adaptation require scientifically validated assessment of current and future climate impacts.

This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the consensus among earth scientists that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate change reach projected levels; (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies that are designed to address the current and future impacts of human-induced climate change; and (4) recommends opportunities for GSA members to advance understanding of climate change.

Climate Change - GSA Position Statement 10

www.geosociety.org

Evidence & Causes of Climate Change | Royal Society

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate.

royalsociety.org

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks Do you believe that increasing green houses gases lead to warmer temperatures?

No, I don't believe that increasing GHG's lead to warmer temperatures, I accept the overwhelming evidence that increasing the amount of GHG's in the atmosphere results in a warmer world.

 

[Old Rocks]

Says the guy who can't explain why previous interglacial cycles were warmer with less atmospheric CO2.

The previous interglacial had a high point for the CO2 at 300 ppm, which is 20 ppm higher than the highest point for this interglacial. And the rapidity with which we have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere is definitely affecting our weather and our oceans. And one can see the rapidity with which the temperature is changing with this graph;

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/

 

[ding]

No, I don't believe that increasing GHG's lead to warmer temperatures, I accept the overwhelming evidence that increasing the amount of GHG's in the atmosphere results in a warmer world.

So less GHG's in the atmosphere would result in a cooler world?

 

[ding]

The previous interglacial had a high point for the CO2 at 300 ppm, which is 20 ppm higher than the highest point for this interglacial. And the rapidity with which we have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere is definitely affecting our weather and our oceans. And one can see the rapidity with which the temperature is changing with this graph;

View attachment 576283

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/

Today the planet has 120 ppm more CO2 than at any point in any previous interglacial cycle, right?

So why was the planet warmer then than today?

 

[ding]

The previous interglacial had a high point for the CO2 at 300 ppm, which is 20 ppm higher than the highest point for this interglacial.

Incorrect. The comparison is 300 ppm to 420 ppm. We have 120 ppm more CO2 in our atmosphere today than at any point in the last 400,000 years but we have had warmer temperatures in the past by 2C. How is that possible?

 

[ding]

And the rapidity with which we have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere is definitely affecting our weather and our oceans. And one can see the rapidity with which the temperature is changing with this graph;

And yet we had warmer temperatures in the past with less CO2 than we do today. Right?

 

[ding]

 

[Silver Cat]

And yet we had warmer temperatures in the past with less CO2 than we do today. Right?

What is the most important GHG? Is it CO_2? No. It is H_2O. Water vapour.
Less large herbivores - more trees. More trees - more water vapour. More water vapour - higher temperatures.
The first GW event was caused not by the oil-burners, but by the simple hunters with spears and arrows, or, may be, by prehuman carnivores.

 

[Captain Caveman]

LOL What a laughable liar you are. Here are what the geologists say;

The Challenge

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, causing increasingly disruptive societal and ecological impacts. Such impacts are creating hardships and suffering now, and they will continue to do so into the future - in ways expected as well as potentially unforeseen. To limit these impacts, the world’s nations have agreed to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.

To achieve this goal, global society must promptly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must reach net-zero by around 2070 to have a good chance of limiting warming to a 2° C increase and by about 2050 to achieve a more protective limit of a 1.5°C (2.7°F) increase. Either target will require a substantial near-term transition to carbon-neutral energy sources, adoption of more carbon-efficient food systems and land use practices, and enhanced removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through a combination of ecological and technological approaches.

Society must also prepare to cope with and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. Done strategically, efficiently, and equitably, the needed transformations provide a pathway toward greater prosperity and well-being, while inaction will prove very costly for humans and other life on the planet.

AGU Position Statement on Climate Change

Position Summary​

Human-induced increases in greenhouse gases, especially CO2, are the main drivers of recent global warming. Sound public policy and successful climate change mitigation and adaptation require scientifically validated assessment of current and future climate impacts.

This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the consensus among earth scientists that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate change reach projected levels; (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies that are designed to address the current and future impacts of human-induced climate change; and (4) recommends opportunities for GSA members to advance understanding of climate change.

Climate Change - GSA Position Statement 10

www.geosociety.org

Evidence & Causes of Climate Change | Royal Society

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate.

royalsociety.org

You stupid old fucker, the conversation was regarding geological scientists who deemed what the co2 levels, sea levels etc.. were in prehistoric times. Keep up or piss off to the EV thread where you don't even own one.