131–140 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a scientist so I'm curious why this is interesting.
It's not scientifically interesting, the glacial-interglacial cycles are pretty well established. I'm guessing they're trying to insinuate some climate change minimalism argument.
I love humans. They somehow decided to start drilling, and not give up & get funding for 7 years. We are a crazy but exciting bunch of organisms.
> We are a crazy but exciting bunch of organisms. I read this as "crazy but extinct bunch of organisms"
Interesting: "Towards the base, the ice is more than 120,000 years old and dates back to the last interglacial period, a time when the atmospheric temperature above Greenland was 5°C warmer than today."
Iirc, the CO2 concentration now as been pumped up higher than it was then, which is in part what is worrying because temps might then potentially shoot even higher. Bottom line: we need large scale carbon capture quickly because even if we reach net zero CO2 will take millenia to drop back to the level it was pre-industrial revolution. Edit: I wouldn't focus on "pre-industrial levels" specifically, the point is that…
I’ve always wondered: what do they do if the shaft snaps somewhere in the middle?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not aware of any data that supports humans 120k years ago having a significant impact on the earths climate. I think even our ability to start fire at will is conclusively known to be only ~50,000 years ago.
"Claims for the earliest definitive evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0 million years ago " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_hum... You don't need to be able to start a fire, when you keep the fire burning all the time. And you can do that, once you control the fire and figure out the difference between dry and wet wood. Also humans are the dominating species…
I'm not sure what your perspective on this situation is but I think the case for modern anthropogenic climate change with deleterious effects is based on a wide range of different evidence, and a careful accumulation of facts and analysis. Simply pointing out that humans had fire 2Mya doesn't change the general conclusion about today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iirc, the CO2 concentration now as been pumped up higher than it was then, which is in part what is worrying because temps might then potentially shoot even higher. Bottom line: we need large scale carbon capture quickly because even if we reach net zero CO2 will take millenia to drop back to the level it was pre-industrial revolution. Edit: I wouldn't focus on "pre-industrial levels" specifically, the point is that…
Why do we need to get back to the levels pre-industrial revolution?
That's a rate of about 4.3 centimeters per hour. Can anybody elaborate as to why this process takes so long?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does half-life mean in the context of DNA? One base pair corrupted / unrecoverable? Half of them?
half life generally means that within the time frame 50% of the material will have been destroyed or changed. so it would mean that half of the dna might still be available after 1M years
Some interesting work in the many contexts where half-life works would be to say what the Markov property says about the mechanism of the decay or whatever are trying to predict in the context.
I love humans. They somehow decided to start drilling, and not give up & get funding for 7 years. We are a crazy but exciting bunch of organisms.