Post by jonbain on Sept 24, 2019 23:07:22 GMT
Trying to understand Planetology is always going to be
an open-ended debate. We can never be certain, because
there are just too many variables. Anyone who denies this,
is not being rational.
I have not formally constructed an article for this reason,
and time constraints. But I have established what I take
to be the most plausible theory.
Long scale changes beyond 1 million years are irrelevant
and likely too complex to properly understand with accuracy.
Cycles of ice-ages and wet ages of approximately 100 000 years
have been established in fairly neat cycles from data obtained
from the Vostok ice-core.
We are currently in the last thousand years of such a cycle.
Ocean levels are very high, and as we reach the hottest point,
the entire planet suddenly freezes over with ocean levels 'suddenly'
dropping radically.
So why?
It seems that the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses reach
a critical point and, a bit like a thermostat, a sudden switch
is triggered.
The most likely scenario is that CO2 (&ggasses) are the by-
product of life forms. When a planet is hot, more of these
life forms produce more CO2 which causes the classic
global warming. But more importantly, life-forms which
absorb CO2 become weaker in this part of the cycle.
So it seems that humans are not all that special, and it could
have been bears or some type of ocean life that could have
triggered previous cycles of warming and ice-age.
But because these details are well below sea-level, there is
even the distinct possibility that humans could have been
the culprits 100 000 years ago too. Simply lots of fires
would have this effect.
Humans are the current antagonist as well as the
best potential cure. We have gobbled 90% of fish from the
sea over the last 200 years which means that we have
also stopped fish from fertilizing the oceans - and thus
there has been a sudden dropping off of zoo-plankton.
These are the creatures that could absorb our CO2.
So the only solution is to replenish the oceans,
which is a monumental task.
I have more detail, but I want this to be readable and debatable.
an open-ended debate. We can never be certain, because
there are just too many variables. Anyone who denies this,
is not being rational.
I have not formally constructed an article for this reason,
and time constraints. But I have established what I take
to be the most plausible theory.
Long scale changes beyond 1 million years are irrelevant
and likely too complex to properly understand with accuracy.
Cycles of ice-ages and wet ages of approximately 100 000 years
have been established in fairly neat cycles from data obtained
from the Vostok ice-core.
We are currently in the last thousand years of such a cycle.
Ocean levels are very high, and as we reach the hottest point,
the entire planet suddenly freezes over with ocean levels 'suddenly'
dropping radically.
So why?
It seems that the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses reach
a critical point and, a bit like a thermostat, a sudden switch
is triggered.
The most likely scenario is that CO2 (&ggasses) are the by-
product of life forms. When a planet is hot, more of these
life forms produce more CO2 which causes the classic
global warming. But more importantly, life-forms which
absorb CO2 become weaker in this part of the cycle.
So it seems that humans are not all that special, and it could
have been bears or some type of ocean life that could have
triggered previous cycles of warming and ice-age.
But because these details are well below sea-level, there is
even the distinct possibility that humans could have been
the culprits 100 000 years ago too. Simply lots of fires
would have this effect.
Humans are the current antagonist as well as the
best potential cure. We have gobbled 90% of fish from the
sea over the last 200 years which means that we have
also stopped fish from fertilizing the oceans - and thus
there has been a sudden dropping off of zoo-plankton.
These are the creatures that could absorb our CO2.
So the only solution is to replenish the oceans,
which is a monumental task.
I have more detail, but I want this to be readable and debatable.
