Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Apr 5, 2020.
sculptor said: ↑
What would you use to indicate a bemused chuckle
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What is this an actors class? Ttttttttt......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here we make light of a global devastational event. Poor dynos... didn't have a chance.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
speaking of acting:
A minister was having a reading of a rather risque play that those attending were to perform for the congregation
the minister ran giggling from woman to woman grabbing their breasts
one of those present asked him why?
And, showing the stage directions, he read
"and a nervous titter ran through the crowd"
they had their time
KT (why not "CT"?)
this time is ours
As it was over a year ago I really can't remember the details. Just more of your tedious and disingenuous AGW schtick.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Except, of course, that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with AGW.
May I suggest that you seek to control your podsnappery limiting factor.
Your second post in this very thread:
"It seems rather obvious that anthropogenic atmospheric forcing should have a noticeable effect on the climate."
oops - sorry - did I make you confront an unpleasant fact?
The fuck it doesn't. (Post 66 qv.)
Except that posts #66 and #67 seem to show a misunderstanding of the Original post which did NOT cite the Cretaceous event as having any causal relationship with AGW, but more as a comparison of the results. In fact, the post does not mention the term "AGW" at all.
However the response was:
Which IMO is an attempt to twist sculptor's post into evidence of man-made change.
I read that as proposing that all atmospheric forcing has a noticeable effect on global climate, including "anthropogenic atmospheric forcing".
Perhaps the use of the term "anthropogenic" may have been misleading, but clearly, the Cretaceous event was not a man-made event.
You have no interest in such matters in themselves - as seen by your indifference to the meaning of "sea level" and your odd invocation of "equable climate" - and your supposed agenda of somehow making a "comparison" between modern times and the Cretaceous involving those apparently nonexistent concepts.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
equable 'nuff fer ya?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Equatable?
An equable climate is one whose temperature does not differ much from the equator to the poles.
eg: Dinosaurs lived all year long in northern Alaska.
Antarctica was forested, etc... .
What little we know about the Cretaceous is very interesting when compared to our quaternary.
The oceans, though shallower, seem to have been largely anoxic at depth, and much more productive at the surface and in the shallows. There seems to have been much more volcanic activity under the oceans. Though well forested, there do not seem to have been any dense woodlands but, rather what we would call an open forest/open woodland, much of which died out along with the terrible lizards. When the forests were reborn, they came in much denser.
all in all
(A congenial site - it uses "sea level" much as you do. )
Still undefined at that post, and you haven't bothered to use it.
There is no such thing as the temperature of a climate.
"Much" is undefined, likewise "differ"
- the climates of the high latitude land areas were more strongly moderated by nearby ocean, for example, which then as now apparently produced temperate regimes and forested landscapes with less seasonal variation than today's midcontinental expanses. That would be a similarity between the climates then and now - comparing apples to apples.
Meanwhile, few of the features of your description characterized the entire Cretaceous on a global scale, and in general the comparisons you finally attempt seem to wander - the oceans, which were not the oceans we have now, were not anoxic throughout the era, for example.
Tipping points and catastrophes (in the Thom sense) exist now as well (if that innuendo is an example of having acquired information from Schmelzer, who mistook them for ecotones, you have been warned), the continents were not as we know them now (they were not shaped as ours are, much less of the planet's surface was dry land, they did not as significantly block the oceanic transfer of heat between latitudes, etc).
The oxygen partial pressure, on the other hand, differed from ours globally - with all kinds of effects both speculative and well-supported.
And so forth.
I might point out that Antarctica wasn't where it is now, millions of years ago. Continental drift and all that.
[Edit to add: Oh, and I see iceaura already did that. Nothing to see here. Move along.]
Antarctica is believed to have been at the south pole for @ one hundred million years. The Cretaceous period ended @65 million years ago. So Antarctica was most likely at the south pole during the last 35 million years of the cretaceous period.
Forests and reptiles and dinosaurs and all.........
The first 55 million years of the Cretaceous provided forests and reptiles and dinosaurs in plenty - the last 35 million saw a decline in many of these species, even disappearances, despite a continuing global warmth that hung on (under a protective CO2 barrier and buffered by a slowly cooling ocean) until the asteroid tipped the global climate.
Apparently an interesting illustration of a global climate tipping point, such as we risk crossing today.
Separate names with a comma.