You can view it here, and you can view it below.
This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at Peaseblossom’s Closet.
Thanks for this. Good ammunition! How far back could you take this? How do scientists know (really know) what the climate was like prehistorically?
Keep up the good work!
I’m guessing that “a long, long, long time ago” means back to the end of snowball Earth.
Nick, google “paleoclimatology” for more on that subject than you ever wanted to know. In brief, a vast array of “proxies” exist, some of which extend very far back in time. For instance, we know there was liquid water on Earth’s surface 4.4 billion years ago, because we’ve found zircons that old, and zircons can only form where there is liquid water. For annual data (or, at least, good guesses at annual data), ice cores go back 800,000 years, and annual sediment layers several million years.
And to add…we know, based on the sedimentary record, as fragmentary as it is during the earth’s early history that liquid water on the earth’s surface has persisted throughout the earth’s history. This is true even during “snowball earth” episodes. This information establishes the end points for a temperature range throughout the earth’s history.
Barton–Although zircon can form in aqueous metamorphic fluids, some zircon is of igneous origin, where liquid water is absent.
Gavib Schmidt has responded to the Australian climate crank senator Roberts by saying the only surprise is that Roberts is a senator. Though this is a little rich considering over half of the US senate are deniers
Trump wants Nasa to focus on deep space because his hair wants to go home.
Mark–thanks. I didn’t know that. I’m weak on mineralogy.
Put some Leonard Cohen behind it, but up the tempo a wee bit, and maybe (hate to say this) find someone who’s voice is down in the bass range. That’s all production critique and understanding what hits psychologically and biologically for members of this species… we’re still in an infotainment world and you can’t be too slick with it. Just not possible.
On the logic/information/argument side there’s nothing to fault apart from that last line about the fake proof method. That has to be parsed carefully, because the second meaning has to do with a proof that is fake. Always take care with those double meanings.