Neo, you do come up with some good graphs. Thank you. Those graphs provide facts for my 1988 theory on Climate Change which involves plants, ice, clouds and deserts battling for pre-eminence, [with the sun joining in and orbits putting a wobble on things].
As with many living things, there are boom and bust cycles, not a lovely homeostasis with all in happy Disneyland sustainable balance.
The idea that there is balance is false. There is a billion year trend to carbon stripping and freezing in general.
The amount of dust in the atmosphere shows the extent of deserts. More dust means more desert and more reflection meaning more cooling. Dust can also be due to fires, volcanoes and bolides, but those are short-lived events with dust being cleaned out of the atmosphere in weeks rather than decades.
Deserts expand and contract. Snow cover expands and contracts. Plant cover expands and contracts. Cloud cover expands and contracts. It's a non-stop battle with one then another winning, but none permanently. The end-game is a victory for ice, not plants. Plants and animals have been stripping carbon from the ecosphere and burying it in vast graveyards of limestone, coal, bituminous goop, shale, oil and gas. They are on a hiding to nothing, to coin a phrase.
Mqurice |
