No; the wrong conclusion is that it was warmer 7000 years ago, cuz it wasn't.
So those 7,000 year old tree stumps, only now being uncovered by that receding glacier, were actually growing INSIDE the glacier?
Really now....
What about the ones that Koch cited have been found (the same age, mind you) in New Zealand and S. America?
Or do you believe that there has been some amazing fast tectonic shift of those locations from the N. Hemisphere to the Southern over the course of 7,000 years??
Another conclusion, maybe correct, maybe wrong, is that the Anthropocene began when Ruddman says it does
So you don't believe that having nearly ONE HALF of all phytoplankton disappear from the oceans over 60 years has little to no impact on CO2 (and therefore, Global Warming).. And you think human deforestation even comes close to that level? Phytoplankton account for 50% of all photosynthesis on the planet.. And you're not remotely worried about fertilizing them, but you would have us engage in a tree-planting frenzy, right?
.. But suddenly you're willing to entertain the notion that, 8,000 years ago, human introduction of agriculture and making bronze tools commenced dramatically increased global temperatures?
Seriously.. Is this what you're trying to have us believe?
But then, that doesn't quite explain how the earth cooled sufficiently to permit glacial growth over the past 7,000 years.. now does it?
Hawk |
