I want a graph from 4.5 billion years ago, then I’ll be convinced.
That’s not far enough. You’re clearly trying to hide something!
Yeah, renaissance aerosols
I think before that it was real, real cold.
I considered making a graph that was very briefly at 10 to the power of 9 Kelvin and was then pretty steady at between 5 and 2.7 Kelvin for a few billion years, but decided that would be…challenging.
I wonder if perhaps you’re reading that first graph backwards…
Edit: Or perhaps you’re suggesting CO2 doesn’t have a relationship with temperature?
Ill bite. As someone whos 5050 and love a little taste.
We cant stop1.5 degrees so its happening anyway.
But…every model has been wrong like every prediction.
Also, thats a repirt on the UN report not th3 actual repirt. The bias is wild
Isn’t there about 15 gigantic sized whirlpools of plastic ■■■■ out there?
Don’t you mean 5150?
Correct, those graphs are “backwards”. 0 is the present day, and the 500 is 500 years ago!
The purpose of the graphs are to show how back into the past they go. When the graphs are updated to show 600, 700 or more years they’ll simply add more data to the right of the graph instead of adding to the left.
That graph is great.
You would hope something is done and it starts to turn around.
where did these come from?
I remember seeing the Australian Story episode about this back in 2005 and found it really interesting at the time. I remember it was along the lines of allowing weeds and other plants to grow, rather than being treated with pesticide/herbicide, to allow plant roots to take hold and prevent erosion, and then subsequently allowing water courses to flow slower (due to plant life and tree matter forming partial blockages in the water course). Over time the weeds get outgrown/replaced by other native species and the soil is kept hydrated.
I know an old Army colleague who worked on this project near Canberra and he says it was extremely effective and could offer brilliant long-term options towards drought-proofing, but faced significant goverment hurdles around the requirements to eardicate certain weeds and limitations on affecting water courses.
I don’t claim to understand the sciencey stuff that underpins all this, but surely it’s worth pursuing?
Covering the irrigation channels to reduce evaporation would be another thing to do.
In no expert myself but I’d say that those methods could be useful in some situations but are not a panacea.
Natural sequence seems to be a synonym for ecological succession, the typical progression through several stages of a disturbed (fire, clearing, etc.) environment leading to a stable final system. Weeds are mostly species early in that process. Alot of farming practices, ploughing, slashing, spraying and so on, mimic ecological disturbance and so promote weed growth. Allowing ecological succession to continue and overcome these weeds seems reasonable. But some farming practices probably can’t change easily. And some weeds seem dominant towards the end stages of succession or create the conditions for their dominance. In these cases weed control is still going to be necessary.
Problem is George that many of the weeds are introduced species that actually strangle the native species., and they are also dangerous to native animals and livestock.
However that said, in my area the Moorabool River is nearly dead due to flows being interupted and the constant clearing of the river banks and waterways making whatever water is left to flow along more quickly.
Intersting to listne to the local farmers on the matter; some just want ot take out as much water as possible for stock and crops, while others fight to ensure that the river will live.
Stop giving away water to foreign owned mines too
Shouldn’t give water to any mines. I don’t discriminate between local and foreign parasites
Could just, you know, … stop growing the 2 most water intensive crops, in Rice & Cotton, in the Driest Continent on Earth.
Still boggles the mind, that fkwits in our Governments let this happen, and continue to.