Ice Age Earth

[tzor]

You are wrong, tzor. Not only does most of our food chain rest firmly in the sea, but the sea provides a lot of the oxygen of Earth.

The wildlife that lives in the coral reefs are not a significant part of our food chain. The primary damage is that if the reefs are destroyed they loose their protective habitats. It doesn't take much of an increase to cause this to happen. Most life can adapt to that slightly increased level, but the reefs cannot. They would be the first casualties and they are the first casualties in many areas.

For most of the food chain, deoxidation of the water as a result of nitrogen insertion poses a far more (orders of magnitude) significant damage. The Most Recent Mass Fish Kill in Riverhead, Long Island, NY

Click image to enlarge.

[Phatscotty]

The big intro

[Phatscotty]

We are not "fearing carbon" in any sense that you imply. Might as well say why fear fire because we are full of chemical reactions. Why fear eating hemlock or gasoline..

This is a good point. Phatscotty, for science, I think you should drink gasoline and tell us how it tasted.

Commit to granting 3 responses to 3 of my posts henceforth, I will either have you contradicting everything you stand for or admitting carbon is exactly what you fear, and that is regardless of whether or not you answer honestly.

[hotfire]

how long has oil been in the ground and how long has it taken us to release it into the air and how long is it going to take to become oil again?

[Metsfanmax]

We are not "fearing carbon" in any sense that you imply. Might as well say why fear fire because we are full of chemical reactions. Why fear eating hemlock or gasoline..

This is a good point. Phatscotty, for science, I think you should drink gasoline and tell us how it tasted.

Commit to granting 3 responses to 3 of my posts henceforth, I will either have you contradicting everything you stand for or admitting carbon is exactly what you fear, and that is regardless of whether or not you answer honestly.

I like carbon, even in the form of carbon dioxide. It's just that moderation is key. But since I haven't actually responded to a post of yours seriously for a good while now, I'll take the bait.

[AAFitz]

An unanswered question I still have for flood-denialism.

Everyone knows the earth used to be in an ice age, right?

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Have we really never had to wonder for ourselves what happened to all the ice??? Is it really so silly to entertain the idea that the ice melted, turned into water, and flooded the oceans???

An Ice age doesnt mean there was ten feet of ice over everything...but that it was a much colder climate. If you are referring to snowball earth theory in which the entire globe may have been covered in ice, it is entirely possible that there was complete global flooding, if it melted quickly, which it did not. It is also impossible, that humans saw this occur.

If the earth went into an ice age this minute, and froze all the water, the water would melt in the same place. There no doubt would be areas of localized flooding and rather severe no doubt, but it would not encompass the entire globe. That being said, if one group happens to write about it and all other documents get destroyed, than a true accounting for what happened is not possible from those books alone. Instead science would need to investigate the more likely events that took place.

This is overly simplified of course, but no to the depths that your 'scientific' hypothesis is.

As far as lots of people believing something to be true, scientifically, that can be proven to not prove anything. The only thing that is ever true, is what is true, and sometimes the answer is actually quite complex.

I mean, ask someone who's never seen a computer and they might assume a god created it. What it can do is beyond magical.....that person may be intelligent, but they are also obviously quite ignorant. I dont care how many of his friends believe him.

[warmonger1981]

Tzor wrote:CO2 potentially increasing the average temperature is way down at the bottom of the scale.


I'm pretty sure the temperature rises before CO2 levels. Not the other way around. Many believe that the CO2 levels rise before the temperature does but that's false.

[jgordon1111]

how long has oil been in the ground and how long has it taken us to release it into the air and how long is it going to take to become oil again?

Hot I will give you an example that might help you, maybe not

A human or any other animal is killed placed in a plastic bag dumped in the desert, found a month later, nasty business, all that is left is oily residue.
Extreme heat, but shielded from direct sunlight, you are about a qt. Of oil

[PLAYER57832]

You are wrong, tzor. Not only does most of our food chain rest firmly in the sea, but the sea provides a lot of the oxygen of Earth.

The wildlife that lives in the coral reefs are not a significant part of our food chain. The primary damage is that if the reefs are destroyed they loose their protective habitats. It doesn't take much of an increase to cause this to happen. Most life can adapt to that slightly increased level, but the reefs cannot. They would be the first casualties and they are the first casualties in many areas.

OK, haven't logged in for a while, so let me remind you that I was a fish biologist, and for a while specialized in Gulf of Mexico reefs. Also did some plankton work, though more as what you might call a collector/observer (did not look in the microscopes much). You are underestimating the impacts of higher Carbon Dioxide AND you are underestimating the reef species. Although they might not seem that significant in terms of direct food source (highly debatable, that, but giving you the point anyway), they are key species in a lot of ways. Reefs are among the most productive biomes on Earth. Its not a long stretch at all to say that without reefs, we would not have fish, but you would have to also understand that this means not just those fancy tropical reefs (though they are more significant than you seem to imply themselves), but any "hard bottom" area.

Anyway, the big danger is loss of plankton life. Estimates for the impact of phytoplankton on our Oxygen have gone down (bounced around, but most recently have been downgraded some). Plankton is the basis for all sea food chains and the sea does directly and indirectly provide

Per fishkills... you have to be specific. I am not sure to what you are referring. There are several broad, general causes and some newer causes. Some are quite regular, almost predictable and others are not.

[PLAYER57832]

I am not a scientist player,but please explain to me how most of (our) food chain is in the sea? You may have mispoke there

Most broadly, life depends on the sea in many ways, for everything from weather regulation to our water cycle's function to significant contribution to the Oxygen we breath, etc. Life depends on both water and Oxygen. An impaired ocean impairs each of these.

The biggest impact, however is on weather. A way to think of the ocean is like a giant "buffer" -- that is, it helps to sort of "even out" a lot of cycles in ways that are dependable/important. Just one example can be seen in hurricanes. A slight change in the ocean temperature will widely alter the intensity of storms. A small change in the ocean temperature is thought to have changed the Gulf Stream to such an extent it helped cause the little Ice Age in Europe. Similar seemingly small shifts is suggested to have caused, to be causing the expansion of the Sahara desert, etc. (but I know much less about that than the local impacts).

More directly, large swaths of the world depend on ocean fisheries for food. Ocean takings serve for fertilizer, feed for other animals, etc. In some cases, these are part of the inefficiencies of our food system. In other cases, parts that could be expanded to increase efficiency.

[PLAYER57832]

how long has oil been in the ground and how long has it taken us to release it into the air and how long is it going to take to become oil again?

Hot I will give you an example that might help you, maybe not

A human or any other animal is killed placed in a plastic bag dumped in the desert, found a month later, nasty business, all that is left is oily residue.
Extreme heat, but shielded from direct sunlight, you are about a qt. Of oil

Sort of, but no.
Most of the petroleum we use comes from deep in the ground and came from long dead species. There have been some other sources suggested. Most of the criticism, the claims that oil is not mostly from fossils, has long been discredited. The ideas keep reappearing -- basically because the media likes controversy. Also, if someone new present an idea, then scientists somewhere will take the time to address it (though those bringing up the "new" information typically like to claim some conspiracy, not hard facts, dismissed the idea). In among the garbage are some real modifications to the real theories. Again, any minor change seems to get spun off by some into big conspiracies, accusations of complete inaccuracies, etc. Here is a link that has a several people offering varied answers. http://chemistry.about.com/b/2014/05/07 ... iction.htm They also link to some other information, so if you wish to pursue it further, you can.
For variety, here is a pretty traditional answer from Colgate University: http://f03.classes.colgate.edu/fsem037- ... of_oil.htm AND, of course wikki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_geology


For the sake of DEBATE, and hoping that some of the more chemically minded can find the errors: here is a link from "Answers in Genesis" https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/

[jgordon1111]

So player, the gist of your overall statement is everyone likes seafood, but again I point out your previous statement(you) generalized (our) food chain is in the ocean, who is exactly (our), I can think of a few islands and some costal locations that may fall into the category you suggest, but not enough for the broad sweeping statement you describe

[Phatscotty]

http://principia-scientific.org/satelli ... ot-humans/

Try to get past the snarkiness in the beginning, if need be go ahead skip to radiation levels and solar activity.

The ‘science’ for dangerous man-made global warming continues to unravel as proven by independent Australian climate researcher, Ross McLeod. nimbus satelliteHere he explains how measurements of solar cycles from the reliable Nimbus Satellite (pictured) better fits Earth’s warming and cooling than human emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).

McLeod explains:

I remember climate scientist Roy Spencer was roundly criticised for once stating an obvious fact in relation to climate alarm about “heat trapping” CO2 and the calamity that awaited mankind if fossil fuels did not remain in the ground.

He simply stated that satellites have measured that Earth has been emitting more radiation to space over the recent decades.


Alarmists assumed this was an all-out attack on the hypothesis of the enhanced greenhouse gas effect.

At the time I did a little bit of research and discovered that 2005 was the 40th anniversary of the Nimbus satellite program. The series of Nimbus satellites provided ground breaking information about Earth’s weather systems.

But why are information sites such as this full of condescending misinformation?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... imbus2.php

“The Earth’s Radiation Budget

When it comes to climate and climate change, the Earth’s radiation budget is what makes it all happen. Swathed in its protective blanket of atmospheric gases against the boiling Sun and frigid space, the Earth maintains its life-friendly temperature by reflecting, absorbing, and re-emitting just the right amount of solar radiation. To maintain a certain average global temperature, the Earth must emit as much radiation as it absorbs. If, for example, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause Earth to absorb more than it re-radiates, the planet will warm up.”

Just what is our protective blanket of atmospheric gases protecting us against anyway?

“frigid space” ?

What does “frigid space” have to do with the space surrounding Earth at its orbit around the Sun???

The Sun has a surface temperature of 5778 Kelvin and emits of the order of 63,290,000 Wm-2 over every square metre of the photosphere. By the inverse square law this staggering power is reduced to ~1368 Wm-2 at the distance the Earth is from the Sun.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... nfact.html

A simple Stefan-Boltzmann calculation establishes this radiation power is capable of easily boiling water at Earth’s orbit – ~120 degrees C. Even as far away as Mars the solar radiation is capable of inducing a temperature of ~319 Kelvin or ~46 degrees C in any object that absorbs significant quantities of it.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... sfact.html

How could any rational person call that “frigid”?

Being heated to 46 degrees C by absorbing significant quantities of the solar radiation cannot be described as frigid. The huge sphere mapped out by Mars’ orbit is not “frigid space” by any stretch of the imagination.

To further illustrate just how ludicrous this ridiculous claim is consider that at Earth’s orbit there are basically only two ways to avoid this extremely powerful radiation – reflect it away or hide behind some large object like a planet.

But just to illustrate how insignificant “hiding behind a planet” is this is a NASA photo of Venus transiting the Sun:- sun venus

As is plainly obvious Venus – the small black dot top left – makes no significant difference to the amount of radiation between the Earth and the Sun.

For educated people to claim that “frigid space” is a realistic description of any of the space contained in the huge “sphere” mapped by the orbit of Mars simply beggars belief.

Are the people who write gobbledygook like this simply too stupid to describe or are they deliberately practicing misinformation to bolster a hypothesis?

Then we have the radiation “heat” trapping statement – “If, for example, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause Earth to absorb more than it re-radiates, the planet will warm up.”

radiation graph

Then they produce the graph (above) from 1979 to 2005 – why they ignored the period 1965 to 1979 – more than a third of the time period – is anyone’s guess (but I am suspicious) – after all it was the 40th anniversary!

Surely the graph completely dispels the “heat” trapping causing warming hypothesis. It clearly shows Earth radiating more over the time frame – not less – the radiation anomaly is positive over almost all of the period with the “dips” explained by volcanic aerosols or La-Nina. But how can the atmosphere trap radiation and yet at the same time emit more radiation? Surely that is the classic oxymoron?

Surely this graph is a clear representation of response to an external forcing due to the only one we have – the Sun?

Of course the classic response from climatologists is that the changes in the Sun’s TSI are too small to account for observed warming.

But how often do they tell us that during the latter half of the 20th century the Sun went through a series of the most active solar cycles ever observed – by sunspot count alone these cycles are ranked 1 – 4?

http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/3/2

Solar cycle 19 reached maximum in 1958 – number 1 most active solar cycle ever reliably observed.

Solar cycle 21 reached maximum in 1979 – number 2 most active solar cycle ever reliably observed.

Solar cycle 22 reached maximum in 1989 – number 3 most active solar cycle ever reliably observed.

Solar cycle 18 reached maximum in 1947 – number 4 most active solar cycle ever reliably observed.

Solar cycle 20 reached maximum in 1968 – and even though a weak cycle it still ranked number 6 most active solar cycle observed in the 20th century – leading to the 1970’s cooling scare.

But the article isn’t merely about the series of solar maximums but rather about how unique cycle 22 was.

Is it coincidence that a series of the most active solar cycles ever reliably observed correlates with a period of global warming in the latter half of the 20th century?

Is it coincidence that Solar cycle 23 was significantly less active – ranking number 5 compared to the 20th century and only marginally higher than the weakest of any cycle since 1937 – while Solar cycle 24 “is on track to be the Solar Cycle with the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750” and satellite data tell us there has been no significant global warming since the 1997/98 El-Nino?

Surely no-one expects something as large and complex as Earth’s climate system to react to changes in solar forcing in a time frame of less than perhaps decades?

[Metsfanmax]

Before considering digging into that, let's clear up a simple misconception it makes. It is not inconsistent for the Earth to be warming through enhanced radiation trapping and for the amount of radiation energy emitted by the Earth to be increasing. The planet's temperature is stable when the amount of radiative energy coming in is balanced by the amount coming out. Suppose something happens to increase the amount of solar energy incident upon the Earth, like an increase in the Sun's output. That will cause the Earth to warm. A warmer body emits more radiation energy. The Earth will keep warming until it reaches the equilibrium point where the new, higher amount of radiation emitted is equal to the new, higher amount of radiation that is incoming from the Sun. The author of that seems to understand this.

When it comes to warming from greenhouse gases, a similar principle applies. Consider an Earth with no atmosphere. The temperature of the Earth, if we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at all, would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheight on average, compared to the average now of nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Because this hypothetical planet is colder, it emits less total radiation energy. When we add an atmosphere, the equilibrium temperature increases. Hence the amount of radiation outward increases as well. The author seems to think this is paradoxical but is simply confused. This principle has nothing to do with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; it's purely a consequence of the fact that the Earth is warmer and warmer bodies emit more radiative energy. If the author would accept that the Earth now emits more energy into space than it would have without an atmosphere, and also accepts that the Earth is warmer than it would be without an atmosphere, there is no dilemma.

[PLAYER57832]

So player, the gist of your overall statement is everyone likes seafood, but again I point out your previous statement(you) generalized (our) food chain is in the ocean, who is exactly (our), I can think of a few islands and some costal locations that may fall into the category you suggest, but not enough for the broad sweeping statement you describe

No, read again. The short is that EVERYTHING living depends upon a healthy ocean.

The sea helps create the air we breath, the water we need, helps set the weather, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

http://principia-scientific.org/satellite-data-proves-changes-in-sun-caused-recent-global-warming-not-humans/

Try to get past the snarkiness in the beginning, if need be go ahead skip to radiation levels and solar activity.

Did a quick search on Principa Scientific International, before I got too far into this and "surprise" turns out its a front for some climate deniers, not a legitimate organization.

Here, an excerpt (colorization added by me):

It is yet another pal reviewed propaganda piece by the vanity online science journal Principia Scientific International set up by Tim Ball [geologist and climate denier] and pals who have real problems with being rejected by mainstream science because the are frankly nuts-an organisation too fringe even for Lord Monckton. There you will find law graduates, weathermen, and some retired scientists producing papers saying climate change isn’t happening and even a paper on a perpetual motion machine. [Even Anthony Watts accepts CO2 is a GHG]

Phattscotty, the problem is that just because someone comes up with a "new theory", it doesn't mean it really is either new or valid. You keep insisting all this stuff is "hidden", but the REAL truth is right there in front of you. '

Science is all about disagreement, but the preponderance of evidence for human driven climate change is so high, it is one of the very few things about which virtually all (still not all, no) agree. ALSO, those who do disagree tend to be more in disagreement over the exact mechanisms and exact processes, not the basic fact that it is happening and that it will be very harmful to human beings if not stopped in the next few years.

Beyond that, the only other question is if we actually can stop it or if its already too late.

[jgordon1111]

So player, the gist of your overall statement is everyone likes seafood, but again I point out your previous statement(you) generalized (our) food chain is in the ocean, who is exactly (our), I can think of a few islands and some costal locations that may fall into the category you suggest, but not enough for the broad sweeping statement you describe

No, read again. The short is that EVERYTHING living depends upon a healthy ocean.

The sea helps create the air we breath, the water we need, helps set the weather, etc.

Did you notice your explaination, this time is clear and defined, Ty for making it clear so it would be hard to mistake your meaning.

Get where I am going with this?

Be clear

[PLAYER57832]

Get where I am going with this?

Be clear

lol-- lost cause..lol

Seriously, I have not been feeling well. Also, while simple is good, sometimes simple means ignoring pretty important details.

[jgordon1111]

Get where I am going with this?

Be clear

lol-- lost cause..lol

Seriously, I have not been feeling well. Also, while simple is good, sometimes simple means ignoring pretty important details.

And simple keeps people from picking apart your argument, and you explaining what you really meant,and then saying you changed your answer, and then you explaining you didn't.
HERE is an acronym it may help, there is a reason the military uses it.
K I S S

[hotfire]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/leading-climate-change-denier-exposed-taking-1-25-million-koch-brothers-big-oil-companies/
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/13/tobacco-gun-hire-james-enstrom-willie-soon-climate-change

[Phatscotty]

An unanswered question I still have for flood-denialism.

Everyone knows the earth used to be in an ice age, right?

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Have we really never had to wonder for ourselves what happened to all the ice??? Is it really so silly to entertain the idea that the ice melted, turned into water, and flooded the oceans???

An Ice age doesnt mean there was ten feet of ice over everything...but that it was a much colder climate. If you are referring to snowball earth theory in which the entire globe may have been covered in ice, it is entirely possible that there was complete global flooding, if it melted quickly, which it did not. It is also impossible, that humans saw this occur.

If the earth went into an ice age this minute, and froze all the water, the water would melt in the same place. There no doubt would be areas of localized flooding and rather severe no doubt, but it would not encompass the entire globe. That being said, if one group happens to write about it and all other documents get destroyed, than a true accounting for what happened is not possible from those books alone. Instead science would need to investigate the more likely events that took place.

This is overly simplified of course, but no to the depths that your 'scientific' hypothesis is.

As far as lots of people believing something to be true, scientifically, that can be proven to not prove anything. The only thing that is ever true, is what is true, and sometimes the answer is actually quite complex.

I mean, ask someone who's never seen a computer and they might assume a god created it. What it can do is beyond magical.....that person may be intelligent, but they are also obviously quite ignorant. I dont care how many of his friends believe him.

hmm, k. Good to see ya around again! So anyways, totes kewl cuz it's not 'my' hypothesis, I guess I'm the only one around here anyways who can sit through 4 hour videos which is how long it takes to communicate the numerous scientific fields and their findings and then synthesize them. One person on the team is in B.C. Canada as we speak looking for evidence to unify the impact dates to the same comet. It's tough because the main piece of the comet either blew up above the ice sheet, which probably was 10 feet thick.... in Wisconsin, but was also estimated at 2 miles thick above Hudson Bay, or impacted the ice sheet directly, which needless to say doesn't exactly leave a crater in the ground. You can read more about it on wiki, there should be a link and even copy/pasted on the younger dryas impact. It's fresh new, but already lagging behind, and that's fine I get how it works.

Per the flood, lucky for us, not only did the whole world document it the best they could, but there are tons of ancient cities 100 and even 200 feet beneath the ocean as we speak. Specifically in Japan, West coast of India, Britain, plenty more that have been discovered that I don't know about, with safe to say most underwater cities have not been found yet, some never will be, but they are there, and they have been underwater ever since.

A more recent find which is the latest to top a long list of recent finds which is changing everything we thought we knew is the underwater (supposed) pyramid off the coast in the Azores. Nobody knows for sure, but feel free to see for yourself. The official news report from Portugal is on the site, but I can't rip that one. So here is another one which up front is not official but still sweet ass sweet.



The way I see it, the location of the Azores is exactly where Plato said Atlantis was on 2 separate accounts, his timetable puts it's disappearance at exactly the same time as the comet, and Plato received that information from Solon who learned the story from Egyptian history, verbal as it was. And the message on the case stones of the Pyramid at Giza was likely about the comet and how to tell when it's coming again. This is possibly what made the Atlantis civilation 'advanced'. Mankind survived two hits from the same comet, 1,200 or 1,800 years apart, I'm assuming the other one is the older dryas impact. It seems as if pre-ice age civilizations with their advanced astronomy noticed a pattern on how to predict when this gargantuan comet is gonna cause earth problems. Really, the earth travels through the debris path twice a year, I think it's May and November or something. If you saw that fiery meteor that was caught on dash-cam in Russia some years back, that's a smaller piece of the same comet. Not sure if it's a fact but I think there is evidence to lend credence at least that the Tongusken 1908 event is also from the same debris path. Seems like this comet comes around every one or two thousand years and there was a way for people to know when danger was coming, just in case they might want to either build a canoe or hide underground depending on elevation This knowledge is likely lost to most of us, but I think I know a couple ways where the relevant information still exists, waiting for the one person to work their way up to it and decipher the encoded story and unlock the mystery of earth's possible personal pangeo-sperm comet. Trouble is, nobody gives a crap until the thing is visible in the night sky, and I highly doubt the authorities at that time are going to announce to the world that they know it's the same comet that set and reset mankind back to the stone age, again and again, possibly many times prior as well. In fact, the authorities probably will be building a pyramid, and the rest of us will think they are just doing illuminati shit, and oh, hey, cool comet bro! I think that's why there are megalithic stone wonders all around the world, all related in the same way, that nobody today can figure out how they built it, we today cannot even duplicate it, it does seem kind of purposefully aimed to appear supernatural.

[Phatscotty]

So player, the gist of your overall statement is everyone likes seafood, but again I point out your previous statement(you) generalized (our) food chain is in the ocean, who is exactly (our), I can think of a few islands and some costal locations that may fall into the category you suggest, but not enough for the broad sweeping statement you describe

No, read again. The short is that EVERYTHING living depends upon a healthy ocean.

The sea helps create the air we breath, the water we need, helps set the weather, etc.

yup, sure does. Player is right.

So, along these lines... Player; do you know how many asteroids and comets have slammed into the ocean in earth's history? I'm gonna assume it's pretty easy for anyone to imagine pure chaos. In short, it's theorized that the very same comet (another large chunk) did hit the ocean, the older dryas impact event/epoch, ejecting trillions of gallons of water into the atmosphere, causing rapid cooling, and a bunch of other unimaginable stuff I can't remember exactly what happens. I know how your'e gonna reply so i'll point out that the point isn't whether this comet can be proven to have hit the ocean when it's theorized it did, but rather that the earth is 2/3 water and 1/3 land, therefore every single asteroid and comet that hit our planet has a 2/3 chance of landing in the ocean. An asteroid could hit the ocean tomorrow, reverse everything we think we know about climate change, erase all our progress we made towards preventing climate change, make us realize we are dealing in a reality that is normal in the earth's opinion, meaning these incalculable measurements show us we were trying to save the earth on a scale 1/100,000,000 of our new reality, make our climate factors meaningless for 1,000 years. I know we haven't seen anything like this in our lifetime, so we are just not going to take it seriously or understand that an happen any day, and it's 100% guaranteed it will happen in the future at some point. Everytime it has happened is how many times it's happened in the earth's lifespan. the earth would be like 'Yeah, just another comet/asteroid in the ocean. Seen it a hundred times before! Maybe 200. I better put on a jacket!

My point is, whatever you are so worried about, has happened on a scale gajillion billion times larger, all at once. What is the 'health status' of the ocean when trillions of gallons of the ocean are floating in the air? So, let's put that in perspective in a way we can all understand. The entire nuclear arsenal of every country on earth, combined, detonated in the same place as the same time, right in the middle of the ultra precious ocean. How powerful is that explosion? 4 gigatons of TNT. The world is doomed, right? Not so fast. The comet that wiped out Clovis man and Woolly Mammoths and all the rest, essentially creating 'the new world' by wiping the slate clean of 70-80% of all species in the America's..... 300 gigatons!!!!

Compared to these 'regularly' scheduled asteroids and comets from the earth's point of view, the earth probably pisses on our opinions and science, the earth probably laughs that we think we can control the climate, the earth rolls it's eyes when we worry about 400 parts per billion, because the earth has already seen everything we can throw at it, not just fossil fuel emissions, but even raise that to every nuclear weapon in the world, and then times that by 100, and the biggest comet/asteroid I doubt we can know for sure, but the earth remembers that on too and says 'meh, everything you can throw at me, including all nuclear weapons detonated at the same time in the same place..... you kids are so young and foolish! I took that right in the balls times 1,000. Good ole Summer of 69! Who can forget that? Oh, wait, you were worried that 1/100,000,000 of my regular schedule was gonna kill me, what, cuz it's from humans??? How dare you dis me like I'm some little punk bitch that can't take comets up directly up the ass and fart back dust, which by the way are the earth's favorite kind of farts, because those 200, 300, 500, 1,000 , 10,000, 100,000 gigaton impacts were the oceans that are so precious, and those farts turned into life. Rejoice, the glorious comet! The comet giveth, and the comet taketh away!

FYI, the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs.... 240,000 gigatons of TNT (1.0×10 to the 24th power). It is a fact that is the best thing that ever happened to mammals.

hrmm, just had a thought. Maybe mankind being reset to the stone age by such a comet is the answer, maybe it's what you want, or the only way we could actually get humans to give up everything that makes our lives easier and better and faster, leaving more time than ever to actually live a life worth living? A comet hits, clouds the sky and blocks the sun for 50 years.....and no human beings will be burning fossil fuels, no nuclear weapons, no cars, no employers, no money, no grocery store, no textiles, no medicine, no expert scientists, no books, no science, no education, we can spend all our time as hunter gatherers and the earth will finally get a 300 gigaton break from humans and their 400 parts per billion, and nobody will worry about whatever climate change will occur from the sudden and total loss of all that burnt up fossil fuel.

Because you can't deny that if we all gave up everything we should give up for the earth's sake, that is going to lead to climate change as well