Easy science

As we continue to burn fossil fuels and forests, we're sliding the scales of the Earth's carbon balance further than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs


The last sentence from the article above, lol. We don't even know for a fact if a metoerite wiped out the dinosaurs's its just a theory and even if that theory is correct we have no way of measuring the carbon it released compared to what humans are releasing today. The only thing the "Deep Carbon Observatory" could say for sure is that there is lots of carbon on Earth.

Whats pretty damn obvious is that this is just more histeria designed to sell news.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
As we continue to burn fossil fuels and forests, we're sliding the scales of the Earth's carbon balance further than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs


The last sentence from the article above, lol. We don't even know for a fact if a metoerite wiped out the dinosaurs's its just a theory

It's not a theory. A theory explains and has predictive value.
What it is is a strong circumstantial case to show how your God murdered the dinosaurs and then tried to cover it up by not mentioning it in the Bible.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

cammd said..
As we continue to burn fossil fuels and forests, we're sliding the scales of the Earth's carbon balance further than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs


The last sentence from the article above, lol. We don't even know for a fact if a metoerite wiped out the dinosaurs's its just a theory

It's not a theory. A theory explains and has predictive value.
What it is is a strong circumstantial case to show how your God murdered the dinosaurs and then tried to cover it up by not mentioning it in the Bible.

I think your the one here with the strong belief system letting it overule your logic.

Unless of course you have actual evidence that a meteor killed the dinosaurs and you can then measure the amount of carbon released by that event and compare it with the amount of carbon currently being released.

Whats that you say, you don't have direct evidence and you can't base a comparison on measurement's, then its not really science is it, more like a theory, that you choose to accept as fact. Sounds like that is getting religious to me.

Select to expand quote

Shifu said..
Its socialist, communist, fascist, freedom hating Labor. AGAIN!

You forgot Nazi.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Mr Milk said..

cammd said..
As we continue to burn fossil fuels and forests, we're sliding the scales of the Earth's carbon balance further than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs


The last sentence from the article above, lol. We don't even know for a fact if a metoerite wiped out the dinosaurs's its just a theory

It's not a theory. A theory explains and has predictive value.
What it is is a strong circumstantial case to show how your God murdered the dinosaurs and then tried to cover it up by not mentioning it in the Bible.

I think your the one here with the strong belief system letting it overule your logic.

Unless of course you have actual evidence that a meteor killed the dinosaurs and you can then measure the amount of carbon released by that event and compare it with the amount of carbon currently being released.

Whats that you say, you don't have direct evidence and you can't base a comparison on measurement's, then its not really science is it, more like a theory, that you choose to accept as fact. Sounds like that is getting religious to me.

I would describe it as an educated guess. First you make some assumptions based on the fossil record of what forests and grasslands were around the day the meteorite hit. Then you make assumptions about how much burnt to get an estimate of how much CO2 was created.

Next step is to add up how much fossil fuels we have burnt in the last couple of centuries. You can probably measure that to an accuracy of within 10% or less. It's easy to calculate how much CO2 that has released.

Finally, you compare the two numbers.

You think that the dinosaurs disappeared in another way? Circumstantial case not strong? What's your alternative explanation?