It is not particularly scary - we don't know the other factors
involved but it was certainly not in the modern context. I am not sure
what your point is with the 65 million year history? It should be
more accurate but so what?
On Jan 16, 8:06 am, "David B. Benson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 12:50 pm, Robbo <[email protected]> wrote:> Dear David,
>
> > These guys are into calcite chemistry that is way beyond me. Even so
> > - you would think that the method is potentially more accurate than
> > fossil stomata. But Mr Hauser (?) is right in that we would need to
> > know the extent of ice in particular at the time ...
>
> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>
> and then could we please stay on topic?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
