Very warm, no modern day trees, no ice, high seas

[alang1216]

Pretty sure having intelligence versus not having intelligence is still an advantage then too.

But it's great that I made you argue against intelligence as a functional advantage.

Every creature has some form of intelligence. Chimps are very intelligence, just not as much as man. Their intelligence is probably not going to save them from extinction.

 

[ding]

Every creature has some form of intelligence. Chimps are very intelligence, just not as much as man. Their intelligence is probably not going to save them from extinction.

And neither will the shape of their beaks

But are you still trying to argue that the central nervous system of mammals evolving from smaller to larger isn't a functional advantage? Because if so, you have just argued against the basis of Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[alang1216]

But are you still trying to argue that the central nervous system of mammals evolving from smaller to larger isn't a functional advantage?

It has been a great advantage for homo sapiens sapiens. Birds and rodents are probably just as stupid as they were 65 million years ago. If intelligence was such an advantage why was there no pressure on them?

Because if so, you have just argued against the basis of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Exactly wrong. If intelligence was so wonderful a survival mechanism you'd find intelligent fish since they had a 100 million year head start over mammals. Darwin only argued that traits that improve survival get passed on. Period. If faster swimming was better than intelligence that is what trait we'd expect and that is what we see.

 

[ding]

It has been a great advantage for homo sapiens sapiens. Birds and rodents are probably just as stupid as they were 65 million years ago. If intelligence was such an advantage why was there no pressure on them?


Exactly wrong. If intelligence was so wonderful a survival mechanism you'd find intelligent fish since they had a 100 million year head start over mammals. Darwin only argued that traits that improve survival get passed on. Period. If faster swimming was better than intelligence that is what trait we'd expect and that is what we see.

uh huh

An evolutionary heads-up: The brain size advantage

Animals with large brains are considered to be more intelligent and more successful than those with smaller brains. Researchers have now provided the first experimental evidence that large brains provide an evolutionary advantage. Large-brained female fish have a higher survival rate than those...

www.sciencedaily.com

It's really weird to hear you argue that natural selection did not result in a functional advantage.

 

[abu afak]

Watching a video on the Chicxulub asteroid and at the 3:00 mark, very interesting to hear that the planet was very warm, no modern day trees and too warm for ice to remain at the poles. Oh, and sea levels some 200 metres higher.

So why the discrepancy with the climate scientists of today? Why the claim of pending doom and gloom?



Can any climate alarmist here explain?

North America 75 Million Years ago. (just before the meteor)

I assume you're OK with this Clown

North America 75 Million Years Ago - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

`

 

[Captain Caveman]

North America 75 Million Years ago. (just before the meteor)

I assume you're OK with this Clown

North America 75 Million Years Ago - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

`

Well, dick for brains, have a read about past sea levels -

Past sea level - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I suggest you go on the YouTube link and leave a comment correcting any part that you may feel is wrong.

 

[abu afak]

Well, dick for brains, have a read about past sea levels -

Past sea level - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I suggest you go on the YouTube link and leave a comment correcting any part that you may feel is wrong.

Your Boobtube didn't tackle Sea level you Clown.


Here is Only and more realistically a 70m (230') rise.
Greenland and the poles melt.
That's not "doom and gloom"?
East coast all gone
NY, Boston, DC, complete State of Florida, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

The world with a 70 meters sea-level rise - Vivid Maps

If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland (Antarctica would make about 60 meters of sea-level rise, Greenland about 7.4 meters), and in mountain ice caps around the globe were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet) and cover all seaside cities.

vividmaps.com

Greenland alone melting would raise sea level app 24.'

You're a ****** thoughtless Idiot.

Altitude London? 36'
San Francisco? 52'
Shanghai? 13'
`
`

 

[Captain Caveman]

Your Boobtube didn't tackle Sea level you Clown.


Here is Only and more realistically a 70m (230') rise.
Greenland and the poles melt.
That's not "doom and gloom"?
East coast all gone
NY, Boston, DC, complete State of Florida, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

The world with a 70 meters sea-level rise - Vivid Maps

If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland (Antarctica would make about 60 meters of sea-level rise, Greenland about 7.4 meters), and in mountain ice caps around the globe were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet) and cover all seaside cities.

vividmaps.com

View attachment 596374

Greenland alone melting would raise sea level app 24.'

You're a ****** thoughtless Idiot.

Altitude London? 36'
San Francisco? 52'
Shanghai? 13'
`
`

Listen thick ****, read up on sea level.

 

[ding]

Your Boobtube didn't tackle Sea level you Clown.


Here is Only and more realistically a 70m (230') rise.
Greenland and the poles melt.
That's not "doom and gloom"?
East coast all gone
NY, Boston, DC, complete State of Florida, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

The world with a 70 meters sea-level rise - Vivid Maps

If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland (Antarctica would make about 60 meters of sea-level rise, Greenland about 7.4 meters), and in mountain ice caps around the globe were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet) and cover all seaside cities.

vividmaps.com

View attachment 596374

Greenland alone melting would raise sea level app 24.'

You're a ****** thoughtless Idiot.

Altitude London? 36'
San Francisco? 52'
Shanghai? 13'
`
`

Our present sea level is 26 ft below previous interglacial cycles and our present temperature is 2C below previous interglacial cycles.

 

[ding]

North America 75 Million Years ago. (just before the meteor)

I assume you're OK with this Clown

North America 75 Million Years Ago - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

View attachment 596370



`

That was back when the earth was a greenhouse planet. 3 million years ago the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet. We are in an ice age now, dummy.

 

[abu afak]

That was back when the earth was a greenhouse planet. 3 million years ago the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet. We are in an ice age now, dummy.

View attachment 596526

Wasted space.
It does Not Preclude AGW.
LOL.

`

 

[ding]

Wasted space.
It does Not Preclude AGW.
LOL.

`

And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 so it kinda does.

 

[abu afak]

And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 so it kinda does.

Asked and answered
(we are still rising and could pass the last before century end)
Means nothing... like all myour trolls
and of course/again, does Not preclude AGW.
`

 

[ding]

Asked and answered
(we are still rising and could pass the last before century end)
Means nothing... like all myour trolls
and of course/again, does Not preclude AGW.
`

Actually it wasn't answered.

The answer is that CO2 doesn't drive climate change. That's the answer.

 

[Captain Caveman]

It is the rate of change, and what that does to the existing ecology that is the problem. No, life will not cease. But there may well be a major extinction event if we keep on our present course. And our present standard of living will be affected very negatively.

Bellend, can you point to a time over the last handful of billion of years where the rate of change of co2 or climate etc.. was similar or more rapid than the last 150 years that you're banking on.

 

[westwall]

Our present sea level is 26 ft below previous interglacial cycles and our present temperature is 2C below previous interglacial cycles.

View attachment 596525

Dude, don't get all "sciency" and "factsy" on them, it hurts their tiny little heads!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Well, dick for brains, have a read about past sea levels -

Past sea level - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I suggest you go on the YouTube link and leave a comment correcting any part that you may feel is wrong.

He doesn't have the brains to understand that sea level rise early in the Holocene was far more rapid that drowned cities and large areas of land, but people easily moved away but today they terrified of 2mm/year rise.

 

[westwall]

He doesn't have the brains to understand that sea level rise early in the Holocene was far more rapid that drowned cities and large areas of land, but people easily moved away but today they terrified of 2mm/year rise.

They rely on the ignorance of people, who have been dumbed down and can no longer think for themselves. The one moron thinks that as Doggerland flooded the people were rooted to their spot and drowned. Like I said, these idiots ARE idiots.

 

[Captain Caveman]

He doesn't have the brains to understand that sea level rise early in the Holocene was far more rapid that drowned cities and large areas of land, but people easily moved away but today they terrified of 2mm/year rise.

He/she/shim doesn't have the brains with quite a few things. I just see copied and paste of random things and no coherence.

 

[Likkmee]

You are not watching reality. It is one of many numerical simulations.

Kind of like a Disney generated image.

I'l remain @ 8.5N....I hope we get some show