Life Cycle of a Planet

          Perhaps, but I do not believe that one needs to be followed by the other, extinction events of one life form does not necessarily mean the rise of another, better suited for current conditions! I have never been a true believer in the need for population control of grass-eating animals by meat-eaters, The limiting control will always need to be the load-carrying capacity of the food source! Meat eaters simply found a place that satisfied their own food needs, they are never needed to maintain a balance of life for their prey.                             Life is so determined to exist, but can not afford to tie itself to other life with no other options, that is perhaps why even virus must not confine itself to only living in one species, for in doing so their own fate would be sealed! When Europeans came across to the "America's" most of the native population fate was sealed by simple contact, and yet the reverse was not true, why did the Native America's no

          There never has been a species on this planet that has not caused some type of change to occur because of it being on the planet! Sometimes many species will cause certain changes to occur faster because so many are competing for the same limited amount of food, many times others will find a special niche that few can take advantage of and in doing so limit the amount of competition that they will need to face for the next generation to continue. Many will even learn how to attract other species of life so that they can compete better and in doing so form a symbiotic relationship that may only help one of the pair or be beneficial to both. No species on the planet form more of these types of relationships than mankind, and in doing so we cause unexpected changes to occur that affects the planet at every level.         How we go forward in the next few decades, will either show that we are beginning to understand what all carbon-based life on the planet is facing, or it will s

     What can you take away from these posts that are truly different from either side of the climate change issue you ask? That whether or not there will still be carbon-based life on a non-frozen over planet in the "near future or not"Let's put down in an order of what science has determined to be recognizable facts!                   One, The latest series of Ice-ages started around 2.5 million years ago. (Scientists say that they do not know for sure what caused that to happen, but it may have something to do with Milankovitch oscillations?)            While I say that it was a direct result of low concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the planet, and the only relationship it has to the Milankovitch oscillations is to explain when another ice-age starts or stops in relationship to both the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plus how much sunlight that the planet is receiving at that time! But the cause of when an ice-age comes to an end is when

          I have 10 brother's and sister's, My parents bought an extremely good book when I was coming of age called "Everything you ever wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask" This book was "If I remember right, was over 700 hundred pages long" the very best way I could have learned how to respect women, and men, and that there truly is no one right or wrong way to understand your own feeling regarding this topic! It covered every topic that even today 50 years later, bear on this most important coming of age, with understanding, compassion, and non-judgemental against how to treat other people.                             Now if only we could all be given a book about life, and taught everything that we all should already know about treating others with the same consideration that we would like to be treated, and NO the different bibles all say this, but each and everyone has been used to teach, just the other true fact, that there is just one tr

          I agreed that with the planet having so many arid and semi-arid areas on the planet, if mankind wishes to change nothing but the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then keeping the levels below 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while not feasible with our level of technology, would return the climate of the planet back to a somewhat less extreme weather cycle! But would not stop extreme weather from happening! For everyone is fixating on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and not the reason why throughout the history of carbon-based life on the planet, it has almost always been the ever slowly changing make-up of the atmosphere of the planet that has been the driving force for the necessary adaptation of life to fit within those parameters for all life to continue.                                                                            99.9% of all life that has ever existed on the planet is now extinct, and even if we could recreate any

            It does not paint mankind as in the wrong, at least on this issue, or the simple fact, that it is all carbon-based life on the planet that has contributed to some form of carbon-sequestration by living and dying, yet mankind is the only species on the planet that has not done so? (yes we are one of the planet's great carbon sequestraters, but we release more than we bury, and we do bury a lot, only shellfish and other ocean-based lifeforms have squestrated more carbon than mankind) Or has every teacher, book, both non-fiction and fiction, or futuristic movie, all show mankind as a non-caring, ruthless species, who only care about money and power, and will be the cause for the planet's destruction? While the truth is that the vast majority of people on the planet, simply wish to lead a fulfilling life with friends and families! Two completely at odds concepts, and yet both can be true. Isn't nature much the same? From the largest predators to the smallest of prey

          As little as 500 years ago mankind really had no idea what the atmosphere was made up of and how all life depended upon just a fraction of that atmosphere,  now however mankind has started the long slow process of understanding how life on this planet needs to interact with both the planet and its every so slowly changing atmosphere. While some parts of life can exist only in certain areas of the planet, much of life has the ability to adapt to many different conditions that the planet has to offer. Mankind is the very model of being able to adapt, but it is our brains that help us to do so, and the oceans have barely been touched by our ability to live within their borders! At best we can temporarily traverse over, upon, and underneath, their waters. Even then not without dangers and increased loss of life!                                                                              Birds are perhaps the very best at adapting to the conditions that the planet has to offer, c

         Occam's Razor date back to the 14th century, and should have been left there! It tries to find the simplest solution that fits the "know facts" and then calls that the "solution". If a woman is murdered, then the husband or boyfriend did it. If mankind is using fossil fuels and that use, puts carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere of the planet, then "case closed" mankind use of fossil fuels is the only problem, there can not be any other mitigating factors. Simplicity may be a nice design strategy, but it should never be used as a solution that does not take in all known variables in a scientific dialogue! Witchcraft, and the resulting murder of millions of innocent "mainly women" was Occam's Razor's answer to strong-minded women who did not conform to what many considered un-woman-like attitudes. To put it bluntly, simplicity is rarely the correct solution to almost any problem.                                             

          First off it would need to be a 3-dimensional graph, not the two-dimensional, that we normally see. Why you ask, are we not interested in the percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over that time frame, isn't that what you want us to see? Yes, partially that is what I would like you to understand, but what we consider standard air pressure at sea level to be 14.7 lbs per square inch, however back at the start of the first carbon-based life on this planet, that was not even close to what it was! If my calculations are even close to correct based on the densities of other planets in our solar system, then back around 3,000,000,000 years ago life was finally getting a firm hold on the planet, and due to that life, the atmosphere of the planet was ever so slowly being used up by the sequestration of carbon so almost at the beginning of the planet's existence, the atmosphere was almost completely made up of some form of carbon and almost no free oxygen at all and the

          Many of the planet's problems are "manmade", pollution of the "Oceans by plastics, fertilizer run-offs, chemical disposal"! Pollution is mankind's largest injury to this planet that we need to repair!                                  Yes, in mankind's attempt to harness the planet's resources we have caused the extinction of many species, and the reduction of many more species. Mankind's attempt to satisfy our needs for food and energy has driven nature away from us and into areas that we seldom go to. But we have also learned much from our mistakes, most places in the world now have at least some guidelines on reducing and repairing some of those mistakes, granted many of these are not for nature's benefit but so that our own enjoyment of the planet is better!                                                                                                                                                                        Mankind