It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by hotrodturbo7
I'm sure they did use slash and burn techniques, plus they had to strip the land of the vegetation that's already on it, and crops tend to be smaller sources of carbon sinks than natural vegetation.
Basically, a turnip eats up a lot less CO2 than an oak tree...and the turnip isn't around all year long.
Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by ANNED
ANNED, after reading this post, I had a bit of an epiphany... I wonder how likely it would be that as some methane pockets were released, they bubbled up, onlt to be trapped under and within the glaciers. Then as a gradual warming occurred, there would be occasional bursts of immense methane pockets which would contribute to sudden, possibly even catastrophic global warming.
Originally posted by tooo many pills
i know that methane is 20-40 times worse for the ozone than co2, and cows produce much of the methane from todays problems. livestock could not have done this back then as there were so few humans and even less beasts of burden.
there was a meteoric impact in north america 7000-10000 years ago that most likely landing around where the great lakes are now, and most likely shattered the ice, and increased the global warming that was already taking place due to the magnetic pole alignment.