treeve
Major Contributor
I will get back to your other points, but I will say that it is just as dangerous to assume that impurities and chemicals like barium found after rainfall is as a direct effect of these aerosols, as it is for the premise that the reason for a 'momentary' global drop in temperature to be the direct result of a volcano eruption. The temperature measurement has no basis - the planet has been here for millions of years, evolving. Yet all of sudden technology comes along and measurements can be taken, so the whole world's history in atmospheric content is assumed, on the basis of what?
I know many results may be formulated from geological and especially on a plate tectonic level, as well as ice cores, but even that does not have a datestamp or bar code on it. A certain amount of work can be taken from bone samples over a period from excavations, but it is so sparse as to be unimaginably minute in terms of an overall picture. So I feel that a more conclusive and wider test should be made in order to identify any connection. Many of those chemicals are in the atmosphere from discharges that have been occurring in the age of man and his flues. Some naturally so.
I should add that much of the impurity in rainfall has been drawn up into the cloud formation from land and sea.
I know many results may be formulated from geological and especially on a plate tectonic level, as well as ice cores, but even that does not have a datestamp or bar code on it. A certain amount of work can be taken from bone samples over a period from excavations, but it is so sparse as to be unimaginably minute in terms of an overall picture. So I feel that a more conclusive and wider test should be made in order to identify any connection. Many of those chemicals are in the atmosphere from discharges that have been occurring in the age of man and his flues. Some naturally so.
I should add that much of the impurity in rainfall has been drawn up into the cloud formation from land and sea.
Last edited: