17 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by xsThe CO2 conc on that graph never exceeds 300 ppm at any time in the last 400 thousand years. Current concentrations are 381ppm. The graph does not have sufficient temporal resolution to show this however. That'd the difference here - we're a minimum of 25% higher CO2 than we have been during the last half million years.
Yes, according to the Antarctic ice core data, high levels of co2 in our atmosphere are not mutually exclusive to the present time period.
http://xs307.xs.to/xs307/06416/Antarctic_ICD1.jpg
There seems to be a cycle or cut off point where the trend reverses.
[edit; indeed, the EPICA cores can take this ack to 650,000 years ago, with the same story.]
17 Oct 06
Originally posted by 7ate9I don't see three peaks on the xs graph in the last 10,000 years. If it was the last 100,000 then we had an ice age from 118,000 bp - 11,000 bp. I'm not sure, but the peaks may be explained by the Milankovich cycles, whereby the earth's orbit changes from cyclical to eliptical every 22,000 years-ish.
What accounts for the change in that graph during the last 10,000 years. The three spikes before look different.
17 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by 7ate9Oh, those peaks are just the inter-glacial periods. This is, indeed, quite a long interglacial - we're due for a good freeze, but look more likely to cook instead.
Three peaks over the entire graph. It's just the one being drawn at the moment looks different... over the last 10,000 years.(temperature).
Maybe the data is just more reliable when the temperature variation is closer to now?
There are many reasons for the shift between glaciations are many and complex, but there is an underlying 100,000 year cycle, again a Milancovitch response (I think this is to do with our aspect compared with the sun).
Hope you are well, my friend.
17 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, if you assume that every year has a 50:50 chance of being warmer or cooler, and each years temperature is independant of the previous years temperature, then the odds are 2^22 - 1.
Athough I agree with almost everything else you have said, the above is both mathematically wrong and misleading.
[edit; of course, I mean the chances of 23 consecutive years being randomly warmer than the average is 4.2 million to one. If there is a reason, let's say CO2 emissions, those odds become at that point meaningless, because that CO2 has not been taken into account (i.e. non-randomly shifting background.)]
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by RagnorakProbably the same reason that you would deny killing some one you didn't.
I'm just curious. What have you got to gain by denying man's contribution to global warming and in so doing, preventing any action which, at worst, can't do any harm?
It doesn't seem logical. If you're right, then you're right and the best that you will achieve is some "I told you so" bragging rights.
If you, and other civillian (as opposed to corpo ...[text shortened]... r and rivers. At the moment I can't understand the required mindset.
Thanks,
D
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzits funny SS you never really want evidence just say what you want, just say hey man give me numbers that that fit with an opinion. If they fit against me I can fight them, but if they help SS's opinion then its shale be viewed as indesputable proof even though nothing has ever been established accept some one found something not on red hot pawn. thats not really evidence or proof. and its certainly not fact.
Oh, how so? What evidence do you have of that, long term cycles aside?
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by Ragnorakthis is all we've got to gain:
I'm just curious. What have you got to gain by denying man's contribution to global warming and in so doing, preventing any action which, at worst, can't do any harm?
It doesn't seem logical. If you're right, then you're right and the best that you will achieve is some "I told you so" bragging rights.
If you, and other civillian (as opposed to corpo ...[text shortened]... r and rivers. At the moment I can't understand the required mindset.
Thanks,
D
all that money spent to discuss/study/fight global warming, or study nematodes, or study Elizabethan literature, could instead be used ...
in the short term, to feed starving children in Africa.
in the mid term, pay for prophylatics so they wouldn't have to starve in the long-term.
in the long term, pay for stable, non-corrupt governments, so they wouldn't have to starve again, ever.
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNothing misleading about it CO2 has increased .003% as a percentage of the atmosphere. Of course it dosen't sound so great for the scaremongers cause, so they call it "misleading". bully for the scaremongers.
Your 0.003% increase is misleading, and you know it. Your figure is a 0.003% increase as a percentage of the total atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the CO2 partial pressure has went up from 280ppm to 381ppm (currently), [b]a 36% increase, mostly in the last 50 years. Your cited study is one study, presumably under cond ...[text shortened]... lf times the size as ALL the biomass on the planet, this is worrying.
Any other thoughts?[/b]
Now back to the original post, I'll need to revise it for the terminally slow. We are not in a parked running car in a garage, the actual (not doubling or any other panic merchant prediction scenario) increase in CO2 (.003😵 is harmless to man and beneficial to plants.
Doubling CO2 (or more) then subjecting plants to "droughts" proves...? How big a guvamint grant you think you're entitled to?