Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So there is no optimum temp or c02 level but we must do this and that because some say it is rising. Rising from what? Rising to what? Is it rising to where it needs to be from the little ice age? Maybe screwing around is going to do more harm than good. Problem is nobody knows but they want plenty to pay the piper pretending they do.
I'm assuming you know how to read a graph. You do know how to read a graph, right?
We do know the amount of CO2 that has been in the atmosphere for at least the last 400,000 years based on ice cores and more recently, direct measurements, not computer models. The amount that is in the atmosphere today is at least 100ppm more than it has been at any time in the last 400,000 years. That can only be explained by CO2 emissions from human sources.
Cite your graph please. Which ice core? What technique did they use? Who was responsible for it?
Your reply in 91 is just a graph, the graphs URL points to wikimedia. After searching around, I was able to find the graph used in a wikipedia page, though it was not cited to its author of the study. That is why I asked for a cite, you know... being the academic type and all, expecting people to do a common courtesy of trying to discuss the issue rather than cheap shot with an non-sourced graph while patting ones self on the back.
This data has been widely cited, in case you didn't know.
Now how does plant stomata or GEOCARB compare to the cores? (check Wagon et al 1999, and Kouenberg, 2004)
You provided the graph as if it were empirical evidence, yet this is not fact. The ice cores are useful, but they are not a validation to a given assumption (especially the one your graph makes). This is shown when you contrast the plant stomata and GEOCARB with the ice cores, as they tend to show a higher and lower PPM at different stages which bring into question using the ice cores alone as a means to establish a given conclusion. So which is correct? Read a lot more on the issue and you will see it is not all "cut and clear" as you seem to imply.
Here is a good writeup on the issues by David Middleton. It is very informative.
If you are going to argue your case using a rightwing political blog like Wattsupwiththat instead of referring to peer reviewed scientific papers, I'm afraid this discussion is going to be over before it even starts. Watt is not a climage scientist and only has a bachelor's degree. His so called experts fare no better. McIntyre doesn't even have a science degree. David Middleton has a vested interest in arguing against AGW since he is a petroleum geologist (not a climate scientist) working for the oil industry. You might as well cite creationists in your arguments, for all the good it will do you.
The fact of the matter is that the vostock and other ice core data is valid and widely used and cited in the literature. You aren't going to be able to wish it away with silly citations from Wattsupwiththat.
Finally, this entire line of discussion is offtopic, and so you probably should create a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
If you are going to argue your case using a rightwing political blog like Wattsupwiththat instead of referring to peer reviewed scientific papers, I'm afraid this discussion is going to be over before it even starts. Watt is not a climage scientist and only has a bachelor's degree. His so called experts fare no better. McIntyre doesn't even have a science degree. David Middleton has a vested interest in arguing against AGW since he is a petroleum geologist (not a climate scientist) working for the oil industry. You might as well cite creationists in your arguments, for all the good it will do you.
The fact of the matter is that the vostock and other ice core data is valid and widely used and cited in the literature. You aren't going to be able to wish it away with silly citations from Wattsupwiththat.
Finally, this entire line of discussion is offtopic, and so you probably should create a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
I wasn't discussing politics, that would be you. The points made by Middleton are valid. There are discrepancies between those records and you are welcome to disagree and point out where you disagree, but I will not cater to your obvious turn to political attack tactics and fallacious dismissal. It is beneath intelligent discussion and does nothing to deal with the points being discussed.
Lastly, this is a relevant aspect of the thread concerning CO2 which is what the ruling concerned. You were fine in discussing this until you began to fall outside of your comfort zone (hence your political attacks), so we will just dismiss your rant as irrelevant to the discussion at hand and leave it to my main point concerning the issue, that the evidence to such is not properly established.
You know this, I know this, most know this... the only response one can make outside of that is what you did above.
What is funny is the same ice core data and ocean sediment samples were used in the seventies to try and push the ice age is coming mantra. Of course they didn't use co2 back then. lol
Co2 makes up such a small percentage of the dreaded greenhouse effect I'm surprised they even took this route to try and push this nonsense. Co2 is great for life. Makes plants happy. Why do you think folks grow plants in greenhouses?? lol
Your graph answers nothing. Actually according to your graph we should be in a double ice age about now shouldn't we??
According to the graph and the milankovitch cycles, one could argue we should be heading towards a cooling period, but we are not because, well, most likely because of AGW. The graph shows clearly that CO2 levels are higher today than at any time in the last 400,000 years. Now, maybe you don't believe that is a significant finding. Most climate scientists and many other scientists as well disagree.
Your graph answers nothing about optimum co2 levels or temperature of the earth.
No, and why you think it should is a mystery. What it shows is the variabilty of the Earth's natural CO2 cycle over the past 400,000 years, and how it has been altered by anthropogenic CO2 sources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
