| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"R. Pierce Butler" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2005 10:42:11 AM |
| Object: |
greenhouse gases? |
Here is an interesting graph of CO2 levels for the past 650,000 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
Here is a scatter plot
http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg
This sort of data is most interesting.
pierce
.
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: greenhouse gases? |
20 Dec 2005 04:00:59 PM |
|
|
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
Here is an interesting graph of CO2 levels for the past 650,000 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
Here is a scatter plot
http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg
This sort of data is most interesting.
Yes....but what do you find interesting about it?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: greenhouse gases? |
20 Dec 2005 05:33:26 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1135116059.486687.201440
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
Here is an interesting graph of CO2 levels for the past 650,000 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
Here is a scatter plot
http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg
This sort of data is most interesting.
Yes....but what do you find interesting about it?
Jim
What I find interesting is that the cyclic elevation of greenhouse gases is
normal. Given that this is normal, I wonder what the various
enviromentalist groups really want. It certainly isn't to "save the
environment/planet/mankind" since there is no "global warming" crisis that
is attributable to human activities. The more I dig for data, the more it
appears that the "global warming" threat/crisis/disaster is nothing but a
paper tiger that was created for a political reason.
pierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepalot" |
|
| Title: Re: greenhouse gases? |
21 Dec 2005 05:43:09 AM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1135116059.486687.201440
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
Here is an interesting graph of CO2 levels for the past 650,000 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
Here is a scatter plot
http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg
This sort of data is most interesting.
Yes....but what do you find interesting about it?
Jim
What I find interesting is that the cyclic elevation of greenhouse gases is
normal. Given that this is normal, I wonder what the various
enviromentalist groups really want. It certainly isn't to "save the
environment/planet/mankind" since there is no "global warming" crisis that
is attributable to human activities. The more I dig for data, the more it
appears that the "global warming" threat/crisis/disaster is nothing but a
paper tiger that was created for a political reason.
pierce
Hello Pierce. I thought I was alone in being reluctant to
join this particular bandwagon.
However, I note from that graph, that in the period 20k - 10k
years BP, CO2 concentrations rose by 50% in 10k years.
(That and all the other increases shown need explaining.)
Apparently, the current situation is that CO2 levels have
risen by about 25% in 250 years.
Also that graph shows max CO2 conc. of about 300 ppm,
whereas the current conc. is about 350 ppm
I personally think these variations are due to changes in volcanic
activity, but I can't find any evidence for that.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: greenhouse gases? |
21 Dec 2005 12:14:17 PM |
|
|
Sleepalot <sleepy03@fsmail.net> wrote in
news:d5fiq1hqlnsivbkkvi530iqo7hp9i76jr2@4ax.com:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1135116059.486687.201440 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
Here is an interesting graph of CO2 levels for the past 650,000
years.
http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
Here is a scatter plot
http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg
This sort of data is most interesting.
Yes....but what do you find interesting about it?
Jim
What I find interesting is that the cyclic elevation of greenhouse gases
is normal. Given that this is normal, I wonder what the various
enviromentalist groups really want. It certainly isn't to "save the
environment/planet/mankind" since there is no "global warming" crisis
that is attributable to human activities. The more I dig for data, the
more it appears that the "global warming" threat/crisis/disaster is
nothing but a paper tiger that was created for a political reason.
pierce
Hello Pierce. I thought I was alone in being reluctant to
join this particular bandwagon.
However, I note from that graph, that in the period 20k - 10k
years BP, CO2 concentrations rose by 50% in 10k years.
(That and all the other increases shown need explaining.)
Apparently, the current situation is that CO2 levels have
risen by about 25% in 250 years.
Also that graph shows max CO2 conc. of about 300 ppm,
whereas the current conc. is about 350 ppm
I personally think these variations are due to changes in volcanic
activity, but I can't find any evidence for that.
There are a great many questions and while it may be possible that man has
had an influence, it certainly isn't conclusive and I doubt that it is
anything close to a "Disaster" or "Crisis" that we have been led to
believe.
The biggest problem is wading thru the ***** to find real data. That
takes a fair amount of time.
pierce
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: greenhouse gases? |
21 Dec 2005 09:47:47 AM |
|
|
Sleepalot wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
What I find interesting is that the cyclic elevation of greenhouse gases is
normal. Given that this is normal, I wonder what the various
enviromentalist groups really want. It certainly isn't to "save the
environment/planet/mankind" since there is no "global warming" crisis that
is attributable to human activities. The more I dig for data, the more it
appears that the "global warming" threat/crisis/disaster is nothing but a
paper tiger that was created for a political reason.
Also that graph shows max CO2 conc. of about 300 ppm,
whereas the current conc. is about 350 ppm
This tidbit is what's missing from a graph that goes back in time to
show the cyclical nature of CO2 in the atmosphere. The current rise is
a big spike compared to what has come before....although it's likely
that a spike like this would be hidden in the long term data if there
is a mechanism for the decline of CO2 so fast that such a high peak
would not show up. That doesn't seem to be the case, though, looking
back in time--the fall of the level is much more gradual than the rise.
If you do the rough math on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere now, and
how much is produced from the huge amount of fossil fuel burning we've
done over the past century, you'll see that the steep rise is due to
man's activities.
How that might relate to climate change, and what the effects will be,
I'm undecided about at this time...but the fact is that we've changed
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: greenhouse gases? |
21 Dec 2005 02:42:50 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1135180067.166771.41390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Sleepalot wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
What I find interesting is that the cyclic elevation of greenhouse
gases is normal. Given that this is normal, I wonder what the various
enviromentalist groups really want. It certainly isn't to "save the
environment/planet/mankind" since there is no "global warming" crisis
that is attributable to human activities. The more I dig for data, the
more it appears that the "global warming" threat/crisis/disaster is
nothing but a paper tiger that was created for a political reason.
Also that graph shows max CO2 conc. of about 300 ppm,
whereas the current conc. is about 350 ppm
This tidbit is what's missing from a graph that goes back in time to
show the cyclical nature of CO2 in the atmosphere. The current rise is
a big spike compared to what has come before....although it's likely
that a spike like this would be hidden in the long term data if there
is a mechanism for the decline of CO2 so fast that such a high peak
would not show up. That doesn't seem to be the case, though, looking
back in time--the fall of the level is much more gradual than the rise.
If you do the rough math on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere now, and
how much is produced from the huge amount of fossil fuel burning we've
done over the past century, you'll see that the steep rise is due to
man's activities.
How that might relate to climate change, and what the effects will be,
I'm undecided about at this time...but the fact is that we've changed
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Jim
The biggest problem with all this is determing what is normal and natural and
what isn't. It may seem obvious based on observation to correlate one action
with an event, but proving it is another thing. For example, the sun appears
to move yet we know it is the earth that is moving. It seems obvious to us
that the sun is moving but it isn't. Ancient peoples thought they could
appease the Gods of winter by sacrificing some virgins. Sometimes it worked
and sometimes it didn't.
Then there is the fact that in looking at the graph that the recent spike is
not as high as what occurred roughly 320,000 - 350,000 years ago.
The spike at 120,000 years was fairly high too and more sudden as well.
I think we need to look at the bigger picture. What happens if there is a so
much particulate due to
Personally I just don't buy into the doom and gloom. Is it possible that we
are setting ourselves up for a mass extinction? Could be. Maybe that is
just part of the risks of living on this planet. Every so many million years
the earth turns on all life and wipes the slate clean so it can start again.
Will it be possible that some of our species survive? Who knows.
pierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: greenhouse gases? |
21 Dec 2005 10:34:34 PM |
|
|
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1135180067.166771.41390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
How that might relate to climate change, and what the effects will be,
I'm undecided about at this time...but the fact is that we've changed
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Jim
The biggest problem with all this is determing what is normal and natural and
what isn't. It may seem obvious based on observation to correlate one action
with an event, but proving it is another thing. For example, the sun appears
to move yet we know it is the earth that is moving. It seems obvious to us
that the sun is moving but it isn't. Ancient peoples thought they could
appease the Gods of winter by sacrificing some virgins. Sometimes it worked
and sometimes it didn't.
Then there is the fact that in looking at the graph that the recent spike is
not as high as what occurred roughly 320,000 - 350,000 years ago.
The spike at 120,000 years was fairly high too and more sudden as well.
Those spikes were steep, but not as high as the current level, there
seems to be some natural limit that we have now exceeded.
I think we need to look at the bigger picture. What happens if there is a so
much particulate due to
Personally I just don't buy into the doom and gloom. Is it possible that we
are setting ourselves up for a mass extinction? Could be. Maybe that is
just part of the risks of living on this planet. Every so many million years
the earth turns on all life and wipes the slate clean so it can start again.
Will it be possible that some of our species survive? Who knows.
As I said I don't know what the implications are, but the fact is we've
unlocked a bunch of buried carbon and put it into the atmosphere.
Trying to deny that fact isn't going to help at all.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: greenhouse gases? |
22 Dec 2005 01:09:14 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1135226074.399035.63590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1135180067.166771.41390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
How that might relate to climate change, and what the effects will
be, I'm undecided about at this time...but the fact is that we've
changed the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Jim
The biggest problem with all this is determing what is normal and
natural and what isn't. It may seem obvious based on observation to
correlate one action with an event, but proving it is another thing.
For example, the sun appears to move yet we know it is the earth that
is moving. It seems obvious to us that the sun is moving but it isn't.
Ancient peoples thought they could appease the Gods of winter by
sacrificing some virgins. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.
Then there is the fact that in looking at the graph that the recent
spike is not as high as what occurred roughly 320,000 - 350,000 years
ago.
The spike at 120,000 years was fairly high too and more sudden as well.
Those spikes were steep, but not as high as the current level, there
seems to be some natural limit that we have now exceeded.
I think we need to look at the bigger picture. What happens if there
is a so much particulate due to
Personally I just don't buy into the doom and gloom. Is it possible
that we are setting ourselves up for a mass extinction? Could be.
Maybe that is just part of the risks of living on this planet. Every
so many million years the earth turns on all life and wipes the slate
clean so it can start again. Will it be possible that some of our
species survive? Who knows.
As I said I don't know what the implications are, but the fact is we've
unlocked a bunch of buried carbon and put it into the atmosphere.
Trying to deny that fact isn't going to help at all.
Jim
But the big question still remains unanswered.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
