It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: CO2 Levels Highest Than At Any Time In The Last 650,000 Years.

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
New European studies of ice samples taken 3km below the surface of Antarctica is showing that present levels of CO2 and methane gas in the atmosphere is at it's highest than at any time in 650,000 years. Other studies seem to suggest that sea levels for the last 150 years have been rising twice as fast as in previous centuries.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.
..................
"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The core samples that have been retrieved from this expedition which started in 1999, go all the way back to almost 900,000 years, and the scientists from Epica are now concentrating on the study of the rest of the data as far back as the core samples would take them.

Whether or not man made pollution is the main cause of this increase i think we need to concentrate a bit more on contigencies on how to deal with the drastic changes that we have been witnessing for some time now and which will probably become worse in the not so distant future.




posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
It's very arrogant thinking to believe that we humans have the ability to alter a natural cyclical process. I think they'll find from these core samples that the world has previously experienced increases in CO2 levals/global warming. And if this becomes the case all these environmental tree huggin nut jobs lose their primary argument: live like we did in the dark ages to save the planet



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Its known that climate has varied dramatically through time. Its known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its known that human industry emits CO2. The question is, how much CO2 has to be emited before there is an effect and how much of an effect is acceptable.

During the Cretaceous period, the earth was in a Hot House condition, there was little to no ice at the poles, sea level was very much higher, and temp. was very high. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to have been around 4 times as high than now. Of course, that world was so hot that there were reptiles living comfortably in alaska, so that's probably too much for most of us.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   


It's very arrogant thinking to believe that we humans have the ability to alter a natural cyclical process.


Well I think that it’s naïve to believe that we can’t effect such cycles. Either that or wishful thinking. Although I don’t deny that this could be natural, it seems to me that we are at the very least, contributing to the problem in a noticeable way.

Though at this point, I doubt that there is very much can do regardless of what the primary cause is. As Muaddib said, we should work on contingencies



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
So CO2 is a green house gas eh? BUT so is evaporated water , in fact water vapor makes up 98% of all earth's green house gases.
The thing with this article that bugs me is the part about there being 3km vertical thickness of ice in Antarctica, 2km maybe, but 3km, I don't think so.
I might be wrong but I doubt it.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's very arrogant thinking to believe that we humans have the ability to alter a natural cyclical process. I think they'll find from these core samples that the world has previously experienced increases in CO2 levals/global warming. And if this becomes the case all these environmental tree huggin nut jobs lose their primary argument: live like we did in the dark ages to save the planet


Actually its very arrogant thinking we havent, seeing though we pump Co2 into the air everyday, with the milllions of cars, factories, and aeroplanes...

What dont people understand? Is it easier to say that its not our fault so we can get in our cars and not feel guilty? Or is it just hard to believe that humans, with their destructive tendancys, to destroy the very home they live on?

We'll find out soon enough, till then carry on dusting the subject under the carpet, you might not have a choice for much longer...
I take it your not from new orleans?



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodsyboy
Actually its very arrogant thinking we havent, seeing though we pump Co2 into the air everyday, with the milllions of cars, factories, and aeroplanes...


There is no evidence supporting the claim that our use of fossil fuels is reponsible for "global warming". You're making that conclusion, by attempting to apply fractured logic, simply because CO2 is being emmited. What about the previous period of global warming? Did they reduce carbon emmisions to stop this "dangerous phenomenon"? No! The cycle changed direction on its own.


Originally posted by woodsyboy
What dont people understand? Is it easier to say that its not our fault so we can get in our cars and not feel guilty? Or is it just hard to believe that humans, with their destructive tendancys, to destroy the very home they live on?


This planet has been bombarded with extraterrestrial collisions causing destruction that far exceeds the damage mere mortal humans could ever produce. And the planet is still here! LOOK OUT!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!


Originally posted by woodsyboy
I take it your not from new orleans?


Are you attempting to imply with this silly question that global warming caused the levees to break? You need to do your research. Officials have been trying for years to get federal funding to shore up those levees. They've known all along the risks of doing nothing; yet, they still hedged their bets on the structure of those levees; all for the purpose of buying time. They lost. Now THAT is a disaster humans can take credit for.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Good work mauddib.


Obviously, climate is dynamic complex system, and man-made CO2 emissions are a factor affecting the system. Yet we have purportedly educated people demanding proof of direct cause-and-effect relationships. That's PR, not science.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Yet we have purportedly educated people demanding proof of direct cause-and-effect relationships. That's PR, not science.


I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Educated people demanding proof and seeking direct cause/effect relationships are precisely what scientists are/do.


Originally posted by soficrow
Obviously, climate is dynamic complex system, and man-made CO2 emissions are a factor affecting the system.


Please post a reference from a reputible scientific source that unequivically states man-made CO2 emissions ARE a factor.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by soficrow
Yet we have purportedly educated people demanding proof of direct cause-and-effect relationships. That's PR, not science.


I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying.




Read up a bit on complex systems. Then we can talk.


.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Read up a bit on complex systems. Then we can talk.


Let's see; a dose of condescension in lieu of a meaningful intelligent answer. That's exactly what I would expect from someone who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
What soficrow is saying is that climate is a complex system and we're not going to necessariyl see an increase in one factor leading to a 1 for 1 increase in another component, like CO2 concentration and Temperature. However, we do see a very strong correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration anyway.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
No! The cycle changed direction on its own.

Good point, however, the problem is that the current trend doesn't 'fit' into any cycle.


from a reputible scientific source that unequivically states man-made CO2 emissions ARE a factor.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it strongly correlates with temperature. Manmade CO2 isn't going to be any different.
A big question is, how much CO2 is needed to warm the atmospher? In previous warm periods, CO2 levels were as much as 4 times as high. According to this site, between 1959 and 2004 atmospheric concentrations of CO2 went from 315.98 ppmv to 377.38 ppmv, which is an increase of 61.4 over 45 years and they're reporting it as around a 19% increase. How much of that increase is due to natural effects?
Here is a cartoon of the carbon cycle
external image

So lets say that man puts about 8 gigatons into the atmosphere each year, with something like 3 being 'stored' in the atmosphere (rather than cycling). It'd take a long time to get to 4x the concentration, or 3,000 gigatons, or an increase of about 2250gigatons.

Of course, that doesn't mean that global temperature will wait until then to dramatically change.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Nygdan]

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There is no evidence supporting the claim that our use of fossil fuels is reponsible for "global warming".

There's plenty of evidence but no proof.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This planet has been bombarded with extraterrestrial collisions causing destruction that far exceeds the damage mere mortal humans could ever produce. And the planet is still here! LOOK OUT!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!

Noone suggests that global warming will destroy the planet, just that it will have far stretching consequences and by all means it looks like human factors can have an influence.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's very arrogant thinking to believe that we humans have the ability to alter a natural cyclical process. I think they'll find from these core samples that the world has previously experienced increases in CO2 levals/global warming.

why would that be arrogant, apart from you thinking it's so? if you bothered to read the article, you'd have read they have found core samples indicating that there were previous times the world had such CO2 levels, but that the last time was 650,000 years ago.



Originally posted by Nygdan
Good point, however, the problem is that the current trend doesn't 'fit' into any cycle.

Yup.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the info Nygdan. I'd like to make a couple points based on the info you provided.

First the readings taken from 1959 to 2004 have only changed approximately 20% (from 315.98 ppmv to 377.38 ppmv) which I don't believe is very significant. What I feel is more telling about these readings is that the years 1997-1998 saw the most significant increase in ppmv of 2.87. However, if you look at the lower graph from the same website, you'll notice that CO2 emisions have been relatively level since approximately 1970 (the same year the EPA was established). Why do you suppose that is? And who's causing the contiuous rise in global CO2?

Regardless of who is causing the greatest emisions, 20% in the last 45 years hardly seems something to go "Chicken Little" about.

It seems to me that environmentalists, in general, are very much like the anti-abortionist who refuses to adopt a child in need of a loving family. Choosing instead to kill the doctor who performs abortions. Rather than burning my SUV and my large expensive home hoping I'll change my lifestyle for the sake of the environment, why don't they go to school to learn ways to elliminate our dependence on foriegn sources of oil (read: the middle east)? Now that's something I would wrap my arms around; though, not for environmental reasons; but for political ones.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
First the readings taken from 1959 to 2004 have only changed approximately 20% (from 315.98 ppmv to 377.38 ppmv) which I don't believe is very significant.

Why not? Just say because you don't WANT to admit it.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
What I feel is more telling about these readings is that the years 1997-1998 saw the most significant increase in ppmv of 2.87. However, if you look at the lower graph from the same website, you'll notice that CO2 emisions have been relatively level since approximately 1970 (the same year the EPA was established).

I do seem to notice that graph only accounts for North America. China has had a massive industrialization wave and world population in general is seriously increasing too.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Rather than burning my SUV and my large expensive home hoping I'll change my lifestyle for the sake of the environment, why don't they go to school to learn ways to elliminate our dependence on foriegn sources of oil (read: the middle east)? Now that's something I would wrap my arms around; though, not for environmental reasons; but for political ones.

If you don't all change in mass your habits of driving SUVs, then how on earth do you expect anything to change about your dependence of foreign oil? You think it will fall out of the sky, or that ANWR can solve all problems as a magical solution?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
..this doesn't sound good at all!!

But who is willing to give up their car? or way of life totally?

We'll have to move back to the woods and start all over again as hunters..and gatherers...
if we're gonna survive this millennium!!



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
which I don't believe is very significant.

Well, and I don't have any interest in the results comming out either way, but if you think about it, 20 percent over 50 years translates to Global Tropics CO2 levels in, what, 15 generations? Which is a long time no doubt, but long before that point this is the United States



And who's causing the contiuous rise in global CO2?

Undoubtedly its China and India. There's a billion people in each country, and each country is going through the 'dirtiest' phase of industrialization now (the early phases), not to mention that if even a small percentage of the people in either country gets cars, that thats a lot of people.






Regardless of who is causing the greatest emisions, 20% in the last 45 years hardly seems something to go "Chicken Little" about.

Not necessarily, and this is perhaps why its important to look at the whole picture.

Shortly preceding one of the last ice ages, there was a 'drop' of an enourmous volume of polar ice into the ocean. This completely screwed the salt concentration dependant global circulation of ocean water, and is thought to have shut down the movement of warm water from the tropical lattitudes into higher lats, thus bringing about the ice age.

Could it happen now? Who knows. More research allways needs to be done. But its very important to keep in mind that a small change in global sea level will result in the flooding of coast lines all around the world, port cities like, NY, Boston, etc, could be removed from the economy and country. Or also consider what might happen if the midwest of the US, which is the american breadbasket, was to have its rivers dry up, and at the same time another countries have their climates improve and become more powerful.


why don't they go to school to learn ways to elliminate our dependence on foriegn sources of oil

Indeed, why don't they. And also, why isn't more money and effort put into climate research and basic science, locally and nationally. In the end its a scientific question and only science is going to enable the public and policy makers to make the proper decisions.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Can someone please explain the century without winter that hit europe arouns 900 to 1000AD that let the viking run amuk becuase they didn't need to gather food? This is when Greenland was in fact "green".

A time of long summers and very short winter if any.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Can someone please explain the century without winter that hit europe arouns 900 to 1000AD that let the viking run amuk becuase they didn't need to gather food? This is when Greenland was in fact "green".

A time of long summers and very short winter if any.



anomaly
1. n. [Geology]
An entity or property that differs from what is typical or expected, or the measurement of the difference between observed and expected values of a physical property.

...This definition is for geology - couldn't find one for climate. But I'm sure someone will get on it soon.


We also could talk about eccentric anomalies:
Deviating from stated methods, usual practice, or established forms or laws; deviating from an appointed sphere or way; departing from the usual course; irregular; anomalous; odd; as, eccentric conduct.


OR - we could compare anomalies to trends:
The general drift, tendency, or bent of a set of statistical data as related to time or another related set of statistical data.(Source: MGH)


Watcha wanna do?



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join