reply to post by network dude
I am one of those called out. I admit it, a geologist.
For me, the climate change debate is like talking about the weather. The most educated can not tell me with 100% certainty if it will rain
The chart, or graph, is what I consider to be the best argument for naturally occurring fluctuations in the temperatures of the Earth.
The geological records speak volumes of the many different types of earth changes. However, the more recent the record is, the less confidence I
place on the data, and subsequent interpretations. Present day geologic processes give me a snapshot of what I can see in the record; but, because
they are processes
, characteristics change even as they are happening.
For instance, I can "see" the release of base metal sulfides (or, sulphides, depending) from the deep sea vents, the active formation of a
"massive sulfide" deposit, in REAL time. This is in direct correlation to base metal deposits currently being mined in Japan, for one.
Extending the "process" to topic of "global warming":
We are looking at data being retrieved, essentially, in real time. One or two hundred years is real time geologically.
Since the CO2 measured in the ice cores, for example, starts rising drastically in the past so many years is not all that surprising. CO2 is a
relatively heavy molecule. Would it not make sense that the colder temperature associated with the poles acts as a "sink" for the heavier gases?
As is the process in the ocean-- the colder the water the better the CO2 retention?
If you can follow along, the nearer to the surface the measurements are recorded in CO2 content, the newer, or more immature, the process.
It is a naturally occurring cycle, recorded throughout geologic time (where we can find it in the record), long before humankind walked upright.