Carbon levels dramatically changed 7,000 years ago. Sudden human knowledge?, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 30 times

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 07:04 PM by poet1b

Let's put up some legitimate temperature charts.

Follow this link, half way down the page is a chart of Earth's temperature record for the last 1.35 million years. The planet's temperature increase is still accelerating.

math.ucr.edu...

Note this timeline is not to scale! According to this study, after warming up 0.2° C per year for the last 3 decades, the Earth is now the hottest it's been in the last 12,000 years:

* James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Ken Lo, David W. Lea, and Martin Medina-Elizade, Global temperature change, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 103 (2006), 14288-14293.

The current temperature matches the "Holocene maximum", a warm period about 12,000 years ago, right before the last ice age. If the temperature goes up another 1°C, it'll be the hottest it's been in the last 1.35 million years!

If you do more research, you will find that the last few years have been hotter than it has been for about 400,000 years.

So if the subject of the thread is correct, Mankind started warming the Earth Thousands of years ago, maybe, considering the current situation, we might want to start putting some controls in place to prevent things from getting too hot.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 08:22 PM by poet1b

Something to Note from the study in the link above, the data is from 2004, which is five years ago. During that time the rise in global temperature has continued to accelerate, which means that this year, global temperatures are most likely the highest they have been for 1.35 million years.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 08:45 PM by pavil

reply to post by poet1b

Nice site, lots of good stuff to look at. Ever since the rise of mammals the Earth has been much hotter for about 3/4's of the last 65 Million years than it is now, actually even more than that as I look at the chart again. Life still managed to thrive in those conditions even with Antarctica melting and freezing a couple of times. Life manages to fill the niches Nature gives it in ecosystems, time and time again. We, as a species, will survive almost any "climate change". I just wouldn't go about purchasing oceanfront condos as a long term investment.......

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 01:01 AM by Donkey_Dean

Originally posted by poet1b

Let's put up some legitimate temperature charts.

Follow this link, half way down the page is a chart of Earth's temperature record for the last 1.35 million years. The planet's temperature increase is still accelerating.

If you do more research, you will find that the last few years have been hotter than it has been for about 400,000 years.

The chart is accurate. Here is another plotted directly from composite data sets using Lotus 1-2-3.
www.geocraft.com...

The chart on the previos page is compiled from.
2000-1979: Satellite stratospheric data
1979-1871: S. Hemisphere ground temp. data
1871- 422k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data

Historically, glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interupted by brief warm interglacial periods-- like the one we enjoy today. Changes in both temperatures and CO2 are considerable and generally synchronized, according to data analysis from ice and air samples collected over the last half century from permanent glaciers in Antarctica and other places. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite from the normal state of our natural world-- an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago.

Please do your homework before knocking others. Thank you!

References:

Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The data available from CDIAC represent a major effort by researchers from France, Russia, and the U.S.A.

1) Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,00 years).

Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov,
V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987.

Nature 329:403-8.

2) Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period.

Jouzel, J., N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, C. Genthon, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou, and P. Yiou. 1993.

Nature 364:407-12.

3) Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records.

Jouzel, J., C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaize, M. Bender, J.R. Petit, M. Stievenard, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, T. King, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz, and T. Sowers. 1996.

Climate Dynamics 12:513-521.

4) Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.

Nature 399: 429-436.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 01:22 AM by Donkey_Dean

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

That’s about one ton for each human on earth. How much C02 could our ancestors have released? I really think your barking up the wrong tree.

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 02:36 AM by Ex_MislTech

reply to post by dbates

I think you might consider other sources of data.

Vostok ice core data

This shows what a lot of ppl do not want to be shown.

There are cycles even when humans were little more than a joke.

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 03:04 AM by Phage

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

The Vostok data is interesting but it does show that the CO2 increase which began 7-10 thousand years ago is greater than previous increases. It does demonstrate the connection between greenhouse gases and temperature. It also shows that increases in atmospheric dust levels coincide with lower temperatures but (weirdly) they also coincide with drops in CO2 levels.

Kind of confusing but it does indicate that "climate change" is nothing new. It is important to remember that correlation does not imply causation. While the causative action of greenhouse gases is understood, there's still a lot going on that we don't know about.

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 12:16 PM by poet1b

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

Which chart is accurate?

People are making all kinds of claims without any evidence to back up what they are saying. Most of it is total nonsense.

Have the ice ages occurred regularly every 100,000 years? While this was the main theory 50 years ago, evidence collected since then has shown that this is most likely not true. The 100,000 year interval is only a recent development of the last million years.

When have ice ages occurred?

www.museum.state.il.us...

This next link seems to be the current popular theory, but who knows how long it will last.

www.physorg.com...

I have to wonder about this theory. Wouldn't the Earth still be getting the same amount of heat from the sun, even though the axis tilt has changed. So the seasons would be more extreme, but colder winters would be counteracted by hotter summers.

While periods of glaciation has followed time patterns, those time patterns have changed over the history of the Earth. If the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn have cause the ice ages, then wouldn't that mean that the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, or the Earth, would have had to change. This seems extremely unlikely.

Here is an interesting article on the subject.

The Milky Way Galaxy's Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection

www.sciencebits.com...

One thing that keeps showing up is that we don't know nearly as much as we pretend to know.

Another thing that does keep showing up is that we are currently going through an extraordinary period of global warming.

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 12:44 PM by Donkey_Dean

reply to post by poet1b

This chart is not a dreamed up affair. It was compiled directly from composite data and the findings are not debatable. Any departure from the best evidence we have really is bass ackwards in my mind. The point is that I didn’t make this up to fit my agenda or anything you need to do a little research for yourself. If you would choose to accept hypothesis over the temp data recorded in the permanent ice sheets then I guess that’s your business. Don’t try and drag me through the mud over it though, ok.

2000-1979: Satellite stratospheric data
1979-1871: S. Hemisphere ground temp. data
1871- 422k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data

Shows us this

Please do a little reading friend.

Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The data available from CDIAC represent a major effort by researchers from France, Russia, and the U.S.A.

1) Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,00 years).

Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov,
V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987.

Nature 329:403-8.

2) Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period.

Jouzel, J., N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, C. Genthon, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou, and P. Yiou. 1993.

Nature 364:407-12.

3) Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records.

Jouzel, J., C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaize, M. Bender, J.R. Petit, M. Stievenard, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, T. King, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz, and T. Sowers. 1996.

Climate Dynamics 12:513-521.

4) Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.

Nature 399: 429-436.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 05:39 AM by poet1b

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

Really, so where is your link to this chart?

Why does this chart differ from so many others?

Could it be because this chart comes from the people paid to support evidence that big oil wants displayed.?

I provide several sources, you provide none.

Edit to add other links.

climateprogress.org...

www.epa.gov...

www.daviesand.com...

www.sciencecentercollaborative.org...

[edit on 24-9-2009 by poet1b]

reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 11:03 AM by Donkey_Dean

reply to post by poet1b

Its from the ice core data.

Here, like you couldnt have done this yourself. www.google.com...

Or en.wikipedia.org... There is a very nice graph on Wikipedia that directly parallels the one above.

This isn’t made up friend, and for those with no agenda it provides the best factual evidence we have.

This in no way knocks global warming either friend, in fact the ice core data shows a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature.

What is the saying here? Deny Ignorance! Dude please get on that ok. I didnt make this up, it is fact.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 11:16 AM by poet1b

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

I get it, I am supposed to search through the 100s of links that come up with this search to find this bogus chart you keep throwing up on the thread.

Here is one of the results, and the chart looks nothing like what you have displayed. In fact it proves you are full of it.

www.daviesand.com...

Beside the fact that you keep putting up the same garbage information with no source, it is off topic and adds nothing to the discussion.

Edit to add, I don't even see your chart on the wiki link.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by poet1b]

reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 11:18 AM by Donkey_Dean

reply to post by poet1b

Yes well I am done poet1b. The chart you provide shows cycles of 100,000 years rounds about at -10 degrees. How is it not the same? Those are ice ages friend!

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 01:23 PM by pavil

Originally posted by Phage
It is important to remember that correlation does not imply causation. While the causative action of greenhouse gases is understood, there's still a lot going on that we don't know about.

Big supernova star on your forehead for that one.

There are so many competing cycles of different lengths going on at the same time that it is hard if not impossible to track "climate change" down to any one or even five variables. Even then, you could be making false assumptions depending on what data and what length of time you are looking at. Both sides seem to cherry pick the data....Data is Data you can't ignore the parts that don't fit your assumptions.

We humans have never been very good at long range weather predictions, I still don't trust anyone who claims to know what things will be like in a century.

reply posted on 5-1-2010 @ 12:55 AM by anyjerk

reply to post by Hazelnut

I very much agree. I believe the BC/AD confusion is the global change- over from polytheism to monotheism. The belief in one god.

reply posted on 5-1-2010 @ 01:03 AM by anyjerk

reply to post by Kryties

I completely support your two theories and prefer the first, although, from what we know about the success and achievements of ancient civilizations, the second is certainly very, very possible. And then again, a combination of both is just as likely. The puzzle is seemingly never-ending...

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^