Your thoughts on what it means? I look at it and see a trend of falling and rising temperatures correlated with rises in CO2 levels, every 120,000+ years or so. What do the Gore types say? What do the more moderate climate change proponents say? What does John say about this?
You know, honestly, I'm just speechless at this point. Clearly, if you look at this chart, you can see humans have had no impact on previous temperature and CO2 changes. Yet, in the last 100 years, for some reason, we're just so certain that it's happening because of us, and we need to all change our way of life to try to "correct" it. It all still seems like such a scam to me.
Notice how none of the climate change enthusiasts jumped on this post to say anything at all?
What you don't see on this graph (because it covers too much time) is the sharp rate at which temperatures and CO2 are climbing right now. That's what has people worried. We know CO2 levels have been high in the past. In fact, they've been higher than anything you see on this graph. But back then we weren't around to be worried about the consequences. Now we are. And whether we are causing it or not, the changes are real and we must figure out how to live with those changes. If we're going to argue, let's argue about something productive like how we're going to adapt to the changes, not over whose fault it is.
And as for why you haven't had more discussion here: I think you just got lost in the shuffle. This is the first time I've noticed this post sitting here and I've been by several times a day. Guess we've all been too busy over in dox^2's corner to notice you. Sorry.
In archaeology (and other scientific disciplines also, I should imagine), time is often expressed in years BP, meaning "before present", where "present" is defined as being AD 1950 (the year which marked the advent of modern dating methods).
In archaeology (and other scientific disciplines also, I should imagine), time is often expressed in years BP, meaning "before present", where "present" is defined as being AD 1950 (the year which marked the advent of modern dating methods).
This is true, but in this case the graph actually stops at 1950.
No offense, but even if that's true, I doubt you'd notice those fifty-odd years on a graph of this scale.
If you look at the charts of CO2 concentration for the last 50 years or so you will see that it has risen ~60-80ppmv. Adding that data to the graph shown here would send the line right off the top of the chart. In fact, we'd have to bump the top of the chart from 300ppmv all the way up to ~350ppmv in order to get all the data in. That's not just significant. It's higher than anything you see on this graph.
Comments
What do the Gore types say? What do the more moderate climate change proponents say? What does John say about this?
And as for why you haven't had more discussion here: I think you just got lost in the shuffle. This is the first time I've noticed this post sitting here and I've been by several times a day. Guess we've all been too busy over in dox^2's corner to notice you. Sorry.