Does anyone have any reference(s) to the methods used to sample data about atmospheric 400,000 years ago? It's amazingly interesting.
Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
21–30 of 94 posts
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#22I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).
Unfortunately, I think you're right.
A friend of mine (who works in energy) was telling me about how the case for renewable energy is being made (to some extent) successfully in Kansas. They push three points:
- reduce expenditure
- US should reduce reliance on foreign oil
- have a duty to protect the earth god gave us
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#23Religion doesn't belong here.
So flag it.
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#24Why did they decided to cut the graphic at 400,000 years before today? Maybe that's because a couple of million years ago the concentration of CO2 was well above today's level? By the way here is another picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...
Yes, climate and atmosphere do change. There is nothing sacred about current measurements and composition.
Here are estimated CO2 levels through geologic time -- "currently" rather low! -- at UCSD site:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1...
CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Our planet wouldn't be so green without lots of it. (I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period.)
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#25Why did they decided to cut the graphic at 400,000 years before today? Maybe that's because a couple of million years ago the concentration of CO2 was well above today's level? By the way here is another picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...
Yes, climate and atmosphere do change. There is nothing sacred about current measurements and composition. Here are estimated CO2 levels through geologic time -- "currently" rather low! -- at UCSD site: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1... CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Our planet wouldn't be so green without lots of it. (I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green…
> CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer.
Sure, but as with fertilizer on fields, there are consequences for using way too much.
> I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period.
As long as there aren't a billion or so refugees from the low-lying areas rampaging through.
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#26The power of a graph.
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, climate and atmosphere do change. There is nothing sacred about current measurements and composition. Here are estimated CO2 levels through geologic time -- "currently" rather low! -- at UCSD site: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1... CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Our planet wouldn't be so green without lots of it. (I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green…
> CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Sure, but as with fertilizer on fields, there are consequences for using way too much. > I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period. As long as there aren't a billion or so refugees from the low-lying areas rampaging through.
> using way too much
Hence my link to CO2 levels over Geologic Time. Do you think there was "way too much" CO2 in the past?
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#28Does anyone have any reference(s) to the methods used to sample data about atmospheric 400,000 years ago? It's amazingly interesting.
They send a cyborg back in time to collect samples. While he is there, he kills Sarah and the world ends in 3... 2... 1... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator
Seriously, ice core samples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Sure, but as with fertilizer on fields, there are consequences for using way too much. > I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period. As long as there aren't a billion or so refugees from the low-lying areas rampaging through.
> using way too much Hence my link to CO2 levels over Geologic Time. Do you think there was "way too much" CO2 in the past?
For Earth? No. For human society as we currently know it? Seems that way. We'll survive climate change, but flooding places like Bangladesh is going to cause tremendous upheaval.
Humanity survived the ice age, but that didn't make it a fun period in our history.
Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change
#30You'd think NASA would know well enough to start the y-axis at 0. Lousy graphs of this sort create the appearance of deceit, even in it absence, and wind up giving ammunition to skeptics.
Why does the y-axis of a graph need to begin at 0? 0 is a number like any other number. If the result set you're attempting to display doesn't have any values at 0 then why would you display 0? The graph in question also doesn't show any data points at y=-257,687 ... does that concern you?
Because when zero is not marked it is impossible to judge the relative magnitude of all graph fluctuations without looking at the y axis scale. On this graph a lot of people (incl. me) would be tricked into thinking that in the last 100 years the amount of CO2 increased by an order of magnitude. Now, I know that's impossible, and I checked the scale at the left to find the usual suspect. But many normal people would just believe what they see. It's typical deceit method that is widely used in corporate presentations, journalism, etc. The only excuse for not marking zero on most charts is if you want to show minor fluctuations more precisely, which is not the purpose of this graph.