EcoRenovator - View Single Post

Exeric · 02-18-13, 02:18 PM

Daox, I agree. I'll try to do better.

Eco Ok, let's keep this civil. Lets get back to your first principal argument for saying that global warming is a natural cycle. You referenced a chart showing concentrations of CO2, and other atmospheric gases, that were hidden in ice cores going back approx 600,000 years. In that chart there was a cyclic rise in CO2 levels approx every 125,000 years going back the last 350,000 years or so. You argued that according to that chart we are right on schedule and presumably will be quick to return to lower more usual CO2 levels quickly.

The interesting thing to me, and I'm sure to you, is that the chart shows CO2 levels that currently peak at the level of past CO2 peaks: about .03%. In reality the current level is .0392% according to the NOA. This is a level about 33% higher than any previous peak in the last 350,000 years. This just does not agree with an unbroken series similar peaks. The timing does appear to agree.

The point I'm making is that the timing only appears to agree because we are at a point in time were the data ends. Charts often break out of their recurring cycles and create new patterns as new data comes in. The world is not a static cycle machine and patterns change with the fullness of time. The CO2 level is now accelerating past any previous peak in the last 600,000 years and this acceleration coincides with the burning of carbon sequestered fuels by man.

What is your counter argument?

02-18-13, 02:18 PM	#37
Exeric Apprentice EcoRenovator Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: California Posts: 274 Thanks: 19 Thanked 37 Times in 28 Posts	Daox, I agree. I'll try to do better. Eco Ok, let's keep this civil. Lets get back to your first principal argument for saying that global warming is a natural cycle. You referenced a chart showing concentrations of CO2, and other atmospheric gases, that were hidden in ice cores going back approx 600,000 years. In that chart there was a cyclic rise in CO2 levels approx every 125,000 years going back the last 350,000 years or so. You argued that according to that chart we are right on schedule and presumably will be quick to return to lower more usual CO2 levels quickly. The interesting thing to me, and I'm sure to you, is that the chart shows CO2 levels that currently peak at the level of past CO2 peaks: about .03%. In reality the current level is .0392% according to the NOA. This is a level about 33% higher than any previous peak in the last 350,000 years. This just does not agree with an unbroken series similar peaks. The timing does appear to agree. The point I'm making is that the timing only appears to agree because we are at a point in time were the data ends. Charts often break out of their recurring cycles and create new patterns as new data comes in. The world is not a static cycle machine and patterns change with the fullness of time. The CO2 level is now accelerating past any previous peak in the last 600,000 years and this acceleration coincides with the burning of carbon sequestered fuels by man. What is your counter argument? Last edited by Exeric; 02-18-13 at 03:02 PM..