Dear Southern States

[scabzzzz]

Not much snow here anymore. It was supposed to snow this past weekend but it looked like baby jesus farted salt for about an hour. I actually had just a flanel on too, wasnt even freezing here.

[88driftIS]

question. How in the world could they have record of co2 levels from the 1900's and earlier?

[RVAe30]

sediment and geological evidence? maybe. Some trees are very old, maybe they take samples from the really old ones and discern CO2 levels from that. I have no idea though, i've wondered the same thing myself.

[ben312]

question. How in the world could they have record of co2 levels from the 1900's and earlier?

Ice. They dig core ice samples and then can run all kinds of tests on them to find out all kinds of shit. One of very few reasons to go to the south pole.

[Aptyp]

^yup. That's exactly why it isn't very accurate... As ice caps melt, they release methane. Not to mention a lot of ice has been compacted under millions of pounds of ice for millions of years. They have very good ways to estimate the age and CO2 levels of that time.

The last few hundred years are still very much a top layer of the ice. They say that icecaps are melting and are releasing CO2, but don't take into account that until our top layer of ice can be measured, it may release enough CO2 to fall right into the rest of the graph. Not sure if that would happen or not, but they don't know either.

[sweetride01]

^yup. That's exactly why it isn't very accurate... As ice caps melt, they release methane. Not to mention a lot of ice has been compacted under millions of pounds of ice for millions of years. They have very good ways to estimate the age and CO2 levels of that time.

The last few hundred years are still very much a top layer of the ice. They say that icecaps are melting and are releasing CO2, but don't take into account that until our top layer of ice can be measured, it may release enough CO2 to fall right into the rest of the graph. Not sure if that would happen or not, but they don't know either.

I think when compared to the timescale, the yearly variations being a bit inaccurate is irrelevant... you still get the big picture, which shows vast changes over periods of thousands of years.....

I will reply to your other post from last week when I'm a little less busy :-)

[88driftIS]

so in the 1600's when there was a mini ice age, the co2 in the air was the same as the heating cycles. hmmmm wonder what caused it then...

Oh and I know we put more and more c02 into the air. that is a fact, but please show me a knowledgeable article that shows that the air we breath now has more co2 in it then 200 years ago. It has also been proven(by NASA) that plants and other oxygen producing organisms adapt to how much co2 we put out. A majority of our oxygen also comes from the ocean via algae.

You might as well kill all the cows for their methane output too.

what the world is going through is a natural cycle. I really don't see anything happening for generations to come.

[Massive Lee]

It's interesting that everyone is blaming cows and North Pole for being the source of global warming, and that all the shit that is coming from our cars and industries has no effect on the earth's balance. Basically, that's it's okay to keep on dumping shit in the athmosphere, in our seas, and forests. Hmm...

[88driftIS]

sarcasm owns you... at least on the cow part.

[88driftIS]

chemical as physical waste is a big problem. That stuff can not be converted to other molecules like co2 and methane can.

I want to see a legitimate study done to show what c02 levels are now and what they where at years ago. Not here is a pretty graph that isn't backed up by fact.

[Massive Lee]

sarcasm owns you... at least on the cow part.

So, yes, I got owned by cows ;-). Let's stop discussing global warming then, but let's hear how pollution has no effect on our environment and why we should keep wasting resources. Which, I think, is the real debate.

After all, during the first oil crisis of the early 1970s, governments fooled us by making us believe that we almost reached the last drop of oil, just to make us burn less oil. Now the theme of global warming is used. Where is the truth and the real agenda? I am in favour of avoiding wasting resources, but don't like being taken for a fool by either camps...

Lee

[Aptyp]

sarcasm owns you... at least on the cow part.

Lee is owned by far more, than just sarcasm, but it's good to have him pointing out just how ridiculous his side of the debate is sometimes.

No one says polluting for the sake of polluting is alright... I am a big supporter of the Cap and Trade, but not for environmental reasons. Cows, landfills and Atlantic Ocean produce most of the Methane gas that is dumped right into atmosphere.


I also don't understand political point of view on this subject. Conservatives seem to be against conservation and liberals want more regulation, which in fact is less liberating. In republican scenario, they're against creating 10 million instant jobs, and to make US lead internationally to increase world's needs for our services, thereby racking in major MONEY.

Then democrats want to increase taxes by percentage, but cap off spending. They want decrease profit margin and collect more... Then they'll hire millions of governmental employees. Can't really preach environmental conservationism by introducing bureaucratic process.

[88driftIS]

off topic, supposed to get another 4-5in tomorrow on top of the 9 I already got.

oh I mean back on topic. lol

[Aptyp]

our snow is GONE

[88driftIS]

Lee is owned by far more, than just sarcasm, but it's good to have him pointing out just how ridiculous his side of the debate is sometimes.

No one says polluting for the sake of polluting is alright... I am a big supporter of the Cap and Trade, but not for environmental reasons. Cows, landfills and Atlantic Ocean produce most of the Methane gas that is dumped right into atmosphere.


I also don't understand political point of view on this subject. Conservatives seem to be against conservation and liberals want more regulation, which in fact is less liberating. In republican scenario, they're against creating 10 million instant jobs, and to make US lead internationally to increase world's needs for our services, thereby racking in major MONEY.

Then democrats want to increase taxes by percentage, but cap off spending. They want decrease profit margin and collect more... Then they'll hire millions of governmental employees. Can't really preach environmental conservationism by introducing bureaucratic process.

please, please, please do not start a political debate in a thread that is already been hijacked by a global warming debate.

Oh and that is full of shit.^^^