Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, that's a stretch. But OK, the levels never exceeded 313.5 ppm for a million years, and now have risen to over 400 ppm in a very short time.
But that's totally irrelevant.
If you read the peer-reviewed scientific articles, you will see that in every Inter-Glacial Period going back 800,000 years the sea level rose 3 meters to as much as 14 meters.
Sea levels during MIS-7 and MIS-9 were 10 meters to 14 meters higher than present.
What did you just say?
You said CO2 levels haven't exceed 300 ppm CO2 in 1 Million years.
So, what exactly is the point?
Who was burning fossil fuels in any of the previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
No one, yet sea levels still rose 3 meters to 14 meters.
In fact, CO2 levels ranged from 260 ppm to 280 ppm CO2.
So, the reality is that it doesn't matter if your CO2 level is 270 ppm or 470 ppm, because your sea level is going to increase 3 meters to 14 meters and neither you, nor anyone living, dead or who will ever live can stop it.
Once you accept that scientific reality, the best thing to do is let the Free Market handle it, instead of ramming useless laws down people's throats that will do nothing except screw people over.
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
If you read the peer-reviewed scientific articles, you will see that in every Inter-Glacial Period going back 800,000 years the sea level rose 3 meters to as much as 14 meters.
Sea levels during MIS-7 and MIS-9 were 10 meters to 14 meters higher than present.
The claim that "in every Inter-Glacial Period going back 800,000 years the sea level rose 3 meters to as much as 14 meters" is garbled nonsense, as is the comment about MIS-7 & MIS-9.
The 'rise' presumably refers to SLR (Sea Level Rise) exceeding today's levels and the "3 meters" is probably referring to MIS-5 (although it is usually given as a little higher) which was the last interglacial 100,000 years ago while the "14 meters" is probably referring to MIS-11 400,000 years ago. (MIS-7 & MIS-9 were the interglacials inbetween these two.)
Reconstructing a SLR record over recent ice-ages is not as simple as the equivalent CO2 & polar temperature record. So it is not impossible that wildly contradictory evidence exists and I'm not aware that a definitive source for ice-age SLR actually exists yet. Our good friend Google provides the graphic below although it requires signing-up to get a proper sight of the data it is based upon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You said CO2 levels haven't exceed 300 ppm CO2 in 1 Million years.
So, what exactly is the point?
Who was burning fossil fuels in any of the previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
No one, yet sea levels still rose 3 meters to 14 meters.
In fact, CO2 levels ranged from 260 ppm to 280 ppm CO2.
So, the reality is that it doesn't matter if your CO2 level is 270 ppm or 470 ppm, because your sea level is going to increase 3 meters to 14 meters and neither you, nor anyone living, dead or who will ever live can stop it.
As for CO2 being below 300ppm during those previous interglacials, it was the planet's orbital configuration that allowed that extra ice-melt back then, the whole amplified by reduced albedo due to lower ice cover.
Today those orbital configurations do not exist so without human GHG's the planet would now be slipping into an ice-age and the sea level would be dropping as opposed to rising.
Our extra GHGs is more than preventing that and CO2 levels of 470 ppm (not sure why that particular value is stated) will melt out Greenland (as happened in MIS-5) and a fair bit of Antarctica as well. A 14m SLR would be on the cards, although the melting is expected to take some millennia if you managed to stop at 470 ppm.
The claim that "in every Inter-Glacial Period going back 800,000 years the sea level rose 3 meters to as much as 14 meters" is garbled nonsense, as is the comment about MIS-7 & MIS-9.
No, it's peer-reviewed science. You reject it and deny science, because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
As for CO2 being below 300ppm during those previous interglacials, it was the planet's orbital configuration that allowed that extra ice-melt back then, the whole amplified by reduced albedo due to lower ice cover.
Today those orbital configurations do not exist so without human GHG's the planet would now be slipping into an ice-age and the sea level would be dropping as opposed to rising.
"Orbital configurations" have nothing to do with anything, and even if they did, your claim is false because the cycles constantly change, which is why they're called cycles.
It is true that prior to the Mid-Pleistocene Event 600,000 years ago, Glacial Periods lasted about 40,000 to 42,000 years.
At first glance, it "appears" to match the 2nd phase of the Milankovitch Cycle, but further examination proves that not to be the case at all.
If the axial tilt cycle of 41,000 years is responsible for a Glacial Period lasting 40,000 to 42,000 years then the subsequent Inter-Glacial Period should also last 40,000 to 42,000 years, but none did.
If a Glacial Period coincides with the 41,000 year axial tilt cycle, then the following 12,000 to 15,000 year Inter-Glacial Period destroys the Cycle, because they are never synchronized again.
The subsequent Glacial Period would start in the latter part of the first half of the 41,000 year cycle, which refutes the theory.
At first glance, the 100,000 year cycle "appears" to match the 3rd phase of the Milankovitch Cycle, but that's only because scientists deceptively use the average of the 80,000 year and 120,000 year Glacial Periods that began after the Mid-Pleistocene Event.
80,000 years is not 100,000 years and neither is 120,000 years.
That's a margin of error of 20% which statistically invalidates the theory. If every Glacial Period lasted 95,000 to 105,000 years, then perhaps you could make a strong case, but science says that's not what happens.
The Earth's precessional nutation of 25,500 years (1st phase), the axial tilt of 41,000 years (2nd phase) and the orbital precession of 100,000 years (3rd phase) play only a minor role in Earth's climate.
You still have the misguided belief that this Inter-Glacial Period is "special" because you're "special."
If you like that, your gonna love this. Here's a clipping from 1970 on how the neo-Malthusians planned to "combat" global cooling...
Check out those bullet points, sound familiar???
Yes siree. Same old story, exact same goals -- total control of people's lives -- just a different scare tactic.
That's really what AGW is all about: total control of people's lives.
That's also why the IPCC has no scientific data on their web-site, only socio-economic data, which has nothing to do with science, but is useful for controlling people's lives.
If earthquakes and volcanic activity are in large part increasing CO2 we would know that. We do know that. The climate scientists on the global warming bandwagon/payroll and media just don't want to admit it.
We'll see how this summer plays out. If there's a drought or record rains, its global warming. Heat waves= global warming. Hurricanes= global warming. Tornadoes=global warming. But lack of storms or lack of heat and they'll go back to sullen silence like they do over the winter months.
It's not the CO2 in a green-house, it's the glass that makes it work. Anyone who believes Earth has a glass ceiling covering it probably needs to REDO FROM START.
Omg. Is this serious?
You don’t understand that some gases act in a similar fashion to glass and are opaque to long wave length radiation and not to short wave? Do you really not understand that? That the name greenhouse effect is an analogy for this easily measurable and observable fact?
This information should not be considered an "other controversy", but it is because so many people do not believe in basic science.
The earth is approximately 6,000 years old, in accordance with Bible chronology, and there is some very basic science that shows this to be the case. See the video below for an overview of some of the major problems with the theory of an old earth. So no, in fact, the title of your thread is wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
