Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950?  Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950.  How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?

In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted.  Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart?  What caused the high C02 then?

You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view.  NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.

So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man

[Varche]

I remain unconvinced by any of these arguments. We just have not been gathering accurate evidence for long enough. Rods2's analogy was perfect.

Don't forget that it was only 10,000 years ago that Britain was in an Ice Age.

However I do subscribe to the theory/statement that man is having a disastrous effect on the climate. In David Attenboroughs lifetime the population of the planet has TRIPLED. Imagine how much heat , body gasses and exhalations three times as many people in your sitting room as yesterday would have on your well being, now throw in a new car every few weeks. The problem is that the effects and necessary measures to counter mans exponential influence on the planet are not being well thought out. Instead you have knee jerk reactions propagated by vested interests.   

[cem_devecioglu]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950?  Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950.  How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?

In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted.  Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart?  What caused the high C02 then?

You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view.  NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.

So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man

Lizzie, nothing wrong with the graph!  its fluctuatiing between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for all those years normally..
 
0 time is a reference which is year 1950 ..  and from that point CO2 value goes up beyond its maximum  for all those long years..
 
and if you scroll the page other evidences are listed.. I can also share independant scientists views that say the same thing..  but unfortunately they dont share the same politicial views with you..
 
 
and as for NASA.. they may be a govt organization but they have lots of brilliant man and woman scientists who dont owe a lie to anyone..   
 
I must add that, mankinds effecting this planet can not be ignored anymore.. its the rich classes who own and earn from those factories, industries who wants us to believe that they dont effect anything.. but NASA and many scientists is not in that ship.. besides, USA didnt sign any international conference agreement on that subject..

[cem_devecioglu]

please check those links..
 
http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

[Lizzie_Zoom]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950?  Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950.  How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?

In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted.  Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart?  What caused the high C02 then?

You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view.  NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.

So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man

Lizzie, nothing wrong with the graph!  its fluctuatiing between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for all those years normally..
 
0 time is a reference which is year 1950 ..  and from that point CO2 value goes up beyond its maximum  for all those long years..
 
and if you scroll the page other evidences are listed.. I can also share independant scientists views that say the same thing..  but unfortunately they dont share the same politicial views with you..
 
 
and as for NASA.. they may be a govt organization but they have lots of brilliant man and woman scientists who dont owe a lie to anyone..   
 
I must add that, mankinds effecting this planet can not be ignored anymore.. its the rich classes who own and earn from those factories, industries who wants us to believe that they dont effect anything.. but NASA and many scientists is not in that ship.. besides, USA didnt sign any international conference agreement on that subject..

The point I was trying to make Cem, is each of those segments of the graph is calculated at 50,000 years.  In the segment which is meant to show "0" (1950) to 50,000 years it is compressed, so that the rate of C02 climb from what should be, if it can be believed, 48,000 years is virtually alongside the "0".  That compression means the rate of climb has been exaggerated to produce an almost vertical rise! If you were to place "0" in the correct place, i.e. 50,000 years back from the previous 50k segment  you would have a climb steadily rising from that time, 48,000 from it's lowest point, through to say 1,000 years and thus see an amount of CO2 at a so called high point well before man could have had impact on that figure.  The CO2 rate may still climb further to 1950, but I suggest not that far off from the 1,000 year figure, so would show no where near the dramatic (inflated??) climb NASA would have you believe.  They frankly have manipulated the chart.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

please check those links..
 
http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Yes, exactly Cem.  Those statistics indicate the Earth is warming - no arguments - but that is a natural phenomenon repeated over the centuries / millenium with constant climatic change as I and Nick have demonstrated in our historical data.  You will also note that there is argument among scientists about the exaggeration going on about what their data really means. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I remain unconvinced by any of these arguments. We just have not been gathering accurate evidence for long enough. Rods2's analogy was perfect.

Don't forget that it was only 10,000 years ago that Britain was in an Ice Age.

However I do subscribe to the theory/statement that man is having a disastrous effect on the climate. In David Attenboroughs lifetime the population of the planet has TRIPLED. Imagine how much heat , body gasses and exhalations three times as many people in your sitting room as yesterday would have on your well being, now throw in a new car every few weeks. The problem is that the effects and necessary measures to counter mans exponential influence on the planet are not being well thought out. Instead you have knee jerk reactions propagated by vested interests.

Yes, sorry Rods2 I did not intend to ignore your excellent summary, but got rather caught up in discussing historical milestones with our climate after Nickbat's great piece.

However, noting one piece of your post:

"Since the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 4 million years a go (it is thought their methane production, mass eating of plant material and CO2 production helped keep the earth much warmer than now with much higher CO2 levels), CO2 levels have been steadily dropping.

We entered our current ice age 2.6 million years a go and for much of the last 800,000 years the earth has been in an ice age crisis, with short 10,000 to 35,000 warm periods like we are in at the moment. The last thing we need are big drops in CO2 to make the earth cooler and the triggering of another ice age. An ice age can start i n as little as one year, as the snow and ice, reflect so much heat it quickly reinforces itself, so it takes 1000's of years to get out of."

First the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, at a time considered likely that an asteroid hit the earth, and was well before mankind's existence.

Secondly historians consider that there have been four distinct Ice Ages, each lasting between 50 to 120,000 years.  The last one it is reckoned ended about 14,000 years ago (J.M.Roberts History Of The World Pelican (1980).  Since then we have been in a "warm period", but in historical terms been quite regularly entering periods of extreme climatic change with dramatic weather conditions. (Please see my summary post #29 for full details: http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=110503.15#lastPost

 

[cem_devecioglu]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950?  Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950.  How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?

In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted.  Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart?  What caused the high C02 then?

You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view.  NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.

So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man

Lizzie, nothing wrong with the graph!  its fluctuatiing between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for all those years normally..
 
0 time is a reference which is year 1950 ..  and from that point CO2 value goes up beyond its maximum  for all those long years..
 
and if you scroll the page other evidences are listed.. I can also share independant scientists views that say the same thing..  but unfortunately they dont share the same politicial views with you..
 
 
and as for NASA.. they may be a govt organization but they have lots of brilliant man and woman scientists who dont owe a lie to anyone..   
 
I must add that, mankinds effecting this planet can not be ignored anymore.. its the rich classes who own and earn from those factories, industries who wants us to believe that they dont effect anything.. but NASA and many scientists is not in that ship.. besides, USA didnt sign any international conference agreement on that subject..

The point I was trying to make Cem, is each of those segments of the graph is calculated at 50,000 years.  In the segment which is meant to show "0" (1950) to 50,000 years it is compressed, so that the rate of C02 climb from what should be, if it can be believed, 48,000 years is virtually alongside the "0".  That compression means the rate of climb has been exaggerated to produce an almost vertical rise! If you were to place "0" in the correct place, i.e. 50,000 years back from the previous 50k segment  you would have a climb steadily rising from that time, 48,000 from it's lowest point, through to say 1,000 years and thus see an amount of CO2 at a so called high point well before man could have had impact on that figure.  The CO2 rate may still climb further to 1950, but I suggest not that far off from the 1,000 year figure, so would show no where near the dramatic (inflated??) climb NASA would have you believe.  They frankly have manipulated the chart.

No.. you may search for some mistake    but the rise is obvious at the last part of 25K year interval because the value shows 390 ppm which you cant ignore 

[cem_devecioglu]

please check those links..
 
http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Yes, exactly Cem.  Those statistics indicate the Earth is warming - no arguments - but that is a natural phenomenon repeated over the centuries / millenium with constant climatic change as I and Nick have demonstrated in our historical data.  You will also note that there is argument among scientists about the exaggeration going on about what their data really means.

No.. as NASA graph shows it goes beyond natural maximum..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950?  Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950.  How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?

In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted.  Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart?  What caused the high C02 then?

You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view.  NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.

So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man

Lizzie, nothing wrong with the graph!  its fluctuatiing between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for all those years normally..
 
0 time is a reference which is year 1950 ..  and from that point CO2 value goes up beyond its maximum  for all those long years..
 
and if you scroll the page other evidences are listed.. I can also share independant scientists views that say the same thing..  but unfortunately they dont share the same politicial views with you..
 
 
and as for NASA.. they may be a govt organization but they have lots of brilliant man and woman scientists who dont owe a lie to anyone..   
 
I must add that, mankinds effecting this planet can not be ignored anymore.. its the rich classes who own and earn from those factories, industries who wants us to believe that they dont effect anything.. but NASA and many scientists is not in that ship.. besides, USA didnt sign any international conference agreement on that subject..

The point I was trying to make Cem, is each of those segments of the graph is calculated at 50,000 years.  In the segment which is meant to show "0" (1950) to 50,000 years it is compressed, so that the rate of C02 climb from what should be, if it can be believed, 48,000 years is virtually alongside the "0".  That compression means the rate of climb has been exaggerated to produce an almost vertical rise! If you were to place "0" in the correct place, i.e. 50,000 years back from the previous 50k segment  you would have a climb steadily rising from that time, 48,000 from it's lowest point, through to say 1,000 years and thus see an amount of CO2 at a so called high point well before man could have had impact on that figure.  The CO2 rate may still climb further to 1950, but I suggest not that far off from the 1,000 year figure, so would show no where near the dramatic (inflated??) climb NASA would have you believe.  They frankly have manipulated the chart.

No.. you may search for some mistake    but the rise is obvious at the last part of 25K year interval because the value [highlight]shows 390 ppm [/highlight]which you cant ignore 

;

Ok Cem so if I accept that in 1950 (62 years ago) the C02 measurement reached that 390 per million after, they state. the start of the Industrial Revolution, how did it reach between 290 to 300 ppm tens of thousands of years before the IR?  Let's face it it is only a difference of, at best, 90 parts per million; what is that in real terms?  I suggest not enough to cause great panic, when apparently naturally three times the earth had reached the 290-300 ppm every 100,000 years approx.  Why should a fourth large rise, once again after around 100,000 years ( note the pattern there!) to around the 300 ppm mark be such a surprise, if not to exaggerate the C02 situation without any reference to earlier large rises before human activity.

As you can tell Cem, sorry but I am unconvinced.

[cem_devecioglu]

Lizzie , here is a link

http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=29448.570
and I think I cant convince you even if I post 39 pages

[omega3000]

Sitting here in a vest top , its bloody roasting here 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

....................and as an additional point, Before 1950, the time of the high C02 rise, in 1947/48 Britain had an Arctic winter for months with the Thames freezing over.  Then again in 1963/64 another Arctic winter hit the whole country.

So why if the C02 rates were so high in 1950, and obviously cause concern now, did Britain experience the worst winters since around 1715?

I would also be more impressed if the "latest" C02 readings could be of a far later date than in 1950.  What does that tell us now?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Lizzie , here is a link

http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=29448.570
and I think I cant convince you even if I post 39 pages

 

No, you never will Cem!