think of it, Rome was for all the same stuff as Metal.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > Wrong direction, when the western Empire collapsed, heavy metal collapsed. > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Eric Roberts < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> So heavy metal brought down he Roman empire? Awesome!!! LOL >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:46 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Welcome to the Age of Denial >> >> >> Cool thing about these ice cores is that they track other stuff than just >> CO2. Heavy metals etc. for instance. I'll have to dig up the reference >> (not >> on my home laptop with the ref) but tracking these metals (in Greenland >> mainly from the Rio Tinto mines in Spain which have been mining lead since >> 600BC) trace very closely the rise and fall of the Roman, Byzantine and >> Islamic empires. These results closely correlate with CO2 levels to such >> an >> extent that you can see the influence on global climate change based on >> the >> rise and fall of these empires. Moreover recent findings in the ice cores >> from the Andes indicate that the fall of the Maya and Aztec civilizations >> either hastened or caused the Little Ice Age in the 16th-17th centuries. >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > You keep going on and on about this, and how the Earth has not >> > > > gotten warmer in the last 10 years or so. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 17 >> > > >> > >> > 17? Then why do you keep saying 10? Either way, it is still not even a >> > blink of the eye when compared to how long some of these cycles last. >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > When you look at the history of the Earth, it is BILLIONS of years >> old. >> > > > Over time, there have been periods of warming and periods of >> cooling. >> > > > During a 'warming period' not every year would have been warmer >> > > > than >> > the >> > > > previous. Not to mention that 10 years over the span of millions >> > > > is not even the equivalent of the 'blink of an eye' >> > > > >> > > > >> > > If you go back past 1880 then this particular warming cycle is >> > > cyclical >> > and >> > > not extraordinary. >> > > >> > >> > I understand that. I thought I made that clear, but maybe not. My bad. >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > Take a look at this chart - >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCo >> > res1.gifit >> > > > shows a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. You can >> > > > see that even during 'cooling trends' there were 'spikes' where it >> > > > was >> > > warmer, >> > > > but the overall trend was that it was getting cooler. The same can >> > > > be >> > > said >> > > > of the 'warming' periods and 'dips' where it was cooler, but the >> > overall >> > > > trend was that it was getting warmer. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Bad chart. First, CO2 lags behind temperature. Second, CO2 is lower >> > > now than it was 100k and 300k years ago. I think you need a new >> source. >> > > >> > >> > I won't argue over which one 'lags' as it is difficult to tell with >> > any certainty from this graph. >> > >> > However, as for your assertion that CO2 levels are lower now than >> > 100K & 300K years ago, you are wrong. Take a closer look. The red line >> > (the CO2) is higher now than at any other time that we can tell. The >> > highest in the past (about 330k years ago) was just over 300 ppmv, on >> > the far right of the graph it is almost at 380 ppmv - lets call it 360 >> > ppmv. Last time I checked, 360 is higher than 300. >> > >> > > >> > > The thing that concerns me about that graph is the CO2 level at the >> > > far >> > > > right of the graph. It is higher than at any other time that we >> > > > can determine. I think it is a safe assumption that the big >> > > > 'spike' on the right side of the graph is from humans. If you >> > > > believe otherwise, you >> > are >> > > > foolish. >> > > > >> > > > The debate is what will happen because of those increased levels >> > > > of >> > CO2. >> > > > And I don't think anyone can say with any level of certainty what >> > > > will happen. But, if you think that we can continue to pump that >> > > > mush C)2 >> > int >> > > > the atmosphere and not suffer some kind of side effects, you are >> > > > also >> > > being >> > > > foolish. >> > > > >> > > >> > > By closing "cleaner fuel burning factories" in the US so China and >> > > India can do the manufacturing in "dirty" is foolish. Look at the >> > > US CO2 emissions, they went way down without cap-n-trade laws yet >> > > those other countries CO2 skyrocketed. Wouldn't it make more sense >> > > to keep the clean factories open? >> > > >> > >> > Yep, it would. Not sure where you got the idea I thought otherwise >> > considering what followed in my reply. >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > So, my feeling is, regardless of what will happen with the >> > > > climate, we, >> > > as >> > > > a species, should be trying to reduce the levels of CO2. Why? >> > > > Because >> > we >> > > > don't know what will happen. If we reduce our CO2 emissions and >> > > > nothing would have happened anyway, the worst result is that we >> > > > leave the >> > planet >> > > in >> > > > better shape. If we do nothing about CO2 emissions and it will >> > > > cause >> > the >> > > > problems that some predict, well, then we are screwed. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > That's what the head of the IPCC said. So much for science. >> > > >> > >> > I think it is better than your position: 'nothing bad is happening >> > yet, so screw it, lets keep polluting the planet until something bad >> > does happen, then we will deal with..if we can.' >> > >> > CO2 levels are higher than they ever have been that we can tell. No >> > one knows with any certainty what will happen. You really think the >> > best course of action is to do nothing and hope you are right? I would >> > rather we do something and hope we are wrong. Everyone wins >> then...including the planet. >> > >> > > >> > > I think I want ot error on the side of caution on this one. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > And error you will. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I hope that the climate change proponents are wrong and that all the >> > crap we pump into the atmosphere will have no effect on the planet at >> > all. I think it best if we plan for the worst, while hoping for the >> best. >> > >> > What harm does reducing pollution do? I cannot think of a single con >> > against it, only pros. >> > >> > -- >> > Scott Stroz >> > --------------- >> > You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can >> > wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris >> > >> > http://xkcd.com/386/ >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:367177 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
