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:367176 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
