CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

We really do not have scientific evidence that the average temperature has
risen or that the ocean levels have risen. For every location that shows a
rise in either there are just as many that show declines. Global warming
does not have any real science behind it. There are no long term climate
prediction models that are any more than pure speculation.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the
atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from
3km below the surface of Antarctica.

The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be
exceptional.

Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea
levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.

Treasure dome

The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region
called Dome Concordia (Dome C).

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the
European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m
into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back
in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the
mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of
temperature.

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon
dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas
Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130%
higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely
exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last
650,000 years."

Stable relationship

Last year, the Epica team released its first data. The latest two papers
analyse gas composition and temperature dating back 650,000 years.

This extends the picture drawn by another Antarctic ice core taken near
Lake Vostok which looked 440,000 years into the past.

The extra data is crucial because around 420,000 years there appears to
have been a significant shift in the Earth's long-term climate patterns.

Before and after this date, the planet went through 100,000 year cycles of
alternating cold glacial and warm interglacial periods.

But around the 420,000 year mark, the precise pattern changed, with the
contrast between warm and cold conditions becoming much more marked.

The Dome C core gives data from six cycles of glaciation and warming; two
from before this change, four from after.

"We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even
before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker.

"The fact that the relationship holds across the transition between
climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2
in climate regulation."

Epica scientists will now try to extend their analysis further back in
time.

Water rise

Another study reported in the same journal claims that for the last 150
years, sea levels have been rising twice as fast as in previous centuries.

Using data from tidal gauges and reviewing findings from many previous
studies, US researchers have constructed a new sea level record covering
the last 100 million years.

They calculate the present rate of rise at 2mm per year.

"The main thing that's changed since the 19th Century and the beginning of
modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and
more greenhouse gases," said Kenneth Miller from Rutgers University.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body which collates
scientific evidence for policymakers, concludes that sea level rose by
1-2mm per year over the last century, and will rise by a total of anything
up to 88cm during the course of this century.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...ch/4467420.stm
--
Religious fundamentalism: a threat abroad, a threat at home.

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are no long
term climate prediction models that are any more than pure speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?


I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties* have
disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties* have
great respect for the environment?

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.

Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?

I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties*
have great respect for the environment?


Pretty much.

Have you ever seen the world in it's full spectrum of color? You might want
to give it a try some day........the black and white stuff just doesn't make
it. ;-)

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:50:53 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have
disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties* have
great respect for the environment?


The environment is something far too important to be decided along
party lines, but one only needs to listen to "talk radio" to see that
a line has been drawn in the sand with respect to the stewardship of
our lands and our planet.

I'd like to leave enough of our planet unspoiled so that my
descendants will have a place to enjoy hunting and fishing the way I
have. Sadly, I'm not sure that is going to happen.


Me too. In fact, I cannot think of anyone who would want to hand over a
world of pollution to their children and grandchildren, although China and
many 3rd world countries could give a damn. That was the problem with
Kyoto......they were not to be bound to any of the standards. Perhaps our
efforts and concerns should be directed across the pond and the US and its
citizens are generally doing a pretty good job. ;-)

Perhaps you can cite some important examples of your claim (as I perceived
it) of Democrats caring *more* about the health of the planet.

BTW: Talk radio does not speak for all Americans nor define how all or most
Democrats or Republicans think.

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

Harry Krause wrote:



Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment


Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have disregard for the environment

Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.


The Bush Administration may well be the most anti-environmental and
anti-science administration of the last 100 years. Their positions are
based upon money and crazed religious beliefs, not on the common weal or
science.


Care to offer some examples Krause?

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment
Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look
at Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K
earnings.

The Bush Administration may well be the most anti-environmental and
anti-science administration of the last 100 years. Their positions are
based upon money and crazed religious beliefs, not on the common weal or
science.


Care to offer some examples Krause?


No need to waste any of my time...the examples are everywhere.


In other words, you can't. LOL!

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

" *JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are
no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?


I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have
disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties*
have
great respect for the environment?



It is just another symptom


" There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists.
They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please
don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it
again harder to prove that they were right the first time"

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

For hundreds of millions years the planet had a considerably milder climate.
Was that wrong? The earth's climate is changing all the time for a million
reasons. We are just one. Perhaps our actions are delaying the next ice
age. Would that be bad? We have sampled the tiniest fraction of the
planet. It is like basing an analysis of a square mile of land on a
teaspoon of dirt from the middle. We can't even predict the weather next
month much less a hundred years from now.

We may be affecting the climate. We may not. But you can't claim it is
real science. In real science you can prove your assertions. No one can
prove that human activity is changing the climate. All you can do is
speculate. Is it bad to pollute? Of course it is. Nothing wrong with
being environmentally responsible. But that doesn't mean I believe
pseudoscience. And global warming is pseudoscience.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?


I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment
Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look
at Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K
earnings.
The Bush Administration may well be the most anti-environmental and
anti-science administration of the last 100 years. Their positions are
based upon money and crazed religious beliefs, not on the common weal
or science.

Care to offer some examples Krause?

No need to waste any of my time...the examples are everywhere.


In other words, you can't. LOL!


No, Jim. In my exact words: the examples are everywhere. Perhaps if you
weren't so intellectually lazy, you could find some.

--


More like.......if you had some proof you would be willing to post it.

That old dog of yours don't hunt anymore Krause.

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:47:45 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


Care to offer some examples.....


snips
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0703-10.htm
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000142.php
http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroo....vtml?id=28972
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2...3-09-23-11.asp
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4528605
http://www.2020vision.org/resources/vp_spring2001.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090101533.html

...and it goes on and on and on......


Yes it does Gene......with biased reporting and anti Bush web sites.

How about some solid proff that is unbiased?

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

" *JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are
no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?


I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have
disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties*
have
great respect for the environment?



It is just another symptom


" There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists.
They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please
don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it
again harder to prove that they were right the first time"




I can see the truth now.

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

" *JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment
Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the
greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets.
Look
at Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K
earnings.
The Bush Administration may well be the most anti-environmental and
anti-science administration of the last 100 years. Their positions
are
based upon money and crazed religious beliefs, not on the common
weal
or science.

Care to offer some examples Krause?

No need to waste any of my time...the examples are everywhere.


In other words, you can't. LOL!


No, Jim. In my exact words: the examples are everywhere. Perhaps if you
weren't so intellectually lazy, you could find some.

--


More like.......if you had some proof you would be willing to post it.

That old dog of yours don't hunt anymore Krause.



"Narcissists are naive and vulnerable, pathetic really, no matter how
arrogant and forceful their words or demeanor. They have pretty good
reasons
for their paranoia and cynicism, their sneakiness, evasiveness,
prevarications.

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:09:23 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote:


For hundreds of millions years the planet had a considerably milder climate.


That is just stupid.

There have been four major "ice ages" in the last 2 million years. The
last "ice age" began about 70,000 years ago, and ended 10,000 years
ago.

Please don't post any more of this foolishness until you bone up on
natural history, it makes you look foolish.


I suggest you do the same -- you know -- bone up on natural history
before making foolish posts... Look past the Pleistocene and the
Pliocene, in fact skip the whole Tertiary era and go back to the
Mesozoic. You will find periods of hundreds of millions years when the
Earth's environment was much warmer than now. Must have been all those
dinosaur farts that caused the global warming then :-)

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:26:55 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote:

We really do not have scientific evidence that the average temperature
has
risen or that the ocean levels have risen. For every location that shows
a
rise in either there are just as many that show declines. Global warming
does not have any real science behind it. There are no long term climate
prediction models that are any more than pure speculation.


You assertions are patently untrue and unsupported.

[snip]

Don't argue with our very own Sherlock Holmes.

What Gene cant wow you with stats and facts, he will muddle you with more
spew, than the boy who call wolf.

Bottom line...don't argue with Mr. Kearns...he is never wrong.

--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:26:54 -0500, Black Dog
wrote:


Gene Kearns wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:09:23 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote:



For hundreds of millions years the planet had a considerably milder climate.


That is just stupid.

There have been four major "ice ages" in the last 2 million years. The
last "ice age" began about 70,000 years ago, and ended 10,000 years
ago.

Please don't post any more of this foolishness until you bone up on
natural history, it makes you look foolish.


I suggest you do the same -- you know -- bone up on natural history
before making foolish posts... Look past the Pleistocene and the
Pliocene, in fact skip the whole Tertiary era and go back to the
Mesozoic. You will find periods of hundreds of millions years when the
Earth's environment was much warmer than now. Must have been all those
dinosaur farts that caused the global warming then :-)


First of all, the Tertiary was a period not an era. I never adopted
the position that the earth has not been warmer before nor that it has
not been cooler before, either.

Sorry, you are right - it is period. But read what you said - the OP
said the earth had been warmer for hundreds of millions of years and you
said that was just plain stupid. But it's not stupid - it's true. We
Canadians wouldn't have the known largest oil reserves on the planet
(yes, folks, we got more of this **** than the Saudi's)if it weren't for
the fact that what we now call "the prairies" hadn't been "the sea".


We are likely not the sole cause of global warming, but you'd have to
be sticking your head into the sand to believe that we don't influence
it. Our global sole source of heat is the sun. For millions of years,
this energy has been stored in things like oil and coal. Modern man
has found a way to turn these millions of years of energy into heat to
serve him. Do you really think this isn't a net increase in available
heat energy? Where do you suppose all of that heat goes?

I know where it is. I can see the thermometer in my car climbing by
three degrees every time I drive from my house in the country into the city.



Do you think that major climate swings haven't had an effect on the
level of the oceans? Or that life (like the dinosaurs) has survived..
or not? If you want to go back to the Mesozoic Era, do you really
think that we can compare weather in Gondwanaland (the super
continent) to the weather that we have today with the seven current
much smaller and more spread out continents? You can't be so silly as
to try to argue this apples and oranges position.

I never said any of that. See paragraph 1. But are you saying we don't
understand the climate well enough to compare Gondwanaland and today?
That certainly is the truth. And yet "climate scientists" do so all the
time.


The OP also made some statements that you'd like to support....
scientifically, of course:

No, I wouldn't. What I find so frustrating about the whole climate
change/global warming/greenhouse effect/whatever you want to call it
this week it is the complete and total LACK OF SCIENCE of both sides.
It is an emotional and political debate - for example, you can't resist
name calling and probably conclude I am a "right winger" (which is funny
because, outside of this issue, I'm probably waaay more of leftie than you)


"We have sampled the tiniest fraction of the planet."
Really? At least a quarter of the globe is inhabited!
We have a tiny sample upon which to base our climate models. 130 years
of accurate temperatures over a very limited part of the globe. Even if
every inhabitant was out there with his little themometer, it's still
a small sample.


"We can't even predict the weather next month ..."
Seems we hit that hurricane season on the nose!

This is a fair criticism of climate modelling. We can't accurately
predict tomorrow, or next week or next month. (Yes, I understand all
about chaos theory). It's just that in MOST of the sciences I've been
involved with, models were useful things for, well, modeling. You do
not take predictions made by a model and treat them as data. Data is
something that goes IN to a model, not OUT. I could create, for
example, a mathmatical model that describes the chemical reactions that
occur as body of magma cools. I could use it to figure out if there is
any possiblity of, say, finding gold in the core of Mt.St.Helens. But
my model won't tell me where it is or even for sure it is there. Only
drilling will tell me that. My problem with many environmentalists is
that they treat the climate models as if they were drill cores or maps,
not a mathmatical construct that reveals a possibilty.


"And global warming is pseudoscience."
So, we've agreed that this has happened more than once, but it never
was real?


Like I said, emotion and politics. Not science.

Of course climate change is real. It happens ALL the time, always has,
always will. Can we do anything about it? I don't know. I certainly
don't condone spewing toxic waste into the air. The rates of asthma in
children is reason enough to stop that. I worry a bit about
concentrating too much CO2 (harmless and necessary to life on earth) and
not enough on mecury and sulfur and other very nasty stuff to breathe.

In 1985, as an undergrad geology student, I attended a lecture on "The
Greenhouse Effect" as it was known in those days. Lots of maps and
graphs and models. Perhaps I wouldn't be quite the sceptic I am today
if any of the dire consequences predicted at that time had come to pass.
My sister in Nova Scotia should be under water, along with most of the
eastern sea board. Refugees flooding in from the Maldives and other
barely-above-sea-level places. The model I saw said it was going to
happen by 1997. By now I was planing to open that Club Med on Baffin
Island. Hasn't happened yet.

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:23:40 GMT, Don White wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:



Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment


Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.

Which, Harry was quick to point out, was what Harry made 25 or 30 years ago. Did
you miss that, Don.

Does your comment Bert apply to Harry as well? Or were you being a little
hypocritical?

--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:23:40 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:



Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment


Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.

Which, Harry was quick to point out, was what Harry made 25 or 30 years
ago. Did
you miss that, Don.

Does your comment Bert apply to Harry as well? Or were you being a
little
hypocritical?

--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

Yep. He said he earned $205,000/year (current USD) as a *senior* executive
in 1976.

How old would you guess Harry is John? Is he older than 60 or in his mid
50's?

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
 

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:17:10 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:23:40 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:



Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment


Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.

Which, Harry was quick to point out, was what Harry made 25 or 30 years
ago. Did
you miss that, Don.

Does your comment Bert apply to Harry as well? Or were you being a
little
hypocritical?

--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

Yep. He said he earned $205,000/year (current USD) as a *senior* executive
in 1976.

How old would you guess Harry is John? Is he older than 60 or in his mid
50's?


I'd guess older than 60.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]