SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
Not reliable? Their ranges are consistent though. Do you have any reason to believe that those ranges are off by a factor of about 100 percent besides the fact that you don't believe it personally? Cause they would have to be to explain the current CO2 levels.That graph didn't show an increase in the amount of CO2 as they were going from one interglacial to another. That jump only happened now. And not over the periods that rising CO2 levels usually take from low to high end but that last 100 ppm happened considerably faster.-Previous warming periods. I'm talking about coming out of actual ice ages have NEVER in the history of the known records caused an increase in CO2 levels to over 400ppm not even close.The industrial revolution began towards the end of the little ice age....the earth has been warming out of the little ice age ever since...warmer oceans, warmer land equals more outgassing and more efficient decay of organic materials both on land and in the oceans resulting in more CO2...all the available hard data show that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause...this is a very simple concept to grasp and has shown itself to be accurate in ice core after ice core after ice core...one wonders why you deny this well known science in favor of pseudoscience.
And then there is the fact that the earth hasn't even warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age....do you find it unusual that we wouldn't at least warm that far considering that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?
We are still in an ice age and it has been going on for a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years....those peaks and valleys your graph showed are interproximals...and the further we get from the depths of ice age, the more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere...and again...the ice cores can tell us that increases in CO2 follow warming, but they don't really give us really reliable numbers regarding the actual CO2 concentrations of the time...this is well known and accepted by both skeptics and alarmists...it isn't difficult to find if you have any interest in learning at all.
The CO2 concentrations in that graph and any other graph derived from ice cores are dubious at best...this isn't a secret...any climate scientist will tell you that the numbers are not reliable...hell even alarmist quagmires like skeptical science acknowledge that the only argument that is possible to make regarding gasses derived from ice cores is that they show that increases in CO2 follow temperature increases... there is no argument to be made with ice cores other than that they show increased CO2 follows increased temperatures and warming and cooling periods within interglacials are natural, and that the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.
No...they are not consistent...the further back you go, the more unreliable they get...if there were any validity in the gas concentrations derived from ice core samples, it would be a big deal and you would be bombarded with the data at every turn...like I said, even climate science acknowledges that the only thing that can be derived with any degree of confidence from ice core data is that warming and cooling are cyclical within ice ages, that increases in CO2 follow warming, and that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years.