Al Gore--environmental saboteur?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What is the reason?

The chart changes as you take a more historical perspective.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The chart changes as you take a more historical perspective.

No, I was asking what is the reason that 500,000 years was selected? Is it your contention that this was cooked up for political reasons?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am just putting things in perspective. It all depends which window in time you look at: There is a reason proponents of Global Warming Theory picked 500,000 years as a perspective, rather than 750,000, or 1,000,000 years.

Going back a half million years covers the last 4 ice ages, so I'm not sure what you're on about. If it is a given that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, then an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere means more solar heat is trapped. What part of that are you disputing?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No, I was asking what is the reason that 500,000 years was selected? Is it your contention that this was cooked up for political reasons?

One reason is that ice cores only go back to between 350,000 and 450,000 years. Before that, there is no directly measurable record of CO₂ concentrations. That should be clue enough that this is part of a larger cycle.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is interesting:

We work mostly on ice cores from near the coast of Antarctica where snowfall is highest. This provides thick layers of snow which give very detailed climate records. Our longest ice core comes from near the summit of Law Dome, near Casey station. The 'Dome Summit South' (DSS) core is around 1200 m long, from surface to bedrock, and covers around 90 000 years of climate history. We are now working towards extracting a 1 million year old ice core, which will add to our knowledge of observed climate change in Australia, Antarctica and the Southern Hemisphere.

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=36577

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Surely the question is whether changes in recent years are outside the natural range for the period.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Early agriculturalists discovered simple facts such as, continually growing the same crop on the same piece of land led to that crop reducing in harvest until it was pointless to grow that crop. Over grazing by live stock led to desertification.

What about de-desertification? Grand coulee dam is responosible for turning 600,000 acres of scrub lands into lush farmland. 72 years of farming and still going strong.

Construction of Grand Coulee Dam began in 1933 and was completed in 1942. Grand Coulee Dam is the largest hydropower producer in the United States with a total generating capacity of 6,809 megawatts. It is also part of the Columbia Basin Project, irrigating more than 600,000 acres, and is the cornerstone for water control on the Columbia River in the United States.

[Peikko 1,575]

What about it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about de-desertification? Grand coulee dam is responosible for turning 600,000 acres of scrub lands into lush farmland. 72 years of farming and still going strong.

Construction of Grand Coulee Dam began in 1933 and was completed in 1942. Grand Coulee Dam is the largest hydropower producer in the United States with a total generating capacity of 6,809 megawatts. It is also part of the Columbia Basin Project, irrigating more than 600,000 acres, and is the cornerstone for water control on the Columbia River in the United States.

De-desertification? What you're describing is irrigation - albeit on a large scale.

Desertification is caused by the exhaustion of anerobic bacteria in soils caused by intensive agriculture - crops are harvested at a fast rate before the plants can return nutrients to the soil. That's without taking into account logging and slash and burn agriculture.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about it?

Someone neglected to mention that when you build a dam, it tends to have negative consequences downstream

In the case of the Grand Coulee - wholesale decline of fish stocks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is interesting:

Can we get back on track with the argument? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Can we get back on track with the argument? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes?

sure. you win.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

sure. you win.

Come on, Bill. Where's your cajones? Tell me why you think manmade CO2 emissions, which can be measured are not contributing to the increase of atmospheric CO2? And if you agree that it does in fact trap heat, and that amount has increased dramatically just within the last 50 years, why would discount the projected outcome of the climate getting warmer? Do you believe that natural carbon sinks can increase their absorption?

[Peikko 1,575]

GW runined the Vancouver Olypics too.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Come on, Bill. Where's your cajones? Tell me why you think manmade CO2 emissions, which can be measured are not contributing to the increase of atmospheric CO2? And if you agree that it does in fact trap heat, and that amount has increased dramatically just within the last 50 years, why would discount the projected outcome of the climate getting warmer? Do you believe that natural carbon sinks can increase their absorption?

You win. Algore is like a god to me!