These are not data, but conclusions.
Deep ice cores from Antarctica reveal there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
The data comes from analysis of tiny air bubbles buried 3.2km down in the Antarctic ice sheets. These provide a record of the ancient atmosphere and give insight into how climate was affected by CO2 levels in the past. Dr Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey explains: "Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change."
As the Co2 change lags behind the temperature increase, it is difficult to attribute climate change to the CO2 increase, more likely, it is the other way around.
He says over the last 200 years the concentration of CO2 has been increased beyond the natural variation, and that human activity is to blame. No one knows how the environment and climate will respond to this amount of atmospheric CO2, he added.
He told the BBC: "There's nothing that suggests that the Earth will take care of the increase in carbon dioxide.
Actually, there is.
It has happened before, numerous times, and the Earth is still here.
If (and I am sure Dr. Eric Wolff has the data or has seen the graphs) the earth has been through numerous cycles before and life has survived, then there is no indication that just because we are measuring the CO2 and temperature variations, the same mechanisms which worked in the past will not continue to work, regardless of the cause of the heating, and balance the planet's temperature and climate as they have in the past.
Even if temporal indications showed the temperature lagging the CO2 increase (instead of the other way around), the climate has remained in balance with in a range of variation without human interference--just as it has varied without human interference in the past.
All that has changed is the fact that we are measuring the cycle, and that we have a significant contingent of people in regulatory agencies and other power sinks worldwide who would cow the remainder of the planet into submission because thay are selling the idea that humans are somehow the cause of this particular cycle, in order to increase their personal and political wealth and to impose their ideas of how the rest of us should live, using governmental policy as a tool, and the fear of the masses to impose that policy 'for their own good'.
If you examine the full graph for the last 800,000 years, you will see numerous cycles in the past, none of which required human intervention or action to exist, none of which required human action to continue, and which occur on periodic intervals which the current cycle seems in phase with, and you will note the temperature and CO2 variations are well within past levels, and do not exceed past 'norms'.
So why is this cycle different?
It isn't.
The only difference is that we have a significant contingent of charlatans posing as learned individuals who are willing to use any means to advance their own careers and the cause of international Socialism, which has always been the "scientific" means of utilizing government and other resources, although that is another entire region of fallacious logic.
The ice core suggests that the increase in carbon dioxide will definitely give us a climate change that will be dangerous."
How? Again, CO2 increases lag temperature increases. So where is the danger, unless it is from the temperature change, and is that necessarily a bad thing?
The assumption that anything but the status quo is somehow 'evil' is patently ridiculous, but I would expect as much from people who have a long track record of wanting a planet wide series of dynamic systems to be preserved in stasis, much like taking your favorite movie home as a still shot.
Steady states are not part of the normal scheme of things in nature.
If they were, then the rock layers at any given place would be indistinguishable, because the environments which formed those rocks would have been identical throughout the ages.
Change is the normal state of things. Ordinarily, those changes ocur at slow rates, ones which might be noted in a person's lifetime, on occasion through violent and catastrophic events (earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslides, tsunamis, etc.), but change is indeed the norm.
It is perhaps the last refuge of the anthropocentrics that we can destroy our planet through human action.
While it can be argued that we can make the planet unfriendly for human habitation, through all out nuclear exchange, or bombardment from space with large rocks, the planet, short of forces sufficient to overcome the gravitational forces which hold it together, will continue, with or without us.
So it isn't about the planet, which will go on.
The planet has continued through these cycles in the past, and will continue.
Life on Earth will continue, and all indications are, that in one form or another, the adaptable species (of which we are members) will continue to exist, after all we are assured it has been around for longer than those 800,000 years.
What the current attempts at policy will do is this:
They will reduce the ability of the 'developed' nations to create and deploy technologies which will enable them to adapt.
They will not reduce the much blamed emissions of the alleged culprit gasses if those are coming from specific nations which are deemed to be insufficiently developed, but which are on a very fast development curve, and which have, in one instance a population four times our own, as if their contribution of alleged pollutants is somehow less damaging than our own.
They will distinctly favor socialist and totalitarian regimes and the imposition of socialist and totalitarian conttrols on the Global population, regardless of the type of government the people of any given nation have chosen to live under, and regardless of the fact that Soclialist and totalitarian nations have the world's worst track record in re the environment.
So it is not about the environment, either.
It is about control.
As well as unprecedented CO2 levels, we are also seeing the fastest rate of change in the concentrations of the greenhouse gas, Wolff added. Until very recently, the fastest rate of change was an increase of 30 parts per million over a thousand years. We have seen the same increase, 30ppm, in the last 17 years.
In ice cores? Nope, no way. Not and have a valid measurement. Think of the compaction and compression undergone by 5,000 year old ice, buried under subsequent snowfall. Even the crystal structure changes as the weight of subsequent snowfall compresses the snow into ice. So does the amount of pore space, and the amount of air present. If ice cores from the past show a resolution of a few tens of years at best, how can we measure and compare the last 17 years' snowfall (with its greater pore space to the remainder?
We can't.
I do not have time on this dial-up connection to 'google' data, but much of the presentation which would have suggested the 'hockey stick' graph has been roundly debunked because it only presents a small part of the picture, showing increases from a cooler period, but not showing the temperature highs before that period.
Of course the graph segment would seem extreme. It was chosen to.
In any given month, most stocks can be represented as tanking or going through the roof if the same tactic is used, the presentation of part of the 'data' used to give a specific impression. This is known as 'sales', not science.
This is not about preservation, not about the environment, but it is about control. It is about advancing the cause of global socialism and a socialist world government under the guise of protecting us all from a 'global' boogeyman. In the meantime, the ones who will undoubtedly suffer are those who live in countries which have not yet been made socialist under the guise of 'protecting us from ourselves'.
There are many scientists who decry the anthropogenic global warming scam that is being perpetrated upon the world, and especially the industrialized (and 'free') nations. I, a geologist, am among them. I don't mind being branded a "skeptic"; such has traditionally been a compliment in scientific circles. It is only with the desire to examine the data and not just jump on the regulatory bandwagon that we have been branded as if the title were somehow deragatory.
We frequently do not depend on the grant money the proponents of the theory do, so we are not tied to the contorted logic used to present the foregone conclusions required to collect grants from foundations and individuals who may have an agenda to push.
The idea that the world will end because there is an increase in the gas which provides .00046 of the greenhouse effect (anthropogenic C02's contribution) is ridiculous.
The idea that reductions of 50% tomorrow, if it were the causative factor would mean the effect would be .00023 less, is not going to significantly cool the planet should be basic to all but the most innumerate.
At which point the mantra of "any reduction is a good reduction" is trotted out. By the same logic, we would all be walking rather than driving automobiles and killing over 40,000 people a year.
If we look at history, the periods of greatest exploration, development, and civilization occurred when the climate was warmer, not colder. So it may be that just a little warming would be a good thing.
