The units on that graph make it difficult to see that big old red spike (temperature) on the right. If you look closely you'll see it smears up faster than anything else on the graph, by far, but it is right up against the cropping boundary so you don't see it well. That's the line from the last 100 years, really, the last 60 years. But 100 years on a graph covering a couple hundred thousand years doesn't show up well.
There is an argument that has been made that if we remove the CO2 from our atmosphere we run the risk of dropping back into another ice age based on the sort of cycles you see here. That is possible, I suppose. The background cycle, however, is on the scale of thousands and thousands of years. The climate change we are seeing right now is on the scale of decades and centuries. The time scales just really aren't the same at all. Judah On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Ras Tafari <rastaf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > what this link tells me (someone posted it earlier) > > http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ > > is that we are actually luckily to have been alive in this period, where > we seem to be late to the party for the next warming... seems to be > 50-100,000 years > late to me? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:334113 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
