That is an amazing level of carbon dioxide occurring during the period 500 Ma.
Do you have an estimate of how much of the available carbon was required to
reach that level? In other words, what would be the concentration seen if all
of the carbon reachable by man in the form of fossil fuels were to be burned?
Have we located and burned 10% of the carbon at our disposal?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Various proxymeasurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric
carbon dioxidelevels millions of years in the past. These include boron and
carbon isotoperatios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of
stomata observedon fossil plant leaves.
While these measurements give much less preciseestimates of carbon dioxide
concentration than ice cores, there is evidence forvery high CO2 volume
concentrations between 200 and 150 millionyears ago ( Ma) of over 3,000 ppm and
between 600 and 400 Ma of over 6,000 ppm.In more recent times, atmospheric CO2
concentration continued tofall after about 60 Ma.
About 34 Ma, the time of the Eocene-Oligoceneextinction event and when the
Antarctic ice sheet started to take its currentform, CO2 is found to have been
about 760 ppm, and there isgeochemical evidence that volume concentrations were
less than 300 ppm by about20 Ma.
Carbon dioxide decrease, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was theprimary agent
forcing Antarctic glaciation. Low CO2 concentrationsmay have been the stimulus
that favored the evolution of C4 carbon fixation plants, which increasedgreatly
in abundance between 7 and 5 Ma.
Cheers: Axil
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
Axil,
You speak of ice receding as though it is inevitable. My major worry is that
the present heating will trigger an ice event. I guess we could use the old
ice core data to determine the typical length of time between heating and the
following ice age which would be a far worse catastrophe.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 4:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
As the ice recedes, there will be a redistribution of land area among the
nations of the earth.
The US and China will lose a goodly amount of coastal land area. The Kingdom of
Denmark will be the biggest winner. Greenland is an autonomous country within
the Kingdom of Denmark and will be ice free and ripe for new development.
The countries abutting the Arctic Ocean will also be winners because their
northern most territories will now be ice free and usable for development
The ice free Antarctic continent is an international zone and will be off
limits to all nations because of international treaties restricting all
national development. Because of this, useable land surface area will be
greatly reduced for the use of the world’s population.
Cheers: Axil
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Excellent post Axil. You captured my sentiment precisely.
It really moronic to try to continue to waste money on places that are borrowed
time. Or to waste money on steps to stop it.
Global Warming may be scary to some, but to me, I believe it will be good for
mankind in the medium to long term, as it would open up more farm land.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world
that sea level rise is going to cause.
There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real
estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad
into these soon to be flooded areas.
The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least
it should.
The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher
ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think
Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new
capital.
All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because
their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new
location of the transplanted new capital through emanate domain.
Eminent domain in the US is the compulsory purchase for federal or state
government use. It is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private
property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with
due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.
Eminent domain will need to take place well into the present mid-west to make
room for the new coast line of the American nation.
All US citizens will be affected except some grain farmers in Kansas.
Stop wasting money to improve New York City infrastructure like the 10
billion dollar water system improvement, the 20 billion dollar subway
extension, and the 100 billon dollar world trade center rebuild. That entire
infrastructure will soon be under 300 feet of sea water.
This is true for all the cities on the east and west coasts and the gulf
coasts.
We know the flood is coming; it is no surprise, so let’s start making plans
to adapt to it.
Cheers: Axil
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Indeed it is getting silly.... Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW
down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people
said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more
an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees.
Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic
pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is
not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's
about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would
have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I
find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite
offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are
trying to do.
You've mischaracterized the legitimate concern of many that there will be
negative repercussions of climate change as their browbeating you into
submitting to pantheism. This is getting silly.
Eric
