Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (187801)	5/31/2006 12:33:24 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That hasn't stopped scientists from referring to historical levels of C02, now has it? We REALLY HAVE NO IDEA just how high levels of C02 were just prior to the last ice age. Really? Mt. Erebus is in Antarctica and is different from many other volcanoes due to the kind of materials contained in its magma. Has the data from Antarctic ice cores compensated for any skewing of the CO2 data based upon past eruptions of Mt. Erebus, or its history of volcanic activity? I doubt it. Soil gas emissions of CO2 are also high at Mt Erebus and elevated CO2 levels have been observed in fumarolic ice towers. The CO2 concentration inside one ice tower was 15,000 ppm, this compares to the ambient atmospheric concentration of ~350 ppm..... ....Because of the alkaline nature of the magma, experimental studies would predict that the gases should be CO2-rich. Therefore, it was of much interest to make direct measurements of CO2 emissions from Mt Erebus..... ees.nmt.edu ees.nmt.edu If they can obtain a fumarolic ice sample that contains 15,000 ppm of CO2, doesn't it logically follow that in the area of the Antarctic continent, CO2 levels might be skewed from the averge mean levels? And listen.. I'm presenting this data MERELY to show that sampling of ice sheets, without understanding geologic events present at the time the sampled material was created, can lead to skewed analysis. And btw, take a look at that chart you presented one more time. Please note that 140,000 years ago, CO2 levels drastically rose COMPLETELY DUE TO NATURAL CAUSES and nothing to do with the presence of mankind industrial and fossil fuel contributions. How do scientists explain that?? What caused that sharp spike? And then how do they account for the subsequent sudden drop off in CO2 levels? Was there some kind of natural miracle that suddenly caused those CO2 levels to drop off as dramatically as they rose?? Where did all of that extra methane and CO2 come from, if not natural sources, or the alternative, a loss of the eco-system's ability to sequestor CO2 at previous levels. Hawk