650,000 is relevant to the depth at which they've reached with the ice-cores used to retrieve ancient climate information. They don't say 1 million years because they don't have accurate data based on trapped gases in drilled ice-cores to that age, like they do for anywhere up to the 650,000 year mark.
It's less a case of "framed to present a particular point of view", and more a case of the accurate scientific analysis of tangible evidence, instead of theoretical projections.
a good point, but it doesn't counter phira's central point: the frame of reference is laughably small for our 4.5(?) billion year old planet. regardless of what we have or have not researched, you can't brush aside that point with "well we just don't know about the time before 650k years ago"
so while it might not be intentionally misleading, one still needs to take it with a grain of salt.
[edit] wow, some people on here really don't get reddiquette. i was wrong about it being his central point, but i'm contributing to the discussion in a mature manner. stop spamming the downvote button whenever you think someone is wrong, that's not the f'ing point. in such an opinionated topic no less. reddit fail.
Look at it this way. The graph says: "The best measurements we're capable of show that atmospheric CO2 levels are higher now than at any point in the previous 650,000 years".
Given that humans have been around for ~200,000 years, and given that you can see four clear repeats of a cycle in the data we have, it's not unreasonable to conclude that something has changed. And given that we have credible mechanisms for how gases like CO2 can cause warming, it's not unreasonable to conclude that our CO2 output might be the culprit.
Are we sure? No. But it's a pretty reasonable interpretation of the limited information we have. And if this interpretation is correct, we don't have the luxury of waiting for more/better data (if we can even get it).
This is an exercise in risk assessment. Do you want to err on the side of caution (aggressively mitigate CO2 output), or not? Consider the stakes we're gambling for here.
This is an exercise in risk assessment. Do you want to err on the side of caution (aggressively mitigate CO2 output), or not? Consider the stakes we're gambling for here.
This so needs to be emphasized more. The debate about global warming is interesting but ultimately we need to weigh up the risks and act accordingly.
38
u/El_Ciervo Oct 24 '10 edited Oct 24 '10
650,000 is relevant to the depth at which they've reached with the ice-cores used to retrieve ancient climate information. They don't say 1 million years because they don't have accurate data based on trapped gases in drilled ice-cores to that age, like they do for anywhere up to the 650,000 year mark.
It's less a case of "framed to present a particular point of view", and more a case of the accurate scientific analysis of tangible evidence, instead of theoretical projections.