• Geoengineers Will Release Tons of Sun-Reflecting Chemicals Into the Air Above New Mexico
    94 replies, posted
While I surely like scientific research, I'm somewhat worried about any changes that might will occur. Even though they say there'll be no major ones, I'm still skeptic. Hopefully this will turn out well.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;36853290]question, possibly a dumb one at that. why are they doing above new mexico? isn't new mexico a city? what if something goes wrong then wouldn't the whole city be affected?[/QUOTE] nah they're doing it out in the desert where no one else is like the trinity tests
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;36853290]question, possibly a dumb one at that. why are they doing above new mexico? isn't new mexico a city? what if something goes wrong then wouldn't the whole city be affected?[/QUOTE] New Mexico is a state.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36844729]CHEMTRAILS [editline]19th July 2012[/editline] wake up sheeple there are no clouds in new mexico.. fight hte nwo[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://images.wikia.com/avp/images/c/c2/Alg_trutv_jesse_ventura.jpg[/IMG] Did you say chemtrails?
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846465]Actually there is, small but there is, what seems to be happening is that [B]the temperature variation is freaking out (going up and down in very short intervals) but not increasing above the normal for an equivalent cycle (and the same pattern can be observed at some other times in the graph so it might not be that unusual)[/B], honestly I can't say for sure that I'm right and that other people are wrong or the way around, I'm trying to look at it from an overall point of view instead of just looking at the alarming end of the CO2 graph, by looking at the pattern we can see that the temperature variation is almost always above the CO2 level so in theory it should follow the rising CO2 levels instantly, however for some reason it isn't. (what I'm trying to say is that the blue graph should have already gone up along with the CO2 graph by looking at the rest of the graph, but it hasn't)[/QUOTE] Let's assume that every warming period occurs about every 100,000 years, since that seems to be the average amount of time between peaks (About 90,000 for the first two and 110,000 for the third, and I'm ignoring the current peak since it's the one in question). On the first four peaks, the temperature variation tops out between 2-3 degrees Celsius, so let's call that the 'Normal temperature peak'. And take a second to notice the fact that they all form definite peaks, and the temperature will not reach within about 2 degrees of that level in the next 100,000 years. The same goes with the CO2 levels, and while they don't top off quite at obviously as the temperature, they definitely peak and then steadily decline and stabilize. Now, for the first four peaks, they top off between 280-300 CO2 ppmv. When you look at the fifth peak, you can immediately tell that it's not quite average. The CO2 levels should have topped off about 5,000-7,500 years ago, and then started to fall, and the temperature should have peaked at the same time and gone [i]sharply[/i] downwards. That's where the graph points out the problem. History shows that warming periods have definite starts and ends. So if there was a warming period in the past 10,000 years, it is currently pretty stable around 1.5-2 degrees Celsius. And the temperature will go up with the CO2 levels, as history has shown, and if the graph is correct, then the temperature variation won't we 2-3 degrees, it'll be about 8-10 degrees.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.