spmarshall, first, carbon dioxide is always low during ice age cycles. Second, the graph that is posted is not truth on the basis that you posted it. Third, you might want to ask what is causing the cycles in that incomplete graph that you have posted. And finally, so what? From that graph alone, how do you know that there is a link between temperature increases and carbon dioxide? There are better graphs matching temperature variation and sunspot cycles.
You might want to pull your blinders off - if you dare.
Also note that a peak level of C02 of over 400 ppm was recorded in about 1700. You can see Neftel, A., Oeschger, H. Schwander, J. Stuaffer, B. and Zumbrunn, R. "Ice Core Sample Measurements Give Atmospheric C02 Content During the Past 40,000 Years." Nature 295, 1982, 220-23.
This measure is considered contoversial because it does not fit well with the prejudice that C02 content is supposed to be low during these times. Science is full of surprises.
Also note that studies of a collection of leaves preserved in peat bogs and are dated between 10,000 and 9,300 years old provide a very different measure of atmospheric C02 content. This leaf collection shows atmospheric carbon dioxide levels ranging from the high 200's to peaks of over 350 ppm. Different measures provide different numbers, bringing more questions to your certainty.
Different ice cores from different locations in the Antarctic also have netted different results with respect to C02 content as well. This fact exists to this day. Stated C02 content are
statistical measures, not absolutes. If you infer them as such, you are making an error. All you have to do us change your measures and you get different numbers. That is the risk with averaging anything.
I think what's being suggested is that the rate of glacier breakup and melting is not normal.
Compared to what? There are not exactly huge records of ice-shelf observation, are there?
But then again, read this:
web.awi-bremerhaven.de/Pu...tract.html
