qr7121 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 so if we recognize the fact that humans are a huge influence and have been since the dawn of agriculture started altering planetary albedo on a continental scale, things like the little ice age/etc begin to look like results of human action/inaction versus solar changes... consider the LIA. blah blah blah maunder minimum etc. more importantly: genghis khan killed hundreds of millions of people during his rampage in the 1200s. this was followed by the black death in the mid-1300s, which was then followed by the death of about 100 million people in the Americas immediately prior to 1500. i think it is increasingly likely that each of these sequential events helped reduce GHG emissions while also allowing huge natural uptakes of CO2 in areas depopulated of humans (i.e., the amazon would have started regrowing, same w trees covering previously farmed regions all over). this may sound slightly absurd until you consider how dirty industry used to be as well. in fact, emissions from the Romans & Chinese were not surpassed until the late 1800s -- the refining techniques previously were much much dirtier. anyways... DISCUSS! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248549685_A_reconstruction_of_changes_in_copper_production_and_copper_emissions_to_the_atmosphere_during_the_past_7000_years Abstract World copper (Cu) production has changed remarkably during the past 7000 years in parallel with the growth and decline of civilizations. During the Roman period ( ∼ 250 B.C.-A.D. 350), Cu mining and smelting activities were very vigorous in order to supply Cu needed for monetary base-metal. The total amount produced in the Roman World is estimated to ∼ 4–5 million tonnes, which gives an average production rate of ∼ 7000 tonnes/year with a maximum of ∼ 15 000 tonnes/year 2 millennia ago. World Cu production declined after the fall of the Roman Empire. It rose again during the Sung dynasty of China (A.D. 960–1279), with a peak of ∼ 14 000 tonnes/year in the 1080s. At the onset of the Industrial Revolution world Cu production was ∼ 10 000 tonnes/year. It then increased strongly to present day values of ∼ 9 million tonnes/year. Cu emissions to the atmosphere related to this production varied considerably because of large changes in production technologies. During the Antiquity, emission factors were probably as high as ∼ 15% because of uncontrolled and wasteful smelting procedures. These factors remained essentially unchanged until the Industrial Revolution. They then sharply decreased to ∼ 1% at the beginning of the 20th century and ∼ 0.25% at present. Cumulative emissions of Cu to the atmosphere are estimated to ∼ 600 000 tonnes during the Roman period, which is as much as ∼ 50% of Cu emitted during the 20th century. From the beginning of Cu production ∼ 7000 years ago to the Industrial Revolution, total emissions were ∼ 1.7 millions tonnes, which is comparable with the emissions from the Industrial Revolution to present. Changes in estimated Cu emissions to the atmosphere are in good agreement with recent data on changes in Cu fallout fluxes to central Greenland obtained from the analysis of a Greenland ice core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 This isn't a serious post or paper is it? There are so many things ridiculous about this that i don't know where to start. If this really is research that is funded by our tax dollars what an embarrassment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qr7121 Posted November 6, 2016 Author Share Posted November 6, 2016 4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said: This isn't a serious post or paper is it? There are so many things ridiculous about this that i don't know where to start. If this really is research that is funded by our tax dollars what an embarrassment! did you bother reading it or are you just stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 read the abstract and that was enough. there is NO way that this is anyway near reality. embarrassment to atmospheric science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qr7121 Posted November 6, 2016 Author Share Posted November 6, 2016 Just now, blizzard1024 said: read the abstract and that was enough. there is NO way that this is anyway near reality. embarrassment to atmospheric science. really? you just make up **** and say it is so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 42 minutes ago, qr7121 said: did you bother reading it or are you just stupid? Oh yeah, if you insinuate that i am stupid again i will have you removed from this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qr7121 Posted November 6, 2016 Author Share Posted November 6, 2016 Just now, blizzard1024 said: Oh yeah, if you insinuate that i am stupid again i will have you removed from this forum. i was not insinuating, i was explicitly stating, based on your posts here. you are welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Ok I will report you. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 So this is talking about atmospheric copper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.