| Tony Wesley 2005-08-27, 8:22 pm |
|
Me wrote:
> In article <1125080329.805608.280300@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Bzzzt, Nice try, but wrong again. Would you like to try for waht is
> behind Door #3?
Not a very good troll. Surely you can do better than this? Or perhaps
not.
> I didn't say "Recorded History", I said "Total Historical Timeline".
> That would include all the Glacier Based Atmospheric Information which
> dates back long before Humans walked around.
I prefer to use terms as generally understood by other people. Why you
make up your own meanings, it leads to confusion.
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
"It should be noted that the term 'History' is not used to represent
the entire history of humankind, but events that have occurred since
the agricultural revolution and the appearance of civilizations (eg.,
the past 10,000 years or so). Events that occur before this time are
lumped together under the term prehistory (which covers more than 99%
of our species' time on this planet), despite no change in the genetic
make up of pre and post-historic humans."
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory
If we look to see what other people mean by "Total Historical
Timeline", we find that no one uses the term.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...cal+Timeline%22
> It also includes Seditment
> Based Atmospheric Data which can de dated back thur many epochs. All
> this data broadens the timeline by orders of magnitude, and gives a much
> better picture of how the Carbon Cycle has changed over time.
If we accept your unusual definition, your point is still wrong. Using
fossil fuels, you have the CO2 taken out of the atmosphere for millions
of years released in a much smaller period of time, measured in
centuries. Whereas with biofuels, the capture and release of CO2 is
contemporary.
|