Posted on 05/25/2006 9:02:16 AM PDT by cogitator
First, note clearly that ** I ** did not say static. I said that CO2 has been in the 180-280 ppm range for that whole period, and this encompasses the entire range of glacial-interglacial climate variability.
I'm not absolutely sure I can find an on-the-Web chart of the whole 640,000 years data. First, here's the 480,000 year chart (this is just one, there are lots of them available):
Well, I got luckier faster than I thought. The image below is reduced in size; click it to see the full-size one.
With current biofuel technology, there is not enough farmland in America to meet her need for fuel.
I will believe that global warming is a real threat when I see global warming alarmists advocate nuclear energy. Apparently global warming is an acute danger to humanity, but not so serious a threat as to consider nuclear energy.
It's such an obvious winner that I can't understand why the Prez and Congress don't seize the reins a lot more forcefully and start pushing -- a stronger effort here could literally alter the election in November.
The pursuit of utopia always ends badly.
Drive until Greenland is Green again!
I don't think you understood what I meant. Fagan's book is one way of noting that civilization as we know it has benefited (indeed, perhaps prospered because of it) from a very stable climate. The Earth's existing ecosystems have become what they are now because of it. Now we have the potential to drastically alter it in decades -- not on the timescales that Milankovitch cycles operate on, 1000s to 10,000s of years.
Paleoclimates of previous eras are very interesting, and no one is disputing that Earth's climate has varied. It's a very enjoyable scientific subject. But the key now is the timescale of rapid change.
Actually, they were even goofier than that. They named it "Biosphere II" since our lovely planet is "Biosphere I".
Hippies are so silly.
As you said, "Current". Biofuels are just one of the tools. Nuclear Energy can provide us with plenty of energy, which can then be used for Hydrogen purposes. I figure, its a good start, and it dovetails into some conservative kind of values (domesticate energy needs, help farmers).
Billions, actually, which provides an even bigger sample that the enviro-wackos prefer to ignore.
Flannery takes a worst-case tack. There is a decent amount of opinion in the scientific community that significantly reducing the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial, but to really have an effect changes in emissions need to start soon (5-10 year horizon).
Agreed, we would have to cope. But because there are things that we can do (and things that would reduce our vulnerability to terrorism to boot), it's not a realistic or useful position to say "let's do nothing".
So... based on a whole 7 years worth of "data", you actually feel comfortable in suggesting that this represents a significant "warming trend", and even further, that human activity is somehow responsible?
If you want to go that far, we also have to remember that the continents shifted all over the planet and that had to affect the wobble/orbit and skews locations of core samples.
Milankovich cycles are still my #1 explanation of non-anthropogenetic warming. You can't run from it and it may not stay stable and predictable. We wobble, the orbit wobbles, and the sun wobbles and grows/shrinks/burns erratically. Does not take much in any variable to warm the solar system. We should be checking other planetary objects to check this.
Yes, and back in the 1970's, a "decent amount of opinion in the scientific community" told us that we were heading into another ice age, and that we would overpopulate the planet and starve to death about, oh, 10 years ago...
So how much CO2 reduction will be the right amount of reduction? If we reduce too much will we cause global cooling? Inquiring minds want to know.
Milankovich cycles are still my #1 explanation of non-anthropogenetic warming. You can't run from it and it may not stay stable and predictable. We wobble, the orbit wobbles, and the sun wobbles and grows/shrinks/burns erratically
Right. All of which would seem to give any reasonable person LOTS of reasons to question the validity of the "global warming" alarmist claims that somehow human activity is the cause. Maybe it has something to do with it, or maybe it doesn't, but it is sheer lunacy for people to suggest that they are sure one way or the other, and even more so to suggest that we turn our entire existence upside down because of it, without knowing if it would even make any difference.
Obvious solution: don't have children. There is nothing more effective you can do personally for reducing environmental stress than that. Why isn't that ever mentioned? Why is big government paying unwed and unemployed Democrat voters to have multiple kids?
A higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a higher concentration in water. Life will flourish.
Repeat loud and OFTEN that almost all plants are CO2 starved.................
Anthropogenic global warming is less an environmental or even a political phenomenon than a religious one. Look at Al Gore, who's everywhere on television this week. He's got the lunatic intensity of a religious fanatic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.