Thanks so much. I just marvel at these scientists who
can interpret all these movements which have periods
of many thousands of years yet they may be limited to
say 40 years of productive research. Incredulity is an
understatement. Did Milanovich consider sunspots?
Some of these motions were known to early Greeks, I
have read.
Here’s a question for you. Many eons ago before
mammmals, the earth must have been covered in
forests, swamps, all kinds of plants as well as the
oceans with its share of plant life, sea weed etc.
That must have required massive amounts of CO2. Right?
I guess that amount of CO2 could be approximated,
could it not? How would that quantity compare with the current amount? Don’t all these volcanos dump massive amounts of CO2?
I’ll take your word that studying CO2 is almost
intractable. But these warming zealots use tons of CO2
as a first order effect. They use this as a statistic
to correlate with temperature, don’t they? BTW, hasn’t
the WH proclaimed that CO2 is a pollutant?
With your knowledge of this subject, you must work in
this area. If not, then, you probably solve string
theory problems. Thanks again.
It appears that the change in CO2 level follows, or lags rises in global temperature. The heating of the earth seems to cause CO2 to come out of solution in the ocean, cooling has the opposite effect. In fact, the current, short term warming trend precedes the increase in CO2 levels by about 100 years.
While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the effect is very small, so scientist posit all sorts of positive feedback which amplifies the effect. The whole global warming contraversy is predicated on two things: the actual amount or effect of positive feedback and the effect(s) of a mild rise in global temperature.
I believe that the effect of positive feedback is negligible (and negative feedback may actually dominate) and the effects of a mild rise in temperature are generally beneficial. What evidence is there the current global temperature is optimum?