Eco-Guilt

RAWR!Thought I would use plead to emotion in my argument too.On a serious note. One of the main reasons so many scientists are skeptical of human cause to Global Warming as well is the very fact that we are still emerging from a very recent Ice Age. After all, rising ocean levels from this post-ice age Global Warming is what created the Black Sea. In fact, data shows that the vast majority of sea rise occurred in the ost-Glacial_Sea_Level.png]-->distant past.The data I have found thus far on increase in CO2 concentration causing temperature increase is not too compelling. My main hang up is the CO2 dips that directly preced the temperature increase spikes, which are then followed by CO2 spikes. Also, the fairly recent data time line provides insufficient trending to determine whether CO2 causes increase temp. or if the opposite is true.I will have to do further research on this issue which will need to include:

• A greater time line so as to provide a greater comprehension on trending (more than likely from ice core samples).
• More data on CO2 and it's interaction with temperature change (as opposed to water vapor which has a greater capacity for heat enclosure)

TTFN

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

You are quite correct. This is why I emphasized the necessity of more data so as to establish a trend. To simply have a snapshot of the last 200 years and conclude the same has been happening is silly. It is akin to a medical professional seeing a patient's heart rate jump from 60bpm to 80bpm in 2 seconds, and using that data alone in considering that the patient's heart rate will be 680bpm in 30 more seconds. Indeed. It could be a coincidence. (Though unlikely) How do we know it isn't? What data are you using to determine that this same domino effect hasn't occurred in the past, only to revert to cooling once more? Which I don't think anyone has disputed here. Indeed. The next question would be: "What is the quantity of CO2 and Methane that is released upon x temperature increase?"I once had a creationist try to tell me the Sun is burning 500,000 tons of hydrogen a second, so clearly it would have burned out by now. Sadly his conclusion failed in that it had insufficient data in it's formula. He had forgotten to insert what the Sun's mass is. Once that was inserted, it became quite clear that the Sun can have been converting Hydrogen through fusion for several billion years, and still have several billion more years to go.This is the same thing that I feel is occurring in the "Human caused Global Warming" camp. I have tried to find hard (numerical/graph) data on this very thing, and have yet to do so.Where are you acquiring your data from to make this statement, and why are you not providing it to me/us? (See above statement)Edited by Michamus, : clarity/typos

In your haste to make an enemy, you have failed to discern the true fact of the matter. Last time I checked, THAT is: Perhaps you could have made an assessment on my stance on immediate action, if you had enough data to do so. Sadly you didn't, and this has led you to a FALSE CONCLUSION. This is an excellent example of what I was really talking about.If we hastily make important decisions (and luckily, yours wasn't), we will suffer long term effects. I don't think there is anyone on this planet that isn't interested in creating a cleaner, safer, and more efficient form of energy. We HAVE been making endeavors in Fusion, Solar, Wind, Hydro, and Geothermal, technology. For now the only alternative until these technologies become TRULY more cost effective (rather than subsidy dependent) is decreased energy usage. In developing countries, and the United States, this is easier said, than done. It is possible though. Perhaps we should. Obviously complete CO2 output removal would be impossible though, as I am sure you know. Again, perhaps we should. Is it really THAT simple? Your usage of 'thought ending statements' belies a lack of hard evidence in your court.I would hardly consider a micro-climate, let alone the GLOBAL climate 'Simple'. My suggestion would be that we learn how negative, or even beneficial our actions may be for the impacted climate. I would say that to oversimplify the situation could very well create an even greater problem.An excellent example would be using a "the sky is falling" technique, as some environmentalists do. What do you think will happen in 10 years if everyone looks around and sees very little different that day, than it was yesterday?This event will obviously discredit the ENTIRE movement altogether within the general populace, who last I checked are running this country.We should be more concerned about hard, compelling facts, than sensationalist efforts to cow the majority into bending to our whim. We should be more concerned with taking PERSONAL action in minimizing energy usage that relies on high pollutant fuels, such as oil, or coal. We should be more concerned about teaching our children how to think with their minds using deductive reasoning, instead of heading the fear in their hearts.

Sorry for the late reply. I have an allotted time to utilize public computers still, as I am still en route home. Glad we are agreed. I would also find it unlikely to be a coincidence when the available data appears to refute such a thing. As would be expected. The "catch" here is that the graph is relying on "Multiple proxy reconstructions" which is quite obviously unreliable once we reach the capability of precisely measuring and compiling data on global temperatures. The graph itself even shows dramatic temperature increases prior to the dramatic spike in CO2 being released into the atmosphere.I also see that we haven't even approached the apex of prior global "high temperatures" recently. It would appear that we have about 3 degrees C before we reach the same apex as prior "Heat ages" (I don't know if this name is used by anyone else...) You may be correct that some fudging has occurred. I don't know if I would go so far. If there is indeed cherry picked data here, I would imagine it would be a flaw in the process that was utilized to screen the relevant data.I personally prefer to look at data in it's raw, uninterpreted form, so as to draw my own conclusions._____________________________I wouldn't argue at all though that humans do not produce green house gases. Nor would I argue that no change in our environmental habits need occur.I am just interested in whether humans really have the power to produce green house gases in enough abundance to actually dent the natural process we are surrounded by. I am interested in projections on HOW MUCH CO2 a 1 degree C change on a global scale transfers into the atmosphere. I am also interested in comparing that to how much CO2 humanity produces as a whole, and create a comparison.To dismiss such a charge for data would be akin to saying: "whether a fly (or plane if we REALLY do produce that much)hitting a Boeing 777 in flight is capable of destroying the jet is not important."