You just posted a graph that claims to explain a scientific fact, and you neither:
A> Had error bars on it, or
B> Included the source material so someone could work out the error bars.
You fail. Statistics and scientific data without error bars is useless
. With error bars you can at least look at it.
And don't even try telling me that the error bars on CO2 levels from 100,000 years ago is smaller than the lines drawn on that page. If you can't find good statistics, don't quote the bad stuff.
When you make a statement and want to be accepted on your credibility, you need to include a reference to your thought process that resulted in the statement. That way your statement can be checked against your thought process. If an error is found in your thought process, then your credibility is shot.
Interesting statement from a link in this thread:
. The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2.
As far as I know, the tonnage of CO2 emitted by people & industry per year is on the order of 1% to 5% of the CO2 exchange on the planet. Am I wrong?
There are problems with climate models: the climate is too hard to model. On top of that, it isn't hard to fudge a model until the data you have causes the results you see: and because the details are not understood, one has to fudge the model.
Then again, I've heard some pretty darn convincing arguments, like the spectral black hole around the CO2 abosrbtion lines that is growing as CO2 increases in concentration.
Global Climate Change caused by human atmospheric activities seems likely, but it isn't certain. Climate scientist is an observational science, and is hence is less accurate than experimental sciences: they cannot take their model, build a world, and run it in order to test their theory. They must instead rely on models based off of their theory, and if their theory is wrong so are their models they are using to test it.
The test of theory quality is how well it models the past: and if you have enough free parameters, even a false model can be designed to match known data points to an arbitrary degree of accuracy. It is when your model fits existing data points and loudly predicts unexpected data points that, when looked for, turn out to be correct, that your model gets some standing.
Also of interest is the claim that it will take on the order of 100 years, due to the heat-sink of the oceans, for temperatures to climb.
Note that there are ways to cool off the earth that are not "restrict CO2 emissions". Crazy-ass shit like "launch dust into the atmosphere" and "paint the ice black" and "launch unstable-orbit black things that soak up solar light".
The last of these has a pretty known economic cost: on the order of 1% of the world's current economic output per year, every year. If lowering CO2 emissions is more expensive than the "ham-handed" solution, and the problem is a gradual one whose costs we can estimate as it happens, then the argument that "waiting is the best policy" has legs to stand on.
Remember, this isn't "can we get to the moon" type of decision whose costs are on the order of a few percent of one nation's GDP: this is "should we constrain and change the direction of human society". Testing if the science is right on "can we get to the moon" is pretty easy: you try small jumps first, and if the science works out you try larger jumps. Testing if the climate change science is right requires an experiment that involves decreasing world-wide economic growth by an amount similar to the great depression, possibly dooming to poverty and preventing the industrialization of entire sub-continents.
It is an extraordinary claim: it requires extraordinary proof.
The current increase in temperature doesn't do it, especially with the recent mars data showing a similar rise there.
We do not know for certain how much impact CO2 levels have on global average temperatures. There are models that give them the responsibility for 1/3 of the temperature changes in the past: but those models are of ridiculously complex systems. Short of causing a huge boost in CO2 levels and checking to see if the world temperature changes, we cannot know: which sort of sucks, because poking with the climate isn't a good thing. (Or we could build another Earth and do the tests there...
It would actually be good if we could control world temperature that much by CO2 emissions. An ice age is coming (not on the order of 100s of years, but on the order of 10,000s of years), and if we aren't off this rock by then we'll probably want some extra heating.