Originally Posted by
BlackPeter
Sure - while I am not sure whether the article provides the best set of data to prove man made global warming (the graph appears to show quite regular CO2 peaks all 110,000 years or so). Yes, looks like CO2 is currently peaking again and this is likely (or I give you certain) aggravated by human activity. Funny thing is - all these previous peaks have been reached rather fast - and than CO2 levels dropped again.
Just wondering - wouldn't it be more constructive to try to understand why the CO2 levels always dropped again after reaching the previous peaks? I put to you that the system is just much more complex than any climate scientist so far is able to comprehend.
Humans tend to think in linear extrapolation. If a share was worth $1 last year and $1,50 today, than for sure it must be $2 next year this time ... right? Well, obviously both of us know that this is nonsense, but unfortunately even senior people tend often to default to this thinking ... and yes, the trend is your friend - until it is not.
What I am saying is - the system is more complicated. There are as well scientists (actually the NASA sitting in that regard on the fence) who say that the increased water in the atmosphere will (in form of clouds) reflect more sunlight (that's what clouds do). This is a fact - and no scientist so far can tell you which of the effects will be stronger. It is however likely that this is a closed feedback curve (higher temperature - more clouds - lower temperatures - less clouds - higher temperatures ...).
Again - I am not saying, that there is no problem. I just don't know when the effects of this feedback will set in (I am sure, they will) and put to you that all the believers don't know either. Otherwise they wouldn't be believers. As well - there are hundreds of other feedback cycles impacting on the climate none of us yet fully understands.
Same as on the stock market - nobody knows whether a particular share will go up or down, and so I'd prefer if we would not put our limited resources into the "we believe in global warming" bucket and on top of that pretending that we understand the system, which we don't, but better prepare in a sensible way for all eventualities.