That is exactly correct. Massive swings in atmospheric CO2 took place long before any kind of human industrial activity.
And yet science says the 35% spike in CO2 is indeed from man. I posted multiple citations describing the science. One can look it up. The science is solid. Through isotope analysis, simple math - we know how much we burn- and common sense deductive reasoning- the levels shoot up after the industrial revolution. You can ignore these facts but you look foolish when you publicly state that you do. Your last sentence is correct however. The fact that there was massive swings just due to natural cycles alone shows just how delicate the balance is, and should be a warning to us to tread lightly.
Oct. 9, 2009 â You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today â and were sustained at those levels â global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. "Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said. By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
Here's what we know. The recent earth, last 100 million years or so, has been nearly covered in ice to completely without polar ice caps, all before the influence of man. Global CO2 fluctuates with or without man. Conclusion: It is impossible to know how large or small of an effect man's CO2 emissions are having on global atmospheric CO2/Temperature as there is no controled study without man made emissions. The fact is we don't know what we've done, we cannot know without duplicate studies, with and without man. Oh, and while your chosen target is CO2, perhaps you can explain why the bigger, much bigger greenhouse gas, which is water vapor is not addressed by the climate change community. Perhaps because it is much easier/less expensive to control, and water is a whole lot less scarey than the evil CO2. So, here we have two gases, each as integral to life on earth as the other, but the Climate Change Cultists have chosen the lesser greenhouse gas to control. Why? It's more expensive to control CO2, it does less damage than water vapor, why bother with it when water vapor is a bigger issue? Could it be money? Taxes? Maybe people would see throught he bullshit if you told them water was the problem? Your gang selected CO2 for a reason, and we all know what it is. Note: I stole, err, borrowed much of the above from another blog. I have edited it with my own personal touch for effect.
We can't make precise predictions because this high of a rise hasn't happened before so suddenly on modern earth. This is true. But via the study of how CO2 in the past affected temperatures and knowing the precise physical nature of CO@ the climatologists can make reasonable forecasts. So what do you think will happen if the dominant long term greenhouse gas (CO2) goes up? Because it's proven it has and it's from man. CO2 is THE dominant greenhouse gas. "Water vapour is a "reactive" GHG with a short atmospheric lifetime of about 1 week. If you pump out a whole load of extra water vapour it won't stay in the atmosphere; it would condense as rain/snow and we'd be back to where we started. If you sucked the atmosphere dry of moisture, more would evaporate from the oceans. The balance is dynamic of course: humidity of the air varies by place and time, but its a stable balance. In contrast, CO2 has a long lifetime (actually calculating a single "lifetime" for it doesn't work; but a given CO2 pulse such as we're supplying now will hang around for.. ohh... a century or more). It doesn't rain out (amusing factoid: the surface temperature of the deep interior Antarctica in winter can be colder than the freezing point of CO2; but this doesn't lead to CO2 snow (sadly, it would be fun) because the freezing point is lower because of the lower pressure because its higher up). So if you put in extra CO2 the climate warms a bit; because of this move WV evaporates (it doesn't have to, but just about all models show that the relative humidity tends to be about constant; so if you heat the atmos that means that the absolute humidity will increase). This in turn warms the atmosphere warms up a bit more; so more water gets evaporates. This is a positive feedback but a limited one: the increments (if you think of it that way) get smaller not larger so there is no runaway GH effect. http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/0...t-dominant.html deniers are like the people that deny evolution. Morons.
They like water too. But the midwest didn't get much of it this year killing the corn. The western forests weakened by drought are being eaten by beetles, and going up in flames and the plants that held the seaside dunes in the NE were taken away by too much of it. And then there's ocean acidification, destruction of the coral reefs and shellfish etc.