You know my view I'm sure. CO2 levels are at what an 8-900k year high? Great so nothing to worry about as the levels have been this high before. The curve to get from where the were to where they are now however is vertical. I am conservative, I don't want to wait for 500 and then 600 PPM so you guys can be satisfied something is abnormal. A sudden sharp change is rarely well met by biological systems that use multi-generational adaptation/selection (coral etc). When they don't get to do that, you get mass extinction. Anyway, the point I made is the point I made about what else it said in the article that WeToddDid2 did not comment on. Glacial thinning could lead to some serious volcanic action in Antarctica. We don't need to burn the resource that was accumulated over eons of time. We need it for other things so lets just get on with developing the tech.
could you show us that sharp increase on the proxy data... and a long term chart? I believe what appears to be a sharp increase only happens when you graft instrument data onto the proxy data. I know you are smart enough to understand the problem with making conclusion based on that technique. However I do agree with your conclusion. I agree with conservation... just not the govt controlling our lives, our output and our economic futures with cap and trade or carbon credits.
I understand it perfectly well, the cycles and possible hidden spikes but reality is reality. Billions of years of fossil energy is going up like photographic flash powder. That is new for this planet. So lets not find out the hard way by setting off a feedback loop that really screws us. Why are we arguing? Peak oil has happened already, because of new discoveries Al Bartlett's (a true national hero) prediction was a decade or so late but so what? Exponential population growth means we burn through the oil really soon. We need the oil for very much of our critical chemical industry. We need an order of magnitude of greater energy by 2050 or sooner than oil can provide by just burning it and it will run out anyway. The only people who benefit in delaying switching from fossil fuels are a few oligarchs in the short term.
I am not so sure we have reached peak oil. And I find the abiotic theory of at least some oil production to be possible... I agree we should conserve it since it is so useful. but lets say it does come from plants. co2 makes more plants and greens the planet right? I am definitely against control of our economic rights or wealth transfers through carbon credits. If there are going to be oil taxes they should be on everyone and replace income taxes.
If you have ever spent a few summers cutting turf in a bog you might be more favorable to the plant origin I have heard of abiotic theory. Sure a chunk of inorganic hydrocarbons came from the solar system but 4.3 billion years of life has done it's part. I remember a scientific argument that the formation of the stable continents was dependent on granite which would not have formed without organic life spicing up the chemistry of the basaltic rocks. I don't care about how a few Americans feel about taxes. I'm not mixing that into climate change, a tiny fraction of 4.4% have a philosophy on taxation that allows them to risk the future of the planet on how they 'feel'? screw them Yes greening is occurring but a relative matchstick of absorption up against a giant redwood of released gas. Ocean acidification is occurring also. That is really really serious. My niece is an ecologist, we rarely talk about this but her area is soil. I assume you know about how slowly soil is created and how quickly farming is denaturing it back to a dead clay. This is catastrophic and when the farmlands are laid to waste, they won't be absorbing much carbon. Long and short, there are no scenarios where we don't have to use our genius to replace fossil fuels and soon. There is only one way forward, thankfully everyone but the USA is on plan. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...f-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/
I am aware of the soil and the aquifer problem. Over population and misuse of resources including water and oceans is an entirely different discussion. I am sure I told you I use to volunteer my professional time for a clean ocean and bay group. CO2 control... Carbon credits are not going to simply exist in the United State. Its how the cronies are going to control competition throughout the world.
I'm not much into the big conspiracy of carbon credits. For every world dominating oligarch there is a competing one so the 'big boys' might use carbon credits but.. they can and do use other instruments. I'm glad the US is being left behind, time for some change there as things have become insane in the US. I mentioned before that I run into ex-pats here. One guy blew my mind. He did not believe in climate change. Why? because he worked in a Corvette dealership. Climate change talk was bad for his business so he did not "believe it in". That was not my deduction of his philosophy, that is practically a direct quote. It defies reason. Sometimes it seems to be that the boomers recon that as long as the music stops around 2040 that is ok, they will be dead after leading fat and happy lives and that is all that matters. Arguing over climate change as it relates to fossils and CO2 is counting the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin or arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We need to move on past fossils, bigger problems.
would you mind explaining what you mean by climate change? no one would argue that we have not gotten warmer since the last age. the climate change issue is whether man made co2 is causing climate change.. or secondarily if man's activities cause climate change. So what is funny to me is that a smart guy like you seems to believe there is science showing man is causing warming... but then can never produce a link to a peer reviewed article showing it... (there are some 20 year old articles based on models but those models failed.) Seriously... how can you feel superior to the corvette guy. Your beliefs are just as stunning to me as his. We either have science or we have faith... If you have science and not faith... show it.