Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamsailor
I think the most critical issue to point out and discuss is the latest CO2 data identified on the chart. Clearly CO2 levels have been just as high in the history of the earth---of that I don't think one can dispute (I certainly won't dispute it.) However, and this is significant, THE RATE OF CHANGE IN THE CO2 CONCENTRATION IS, IMHO, THE CRITICAL FACTOR TO BE EXAMINED.
In my mind, the question is: Is the rate of change due to significant anthropogenic influences. If the answer is yes, then it is incumbent upon us to do something, if the answer is no, then who cares--there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
.
|
Yam- Historically the CO2 levels have been much, much higher than they are today, without any man made influences, as shown in the graphs you provided (15X). It is my understanding that CO2 levels follow temperature changes (lag), but I am no expert. I agree with you that if CO2 contributes to temperature increase, and if the rate of change is attributable to man, then we should do all that is possible to control it. The problem is that the "ifs" have not been proven and so it would seem to be premature to spend trillions of dollars on Cap and Trade until we know what is going on ( apart from the fact that carbon offsets do nothing to reduce worldwide emissions). I totally agree that we need to pursue alternative energy sources (including increased drilling and development of untapped known domestic oil resources).