It's a complex, messy subject, and as an engineer I hate the reliance on computer models to make predictions, but the dramatic increase in CO2 levels is a fact. It's plain common-sense that a big increase in one of the inputs to the climate has a good chance of causing disruptive change.
There's also accumulating evidence from independent sources that the temperature is rising, but pretend it wasn't there, would an increase in CO2 from 313ppm to 383ppm over 50 years worry you?
would an increase in CO2 from 313ppm to 383ppm over 50 years worry you?
No, but an increase from 313,000ppb to 383,000ppb would scare the crap out of me. Look how much bigger and impressive my numbers are than yours?!
Sorry, I couldn't resist. You really are talking ppm here, so keep in mind the number of 0's to the right of the decimal point before getting too concerned. That's not to say that in some systems, ppm increases are not concerning. However, your point was "it looks like a lot", and that's not valid, without actual perspective on how much a 1 ppm increase will effect the system.
It's plain common-sense that a big increase in one of the inputs to the climate has a good chance of causing disruptive change.
It is rarely noted (but undisputed) that the baseline climate response is logarithmic in carbon dioxide concentration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_eff...). Since, absent feedback effects, exponential increases in CO2 levels lead to linear temperature changes, it's likely that common sense is not a reliable guide.
Hah, not that I'm saying that this guy's other views have anything to do with his ideas on climatology, but the paragraph after the one you linked is titled "Racial Biology." It doesn't end well: "...and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics in Germany."
Don't nobody jump down my throat or anything, the juxtaposition just made me laugh.
It's a complex, messy subject, and as an engineer I hate the reliance on computer models to make predictions, but the dramatic increase in CO2 levels is a fact. It's plain common-sense that a big increase in one of the inputs to the climate has a good chance of causing disruptive change.
There's also accumulating evidence from independent sources that the temperature is rising, but pretend it wasn't there, would an increase in CO2 from 313ppm to 383ppm over 50 years worry you?