When I say element, I didn't mean a singular atomic element. I was using a generic term to describe an element of the air. You obviously have decided not to look at the evidence provided, and that's your free choice to do so. Instead you've chosen to try and pick apart singular words in order to give the appearance that you're some kind of environmental scholar.
I've looked at far more than the "evidence" you have provided (a web page), and I don't count on wikipedia as a definitive source of information. As to picking apart your words, you weren't being clear.
If you want to look at the data and reject the fact that we have higher acceleration of average temperatures than normal based on huge data and evidence that CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere, that is your choice.
I'm going to ask you again: what are the "average" or "normal" temperatures? What are they supposed to be? How do you know that the rise in temperature is not natural?
But the evidence and data are there and scientists have recently proven the information based on ice core samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years. This is information we didn't have as much data from many years ago, but today its pretty conclusive.
What is conclusive? Hundreds of thousands of years spans a significant number of glacial and interglacial periods. If you actually look at the data you would notice that throughout much of that time temperatures were considerably
colder for very long periods of time. There were also much shorter warm periods called interglacials. We are lucky to presently live in one of those. It won't last. During an interglacial period of over 400,000 years ago, there were entire forests covering southern greenland. Their DNA is found in todays ice. We can assume Greenland was much warmer then than today.
If you look at the data again, you will notice that C02 does not stay constant throughout that time. As the warming for each interglacial took place, a rise in carbon dioxide would follow. Note: the rise in carbon dioxide would
follow a rise in temperature. Carbon dioxide
does not drive major temperature increases. This carbon dioxide measure is not taken from ice core measures, but from deposits of carbon isotopes. If you still want to look further back in time, you would note that the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been
dropping for thirty million years. We presently live during a period of
extremely low levels of atmospheric C02. Carbon dioxide levels have been considerably higher in the past than today, and the world did not come to an end.
You can talk about the different eras all you want, but the fact remains that the data conclude CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we have astronomically higher accelerations of this stuff that is off the chart from previous normal increases, and we have the recent temperature increases to prove the earlier evidence on CO2. This isn't naturally occuring, this is the release of carbon from man made processes.
C02 is an infrared absorbing gas, and it absorbs this radiation only at very specific and limited wavelengths. The earth's atmosphere is not a greenhouse. Heat is always being lost into space (greenhouses are designed to isolate the plants they house and trap in heat from the otherwise convective and cooling effects of the atmosphere).
As to discussing the
different eras, you raised the issue. What I am showing you is that there is a very long history of natural fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide, fluctuations far more significant than the one observed in the last few decades.
Direct chemical measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and measures taken from changes in preserved stromatal density of fossil pine needles, show that atmospheric carbon dioxide has fluctuated considerably over the last 1,500 years - to levels higher than even today.
Ice core measures are not direct measures of actual atmospheric carbon dioxide content. Present measures of carbon dioxide content in such cores are based on a set of arbitrary assumptions that ice cores are closed systems. They are not. There is considerable contamination. For example, in cold water C02 is very soluble, and of course very cold liquid water is commonly present in polar snow and ice. In addition, the drastic pressure produced inside ice sheets produces a diffusion effect that minimizes variations in carbon dioxide levels, and reduces the maximums. That is why ice core measures show a flattened carbon dioxide trend when other measures show much more variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide content.
The "stuff" (carbon dioxide) is not "off the charts." Presently, it is at about 380ppmv. The compressed ice cores show concentrations of 260 ppmv. Fossil leaf stromata have shown spikes as high as 400 ppmv. So the data is certainly not conclusive, complete or closed with respect to the present quantities of atmospheric carbon dioxide being terribly unusual or dangerously high. The science is not complete.
If you want to say "I've made my mind up" its the scientific evidence, not that I've just made my mind up. If the evidence says something else, I would gravitate toward that.
The question is: will you go looking for that evidence that would change your mind? It's out there. Will you be open enough to looking at a view that does not jibe with your present beliefs?
It's funny that so few people pay attention to the naturally occurring Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (and other ocean oscillations which are driven by the sun and resulting complex ocean water convection). The shifts in these ocean oscillations match very nicely with noted historic variations in atmospheric temperature. The data is available from NOAA. Free for everyone to look up, just like the satellite data I noted above. This is the same ocean oscillation, by the way, that is suspected to have caused the Little Ice Age - which really only ended about 150 or so years ago (
by getting warmer of course).
Yes, this is about a carbon tax, and the fact that you are against it. Just like you are against the idea of global warming. Sounds like YOU'VE made your mind up: that government has no proper role in this environmental crisis, and that the crisis isn't even real.
Yup, I'm against the carbon tax. I guess you are for it. So how much would like to tax? And what if it does nothing to ameliorate your fears about carbon dioxide? Because, really, it won't do much of anything.
And you missed the point again, the government is actually not doing anything about the problem you so fear. They are not addressing the issue
directly. They are raising revenue. People will still drive their cars that require gasoline, but maybe they'll cut back just a little. Meanwhile, other nations will increase their oil consumption. Ultimately, no net gains will be generated this way.