“Tobjorn: Let me also add that I have very little concern about the natural system recovering from what we do to it. It has taken far worse blows in the past and recovered with new types of biodiversity after massive extinction events. Its just that I have some small concern about our own survival from the consequences of what we do to the natural system ”

Apparently we are discussing different things. When I said you were cherrypicking data it was for natural occurences since these are the events that we can test biological recovery against. I agree that if you are concerned that our survival as a species are important and could be a dramatically different process than recovery of a biosphere, a different timeline may make more sense.

However, our economy and technology is a late invention so then you would have practically no baseline left. I guess if I were interested I could perhaps pick up the reason to the 650 000 year restriction, which isn’t obvious to me. But I’m not, really. I was originally merely reacting to your first statement on natural carbon dioxide levels.

wolfgang says:

“> the whole “scary” part of climate change is the rapidity of the “change”.

Torbjorn,”

I didn’t say that, Hiranya did. You should direct your commentary accordingly.

‘Thales says that it is water’. ‘it’ is the nature, the archê, the originating principle.

Old thoughts, new and improved factual ideas, of measure? Imagine, Weighing Water?

Both the mean gravity field and the monthly maps of the time-variable gravity field are useful tools for scientists as they study the Earth’s changing climate. The mean gravity field helps scientists better understand the structure of the solid Earth and learn about ocean circulation. Likewise, scientists use time-variable gravity to study ground water fluctuations, sea ice, sea level rise, deep ocean currents, ocean bottom pressure, and ocean heat flux.

So?

> There is a logical fallacy in saying we should not cut CO2 emissions
I did not suggest we should not cut CO2 emissions.

And I do not need to ‘make up my mind’ what I am arguing, since my opinion is pretty simple to understand: CO2 is growing slower than exponential, which is
significant because CO2 forcing is proportional to ln(C) and other greenhouse gases are ‘flattening’ even more. Thats all.
And since I explained my opinion more than enough already, I really think there is no need to discuss this further.

yes, indeed writing from the South Pole. I try to read as much of this eminently interesting blog during the short hours that we have an internet connection to teh outside world. I really enjoy your responses and your enthousiasm for responding. I have to say I would not be as pastient as you are. Where are you now ?
We have a NOAA station here at South Pole making the same measurements as those from the Mona Loa plot so there are a couple scientists with whom to discuss some of these issues. I wonder if “the Inconvenient thuth” is going to make it to the internet. Otherwise, I’ll have to wait anotehr 6 month to see it.
cheers,

Denis