There is a lot of evidence that we are in the interglacial period of an Ice Age and things may suddenly (geologically speaking, of course) get rather cold.
Wind turbines won't help with that!
This is true, and is shown quite clearly in the second plot in post 101. There are ~100,000 years of low (-8C) and spikes of high (+3C) temperatures. (This is mostly new to me and I am mostly quoting
this and
this) the origin of this cycle is that the Earth's tilt varies as it orbits the sun by a few degrees every ~40,000 years, and the axis precesses with a period of 26,000 years. The amount of solar radiation received then varies by as much as 100 Wm-2 (big, ~25%). So yes, it's possible that we will soon have another ice age. It's also possible that we won't. You may notice that the periods of these two mechanisms are not 100,000 years as we observe, so some have suggested that we haven't got enough data to draw conclusions about the length of interglacials.
Secondly, I think the raise in CO2 concentration has more to do with with the raise in the population than our way of life.
It's both.
That is quite frankly retarded, we are the superior spiecies, we rule earth, nobody else. We should only care about our own. If you think it's no more impressive then go live with the beetles in dung, see how you like it without all the modern luxuries.
We've disagreed on such things before snowdog. Humans certainly are not "superior" in all respects, nor do we "rule earth" completely. Humans are the most intelligent species (by our current measure of intelligence) certainly. But I think you'll find a tiger is a superior hunter (ever had unarmed combat with a tiger?). Or a bird is a more agile flier. etc.
joeyjojo, ok ill humour your graphs and data with some questions:
how did they get the co2 data before the ice caps ?
what do you say about the scientists that say the ice cap data is not solid enough to base an entire religion on, sorry scientific theory on ?
i did not see the scientists extract the ice cores and do the tests so i have to take their word and the institutions that they work for word, on that the ice core data is valid and not tweaked so that there is a correlation.
Where do they get the temperture readings from 500 million years ago ?
ok lets say that the temperture data from 100 million years ago and the co2 levels from 100 million years ago are 100% accurate and that it is agreed upon that there is a correlation between co2 levels and temperture. Then answer me this, why do cars have catalytic converters if burning fossil fuels gives off co2 as the primary by product ?
now if i say to you, if there was no correlation between co2 and temperature levels then would you agree that co2 is not a pollutant and that it would not be such a bad thing to have co2 as a by product of burning fossil fuels, therefore a catalytic converter would be a great invention.
Thanks groen these are good questions. It's good to be suspicious.
1. The first plot (going back 500 million years) has lines for computer models (a model is only as good as you program it) and points taken from measurements by Royer et al, who looked at carbonate levels in the sea (quite a heavy read
here). They propose that carbonate levels are much more reliable than atmospheric CO2, and that variations in solar flux are much less important.
2. Indeed the ice cores are not 100% reliable, which is why people like Royer have written papers looking for other proxies, like sea carbonates.
3. You do, but all the data and papers are out there. No scientists tweak data and get away with it. As an aside, the Climategate thing was just a load of hot air. From
here:
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."
4. I haven't included any temperature data for 500 Myears. Apparently one way of doing it is to analyse the different isotopes of water in an ice core.
5. A catalytic converter reduces the levels of carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which are toxic. Good for the humans stuck in traffic breathing the fumes, but as you say, less good as CO2 is the result.
6. Not necessarily. The proportion of gases in the atmosphere is crucial to life. The atmospheres of Mars and Venus are over 95% CO2, and as far as we know are inhospitable to life. The Earth is unique in that it has an oxidis
ing (lots of O2) atmosphere unlike the other planets, which are oxidis
ed (CO2). So I would say, better to not mess with the atmosphere at all, it's a very fragile set up.
I'm not sure why this is relevant - We'll probably be using crude oil for hundreds of years to produce plastics and other bi-products.
Not even that long if the reserves run out. OPEC are suspected of exaggerating the size of their reserves to stave off a panic. And last time I checked, plastic was pretty useful in a car.
Oh wait... it's all our fault! 
)
