ok let s bring some data into the discussion URL a graph derived from vostok ice core samples of coNUMBER and temperature fluctuations over the past NUMBERk years recent high resolution studies of historical coNUMBER concentrations and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years have shown a modest correlation between the two in a number of cases coNUMBER level increases are not in phase with temperature increases and actually trail the increase in temperature by a short time i e increases in temperature preceded increases in coNUMBER concentrations the more studies that are done of the geological record the more it seems that coNUMBER concentrations are correlated with temperature increases but are not significantly causative based on the vostok data you are right there is a very strong correlation between temperature and coNUMBER concentrations but it doesn t always appear to be causal with respect to absolute coNUMBER concentrations it is also important to point out that our best data to date suggests that they follow a fairly regular cycle with a period of about NUMBER NUMBER years also correct the peak of each cycle is at about NUMBER NUMBER ppm coNUMBER as it happens current coNUMBER concentrations are within NUMBER of other previous cyclical concentration peaks for which we have good data not correct mauna loa data URL and URL show that the current coNUMBER concentrations are at NUMBERppm NUMBER greater than the highest recorded value from the past NUMBERk years furthermore coNUMBER concentrations are growing at NUMBERppm every NUMBER years much faster than any recorded increase in the vostok data though perhaps the vostok data isn t capable of such fine resolution in other words we may be adding to the coNUMBER levels no we are definitely adding to coNUMBER levels look at the following chart URL shows coNUMBER concentrations since NUMBER the historical record not only is the coNUMBER increase over NUMBER years unprecedented in the vostok record it is clear that the rate of change is increasing not decreasing there is no other compelling explanation for this increase except for anthropogenic input you re really out on the fringe if you re debating this even global warming skeptics generally concede this point but it looks a lot like we would be building a molehill on top of a mountain in the historical record at the very least there is nothing anomalous about current coNUMBER concentrations wrong again current coNUMBER levels are currently unprecedented over the past NUMBERk years unless there is some mechanism that allows coNUMBER levels to quickly spike and then return back to normal background levels and hence the spike might not show up in the ice cores still by around NUMBER NUMBER we will have reached NUMBER ppm coNUMBER a level that even you would have a hard time arguing away also coNUMBER levels interact with the biosphere in a manner that ultimately affects temperature again the interaction is not entirely predictable but this is believed to be one of the regulating negative feedback systems mentioned above yes clouds and oceans are a big unknown still we know ocean water has a finite capacity to store coNUMBER and if the world temperature doesn t increase but we all have seattle like weather all the time the effects would be enormous last as greenhouse gases go coNUMBER isn t particularly potent although it makes up for it in volume in some cases gases such as water and methane have a far greater impact as greenhouse gases on a per molecule basis water vapor may actually be the key greenhouse gas something that coNUMBER only indirectly effects through its interaction with the biosphere correct data on relative contributions of greenhouse gasses URL note that methane concentrations now are much higher than pre industrial levels many cows farting and rice paddies outgassing and methane is also a contributor in the formation of atmospheric water vapor another clearly anthropogenic increase in a greenhouse gas i m in favor of reductions in methane levels as well data on water vapor here URL coNUMBER was an easy mark for early environmentalism but all the recent studies and data i ve seen gives me the impression that it is largely a passenger on the climate ride rather than the driver i tend to think that holistic and techical approaches would work best in reducing global warming i favor an energy policy that has a mix of solar wind and nuclear with all carbon based combustion using renewable sources of c h bonds aggressive pursuit of carbon sink strategies also makes sense burying trees deep underground for example approaches that involve reductions in lifestyle to a sustainable level are unrealistic americans just won t do it you d be surprised at the number of climate change researchers driving suvs but as california showed during last year s energy crisis shifts in patterns of consumption are possible and improved efficiency is an easy sell jim 