This is a non-scientific argument. It is an assumption at best and flat out wrong at worst.
We don't know what the difference is, as far as the system is concerned, in putting a shit-ton of material (which is incredibly variable in its composition) in an instant vs putting a non-stop exponentially increasing amount of an essentially purified substance over the course of 100 years.
This is really the problem we run into with climate change, if we're to be frank about it:
That so many armchair experts feel confident to comment on and develop beliefs about something which I, after 7 years of schooling specifically tailored to this type of discussion, can only barely scratch the surface of with regard to understanding.
In a sentence:
The grown ups are talking. (This isn't directed specifically at you Pontiac so don't take offense)
The fact is, no matter what some "expert" said--or what you personally believe--without having any expertise yourself, you don't know who to listen to. You can't judge expertise without expertise, it's a catch 22.
If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about--I'm here to tell you that your best bet is to go with the 99% of the people in the world who DO know what the fuck their talking about and what they agree on.
They don't agree on everything, so that still leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I'm not asking you to take the majority's word for it, either.
I'm just saying that randomly making shit up, or going off on information that you can't even identify the source of--is a recipe for being as wrong as you could possibly be when discussing something so complex about which you have near to zero understanding (and also about which so many armchair experts and crazies have taken an interest).
Here's what NASA said on the subject and I try to focus on what the most reliable trustworthy and reputable scientists have to say on whatever subject I comment about.
"One more year of numbers isn't in itself significant," GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. "What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it's warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."
Given that the koch brothers "guy" wont say that man did cause it, wont say we didn't either (well maby now that the neocons call him a traitor), but instead he said it isn't helping lol.. Then we look at what happened to CO2 levels when all planes were grounded after 911, i'm with squiggly on this one, below is a picture worth a thousand words. Like how I pointed out the guy writing that article about the 70's hoax who didn't give any acolades of his own or sources, I have to go with who does.. Like I pointed out his co2 quotes were waaaaaaayyyyyyy off and we all know that because we are on top of Co2 monitoring but the masses at larger aren't so they just believe what "their guy" writes. Same issue with urban legend growing BS that is still rampant in our community of cultivating MMJ. So how can we believe them?
The contrail pic below is from southeast lrg.gif MODIS tracking of contrails generated by air traffic over the southeastern United States on January 29, 2004. Source: NASA Earth Observatory
Further proof is this excerpt from an article published in august of last year; In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.
"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that total U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy."
Source;
