[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jake

As I mentioned earlier there have been no studies on the oceans role with CO2 in global warming.

Oh, really?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr(-1) is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.

Originally Posted by Jake

I don't think we should react to something that may not even be happening, until we know for sure. It would be like taking tylenol every day because you might be sick, but in reality it is doing more harm than good.

So.... reducing emissions might do more harm than good? OK, I see. I can only assume that this is some version of the "economic doomsday" argument. But the fact is, economic predictions have historically been far more thorny than climatological ones. My guess is that you know no more than I do about the economic effects--and our best guess is not very good. Isn't it just as likely that moving to reduce emissions will spark a new cycle of innovations that will cause economic growth in new sectors? Even if you're dubious about that--you ought to be persuaded that the long-term economic consequences of doing nothing far outweigh whatever doomsday scenario you might concoct. The IPCC addresses this very issue in their report. Since you like graphs, here's a link to one (I'd paste it in, but it's kind of big):
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/08.17.jpg

Alot of the graphs that global warming activists use are not. I have no idea where your graph came from.

I don't know where hulkrogan's graph came from either. But that one came from the IPCC, which has synthesized the work of over 2500 scientists from institutions around the world. Your use of the term "global warming activists" makes me think that you believe that this information is coming from lobby groups. It isn't. It's coming from scientists doing original peer-reviewed research.

Taking a measurements from just one spot on the Earth does not indicate the global temperature average. In fact global warming will actually make some parts of the world cooler (mainly europe) due to ocean currents. I'd say it is foolish to use them as your main source of evidence.

Good thing that isn't what they're doing, then!

Another thing about those graphs that I hate is how they don't start from zero on the CO2 axis. It makes the flutuations look alot more dramatic than they really are.

Maybe you'll like these better:
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/02.01.jpg

Note that on these, it's the right side axis (radiative forcing) that starts at zero, in order to standardize the graphs. In each case what's important is the trend, which is easily evident. As a result, each graph takes the baseline level to be theoretically zero, which actually if you think about it should make the fluctuations look LESS dramatic, by your logic.

IPCC has a ton of great charts. Many of them talk about oceans, by the way.