1. that carbon dioxide does effect temperatures
2. that level temperatures or cooling means that other factors effect temperature as well as carbon dioxide and not that carbon dioxide has no effect.
Would such cooling mean that we should be burning lots of hydrocarbons? It depends on how serious such cooling would be. If global temperatures do no worse than a reversal of the warming since the 1970s, then it would only be a matter of time before the Maunder Minimum ends or the volcanic aerosols dissipate, after which global warming could be expected to return with a vengence. On the other hand, if the cooling were catastrophic, we would need something to heat our homes so we don't freeze and our greenhouses so we can continue to grow food. And as much as the fear mongering about nuclear power by Helen Caldecott and NW Portland Jack is nonsense, I am not too crazy about using millions of rolls of duct tape for a crash program to build fast breeder reactors. Yes, we would need to burn lots of oil, gas and coal. In case catastrophic cooling does happen is another reason to leave some hydrocarbons in the ground.
Global warming refers to a runaway greenhouse effect. You have to understand some chemistry and physics to understand it fully. Basically, due to the increased rate of IR radiation absorption within the earth's atmosphere and the high specific heat capacity of water (oceans, in this case), the rate of global climate warming is not clear-cut.
Essentially, the gradual warming of the earth is going to disrupt the ocean's natural currents that have been working in a very similar way to a car's radiator system; the warm air's temperature is imparted to the ocean, whose currents carry the water downward to cool while forcing cool water to the top to reabsorb the warm air.
When you overload this system with too much heat, it stops or becomes less efficient. What happens, in turn, is the polar ice caps begin to melt. What happens when ice cubes melt in a glass of water? The water gets cool. But if you leave that ice water out for too long, it will warm up again and the ice will be gone.
If fossil fuels had no effect on the environment/global climate, I wouldn't care if we used them, but the massive amounts of hydrocarbons we release into the water and atmosphere have laterally disastrous consequences that we are only now learning about.
This question may have some relevance when you have 30 years of data where global mean temperature and variance have returned to pre-industrial levels and you can demonstrate that the change co-varies with natural forcing variables. Until then, it is just unscientific and bogus nonsense.
====
edit ---
The 1970s "ice age" was a mostly media invention - and this has been pointed out dozens (maybe hundreds) of times here.
I did answer the question - I didn't think you so misunderstood your own question and intended that it be taken seriously. So - here ya go:
No - not after 10 years or 100 years - regardless of global temperature - will anyone advocate a need for more atmospheric CO2.
I do not "hate" fossil fuels - I spent my entire youth worshiping at the Church of the Holy Detroit V-8 - and I do not "fear" a warmer earth. However, that does not change the scientific evidence or reality of AGW. In fact, the choice has nothing to do with anything outside of the paranoid, delusional thoughts of conspiracy-freak AGW Deniers.
======
jerry --
First - you've never read anything scientific so quit pretending that you have.
Second:
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus"
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1...
How does it feel to have been fooled by propaganda so stupid that it only fools idiots?
This is a ignorant and confused exaggeration of a fossil fuel industry lie, and you are a dupe of their anti-science deceptions: "So in the 70's we faced (according to scientists) an ice ice."
Do you also believe in the hollow moon, the flat earth, pyramid power and "intelligent design"?
sure it was Gary, play the part of your esteemed Dr. Steven Schneider, if you can't dispute the scare then lie
also read the 1972 scientist predicts ice age, that's from your buddies at east Anglia
don't forget to read hansens buddy in 1971
The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that
good try gar
Description/Abstract
Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971:
Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate.
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
No CO2 is not effective at warming and has pretty much reached the end of it's heating effect so there would not be much point burning more fuels.
If we wanted to raise the Earths temperature we would have to consider reducing albedo, that would be the easiest way.
So do you DA deniers search for the worst possible info regarding GW or does it just fall out of the sky and land on you
The next 5 years are expected to have yearly global average temps at near record highs. I expect the following 5 will be the same outlook since there haven't been much in the way of reducing CO2 emissions, especially in the US
As for fossil fuels, unless we come up with some large yet unknown reserves, oil is expected to run out @2050. There will still be coal and natural gas but coal is one of the worst air pollutants and largest contributors of CO2
It is going to be in the 90s in texas all week therefore global warming exists.
If over the next ten years global temperatures show a fall at what point do you say ok, we need more co2 to combat this and we need more fossil fuels burnt to prevent global cooling? Or do you never want more fossil fuels?
What is more important to you, a fear of a warmer Earth or a dislike for fossil fuels?
