Is this perspective on Geologic Time important to consider when discussing the Man-Made Global Warming Theory?

Question

"...One way to get a sense of geologic time is to compare it to a motion picture. A movie is projected at a rate of 32 frames per second - each image is flashed on the screen for only 1/32 of a second, giving the illusion of continuous motion. But suppose that each frame represented 100 years...

If we were able to show the movie on a standard projector, each 100 years would flash by in 1/32 of a second. It would take only 1/16 of a second to go back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The 2,000-year-old Christian era would be on screen for ¾ of a second. A section showing all time back to the last major ice age would only be less than seven seconds long... And to view a movie entitled "The Complete Story of Earth, from Its Birth to Modern Civilization" you would have to spend sixteen days in the theater, without even a popcorn break between reels."

http://www.nipissingu.ca/faculty/ingridb/geology/geologic_time.htm

Answer 1

Yes - to look at just the last 100 years is bogus.

That's not even a sneeze in the history of the planet, and does a great disservice to those who study trends.

However this is done deliberately, as "global warming" is a very selective science.

Answer 2

I think it is. It gives a person a sense of scale. It's also reassuring to me to think that nothing that people can do can wipe out all life on the planet. The planet has undergone several major extinctions, and life has always come back. What's even more intriguing is parallel development - that is, there have been many creatures that look like lions (such as the various saber tooth tigers) that aren't even ancestors of lions. The only thing that will wipe out all life on Earth is when the Sun becomes a red giant in about 10 billion years.
However, we can have a very direct impact upon what kind of world we want to live in. We can act as stewards, or we can act as rapists. Clearly the only responsible path is stewardship, not only for the general welfare of the planet but also for the direct benefit of our offspring.

Answer 3

Absolutely. But it's not the only thing you can look at, and this is where many skeptics err.

If you're only looking at geologic history and not zooming in to the modern era, you're going to miss any changes that have happened recently. For example, the fact that we've begun emitting massive amounts of CO2 over the past century. If the past century is just 1/32 of a second, you're going to miss this change and the climate's response to it.

Basically you're saying that because the Earth's climate usually changes slowly over long time scales, you're going to ignore any rapid short-term changes. This is a fatal error.

Answer 4

Sure.

But we've changed the ground rules. Like this:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

The highest natural level for CO2 for 400,000 years was about 280 ppm. We're headed for 400, with no end in sight.

That causes an increase in warming due to simple basic physics. As recently as 50 years ago, natural forces were very important in climate. That's changed. You can see the change over time here:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The bottom line:

"We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society."

It's easy for even smart people to lose their way when the rules of the game change:

"The atomic bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." Admiral Leahy, 1945