Global Warming a fake?

[InfiniteNow]

btw; I don’t see any representation in your data for volcanoes, forest fires, and changes in solar radiation. They must count for something.

It's there, Larv. Look more closely.

 

Also, I imagine you've done less reading on this topic than I have, so I'll try to illuminiate the key criticisms of your point.

 

First, simply suggesting that it's "natural" is not good enough. In order for that comment to really have any worth, you would need to first provide a mechanism which is causing the climate to warm so quickly. All of those previous glaciation events to which you referred had very real causes, and measurable changes which led to them. You would need to propose a specific type of radiative forcing or natural process which can adequately account for both the amount and the speed at which the climate is changing in present day.

 

You suggested a few in your post. Volcanic activity. Solar irradiation. Forest fires.

 

As for the first, I'm not aware of a huge surplus of volcanic activity during the past century or two. We just haven't seen an unusually large amount of volcanic eruptions these last several years (correct me if I'm wrong). On top of that, when we DO see a great deal of volcanism, it unleashes a tremendous amount of ash into the sky (you may remember that this is EXACTLY what happened when Mt St. Helens blew). That ash disperses through the atmosphere and shades the planet from the sun (much like a parasol), and actually has a COOLING effect during the first several years post eruption. We simply haven't seen that either.

 

As for the sun, every study done shows that it is not responsible. Our recent upward trend in climate is not the result of more energy coming off the sun... it is not the result of solar flares... it is not the result of Milanovich cycles. It has nothing to do with the sun. Yes, the sun impacts our climate, but it is not the cause of the warming we've been experiencing relative to the last several centuries/millenia.

 

 

Here's a great article supporting my point above published in the single most prestigious science journal out there: NATURE.

 

Access : No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics : Nature

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays

 

 

 

So... Let's review. No sun. No volcanoes. The forest fires is an interesting suggestion, but you seem to be putting the cart before the horse on that one. We are experiencing more forest fires precisely because the climate is changing, and we are experiencing more drought conditions and extreme weather. The fires are ranging because of drought, and the drought is caused by the warming, and the warming is caused by something else. You're essentially positing that the effect is it's own cause, and that's not very likely.

 

 

So, the question then becomes... What else ya got? The primary suggestions you've made just aren't explaining what we're seeing. If you think it's natural, then cool, but you need to describe what natural phenomenon is occurring... what process exactly do you suggest is causing this rapid increase in global yearly average temperatures which we've been experiencing roughly since we entered the Industrial Age. It can't be magic, it's not invisible gnomes, and "it's natural" is not an explanation with any power or worth.

 

 

My stance is that human cause fits the data perfectly. Also, it's supported by basic chemistry. CO₂ traps heat. We're pumping cubic tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere. We've understood this process for decades.

 

Global Warming Timeline

 

 

Also, independent studies across research modalities have all reached a confluence, and using different techniques and different fields have all found a consensus that human activity is the single greatest contributor to the recent climatic changes we're experiencing. There is MOUNTAINS of evidence in support of the human cause.

 

If you think it's something else, then awesome, but you need something that will displace our understanding of the human factor now... something unassailable, and it needs to be better than the mere assertion, "it's natural."

[Larv]

It's there, Larv. Look more closely.

You're right, it's there.

 

Also, I imagine you've done less reading on this topic than I have, so I'll try to illuminiate the key criticisms of your point...

All points well taken, you probably know more than I do about global warming. But you really haven't examined the broader scale of the issue. We've had global warming before there were humans to fire it up.

 

IN, I think you too easily buy into tabloid science. Even the best scientists know that nothing yet is certain about the causes and magnitudes of global climate change. Here's a case in point: the "shutdown of the thermohaline circulation" theory.

 

You know of course about the shut-down of the thermohaline circulation theory. Well, some scientists want to believe that it is an entirely understood mechanism for climate change. However, there is this realistic criticism of the what we know about the subject:

 

The ocean’s thermohaline circulation has long been recognized as potentially unstable and has consequently been invoked as a potential cause of abrupt climate change on all timescales of decades and longer. However, fundamental aspects of thermohaline circulation

changes remain poorly understood.

 

Or this on the role of the thermohaline circulation in abrupt climate change:

 

The possibility of a reduced Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations has been demonstrated in a number of simulations with general circulation models of the coupled ocean–atmosphere system. But it remains difficult to assess the likelihood of future changes in the thermohaline circulation, mainly owing to poorly constrained model parameterizations and uncertainties in the response of the climate system to greenhouse warming.

 

And finally this reminder from Wallace Broecker that global climate change is not uncommon and probably is not a trigger mechanism to global warming:

 

During the last glacial period, Earth's climate underwent frequent large and abrupt global changes. This behavior appears to reflect the ability of the ocean's thermohaline circulation to assume more than one mode of operation. The record in ancient sedimentary rocks suggests that similar abrupt changes plagued the Earth at other times. The trigger mechanism for these reorganizations may have been the antiphasing of polar insolation associated with orbital cycles.

 

But he cautions:

 

Were the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 levels to trigger another such reorganization, it would be bad news for a world striving to feed 11 to 16 billion people.

 

It’s OK to be cautious, but it’s even better to be skeptical when too much is claimed and not enough is known.

[InfiniteNow]

Thank you for the thoughtful post. Just to clarify, though, you're now moving the goal posts a bit by talking about predictions. We were talking about cause, and none of what you posted above supplies a non-anthropogenic cause for the current warming trend.

 

I totally agree with you that we need to always question the data, and always be open to alternatives if those alternatives are better supported and do a better job of explaining. However, a bit of uncertainty regarding an ocean current doesn't change the fact that the global yearly average temperate IS rising, it has been doing so roughly since the Industrial revolution, and human activity is the best fit for the cause.

 

There is debate on various aspects of the smaller details in climate science, that is true. However, the overall arch of the science, as well as the consensus on cause, is unmistakable. Everybody who knows their elbow from their bung hole knows that humans are the primary driver in today's climate, and this is EVEN MORE true among the experts who actually study this stuff. The only debate is really "will it be just a little bad, or will it be catastrophic?" ... "Will the temperature rise 2 degrees C, or 6 degrees C?"

 

The debate is the details about future predictions... not about existing cause. Thanks again for the thoughtful post above. :hihi:

[enorbet2]

Regarding Global Climate Change and the controversy surrounding it, I find it interesting if not suspicious that the countries who have the most ongoing controversy seem to be the ones that have the most automobiles and petroleum infrastructure. As far back as the Carter Administration in the US, OPEC was saying "Petroleum is too important to just burn" referring to plastics and other petrochemicals that are recyclable/retrievable, assuming *they* are not burned.

 

It has long been a complaint here in the US that Solar and other so-called Alternative energy sources are not competitive with fossil fuels, when around that same time it was pointed out that since there was no equivalent to the "Oil Depletion Allowance" and many other government subsidies of the fossil fuel industry, it was no wonder alternatives were/are expensive by comparison. When Carter enacted energy tax credits as did most states, it was sufficient to make systems highly competitive.

 

I worked for a solar energy company in Colorado for 3 years selling high end systems (installed by Master Plumbers) for both home and commercial use, such as Hospitals, Car Washes, Commercial Laundries, etc that were so successful and profitable that we began setting up 3rd Party contract sales where investors who needed the tax credits would buy the system which was installed on the site of a consumer, who was guaranteed a substantial savings per BTU (40% off was the norm) compared to their fossil fuel alternative on a lease basis, commonly for 10 years. It was expected that after the contract ran out that it would be in the best interests of both parties to sell the onsite system to the consumer at a vastly reduced price even though it's expected lifetime (with very low maintenance) was 20 years minimum. It is largely due to Oil Lobbyists and the politicians they buy that alternatives are not competitive as evidenced by Ronald Reagan tearing down a *working* solar panel system off the White House very soon after Inauguration. Why the double negative? Why spend money to destroy a savings in money? ...unless to send a message to both sides that a new sheriff was making new rules that favored Big Oil and would crush alternatives?

 

The company for which I worked had engineers and scientists who did environmental impact studies and the impact was always negligible. So whoever actually worries that "green" alternatives may have a more negative impact that drilling, mining, refining and burning fossil fuels is, IMHO, either an investor in a fossil fuel company or has been duped by them that have the profit margins (and governement subsidies insuring them) to spin press releases and buy lobbyists.

 

The bottom line regarding the Green Movement, is that fossil fuels are not sustainable and the longer we stay addicted the harder it will be to change, and everyone must agree that we must change... the only real argument is the time frame. It can be seen that infrastructure drives development as well as corporate agenda (just watch YouTube - Who Killed The Electric Car (in 2 Parts) [Part 1 of 2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3rw9MsHB8Y) partly summarized in the question why did an oil company buy out the most revolutionary battery design only to bury it? See abbreviated version here:

YouTube - Who killed the electric car?(not the batteries) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J5f9x_RfHI

and *really* abbreviated here:

Inventor of the Week: Archive

 

As far as the normalcy of climatic change cycles go, there was a documentary on The Science Channel where, in addition to ice core studies mentioned previously in this thread, it was stated that in the 90's the most radical liberal, doomsayer, tree-huggingest projections for 10 year change, not the most conservative, was in actuality *exceeded* by a factor of 10. That's reasonably alarming in my book, when the so-called "pichfork wavers" turn out to be too conservative.

 

The bottom line regarding climate change and the human contribution, as well as human ability to stave off catastrophe, is only controversial to people who either have an Oil Agenda or don't subscribe to Network Theory, understandable perhaps since Oil is firmly entrenched and financed and Network Theory it is quite new. However the data is very compelling. It has already been seen that huge networks like the power grid, which were thought to be largely unstoppable due to redundancy and overlap, got stopped when important hubs went offline such as in the NorthEast Blackout Northeast Blackout of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The World Wide Web once thought to be completely impervious due to total decentralization has instead been found to be vulnerable due to a few important hubs. There are "hubs" in climate control, such as the Oceanic Conveyor (Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , as well since it is all connected yet as long as such alarming conditions as the Greenland Thaw and the Ross Ice Shelf are ignored funding is not available to determine the extent of climatic change nor the feasibility of altering cycles at hubs.

 

Part of the reason that it is so worthwhile to begin this shift in pardigm now is that such problems are often exponential or worse over time. I recall reading a powerful article by the late G. Harry Stine (scientist, technical essayist, and scifi writer, often called the "Father of Model Rocketry") in Analog in which he outlined a project of his of graphing out human progress. For example if human maximum achieved speed is plotted on the abscissa (X-axis) and time on the ordinate (Y-axis), he started with a conservative date for modern humans of 10,000 BC where running at roughly 10 mph for the origin. The first increase was figured to be the utilization of beasts of burden that can run faster, say 20 mph by 2000 BC, and so on. Very quickly the curve became so steep that it became necessary to use a log scale for the "speed" axis, and shortly, a reverse log scale for the "time" axis. Despite this huge reduction by the year 2000 the graph goes asymptotic. So did virtually every other progress graph including population and the average energy available per capita, with the average energy per individual being equal to that of the Sun!

 

Obvioulsy that didn't happen, yet the graphs can only be faulted for being too simple since there are factors not considered. They still indicate, then, both the obvious, the incredible increase in rate of change, and the not so obvious, the increase in rate of change of whatever factors limit such progression. This might be analogous to how relativistic effects increase mass at such an exponential rate near "c", the speed of light, in that the increase in fuel required to gain speed runs into an asymptotic "wall" as any speed gain further increases mass, increasing fuel requirement. The lesson here as it may apply to Global Climate change in the light of from

Human Population - Environmental Effects Of Human Populations

 

from: Human Population - Environmental Effects Of Human Populations

This trend can be illustrated by differences in the intensity of energy use among human societies, which also reflect the changes occurring during the history of the evolution of sociocultural systems. The average per-capita consumption of energy in a hunting society is about 20 megajoules (millions of joules) per day (MJ/d), while it is 48 MJ/d in a primitive agricultural society, 104 MJ/d in advanced agriculture, 308 MJ/d for an industrializing society, and 1025 MJ/d for an advanced industrial society. The increases of per-capita energy usage, and of per-capita environmental impact, have been especially rapid during the past century of vigorous technological discoveries and economic growth.

 

it can be seen that the power factor isn't so much in the increment of increase but the rapid reduction in time cycle. Since everyone must be at least somewhat of the opinion that we don't fully understand these forces at all well yet at the very least in some key areas (and the danger is not to Planet Earth -it will be fine-the danger is to us) it would seem prudent to err on the side of increased knowledge and the safer path. It seems to me that if the incredible increase in the size of the petroleum fix, especially in industrialized nations and specifically in America, is any indication of an addict out of control (considering that the problems associated with such an irrational appetite are well documented such as "dealers" who hate us and wish our demise, as well as influence and increase our "need" for predatory foreign policy) that rehab is on order if we are to survive before we, and the rest of the world along with us, discover just how far down rock bottom really is.

 

So in conclusion, whether it is fake or not, the prudent thing to do in either case is to stop being wasteful and to explore sustainable alternatives to burning fossil fuels. As to the OP, whether it is in fact fake, evidence is growing at an alarming rate that it is not fake, and more serious scientists not owned by fossil fuel companies but also not funded by alternatives agree that it is a fact, seemingly with every passing season.

[Larv]

There is debate on various aspects of the smaller details in climate science, that is true. However, the overall arch of the science, as well as the consensus on cause, is unmistakable. Everybody who knows their elbow from their bung hole knows that humans are the primary driver in today's climate, and this is EVEN MORE true among the experts who actually study this stuff. The only debate is really "will it be just a little bad, or will it be catastrophic?" ... "Will the temperature rise 2 degrees C, or 6 degrees C?"

 

The debate is the details about future predictions... not about existing cause. Thanks again for the thoughtful post above. :)

Well, I agree it's all about future predictions. We can't discuss global warming and ignore its future implications. True, we humans are burning our carbon candle at both ends. And, true, the planet’s atmosphere is warming up again, as it has done many times before there were humans. But to say that this trend will cook us all in just a few generations may be overstating the case.

 

Before we get too worked up about global warming we must consider other futuristic aspects of the problem, such as associated resource depletion. Peak oil, for example, will have a mitigating effect on CO2 in the atmosphere, and it will likely constrain global industrialization. But there is something even more ominous than peak oil: it’s peak phosphorus. We are running out of phosphate rock to mine and make fertilizers, detergents, and other phosphate chemicals needed by civilization. This could lead eventually to a catastrophic phosphorus famine, enough so as to relegate global warming to a lesser concern. What’s the point of industrialized agriculture if fertilizers become scarce? (And forget about GM crops here; no crops will grow without phosphorus.)

 

We worry about what will happen to agriculture on our warmed-up planet. But it’s not just about greenhouse gases; it’s about massive resource depletion and how to sustain >10 billion people. Sure, I’m worried that we're burning too many fossil fuels, but I’m also worried that we worry disproportionately about pop-sci problems when other more-serious ones go virtually ignored.

[InfiniteNow]

I’m also worried that we worry disproportionately about pop-sci problems when other more-serious ones go virtually ignored.

 

That's where you and I seem to differ. I note that human induced global climate change IS a very serious problem, and NOT just a "pop-sci" one.

 

Also, you forgot to mention lack of availability of fresh drinking water in your list of resources coming under threat as population grows. It won't matter how much oil or phosphorous we can mine if there's not enough fresh water to drink... Not to mention the huge migrations of refugees which will take place as drinking water becomes more scarce/toxic.

 

Either way, I take issue with how you consider anthropogenic global warming to be merely a "pop-sci" issue, and not a "serious" problem, but I suppose that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

[Zythryn]

Well, I agree it's all about future predictions. We can't discuss global warming and ignore its future implications. True, we humans are burning our carbon candle at both ends. And, true, the planet’s atmosphere is warming up again, as it has done many times before there were humans. But to say that this trend will cook us all in just a few generations may be overstating the case.

 

I would agree with the bold section IF somebody had said that. However, who has said that?

I don't believe anyone has stated that all humanity will reach cooking temperatures (225 to 350 farhenheit or so??).

You see, extreme exagerations such as that mislead the bystanders. Sure, most people that are participating in the discussion probably realize that is a misrepresentation of the concern, but others may not.

So, just which part of the real case is it you feel is being overstated?

[Larv]

...Also, you forgot to mention lack of availability of fresh drinking water in your list of resources coming under threat as population grows. It won't matter how much oil or phosphorous we can mine if there's not enough fresh water to drink... Not to mention the huge migrations of refugees which will take place as drinking water becomes more scarce/toxic.

Couldn't agree with you more. It's at least as dire an issue as global warming.

 

Either way, I take issue with how you consider anthropogenic global warming to be merely a "pop-sci" issue, and not a "serious" problem, but I suppose that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

For me, the jury is still out on anthropogenic global warming, but you present some interesting data. My main concern is one of scientific prudence: global warming has happened before without humans, and we still don't know exactly what the oceans can do or cannot do with the excess CO2.* And we don't have a decent cumulative-effects model that accounts for all the mitigating and exacerbating factors. There are just too many unknowns.

 

*In support of your argument, however, there are some convincing data on the acidification of the northern Pacific Ocean, which suggest massive absorption of atmospheric CO2 and conversion into H2CO3.

[Larv]

I would agree with the bold section IF somebody had said that. However, who has said that?

I don't believe anyone has stated that all humanity will reach cooking temperatures (225 to 350 farhenheit or so??).

You see, extreme exagerations such as that mislead the bystanders. Sure, most people that are participating in the discussion probably realize that is a misrepresentation of the concern, but others may not.

So, just which part of the real case is it you feel is being overstated?

But, Zythryn, there are voices of panic out there saying such things. Please read this article A Climate of Belief: The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable:

 

From the cited article’s conclusion:

 

It is critical to keep a firm grip on reason and rationality, most especially when social invitations to frenzy are so pervasive. General Circulation Models are so terribly unreliable that there is no objectively falsifiable reason to suppose any of the current warming trend is due to human-produced CO2, or that this CO2 will detectably warm the climate at all. Therefore, even if extreme events do develop because of a warming climate, there is no scientifically valid reason to attribute the cause to human-produced CO2. In the chaos of Earth’s climate, there may be no discernible cause for warming. Many excellent scientists have explained all this in powerful works written to defuse the CO2 panic, but the choir sings seductively and few righteous believers seem willing to entertain disproofs.

 

I do think there is something to the idea that anthropogenic global warming is a climatological belief system.

[InfiniteNow]

we still don't know exactly what the oceans can do or cannot do with the excess CO2.*

 

<...>

 

*In support of your argument, however, there are some convincing data on the acidification of the northern Pacific Ocean, which suggest massive absorption of atmospheric CO2 and conversion into H2CO3.

 

Indeed, the oceans do take up CO₂, but their ability to do so appears to be decreasing as the concentration goes up. In short, the more oceans absorb, the less they are able to absorb in the future.

 

 

Southern Ocean Carbon Sink Weakened

Scientists have observed the first evidence that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has weakened by about 15 per cent per decade since 1981.

 

In research published in Science, an international research team – including CSIRO’s Dr Ray Langenfelds – concludes that the Southern Ocean carbon dioxide sink has weakened over the past 25 years and will be less efficient in the future. Such weakening of one of the Earth’s major carbon dioxide sinks will lead to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long-term.

 

 

 

Regardless, this thread is about whether or not global warming is real, and I suggest it's safe to assume that this question has been answered.

[CraigD]

But there is something even more ominous than peak oil: it’s peak phosphorus. We are running out of phosphate rock to mine and make fertilizers, detergents, and other phosphate chemicals needed by civilization. This could lead eventually to a catastrophic phosphorus famine, enough so as to relegate global warming to a lesser concern. What’s the point of industrialized agriculture if fertilizers become scarce? (And forget about GM crops here; no crops will grow without phosphorus.)

Larv raises a good point, I think, that resource depletion – including “peak production” scenarios where resource become prohibitively hard to obtain well before they’re truly depleted – are a concern for resources other than oil. However, as stated in both the linked articles, and IMHO, “peak phosphorous” is a less severe eventuality than peak oil or various “peak metals” – ie less of a factor in Olduvai scenarios – because phosphorous is very recyclable, and not an energy storing resource, like oil. Unless we’re stupidly short-sighted, a renewable source of phosphorous for all purposes, including its high-volume use in fertilizer, and be developed from sewage and agricultural and livestock runoff water handling systems, with the added benefit of preventing downstream environmental damage.

We worry about what will happen to agriculture on our warmed-up planet. But it’s not just about greenhouse gases; it’s about massive resource depletion and how to sustain >10 billion people. Sure, I’m worried that we're burning too many fossil fuels, but I’m also worried that we worry disproportionately about pop-sci problems when other more-serious ones go virtually ignored.

I fear most of the popular press, and many of its consumers, are intrinsically sensational and short-sighted, so the majority of people at any given time will almost certainly be worrying about issues disproportionately with regards to their consequences (eg: the life, times and death of Michael Jackson, vs. public healthcare). Fortunately, planning and making changes in civil infrastructure – agriculture, energy, and waste management systems – doesn’t require the participation or even awareness of the majority of the population, but rather a small number of people who do have a realistic, scientific understanding of the issues facing our world civilization. I’m optimistic that our many doomsday scenarios are cautionary, not prophetic.

 

In addition to the differences noted between it and peak oil, and returning to this thread’s topic, peak phosphorous differs from human-induced climate change in that it doesn’t directly effect real estate. It effects what we have to eat, and how much it costs, not where we have to live, and how much it costs. The prospect of losing – or impoverishing – many wealthy, high-population density, low-elevation places – due to global and local sea level increases, seem to me the most alarming future world crisis scenarios.

[BrianG]

Isn't the climate a cyclic process? Isn't it pretty big? How is reducing CO2 emissions to earlier levels going to do anything other than shrink our economy?

[CraigD]

Isn't the climate a cyclic process?

In the sense that some climate characteristics, such as average surface air temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, have had the same value at widely separated instants in time, one could call them “cyclic”.

 

In the sense that climates all over the planet return to nearly exactly their past state over and over, science strongly concludes that climate is not cyclic. On a very long timescale, Earth’s climate is on an inexorable path of increasing temperature, driven practically entirely by the steady increase in the Sun’s brightness. 2.3 billion years ago, Earth’s believe to have been too cold to have liquid surface water. 2 billion years in the future, it’s predicted to be too hot to have it. So on the largest of scales, climate’s decidedly not cyclic.

 

On the scale of thousands of years, there don’t appear to be significant negative feedback processes to return Earth’s climate to some sort of “equilibrium”. When it begins to gets hot, or cold, it tends to get hotter or colder and stay that way for many thousands of years, until something profound happens to change it.

Isn't it pretty big?

I’m not sure what “pretty big” means when applied to “the climate”.

How is reducing CO2 emissions to earlier levels going to do anything other than shrink our economy?

This is an business economics question, not an Earth science one, but an obvious answer is that reducing CO2 emissions can do other than shrink an economy if the enterprise that manufacture and support the machines that do it pay higher wages to more employees and produces greater returns on investments than those they replace.

 

The argument that any profound change to current business practices will cause economic catastrophe is essentially a luddite one, and was used to argue against the rise of automation, industry, and transportation that resulted in out present high rates of greenhouse gas emissions. Just as it was a false and ultimately unpersuasive argument offered by a small, entrenched collection of businesses and individuals who actually did lose wealth as a result of economic change then, I believe it is now.

 

The carbon-containing energy-storing substances – fossil fuels – currently fueling the engines producing today’s high greenhouse gas emissions are a limited resource, which will eventually become so scarce that these engines are more expensive than one that emit less greenhouse gases.

 

Sources: many, including the wikipedia articles “Earth” and “Luddites”.

[BrianG]

Climate warming usually leads CO2 emissions, when the oceans warm they give off CO2 like an open soda pop going flat on a warm day. How do we know that much of the rising CO2 levels aren't from the oceans vast CO2 reservoir?

[Zythryn]

Climate warming usually leads CO2 emissions, when the oceans warm they give off CO2 like an open soda pop going flat on a warm day. How do we know that much of the rising CO2 levels aren't from the oceans vast CO2 reservoir?

 

That one is pretty straight forward.

In short, Carbon comes in 3 different isotopes. 14C, 13C and 12C. These are easily measured.

The ratio of 13C/12C in burning fosil fuels is lower than the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere.

The overall ratio in the atmosphere has also been dropping as far as we can measure. Leading to the conclusion that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere is partially due to us.

[BrianG]

I like CO2, it tickles my nose. I don't want to see us suppress economic activity (fossil fuel production and use) unless it's necessary. Let's study this another fifty or 100 years, to get a good handle on the problem.

[Zythryn]

2+2 is not equal to 4 because I don't like the color blue;)

 

What the imagined cost is to the economy has no affect on the answer to 'are we contributing to climate change/global warming'

 

Just how certain do you want us to be before acting? 100%? 90%, 50%?

Do you have car insurance?