About the topic, global warming is happening without any doubt and mankind has effect to it, but what is debatable, is how much effect mankind has.
Kitler and Gameboy both had good suggestions about how to cut CO2 emissions, but both suggestions have problems. The only problem with fusion is, that the technology doesn't exist and it propably takes around 40 years before it's commecially used in energy production.
Although solar power already commercially excists, it doesn't fit for large scale electricity production, because of its unstable output (although clouds do not eat away effectivity on todays solar power plants) and every time output goes under the required output, you have to use coal power plants to prevent brownouts (because of their fast startup time). Also the amount of daylight varies a lot between seasons, for example where i live, has around 3 hours of daylight on my birthday and the temperature may be below -30C, so it's easy to understand that solar power wouldn't be the most effective source of power.
Solar power and would be great for producing hydrogen from sea water, but the lack of infrastructure for transporting and storing it is a problem, or should i say that lack of technology is a problem.
So, solar, wind, bio, or any other reneweable source of energy (actually solar power isn't reneweable) is good if used in a right way in a right place, since if something works somewhere, it doesn't mean that it would work somewhere else. For example solar power is optimal to locally power up air conditioning and it's very cheap way (in a long term) to used for heating your house, even in the short hours of daylight.
About the lag between CO2 level and temperature rise, the lag varies a lot and ice lets air thru to a certain extent, so the air inside the ice is much younger than the ice itself and the amount of snow rained in certain time period has a lot to do with the age of the air. And another reason for the lag is, that the sea water binds CO2, more colder the water is, more CO2 it's capable of binding. When the sea waters temperature rises, it gives away CO2. At the moment, seawater binds around 40% of the "extra" CO2, that the mankind produces, so when the waters capacity is full, the CO2 levels will go up even more. And the temperature data beyond 150 years are just estimates (it does tell that when the temperature has gone up or down).
@Stof: The reason why some people see it as a political issue is because a lot of politicans have made it to be one. Which is bad and don't serve any purpose.
@Happy Squrriel: I believe you're familiar with global dimming? Meaning that basically the microparticles (or nano) and smog have caused dimming in the big cities and they reflect the sunlight and cause dimming. It may not have directly anything to do with warming, but they do twist the numbers in one way or another, depending where do you measure the temperature or sunlight.
And as smart guy like you, you propably know about risk management and how do you can give a value to risk (didn't know a better way to put it in english). In the way of "likeliness to happen times consicuenses".
@Leo-j: If you are becoming a meteorologist, then you propably know, that the lack of ozone layer actually cools earth, not warm it.
Ei Kiinasti.
Eikä Japanisti.
Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.
Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.
