| scottie said: The Earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming due to natural increases and decreases in Co2e concentration. The magnitude of which is much smaller than the current level of temperature change, much less predicted future temperature change.
You can obviously notice two things.
1.) The current level of global warming is unprecedented in scale, since 650k years ago. 2.) There is undeniable correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. We have a perfectly reasonable, testable model as to why this correlation takes the form of CO2 -> temperature rise.
I am honestly staggered to meet people that are actively trying to delude themselves as such. I would be really interested in finding out the real reason you can't consciously accept it. I am curious. The overwhelming majority of scientists make one claim, and yet you do not believe them? It is their job, to know what they are talking about. Why do you trust your gut instinct over people who have spend collectively millions of man hours researching this topic?
Oh and as for the 'What can a man who hopes to become the most powerful man in the world do to stop climate change?" The answer is, a lot. We could sort this out if it weren't for people like you. |
Just to add to Kasz's point ...
If you actually understand the science of global warming you will realize that it really can be simplified into one number, the climate's sensitivity to co2. Essentially, the greenhouse effect is logarithmic in nature which means that you get a linear increase in temperature for an exponential increase in greenhouse gas emissions; this is typically represented as a number of degree increase in temperature for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. In lab conditions a doubling of CO2 translates into a 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature, if you associate all warming over the past 50 years to CO2 the doubling of CO2 in the climate works out to a 0.6 degree Celsius increase in temperature, and yet most of the alarmist projections are based on a doubling in CO2 resulting in a 3.6 (or higher) degree Celsius increase in temperature.
Now, the reason why the alarmist position projects temperatures based on a climate sensitivity to CO2 far greater than what has been observed should be fairly clear. Based on realistic projections of how much CO2 humans could ever produce through fossil fuels, projections based on moderate assumptions do not lead to dangerous warming.
When you factor in CERN's CLOUD research, which would reduce observed climate sensitivity to CO2 to far below 0.6 degrees per doubling of CO2, it becomes impossible to justify the extreme values that are being used for these projections.
