We can? How? We've been in a warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age, which ended before the Industrial Revolution even started. How can anyone "measure" how much of the 0.8 degree C warming that has happened in the last 100 years is anthropogenic? Everytime I ask this question, the response concerns the percentage of CO2 with isotopes tagging it as coming from fossil fuels. But this is a circular answer, because it the depends on proof for the very models it is trying to provide evidence for.
BTW, we can measure evolution at work. There is a large set of reproducible experiments with fruit flies which is quite standard. Can I do an experiment that will show anthropogenic warming of the climate? How do you reproduce the climate?
The circular claim in paragraph 1 is standard creationist nonsense, while any good creationist can dismiss paragraph 2 as nonsense since that is not MACRO evolution, but only MICRO evolution, which most creationists will freely admit happens. Similar to you, who admit to MICRO global warming (you admit CO2 is a GHG) but claim that MACRO global warming can't be known since the models can't be projected that far. You have exactly the creationist mindset wrt to global warming. No difference!
There are many well credentialled climatologists who say that your statement is backwards, that rising CO2 lags temperature rises, and does not preceed them. All we know for sure is that there is a correlation. Correlation is not causation. Again one depends on the models.
No, one depends on very good physics. The above is a very common talking point of anti-global warming and has been well debunked. Historically CO2 does lag temp, why? Duh, there was no man made spigot turned on. CO2 rises because a warming world supports a higher carbon cycle load, and the increased CO2 then forces additional warming, which also causes more CO2. Surely, if you know anything about climate models you understand what is meant by a feedback forcing function. That is what CO2 does. In fact, CO2 leading temp this time is one of the best arguments for it being man made GIVEN the historical data which is the REVERSE The fact that we can actually measure the human part with isotopes is a means of determining source. Why not try and find some anti-global warming paper that makes some argument for why CO2 lagged temps historically, but leads then now? Surely that is the most startling problem for claiming it is not man made. As you yourself noted, nobody claims CO2 won't cause rising temp. I can't find a single reasonable source who will argue that CO2 is not a GHG, because this physics is pretty straight forward. The only significant argument is over the net forcing function and how the carbon cycle deals with it. Eventually man made CO2 will leave the atmosphere. That is were more of the uncertainty lies. Man made CO2 is only about 3-4% of the total carbon cycle, so the question is, why can't the system handle this relatively small increment. Anyone can understand that a balanced system tips one way when you add 3% more weight to one side, but when the system has some known mechanisms for rebalancing, a reasonable person might say, Heck it should be able to handle this. Fine, that is where all the work and most the "fudge factors" are used. Trying to figure out if the potential rebalancing mechanisms can't absorb the 3-4% imbalance.
But drop the CO2 lags temp, yada yada. That advertises ignorance, and shows that you are not understanding much.
Who can argue with prudent use of $ to fight pollution and obtain better sources of energy? Not me! I also agree that Kyoto is hardly the best answer. However, claiming Kyoto is no good, then sitting back and doing nothing as Bush has done for all these years is not good either.
I still think the biggest errors in the global warming debate are the economic ones. The claims that we will greatly damage our economies by pursuing new and better energy technology strikes me as nonsense. I look at the market caps of solar cell IPO's and don't understand the bankruptcy claims of the naysayers. When we spend money on the military it is claimed to bolster the economy. When we spend money on the environment it is claimed to be a drag on the economy. Why? |
