I don't listen to rush limbaugh...and I don't deny actual observed measured evidence...I have spent a great deal of time looking for it...there are mountains of it that demonstrate that the present climate is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...there is plenty of it, like the CIMP2 graph above which show climate changing far more rapidly than anything we have seen with temperature changes far greater than anything we have seen in the past 150 years. All of the real evidence out there points to the climate we are experiencing to be a bit cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years and aside from that, in no way extraordinary....Those are the facts...born out by a great deal of research and study...so what do you believe...the preponderance of the evidence or the hockey stick which is a joke and a hypothesis which has been in dispute since it came into being and has been dismissed by physicists of such stature as Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius..and after 120 years, still can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence in its support?
What do you think explains the spike in CO2 beginning in the mid-20th Century?
Exactly what real science has always said...the oceans are responsible...cold water can't hold as much CO2 as warm water...as the oceans have warmed they have outgassed enormous quantities of CO2. The CO2 that we produce isn't even enough to overcome the natural variability of the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year. There are quite a few published, peer reviewed studies which seriously question whether we are having any real impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here are a few of many:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE
Clip: “
A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period
1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [
R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
Clip: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then
supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL040613
Clip: “
[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity]
since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates.
Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”
I could go on, but either you will read them and then perhaps do some research on your own or deny the information in favor of a hypothesis which can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports itself over natural variability.
