No one has claimed that CO2 is the sole controller of the Earth's climate. Ever. That it is the primary factor at present can be determined by calculation of its effects versusthat other factors. I hope I do not need to put up the radiative forcing factors graphic again, but I will if you insist.
Rising CO2 levels are warming the planet with an ECS of 3 (2.5 - 4)C
It is EASILY shown to be abnormal over the entire Quaternary Period (2.85 million years).
All of it. All of the CO2 above the preindustrial 280 ppm is from the combustion of fossil fuels. And the world was cooling before AGW began.
Global warming has been accelerating since 1850.
There are a very few positives to our climate warming but even there, the excessive RATE at which it is taking place makes it very difficult to actualize any benefit. The harms are severe. The IPCC has studied both sides of that coin extensively. We have not covered it much here but we could.
Sea level rise is a complex topic but it is safe to say that very close to every millimeter of rise since 1850 is due to warming and increased meltwater. If you want to suggest other causes, you are going to run into a problem that all these "doubts" run into: natural, non-anthropogenic causes do not act as quickly as the process we have been experiencing.
Yes, it is rising.
The world's oceans are rising due to warming, directly and indirectly. Reduced or reversed warming will reduce or reverse sea level rise, though there will be a considerable lag. No one is promising immediate results. They are promising that a failure to act will cost the species more than anyone wants to pay.
It is certainly abnormal placed against all the data we possess, and that includes data extending back well before the beginning of satellite data.
The only factor working in that direction and consistently tending towards less ice is global warming and human use of fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming.
A number of these questions are clearly and unambiguously answered by publicly available data. Why are they being asked? I know why. I'm just wondering if YOU do.
AGW will cause an increase in extreme weather events.
The A in AGW stands for anthropogenic. Do you know what that word means?
Weather is driven by thermal energy. The more energy there is in our climate system, the more energy there will be in our weather.
It is a point at which the world's scientists believe some harms will become severe and potentially irreversible.
Define "feasible". It could be done but it would require a very robust and committed effort.
Define "materially". It would improve the climate in this century and would
dramatically improve it in the next and the next.
See the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report.
Doubts that the fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars extolling in an effort to convince you and others like you that the science behind AGW is flawed without having presented a shred of evidence to support that contention. How much evidence did this article of yours contain supporting any justification for these specific doubts? NONE.
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
It may? Why? And if it is "fast and radical" are you arguing there is no REASON for precipitous action? Cost would have been much less had actions been undertaken earlier. If anyone and anything is to blame for the high cost, it is those who have been doing their damnedest to
prevent action from taking place. Finally, we have a variety of carbon-neutral alternatives that are being put into place as we speak.
Your article, however, has presented NO reason for us to actually doubt any of the contentions they have suggested we doubt. NONE.
Perhaps, but your author has not demonstrated a
single reason to deny ANY of it.
Bullshit
That is complete bullshit. The mass media always simplifies science stories because the average American's science knowledge is unimpresssive. Only 50-60% of Americans can answer basic questions about the scientific method. See
What Americans Know About Science. The actual science - in published studies and in the IPCC's assessment reports is not "expunged" of complexities. And if the option of simply adapting is all we will be able to do, it will be expensive and include an enormous cost in human lives and suffering.
It astounds me that the lot of you do not see this for what it is. Take just a half a minute and try to imagine what people in the fossil fuel industry, whose very existence is seriously threatened by all of this, might do in an attempt to, if nothing else, simply S-L-O-W the process that spells their demise. Do none of you remember the Big Tobacco lawsuit in 2006? The tactics they employed were IDENTICAL to what we are seeing every day from the fossil fuel industry.
You read this and you come away with the feeling that doubting is the RIGHT thing to do. But WHY do you feel that way? In all this space the only thing they've done is told you to doubt. They've not shown any of the uncertainty they claim is everywhere. They've not shown alternative theories supporting any part of what AGW explains. The scientists who have been studying the climate and whose conclusions form the basis for AGW have shown you many, many, many reasons to accept what they are telling you. They have explained over and over again why they believe their conclusions and why they do NOT believe the alternative explanations that the fossil fuel industry would love to convince are just as good.
Use your fucking heads. This is the oil industry and the coal industry and natural gas industry doing their damnedest to make you leave them alone. They're making money hand over fist and they don't want to stop.
