I used to think that global warming was a slam dunk.
But then I looked at the data... the carbon makeup of the atmosphere hasn't changed much at all, and we have already reached peak oil. If the carbon sinks (oceans etc.) can hold 2x the current amount they absorbed without much trouble then we are in the clear.
Perhaps CFCs and Ozone Depleting Substances present a danger but we have largely reduced their use since the 90s.
So I am not sure anymore than people will mess up the ATMOSPHERE globally. Locally - yes. And that doesn't let people off the hook when it comes to overfishing, logging forests, destroying ecosystems such as rainforests, wild bees and monarch butterflies, introducing new predators into oceans, non-biodegradable plastic, turning the world into farms etc etc.
Having said that, where is the data showing humans having a huge effect on the atmosphere composition??
One person I met seemed to think that CO2 would be balanced by algae blooms in the oceans, but he wasn't a climate scientist. Nonetheless, if the ice caps melt enough before CO2 is compensated for, they'll release tons of methane which is an order of magnitude more potent than CO2.
See my reply to a sister comment for the data I am speaking of.
I agree that currently we have some correlation of global warming and CO2 increase, but this doesn't prove causation esp considering the 70s experienced global cooling.
AND the main point is that there is a limit on how much more Co2 can be released: roughly the same amount that already has, if we reached peak fossil fuels. To put things in perspective, that's going from 0.03% to max 0.06% concentration. CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas should be measured as a function of its concentration relative to the TOTAL atmosphere. Maybe it rises exponentially, but maybe not. Like putting layers of paint on a window. We'd need hard numbers.
Meanwhile... no matter what you do, carbon credits or not, eventually ALL the fossil fuels WILL be burned up so it's only a matter of time. Better to learn to build artificial carbon sinks and methane sinks to capture the CO2 back underground. It's called forests and algae. Want to save the world? Plant forests!
I presume you're trolling, but I still think it worth pointing out that no science proves causation. The scientific method, for example, only rejects null hypotheses--that is, alternative explanations. Scientists and society writ large come to tentative, qualified conclusions about causation by assessing, among other things,
1) consistency with observed phenomena, especially
consistent, multi-dimensional correlations
2) predictive strength, including accurate and
precise predictions (direct or indirect) coming to pass
that demonstrate the explanatory power of a theory
3) lack of alternative, more persuasive theories
None are necessary and none are always sufficient to cause us to tentatively adopt a theory of causation. But the stronger the evidence the better. Note that all three are, strictly speaking, categories of correlation; all are circumstantial. Therefore all science is fundamentally based on correlation. There's always the possibility of some kind of hidden structure or alternative explanation; you cannot rule out all such possibilities, only a subset. You select a working theory, if at all, from among the remaining, proposed explanations by heuristic and probabilistic methodologies.
If you reject climate change because it doesn't prove causation, then you're literally rejecting all of science. There is no scientific theory nor any kind of empirical "fact" that you cannot cast doubt upon in such a manner.
The point about a scientific theory is that you test it and if its predictions do not agree with the observed facts - it's wrong. No ifs or buts. Back to the drawing board. At least that should be the approach.
https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw.
What do we see in climatology?
"The IPCC have produced 102 climate models to predict our future climate. The world’s meteorological organizations use weather models to forecast and predict weather and have been for many years. They have proved to be very accurate over 4 days and reasonably accurate over a week. The IPCC’s climate models are notoriously inaccurate. We’ve had these models now for some 30 years and we now have 30 years of data to compare them against. They are not even close to accurate."
Facts trumped by theory? Looks like it these days!
As ever, activists take over institutions by pushing an ideology or agenda. And then when people try to inquire about the holes and bring up facts, they start personal attacks and bullying, while providing very little in on-point substantive answers.
So much easier than just engaging with the substance and proving people wrong with facts, answering questions, admitting when we don't know and being intellectually honest.
Reasonable people are open to being proven wrong. But throwing an epithet while providing inadequate answers does the opposite. "Oh, I'm a troll? Ok I changed my mind I am convinced! Thanks!" That's not how it works. You're covering up your own lack of knowledge with emotion.
If there's anything we've learned from the election, it's that we must engage substantively with people that disagree with us. We can not dismiss people as trolls just because they hold a different opinion.
So you dispute that the scientific method only rejects null hypotheses, as opposed to proving a hypothesis?
I left unstated that you can also reject the hypothesis, but that's implied from what I've said--you can only reject, not prove, any particular theory of causation.
But we now live in bizarro world, where people who don't actually understand science or logic rationalize their conclusions by redefining the very methodologies modern society has used to pull itself out of the swamp.
In bizarro world there's "real" science that unveils the "truth", like Moses coming down from the mountain. And then there's all this messy business, dependent on process, contingent on qualitative and quantitative factors, that can be dismissed out of the hand. No matter that the former never existed, that everything we know comes from the latter. No matter that science is fundamentally a _process_, not a product.
Nothing you have said addresses the substance of my comment. You just keep insisting that showing one correlation is the same as, say, proving the theory of general relativity. After all it's all equivalent, it's all the scientific method.
These days indignation is a tool of bullying. Yeah just keep being indignant as a way to engage and convince others and then wonder why people still disagree with you.
Maybe next you'll be incredulous that we don't have a scientific understanding of even the development of a wing in evolution. It's at very early stages of conjecture. But don't let that stop you from throwing tantrums when people point it out.
I used to believe this too. Simmons, Tverberg, and Heinberg turned out to be charlatans, and it does looks like SA continues to enjoy high production rates outside of Ghawar, and the shale reserves are becoming increasingly economically recoverable.
At some point, peak oilers need to admit we were all wrong.
Well CO2's concentration went from 0.03% to 0.04% . In absolute terms that is very negligible. If we burned all our fossil fuels AND the solubility pumps of the oceans kept working, that means a maximum of 0.06% or so concentration in the atmosphere of CO2. Its effect as a greenhouse gas should be measured relative to THAT, not its rise in relative numbers.
But then I looked at the data... the carbon makeup of the atmosphere hasn't changed much at all, and we have already reached peak oil. If the carbon sinks (oceans etc.) can hold 2x the current amount they absorbed without much trouble then we are in the clear.
Perhaps CFCs and Ozone Depleting Substances present a danger but we have largely reduced their use since the 90s.
So I am not sure anymore than people will mess up the ATMOSPHERE globally. Locally - yes. And that doesn't let people off the hook when it comes to overfishing, logging forests, destroying ecosystems such as rainforests, wild bees and monarch butterflies, introducing new predators into oceans, non-biodegradable plastic, turning the world into farms etc etc.
Having said that, where is the data showing humans having a huge effect on the atmosphere composition??